When the Palo Alto City Council approved the expansion and reconstruction of Castilleja School in June 2022, it strived to resolve a six-year tussle between the school and its neighbors, many of whom opposed the project.
But as the private all-girls school proceeds with the redevelopment, which includes the replacement of most academic buildings and the construction of an underground garage, it is required, as part of the approval, to relocate a 25-foot public easement on its campus at 1310 Bryant St. And that requirement, formerly seen as routine, is thrusting Castilleja back into the public spotlight.
The strip of land is associated with a deal that the city made with the school in 1992, an agreement under which the school claimed a portion of Melville Avenue, between Bryant and Emerson Street, for its campus while the city reserved the easement for public utility purposes.
In approving the project, the council attached a condition requiring Castilleja to relocate the public easement to be within the boundaries of the school's new driveway near the intersection of Emerson Street and Melville Avenue. According to the environmental analysis for the Castilleja project, the easement would be shifted 15 feet to the southwest to accommodate the construction of the new garage.
In December, Castilleja's Acting Head of School Kathy Layendecker signed an agreement that relocates the public utility easement to the driveway location.
But much like everything relating to the Castilleja project, what staff had hoped would be a routine item is now turning out to be less so. Last August, City Manager Ed Shikada postponed a planned vote on the easement because the description of the item on the City Council's agenda did not actually mention Castilleja.
The item was then returned to the council in December with a proper description, but it was on the council's "consent calendar," which is typically reserved for routine items that are approved in bulk. Three council members – Pat Burt, Lydia Kou and Ed Lauing – declined to take it up on consent and voted to remove the item, setting up a Jan. 22 public hearing on the easement relocation.
Burt told this publication Monday that he voted against approving the item on consent because he wanted a public discussion of the issue.
The existing 25-foot wide Public Utility Easement (PUE) located along the old alignment of Melville Avenue through the campus would be retained but shifted 15 feet to the southeast to accommodate construction of the proposed below-grade garage. There is an existing sewer line within the PUE; the garage walls would be placed a minimum of 5 feet from the sewer line so that the sewer line would not be affected by the project.
The easement issue came up only sporadically during the dozens of public hearings on the Castilleja project, which many neighbors argued is out of scale with the single-family neighborhood. Critics of the project specifically objected to Castilleja's planned underground garage, which they claimed does not belong in a residential setting, and the school's proposal to gradually expand student enrollment.
To address these concerns, the City Council imposed a "no net new trips" standard that required Castilleja to adopt or expand a host of transportation programs, including shuttles, carpools and bike amenities. It also established a three-member committee of nearby residents to oversee Castilleja's traffic reports and ensure the school complies with its conditions of approval.
The school and city staff see the easement relocation as a relatively routine action. The environmental analysis that the City Council approved in June concluded that relocating the public utility easement "would not result in a significant impact" and thus does not require any mitigation measures.
Rob Levitsky, a Castilleja neighbor who serves on the citizen committee, has spoken out repeatedly against approving the relocation public utility easement. At the Dec. 18 meeting, Levitsky noted that the existing easement, which the city is giving up, is located next to a sewer line, and vacating it would make it more difficult for the city to address sewage problems in this area. The action, he said, is a "plain giveaway to Castilleja of the Melville Avenue public utility easement."
"It seems like a dumb thing, but that's just the way it's set up now," Levitsky said at the Dec. 18 meeting, referring to the proposed relocation of the easement. "What could go wrong?"
Comments
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 16, 2024 at 10:49 am
Registered user
on Jan 16, 2024 at 10:49 am
Just say no to Casti already and bill them for all the wasted time spent on their entitled demands that disrupt Palo Alto residents and taxpayers and will disrupt traffic on Embarcadero, a major road that's already gridlocked.
Over the past six years how much has the city spent in staff time and on consultants? How much have the poor residents spent on their consultants over the past six years?
Why did it take 6 -- SIX -- long years to for our highly paid staff to address the most major issues with this nonsense like who'd paid to monitor Casti traffic demand management violations, how cars would be counted, etc etc etc ???
