HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170508plCC 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: 5/8/2017
Document dates: 4/19/2017 – 4/26/2017
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
TO:
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: BETH MINOR, CITY CLERK
DATE: APRIL 26, 2017
1
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1-Interviews of Candidates for the Human Relations
Commission, the Library Advisory Commission, the Public Art Commission, and
the Utilities Advisory Commission.
On April 25, 2017, the Agenda for this meeting was revised to:
A. Add Agenda Item A, Conference with City Attorney -Existing litigation -Buena Vista
Mobile Home Park; and
B. The meeting start time was rescheduled to 5:30 pm.
Interviews for Applicants to the Library Advisory Commission will be rescheduled to a date
uncertain.
On April 24, 2017, the City Clerk's Office learned Diana Maxwell withdrew her application for
the Public Art Commission. Find the updated tentative interview scheduled below.
Interviews will commence immediately following Agenda Item A.
1. Fenney, Linda PAC 6:30 PM (Participating via video conference)
2. Smith, Jeny PAC 6:40PM
3. Podulka, Kristen HRC 6:50 PM
4. Kiernan, Bette PAC 7:00 PM
5. Eisenberg, Rebecca HRC 7:10 PM
6. Pettit, Donna PAC 7:20 PM
1 of2
7.
8.
9.
IO.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
0
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
Scharf, Mary Ann
Alhassani, Mehdi
Taylor, Nia
Migdal, Jim
Ross, Amanda
Shen, Hisnya
Erickson, Britta
Lee, Steven
Brahmbhatt, Deepali
Smolar, Curtis
Weber, Jay
Forssell, Lisa
Segal, Lauren
Ezran, Claude
Beth Minor
City Clerk
PAC 7:30 PM
HRC 7:40 PM (Incumbent)
PAC 8:00 PM (Incumbent)
PAC 8: 10 PM (Incumbent)
PAC 8:20 PM (Incumbent)
PAC 8:30 PM
PAC 8:40 PM
HRC 8:50 PM
HRC 9:00 PM
UAC 9:10 PM
UAC 9:20 PM
UAC 9:30 PM (Incumbent)
UAC 9:40 PM
UAC 9:50 PM
2 of2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/20/2017 12:06 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net>
Sent:Thursday, April 20, 2017 11:56 AM
To:Council, City; Mello, Joshuah; board.secretary@vta.org;
BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org
Subject:Santa Clara County Transportation Measure B Workshop
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
VTA Board of Directors,
VTA Committee Members,
Santa Clara Board of Supervisors
I’m writing regarding the proposed restriction in the grade separation guidelines that would allow the Measure B funds only to be used on grade separations where the train remains as is and the road is lowered or raised over
the tracks.
The idea that funding would be restricted this way is unacceptable. It fact, it is bait-and-switch. This restriction was not noted in Measure B and certainly is NOT what was intended by the voters.
In Palo Alto, full overpass/underpass designs would require dozens of property takings, and therefore not
necessarily be “the most cost-effective grade separation alternatives possible.”
Each city should have the ability to determine how to meet its funding needs for the solution that best suits that city’s configuration without the threat of Measure B funds being withheld.
Regards,
Charmaine Furman Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/25/2017 8:36 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nancy Shepherd <nlshep@pacbell.net>
Sent:Tuesday, April 25, 2017 8:30 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Attachments:SCC VTA Rail Letter.docx; ID# 5175 Grade Sep.pdf
Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss and Council Member,
I wanted to share my letter with you regarding the VTA discussion of Guiding Principles for the use of Measure B
funds. As you know, CARRD got started at my house in spring 2009 with a standing only meeting regarding the impact of
HSR and grade separation, and I have kept in contact with CARRD members independently. This letter was prompted by
their outreach via PAN.
The VTA Board did not receive my communication prior to their meeting, as I had a narrow window of opportunity to
collect my points during a busy period. However, the meeting was for study only, and no action was taken. I hope VTA
staff can process the grade separation study by HMM for further decisions regarding grade separations options for Santa
Clara county.
If any of you are interested in reach out I’m happy to share my thinking based on my experiences and struggling with
the rail corridor challenges—which were intense between 2009‐2013. This project will be disruptive for Palo Alto at
many levels, and could diminish or add value to residential quality of life—depending on the leadership of Council. My
neighborhood (Southgate), and others along the rail corridor will be alter permanently and I hope that the City has the
community engaged in the process now, and not later as decisions by the State and County can box in good ideas and
options, and are not easily reversed.
Sincerely,
Nancy Shepherd
April 21, 2017
Topic: Agenda item 3.3 Caltrain Grade Separations Proposed Guidelines.
Dear Honorary Chairperson Bruins, Vice Chairperson Liccardo and VTA Board Members,
During my term on Palo Alto City Council, I was an alternate to the VTA PAC from 2010
through 2012. My passion for a strong and well run public transit system for Santa Clara (and
San Mateo) county continues to be a personal interest. I am proud that voters supported Measure
B, to fund Santa Clara County public transit improvements—especially along the rail corridor.
When on Palo Alto City Council, I also served from 2010 through 2013 on the Council Rail
Committee, and have a deep understanding of the challenges and opportunities for modernizing
the 150 year-old railroad system, a backbone of Palo Alto public transit with the most active
station on the Peninsula. On this committee, I initiated, with the support of colleagues, the Rail Corridor Study, now certified and part of the Transportation Element in the Comprehensive Plan; and, the Railroad Grade Separation Study by Hatch Mott McDonald for each of the three at-
grade crossings at Churchill, Meadow and Charleston. I have attached a copy of this report for
your information and review.
I call your attention to page 4 of the HMM study, on that page it indicates that each of the three rail crossings require significant property acquisitions based on two alternatives: 1) Alma Street
at grade: 45 full property acquisition, or 2) submerge Alma Street: 65 full property acquisitions.
Both options also require about a dozen partial property acquisitions. All of the identified
properties are in residential neighborhoods, and Palo Alto High School.
Furthermore, the report identified preliminary costs to the grade separation options. In summary,
costs are relatively the same to submerge the train versus keeping the train at grade, and
submerging autos—primarily because of the high cost to acquire residential property at current
market rate along the corridor.
The study also identified a likely project timeframe, and the Palo Alto community should
consider the disruption of shoefly tracks along Alma for a short period of years versus
condemning up to 65 or more residential units and public school property permanently to
maintain the train at current grade.
In conclusion, it is wise to adopt grade separation guidelines that will keep all options available
and allow each city to consider its best interest for their portion of the rail corridor. Based on
these preliminary costs, Palo Alto will need to craft a variety of funding sources to complement
the Measure B funds, but if VTA discounts the below grade option it will eliminate a vital revenue source as a contributing factor to resolve funding for Palo Alto.
Thank you for your service to the community, and the opportunity to address my concerns on the
Palo Alto rail corridor.
Sincerely,
Nancy Shepherd
Former Mayor, City of Palo Alto
1556 Madrono Avenue, Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto (ID # 5175)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 10/20/2014
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Palo Alto Grade Separation and Trenching Study
Title: Palo Alto Grade Separation and Trenching Study
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
This study session provides the City Council an opportunity to discuss findings in the attached
report by Hatch Mott McDonald (HMM) and provide direction on next steps. No action is
recommended at this time.
Executive Summary
HMM, a consulting firm specializing in construction engineering, was hired at the direction of
the Palo Alto City Council to study conceptual grade separation alternatives for a portion of the
Caltrain right of way encompassing three existing at-grade crossings (Charleston, Meadow, and
Churchill). This study provides preliminary information on the potential impacts and cost of
construction (by order of magnitude) for various roadway submersion and trenching
alternatives.
