HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-23 City Council Emails 701-32
DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL
RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 05/23/2022
Document dates: 05/16/2022 – 05/23/2022
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction
in a given week.
From:Aram James
To:Council, City; Portillo, Rumi; Shikada, Ed; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; Human Relations Commission; Vara
Ramakrishnan; Rebecca Eisenberg; Rebecca.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject:FCouncilman assails five candidates, but they say his critique is riddled with inaccuracies – Palo Alto Daily Post
Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 12:09:18 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
>
> FYI:
>
> From the archives of the Daly Post -if I don’t agree with u I just delete your post. This is a guy who only listens to
himself verbal attack or no attack -not fit for public office?
>
>
>
> https://padailypost.com/2020/10/03/councilman-assails-five-challenges-but-they-say-his-critique-is-riddled-with-
inaccuracies/
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
From:Aram James
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Human Relations Commission; Winter Dellenbach
Subject:Councilman assails five candidates, but they say his critique is riddled with inaccuracies – Palo Alto Daily Post
Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 12:04:52 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
FYI:
From the archives of the Daly Post -if I don’t agree with u I just delete your post. This is a guy who only listens to
himself verbal attack or no attack -not fit for public office?
https://padailypost.com/2020/10/03/councilman-assails-five-challenges-but-they-say-his-critique-is-riddled-with-
inaccuracies/
Sent from my iPhone
From:Tom Shannon
To:Council, City
Subject:Castilleja"s CUP
Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 11:37:41 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from tshannon2@cs.com. Learnwhy this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Burt and members of the City Council:
I have lived on Kellogg Avenue directly across the street from Castilleja for 33 years. We ask the council
to recognize that the adjacent neighbors, living within a small, residential quad of streets (i.e. Kellogg,
Bryant, Emerson, Melville & Churchill) are significantly impacted by Castilleja and have many concerns
about Castilleja’s proposed project.
It should be noted that the first time this draft CUP became available for review was in the PTC packet on
March 30, 2022. No community meetings were held to discuss these CUP provisions. The City did not
engage the neighborhood on the development or wording of these conditions.
Here are 3 points that I ask you to consider in your deliberations tonight:
ENROLLMENT INCREASES: You have read or heard that in granting the enrollment of 415
students in 2000, the City represented they would not look favorably on any future enrollment
increases. However, now using the “no net new trips” criteria, the City has decided it can allow
automatic enrollment increases. As an admirer of Castilleja’s laudable mission, I am willing to
accept an enrollment of 450 but thereafter, I fear that many of the proposed CUP conditions are
loosely worded and will not protect our neighborhood. It’s not just traffic counts that negatively
affect a neighborhood. The intensity of enrollment growth needs to be monitored as increases are
requested. I ask the Council not to grant automatic enrollment increases based upon the
“no net new trips” criteria. Amending the CUP for future enrollment increases gives
everyone an opportunity to “road test” and comment on the CUP conditions and make
amendments where necessary.
Here are 2 examples as to why the CUP conditions need to be “road tested.”
Condition #8 regarding hours of operation is vague, notes that “Standard School Hours” are
Mondays through Fridays 7am to 6pm but co-curricular programming involving fewer than
50 students and confined to indoor spaces may occur outside of these hours. What are
those hours? When is the campus fully closed?
Please consider making a condition that the campus will remain fully closed from 10
pm – 7 am - no activities to occur during these hours.
Condition #10 is a specific example of a CUP condition that needs more definition given it
falls short of being enforceable. It reads: “Following construction of the Academic Building,
all deliveries and bus pickups and drop offs shall be accomplished within the designated
pickup/drop off areas on campus accessed from the driveway from Kellogg Avenue.
Translation: That means that every bus, truck, semi-sized delivery truck, trash trucks and a
majority of cars from parents dropping off students must access the school using Kellogg
Ave. As a Kellogg resident, this intensity is worrisome and cannot be reasonably
mitigated. There are no hours noted in this condition as to when deliveries can be made.
We have asked Castilleja to eliminate the midnight and 5 am deliveries. I would ask the
Council to insert time limits into this condition and specify that the hours for all
deliveries must occur between 8 am and 5 pm.
ENROLLMENT IMPACT on “no net new trips:” Please recognize that Castilleja is a HIGH
SCHOOL and MIDDLE SCHOOL on a six acre piece of property buried in a residential
neighborhood accessed only by residential streets. It’s unlike any other high schools in Palo Alto:
Palo Alto High School - accessed from El Camino, Embarcadero & Churchill – all arterial
streets.
Gunn High School – accessed from Arastradero and Foothill Expwy.
Cubberley – accessed from Middlefield Road.
Kehillah - Fabian Way in a commercial/industrial area
Little to no mention has been made that Castilleja intends for ALL expanded enrollments
granted to be high school students. These students self-drive and avoid TDM counts by
parking throughout the neighborhoods south of Kellogg Ave. Their vehicles arrive via the
streets south of Kellogg thereby avoiding the school’s driveways or parking lots, and thus
are not tracked in TDM studies that promise “no net new trips.”
TDM: Castilleja points to its current TDM with 25% reduction in car trips. First, the TDM should
have been implemented in 2000 to offset growth allowed under the current CUP - instead of in
2013 to justify new growth. Second, Castilleja’s traffic consultant told neighbors that the first
25% reduction is easy, it gets harder and much more costly after that. The first 25% was
accomplished in two years. Since 2015 progress has been minimal. There is nothing supporting
the assertion that a new increase of 30% in student body, plus unspecified growth in staff
(currently 140) can be achieved with no net new trips.
Thank you for your consideration.
Tom Shannon
From:slevy@ccsce.com
To:Steve Levy
Subject:Bay Area Economic Update
Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 10:17:27 AM
Attachments:May 20, 2022 Economic Update.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Here is the latest Bay Area update including data released for April by EDD last Friday
Bay Area Economic Update and Outlook—May 20, 2022—Slower Job Growth in April and
Some Good News in the Report
The Bay Area added 11,500 payroll jobs in April down from 15,500 in March and 24,100 in
February. Job growth slowed in the state and nation as well and the region is still outpacing
the nation in job growth over the past 12 months after the sharp job losses in 2020.
The highlights:
Bay Area jobs increased by 5.8% between April 2021 and 2022 compared to a 4.6%
increase in the nation and 5.6% gain in California.
The Bay Area unemployment rate in March 2022 was 2.5% compared to 2.7% in the
pre-pandemic month of February 2020.
May 2022 brings major crosscurrents to the global, national and regional economy
with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, rising interest rates amidst continuing high
inflation, the recent spike in Bay Area COVID cases and the ongoing Bay Area
challenges of housing, transportation and competitiveness.
Bay Area jurisdictions have been given large increases in their housing goals for the
next eight years as a result of state legislation and policy to reduce overcrowding and
increase affordability. Each jurisdiction is in the process of updating their Housing
Elements in 2022 to meet state and regional policy goals and requirements.
Steve
650-814-8553
1
Bay Area Economic Update and Outlook—May 20, 2022—Slower
Job Growth in April and Some Good News in the Report
The Bay Area added 11,500 payroll jobs in April down from 15,500 in March and
24,100 in February. Job growth slowed in the state and nation as well and the
region is still outpacing the nation in job growth over the past 12 months after the
sharp job losses in 2020.
The highlights:
• Bay Area jobs increased by 5.8% between April 2021 and 2022 compared
to a 4.6% increase in the nation and 5.6% gain in California.
• The Bay Area unemployment rate in March 2022 was 2.5% compared to
2.7% in the pre-pandemic month of February 2020.
• May 2022 brings major crosscurrents to the global, national and regional
economy with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, rising interest rates amidst
continuing high inflation, the recent spike in Bay Area COVID cases and
the ongoing Bay Area challenges of housing, transportation and
competitiveness.
