Officials at Castilleja School have submitted a request for a variance for their proposed campus rebuild, according to a March 22 letter from their attorneys to city of Palo Alto planners.
The variance application would not change the above-grade floor area at 1310 Bryant St. and 1235, 1263 Emerson St. Rather, it is a formal request based on a requirement the city is now implementing regarding the school’s application to demolish and replace five structures with one building and to add underground parking.
For Castilleja, the variance requirement also represents another hurdle in the school’s ambitious expansion plan. Developers typically use variances when they seek deviation from zoning rules, typically because of physical site constraints or situations in which strict adherence to code would subject the development to “substantial hardships.”
The school received notification from the city stating that it would have to submit the variance request, as opposed to having it be part of the school’s existing conditional-use permit. In prior years, the city had granted the school an exception to its R-1 residential zone floor-area ratio (FAR) limitations — which dictate how much new development is allowed — through the conditional-use permit, the school maintained. Staff told the school the variance would now be required, according to Castilleja officials.
Hillary Gitelman, director of Planning and Community Environment, said in an email to the Weekly: “Based on a plain reading of the code, staff concludes a variance, and not a CUP, is the appropriate application to address this request. To the best of staff’s knowledge, the city has not expressly granted an FAR exception through the CUP process in the past.”
The distinction could prove consequential for the school. If the city opts not to approve the variance request, Castilleja could be compelled to reduce its square footage in the rebuild. That’s because when the city changed its maximum FAR limitations, many of Castilleja’s buildings were already constructed and were thus grandfathered in. Other buildings were constructed after the city’s adoption of the new FAR standards, but the city granted a conditional-use permit, making the additional square footage acceptable, according to the letter.
Castilleja officials said on Thursday that without a variance, the school could retain its current FAR on campus by keeping the existing configuration of the buildings. Instead of demolishing five buildings to make way for one new building, the school could remodel all of the buildings.
“That option would not meet the goals of the school, that is why we are asking for the variance. To fulfill our mission we need a new, sustainable campus with flexible learning spaces that can last for the next 100 years,” spokeswoman Kristin Neirinckx said in a statement from school officials.
The new proposal would add about 24,000 square feet of open space and bike amenities for the public, and it would put parking underground. The latter “amenity” is highly controversial, however. Many nearby residents, but not all, are strongly opposed to the parking garage and a proposed increase in enrollment, which they say will add to existing traffic woes if permitted.
Castilleja applied for a separate variance for the underground parking garage on April 28, 2017.
Gitelman said by email that as designed, the underground garage encroaches into a required special setback: “The applicant has indicated their interest in using a variance application to address this encroachment.”
Gitelman said preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report was paused for a few months. Neirinckx said the completion of the report is not expected until sometime this summer.
Related content:
• Castilleja plan creates rifts among neighbors
Castilleja continues to show its contempt for neighbors and surrounding community. They could educate hundreds of more women by splitting the campus or moving. They certainly have ingrained ill will towards the school for the next 100 years.
Rather than building a huge new parking structure that will encourage more driving, how about using that money to get people to/from the school in new ways?
And if they do build the garage, the city should require that parking not be given away to staff for free. They should be required to “unbundle” the parking, and charge employees at least a relatively market rate for it. Seattle’s city council just passed a similar law for residential parking, and it makes a HUGE difference in disincentivizing driving, where drivers typically don’t actually pay for the costs of parking their cars.
I would not blame the Casti folks if they just packed up and left town, given the bad reception every one of their proposals receives. Most cities and neighborhoods would be proud to have one of the best girls’ schools in the world call it home. Not Palo Alto. Just too NIMBY for anything that does not fit perfectly with their individual needs and wants. No wonder we don’t have any real projects for less fortunate people. Irony is that all these self-professed progressive liberals see themselves as open-minded and tolerant. Look in the mirror, folks.
The logic of the one of these comments amounts to:
“Castro is a good schools. Therefore let them do whatever they want.”
Why can’t such a good school follow its agreed on rules?
@To Emmet: As your spelling and grammar shows, you likely don’t know what a good school is. Freudian slip, that Castro reference?
Before everyone goes bananas about a variance, check this out:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0231.htm
Variances are not granted randomly or casually; they have to have legally defined grounds for the request to be granted. Among them is “exceptional difficulty or unusual hardship,” and “the hardship must be imposed by conditions outside the property owner’s control.”
Some lawyer has to decide whether this request for a variance meets these (and other) conditions.
This is not an opinion for or against, just a statement of fact.