This information is intended to facilitate community dialogue on the issue and ultimately to
help form a policy position on grade separations. The study is not definitive in determining an
ultimate configuration, but does provide a starting point for dialogue on the issue. Specifically,
the study indicates that the roadway submersion alternatives would require significant
property acquisitions, while the trenching alternatives would not. Also, the trenching
alternatives would maintain turning movements along Alma Street, while not all of the roadway
submersion alternatives would do so.
For example, the two percent (2%) grade trenching alternative would grade separate
Charleston and Meadow for around $488 million and require zero property acquisitions versus
the alternative that submerges the roadway beneath the railroad tracks at Charleston and
Meadow and maintains turning movements on and off of Alma which would cost approximately
$320 million and require acquisition of 32 full parcels and seven partial parcels.
Background
City of Palo Alto Page 2
At the November 4, 2013 City Council meeting, HMM was authorized, at a cost of $59,790, to
move forward with Phase I of an analysis that delivered a conceptual cost estimate for a
number of preliminary grade separation alternatives south of the California Avenue Caltrain
Station. The most important information obtained from this analysis was intended to be a
clearer understanding of the differences in cost and construction impacts between submerging
the roadway and trenching the railroad at certain intersections in Palo Alto. The reason
trenching was only studied south of Oregon Expressway is that because if it was determined
that trenching was cost prohibitive south of Oregon Expressway it certainly would be north of
Oregon Expressway where trenching the corridor would require the complete reconstruction of
the City’s three existing grade separated crossings (Oregon Expressway, Embarcadero, and
University) and submerging the City’s two Caltrain stations (California Avenue and Palo Alto), in
addition to complications posed by San Francisquito Creek.
Phase I of the analysis, as presented in this report, evaluates the preliminary alternatives by
evaluating construction feasibility, right of way impacts (i.e. property acquisitions), and concept
level cost estimates for comparison purposes.
Phase II of the analysis would develop the City’s selected preliminary alternatives to a final
concept level, produce concept design exhibits, and provide refined order of magnitude project
costs and assessments of feasibility. The cost of Phase II would be an additional $67,760 and
staff is interested in hearing from the Council whether this additional work is needed to provide
sufficient information for community dialog and policy decisions regarding which of the
preliminary alternatives, if any, should be pursued from a funding and logistical standpoint with
outside agencies such as Caltrain, the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, and the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Listed below are the specific grade separation alternatives evaluated by HMM. Alternatives that
were studded by HMM are:
1. Trenching the corridor from approximately San Antonio to approximately Oregon
Expressway, which would grade separate both Meadow and Charleston by keeping the
existing roadways at-grade and running rail traffic beneath it in an open trench.
Please note that this alternative does not impact whether or not the roadway is
submerged below the railroad tracks at Churchill.
2. Submerging the roadway beneath the railroad tracks at Churchill
3. Submerging the roadway beneath the railroad tracks at Meadow
4. Submerging the roadway beneath the railroad tracks at Charleston
It should be noted, as the report from HMM indicates, that if Council chooses to pursue the
roadway submersion alternatives at both Charleston and Meadow that maintain turning
movements on and off of Alma they must be done as a single project due to their proximity;
however, submerging the roadway at Churchill can occur regardless of what happens at the
Meadow and Charleston intersections.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Attached for your review is HMM’s Palo Alto Grade Separation Study (Attachment A), including
an attachment that outlines the costs associated with each alternative. The primary difference
between the trenching estimate that was generated by HMM in 2011 and the one generated in
this study is that the previous estimate was based on California High Speed Rail Authority
(CHSRA) cost of construction per foot figures and did not take local, existing conditions into
consideration at the level of detail this study does.
The updated study uses current and local construction cost information. HMM generated their
estimates in part by using information they’ve obtained from current transportation
construction projects in the area with similar traits such as the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) to
San Jose extension project. Furthermore, HMM used figures that are more applicable to the
existing conditions at the intersections they studied as it relates to utility relocation costs, right
of way impacts, staging, and traffic signal impacts rather than wholesale allowance numbers.
The use of recent and local construction data provides more realistic order of magnitude cost
estimates for work on the Peninsula compared to the 2011 study.
Results of the Analysis
As displayed in the Alternative Cost Estimates attachment to the HMM report, the most
expensive alternative is the one percent (1%) grade trench alternative at a cost of
approximately $1.05 billion. This alternative would not require a design exemption as it relates
to the slope of the grade but it’s more than double the cost of the two percent (2%) grade
trench alternative mainly due to the impacts it would have on Oregon Expressway (already
grade separated) and the San Antonio Avenue and California Avenue Caltrain stations based on
its expanded footprint. Additionally, this alternative becomes significantly more complex than
the two percent (2%) grade trench alternative when existing creeks are considered because
instead of the trench being able to go above them the creeks would have to be rerouted, likely
requiring additional infrastructure such as pump stations.
Although both the one percent (1%) grade trench alternative and the two percent (2%) grade
trench alternative are more expensive than the roadway submersion alternatives they require
zero parcel acquisitions, have fewer visual impacts by having a reduced footprint at each
intersection, and result in a grade separated roadway that is level with the existing roadways,
significantly benefiting bicycle and pedestrian movements.
Table 1 below summarizes the trench alternatives:
Table 1: Summary of Trench Alternatives
Trench Grade One Percent (1%) Two Percent (2%)
Cost $1,050,728,700 $488,187,283
Full Property Acquisitions 0 0
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Partial Property Acquisitions 0 0
Turn Movements Maintained Yes Yes
Source: Hatch Mott McDonald, 2014
As for the roadway submersion alternatives displayed in the Alternative Cost Estimates
attachment to the HMM report, they are significantly less expensive than the trenching
alternatives (ranging in price from approximately $85 million to $184 million per roadway
submersion) but have far greater impacts in the form of property acquisitions, lost turning
movements, and have far more visual impacts at each intersection due to their larger
footprints.
Below are two tables that summarize the roadway submersion alternatives. Table 2 below
shows the roadway submersion alternatives where Alma Street is left at-grade and therefore
turning movements on and off of Alma Street are lost. Table 3 below shows the roadway
submersion alternatives where Alma Street is lowered in order to maintain turning movements.
Table 2: Summary of Roadway Submersion Alternatives that Abolish Alma Street Turning
Movements
Roadway Submersion Intersection Churchill Meadow Charleston
Cost $90,334,561 $84,578,797 $101,783,449
Full Property Acquisitions 16 11 18
Partial Property Acquisitions 4 5 3
Turn Movements Maintained No No No
Source: Hatch Mott McDonald, 2014
Table 3: Summary of Roadway Submersion Alternatives that Lower Alma Street to Maintain
Turning Movements
Roadway Submersion Intersection Churchill Meadow Charleston
Cost $183,513,669 $143,385,047 $152,903,454
Full Property Acquisitions 33 14 18
Partial Property Acquisitions 3 4 3
Turn Movements Maintained Yes Yes Yes
Source: Hatch Mott McDonald, 2014
As previously noted, if the roadway submersion alternatives that maintain turning movements
on and off of Alma Street at the Meadow and Charleston intersections are selected they must
be constructed congruently, as a single project, and that will cost an additional $23,177,765 for
a total project cost of $319,466,266 ($143,385,047 + $152,903,454 + $23,177,765).
Next Steps
Based on Council comments, staff will come back to Council in the near future with a staff
City of Palo Alto Page 5
recommendation for Council review and approval on a preferred alternative to pursue. By
identifying a preferred alternative staff will be more effective in both discussing the issue with
transportation and funding agencies in addition to facilitating our public outreach efforts.