• Bay Area jurisdictions have been given large increases in their housing
goals for the next eight years as a result of state legislation and policy to
reduce overcrowding and increase affordability. Each jurisdiction is in the
process of updating their Housing Elements in 2022 to meet state and
regional policy goals and requirements.
The Bay Area Outpaced the Nation in Recent Job Growth
4.6%
5.6%
5.8%
0.0%
1.0%
2.0%
3.0%
4.0%
5.0%
6.0%
7.0%
8.0%
9.0%
U.S.California Bay Area
Job Growth April 2021--April 2022
2
Job growth slowed in the nation, state and region in April. Still, Bay Area payroll
jobs increased by 5.8% between April 2021 and April 2022 outpacing the U.S.
4.6% growth rate. The region still lags the nation and state in the % of jobs
recovered since April 2020 as a result of the large job losses in 2020.
By April 2022 the region had recovered 79.9% of the jobs lost between February
and April 2020. This is a lower recovery rate than the state and nation, though
the region has closed the gap in recent months.
The Bay Area added 217,900 jobs in the past year led by a gain of 90,600 in the
San Francisco metro area though SF has recovered just 77.1% of the jobs lost
between February and April 2020. The San Jose metro area added 59,300 jobs
and by April 2022 had recovered 85.8% of the jobs lost between February and
April 2020. The Oakland metro area added 47,400 jobs during the past year.
Metro Area Job Trends (Thousands)
Metro Area Feb 20 Apr 20 Apr 21 Apr 22
%
Recovered
Oakland 1,201.9 1,003.6 1,118.5 1,166.9 82.3%
San Francisco 1,204.7 1,017.9 1,071.4 1,162.0 77.1%
San Jose 1,172.5 1,011.4 1,090.4 1,149.7 85.8%
Santa Rosa 211.1 171.9 192.7 202.2 77.3%
Napa 75.3 57.3 67.3 71.1 76.7%
Vallejo 143.3 121.5 131.5 136.4 68.3%
San Rafael 117.2 91.8 105.3 106.7 58.7%
Bay Area 4,126.0 3,475.4 3,777.1 3,995.0 79.9%
Source: EDD, non-farm wage & salary jobs seasonally adjusted
94.8%
91.3%
79.9%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
100.0%
U.S.California Bay Area
Jobs Recoverd by April 2022 as % of Losses
3
While the region has recovered just 79.9% of the non-farm wage & salary jobs
lost between February and April 2020, it has recovered 85.6% of the decline in
the number of residents with jobs. The explanation for the gap between the two
measures is an increase in self-employment jobs, most likely gig work jobs.
Unemployment Rates Fell to 2.5% in the Region in April 2022 from 6.3% in
April 2021 and is now below the pre-pandemic level in February 2020
The lowest rates were in the San Rafael and San Francisco metro areas (2.1%)
followed by the San Jose metro areas (2.2%) in April 2022.
Unemployment Rates
Metro Area
Feb
20 Apr 20 Apr 21 Apr 22
Oakland 3.0% 14.6% 7.0% 2.9%
San Francisco 2.2% 12.5% 5.7% 2.1%
San Jose 2.6% 12.4% 5.5% 2.2%
Santa Rosa 2.8% 15.4% 6.2% 2.6%
Napa 3.2% 17.8% 6.8% 2.7%
Vallejo 3.9% 15.7% 8.3% 4.0%
San Rafael 2.4% 12.1% 5.1% 2.1%
Bay Area 2.7% 13.7% 6.3% 2.5%
Source: EDD
79.9%
85.6%
70.0%
75.0%
80.0%
85.0%
90.0%
Non-Farm Wage & Salary Jobs Employed Residents
% Recovery Since April 2020
4
The number of unemployed residents has fallen sharply from the April 2020 high
103,400 in April 2022 below the pre-pandemic level in February 2020.
But 105,600 Workers Have Not Rejoined the Workforce Since February 2020
Residents who are not in the labor force are not counted as unemployed. As a
result, the number of unemployed residents can decline while some are still
prevented by choice or lack of child care or work in industries that have not fully
recovered. The number of residents not in the labor force has increased recently,
perhaps in response to the rise of COVID cases in the region.
Metro Area Labor Force (Thousands)
Metro Area Feb 20 Apr 20 Apr 21 Apr 22
Oakland 1,402.2 1,332.2 1,336.0 1,369.3
San Francisco 1,043.3 978.0 954.8 1,016.0
San Jose 1,087.7 1,039.8 1,028.5 1,072.8
Santa Rosa 256.0 241.0 239.8 245.8
Napa 72.5 66.3 68.0 69.6
Vallejo 207.5 200.4 197.6 199.4
San Rafael 137.9 123.5 126.9 128.7
Bay Area 4,207.1 3,981.2 3,951.6 4,101.6
Source: EDD
Industries Were Affected Differently
114.5
543.5
247.3
103.4
0.0
100.0
200.0
300.0
400.0
500.0
600.0
Feb 20 Apr 20 Apr 21 Apr 22
Bay Area Unemployment
(Thousabds)
5
Four sectors—Manufacturing, Transportation and Warehousing, Information and
Professional and Business Services—exceeded pre-pandemic job levels in April
2022 and Construction and Education and Health Care Services were close to
full recovery. On the other hand, the Leisure and Hospitality sector recovered
only 72% of lost jobs by April 2022, though travel and tourism jobs are now
picking up again. The Government sector is now slowly recovering the jobs lost
between February and April 2020.
San Francisco Bay Area Jobs
Apr20-Apr 22
Feb 20 April 20 Apr 21 Apr 22
Job
Change
% Of Feb-Apr
Loss
Construction 215,600 152,300 205,700 210,200 57,900 91.5%
Manufacturing 364,500 339,600 358,300 372,400 32,800 131.7%
Wholesale Trade 115,500 103,800 106,000 107,400 3,600 30.8%
Retail Trade 330,800 258,800 302,900 313,400 54,600 75.8%
Transp. & Wareh. 112,100 99,500 106,800 114,700 15,200 120.6%
Information 242,400 238,800 245,600 256,400 17,600 488.9%
Financial
Activities 201,900 190,800 191,500 193,900 3,100 27.9%
Prof& Bus Serv. 798,300 740,600 764,400 810,700 70,100 121.5%
Educ & Health
Serv. 636,400 563,600 612,300 627,400 63,800 87.6%
Leisure & Hosp. 441,200 208,500 298,000 376,000 167,500 72.0%
Government 488,500 471,800 458,300 473,600 1,800 10.8%
Total Non-Farm 4,093,000 3,468,700 3,770,300 3,988,200 519,500 83.2%
Housing Permits Rebound to 2019 Levels in 2021
Housing permit levels were up 35.5% in 2021 over 2020 levels and equaled
permit levels in 2019. In the first three months of 2022, permit levels were
slightly above comparable 2021 months. There are positive and negative trends
going forward. On the one hand, each week brings new large housing proposals
and approvals. At the same time mortgage rates and prices and rents are
surging.
This year all Bay Area cities are required to update their Housing Elements to
meet greatly increased regional and local jurisdiction housing goals. Below is a
link to a report released on March 18th that I prepared at the request of the
Silicon Valley Community Foundation to help residents understand and engage
in their city’s Housing Element update process. Although the report focuses on
five Midpeninsula cities—Cupertino, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Palo Alto and
6
Sunnyvale—it has broad applicability for other communities. The report is part of
an engagement effort led by SV@Home with local partners.
https://www.siliconvalleycf.org/sites/default/files/publications/Housing_Report_20
22.pdf
Residential Building Permits
Thru March
Alameda 2019 1414
Contra
Costa 2019 774
2021 1368 2021 1327
2022 1127 2022 731
Marin 2019 99 Napa 2019 41
2021 44 2021 71
2022 107 2022 153
San Francisco 2019 981 San Mateo 2019 481
2021 566 2021 243
2022 485 2022 430
Santa Clara 2019 1456 Solano 2019 296
2021 558 2021 331
2022 1503 2022 651
Sonoma 2019 615 Bay Area 2019 7561
2021 383 2021 6529
2022 671 2022 7209
% Change 22 vs 21 10.4%
22 vs 19 -4.7%
Source: CHF and CIRB
From:Matt Glickman
To:Council, City
Subject:Letter related to Castilleja"s project
Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 10:00:25 AM
Attachments:Minty Sidhu, Brian Suckow Summary of Casti Neighbors Concerns.pdf
Some people who received this message don't often get email from matt@glickman.com. Learn
why this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
To City Council.,
I am both a Castilleja parent - and an immediate neighbor. I am supportive of Castiileja
expanding but NOT with this particular plan.
