HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-10-22 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting October 22, 2001
1. Study Session re Long Range Financial Plan ................. 44
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m. ................. 44
1. Honoring the Presence of and Welcoming Sculptor and Painter Jean Marc .......................................... 45
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. ................. 45
1. Path 15 Electric Transmission Project ...................... 46
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ............................................. 48
2. Resolution 8100 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Designating Midpeninsula Community Media Center, Inc. as the Community Access
Organization for the Joint Powers in Accordance with Section 2.10.030(d) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code ........ 49
3. Ordinance 4721 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.01.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of a Portion of That Property Known as Tract 1371 from R-1 to R-1 (S) ........... 50
4. Approval of Casmalia Disposal Site De Minimis Settlement Offer in the Amount of $35,622. ................. 50
5. Visibility Project ......................................... 50
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS .................. 67
6. Conference with City Attorney - Pending Litigation ......... 69
7. Conference with City Attorney -- Potential/Anticipated Litigation ................................................. 69
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. .......... 69
10/22/01 93-43
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:55 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino
SPECIAL MEETING
1. Study Session re Long Range Financial Plan No action required.
Karen White, 146 Walter Hays, Co-Chair Library’s Now, spoke regarding financing for libraries.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
10/22/01 93-44
Special Meeting
October 22, 2001
Reception for Visitors from Neighbors Abroad The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:55 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler
ABSENT: Fazzino SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1.Honoring the Presence of and Welcoming Sculptor and Painter Jean Marc from Cordes, France, and Chef Michel Gouty from Sister City Albi,
France
Mayor Eakins presented a proclamation to Sculptor and Painter Jean Marc from Cordes, France, and Chef Michel Gouty from Sister City Albi, France.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
10/22/01 93-45
Special Meeting
October 22, 2001
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:15 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian, Wheeler ABSENT: Fazzino
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Path 15 Electric Transmission Project
Mayor Eakins said on October 18, 2001, the City of Palo Alto held a press conference in the Council Chambers with the United States Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham. Secretary Abraham announced a public/private partnership that would expand the transmission capacity of Path 15.
Path 15 was located in Central California and was directly responsible for at least two of the rolling blackouts Palo Alto experienced in early 2001. Resolving that impasse was an important result of actions taken in the summer of 2000 by numerous public parties including Palo Alto. Mayor
Eakins thanked City staff on behalf of the Council for their efforts regarding transmission reliability, including
the Path 15 situation and for the coordination of Secretary Abraham’s visit.
Council Member Beecham said he had attended the October 18, 2001 press conference. Through Northern California Power Agency (NCPA), Mayor Eakins and Council Member Beecham continued to work in Sacramento and Washington, D.C. to promote the value of Path 15 and the need to complete the
work it required. They met with State Representatives Anna Eschoo and Mike Honda, Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne
Feinstein, and other senators as well as with the Vice President’s Task Force. He emphasized that Palo Alto would continue to support the efforts to clear the Path 15
bottleneck problem.
Director of Utilities John Ulrich said he would summarize the efforts that were put in place over the previous year to help get Path 15 to the present point. He emphasized
that there were still a few obstacles to be solved before
10/22/01 93-46
Path 15 was successfully completed. Secretary Abraham’s visit pointed out the significance of public power and
investor-owned utilities to create the solution for the Path 15 project. In the Utilities Strategic Plan there was an objective of ensuring higher liability for the City’s businesses and residents. Path 15 was a narrow 80-mile section in Central California, which had been effectively
used as a marketing and territorial rule type of investment for investor-owned utilities; in particular, it gave investors a way to serve their customer loads. The Public
Utilities Commission allowed utilities to pass along the cost of development of transmission lines and power plants
to their customers. Deregulation and the shortage of power in California caused that particular location to become extremely valuable and vulnerable to the free movement of electricity back and forth. Path 15 contributed significantly to rolling blackouts in Northern California
during the winter of 2000 and in particular in Palo Alto. It would have been a relativity easy project to build but would have cost approximately $300 million. Due to the inability to be clear on where the money would come from, the regulatory uncertainty, and how the money would be
collected back from customers, it was just left as someone else’s problem. Palo Alto had been working with Western
Area Power Agency (WAPA), a transmission agency of Northern California, and Council Member Beecham was a Commissioner of WAPA as well as a Commissioner of NCPA, to draw
attention to the Path 15 issue. Obviously, the recent energy crisis had a lot to do with getting the attention of
the public. The question remained; who would do something about the situation. Many people were instrumental in getting Path 15 in President Bush’s National Energy Plan.