The property acquisitions associated with some of the alternatives presented in the HMM
report are significant and therefore staff feels strongly that any decision that is made on this
topic should not be rushed. Therefore, staff felt that first discussing the HMM report in a study
session before bringing it before Council for action was most appropriate.
Finally, as noted above, staff is interested in learning whether Council believes further study,
such as Phase II of the HMM scope of work, should be done or if at this time the information
HMM has already provided is sufficient.
Attachments:
Palo Alto Grade Separation Study 10-7-2014 (PDF)
MEMO
Hatch Mott MacDonald
181 Metro Drive (Suite 510) San Jose CA 95110 T •408-572-8800 • F 408-572-8799www.hatchmott.com
To Richard Hackmann, City of Palo Alto
From Michael Canepa, PE, HMM
Date 10/7/14
Project # 324006
Page 1 of 7
CC Chris Metzger, Brian Hughes, Derek
Penrice
Subject Palo Alto Grade Separation Study
This memo discusses alternatives for grade separating the Caltrain tracks at existing at-grade
crossings in the City of Palo Alto. The two alternatives evaluated in this study were:
construction of an undercrossing at Churchill Ave, Meadow Dr, and Charleston Rd, and the
construction of a rail trench under Meadow Dr and Charleston Rd. The following information
was evaluated in support of the findings of this study:
· Typical cross sections for each alternative
· Plan/profile for each alternative
· ROW impacts
· Traffic impacts
· Utility impacts
· Cost estimate
Undercrossing at Churchill Ave, Meadow Dr, and Charleston Rd
The first alternative is to build an undercrossing at Churchill Ave, Meadow Dr, and Charleston
Rd to separate the existing Caltrain tracks from the roadways. Due to the proximity of Alma St
to the rail corridor, two scenarios were evaluated – keeping Alma St at existing grade and
lowering Alma St to match the elevation of the undercrossing.
Design Criteria and Assumptions
· Design speed is assumed to be 5 mph above the posted speed limit or a minimum of
30 mph
· Maximum roadway grade used is 8%
· Maximum sidewalk grade is 5% (per ADA)
· Roadway vertical clearance is 15.5’ (per JPB Standards for Design and Maintenance of
Structures 2.4.2)
· Sidewalk vertical clearance is 10’ (per HDM 208.6)
· Minimum vertical curve length is 200’ (per HDM 204.4)
· 1:10 depth to span ratio for rail bridges
· Roadway bridge depths:
MEMO
To Richard Hackmann, City of Palo Alto
Date 10/7/14
Page 2 of 7
181 Metro Drive (Suite 510) San Jose CA 95110 T •408-572-8800 • F 408-572-8799 www.hatchmott.com
o Reinforced concrete bridge (continuous span over Caltrain trench) – AASHTO
Bridge Design Table 2.5.2.6.3-1
o Prestressed girder bridge (simple span over roadway undercrossing) – based
on manufacturer’s recommend depth for prestressed girders
Typical Roadway & Bridge Sections
· Churchill Ave undercrossing width is 60’ when Alma St remains at existing grade
o 2x 12’ thru lanes
o 2x 2’ buffer
o 2x 6’ bike lane
o 2x 2’ barrier
o 2x 8’ sidewalk
· Churchill Ave undercrossing width is 70’ when Alma St is lowered
o 2x 12’ thru lanes
o 12’ right turn lane
o 2’ buffer
o 2x 6’ bike lane
o 2x 2’ barrier
o 2x 8’ sidewalk
· Meadow Dr undercrossing width is 80’ when Alma St is at existing grade or lowered
o 4x 11’ thru lanes
o 2x 2’ buffer
o 2x 6’ bike lane
o 2x 2’ barrier
o 2x 8’ sidewalk
· Charleston Rd undercrossing width is 80’ when Alma St is at existing grade or lowered
o 4x 11’ thru lanes
o 2x 2’ buffer
o 2x 6’ bike lane
o 2x 2’ barrier
o 2x 8’ sidewalk
· Rail bridge width at undercrossing is 40’
o 15’ track center (per Caltrain Design Criteria 3.1)
MEMO
To Richard Hackmann, City of Palo Alto
Date 10/7/14
Page 3 of 7
181 Metro Drive (Suite 510) San Jose CA 95110 T •408-572-8800 • F 408-572-8799 www.hatchmott.com
o 2x 9.5’ from centerline of track to OCS pole (per Caltrain Standard Drawing
ETF-0001-0010)
o 2x 1.5’ OCS pole (per Caltrain Standard Drawing ETF-0001-0010)
o 2x 1.5’ from OCS pole to edge of bridge deck
Two scenarios were evaluated at each undercrossing. In the first scenario, Alma St would
remain at existing grade and each undercrossing would pass below both the Caltrain tracks
and Alma St. This would disconnect Alma St from the crossing streets and would require
traffic to be routed to the next crossing to the north or south. In the second scenario, to
maintain connectivity between the streets, Alma St. would be lowered to match the elevation
of the crossing street.
At each crossing, several streets will be closed to avoid property impacts at the intersections
with the undercrossing. Closures at these intersections will force traffic to adjacent
intersections which may require signalization to compensate for the increase in traffic.
In the first scenario, with Alma St at existing grade, the following impacts will occur:
· ROW impacts along Churchill from Castilleja Ave to Emerson St with intersection
closures at Mariposa Ave and the eastern side of Castilleja Ave
· ROW impacts along Meadow Dr from 2nd St to Emerson St with intersection closures
at Park Blvd and 2nd St
· ROW impacts along Charleston Rd from Ruthelma Ave to Wright Pl with intersection
closure at Park Blvd
· Traffic impacts at Madrono Ave/Churchill Ave intersection
· Traffic impacts at Wilkie Way/Meadow Dr intersection
· Traffic impacts at Ruthelma Ave/Charleston Rd intersection and Wilkie
Way/Charleston Rd intersection
For this scenario, there will be 16 full parcel takes and 4 partial takes for Churchill Ave
undercrossing, 11 full parcel takes and 5 partial takes for Meadow Dr undercrossing, and 17
full parcel takes and 3 partial takes for Charleston Rd undercrossing.
In the second scenario, with Alma St lowered to the new elevation of the undercrossing, the
following impacts will occur in addition to those listed above:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/24/2017 7:35 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 22, 2017 8:30 AM
To:Lum, Patty; Council, City; Keene, James; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; Perron,
Zachary; Watson, Ron; dangel@dao.sccgov.org; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Kniss, Liz (external); supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org
Subject:4k views restarting Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
Turn in your badge and weapon lump!!!! And Mr. Okonkwo your no different then she is and you sir should be disbarred. Statue of limitations my ass fuck u
Mark Petersen - Perez
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
4/9/17, 8:15 PM
The abusing @PaloAltoPolice officer? Patty Lum asst. police chief #PaloAlto PD They can get away with most anything bit.ly/2ojQ5Wx twitter.com/pafreepress/st…
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/25/2017 12:35 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 25, 2017 12:09 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Dave Price; Bill Johnson
Subject:May 1 2017 City Council Review of Land Use Element
The Land Use Element has been reviewed extensively and is much
too complex for me to analyze at a detail level.
The current comp plan has a statement establishing city policy and
intent
to promote commerce but not at the expense of
residential neighborhoods
The draft documents presented for the May 1 Council meeting are
extensive and exhaustive. I cannot find appropriate language
which preserves a value statement of this nature. In the past I
appealed to CAC, Staff and Council to keep this statement.