As someone who has spent 5 years attending meetings and talking to all sides, I am confident
that there is a plan that can satisfy the school, the neighbors and the city. These ideas have not
yet emerged because while Castilleja has held many meetings, they have not genuinely
incorporated neighborhood input as every other expanding private school has had to do.
Castilleja parents Minty Sindhu and Brian Sucklow submitted a letter in 2018 (attached)
explaining why this process has dragged on for years.
When I or others present creative options, school leaders now say that they cannot entertain
them because the city has outlined a process to follow. Their position means that constructive
ideas don’t get considered. Just one example: with a more serious shuttle program with
meetups at Highway 101 and 280, the school could expand with less impact on the
neighborhood. No garage would also save Castilleja money, would decrease construction time
(which benefits both Castilleja students and the community), and would prevent long-term tie-
ups on residential streets.
City Council does not have to choose a winner and a loser. I ask you to direct the school to
work collaboratively with the neighbors to develop a few alternatives. With a sufficient
mandate, I believe you will unlock constructive energies in ways not possible with the current
process. I trust that the council can lead and drive to a revised proposal that is a win for the
school, the neighborhood and the city.
Thank you,
Matt Glickman
November 27, 2018 1
Summary of Castilleja Neighbors’ Concerns Regarding the Proposed Expansion
This summary has been prepared for the Castilleja Board of Trustees by Minty Sidhu and Brian Suckow
(Parents 2012 and Palo Alto residents) based on interviews of Casti neighbors during the summer and fall of
2018. Our objective was not to find solutions, but to understand neighbors’ perspectives and communicate
them in a non-emotional, unbiased manner to assist the Board in deciding how to move forward.
Foundational Issues:
While there are many issues that surfaced in our conversations, there are two foundational issues that
underlie and intersect with many of the more tactical issues:
- Fit with Residential Neighborhood: Casti is located in a neighborhood zoned as R1 residential, and the
neighbors are seeking to maintain the residential feel of their neighborhood. Most of their tactical issues
come back to this key overarching issue.
- Trust in Castilleja’s Administration: Beyond the issue of exceeding the allowed enrollment from the
existing CUP (and having to be forced to gradually go back down to that level only recently), neighbors have
expressed significant concerns with:
• How Casti’s administrators have portrayed neighbors’ issues publicly (e.g., insisting that neighbors
had asked for an underground garage when the vast majority are opposed)
• Why Casti’s administrators failed to share neighbors’ previously documented feedback more
broadly, including with Casti’s Board
• What Casti’s ultimate expansion goals are beyond the current request to increase to 540 students,
given the size of the planned underground garage
Process Issues:
Neighbors expressed great frustration with Casti’s process, though to be fair, they conceded that Casti’s
Administration was likely equally frustrated. Areas for improvement include:
- Collaborative Design: One best practice of innovative Silicon Valley companies is to bring their customers
into a collaborative design process. Viewing the neighbors as one important “customer” of the Casti
expansion, and giving them a seat at the design table is likely to yield a compromise that improves the
outcome for both Casti and the neighbors. Neighbors don’t feel they have been included in the process.
- Improved Communication: Neighbors indicated a feeling that the twice per year meetings mandated by
the existing CUP are “check the box” sessions, in which Casti’s administrators are not sincerely interested in
engaging in detailed dialogue. And beyond these required sessions, there is limited opportunity for
effective communication.
- Rigorous Monitoring: The city of Palo Alto frankly fell down in its responsibility to monitor Casti’s
adherence to the previous CUP. Neighbors are concerned that without a more robust process in place by
the city, history could repeat itself, even with good intentions from the Casti Administration.
Tactical Issues:
Keeping these overarching foundational and process issues in mind may help the Board better understand
the reasons behind many of the tactical concerns of the neighbors. The key tactical issues arranged in
decreasing priority appear to be:
1. Underground Parking Garage: While Casti has indicated that some neighbors preferred an underground
garage, it appears that the overwhelming majority of neighbors do not. Some months back, 47 surrounding
households signed a petition opposing the garage, and the Casti Administration’s continued insistence that
November 27, 2018 2
they’re adding the underground garage because the neighbors want it has further eroded trust. The main
reasons why neighbors are opposed to the underground garage include:
- Fit with Neighborhood Character: Underground garages are not permitted in R1 residential zones, and
neighbors feel demolishing residences and trees in order to add this garage will detract from the residential
feel of their neighborhood.
- Traffic flow: Neighbors are concerned with the concentration of all traffic having to enter from Bryant
(with likely significant back-ups onto Embarcadero), and exit on Emerson.
- Emissions: Exhaust gases from the moving and idling vehicles will have to be released above ground, and
this is likely to be noisy, smelly, and again out of character with a residential zone.
- Large Scale: The relative increase in parking spaces with the underground garage is much higher than the
relative increase in enrollment. There are currently 81 parking spaces in the existing surface parking lots,
and 51 on-street spaces along the three streets abutting Casti, for a total of 132. With the new plan, the
garage will have 115 spaces, the surface parking lots will decline to only 27 spaces, and the 51 on-street
spaces will remain, for a total of 193 spaces. This increase from 132 to 193 represents a 46% increase in
parking. However, enrollment is only increasing from the current ~440 to 540, or 23%. This much larger %
increase in parking versus the % increase in enrollment prompts suspicions that even now Casti is planning
a subsequent phase of expansion beyond the 540, again leading to an erosion of trust.
2. Traffic increase: While some neighbors voiced praise for Casti’s progress in reducing traffic through their
TDM program, they remain concerned that increased enrollment and staff will inevitably lead to increased
traffic. Arguments that most traffic is due to Paly or Stanford miss the point. Neighbors are most
concerned with traffic on the streets where they live, not just on Embarcadero. Increased enrollment is
bound to increase traffic in front of their homes on Bryant, Emerson, Kellogg, and Melville. And, due to
likely back-ups with the underground garage flow, many parents are likely to drop off their children along
these streets, rather than waiting in line to use the underground garage.
3. Scale of the Proposed Building: An analogy that may not be perfectly apt but that captures the essence
of the concern is that the new buildings will be like those “McMansions” single family homes that have
been criticized for their large scale and lack of fit with the character of the neighborhood. Having one
monolithic building that stretches almost the entire length of the Kellogg Street block, and that has a
smaller setback than the existing buildings, is felt to be out of character in this residential neighborhood.
4. Construction duration: This is a huge project, and initial projections of 5 years with massive excavations
are quite daunting from the perspective of noise, dust, and general disruption. More recently neighbors
have heard of new plans that may shorten the duration to 3 years. The neighbors are supportive of Casti
updating their campus, but 3 to 5 years of construction is perceived as excessive in a residential
neighborhood.
5. Events: With roughly 100 events annually, there are many evenings and weekends when neighbors’
routines are disturbed by the comings and goings of attendees at Casti’s events. The current level is
perceived as excessive, and out of character with an R1 zone, and there are concerns that further expansion
will exacerbate this situation.
6. Casti’s Continued Expansion: Based on Casti buying up multiple properties in the adjoining
neighborhood, and the seemingly “super sized” underground garage, neighbors are concerned that shortly
after expanding to 540 students, Casti has plans to further expand. When the last CUP was granted in the
1990’s, the city stated that the maximum enrollment to be permitted was 415. Neighbors are wondering
that if the maximum enrollment is now permitted to rise to 540, what ultimate cap on enrollment is Casti
willing to commit to in their residential neighborhood?
