Castilleja School's ambitious plan to redevelop its Bryant Street campus ran into a fresh complication Wednesday night, with members of Palo Alto's Planning and Transportation Commission voicing concerns about the school's proposed garage and suggesting that its analysis needs more work.
After a lengthy public hearing, which featured more than two-and-a-half hours of public comments and 200 pages of letters both supporting and protesting the project, the commission agreed to postpone most of its discussion to Sept. 9. But before the meeting concluded, numerous commissioners said they were concerned that Castilleja hadn't adequately explored redevelopment options that forego the plan's most contentious feature: an underground garage.
The project, which has been in the works for the past four years, is expected to go to the City Council later this fall. It calls for a phased building plan that includes the construction of the garage; the relocation of the swimming pool to an underground level and the replacement of most of the campus' buildings. Castilleja, a private all-girls school that serves middle and high school students, is also applying for a new conditional use permit that would allow an increase in enrollment from the current level of 426 to 540.
On Wednesday, the commission heard from dozens of speakers, with supporters of the project lauding Castilleja as a considerate neighbor and a valuable institution and opponents suggesting that the school adds no real benefits to Palo Alto and that it should look for another location if it wants to expand.
Some residents, including those affiliated with the group PNQLNow (Preserve Neighborhood Quality of Life Now), maintained that the proposed underground garage is both illegal and incompatible with their single-family neighborhood. Castilleja countered that the garage is permitted for nonresidential uses and that it was introduced into the project at the suggestion of the very neighbors who are now opposing it.
While Castilleja tried to appease the critics earlier this year by adding an alternative that would reduce the garage and disperse pick-up and drop-off points for students at three areas of campus, the new option did little to appease critics. Several residents suggested that the school adopt a model in which all students are dropped off at parking lots farther from the campus and shuttled in.
Hank Sousa suggested that the school can utilize parking lots at Shoreline Athletic Fields in Mountain View and at the Baylands Athletic Field on Geng Road in Palo Alto.
"Please recommend this 21st century way of commuting as a complement to the green buildings the school is proposing to construct," said Sousa, who is affiliated with PNQLNow.
Andie Reed, a member of PNQLNow, argued that the school's goal of raising enrollment to 540 students is too ambitious and suggested that its conflict with the neighborhood could be resolved if Castilleja lowered its goal to about 450 students and implemented an alternative that does not include a garage.
Reed suggested that the city "set aside Castilleja's insistence on the city's permitting 540 students and focus on how a lower enrollment number would work."
Other residents strongly supported Castilleja's plan. They argued the opposition will keep on finding new reasons to attack the project, no matter what the school does.
"For the opposition, the target keeps moving," said Nancy Tuck, a neighborhood resident whose daughter graduated from Castilleja. "Castilleja makes the requested changes and new issues are invented. Nothing will placate them."
Tom Kemp, a resident of Midtown, noted that the school's revised plan, which reduces the size of the garage, allows Castilleja to save two homes on Emerson Street that were originally scheduled for demolition and to preserve more trees than in the original proposal. Both of those impacts have been heavily criticized by PNQLNow and other opponents of the Castilleja development in the months before the revised garage plan was released.
Glowe Chang, who lives near the school, also said she supports the expansion.
"I'm proud to have a school nearby offering opportunities to young women, and happy to support all of Casti's expansion efforts," Chang said.
While the commission saved most of its discussion for Sept. 9, several members indicated Wednesday that they will want to see further analysis before they could support the project.
Commissioner William Riggs argued that the "no garage" alternative in the Final Environmental Impact Report is "oversimplified" and "unacceptable." He similarly argued that the document's treatment of the "no project" alternative, including an exploration of a different site for expansion, is a "glaring omission."
Commission Chair Cari Templeton similarly argued that the EIR should have done a better job in exploring the "no garage" alternative and echoed the view of critics who maintained that installing a garage runs counter to the school's green goals.
"I expected something more sincere," Templeton said, referring to the analysis of the no-garage option.
Commissioner Doria Summa meanwhile said she wants to make sure the new conditional use permit for Castilleja includes enforcement mechanisms that ensure that the school does not exceed its enrollment limits or violate any of the conditions.