I ask you to discuss and direct staff to include such an explicit value
statement into the next revision of the land use element.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/25/2017 4:05 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Chop Keenan <chopkeenan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 25, 2017 4:02 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Kleinberg, Judy; John R. Shenk; Roxy Rapp; Jon Goldman; John McNellis; Brad Ehikian;
Russ Cohen; Alex Giovannotto; Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James
Subject:COMP PLAN COMMENTS
dear council, please consider the following comments for your
monday, may 1 discussion of the comp plan.
1. L-1.9 clarify that the 1.7 mm sq ft cap does not include existing
square footage that is demolished and replaced. in other words,
the 1.7 mm sq ft is additional square footage over what exists
today.
2. increase the allowable housing density from 40 d.u per acre to
200 d.u per acre. you can google "eleve apartments" to see an
innovative micro apartment complex in glendale, calif. this is 200
units on .84 acre with two stories of subterranean parking for 200
cars. it is seven stories high including ground floor retail, gym, bike
repair space, and conference rooms. there are a number of
excellent sites in town where this product would be
successful. mac arthur park, stanford research park, and sites on
el camino are all suited for this height and density. there are many
others as well.
3. when thinking about height limits consider stories instead of
feet. ground floor retail at 15' to ceiling and 10' floor plates above
are what the market is asking for. the interstitial space between
floors can be enlarged to accommodate larger ducts which require
less energy and are quieter. four stories in 50' can be done , but
having 65' would be a much better building.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/25/2017 4:05 PM
2
4. L-4.3 speaks to business improvement district (B.I.D) as a
financing mechanism for commercial district improvements a la
burlingame avenue sidewalks, street furniture, trees, etc. to win a
district bond election would require a greatly improved collaborative
process between property owners and staff. this comment is just
an fyi.
thanks for your consideration. always happy to discuss
further. Chop 650 740-8150
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2017 9:38 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gabe Groner <ggroner@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 25, 2017 5:25 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Ellson Penny; Moss David
Subject:April 24 - May 10 Use of Cubberley Community Center synthetic turf field by Blue
Flame and Palantir
Dear City Council Members:
Below is an email regarding the above subject that I sent yesterday to Greenmeadow Community Association
members, Kristen O'Kane and Commissioner David Moss.
In addition to the points raised below, you should know that so far the event mentioned has prevented neighbors, schools and sports teams from using the Cubberley field, track and part of the parking lot for two
days. We expect that at least half the field will not be available for use for another 15 days, that teams which
require the full field will be precluded from use during that time, and that no use of the field or track by anyone
will be possible for an additional few days during that period. Furthermore, we expect substantial traffic to
disrupt the Greenmeadow neighborhood around May 2-4. Finally, I don't understand why Blue Flame/Palantir requires use of the field for 17 days in order to hold an event that lasts two days, and I don't understand why
neither individual neighbors nor the Greenmeadow Community Association were consulted before this
disruptive event was approved by City staff.
Thank you for your consideration,
Gabe Groner
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gabe Groner <ggroner@gmail.com>
Date: April 24, 2017 at 10:05:06 PM PDT
To: gmca-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Kristen.O'Kane@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: Moss David <ssow111@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [gmca-discuss] Fwd: Cubberley Letter
According to the first paragraph of the City of Palo Alto Field Use Policy (referenced below),
which applies to facilities owned by either the City or the School District, Palo Alto fields "are
utilized for recreational, athletic, cultural, educational, social and community service functions
that meet the needs and interests of the community." Blue Flame, a global brand activation and production company, is using Cubberley's synthetic turf field from April 24 through May 10 for a private event. Its use of the Cubberley field appears to be purely commercial, and does not
appear to be for recreational, athletic, cultural, educational, social or community service
functions. Furthermore, Blue Flame's use does not appear to meet the needs and interests of the
nearby community. Do I misunderstand something? I wonder how Blue Flame's use of the field was justified.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2017 9:38 AM
2
Fees for use of fields are listed in paragraph IX of the Policy, e.g., for synthetic turf fields, the fees are $45 - $90/hour/full field for residents and $80 - $130/hour/full field for non-residents. I
wonder if Blue Flame is paying these fees for their 17-day use of Cubberley field.
Gabe
On Apr 24, 2017, at 10:19 AM, Nancy Karp nkarp1@gmail.com [gmca-discuss] <gmca-
discuss@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Houses backing up to the Cubberley field appeared to have gotten this letter. No one seems to know what is happening but we were out allowed
into the field area to walk the track this am.....
Letter from "Blue Flame" (hah, smelly little group) attached and link to field
use rules <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/14746>. Of course, Cubberley is NOT a City park, so no policy.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
__._,_.___
Posted by: Nancy Karp <nkarp1@gmail.com>
Reply via web post • Reply to sender •Reply to group •Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1)
Have you tried the highest rated email app?
With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the
market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB
of free cloud storage.
VISIT YOUR GROUP
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/24/2017 7:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amy Christel <amymchristel@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 22, 2017 2:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Castilleja CUP violation
Dear Council Members,
I am appalled that City Council and Staff are not enforcing the enrollment cap in the previous CUP for Castilleja. You
mock the point of issuing CUP's by even considering the school expansion. Please maintain the original cap and fine the
school for violations.
The hubris of school administrators is being rewarded if you allow the cap to be raised after 16 years of violations. The
R1 neighborhood is the wrong place for a massive private school; Council needs to protect citizens of this community
from degrading development. Stop trying to appease a few wealthy donors and families from other cities.
NO EXPANSION, Period. Do we need a referendum?
Sincerely,
Amy M. Christel
MIdtown
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2017 9:38 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kevin Burke <kev@inburke.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 25, 2017 11:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Councilmember Kou should recuse herself from votes about housing
Councilmember Kou is a real estate agent. As such, she directly benefits from policies that restrict the housing
supply. Restricting the housing supply increases the price of houses in the area; increasingly high numbers of
people want to move to the Bay Area and we haven't kept building to match. These translate directly to higher fees.
This is a pretty clear conflict of interest. Councilmember Kou was elected to serve the public, but it's not clear
that she can put the public's best interests at heart, when a Yes vote might affect her bottom line. She has
repeatedly voted against new housing that could decrease prices in the area.
I'm a software consultant, a small business owner and a renter. The equivalent to CM Kou's behavior would be
if I got elected and then voted on rules that made it harder for other software consultants to compete with me, or
voted for mandatory minimum fees for consulting gigs. It's unethical.
Councilmember Kou should recuse herself from votes that concern the supply of housing.
Thanks,
Kevin
--
Kevin Burke
925.271.7005 | kev.inburke.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/25/2017 5:13 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Josh Feira <joshfeira@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 25, 2017 5:01 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:tcooke@blueflame.events
Subject:Disappointing use of Cubberley for private event
Hello,
As a Palo Alto resident, I just wanted to express my displeasure at the use of Cubberley turf fields for a private
event for the next 16 days. Specifically: 1) lack of advance notice
2) timing - losing the field just as soccer season is picking up pace
3) duration - why 17 days of downtime to facilitate 13 hours of event time? The Bernie Sanders rally as I recall
was at most 2 days of downtime Really sad to see our taxpayer-funded spaces being sold out to private corporate interests with literally no
benefit to the community.