From:Info .
Subject:WILTON COURT APARTMENTS OPEN WAITLIST - Alta Housing
Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 8:02:25 AM
Attachments:Wilton Court Flyer - 2022 Spanish.pdf
Wilton Court Flyer - 2022 English.pdf
Some people who received this message don't often get email from info@altahousing.org. Learnwhy this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
Alta Housing is proud to announce that our waitlist is open for Wilton Court
Apartments from May 16, 2022 through June 30, 2022. Applications will be
available on our website, altahousing.org, and at our main office located at the
Sobrato Center for Nonprofits on 3460 W. Bayshore Road, Suite 104, Palo Alto, CA
94303. Please see attached flyer for inquiries about the property.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hola,
Alta Housing se enorgullece en anunciar que nuestra lista de espera está abierta para Wilton
Court Apartments desde el 16 de mayo de 2022 hasta el 30 de junio de 2022. Las solicitudes
estarán disponibles en nuestro sitio web, altahousing.org, y en nuestra oficina principal
ubicada en Sobrato Center for Nonprofits en 3460 W. Bayshore Road, Suite 104, Palo Alto,
CA 94303. Consulte el folleto adjunto para consultas sobre la propiedad.
Best Regards/ Atentamente,
ALTA HOUSING
Sobrato Center for Nonprofits
a: 3460 W. Bayshore Road Suite 104 Palo Alto, CA 94303
p: 650.321.9709 f: 650.321.4341
w. altahousing.org
BUILDING STORIES THAT MATTER
Our emails have changed! Please use info@altahousing.org for all future
correspondence.
We have moved! Please note the new address above.
altahousing.org
BUILDING STORIES THAT MATTER
If hearing impaired call 800-735-2929. PAHC Management & Services does not discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability,
familial status, or national origin.
Alta Housing c/o Sobrato Center
for Nonprofits
3460 W. Bayshore Rd, Ste. 104
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Wilton Court Apartments
Tel. 650 321 9709
Fax. 650 321 4341
AHORA ACEPTANDO SOLICITUDES
WILTON COURT APARTMENTS, PALO ALTO
58 apartamentos asequibles tipo estudio y de 1 habitación
FINALIZACIÓN PREVISTA SEPTIEMBRE 2022
✓ NUEVOS apartamentos tipo estudio y de 1
habitación
✓ Guardabicis en planta baja
✓ Cerca del transporte público, tiendas y parques
✓ Salas comunitarias, salones, sala de actividad
✓ High speed internet access
✓ Lavandería en el lugar
✓ Propiedad para no fumadores
✓ Se aceptan cupones y certificados de la Sección 8
Se dará preferencia a los solicitantes que vivan o trabajen en la Ciudad de Palo Alto. Se dará preferencia para
algunas unidades a los hogares con al menos un miembro del hogar con una discapacidad del desarrollo referido por
Housing Choices Coalition www.housingchoices.org y San Andreas Regional Center (SARC). Consulte los
Criterios de selección de residentes para obtener detalles adicionales sobre el proceso de calificación. Una lotería
determinará el lugar de un solicitante en la lista de espera.
Paquetes de solicitud disponibles del 16 de mayo de 2022 al 30 de junio de 2022 en:
Alta Housing
Sobrato Center for Nonprofits
3460 West Bayshore Road, Suite 104
Palo Alto, CA 94303
O escaneando este código QR;
Las solicitudes completadas deben recibirse en o antes de las 4:00 p.m. de 30 de junio de 2022 en
Alta Housing
3460 West Bayshore Road, Suite 104
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Las tarifas de alquiler y el tamaño de las unidades se asignan según el tamaño del hogar, los ingresos y la
disponibilidad
Tarifas de alquiler y límites de ingresos
Rents: $1,475 - $1,896
# en Familia Ingreso Máximo*
1 $59,000-$70,800
2 $67,400-$80,880
3 $75,850-$91,020
*También se aplican límites de ingresos mínimos
Wilton Court Apartments
Alta Housing c/o Sobrato Center
for Nonprofits
3460 W. Bayshore Rd, Ste. 104
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Altahousing.org Tel. 650 321 9709
Fax. 650 321 4341
BUILDING STORIES THAT MATTER
If hearing impaired call 800-735-2929. PAHC Management & Services does not discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability,
familial status, or national origin.
NOW ACCEPTING APPLICATIONS
WILTON COURT APARTMENTS, PALO ALTO
58 Affordable Studio & 1 Bedroom Apartments
ANTICIPATED COMPLETION SEPTEMBER 2022
Preference will be given to applicants who live or work in the City of Palo Alto. Preference for some units will be given to
households with at least one household member with a developmental disability referred by Housing Choices Coalition
www.housingchoices.org and San Andreas Regional Center (SARC). See Resident Selection Criteria for additional detail regarding
qualification process. A lottery will determine an applicant’s place on the waiting list.
Application packets available May 16, 2022 through June 30, 2022 at:
Alta Housing
Sobrato Center for Nonprofits
3460 West Bayshore Road, Suite 104
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Or, by scanning this QR Code;
Completed applications must be received on or before 4:00 PM on June 30, 2022 at
Alta Housing
3460 West Bayshore Road, Suite 104
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Rental rates and unit sizes are assigned based on household size, income & availability
Rental Rates and Income Limits
Rent Range: $1,475 - $1,896
# in Family Max Income*
1 $59,000-$70,800
2 $67,400-$80,880
$75,850-$91,020
* Minimum Income Limits Apply
NEW Studio & 1 Bedroom Apartments
Bike Storage Room on ground floor
Close to public transit, shopping, and parks
Community rooms, lounges, activity room &
courtyard
High speed internet access
On-site laundry
Nonsmoking property
Section 8 Vouchers & Certificates Welcome
From:Yahoo Mail.®
To:Honky
Subject:Coming up today at 7pm Eastern. “Black 9/11: Money, Motive and Technology”
Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 3:33:26 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
“Black 9/11: Money, Motive
and Technology” with
Author Mark H. Gaffney
Coming Up Sunday, May 22, 2022
Special New Video Podcast Sunday
4pm Pacific * 7pm Eastern
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE SHOW
What is the dark underbelly
of 9/11? Mark Gaffney takes
us on the journey of his own
journey down the rabbit hole
of “Black 9/11”.
Did the Securities & Exchange
Commission really create a list of 38
suspect companies? What major
financial corporations made the list?
What was the outcome of that
investigation? Were the put-option
payouts actually made? to whom?
What other financial crimes occurred
during and after the attacks? Which
institutions were likely involved?
Which bank was implicated in the
massive fails on Wall Street following
2001? Did the 9/11 Commission
investigate? Demands for auditing the
Fed and Wall Street Banks grew in the
mid-2000’s. What were the obstacles
vs. successes? There has been
numerous questions about the
capabilities of the alleged hijackers in
the attacks of 9/11. The Pentagon was
targeted by Hani Hanjour. What
Welcome to the
RichardGage911: UNLEASHED!
Weekly Newsletter
Special New Video Podcast Sunday
4pm Pacific * 7pm Eastern
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE SHOW
problems are revealed by a deeper
look into this hijacker?
********************
My guest on
RichardGage911:UNLEASHED! is
Mark H. Gaffney – the author of
Black 9/11: Money, Motive, and
Technology, which documents the
overwhelming evidence for insider
trading in the days before 9/11, and
other crimes of the US financial elite.
For more
info: https://RichardGage911.org
====================================
Join us weekly for an out-of-the-box unleashed
experience in video podcasting by the founder and
former CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11
Truth, Richard Gage, AIA – a 30-year architect. Richard
is soaring even higher, now that he is flying solo from
AE911Truth. He’ll not only be sharing the 9/11 WTC
explosive evidence, as only he can do, but he’ll be
looking behind closed doors, under rugs, and around
the world, for answers to questions that many in the
9/11 Truth Movement aren’t even ready to ask. Visit his
website here.