Having seen the signs in front of many beautiful houses in PA, I find the pro-expansion signs (“we support women’s education”) bold, non-specific and suspicious. It alienates others and portrays them as “anti-women.” It kind of resonates WWII era propaganda which persists in countries with dictatorship governments. Anti-expansionist signs have a clear message (“stop expansion”)- therefore they sound more trustworthy.
I”m so tired of Castilleja thinking they are entitled to grow just because they have to turn down a number of girls every year. Every private school turns down plenty of deserving eager applicants. Every school supports education for women and I’m embarrassed my alma mater would encourage neighbors to put up signs like that. Who doesn’t support educating women? Stop this expansion madness. The school is in the middle of a congested neighborhood and should respect the limits the city has established. This sense of entitlement is what’s wrong with the world and they are passing it on to every young girl that goes through there who thinks they need to fight the system for women’s right to an education. BTW- in my four years of high school I was stressed out every day. It was absolutely HELL as I look back on it. Casti should put all this renovation money into renovating their educational model and raise happy, resilient, confident, healthy self thinkers not anorexic, depressed, cutters who constantly feel like they have to prove themselves better than everyone else.
Given the disdain the school has shown to the city and their neighbors, ignoring a deal made with the city to limit enrollment, there is absolutely no reason that should be granted a variance. The city should be imposing fines for their continured violation of the agreement and the negative impact that the school has on their neighbors.
As a parent of a former Casitlleja student, I applaud the school for the work they do and recognize them as a valuable resource in our community. They are clearly bending over backwards to accommodate the neighborhood while building for the future of our children. I wish them well for generations to come.
@Casti Parent – no one is disputing the fact that Casti is a great school. As stated by many people previously, if they want to grow their school, they should add an additional site – just like Nueva, Keys, Crystal Springs, Pinewood, Harker, etc. If the decide to renovate, they should be required to go back to their permitted size.
My daughter attended Castilleja. It is indeed a great school. Not supporting the variance or the expansion does not equate to not supporting women’s education or not acknowledging the quality of education young women receive there. It is ludicrous to suggest that it does.
Castilleja is located near one of the most congested, worst traffic areas in the city. One could argue that the location is the #1 place to NOT expand a campus and NOT add years of construction traffic to the already congested situation. The problems associated with the City’s success and growth combine to make “Sorry, No” the best answer to the variance request.
How old is the expansion plan, anyway? As I recall, the school was in violation of the enrollment cap for 15 years; may still be. Had they gone out and found a 2nd site 15 years ago a second Casti campus could have graduated several classes of young women by now. And saved themselves a heap of money. It’s not too late to pursue that.
C
The diagram is confusing. I see an exit pointing to Melville and an exit to Embarcadero below Bryant. Why does one of the red boxes extend over Embarcadero? Are these also entrances?
The diagram is superimposed on the current site. It should show just the proposed layout.
Seems more calculated to confuse than to enlighten.
Why can’t they just move their campus? Are families sending their girls there because of the location on the Embarcadero/old PA corridor?
Why doesn’t Castilleja have a Castilleja Bus to bring the many students, who do not live in Palo Alto, to the school. A pick up site in Portola Valley for instance.
sorry i have no sympathy for Casti folks given they lied about enrollment for many years. It’s simple….. If you want to expand find a new campus!!!
Stanford Hospital, Stanford Univ, PAMF and PALY depend HEAVILY on Embarcadero St. and El Camino Real. Please don’t OVERLOAD the major streets in case of any catatrophe happened. Especially the major routes to the ER, hospitals.
Totally agree with “no sympathy”. They lied for years. They are over their enrollment cap. Move out or expand elsewhere and stop bothering neighbors and all of Palo Alto with this ridiculous notion that you need a bigger school.
@Green Gables They do. They have a couple of shuttles that serve Portola Valley and Los Altos students
Castillega is pushing its luck. Hopefully they rethink their entitlment to expansion. Embacaero Road becomes a parking lot during certain times of day (falls within school day beginning and ending). If they want to expand – find some property to develop a second campus towards Woodside/PV or Atherton — in many instances it will be closer to home for many students and Palo Alto won;t that to bear the burden of incresed congestion or pollution. Expansion means more money/endowmet for the school, not necessarily a better edcuation .
So much dishonesty and manipulation, I have little sympathy for the school:
Cheating on the enrollment number for years.
The tricky public meetings where they would not answer questions, they kept saying, wait for the EIR; and earlier, only asked the panel the written questions they approved.
Their signs ‘Support Women’s Education’ are so offensive and dishonest. Who doesn’t support women’s education? As though that’s the issue.
Interfering with traffic on Embarcadero Road.
These are developer tactics: change the subject, and throw mud at your opponent.