Registered user
College Terrace
on Jan 16, 2024 at 11:57 am
Registered user
on Jan 16, 2024 at 11:57 am
Castilleja has had a cozy relationship with city staff. Shikada should not have put this item on the consent calendar. As a graduate of the high school when the student population was in harmony with this lovely Palo Alto neighborhood — there was no discord. Castilleja no longer has borders at the school. It wears a corporate face and cares nothing for the neighbors. The sewer pipe being five feet from the garage is imprudent. This infrastructure issue is serious. It would be unsafe and trigger litigation should damage occur and be difficult to remediate. The city council has to stay on top of staff and Castilleja. Thank you Burt, Kou and Lauing for not allowing this on consent. The city has already played a role in allowing the increase in enrollment that hurts the neighborhood. Now it is time to protect infrastructure and the neighbors.
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jan 16, 2024 at 12:58 pm
Registered user
on Jan 16, 2024 at 12:58 pm
My thoughts and prayers…
Registered user
College Terrace
on Jan 16, 2024 at 2:10 pm
Registered user
on Jan 16, 2024 at 2:10 pm
Death, taxes . . . and requests for special treatment by Castilleja. Some things never change.
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Jan 16, 2024 at 3:27 pm
Registered user
on Jan 16, 2024 at 3:27 pm
Oh FFS, the reason this took six years, as the commenter above noted, is that opponents like Rob Levitsky—and the folks who flock to every PA Weekly article that so much as mentions Castilleja—make a federal case out of every single trivial issue, as evidenced by this easement. The actual question is whether the easement can move 15 feet, a change that those who actually have the expertise to evaluate the proposal on its merits have said would not have a significant impact. But for some neighbors (and the numerous non-neighbors who still feel the need to sound off), the pound of flesh they extracted in the previous approval processes isn't enough, and this is yet another chance to re-litigate their losing arguments. No other person, private organization, or public entity receives this level of scrutiny or acrimony in town discussions. Shame on Burt, Kou, and Lauing for allowing this to drag on.
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Jan 16, 2024 at 4:08 pm
Registered user
on Jan 16, 2024 at 4:08 pm
City Council: There is a reason this has taken 6 years. It's because the people who live here are quite unhappy with what Castilleja has gotten away with (lies & over-enrollment) - and the fact that the city is aiding them. We DON'T want them to expand. This is NOT downtown. It is our neighborhood.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jan 16, 2024 at 6:04 pm
Registered user
on Jan 16, 2024 at 6:04 pm
@Younger PA Resident, you might be interested to learn that many Casti grads and Casti parents like at least 2 posting above objected strongly to Casti's expansion AND dismissive attitudes to the 5 C's of the Casti values code.
Registered user
Barron Park
on Jan 17, 2024 at 9:05 am
Registered user
on Jan 17, 2024 at 9:05 am
What fun to see Castilleja once again raising blood pressures around town. However, Younger PA resident seems correct in labeling the school's request as trivial and unworthy of our ire. So, step up your game Castilleja! You've proved capable in the past of coming up with meaningful reasons for us to rev our outrage engines. I know you can do it again.
Registered user
College Terrace
on Jan 18, 2024 at 1:51 am
Registered user
on Jan 18, 2024 at 1:51 am
Thank you Burt, Kou, and Lauing for not allowing Casti and the city planning staff from steam rolling over our city codes and neighborhood residents.
Our previous Director of Planning once stated to council that the purpose of the Planning Office was to represent and advocate on behalf of applicants. I also observed the member of the planning staff who has been Casti’s point person put her arm around a property developer whose first request to subdivide a property and build within a few feet of Matadors Creek had just been turned down by the Planning Commission, tell him they would appeal and succeed next time.
And to all those who say, what about the infamous so-called Palo Alto process, after a number of decades observing Planning Commission meetings, developers opening gambit is to present initial applications that go way beyond what is permitted. The next year or two they argue, bully, negotiate with the city down from their initial proposal to end up with a “compromise” with their getting more than technically allowed. Developers and their acolytes then claim the high ground and complain how outrageously long the Palo Alto process takes, which the press will happily report.. A win-win.