The Square Footage problem covered extensively in this article was first pointed out last year at a Planning Commission meeting by members of the public, but was simply dismissed by Planning staff. Residents persevered and the now required re-design is at the eleventh hour. But only because the city and Casti didn't do it right to begin with, and when they were alerted at PTC they ignored it until they no longer could.

Not mentioned here is the comment last night by highly respected retired city Urban Forrester, Dave Docktor. He stated the city cut a key clause from one of our Tree Protection ordinances and by doing so allows Casti to remove trees it otherwise could not.

Furthermore, Docktor stated that the proper bonding of trees that is normally required of an owner (Casti), to help ensure long term viability has not been done properly.

He cautioned all this should have ramifications for the council's EIR approval. Why has this happened? Does it now take residents and former staff to do the city's job, and protect ourselves from slight-of-hand by Planning staff?

City should represent its citizens and their property rights over a behemoth, entitled money making Corp. disguised as an educational institition. 141 million It is now a pay to play situation for Palo Altman’s who have to hire their own counsel to represent them. Why isn’t City attorney represent ing it’s citizens, along with City Planning Dept., City Manager? $$$ and fancy architectural drawings along with a misleading pr campaign should be exposed. Welcome to “the Palo Alto process”

At the PACC meeting last night I was amazed by the people who talked to the situation - they were well spoken and had excellent points. Most interesting was the tree Expert who talked to zoning - R-1 and what that means to the houses in that zone designation. That is part of the bigger topic of zoning. Another other interesting point was that there are heritage trees that require a circle of space so they can grow correctly. In the drawing provided by the school they did not use the required tree circles required. Also that garages have to be under a building and can not extend beyond the footprint of the building. All types of "facts" that I would not have thought of.

I'm very disappointed to hear that the private school is expanding in one of the most dense residential housing areas of Palo Alto. If they want to expand, they should move their site, not compromise the safety of the neighborhood. Shame on the city council for capitulating to an elite private school that can easily afford to move to a different area.

Lots of excellent points made at the meeting last night, by intelligent, thoughtful speakers. Dave Docktor's comments about the heritage trees were particularly helpful. It is always a shame to see heritage oaks and redwoods taken down, and painful to have it represented as a "win" because they will be replaced by lots of saplings (not all of which will actually be placed on the campus, it was mentioned as a footnote). It will of course take decades, indeed centuries, to replace the vast canopy lost.
Overall, it remained unclear why this elite school insists it must grow to bursting, packing in more and more students on this one tiny plot. There are lauded private schools up and down the Peninsula that have figured this out by expanding to larger spaces, enabling them to serve hundreds more students. If educating more girls is truly the school's main objective, why doesn't it follow the lead of other excellent schools like Nueva, Harker, Crystal Springs, etc.? And on the topic , there was a lot of hand-wringing about this school being the only place that educates girls. Some speakers noted that Palo Alto free public schools are among the best in the nation, another pointed out there are six other private girls schools on the Peninsula alone (true, I just checked). This school does a great job, but let's not imply it the only choice available in this region specifically preparing girls for the future.

Looking at comments from students who participate in the on-line comments I get the feeling that our schools throughout the state are not teaching the topics required but are now beholden to the current topic of the day which is RACE. That appears to be consuming everything that goes on. But that is not preparing young people to get accepted to college and get a job in the future. Our public schools are not doing their job. Private schools are working to their own goals which includes staying open. The governors children go to school at school. Big difference here.

I feel that if Castilleja was in fact ensuring a significant percentage of lower socioeconomic girls to the school (on scholarship), there would be some element of interest in their proposal. However, I feel this is a very privileged group of girls who are attending and who can attend.
Why has there been so many issues and a complete shift for Foothills Park (making it unavailable to Palo Alto residents on weekends) when here Castilleja is able to impact traffic and neighborhoods without being conscious of the less fortunate? Where are the groups voicing racial and socioeconomic justice?
Why also do private schools such as Pinewood and Harker have separate schools on different campuses? Is it because their cities abide by stricter land use rules than Palo Alto?