Palo Alto officials, including Mayor Eakins, Council Member Beecham, and the Utility Advisory Commissioners went to
Washington, D.C., on several occasions in February and June 2000. The project would cost $300 million and the Consortium would figure out how to allocate the costs. The projected completion date was 2004, but a lot depended on how quickly the money was put together and when the
engineering was completed. The next step for Palo Alto would include the Consortium putting together a final agreement. Palo Alto is a small member of the Consortium.
Palo Alto’s present position was to pay for the upgrades, not through direct investment or as an equity shareholder,
but to pay with appropriate transmission rates for the movement of energy to the City and to have an opportunity to participate beyond the transmission line. Palo Alto
10/22/01 93-47
would access the cost benefits of that option and look at others to make sure the City was getting the best possible
deal and continue to have a voice in energy movement in California. Mayor Eakins thanked Mr. Ulrich for his presentation and for explaining the Path 15 situation.
Council Member Lytle thanked Mayor Eakins, Council Member Beecham, UAC Commissioners, and staff for their successful
efforts in Washington, D.C. and clearing up the Path 15 bottleneck.
Mayor Eakins said it was not often that one started something early in the year and found an achievable goal before the end of the same calendar year.
Council Member Beecham pointed out that it was an example of what could be done when elected officials of neighboring cities got involved to accomplish a common objective. Another common objective before Palo Alto and neighboring cities was the Hetch Hetchy water system. He stated that
it would not be an overnight success but would only be successful if elected officials and colleagues from
neighboring cities and counties surrounding San Francisco got involved. No action required.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Council Member Beecham spoke regarding the placement of Oral Communications on the agenda.
Mayor Eakins stated that she had not moved Oral Communications back to its former placement on the agenda
because she was interested in having the input from other Council Members on the matter. City Manager Frank Benest stated that he had moved Oral Communications to the beginning of the agenda for the past
two weeks because there had not been a main event that had attracted a lot of people in the previous two weeks.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, spoke regarding offices to housing.
10/22/01 93-48
Council Member Mossar asked Ms. Chiapella for clarification on the physical location of the buildings she referenced.
Ms. Chiapella answered that 590 Forest Avenue was one building and 385 Waverley Street or Homer Avenue was another.
Council Member Mossar stated that if the 385 address was the one she referenced, then it was not a medical office when Palo Alto Medical Foundation occupied the building.
Ms. Chiapella said she did the research on the building
from 1924 to the present to find out who were the former occupants. Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding politics.
Shelby Valentine, 3116 Stelling Drive, spoke regarding the library. Leland Francois, 706 Colorado Street, spoke regarding Midtown Maintenance Palo Alto California Fundraiser for
October.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, spoke regarding housing.
CONSENT CALENDAR Council Member Mossar stated that she would not participate in Item No. 2 due to a conflict of interest with family- owned AT&T stock.
MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Beecham, to
approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 2-4.
LEGISLATIVE
2. Resolution 8100 entitled “Resolution of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Designating Midpeninsula Community Media Center, Inc. as the Community Access Organization for the Joint Powers in Accordance with Section 2.10.030(d) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code”
3. Ordinance 4721 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.01.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of a Portion of That
10/22/01 93-49
Property Known as Tract 1371 from R-1 to R-1 (S)” (1st
Reading 9/24/01, Passed 8-0 Fazzino Absent.) ADMINISTRATIVE
4. Approval of Casmalia Disposal Site De Minimis
Settlement Offer in the Amount of $35,622. MOTION PASSED 7-0 for Item No. 2, Mossar “not
participating,” Fazzino absent. MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 3 and 4, Fazzino absent.
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
5. Visibility Project Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the
Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 8.04.050 to Chapter 8.04 and Section 9.56.030 of Chapter 9.56 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code [Public
Nuisances] to reduce sight obstructions and improve street and sidewalk safety.
City Attorney Calonne asked that the Council approve the proposed amendments to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) that he believed would help with the enforcement of visibility triangles at intersections throughout the City.
The problem consisted of overgrown vegetation that caused a safety hazard at some intersections throughout the City and
interfered with visibility for passing pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists. He thought it was unfortunate that the City had 40- to 50-year-old code sections that had
made enforcement cumbersome and costly. The proposal that night was fourfold: first, to amend the PAMC; second, the
amendment would create a program to educate the community; third, the amendment would create a program to engage the schools, neighborhoods, and parents to correct problem; and
fourth, the amendment would undertake code enforcement against the problems, which could not be corrected through
community efforts. One of the code changes being considered was to clarify the language that established the 35-foot visibility triangle at intersections. He stated that Ms.
Lynn Chiapella assisted in the clarification of the language on the documents being considered that evening.