No Lies Radio | P.O. Box 4164, San Leandro, CA 94579
Unsubscribe honkystar@yahoo.com
Update Profile | Our Privacy Policy | Constant Contact Data Notice
Sent by cc@noliesradio.org powered by
Try email marketing for free today!
From:hjc@cohensw.com
To:Council, City
Cc:Howard Cohen
Subject:SCALE BACK CASTILLEJA’S EXPANSION PLANS
Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 12:31:39 AM
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from hjc@cohensw.com. Learn why this is important
at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking
on links.
________________________________
Council Members,
Castilleja’s expansion project poses a significant threat to Palo Alto’s
groundwater and construction will result in the release of as much CO2
as is emitted by driving a Prius over 4 million miles! This project
contradicts Palo Alto’s goals of sustainability and reducing greenhouse
gas emissions.
Among other things, I ask that the pool be built at ground level and
relocated to where the environment will not be harmed, and neighborhood
noise levels will remain within City codes; that no trees (especially
those over 50 years old or heritage trees) be removed or damaged; and that
the school's enrollment remain capped at the present legal (not de facto)
limit.
In general, I support the point of view and proposals in the Preserve
Neighborhood Quality of Life’s web site (https://pnqlnow.org/). I am
a long time Palo Alto resident and I am tired of institutions like
Castelleja and Stanford running roughshod over the best interests of
Palo Alto.
With concern,
Howard J Cohen, Ph.D.
3272 Cowper Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
--
Howard J. Cohen, Ph.D., President howard@cohensw.com
Cohen Software Consulting, Inc. http://www.cohensw.com
Applications, Algorithms, GUI, RDBMS (650) 856-8123
Bioinformatics (650) 856-4273 (fax)
Litigation Support (650) 269-1467 (cell)
From:Aram James
To:Human Relations Commission; Salem Ajluni; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Moore; paloaltorenters@gmail.com; ParkRec
Commission; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org;
supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Winter Dellenbach; Joe Simitian; Greer Stone; Tanaka, Greg; james pitkin;
chuck jagoda
Subject:ProgressiveJewishPerspectives on Israel Palestine June 8, 7pm zoom
Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 12:22:24 AM
Attachments:ProgressiveJewishPerspectives(1).png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
________________________________
Sent from my iPhone
From:Vic Befera
To:Council, City
Subject:Castilleja
Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 12:07:02 AM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from vicbefera@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members:
As you deliberate on Castilleja's proposal Monday evening, I ask you to consider:
Student parking - With over 120 students in grades 11 & 12 that will be licensed and
driving to school, where do they park all day? We neighbors are well aware of
students who drive themselves to campus and park a block away. These cars will
NOT be monitored in the TDM driveway counters, as they never drive into the school
- yet their impact on traffic into Palo Alto and through our neighborhoods is acutely
felt.
Admission - The school has noted that its intended increase in enrollment will be
entirely in the high school levels. These are indeed the very students mentioned
above. Their numbers will increase and they will not be counted in TDM measures.
Many other highly-respected private schools have strict "no driving to school" and "no
street parking" policies, requiring their entire student body to arrive by shuttle or public
transportation. Why can't the City of Palo Alto make a similar requirement of
Castilleja? (Below is a survey of other local schools for comparison.)
Future amendments - as a neighborhood who worked on the 2000 agreement with
Castilleja, only to learn it was full of vageries that the school was able to exploit: how
can neighbors ask for an additional CUP amendment in the event unforeseen
negative impacts develop?
Thank you for your consideration of these many issues. Neighbors have been dealing
with this for a very long time (personally I have been a neighbor of the school since
1968) and would very much like to see an equitable solution. We find the school has
been intractable, showing zero willingness to compromise in its plans, and has a track
record of obfuscation. I ask you to abide by the PTC's recommendation that the
school should only receive a modest - if any - increase in enrollment, and require it to
reapply for additional admissions once it has completed construction and shown it
can keep its impacts under control.
Thank you for your consideration.
- Vic Befera
Local private school policies:
Notre Dame HS San Jose - No driving to school permited
Harker Offers bus system, shuttle, off-site lot for pickup and drop off.
Stratford at Garland No on-street parking permitted.
Stratford @ Crestmoor No on-street parking permitted.
Pinewood High School No on-street parking permitted.
Nueva: No on-street parking permitted.
Crystal Springs Upland No on-street parking permitted.
From:Carla Befera
To:Council, City
Subject:Pertaining to Castilleja CUP
Date:Sunday, May 22, 2022 11:34:08 PM
Attachments:image001.png
John Lusardi"s cover letter to Casti - 2000 CUP approval.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links.
Dear members of the City Council:
As an immediate neighbor of the school I have many concerns about Castilleja’s proposed project, but will focus on three and ask you to
consider the following in your deliberations Monday evening:
1. ConstructionWe ask City Council to require the school to move its operations to a temporary off-site campus while construction takes place, as acondition of its CUP. This enormous project will have major traffic and safety impacts, not only on this immediate neighborhood, but in
blocking one of the city’s major arteries, Embarcadero Road. The current CUP draft (4.b) asserts that “upon approval of the CUP, theschool may begin the process to enroll 450 students and add 25 students thereafter.” Neighbors feel strenuously that the school should
not be allowed to continue operations on site and increase enrollment while this project is under construction.
The EIR treats construction as a temporary inconvenience with minimal mitigations. This massive project, which includes construction of
a building the size of a Costco on Kellogg Street, will cause massive disruptions of a residential neighborhood for three to five years,possibly more. (The 2006 gym construction was delayed for more than 6 months while the contractor pumped “unexpected” groundwater
24/7 from the site. The noise and airborne particulate matter made life unbearable for neighbors.)
The PTC should be tasked with reviewing and approving a comprehensive construction plan that protects neighborhood streets and
residents BEFORE any CUP is granted. Will access be from Embarcadero? We note the lane closures on Page Mill at El Camino for the last
two years. Or will access be from neighborhood streets not designed for heavy construction vehicles, and impede access for students
heading to local public schools, and neighbors to their homes? Real time air quality monitoring during construction should also be
included in the CUP conditions.
This past year there have been nearly 20 construction vehicles parked on the 1500 block of Bryant for the two residential projects
underway. Castilleja’s project is over 25 times that size. Including the 1198 average daily trips to Castilleja, plus student and staff parking,
the gridlock would be horrific.
Moving to an off-site campus during construction will shorten the construction duration and help control local disruption throughoutthe 3 to 5 year construction period. We ask City Council to require this as a condition of the CUP.
2. Neighborhood trafficIn CUP Condition #10, all busses and delivery vehicles, plus cars dropping off students will use Kellogg Ave. as their main point of entry. To
access Kellogg means driving through the neighborhood, and crossing or turning from/onto Bryant, one of Palo Alto’s major bike
boulevards. There are no hours in the CUP outlining when Castilleja can use these neighborhood streets for deliveries and drop offs.If we cannot convince the PTC/Council to revisit major ingress/egress options directly from Embarcadero, we urge the Council to insert a
condition to limit these activities to no earlier than 8 AM and no later than 6 PM, weekdays only. (Under the current CUP, we have hadmassive 18-wheel food truck deliveries at midnight and 5am.)
3. Can the City hold the line?In 2000, the City allowed a CUP increasing the allowable enrollment to 415 students (from a previous limit of 385). This increase made
Castilleja the most dense in students per acre of any school, public or private, in the city (see graph below). In approving this CUP, the Citystated it did not provide for additional increase and would not look favorably on any future requests for enrollment increases. Attached is
the letter signed by Planning Manager John Lusardi, twice noting the City is not willing to continue to approach increasing school
enrollment in an incremental manner. And yet today the City is ready to grant yet another enrollment increase. If the City now grants acap of 450, the school will be receiving an even larger incremental increase than it received in 2000, indeed more than the 448 student
Nanci Kaufman insisted the school required in her letters to the city in 2013. This enrollment level should more than serve the needs of
the school, as so earnestly argued by Ms. Kaufman to both neighbors and the City, and we hope the City Council will support the PTC’srecommendation in this matter.