It's time for the City Council to take a close look at the city manager's departmental management and his willingness to make staff comply with existing policies and codes in a transparent way. It is staff's job to implement existing policy, not to cherry pick policy and code they like and toss the rest.

Council, it is YOUR job to ensure that existing policy and code are fully implemented as intended. If you don't like what it is place, you have the power to work with your elected colleagues to change it through public process. In other words, lead.

If it has cars parked in it, and flowing in and out of it, it is a garage, not a basement. If the code says these trees need to be protected, protect them. If they failed to comply with their CUP, they should pay the fines for non-compliance. Finally, I want to see the analysis that will protect the Bryant bike boulevard from auto impacts of this project. I bike through there frequently to work, and inexperienced teen drivers will not be a safe addition.

If the project isn't going to generate more traffic, why do they need more garage space? The majority of Casti students come from outside the community--from families with money to afford a pricey private school and to buy and maintain cars for their students. If Casti can expand without increasing traffic, then they won't be needing a garage. Cut it from the project, and implement an RPP.

The rest of us have to comply with code and policy restrictions. So should Castilleja. This project doesn't affect me personally, but I am watching this process and I bet the other private schools citywide are watching it too. Consider that, please.

I think we should look more closely to compare this project to the doomed proposal to build office towers and a theater at 27 University the one that triggered the grand jury report.

They can be a good school anywhere, seems they have way outgrown Palo Alto.

Why is someone not addressing the question of the PTC's Michael Alcheck hiring Mindy Romanowski, Castilleja's legal counsel of record since 2/2017, in 10/2017 for Alcheck Properties carport/garage issues?
Fred Balin has documented this potential conflict of interest for years. On 10/26/20, Bill Ross sent a letter with the same information to the PTC Chair, our City Manager and City Attorney and assorted other City Staff... yet silence, to my knowledge, prevails.
Thank you Mr. Ross for bringing your concerns up, yet again, last night.
Will Ms. Stump PLEASE address the issues raised by Mr. Balin and Mr Ross? An answer is LONG overdue and important to the validity, IMO, of the PTC decision on Castilleja's expansion plans.
As a resident and a Castilleja parent, I believe issues addressed to Palo Alto's legal staff and City Manager are best answered timely to avoid any confusion or appearance of preferential treatment.
If this issue has been addressed, please provide your communication to Mr. Ross, Mr. Balin and me. Thank you.

I think the attorney and former council candidate Bill Ross is correct in his estimation that Alchek tainted the review process but to my mind this is only the 10th or 20th thing that stinks about the proposal

Last night's meeting was fascinating, with those opposed to expansion making specific points and specific suggestions like having Casti provide shuttles while those for expansion spouted vague benefits like "no new car trips" and the need to promote equality and end sexism -- as if only Casti can do that!

Casti tuition is $52,000 a year so Casti parents presumably hold high-level positions in Silicon Valley where sex discrimination lawsuits abound and discrimination has been a known serious problems for decades.

Perhaps project approval should be conditional on Casti parents eradicating all sexism and discrimination in THEIR workplaces FIRST rather than waiting decades for their kids to graduate and do it.

Sarcasm aside, I echo comments made by Bill Ross, Mary Sylvester, Andie Reed. Jack Morton et al that a serious review of City Hall and its "planners" is long overdue. Residents shouldn't have to FUND their own lawsuits against City Hall which should be representing US, not well-endowed Casti and its higly paid lawyers and lobbyists. Enough already.

Who in America still believes in one-person-one-vote and not one-dollar-one-vote? If you are an average Palo Altan with a net worth on $5m why do you persist in challenging the will of Billionaires? Haven’t you read Citizen’s United, Piketty or Fast Times at Ridgemont High?
Speaking of which, when will David Packard give us back our Jimmy Stewart movies? Buffalo Gals, won’t you come out tonite, come out tonite? Everybody sing!

