Just say no to Casti already and bill them for all the wasted time spent on their entitled demands that disrupt Palo Alto residents and taxpayers and will disrupt traffic on Embarcadero, a major road that's already gridlocked.

Over the past six years how much has the city spent in staff time and on consultants? How much have the poor residents spent on their consultants over the past six years?

Why did it take 6 -- SIX -- long years to for our highly paid staff to address the most major issues with this nonsense like who'd paid to monitor Casti traffic demand management violations, how cars would be counted, etc etc etc ???

Castilleja has had a cozy relationship with city staff. Shikada should not have put this item on the consent calendar. As a graduate of the high school when the student population was in harmony with this lovely Palo Alto neighborhood — there was no discord. Castilleja no longer has borders at the school. It wears a corporate face and cares nothing for the neighbors. The sewer pipe being five feet from the garage is imprudent. This infrastructure issue is serious. It would be unsafe and trigger litigation should damage occur and be difficult to remediate. The city council has to stay on top of staff and Castilleja. Thank you Burt, Kou and Lauing for not allowing this on consent. The city has already played a role in allowing the increase in enrollment that hurts the neighborhood. Now it is time to protect infrastructure and the neighbors.

My thoughts and prayers…

Death, taxes . . . and requests for special treatment by Castilleja. Some things never change.

Oh FFS, the reason this took six years, as the commenter above noted, is that opponents like Rob Levitsky—and the folks who flock to every PA Weekly article that so much as mentions Castilleja—make a federal case out of every single trivial issue, as evidenced by this easement. The actual question is whether the easement can move 15 feet, a change that those who actually have the expertise to evaluate the proposal on its merits have said would not have a significant impact. But for some neighbors (and the numerous non-neighbors who still feel the need to sound off), the pound of flesh they extracted in the previous approval processes isn't enough, and this is yet another chance to re-litigate their losing arguments. No other person, private organization, or public entity receives this level of scrutiny or acrimony in town discussions. Shame on Burt, Kou, and Lauing for allowing this to drag on.

City Council: There is a reason this has taken 6 years. It's because the people who live here are quite unhappy with what Castilleja has gotten away with (lies & over-enrollment) - and the fact that the city is aiding them. We DON'T want them to expand. This is NOT downtown. It is our neighborhood.

@Younger PA Resident, you might be interested to learn that many Casti grads and Casti parents like at least 2 posting above objected strongly to Casti's expansion AND dismissive attitudes to the 5 C's of the Casti values code.

What fun to see Castilleja once again raising blood pressures around town. However, Younger PA resident seems correct in labeling the school's request as trivial and unworthy of our ire. So, step up your game Castilleja! You've proved capable in the past of coming up with meaningful reasons for us to rev our outrage engines. I know you can do it again.

Thank you Burt, Kou, and Lauing for not allowing Casti and the city planning staff from steam rolling over our city codes and neighborhood residents.

Our previous Director of Planning once stated to council that the purpose of the Planning Office was to represent and advocate on behalf of applicants. I also observed the member of the planning staff who has been Casti’s point person put her arm around a property developer whose first request to subdivide a property and build within a few feet of Matadors Creek had just been turned down by the Planning Commission, tell him they would appeal and succeed next time.

And to all those who say, what about the infamous so-called Palo Alto process, after a number of decades observing Planning Commission meetings, developers opening gambit is to present initial applications that go way beyond what is permitted. The next year or two they argue, bully, negotiate with the city down from their initial proposal to end up with a “compromise” with their getting more than technically allowed. Developers and their acolytes then claim the high ground and complain how outrageously long the Palo Alto process takes, which the press will happily report.. A win-win.