Josh
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/24/2017 7:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Saturday, April 22, 2017 2:38 PM
To:bretthedrick; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack;
Mayor; CityManager; Mark Kreutzer; Mark Standriff; mmt4@pge.com; kfsndesk;
newsdesk; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; dwalters; jboren; bmcewen; Tranil Thomas;
Leodies Buchanan; scott.mozier; robert.andersen; Joel Stiner; Steve Wayte;
huidentalsanmateo; Council, City; paul.caprioglio; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov;
mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; beachrides; fmerlo@wildelectric.net;
info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; Cathy Lewis; terry;
thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov; nick yovino; yicui@stanford.edu; Steven Feinstein;
popoff; richard.wenzel
Subject:Fwd: Elon Musk Drops a bomb on auto industry: Electric semi and an electric PU
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:28 PM Subject: Fwd: Elon Musk Drops a bomb on auto industry: Electric semi and an electric PU
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Apr 22, 2017 at 2:27 PM
Subject: Elon Musk Drops a bomb on auto industry: Electric semi and an electric PU
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Saturday, April 22, 2017
An electric semi and an electric PU from Tesla. Can't be good for the major automakers since so much of
their revenue comes from PUs, unless they market them too.
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/15b8c58064bedbcb
Electric trucks would really put a dent in oil consumption.
Hint, hint, GM.
LH
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/20/2017 2:05 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Thursday, April 20, 2017 2:02 PM
To:Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Mayor; CityManager;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Mark Standriff; mmt4@pge.com;
midge@thebarretts.com; President; beachrides; Tranil Thomas; Leodies Buchanan;
firstvp@fresnopoa.org; Raymond Rivas; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Chris Field;
diffenbaugh@stanford.edu; bretthedrick; robert.andersen; bmcewen; bballpod; Council,
City; Cathy Lewis; Paul Dictos; dwalters; Daniel Zack; Greg.Gatzka; Gary Turgeon;
steve.hogg; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; info@superide1.com; Irv Weissman; Joel
Stiner; jerry ruopoli; Jason Tarvin; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer; kclark; newsdesk; leager;
mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; nick yovino; nmelosh@stanford.edu; popoff;
david pomaville; richard.wenzel; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; Steve Wayte; terry;
thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov
Subject:Fwd: "The Mighty T: The Tuolomne River: From Glacier to Golden Gate"
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:48 PM
Subject: Fwd: "The Mighty T: The Tuolumne River: From Glacier to Golden Gate"
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:48 PM Subject: Fwd: "The Mighty T: The Tuolumne River: From Glacier to Golden Gate"
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:45 PM
Subject: "The Mighty T: The Tuolumne River: From Glacier to Golden Gate"
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Thurs. April 20, 2017
Doug Vagim, et. al.
Here is a film re the Tuolumne R., its uses, the marshes and flyways in Calif. Snowmelt, glaciers, fresh water
( or not) going into the Delta, very informative. 56:39.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/20/2017 2:05 PM
2
http://www.themightyt-tuolumneriver.com/
Ch. 18.1, PBS in Fresno ran this last night.
Stanford's "Water in the West" has suggested that we run the snowmelt out into the Central Valley and use it
to recharge the aquifers, instead of watching millions of acre feet run down the river to the ocean in wet years.
That project would not be cheap, but we'd capture a LOT more water than an additional dam or two ever would.
However, as this shows, we'd have to continue to let substantial amounts flow to the Delta or it would
experience salt water intrusion from San Pablo Bay. It's on a knife-edge already.
So what do we do? Maybe throw birth control pills into the reservoirs. Possibly 38 million Californians are enough until we get climate change figured out?
Speaking of which, note the discussion re the glacier above Yosemite, and its rapid shrinkage. The rich
Republicans should refute all of that, point out the lies, as they deny climate change. Maybe the tree-huggers are up there at night melting the glacier with blow-torches. Probably rich Democrats from Palo Alto.
All recipients should find this interesting. It is well done. Dan Richard- I think you will find it interesting.
Please forward this to Governor Brown.
I'll watch this more than once.
Mr. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/20/2017 11:54 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Keene, James
Sent:Wednesday, April 19, 2017 3:20 PM
To:Council, City; City Staff
Subject:Highlights of Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Operating and Capital budgets
Next week, the City's Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Operating and Capital budgets will be released in accordance
with the City Charter. Since there is no City Council meeting scheduled for April 24, and the meeting on April
17 ran long and we did not have time for City Manager comments, I wanted to take the opportunity to provide
a few highlights of what will be released to the Council and the public next week in the proposed budget.
The City’s Fiscal Year 2018 Proposed Budgets total $661.8 million, a 3.1 percent increase from Fiscal Year 2017
(General Fund $210.0 million). This budget reflects a strong local economy that has led to stable revenues
which support the wide array of programs and initiatives this organization provides to the residents of Palo
Alto. The proposed budget will maintain the high quality of services and facilities the community values, and
address the priorities identified by the City Council. In addition, it maintains competitive wages for City
employees through approved labor agreements, as part of an overall strategy to attract and retain a well‐
qualified workforce within the boundaries of fiscal prudency.
As a result of our economic vitality, we are experiencing many challenges associated with the appeal of Silicon
Valley. These include increased traffic and congestion, expensive housing, more demand for services, and
variant views about the nature and pace of change.
Over a year ago, staff identified an anticipated gap in available funds in the General Fund during the FY 2017
budget process. Council asked staff to make some short term adjustments to balance the FY 2017 budget, with
the goal of making structural adjustments in FY 2018. Staff reconfirmed this in December 2016 with the
preliminary near term financial outlook with the Finance Committee. The primary drivers of this gap reflect
extenuating circumstances including the increased costs of track watch guards ($1.7 million), assuming the
electricity costs of streetlight and traffic signals ($2.3 million), and anticipated implications associated with
current negotiations with Stanford over fire services ($2.0 million). The budget permanently addresses this
gap while maintaining the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserves at the Council approved level of 18.5
percent of expenditures. The structural fixes recommended in this proposed budget also position the City to
address future needs expected to occur in FY 2019 and beyond.
Throughout the budget process with our departments, I stressed the need to examine the allocation and
prioritization of existing resources before requesting additional funding. As a result, there are a minimal
number of new positions that are recommended in this budget. City‐wide only 3.85 full time positions are
recommended to be added, and full time positions of 1,058 continue to be below peak levels of 1,076 in FY
2009.
Rising pension costs continue to be a concern. In FY 2017, the City's General Fund contributed $2.1 million to
an irrevocable IRS Section 115 Pension Trust Fund, equivalent to an additional 10 percent of the City's annual
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/20/2017 11:54 AM
2
required contribution for pensions in the General Fund. This proposed budget recommends an additional $1.4
million from all other Funds to match the 10 percent contribution already made by the General Fund.
In addition to addressing the City's pension liability, both the proposed operating and capital budgets continue
to support the ongoing priorities of the City Council:
Transportation
Infrastructure
Healthy City, Healthy Community
Budget and Finance
Housing
Within these priorities, we will need to make key decisions on a number of transportation and infrastructure
projects that will have lasting impact on future revenues and expenses, such as parking, Caltrain Grade
Separation, and the City's Infrastructure Plan. The Infrastructure Plan is currently funded at $170 million;
however, based on updated estimates and the most recent decisions made by the Council, the emergent gap
in necessary resources is anticipated to grow to $196 million in capital costs. Construction costs continue to
rise and, as the saying goes, “time is money.”
We continue to assess our resources and delivery of services. Ongoing projects such as the evaluation of the
animal shelter, the future of Project Safety Net, and adequate funding of the TMA are all examples of this
work.
Moderate utility rate adjustments reflecting an approximately 2.5% increase in the average monthly bill are
included in this budget ensuring maintenance and management of services and infrastructure to the
community.
These proposed budgets balance the FY 2018 budget. They also strategically position the City’s General Fund
to address growing costs for activities such as increases in pension costs and new labor agreement
negotiations, while highlighting the need to address the future year costs to complete the Infrastructure Plan.