Thank you for your service to the City and your consideration of these issues.
Carla Befera
1404 Bryant StreetPalo Alto
November 2, 2000
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Georgia Bond
Castilleja School
13I O Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: 1310 Bryant Street (Castilleja School)
Planning Division
Dear Ms. Bond:
Attached to this letter is an approved Conditional Use Permit [OO-CUP-23] authorizing
Castilleja School to increase its enrollment from 385 to 415 students and add two full-
time faculty members.
Castilleja School's request for 30 additional students was outlined in a letter to Lisa Grote
dated August 28, 2000. The request was also reviewed at a public hearing held on
October I 9, 2000. At no time did Castilleja School indicate that it was their intent to
submit a later application for additional students.
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the approved Conditional Use Permit does
not provide for an increase in students of 415 students, and that any subsequent request
for additional students will not be favorable looked up by the City.
The City Staff greatly appreciate Castilleja School's demonstrated willingness to work
with their neighbors to address existing traffic and parking problems, as well as any
impacts related to increasing the student population. However, the City is not willing to
continue to approach increasing school enrollment for Castilleja School in an incremental
manner.
Please contact me at 329-2561 if you have any questions regarding this approval.
Sincerely,
cc: Rachel Adcox, Planner
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650.329.2441
650.329.2154 fax
From:Andie Reed
To:Council, City; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Yang, Albert
Subject:Castilleja - PNQL Attorney Letter
Date:Sunday, May 22, 2022 10:48:17 PM
Attachments:Leila Moncharsh, Attorney Letter, May 23, 2022.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
TO: Mayor and Council, City Attorney Stump, City Manager Shikada
FROM: Leila Moncharsh, Attorney
Please find attached neighbor group PNQL's attorney Leila Moncharsh's letter regarding the
Castilleja Expansion project.
Thank you for your attention to this document.
Andie Reed
--
Andie Reed CPA
Palo Alto, CA 94301
530-401-3809
LAW OFFICES
VENERUSO & MONCHARSH
DONNA M. VENERUSO (d.’09) 5707 REDWOOD ROAD, SUITE 10
LEILA H. MONCHARSH OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94619
TELEPHONE (510) 482-0390
FACSIMILE (510) 482-0391
Email: 101550@msn.com
May 22, 2022
City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Castilleja School EIR – City Council Hearing – May 23, 2022
Dear Council Members:
This letter discusses the proposed CUP conditions. I last visited a set of conditions for
this project a very long time ago and prepared an extensive response to them then. My client,
PNQL, tells me that this last week is the only time they have had an opportunity to see the
conditions staff is proposing to your Council for adoption. That does not allow for input by the
community and your Council should increase the time allowed to review and comment on these
important conditions.
When I last visited the proposed conditions, they were very poorly drafted and I was
pleased to see that some of the problems have been resolved. However, I now see that
particularly the TDM and penalties sections are problematic because they contain vague
language, are extremely cumbersome, and very likely unenforceable. Overall, your Council
should consider shortening a lot of the text by including specific directions to the school of what
is expected of it. The penalties sections likewise should be simple and straightforward as to what
will happen if the school violates its legal obligations and not try to include things like
“restoration” of enrollment, which is complicated and should be handled at the front end by not
allowing vesting of the entire 540 students in the first place.
A relentless problem with these proposed conditions is a misunderstanding regarding
what today’s private school administrators and parents will, and will not, do. Currently, and into
the foreseeable future, parents are not willing to put their children on busses and shuttles because
of the pandemic. One large private school explained to me that they “have a problem with bus-
avoidance.” Their busses are coming and leaving the school with less than 10 students riding
each one. Therefore, incentive programs and voluntary compliance with bus and shuttle ridership
does not work and the City needs to use mandatory, not voluntary conditions to avoid negative
traffic impacts on the greater community.
Private school administrators are charged with educating children for which the school
charges an immense amount of money. The administrators are charged with making the school
financially successful. They generally do not self-report violations of use permits, self-correct
their own systems to help make things better for residential neighbors, or require parents to do
things that may cost the school business. A set of city-imposed, well-written conditions go far in
City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Castilleja Project
May 22, 2022
Page 2
giving administrators the ability to point out to parents that it is not they, but the city which is
requiring the things parents really do not want to do for whatever reasons.
Below are my specific comments:
Enrollment
No. 4 - Replace Condition #4 on Packet Page 245 to read as follows (the PTC version, as appears
on Packet Page 170, with my suggested changes in blue):
The School may enroll a maximum of 450 students. Following completion of the project and
final occupancy approval of all structures, the School will remain at 450 students until “no net
new trips” has been established and reported by an independent traffic consultant. When ADT
at 1,198 has been proven, the School may request an amendment to the CUP to increase student
enrollment. Any student enrollment amendment shall require a public hearing before the
Planning and transportation Commission in accordance with applicable provisions of PQMC
18.77.060.
No. 5 – the selection of the auditor needs to be with the approval of the planning director or the
City Council could require specific qualifications for the auditor. Otherwise, the door is wide
open for “collusion” between the school and their own selected auditor. It can be unintended
collusion motivated just by the fact that the auditor knows the school is paying his or her fees
and they do not want to lose the income by displeasing the school.
Events No. 6, i. There needs to be a sentence that states: “Any change in the calendar must be
posted at least 30 days in advance of the event. If the notice is not posted 30 days in advance, the
event must not occur.” It is too easy for a staff person to forget about the calendar and then start
adding entries at the last minute or not at all. The posted calendar can quickly become a non-
priority and then meaningless.
Operations-Related
No. 9. The sentence reading “The School is prohibited from renting or loaning the campus to
another summer school program, organization or group provider” is very narrow. Does the City
Council intend to let the school rent the campus to commercial companies, a governmental
program, etc.? Does the Council intend that the school can rent out the campus during the school
year, just not the summer? For example, could Castilleja rent out the campus to another school
that is not covered by the use permit and then move elsewhere? If not, the condition needs to be
changed to prohibit renting or loaning the campus, or any part of it, other than as stated in the
CUP (I am thinking PAUSD.)
City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Castilleja Project
May 22, 2022
Page 3
No. 10 – Deliveries and bus pickups and drop offs shall be accomplished. . . at “designated”
pickup/drop off areas. I suggest adding where to look in the documents for the “designated”
places. Otherwise, there could be future disagreements about what areas were “designated.”
No. 11 – Removal of the “temporary campus” – I assume that this means the modules but what
does “shall commence” removal of them mean? Once the City gives the school the occupancy
permit, it really has no control over when, and if, those modules, or some portion of them ever
are removed. The Council should have the certificate of occupancy dependent on actually
removing all of them. These modules have a way of becoming permanent fixtures on school
campuses. Besides being unattractive, they provide reasons for why even more students should
be admitted, “We have the extra classrooms and should be allowed more students to fill them.
The City already has already allowed us to have them here when we got the certificate of
occupancy and that was ten years ago!”
No. 14 – Lighting. It is unclear what is meant by: “This does not preclude lighting for safety,
landscaping and pathways approved by the City.” Does that mean approved on the final building
plans? What does “for safety” mean? Most cities require that any lighting for landscaping, safety,
and paths means lights placed low to the ground with caps or shades to prevent the lights from
intruding beyond the immediate illumination area. The term “for safety” needs to be defined,
such as precluding lights on polls over a certain height or not located in a vicinity where the light
can reach the surrounding housing.
No. 15 - HVAC ventilation for the gym should not be audible beyond the school’s property line.
There are adequate buffering systems on the market today to prevent sound from reaching
beyond property lines. They are not complicated or particularly expensive to install. The
neighbors should not be hearing the systems at all, not just during the day instead of at night.