"For me to be comfortable, we need to find a way to a CUP that the city and school can enforce together because that has not been done for basically two decades," Summa said.
Comments
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 27, 2020 at 11:47 am
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2020 at 11:47 am
Planning commissioners thoughtfully listened for 2 hours to the school and City staff and 2-1/2 hrs of public comment, sifting through claims like saving trees keeps girls from being educated, and found issues that still remain unaddressed. Why is no one is talking about the garage when they talk about sustainability and greenness of this project? Why is saving the houses, which should never have been considered disposable, something residents should be grateful for? The neighbors have been saying for 4 years that the houses should not be demolished, and just now, because the EIR requires it, the school agrees and neighbors should be grateful? (Thank you for not holding the gun to my head anymore). If you look back, the neighbors are saying the exact same things they have been saying for 4 years since the plans were first submitted; reduce size and scope, enrollment increases and events. Be a good neighbor. Historically there is a lot of work to be done for neighbors to trust this school.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Aug 27, 2020 at 12:13 pm
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2020 at 12:13 pm
Just say NO already. It takes real nerve to violate your enrollment cap for years and then demand and expect a huge enrollment increase.
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 27, 2020 at 12:21 pm
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2020 at 12:21 pm
Stop wasting the time and money of the taxpayers of Palo Alto. Go back to your CUP. If you want to grow your enrollment, move or add another campus (which most of your local private school cohorts have done).
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Aug 27, 2020 at 1:14 pm
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2020 at 1:14 pm
Both Castilleja and the community should be asking what the future is likely to bring for the school in terms of its space needs.
It is clear that the most important issue to the school is how many students they can enroll. This is underscored by the fact that the school has violated its current CUP restriction for decades and displays no contrition.
The school is proposing to increased its CUP from 426 to 540. Is 540 really enough that the school will be able to meet this limit for the foreseeable future, or will they soon be once again in violation and/or asking for further increases?
I did a bit of research on the topic of optimal private high school sizes. There are many opinions about this but not a lot of science. Some people prefer smaller and more intimate schools, and some prefer larger schools that can provide more variety in courses and activities, as well as amortizing centralized costs among more students.
Some data points. The school currently has 7 grades (6 through 12). That is an average of 426/7 = 61 students per grade with the current CUP, and 540/7=77 students with the proposed CUP.
Looking at the numbers for comparable schools, Menlo School is perhaps the most relevant, since Castilleja frequently compares itself to Menlo. Menlo has 7 grades and 800 students, or an average of 114 per grade. Palo Alto High has 4 grades and about 2000 students, averaging 500 students per grade. Public high schools generally have much larger class sizes and more students, but can offer many more kinds of activities.
My guess is that 540 students is not going to satisfy Castilleja for long and that they will be making some effort to obtain more space. The current struggle is not going to be the end.
I suggest that Castilleja should give this some thought to what their future is going to be. Perhaps relocating all or part makes more sense. Many schools have divided their grades into different buildings (Harker and Pinewood for example); there are educational justifications for this practice.
It might make sense to find another facility for grades 3-6. This would allow 426/4=106 students per each of grades 9-12 using the current CUP at the current facility, comparable to Menlo School.
Registered user
Professorville
on Aug 27, 2020 at 4:20 pm
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2020 at 4:20 pm
I agree with many of these posts: Stop this project. If you want more students, find another campus somewhere else. A history of cheating on enrollment does not earn friends and I am no friend of this elitist school without morals. [Portion removed.]
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 27, 2020 at 5:43 pm
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2020 at 5:43 pm
[Portion removed.] If you want to expand, please find another campus. There are lots of empty building/lots in Palo Alto and Bayarea. Just move on!
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Aug 27, 2020 at 8:49 pm
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2020 at 8:49 pm
As a Castilleja parent, I am grateful for the above comments. What the School has done over the last 19 years by exceeding their agreed to CUP is shameful! Esp. by a School which repeatedly touts itself as the only school which can "truly educate girls". What are they teaching these young ladies by lying?
How can a garage be called a basement? Amy French had some trouble explaining that slight of hand. Well it seems an underground garage is not allowed in a R-1 zone but a "basement" is.