After the release of the Proposed FY 2018 budget next week, the Finance Committee will take up budget
hearings during the month of May, beginning May 2 through May 23. The final budget adoption is tentatively
scheduled for June 19.
Letter
James Keene | City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/24/2017 4:22 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 24, 2017 4:09 PM
To:Stump, Molly; Council, City; Reichental, Jonathan
Subject:If I find your blocking any of my emails
Attachments:08-16073.pdf
I will challenge your position in Federal court... and I will subpoena the entire city council
Mark Petersen-Perez
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/05/20/08-16073.pdf
Sent from my iPhone
FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
üDAVID M. RODRIGUEZ; JUDY
GONZALES POGGI; JOSE MENDOZA;
FRANK RIVERA; MARIO QUEZADA;
ESTHER ANAYA-GARCIA, on behalf
of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.No. 08-16073
MARICOPA COUNTY COMMUNITY D.C. No.ýCOLLEGE DISTRICT; THE GOVERNING 2:04-cv-02510-EHC
BOARD OF THE MARICOPA COUNTY OPINIONCOMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Defendants,
and
RUFUS GLASPER; PHILLIP RANDOLPH,
in their official and individual
capacities,
Defendants-Appellants.þ
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted
October 19, 2009—Tempe, Arizona
Filed May 20, 2010
7255
Before: Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice,*
Alex Kozinski, Chief Judge, and Sandra S. Ikuta,
Circuit Judge.
Opinion by Chief Judge Kozinski
*The Honorable Sandra Day O’Connor, Associate Justice of the United
States Supreme Court (Ret.), sitting by designation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 294(a).
7256 RODRIGUEZ v. MARICOPA CO. COMM. COLLEGE
COUNSEL
Richard S. Cohen, Troy P. Foster and Justin S. Pierce, Ford
& Harrison LLP, Phoenix, Arizona, for the defendants-
appellants.
David G. Hinojosa, Nina Perales and Diego Bernal, Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF),
San Antonio, Texas; and David G. Gomez and Michael J.
Petitti, Gomez & Petitti, Phoenix, Arizona, for the plaintiffs-
appellees.
OPINION
KOZINSKI, Chief Judge:
We consider the interplay between the First Amendment
and the right to be free of workplace harassment on the basis
of protected status.
7258 RODRIGUEZ v. MARICOPA CO. COMM. COLLEGE
Facts
Professor Walter Kehowski sent three racially-charged
emails over a distribution list maintained by the Maricopa
County Community College District, where he teaches math.
Every district employee with an email address received a
copy. Plaintiffs, a certified class of the district’s Hispanic
employees, sued the district, its governing board and two dis-
trict administrators (the chancellor and the president) claiming
that their failure to properly respond to Kehowski’s emails
created a hostile work environment in violation of Title VII
and the Equal Protection Clause.
Kehowski’s first email had “Dia de la raza” as its subject
line and asked, “Why is the district endorsing an explicitly
racist event?” (Citations and emphasis omitted.) Día de la
Raza translates as “Day of the Race” and is celebrated by
some Hispanics instead of Columbus Day.1
Kehowski’s next email, sent almost a week later, began,
“YES! Today’s Columbus Day! It’s time to acknowledge and
celebrate the superiority of Western Civilization.” Kehowski
then offered excerpts from a variety of articles. One article
quoted Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. as saying that “democracy,
human rights and cultural freedom” are “European ideas.”
Another promoted a theory that “Native Americans actually
committed genocide against the original white-skinned inhab-
itants of North America.” (Emphasis omitted.) Yet another
argued that “America did not become the mightiest nation on
earth without distinct values and discrimination” and asserted
that “[o]ur survival depends on discrimination.”
Two days later, Kehowski sent a third email that began,
“Ad hominem attacks are the easiest to launch and the most
difficult to defend against.” Kehowski quoted an email calling
1See Wikipedia, Columbus Day, at http://en.wikipedia.org/
Columbus_Day (last visited March 19, 2010).
7259RODRIGUEZ v. MARICOPA CO. COMM. COLLEGE
his messages “racist” and said: “Boogie-boogie-boo to you
too! Racist? Hardly. Realistic is more like it.” He quoted an
email claiming that “[m]ost thinking people believe that the
European, Christian victory over the Moorish, Islamic (and
African) culture in Spain is an example of a victory of a
‘backward’ culture over one that was more civilized.” He
responded: “[H]istory has answered quite convincingly which
cultures were backward.” And he warned: “[I]f we don’t pull
ourselves out of the multicultural stupor, another culture with
some pretty unsavory characteristics (here, here, and here)
will dominate (here, here, and here) [and not without a little
help from the treasonous scum Bill Clinton].” (Bracketed
words in original.)
This third email linked to a website maintained by
Kehowski on the district’s web server. The school’s technol-
ogy policy encouraged faculty to develop district-hosted web-
sites for use “as a learning tool,” although faculty also
maintained sites of a personal nature. Kehowski’s site
declared that “[t]he only immigration reform imperative is
preservation of White majority” and urged visitors to “[r]eport
illegal aliens to the INS.” (Emphasis omitted.) Like his
emails, Kehowski’s website quoted and linked to articles. One
critiqued a “shallow and self-contradictory” ideology in
which “[r]ace must be held meaningless only by whites.”
Another expressed concern that “[t]he persistent inflow of
Hispanic immigrants threatens to divide the United States into
two peoples.”
Prominent figures in the community condemned
Kehowski’s ideas. The president of the college circulated an
email:
[T]he openness of our [email] system . . . allows
individuals to express opinions on almost any sub-
ject. . . . However, when an e-mail hurts people,
hurts the college, and is counter to our beliefs about
inclusiveness and respect, I cannot be silent. In that
7260 RODRIGUEZ v. MARICOPA CO. COMM. COLLEGE
context, I want everyone in the [college] community
to know that personally and administratively, I sup-
port the District’s values and philosophy about
diversity.
The chancellor of the district issued a press release stating that
Kehowski’s “message is not aligned with the vision of our
district” but explaining that disciplinary action against
Kehowski “could seriously undermine our ability to promote
true academic freedom.” Although Kehowski’s emails were
not sent to any students, many obviously found out about
them, and the student body president circulated an email to
the faculty declaring that Kehowski “did not do anything ille-
gal, but none of us believe [his] actions were ethical or in
good taste.” Contemporary press accounts describe vocal stu-
dent protests against Kehowski.
A number of district employees also complained to the
administration that Kehowski’s statements had created a hos-
tile work environment. No disciplinary action was taken
against Kehowski, and no steps were taken to enforce the dis-
trict’s existing anti-harassment policy.
Plaintiffs now seek damages and other relief on the ground
that defendants “failed to take immediate or appropriate steps
to prevent Mr. Kehowski from sending Plaintiffs harassing
emails” and from disseminating harassing speech via his
district-hosted website. Complaint at 4. The district court
granted summary judgment to the president and chancellor on
plaintiffs’ Title VII claim on the ground that Title VII liability
does not extend to agents of the employer. But it denied sum-
mary judgment to the president and chancellor on plaintiffs’
constitutional claim, including on the issue of qualified immu-
nity, and to the remaining defendants on both the constitu-
tional and Title VII claims. The president and chancellor
brought this interlocutory appeal, challenging the district
court’s ruling that they are not entitled to qualified immunity
as to the alleged Equal Protection violation.
7261RODRIGUEZ v. MARICOPA CO. COMM. COLLEGE
Jurisdiction
On an interlocutory appeal from a denial of qualified
immunity, jurisdiction is limited to the purely legal question
of immunity. See Cunningham v. Gates, 229 F.3d 1271, 1286
(9th Cir. 2000). “[W]here the district court denies immunity
on the basis that material facts are in dispute, we generally
lack jurisdiction.” Id.