The language on the existing code had proven to be confusing in referring to street trees. “Street trees” was a term that referred to plantings within the public right-
10/22/01 93-50
of- way. The proposed amendment would make it clear that the site triangle extended onto private property and was
not limited to those trees that are in the right-of-way. Also, the word “hedge” needed to be added because it had been an ongoing issue with code enforcement. He felt the changes were straightforward. The standard in the ordinance was for site obstructions at controlled
intersections. The majority of intersections in Palo Alto were controlled intersections with stop or yield signs, but were not subject to sight visibility standards or site
visibility protection unless the City Manager made a decision based upon engineering and traffic investigation.
That language was at the core of the cumbersome and costly part of code enforcement. What it meant for the Transportation Division was that it was incumbent to do a detailed study before deciding that an intersection warranted code enforcement for clearing. Research of other
cities in California and other states was conducted, and the City’s standards were current 40 to 50 years prior, but were illogical presently. The language needed to be changed so it would not be the City Manager’s decision but the Chief Transportation Officer’s decision. When a safety
hazard occurred, based upon an obstruction or impaired visibility of passing pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists,
clear language was needed that would alert the Transportation Division that a site obstruction at controlled intersections was a problem. Essential to the
proposed program was educating the community. The assumption was that residents would do the right thing if
they were aware of the rules. He believed that residents were not aware of their obligations at intersections with respect to maintaining vegetation. The other problem was
that as vegetation grew, the risks at those intersections might not be apparent to some residents. Those facts
pointed out that an education program would be effective as a means of enforcement. The proposal also included a paper and electronic education program during at least the first 45 days after the ordinance became effective. Those changes in the PAMC would not be effective until after 31
days after the second reading of the ordinance. The third phase of the proposed ordinance was to engage the community. A visibility project flyer attached to the
Report from the City Attorney was the work of the City Manager’s public information staff. The intent was that
students of Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) would disseminate the flyer to parents. This was a good example of how the City could take complex municipal code rules and
10/22/01 93-51
translate them into a graphical way that was easily understood. The problem of site visibility was an issue
that the community should not ignore but take steps to correct. Code enforcement would be used as a final step if the community could not correct a problem. Compliance would be encouraged through safety, marketing, and education. Aggressive enforcement would be utilized only
if needed. Known violators would be given the opportunity to comply with the ordinance. Finally, enforcement through abatement and penalties without equivocation would be the
final step for noncompliance. It would make the City appear unreliable and the ordinance unfairly administered
if enforcement was not consistent after all steps were exhausted. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether other types of apparatus, such as wheelchairs should be included in the
ordinance along with pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. Police Lieutenant John Hernandez clarified that anyone in a wheelchair was considered a pedestrian. Council Member Kleinberg stated that tree trunks were not included in Mr. Calonne’s presentation, but they were a
visibility problem. She asked for input regarding the potential hazard that mature trees pose.
Mr. Calonne asked Special Counsel Lance Bayer to elaborate on Council Member Kleinberg’s concern about tree trunks.
He did not know of another authority that the City could refer to. If it was noted that there were clusters of tree
trunks obstructing visibility, staff could come back to Council with code amendments.
Mr. Bayer said the approach taken in the draft ordinance was incremental to improving the enforcement based upon not
making significant major changes in the approach that Palo Alto had. One thing referenced in the City Attorney Report was the City’s desire to maintain the City tree canopy.
Staff looked at the issue from an incremental standpoint using the increased enforcement. If specific issues came
up involving larger tree trunks, the City could either approach that through the general nuisance statutes or the ordinance could be amended to allow for that enforcement.
10/22/01 93-52
Mr. Calonne said the City had an existing ordinance to abate anything that constituted a nuisance. There were at
least two options if multiple tree trunks proved to be a visibility problem, which were the general nuisance abatement authority or to return to Council for specific authorization.
Council Member Kleinberg said another impediment to visibility at corners and intersections was the custom in Palo Alto of parking over the curb and onto the sidewalk.
She noted that this impaired visibility and passage on sidewalks. She asked how would this situation be remedied.
Mr. Calonne answered that the Police Department had a specific policy about the extent to which parking over rolled curbs was permitted. He said the Transportation Division had informed him that vehicles at intersections
could create safety hazards as well. He thought Council Member Kleinberg made valid points and reiterated what Mr. Bayer said that the ordinance was not an attempt to fix everything. He was confident about the findings of the Transportation Division that if they deemed a section to be
identified as a “no parking zone,” then they could continue to consult the City Manager and ask for that kind of
marking. He felt there were procedures in place to address the situation of parking over the sidewalk.
Council Member Kleinberg asked whether some of the issues would be dealt with later.
Mr. Calonne said staff tried to focus on the concerns that the community would have the most impact on. He believed
that if residents became aware of the safety hazards they would be more willing to trim away vegetation, which was
much easier than issuing citations. Council Member Kleinberg asked what kind of enforcement methodology would be used, what methodology would be used to decide what issues staff would respond to, how the
ordinance would be enforced, and what the cost in staff time would be.