How many "basements" built in Palo Alto hold nothing but cars? I think we can reasonably say none! But if it is "basement", the square footage also does not count in the Floor Area Ratio.
Why the new "improved" traffic plan was not evaluated is also of interest. Same unacceptable number of cars; another slight of hand.
And the initial traffic and noise studies in the DEIR were a sham; I believe the PTC even commented to that effect last year.
And then there is the topic of 'Trust". I am not a neighbor, but see how neighbors have long stopped "trusting" anything Castilleja representatives have to say. Seems reasonable after 19 years of repeated deception. But suddenly the neighbors are asked to trust and are castigated when they can't.
Castilleja needs to drop the garage, adopt a shuttle bus system like Big Tech, and find another site on which to relocate or expand. Start being a good neighbor like you once were.
Thank you.
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Aug 27, 2020 at 9:19 pm
Registered user
on Aug 27, 2020 at 9:19 pm
[Post removed.]
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Aug 28, 2020 at 8:41 pm
Registered user
on Aug 28, 2020 at 8:41 pm
I really don't understand why Castilleja is keep pushing for the underground garage. Is it this 100 years old institution's mission to build an underground garage or to education the next generation of women leaders? If it is really the latter, why are they spending so much of the time and effort for over 4 years and wasting the City and the residents time and resources to keep pushing for garage that is bad for the environment, Palo Alto and the neighborhood?
Registered user
Barron Park
on Aug 29, 2020 at 8:25 am
Registered user
on Aug 29, 2020 at 8:25 am
In all the thousands of words written about this proposed project I have yet to see a description of how it would benefit to the neighborhood or the city. This is a private school that draws students from throughout the peninsula. And while the students may receive an excellent education, precious few will end up living here and adding to our community. Given there are reasonable alternatives that would allow the school to grow while reducing or eliminating problems for residents, the only honest solution is to reject the proposal.
Registered user
Downtown North
on Sep 1, 2020 at 3:31 pm
Registered user
on Sep 1, 2020 at 3:31 pm
Marissa Mayer's amazing idea to transform a mortuary into a cultural center met with the same parochial views that are trying to reject the proposal by the Castilleja School today. It is time to trust in education and community a lot more!
Registered user
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Sep 1, 2020 at 4:33 pm
Registered user
on Sep 1, 2020 at 4:33 pm
Ardan Michael Blum calls for more trust in education and community re the Castilleja plans. Why would you trust an institution that violated its CUP and blew off the neighboring community for so many years? Fool me once!
Registered user
Downtown North
on Sep 1, 2020 at 5:51 pm
Registered user
on Sep 1, 2020 at 5:51 pm
@Observer who states that they are a resident of Leland Manor/Garland Drive - I write to suggest that you review for a second the following: You write from an address which stands for expansion in education! And as far as missing or not attending - move on! No one was worried when Palantir took over all of Palo Alto. Trust is sometimes broken but the string between the two people/parties when re-attached with a knot makes the cut string shorter and unites people. Mistakes, missed meetings, things that did not go perfectly do not need hard and fast radical "no chance" reactions. Seek the middle ground./
Registered user
Midtown
on Sep 2, 2020 at 10:36 am
Registered user
on Sep 2, 2020 at 10:36 am
Can someone start a ballot measure to settle this once and for all?
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Sep 3, 2020 at 3:03 pm
Registered user
on Sep 3, 2020 at 3:03 pm
Again, Casti is a great school that contributes nothing to the residents of Palo Alto, except to waste our time and money.
If you truly want to educate more women, add a campus or move. Most local private schools have multiple sites - Crystal Springs, Pinewood, Harker, Nueva to name a few.
Again, please stop wasting the time and money of Palo Alto residents who receive zero benefit from your school.
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Sep 6, 2020 at 3:50 pm
Registered user
on Sep 6, 2020 at 3:50 pm
Firstly, an organization to group that has knowingly and deliberately violated their user permit for year, aka cheating, shouldn't be allowed to ask for, nor demand anything.
Secondly, Casti is a private girls, school that is academically excellent, no doubt about it. So what? If they want to grow their enrollment in a residential area, they need to move entirely, or open another campus in a non residential area anywhere they can buy land in the Bay Area.
Why is anyone even wasting time and money on this dead horse?