The district court characterized the central question of our
qualified immunity analysis—whether defendants violated a
clearly established right of which a reasonable person would
have known—as a factual inquiry, and denied immunity on
the grounds that “[a] genuine issue of material fact exists as
to whether the acts or omissions of Defendants . . . were
objectively reasonable.” Plaintiffs claim that we lack jurisdic-
tion to review this determination, and that the question of
qualified immunity must therefore go to a jury. But the con-
tours of the right at issue, and the reasonableness of defen-
dants’ actions, is not a question of fact—it’s a question of
law. See, e.g., Knox v. Southwest Airlines, 124 F.3d 1103,
1107 (9th Cir. 1997). In answering that question, we may not
disregard material factual disputes identified by the district
court. Gates, 229 F.3d at 1286. But we undoubtedly have
jurisdiction to determine whether, taking the facts in the light
most favorable to plaintiffs, defendants would have violated
a constitutional right of which a reasonable government offi-
cial would have been aware.
Qualified Immunity
[1] It’s clearly established in our circuit that public
employees are entitled under the Equal Protection Clause to
be free of purposeful workplace harassment on the basis of
protected status. See Alaska v. EEOC, 564 F.3d 1062, 1069
(9th Cir. 2009) (en banc); Bator v. Hawaii, 39 F.3d 1021,
1029 (9th Cir. 1994). Defendants therefore do not dispute that
employers who become aware of workplace harassment are
7262 RODRIGUEZ v. MARICOPA CO. COMM. COLLEGE
required to take reasonable steps to make it stop. But they
claim they are entitled to summary judgment based on quali-
fied immunity because they were required to do no more than
they did in the circumstances presented here, and if they were
required to do more, such a duty was not clearly established.
See Pearson v. Callahan, 129 S. Ct. 808, 815-16 (2009). We
begin by addressing the precise scope of the district’s consti-
tutional obligation.
Plaintiffs may wish that the district had disciplined or dis-
missed Kehowski, but the district wasn’t required to do so.
When an employer is made aware of unlawful harassment,
employees are entitled to have the employer take reasonable
and appropriate steps to investigate and make it stop. Andrews
v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1479-80 (3d Cir.
1990). A warning or other discipline, even dismissal, may be
the appropriate action in some circumstances, but the proper
object of an employer’s response is to deter and stop further
harassment, not to punish the harasser. See, e.g., Bator, 39
F.3d at 1029.
[2] Plaintiffs suggest the district should have applied its
existing anti-harassment policy to silence Kehowski as soon
as the nature of his speech became apparent, either by revok-
ing his access to the district’s technology resources or by
warning him that further speech would lead to discipline. It’s
true that a public employer’s refusal to enforce existing poli-
cies to stop unlawful harassment may violate the Equal Pro-
tection Clause. See, e.g., Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch.
Dist., 324 F.3d 1130, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). But Kehowski’s
speech was not unlawful harassment.
[3] Plaintiffs no doubt feel demeaned by Kehowski’s
speech, as his very thesis can be understood to be that they are
less than equal. But that highlights the problem with plain-
tiffs’ suit. Their objection to Kehowski’s speech is based
entirely on his point of view, and it is axiomatic that the gov-
ernment may not silence speech because the ideas it promotes
7263RODRIGUEZ v. MARICOPA CO. COMM. COLLEGE
are thought to be offensive. See Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395
U.S. 444, 448-49 (1969); Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist.,
240 F.3d 200, 204 (3d Cir. 2001); DeAngelis v. El Paso Mun.
Police Officers Ass’n, 51 F.3d 591, 596-97 (5th Cir. 1995).
“There is no categorical ‘harassment exception’ to the First
Amendment’s free speech clause.” Saxe, 240 F.3d at 204; see
also United States v. Stevens, No. 08-769, slip op. at 7 (U.S.
April 20, 2010) (“The First Amendment’s guarantee of free
speech does not extend only to categories of speech that sur-
vive an ad hoc balancing of relative social costs and bene-
fits.”).
[4] Indeed, precisely because Kehowski’s ideas fall outside
the mainstream, his words sparked intense debate: Colleagues
emailed responses, and Kehowski replied; some voiced opin-
ions in the editorial pages of the local paper; the administra-
tion issued a press release; and, in the best tradition of higher
learning, students protested. The Constitution embraces such
a heated exchange of views, even (perhaps especially) when
they concern sensitive topics like race, where the risk of con-
flict and insult is high. See R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S.
377, 391 (1992). Without the right to stand against society’s
most strongly-held convictions, the marketplace of ideas
would decline into a boutique of the banal, as the urge to cen-
sor is greatest where debate is most disquieting and orthodoxy
most entrenched. See, e.g., Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652,
667 (1925); id. at 673 (Holmes, J., dissenting). The right to
provoke, offend and shock lies at the core of the First Amend-
ment.
[5] This is particularly so on college campuses. Intellectual
advancement has traditionally progressed through discord and
dissent, as a diversity of views ensures that ideas survive
because they are correct, not because they are popular. Col-
leges and universities—sheltered from the currents of popular
opinion by tradition, geography, tenure and monetary
endowments—have historically fostered that exchange. But
that role in our society will not survive if certain points of
7264 RODRIGUEZ v. MARICOPA CO. COMM. COLLEGE
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/25/2017 9:03 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 25, 2017 9:01 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Nominations for 2017 Kiwanis Angel Award
Attachments:NominationForm2017 copy.pdf
Dear Mayor Scharff and Palo Alto City Council members,
The Kiwanis Club of Palo Alto is holding its 6th Annual Kiwanis Angel Award in October 2017. As in the past, we are
seeking nominations and are hoping you will consider nominating someone who has made significant contributions
toward the well being of children and youth in our community and the mid‐peninsula.
I have enclosed a nomination form for your review and use. We appreciate your consideration of our request.
Thanks,
Gail Price
6th Annual
Kiwanis Club of Palo Alto
Angel Award
Investing in Our Children
Nomination Form
Nomination Deadline: Noon, Friday, June 2, 2017
The Kiwanis Club of Palo Alto is proud to announce the 6th Annual Kiwanis Angel Award will be
presented October 19, 2017. The Club requests your help in nominating a potential Kiwanis Angel
Award honoree.
Your nomination will assist us in recognizing and acknowledging those who work with exceptional
dedication to make our community the wonderful collection of people it has become.
The honoree will be selected based on his/her efforts that have made a significant positive impact
on youth and children. While residency in Palo Alto is not a requirement, the recipient will be an
individual from the greater Palo Alto area. The honoree’s extraordinary service to children may be
in the local area or beyond.
Nominee: _______________________________________________________________________________
Primary Project / Organization through which the nominee’s service is provided:
_________________________________________________________________________________________
The nomination should include:
1. A letter explaining the reasons for nomination (one page maximum)
2. Two additional letters of support (not to exceed one page each)
3. Supplementary material (three pages maximum – not required)
Your Name: ______________________________________________________________________________
Phone: ______________________________ Email: ____________________________________________
Nomination must be submitted by
Noon, Friday, June 2, 2017
For more information: Gail Price:
650.814.3308
June Klein: 650.856.2435
june@kleinnet.com
KiwanisAngelAward.org
Palo Alto
Kiwanis Club of Palo Alto
P. O. Box 149
Palo Alto, CA 94302
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/26/2017 12:29 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sherry Listgarten <sherry@listgarten.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 26, 2017 11:08 AM
To:Council, City; Parks
Subject:Palantir's 2-week coopting of Cubberley's turf field
Hi. I want to let you know that I am quite disappointed that the City has allowed Palantir to take over the turf
field for two weeks at the height of spring and soccer season. This is not what our parks are supposed to be used
for, and your action just reinforces the perception we already have that corporate interests and developers are exerting undue influence over the use of our City's resources and the design of our City's governance. I am
pretty disgusted by this, and so are many of my neighbors.