Community Engagement
No. 16 c. the term “independent auditor” needs to be spelled out in Enrollment No. 5 – see
comment above.
No. 18 - Neighborhood meetings – there should be a requirement that the school provide an
agenda to the neighbors within 10 days of each meeting and incorporate items requested by the
neighbors. Also, the school should provide a copy of the summary of topics to the neighbors.
Either “neighbors” should be defined, e.g., how many feet from the school or the condition
should reference PNQL. Another oft used method is to have a committee with an even number of
neighbors and school representatives to attend the meetings. There are other methods as well to
avoid meetings that are controlled completely by the school and that effectively prevent
discussion of neighborhood issues. I noticed that the proposed conditions to include this type of
City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Castilleja Project
May 22, 2022
Page 4
information for the TDM Oversight Committee but not here. Why not include the same rules for
both?
No. 19 – The contract between the school and the parents should include a provision that the
parents have read the transportation and parking handbook and the parents agree to comply with
it. Also, it should include a provision that failure to comply with the transportation and driving
rules is grounds to cancel the contract.
Transportation Demand Management Plan
Overall, this section leaves way too much discretion to the school in determining what it feels
like doing about single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) uses. No private school is going to weigh the
feelings of parents and their willingness to pay enormous sums for tuition against the problems
associated with SOV uses, and then come out in favor of forcing parents to give up using their
SOVs. It is too easy for parents to find another private school with looser requirements. Just
trying give the school all of that flexibility, that then adds up to pleasing parents also is causing
vagueness problems throughout the section, as shown below.
No. 22 – a. and c. contradict each other. d. adds more confusion because it does not define
“reporting period.” One provides for average daily trips not exceeding 1198 trips and the other
focuses on AM peak trips not exceeding 383 trips. As I have mentioned before, specific metrics
are far more enforceable than averages because there are ways to work around the averages, e.g.,
just closing the school for a day will impact the average.
Unless the City Council is confident that all of the vehicles will go over the counters and that the
averaging system cannot be “gamed,” it is much clearer to follow the Archer School approach of
requiring that a certain, hopefully high, percentage of students must arrive and leave by bus, a
specified number of students may arrive by vehicles, and the rest must walk or bike. There
should also be a prohibition on students driving to school. Kids will drive to the mailbox if you
let them – they love to drive. And parents love to let them as it frees them up from the
responsibility of timely putting their teens onto busses. However, traffic and climate change
conditions really do militate against this practice. Everyone, no matter their income level, has a
responsibility to cut down the amount of SOVs on the roadways.
h-i. includes offers of shuttles and busses. In a pandemic world, offers are not sufficient to reduce
use of SOVs. As to special events there is no reason not to require use of shuttles. Wineries are
now doing that with no problem. Ridge Vineyard in the Santa Cruz mountains routinely has wine
and food events. They require guests to park at outlying parking lots and then ride a shuttle to
and from the lots. There is no other way to get there and back! A simple solution – the school
follows it and tells invitees that they cannot park at or near the school and the only way to come
and go is by shuttle unless they have a handicap placard.
City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Castilleja Project
May 22, 2022
Page 5
j. This requires the school to “routinely monitor and reassess drop-off and pick-up assignments. .
. . What does that mean? Again, there needs to be independent monitoring by a traffic
engineering company. A private school depends heavily on letting parents do as they please to
avoid them taking their children elsewhere. We submitted sample CUPs and TDMs with a
provision for independent traffic monitoring.
23. - 25. These also require self-reporting. The list in 24 is fine, but it needs to be done by an
independent, licensed traffic engineer. The visits should occur on a particular schedule and
without prior notice to the school. For example, in the beginning the traffic engineer should
arrive at the school unannounced at least once a month during the first school year, and twice
during the summer program if it lasts all summer. He or she would fill out a table with the items
in 24. The number of times the engineer visits should be reduced over time, depending on
compliance. A matrix of check marks, spaces for specific information, and a place for comments
should be in the form for the inspection reports.
25. a. viii. The penalties for noncompliance by parents should be specified in this CUP.
x. The condition needs to have the school enforcing use of the ID tags, not just providing them to
parents. The conditions should not allow student drivers, especially given the nature of the site.
xii. This section again relies totally on cooperation by parents, something that is especially not in
evidence during the pandemic. A better approach, besides using specific metrics and not
averages and having specific requirements around the topic of non-SOV usage would be to
require each parent to provide a “transportation plan” that will be binding on the parent and
included in the school’s contract with the parent.
xiii. A condition that has the school “experimenting” is too vague to provide any enforceability.
What does “experimenting” even mean and how will compliance be measured?
xv. Suffers from the same vagueness as xiii. How can the City measure compliance with this:
“Castilleja will continue to review its event calendaring process . . . .
xvi. There are multiple mentions of traffic monitors in the CUP conditions. Who are they?
Students, staff, adults? How many are required to be at what sites?
xvii. Again, this condition has the school “reviewing” something. The City and community
would be much better served with specifics in these conditions. The vagueness, parent-voluntary
compliance, and unenforceability problems are evident throughout this section.
City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Castilleja Project
May 22, 2022
Page 6
xxi. Another good example of the problems – this section has the school developing a
“comprehensive incentive program” . . . for using non-SOV transportation. That should be
spelled out – what is the city requiring should be included in the “comprehensive incentive
program”?
26. This section leaves open the possibility of the City requiring more information on traffic
issues, to be funded by the school. Unless the school agrees on the record to this very open-
ended condition, it is not enforceable.
34. a. Why would the City wait for two years before doing something about violation of
conditions?! This entire section is unnecessarily cumbersome, and for the most part very hard to
enforce due to the legal vesting of the 540 students. It would be better to go up to the prior
sections on penalties and just say that one of the penalties would be reduction of enrollment to
correct violations of the use permit. Leave out restoration of enrollment because it is too
speculative to figure out without any facts of the violations.
a. i. Again – self-reporting and self-correction: the school finds out that it has been violating its
number of cars coming to the school, and then on its own, it determines additional TDM
measures. That does not make sense is unrealistic.
a.iii. This section is unenforceable – it has a reduction in enrollment of 5 students or whatever
number the planning director decides on. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the legal
term “vesting.” The City is vesting the school with 540 students and it cannot sort of take back
that enrollment without due process, normally including a hearing and the right to appeal the
decision. This section is a good example of why it is better not to vest the school with 540
students from outset.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Very truly yours,
Leila H. Moncharsh
Leila H. Moncharsh, J.D., M.U.P.
Veneruso & Moncharsh
LHM:lm
City Council
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Castilleja Project
May 22, 2022
Page 7
Emailed To:
Honorable Mayor Pat Burt
Honorable Vice Mayor Lydia Kou
Honorable Council Members Alison Cormack, Tom DuBois, Eric Filseth, Greer Stone, and Greg
Tanaka
Palo Alto City Attorney Molly Stump
Deputy City Attorney Albert Yang
City Manager Ed Shikada
cc: Clients
From:Rita Vrhel
To:Council, City
Subject:please see attached letter and supporting documents
Date:Sunday, May 22, 2022 4:32:12 PM
Attachments:5-22-22 letter to each City Council member.doc
CastillejaCurrCUP-yr2000.PDF
castilleja-school-building-survey-and-gfa-111721.pdf
Some people who received this message don't often get email from ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net. Learn
why this is important
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.
I have emailed each City Council member a copy of my letter and the two supporting
documents.
I ask that all be entered into the public record.
thank you
Rita C. Vrhel
Phone: 650-325-2298
Dear City Councilmembers:
Re: Castilleja Agenda Item on 5-23-22
I believe our City Policies, Procedures, Rules, Regulations, Codes,
Ordinances and encompassing Plans were developed to provide a detailed
and legal framework for asking and answering questions, addressing issues,
and settling disputes arising within our City limits; all while promoting
public trust by providing consistency and transparency.