Mr. Calonne said effective neighborhoods working together to educate each other should not be underestimated. The
City would make every attempt to make the project a success. The first form of enforcement had to be education and neighborhood discussion. After the ordinance became
10/22/01 93-53
effective, anyone could bring a complaint. The City should avoid situations in which the Transportation Division had
to conduct a formal investigation of every intersection. The City was not promising to clear every obstruction that residents did not like. City Manager Frank Benest said the City would also ask
neighbors to hold each other accountable in correcting some problems. The City would be asking neighbors to self correct many of the reported problems.
Council Member Wheeler understood that there was already an
ordinance in place regarding parking over rolled curbs, and when it had been violated the ordinance had been enforced. Mr. Calonne said he was referring to specific measurements of what was being enforced and asked Lieutenant Hernandez
to expand on how the ordinance was enforced. Lieutenant Hernandez said that there was a difference in widths of sidewalks and what was currently being used was a 36- to 42-inch clearance. For the first infraction, the
owner received a warning if the clearance was less than 36 inches. After the initial warning, the owner of the
vehicle received a citation. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the 36 to 42 inches
were sufficient for the instances, which Council Member Kleinberg referred to in her questions and comments.
Lieutenant Hernandez said that was the reference upon which he based his answer and it allowed enough room for a
wheelchair to pass through.
Council Member Kleinberg said if the City would be going to the public with an education campaign, she suggested that it would be an opportunity for the City to educate the public about rolled sidewalk clearances and similar issues.
Mr. Calonne thought it would be a good idea. Council Member Burch stated that the community education
portion of the ordinance had already started with him. He had observed a number of intersections throughout the City
with poor visibility. He gave an example of a seven-foot hedge he observed in the City and asked if he were the property owner of that particular property, would the City
10/22/01 93-54
require him to trim the hedge to the proposed three feet. He was concerned about how the City would enforce the
ordinance. Mr. Calonne said it was an accurate observation of controlled intersections throughout the City because there were numerous intersections with sight obstructions. It
would be a great undertaking to clear every controlled intersection immediately. He proposed that a list be generated and given to the Transportation Division that
would assume the task of seeing that the intersections were brought into compliance. In his report he suggested that
it might be as simple as driving by intersections and then reviewing the accident history. If there were no accident history, then it would appear that the intersection functioned in an acceptable manner. He thought it would be acceptable for residents to exercise their best judgment
about their landscaping. He believed most residents would choose to do some trimming and if not the City might also decide it was not a safety hazard. Council Member Burch differed with that observation that if
there had not been an accident at certain controlled intersections that it was not worth bothering with because
it could be a potential safety hazard. Mr. Calonne said the Transportation Division was clear in
pointing out that the 35-foot triangle was not a standard that had been tested or that they could necessarily
substantiate. The amount of clear space needed depended on the speed of the vehicle and various other factors. The issue was to get the Transportation Division out of the
problem of having to do a traffic and engineering investigation with every complaint.
Council Member Burch asked how soon the earliest mailings would go out on the proposed ordinance. Mr. Calonne answered that he had not envisioned a direct
mailing. He anticipated the help of school safety committees to distribute the information to students who would carry the information home in their weekly envelopes.
He hoped that would happen by the time Council gave second reading to the ordinance.
Council Member Burch asked how citizens would get the information if they did not have school age children.
10/22/01 93-55
Mr. Calonne answered that the flyer would encourage residents to share the information with their neighbors.
He also stated that school safety committee would be encouraged to walk the neighborhoods and pass the flyers out to residents. Council Member Mossar asked whether driveways would be
considered as intersections. Mr. Calonne answered that there were separate site rules
for driveways and the purpose of the visibility project was to enforce the visibility problems at intersections. There
were regulations already in place. Council Member Mossar wanted to be clear on what sections of the street came under the visibility project guidelines.
Mr. Calonne replied that the present primary focus would be to enforce the site visibility at intersections. If the public were receptive to the visibility project, then the City would further the traffic safety education program.
Council Member Mossar asked for clarification about street trees.
Mr. Calonne answered that street trees were trees that were in the right-of-way and the existing ordinance stated that
plants and shrubs could not be higher than two feet. There was nothing in the ordinance that forbid street trees in
the right-of-way. Street trees could be an obstruction if planted in the site triangle intersections, which could prevent some trees from being planted.
Council Member Mossar stated that there would soon be a
tree-planting project along El Camino Real, which had controlled intersections. Mr. Calonne reiterated that street trees within the public right-of-way would not be affected by the ordinance.