Regards,
Sherry Listgarten, 4075 Scripps Avenue 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/21/2017 1:04 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Diana Lee <earlyorbit@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, April 21, 2017 1:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Enforce Catilleja's Existing Conditional Use Permit
Dear City Council,
Please enforce Castilleja's Conditional Use Permit and keep enrollment at 415. Because Castilleja knowlingly and deliberately violated its conditional use permit for years, Casitlleja should be held accountable in the future, and until they
prove they can be a good neighbor, should be restricted to their current enrollment of 415.
Furthermore, there is no way 600 more students will not severely impact our neighborhoods.
thank you, Diana Lee
180 N California Av; Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/25/2017 7:49 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kim Atkinson <atkinsonkim@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, April 24, 2017 7:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:re 670 Los Trancos approval decsion
To the Palo Alto City Council April 22, 2017 Earth Day
Writing here is the person who spearheaded the protest against the private
house development at 670 Los Trancos, above Arastradero Open Space Preserve, which will negatively impact views from the park. Thank you for your time to read this opinion of your March 27 decision to approve the project.
I am sorry that I was scheduled to be overseas at the time of the public hearing
on March 27 and could not attend, but am grateful to the people who wrote in and who spoke up eloquently and rightly at the hearing on behalf of the park.
This letter is written with all sincere respect to Guy Gecht, the home owner, who
has been courteous and has reached out to us protesters. From what I understand,
he did what he could for his family, he skillfully lobbied city council members to his cause, and was successful.
I have recently returned from 3 weeks out of the country and would like to comment
here on our city council, and on what I observed while watching a video this week of
the March 27 public hearing.
My family has lived and owned homes in Palo Alto for 56 years, since 1961. Over
time we have witnessed changes to the values and priorities of our city government.
It is disheartening to know that the foresight the city had, to create Foothill Park and other parks here, seems to be abandoned today by new priorities of our current government. Decisions you make today about our open space will impact the public
forever.
Palo Alto is supposed to protect the view corridors around its open space parks, per Palo Alto municipal code 18.28.070. Your decision to allow the building of a substantial 9600+ sq foot house in plain view of the top trails at Arastradero Open
Space Preserve seems to ignore the intent of this code, which was wisely crafted
by a previous city council to create lasting places of beauty in nature for our citizens.
I question some of the following statements that were made during the hearing,
for the public record, even though it is now too late to sway your decision:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/25/2017 7:49 AM
2
1. In watching the public hearing video, I heard one of the applicant's team declare
that the views affected by the proposed 9600+ sq foot house would only affect
about 2% of the trails at Arastradero.
Please understand that this "2%" comprises the pinnacle views at the top of
the hiking trails, where the panoramic scenery is, that we aim for when we hike.
If you were to hike up to the top of Half Dome or Yosemite Falls would you consider that view to be important, even if the top segment of the trail comprised only 2% of the total trail ? Yes, you would.
The goal was to get to the top and see the view. A 9600+ sq foot house at or
very near the top will affect the panoramic views at Arastradero.
2. In the video can be heard declarations by the applicant's team that the applicant
has a right to build a house on his land. Well, not really. This land should never
have been sold or bought for the purpose of putting a house there. Our city code
specifies that buildings should not impede views from public parks or open space.
In due diligence in purchasing land, a responsible investor should consider and
respect the socially-beneficial intent of city codes regarding any property.
3. In the video can be seen the architect's illustrations of how the particular spot the house will be built on is the only location possible, on that sloped and forested property.
However, it is not a sustainable argument to justify putting a house where it will spoil
a park for so many users. Because a house won't fit elsewhere on a piece
of land does not make it ok for the house to be inappropriately sited in a view area. This might have been considered before the property was purchased.
There is no overriding public benefit to grant an exception to our open space rules
for this enormous house.
4. The care taken to design the house beautifully and with respect to landscape issues
is truly appreciated.
However, this care and attention to design does not compensate for the fact that
the house does not belong there at all.
5. It is appreciated that the applicant stated that he likes hiking and nature.
But this sentiment will not alleviate the damage that will be done to others who also
share these values, and will now have their enjoyment of this park curtailed forever.
6. It is noted that the immediate neighbors of this property spoke at the hearing to
defend the project. Of course there was an interest in promoting the integrity of this
private street and development which benefits a few families.
Is anyone in our city government monitoring the ongoing screening compliance of the homes on this private street ?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/25/2017 7:49 AM
3
7. Lastly, some jokes were made during the public hearing about the proposed
fast-growing screenings becoming "weeds" and requiring "Round-Up." While
some need for a little comic relief during an intense hearing is appreciated, jokes like this give the impression that the city council is not intent in respecting the impact this mansion will have on the public, including during its construction.
Our thanks to Lydia Kou for speaking up on this at the hearing and for truly
caring about this development's immediate impact on the public.
Arastradero Open Space Preserve seems to be under-appreciated by the city council. It is a jewel , with an extraordinary density of wildlife and scenic beauty,
providing a rare but accessible joy to many people. In an increasingly congested
urban environment, we now need places like this more than ever, and we must have
the wisdom to preserve them for future generations.
I would like to add that not only should we preserve the views from our open space
parks, but we should take care of our urban streets, local parks and quality of life
in town too.
Increased density will result from your surprising decision this past week to allow
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). Your decision to allow ADUs will create more
congestion, traffic, noise, potential neighbor disputes, and lack of privacy, eroding
the quality of life that has made Palo Alto the wonderful place it is to live in.
Thank you for your time to read this personal opinion, and to consider what this
letter attempts to address with you, written on behalf of all Palo Alto citizens and
our joint futures here.
Kim Atkinson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/24/2017 7:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Steve Pierce <pierce@zanemacgregor.com> on behalf of Steve Pierce
<pierce@zanemac.com>
Sent:Saturday, April 22, 2017 7:49 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan
Subject:Scoop
Dear Council members, this car pool ap could help mitigate traffic and parking. Check it out https://www.takescoop.com/ The cities of San Mateo and Foster City subsidize it use.
Steve
STEVE PIERCE
Real Estate Advisor & Broker
ZANE MACGREGOR
Real Estate Advisors & Brokers 621 High Street Palo Alto CA 94301
cell 650 533 7006 main 650 324 9900 fax 650 323 5431 zanemac.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 4/24/2017 1:12 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ron Albrecht <rdalbrecht@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, April 24, 2017 12:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:The Castilleja Alternative
I implore you to enforce Castilleja's Conditional Use (CUP) permit limiting enrollment to 415 students, a permit
they have violated for 16 years. I agree with Stan Shore's recommendation that Council limit Castilleja's
enrollment to 415 students for the next 16 years to demonstrate that our permit system does not tolerate flaunting by scofflaws who see themselves as exceptions to our local laws and regulations.
As a 35 year Palo Alto resident and former president of the Loma Verde Village HOA, I urge you to deny
Castilleja's attempt to build and operate its huge expansion in the middle of one of our oldest R1 residential
neighborhoods. Shoehorning this massive project into an area of established streets and residential properties can only exacerbate city-wide traffic problems. I'm certain this exceptional school can come up with an
alternative to the havoc they will cause by setting their planning sites on a separate and local annex with inter-
campus shuttle service.
Ron Albrecht Palo Alto