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.

Just say NO already. It takes real nerve to violate your enrollment cap for years and then demand and expect a huge enrollment increase.

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).

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.

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.]

[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!

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.

[Post removed.]

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?

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.

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!

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!

@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./

Can someone start a ballot measure to settle this once and for all?

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.

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?