Street trees were not forbidden in the median areas. A tree on private property could be forbidden with branches lower than nine feet if it was within the site triangle and
outside of the right-of-way.
Council Member Lytle clarified that the ordinance would represent new policy because the City had been controlling the sight distance triangle in uncontrolled intersections
10/22/01 93-56
and the sight distance triangle had not applied to controlled intersections.
Mr. Calonne said that was not entirely correct. The policy would remain the same. The proposed change would be the standard by which the policy would be implemented at controlled intersections rather than a traffic and
engineering investigation determined by the City Manager. The Chief Transportation Official would make the determination that a safety hazard existed. The proposal
would make it easier for the Transportation Division to determine that a problem existed at a controlled
intersection. Council Member Lytle asked whether the City had been doing such investigations and determining where those controlled intersection problems existed.
Senior Planner Gayle Likens said she was not always the individual that conducted the investigations, and that there were different levels of investigation. The investigation usually started with a site visit and an
analysis similar to what would go into the ordinance. There were times when the Transportation Division staff had
to do more detailed analyses, such as speed surveys, volume of vehicles, pedestrians, and accident analysis. Those types of analyses were more time intensive.
Mr. Calonne did not have the number of analyses performed
to date. Council Member Lytle asked what the impact would be on
vegetation that might have been located at a historic intersection where no determination was necessary but would
be on the reliability of staff determination. Mr. Benest said that even if no formal analysis were done, the determination would be based on staff expertise as opposed to doing various types of analyses.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the proposed ordinance would be applied to more controlled intersections.
Mr. Calonne said the law would not inhibit the City from
addressing unsafe intersections.
10/22/01 93-57
Council Member Lytle asked whether the public would be the front line on the new policy. She would not have a problem
with the public being the front line on something the City had historically enforced because the effects were already known. Her concern was that the standards were being tested in places where it had not been tested before.
Mr. Calonne answered in the affirmative. Council Member Lytle asked whether the public would be
trained on the new policies and procedures and if the public would be determining which intersections were safe
or unsafe. Mr. Calonne said the decision to give a flyer to a neighbor or not would be the decision of residents. He was confident to have residents at corner lots make their own
decisions regarding whether or not to trim vegetation to the desired visibility level in the first instance. He thought that some residents were unaware that a problem even existed.
Council Member Lytle asked for staff assistance regarding a scenario of a valuable, historic hedge belonging to a
property owner. She wanted to know if that property owner would be required to trim a historic hedge within the specified height requirement. If the property owner
believed there was no safety hazard, she asked how the City would deal with the property owner of a valuable piece of
landscaping, the citizen enforcer, and City staff brought in to determine whether there was a safety hazard.
Mr. Calonne said if there was a conflict, a complaint would be lodged, and the City would then make an individual
determination. Members of the public might ask for removal of vegetation where no actual hazard existed. The City was currently facing similar situations. Council Member Lytle asked whether the City would be facing
that situation more frequently and in greater number after the adoption of the proposed ordinance.
Mr. Calonne said perhaps that was the case. He said he had a lot of faith in the school safety committees and in the
school communities to recognize that the proposed ordinance would be beneficial to the City.
10/22/01 93-58
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether an engineering study would be done on uncontrolled intersections. He also wanted to
know if the City had issues with residents who had vegetation that obstructed the view and how the situation would be dealt with. Mr. Calonne answered that he did not have a complaint
history. There were not that many uncontrolled intersections in the City. He said as he traveled through some parts of the City where there were bulb cul-de-sacs,
he noticed that those intersections had not had the attention they should have received. The result might be
that the City would need to pay more attention to those intersections. Vice Mayor Ojakian queried Ms. Likens as to whether the City had experienced problems with uncontrolled
intersections where vegetation had obstructed the view, and what was the City doing about it. Ms. Likens replied she could not recall whether there were any uncontrolled intersections the City had been requested
to take a look at because there were few uncontrolled intersections in the City. The typical requests that the
City received for investigation are at intersections with two- or four-way stop signs.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked how would such a situation would be handled if the City were called in to conduct an
investigation. Ms. Likens replied that the 35-foot triangle would apply to
those situations.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked whether the City would talk with the property owner. Ms. Likens replied that the City would go to the site to observe the situation. The property owner would be made
aware of the investigation findings at that time or be notified by Code Enforcement.
Council Member Beecham asked for clarification on the ordinance under SECTION 1, Paragraph (3). He wanted to
know if that section referred to a controlled or uncontrolled intersection.
10/22/01 93-59
Mr. Calonne answered that SECTION 1, Paragraph (3) referred to controlled and uncontrolled intersections. Everything
up to the “or” referred to uncontrolled intersections. The case test of the 35-foot triangle with no limbs over nine feet applied at uncontrolled intersections or it applied at any intersection that was determined to create a safety hazard.