This is not a women's education issue. It's a big business issue. Castilleja's project creates no benefit to the neighborhood. If Castilleja wins, the residents lose. Why does the CC council think this is OK?

"We were surprised to learn about this oversight; it was an honest mistake that we regret," Brown said in a statement.

It was an honest mistake after 5 years of planning, City Staff, the EIR group, architects, planners and legal professionals analyzing Floor Area Ratios up to the wazoo to make their case to maximize the build out of Castilleja? Do they seriously they think the public is that gullible?!!!

I am so disgusted with the Castilleja administration, their architects, the City staff, and most of the PTC and ARB in skewing so much of the "data" for this project to fit the school's needs without any regard for the neighbors or the city which will be impacted by this over zealous project for years to come.

I agree completely with one speaker for calling out that this is a project that should not have gotten so far as it had with all the flaws in this plan starting from day 1. The modification though Castilleja claims to be big changes, are minor in the big scheme of things. At the end of the day, the tree zones were miscalculated, the FAR was miscalculated, the impact of the garage data is severely skewed and does not take into account exorbitatant number of events they want to host off hours and on the weekend. And the impacts will be huge!

I hope this project doesn't go the way that the President Hotel or Foothills Park goes with the city cowering with the threat of legal action. The City of Palo Alto needs to stand up for the rights of the citizens!

It is my understanding that one facet of the school's TDM program is the use of shuttles. As a former rider of the now-eliminated Embarcadero Shuttle that the City once provided, I often saw Casti students riding that shuttle to get from the University Ave train station to the school. Is that the shuttle that Casti is relying on? If yes, is the City planning on bringing it back into service? Or is the school planning to provide its own shuttle bus program?

I listened to the entire meeting last night which wrapped up minutes before midnight. It's clear that the school is making good use of its considerable financial assets: architects producing beautiful plans and a slick video, an assertive lawyer avidly representing the school's interests, and, I'm guessing, a darn good PR firm crafting the talking points offered during the long public comment period. The neighbors, on the other hand, are not so well funded and thus do not have a mighty ensemble of professionals advancing their cause. Instead, they must rely on their own resources, fair interpretation of our existing codes, objective review by Staff, and unbiased deliberation by those entrusted to rule on this. Those should all be givens, but indications are that they are not. Since this decision will set precedents for how development is done in Palo Alto, residents of all Palo Alto neighborhoods should pay attention and stand up for fair, unbiased review.

The school should plan for and fund its own shuttle since many of its students come from areas with no public transportation.

Annette, you raise an excellent point about Casti leveraging ts "considerable financial assets" to pay for its well-funded pr firm, consultants, lawyers etc which clearly outgun resident efforts in this David vs Goliath battle.

But as a PA taxpayer, I want to know how much time and money the CITY HAS spent and will spend on this. We need answers from the City Manager's office since the city's pleading poverty and threatening service cuts.

Thank you to the above poster who provided the data point about tuition. $52k is multiples more than what I paid for middle school in the 90s. There's no question that Casti delivers, but $52k is a very high number. I wonder what the cost/student/year is and what portion is profit to the school b/c it would be interesting to know what the school has gained from the over-enrollment.

All the compliments that were spoken about a Casti education are well deserved. That appreciation must translate to very generous donations b/c they've not "cried poor" over the cost of this on-going campaign, all the preliminary work, the many experts, or the future cost of construction. Perhaps a generous donor is underwriting the project. Whether or not there is, it looks like this really is a David v Goliath story.

Wow! NOT 1 positive comment, so far, on the how PA has handled Castilleja's expansion plans.
Instead lots of statements about special treatment, oversights and dismal of residents' concerns. When Amy French and Jonathan Lait call the Castilleja garage, which is illegal in R-1 neighborhoods, a basement which will only hold cars but is not under any structure, you know it does not pass the smell test. Who cares if the size was reduced? it is illegal!