To me, they also provide a framework for our daily life where residents will
not be at a disadvantage when speaking against developers, businesses,
organizations or individuals with more money or power.
When numerous variances, considerations or the appearance of special
treatment not supported by our legal framework are granted, public mistrust
and anger can result.
On 5-23, you are being asked to determine the fate of a neighborhood and
likely other neighborhoods in Palo Alto. Whatever exceptions, variances,
encroachments, etc. you decide to grant Castilleja will become precedent
and be demanded in the future.
Neighbors and other residents have joined together for six (6) long years to
oppose Castilleja’s current request for a significant student increase and a
large expansion of their campus.
Castilleja listed, as required, existing sq. footage and proposed sq. footage
on their original and on each subsequent set of plans. As the existing sq.
footage was not consistent on their plans, it was investigated by a resident.
For some time, residents repeatedly reported these discrepancies (in
Castilleja’s stated existing sq. footage) to City officials and to the City
Council.
Finally, on 3-15-2021, Staff was directed to hire an outside consultant to
determine the accurate sq. footage of Castilleja’s existing buildings.
On 3-29-2021, the City Council passed a motion which, among other items,
“directed Staff and the PTC to review an underground parking facility
alternative that allows a maximum of 50% of the required on-site parking to
be below grade without counting against the project floor-area. No more
than 50% of the required on-site parking may be located below grade…”
Not until Dudek’s 11-17-2021 Castilleja School Building Survey and
Gross Floor Area Assessment was it revealed that Castilleja’s current
total Gross Floor Area is 138,000 sq. ft. Their allowed Gross Floor Area
is 81,000 sq. ft., a difference of 47,000 sq. ft. or 58% over what is
allowed per code. Dudek’s report is attached.
When voting on Castilleja’s expansion plans, no City Council member, ARB
or PTC Commissioner ever knew Castilleja’s accurate sq. footage prior to
Dudek’s 11-17-2021 report.
Based on the above information documenting Castilleja’s current
overdevelopment as 47,000 sq. feet over allowed GFA, I ask:
1. How can a reduction of 7,000 sq. ft from what currently exists
be described as legal and code compliant?
2. Does not moving required parking below grade to a
controversial and incompatible underground parking garage and
not counting its sq. footage towards Castilleja’s FAR promote if
not subsidize Castilleja’s sq. footage non- conformance?
Because during this entire project, Castilleja incorrectly represented their
actual existing sq. footage (GFA), I am requesting that you, the City
Council, not feel bound by Part B of your 3-29-2021 Motion directing Staff
and the PTC to review an underground parking facility alternative and not
count the garage’s sq. footage as part of the project.
Your Motion was, unfortunately, based on grossly accurate information and
therefore should be reconsidered.
I am also attaching the two (2) Use Permits (No.99-UP-43 on 3-17 and
Conditional Use Permit # 00-CUP-23 on 11-2) granted to Castilleja in 2000.
A review of these documents clearly establishes what enrollment increases
were allowed by the City and a nineteen (19) year pattern of over enrollment
by Castilleja.
A clause in each Use Permit exists and clearly defines corrective actions to
address any non- compliance. Unfortunately, the conditions in the CUP were
not followed or enforced.
Use Permit # 99-UP-43 was for minor sq. footage adjustments to meet
handicapped accessibility requirements. “There was no new increase in floor
area associated with the project.” Thirty - six (36) conditions of approval
were listed.
On 11-2-2000 a second Use Permit (00-CUP-23) was issued, which allowed
for an increase from 385-415 students. Three (3) conditions of approval
were listed; one of which stated “No approvals for any physical
improvements to the site are implied or given through the approval of this
Use Permit.”
Both contained a Note which indicated: “In any case in which the condition
to the granting of a Use Permit have not been complied with, the Current
Planning Manager shall give notice to the permittee of intention to revoke
such permit at least ten (10) days prior to a hearing thereon. Following such
hearing and if good cause exists therefore, the Current Planning Manager
may revoke the Use Permit.”
In my opinion, and the opinion of many others, the City process concerning
Castilleja has been flawed for decades. Castilleja has been allowed
FAR exceptions not granted to other entities.
Please do not allow Castilleja to proceed with their ambitious expansion
plans which continue violations and erode public trust.
Please follow the PTC’s recommendation for incremental student increases
based on quantifiable performance criteria monitored at regular intervals by
an independent entity which is funded Castilleja.
The public’s respect for our elected City Council and confidence in our City
governance asks that this well- intended motion regarding Castilleja’s
underground garage and its FAR exception be reconsidered.
Sincerely,
Rita Vrhel
5-22-2022
Attachments:
John Lusardi 11/2/2000 letter to Ms. Bond/Castilleja
City of Palo Alto11/2/2000 Use permit # 00-CUP-23
City of Palo Alto 3/17/2000 Use Permit No. 99-UP-48
Dudek’s 11/17/2021 Castilleja School Building Survey and Gross Floor
Area Assessment
The purpose of this letter is to infbrm you that the approved Conditional Use Fermit does
Planning Division
notprovide for an increase in stu{ents of 415 students, and that any subsequelpt request
for additional students will not be favorabl
ulation. However, the Ci1.y is not lrvilling to
Sincerely,
Lusardi, Current Planning
Rachel Adcox, Planner
250 lllamilton Ayenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
650,329 ,2441
650.329 2154 fax
Appli e$i qn Nq. 0o_-c-UP-23 :
UEe Permit 0trCUP.23 i5
enrolled sorderi$ from 3&f to 4
is located at I3l0 Bryam
Disrict. Projscc apprroval is
below.
Ptenntng Dt'brcn FIIIDINPS
I Tlu proposed use, at
Foperg or
safety, general welfoe
timefaculty mcmbers
in thc area or to the
sssociat€d with the
previorxly iosued for the
irnprovements inchdo
arsas to hnprovo raffio
spaccs, aad
condition ofthis Use
to include uo fewer thEn
busses.
Theproposeduse will be
Comprelunstve PIan nd
The site is located in a
arc conditionalty
prcscdbed condldons of
Peruit 99-LrP-48 $,ill bcb
parfing. Theimprovcmmn
Permitwi[ hing fte site
of the Palo Alto Mruricipal
Goals T-3 and T-4 of tbe
and automobilcs will bc
qVef P4sNtq
Dapartment of planninp and
Cunmunity Envitnnmd,it
l0 Erygng, p trt*l (CrqtiUeJry ff q.h,oq D
ued to dlow Castilleja School to incrcare ths illFnbar of
s&&trts and rdd two fulldme facutty trrnbers. T{e school
tn the vicinity, indwill not b0 dettimettfll to the puittq taalii
cowenlcnce,
The proposed errollment
Sohool has taken $€ps to
,ofvewznce,
rctgsgc fiom 385 to 4t
nof bs dctisrcntal or
C{stilleja
piok-up
dorkins
a Trausponauon uemand
Ca*illeja must also reconfi
psddrg spac€s and a loadinglunloa{ing ffea fortrudks and
ted ond condudad h q n ilrgr tn accord wtth tlw pdto AInpurposw ofTttle lB of tle palo Alto illwicipal Cofu.
rcSideotial zom where p,rirate educationsl diUriru[.^:ri^-^t f-^:1jL. ^.. -fr I IThe-oducation&l frciUty will bc used in accorAancf witU
Tls coDditions of apptovA for thc fjast add Use
trs iryos* on thc unmurding apa regaditrg mSrrod
to the facility rpsuircd by Use pernit gg-Up4g uoa tnl, U."
ryorc_sutstanfal corapliame with t.-rb na*inU rsquirehcntr
The rcquircd inpoveo€f,ts wiil atso te consige+ u,j$
Plan in that access for trcdesbians, bicy'ptiss
250Hr$llton Av.nue
PO, B{o( 10250
PaloAlto, CA 94306
ffi329'gilr
6n&92t51tu(