Council Member Beecham stated that he found it difficult to understand that particular section and suggested that it be
rewritten.
Mr. Calonne said in a way by disowning it, the City was tried to move in on 40 to 50-year old material. He believed it was clear enough to be defensible. A well-written flyer would make it easy for the public to understand.
Council Member Beecham queried the meaning of “on any street” in SECTION 1, Paragraph (7). Mr. Bayer said the City’s definition of “street” included
the sidewalk area and the meaning was the encroachment of those types of vegetation onto sidewalks and the street.
Council Member Beecham asked whether that also meant the planter strips alongside sidewalks.
Mr. Bayer said it included the planter strips as well as
any growth that encroached over into the sidewalk and made it difficult to pass by.
Council Member Beecham asked about ‘plants in any street’ in SECTION 1, Paragraph (8). He wanted to know the
difference between ‘in a street’ and ‘on a street’. Mr. Bayer answered he did not believe there were any differences.
Council Member Beecham asked about SECTION 2, Paragraph 4, “The existence of any tree or shrub apt to destroy, impair, or interfere with any street improvements, such as
sidewalks, basically shall be removed as a nuisance”. He commented that there were many sidewalks in the City being
lifted up by lawn trees. He wanted to know if that meant the City could require those trees to be removed.
10/22/01 93-60
Mr. Calonne said he did not know the answer to that. He thought it meant that the City could order the removal of
invasive vegetation in situations where it was needed. Mr. Bayer said his experience had been if there was something that encroached onto the public right-of-way, the City would be entitled to remove it. If it were something
that affected the public’s right-of-way, the City would enforce that through abatement and the administrative process.
Council Member Beecham stated if a root was causing
continuing damage to a sidewalk, the root would be cut and hopefully there would be no damage to the tree. He asked about SECTION 4, Paragraph (16), which addressed the problem of a sidewalk that was out of repair and a nuisance, he presumed that implied the responsibility was
that of the property owner. Mr. Calonne answered in the affirmative. Council Member Beecham asked whether a property owners’
tree lifted up a City sidewalk and a pedestrian tripped on the sidewalk, would it be the City’s fault or the property
owner’s fault. Mr. Calonne replied that it would be the property owner’s
fault. The City did not have a policy which actively sought contributions from property owners when that
happened in the residential areas. In the downtown business district, when there was a trip and fall on uneven paving due to poor maintenance, the City would engage the
property owner, which had resulted in property owners maintaining the sidewalks outside their establishments.
Council Member Lytle wanted to make sure she was reading the code correctly. The way she understood it was that the law applied at any intersection determined by the Chief Transportation Official to contain an impairment or safety
hazard. Mr. Calonne clarified that it was an impairment that
created a safety hazard.
Council Member Lytle asked whether the code would be enforced by citizens without that determination.
10/22/01 93-61
Mr. Calonne replied that the City’s position was to ask residents to use their judgment on whether a safety hazard
actually existed. Council Member Burch stated that the visibility triangle could be easily understood and used if the graphics on the handout were used.
Mr. Calonne asked for a clarification on Council Member Burch’s statement.
Council Member Burch reiterated that the visibility
triangle could be used. He asked whether it was possible for a person to stand 35 feet from a corner and be able to see across to the adjoining street. He asked whether that summarized the issue that was being presented.
Mr. Calonne answered yes, he thought that people were unaware of the safety hazards that were caused by obstructed visibility. He believed that if the public was made aware of the safety hazards, they would want to correct them.
Council Member Burch commented that it was a safety issue.
Mr. Calonne stated that it was an urban forest issue, and it could not be taken to an extreme in either direction.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue said she also had
trouble understanding the language of the proposed ordinance. She suggested a couple of small changes in the wording. She thought that SECTION 9 negated SECTION 8 and
reversed the intent of SECTION 8. She thought the sight distance triangle was defined well and it had been widely
used by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for over 20 years. The ARB always checked the visibility clearance for driveways and corners. She hoped the City would keep the sight distance triangle at controlled and uncontrolled corners as defined in the PAMC and would make sure some
sort of judicious enforcement was used. She thought the situation had gotten out of hand due to a couple of issues where someone was almost hit at a church parking lot and
became upset when nothing was done about it. She expressed fear about traveling on certain streets where the view was
obstructed. She hoped that the City would redo the pictures on the flyer because she believed the public would rely on the visual imagery. She wanted the language to be
10/22/01 93-62
made clearer to property owners that vegetation should not obstruct the view or passage of pedestrians or vehicles.
Vice Mayor Ojakian asked Mr. Calonne whether the changed language he referred to was based on Ms. Chiapella’s comments.