City Council's approval of the expansion plans will set dangerous precedents which can be used against other neighborhoods and residents.

Why are OUR city officials (paid with tax payer dollars) pandering and falling over themselves to advance Castilleja's expansion plans? Castilleja, as a nonprofit, pays NO taxes.

As a Castilleja parent, I value the education Castilleja provides. BUT this is NOT about educating girls. It is about requesting a "rewrite" of PA's Zoning Codes, Sustainability Plan, Comprehensive Plan and Tree Ordinances. No entity deserves such special treatment!

Split the Campus, rent a building downtown as extra classroom space, provide a dedicated shuttle service, ban students driving and parking at school. Save the trees, save the neighborhood, educate more girls, provide more scholarships. Castilleja: do what you profess you want to do by expanding off your current campus.

Other local private schools have expanded with split campuses; they offer excellent models for success. Why can't Castilleja do the same? Thank you

The old sneak in a basement trick is easily outdone by the sneak in some extra students trick. What other magic is hidden in the paperwork?

True to form, Castilleja sadly continued its deceptions and obfuscations last night during the City Council zoom meeting. A number of people on the call claimed to be neighbors of Castilleja and expressed their support for the school's plans but were not only not neighbors of the but several of these individuals don't even live in Palo Alto. The Head of Schools and I imagine a number of parents on the call must have realized this and yet again silently participated in the deception.
I was particularly impressed with Matt Glickman who is both a Castilleja parent and a neighbor of the school and expressed last night how he's tried to persuade unsuccessfully senior Castilleja administrators to sit down with those those neighbors who he knows to be reasonable. As several speakers expressed, like Mr. Glickman, there's hope to resolve this acrimonious situation if the City steps in and has an oversight role in bringing the parties together to work out their differences.
To date, Castilleja has been unwilling to meaningfully engage in such a process. They want what they want and they are holding out until they think they can get it. Whether through their political connections or implied threats to take legal action (hence Ms. Romanofsky's belligerent presence), Castilleja seems to believe they don't have to negotiate. Is this another President Hotel? Were assurances offered to Castilleja by former/current senior City staff and maybe City Council as well that the project would be a "go." If that is the case, Castilleja will certainly make a legal case for "reliance," they acted on assurances from the City to go forward with their very expensive consultants and legal team. It's just a theory. However, if true, it helps explain how this overly broad and car-dependent project was able to get this far.
Time for transparency, Mr. Mayor! Otherwise, I'm concerned that the City will find itself in a very expensive legal and public relations quagmire from all sides!

ZPS, that's really disturbing that people are claiming to be PA residents and/or Casti neighbors when they're not. Unfortunately it sounds like what's happening in College Terrace where supporters of the proposed CT apartment building claim to be College Terrrace residents when they live elsewhere.

Shameful dirty pool in both cases.

Good to hear from REAL Casti alums like Annette and rita vrhel who've documented the above conflicts of interest at the PTC and City Hall (scroll up 12 posts for details).

Transparency and accountability are long overdue; I hope the Mayor and the City Council finally demand it.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

"The school, Brown said, is "committed to complying with all city regulations."

Does anybody else find this humorous? Given the history of the school's compliance with city regulations and agreements that they made this statement is completely ironic. Even after being caught violating the agreement with the city they refused to fix their violation. They should not be allowed to expand.

So many speakers 2 nights ago spoke in favor of Castillej's large modernization and expansion project that I have to stand up and express my dismay of the "NEW" narrative that Castilleja is now presenting to the public. For the last 5 years, starting in 2016 I attended around 6 community meetings held at Castilleja to work on a compromise plan that Neighbors and the School could agree upon. For many attendees these meetings were not ones of building consensus, rather one side stone walling to get an increase of ;500+ enrollment. Many neighbors came up with compromise plans, traffic plans, meeting plans which were basically ignored. It started to feel like we were being used to make the case that Castilleja had listened and worked with Neighbors to get to a compromise agreement. Hypocrisy!
For the last 2 years Castilleja realized they weren't going to make any headway with the Neighbors, then decided to have coffees all over town to drum up support for their expansion. Of course at these meetings, Castilleja did not have any representatives from the Neighborhood to give their objections to parts of the Plan.
The latest attempt at compromise has been a neighbor and Castilleja parent who tried hard to reach a compromise........to no avail. Our City could have reached a compromise in 2016 by standing firm and reaching a deal. At this point after 5 years of City Staff, PTC, ARB, all skewing their "data" to fit Castilleja's needs, City Council (after reprimanding City Staff) needs to strongly deny this project.

I would very much like to see a deeply reported New Yorker article on this issue and what it reveals about our community. I am sure an honest article would disclose the arrogance and deception by the project's proponents is equaled only by the ineptitude of city officials.

I have seen two recurrent justifications for the expansion: 1. To support women's education and 2. Casti provides an invaluable community benefit. No one in the opposition that I or my wife know opposes the idea that women should get the best education possible. Whether Casti is an invaluable community benefit depends on the definition of benefit, but a reasonable one to me is an entity that provides an opportunity to all members of the community. Obvious examples are a park, public schools and inexpensive adult education, the Art Center, the Children's Museum and Zoo. Entities like Theater Works, places of worship, the Gamble Garden Center are also community benefits. Even Stanford provides a wide range of free lectures by prominent scholars, free museums, free access to outdoor sculpture, a succulent garden, the path to the Dish and a number of paid events that present world class entertainment, as well as an excellent array of courses in the continuing studies program. In stark contrast is Casti, a non tax paying entity with 75% of its student body comprised of non Palo Alto residents and no cultural or intellectual events open to the public. Casti does not provide an invaluable community benefit.

Aren't there more pressing issues in Palo Alto. This has taken up far too much time.
The school has outgrown the current site and should move.
The Castilleja site could be used in a more beneficial way for the CITIZENS of Palo Alto.
Simple

The silence of the pro-expansion supporters in this topic is deafening.

Instead of responding to any of the specific points raised here, they evidently think their illogical and insulting platitudes like opposing expansion means opposing women's education and PA discriminates against "outsiders" are enough to prevail.

If Dave Docktor cared about trees so much, why didn't he show up when residents were trying to get the city to prevent a basement being built (2300 block of Webster) that is going to kill a heritage valley oak? I don't agree with the sentiment expressed in most of these comments. Even if technical details are in favor of "the residentialists," the zoning restrictions were put in place to provide consistency, safety and sanity, not to obstruct and penalize institutions that benefit our community and society as a whole. The morally correct stance is to allow the school to proceed with expansion.

It's only a matter of time before State of California eliminates all R1 zoning. In my mind, it can't come soon enough.

Embarcadero is a narrow, busy road. Some of us Palo Alto residents live on it and close nearby it.
What is the proposal for shuttle busses? Would these be commuting up and down Embarcadero? At what hours? How frequently?
How large would these busses be? I am highly concerned about traffic impacts on Embarcadero. To say the busses would replace cars - maybe it would be better to have cars, at least we residents while driving could see over and around them.
I recall a limit on truck traffic on Embarcadero - they’re told to take Oregon Expressway. Are these rules changing on Embarcadero!?

Agree with others, something smells fishy about this basement (maybe because of their history of lying). City Council, why let a large corporation determine what is right for us? Let this school expand elsewhere. I don't want the added traffic or the carbon footprint of massive rebuilding changes for a school that is somehow sitting in a beautiful neighborhood. I knew a mom who drove to and fro from Saratoga twice every day to drop off and pick up her daughter. (Yes, they were wealthy.) Let's change things please! More local, more inclusion, less catering to the ultra wealthy.