Mr. Calonne said that he made that clear in his presentation.
Mayor Eakins asked Mr. Calonne about the language of the proposed ordinance where it used two feet on the first page
and three feet thereafter. Mr. Calonne asked Mr. Bayer to elaborate. He said that two feet was vegetation.
Mr. Bayer explained that the two-foot rule dealt with the small planter strips, the three-foot height was for the vegetation in the 35-foot triangle, and four feet and above was for fences.
Jeff Brown, traffic safety representative at Addison Elementary School660 Lincoln Avenue, thanked the City for
taking on the visibility issue and also for coming to Addison School to look at the visibility problems. He presented film that depicted the condition at the
intersection of Middlefield Road and Lincoln Avenue. He said there were instances where a controlled intersection
could be just as dangerous as an uncontrolled intersection because drivers expected cars would stop at a red light or a stop sign. However, that was not always the case. That
was an important distinction and he thought the visibility triangle was an important factor, whether the intersection
was controlled or uncontrolled. He thought the point Council Member Kleinberg made about tree trunks was valid. His presentation depicted a line of trees on Middlefield Avenue near Lincoln Avenue and when one traveled eastbound on Lincoln Avenue, tree trunks obstructed the view. He
referred to Council Member Mossar’s comments about parked cars and how they also obstructed vision at intersections. Accident histories were not significant because he felt the
City and residents were obligated to protect against the first accident whenever possible. He asked that the public
give the same consideration to visibility that was given to speed because it was all part of the same safety issue.
10/22/01 93-63
Visibility was something the City and residents could control.
Audrey Alonis, 2870 South Court thanked City Manager Frank Benest, City Attorney Ariel Calonne, and staff for promoting the visibility project initiative for safe street and sidewalks. Ms. Alonis mentioned that she was the
Parent Teacher Association Traffic Representative at El Carmelo School. It was her eighth year promoting pedestrian and bike safety as well as safe driving practices in the El
Carmelo neighborhood. She was pleased about seeing Mr. Benest supporting “Walk to School Day” by walking his son
to school. That type of community involvement was needed from City government. She was also pleased about the City’s attempt to educate the community about sight visibility and making the streets safer for everyone. She hoped the community would use the information in a positive
manner to encourage their neighbors to get high hedges and overgrown vegetation trimmed so the streets were safer, particularly along the routes used by students. Council Member Burch asked Ms. Alonis whether she was aware
of intersections around El Carmelo that did not meet the sight visibility triangle guideline.
Ms. Alonis replied she was aware of corners with obstructed views and overgrown vegetation.
Carolyn Spitz, Parent Teacher Association Environmental Co-
Chair, 3882 Magnolia Drive, spoke on behalf of the Safe Routes to School Committee. She was pleased that the City had addressed the visibility and safety issues. She
realized the hazards of commuting on streets with obstructed visibility. As a resident of Barron Park, which
had no sidewalks, it was difficult for children to navigate around parked cards and around blind curves. Many streets in Barron Park did not have a clear pedestrian area. She felt it was crucial to raise issues regarding visibility at corner lot properties. She suggested the City extend its
efforts to include the entire streets. Construction work also caused additional hazards because of the placement of dumpsters along streets. Many vehicles are often parked in
the roadway because of obstructed or absent parking strips. Recycling and compost bins also presented a problem. She
believed that the entire burden should not be placed on the City because many residents would be willing to help correct the problem and increase visibility. She suggested
10/22/01 93-64
that Boy and Girl Scout Troops could perhaps assist seniors with clearing overgrown vegetation. If property owners
were reluctant to take responsibility for clearing overgrown vegetation, it would then become necessary for the City to take action in issuing citations. Ms. Sptiz mentioned an intersection in Barron Park with an apparently abandoned property with overgrown vegetation that was
presently a safety hazard at an uncontrolled intersection. She solicited the City’s leadership to help make Barron Park a safer place for pedestrians and motorists. She also
stated that the Barron Park PTA and the Barron Park Association Traffic Safety Committee supported the
visibility project. Kathy Durham, 2039 Dartmouth Street, spoke on behalf of the PTA and her neighborhood association, thanked City staff for their work on the visibility project. She expressed
hope that the project would raise public awareness of the seriousness of obstructed visibility. She sent out the visibility project flyer to some of her neighbors and was pleased that a property owner had complied immediately and trimmed back overgrown vegetation. She suggested that the
flyer be posted on the City’s web site. Her neighborhood group had given priority to improving safety on the East
Meadow corridor. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, thanked Mr. Calonne for pointing
out that education and enforcement about the ordinance had to go together. He said several Council Members spoke
about parking on rolled curbs, and reminded the Council that there were already laws that addressed parking on rolled curbs and sidewalks. A flyer was sent to residents
in their utility bills. Former Police Chief Christopher Durkin decided that it was important to enforce the law to
judge whether there was enough room for a wheelchair to safely pass through. However, pedestrians moving in both directions generally used sidewalks and that was the reason for the width. The law could be enforced as written if Council supported the policy and staff was willing to
enforce it. That required the backing of Council and the willingness of staff to implement the adopted policy, whether its for sight visibility triangles or parking on
sidewalks.
Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, disagreed with the idea of going to ones neighbor to inform them that their property presented a safety hazard. She suggested that the
10/22/01 93-65
City start with a public relations campaign by providing trucks on specified dates to pick up the cut vegetation.
She believed that would be a more effective manner of getting property owners to remove overgrown vegetation. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Burch, to
introduce the ordinance for first reading. Council Member Lytle would like to pair Council action for increasing and opening up intersections with the
enforcement of speed and stopping. She believed if motorists had broader sight distances, it could possibly
cause motorists to increase their speeds. She suggested that PTA’s and the City create a program with the message to slow down and obey intersection controls. Council Member Kleinberg reiterated that the Police
Department did as much as possible with limited resources. She pointed out that the proposed ordinance would be an improvement over what was already in place. She emphasized that something still needed to be done about vehicles parking too close to corners and parking on rolled curbs.
She believed that the community would support the project.
Council Member Burch suggested those property owners on corner lots get together to assess the visibility on their corners and their neighbors’ corner.
Vice Mayor Ojakian supported the motion, especially from
the standpoint of safety for children. He agreed that the project would work, and he pledged his support for anything that was in the interest of children’s safety.
Council Member Mossar supported the motion and thanked
staff for putting together a community-based project. She thought it was important to continue to work with schools and community groups to heighten the awareness of street safety.
Council Member Beecham said there were instances when neighbors were reluctant to confront another neighbor about safety issues. The Visibility Project flyer would be a
less threatening way for neighbors to communicate the need for site visibility. He emphasized there were too many
variations of that problem in the City for the Council to accurately define what the solution should be. It was up to the Chief Transportation Official to investigate a
10/22/01 93-66
situation and decide what steps should be taken to correct an existing problem. He believed it was important for
Council to set the policy and depend on staff to enforce it. Council Member Wheeler supported the ordinance and thought it would be best if the City was cautious in how the
ordinance was enforced. She also wanted to make sure that private schools and community organizations were also included in the distribution list for receiving the
Visibility Project flyers.
Mayor Eakins summarized by saying that the ordinance was not a hard ordinance to support. She expressed appreciation for all the work that staff performed in gathering information for the ordinance and also to the public for their comments, suggestions, and support. She had a
concern regarding the removal of visibility obstructions on public property. She suggested the City devise a way to report code violations on the Internet. MOTION PASSED 8-0 Fazzino absent.
COUNCIL COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Mossar noted that Wednesday evening, October 24, 2001, at the Lucie Stern Community Center, the Santa
Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) and City of Palo Alto staff would be meeting with Palo Alto residents affected
with work on the Palo Alto side of the levee project. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kleinberg,
to direct staff to agendize an informal Council Meeting such as a Committee of the Whole prior to the end of the
year with respect to the Ventura and Cubberley properties that the City owned interest in and had a relationship with the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD). Council Member Wheeler stated she would not participate in
the action or discussion regarding the Ventura project due to a conflict of interest because of her employment with the Palo Alto Community Child Care (PACCC).
Council Member Mossar asked whether it would be possible to
separate conversations about Ventura and Cubberley so Council Member Wheeler would be allowed to participate in the discussions regarding Cubberley.
10/22/01 93-67
Council Member Lytle asked what properties were included in the motion.
Council Member Mossar replied that any properties which had changed hands between the City and PAUSD, namely Cubberley and Ventura.
Council Member Burch supported the motion. Mayor Eakins supported the motion. The point of the motion
was that the meeting be agendized.
Council Member Mossar wanted the item agendized before the end of the year. Mayor Eakins asked Council Member Mossar if she wanted the meeting as a study session or as an item on the agenda.
Mossar would like it to be an item on the agenda with formal Council discussion in an open and public opportunity.
Council Member Beecham asked whether a Committee of the Whole would be appropriate.
Council Member Mossar replied that a Committee of the Whole was fine.
Mayor Eakins suggested that Council Members Mossar and
Kleinberg do a description of the agenda item. Council Member Lytle said one other property had been
offered to the City for community center purposes, and she wondered if the motion could include Mayfield.
Council Member Mossar said she did not want to include Mayfield because she was interested in the relationship between PAUSD and the City.
Mayor Eakins informed Council Member Lytle that Mayfield would be agendized in the future. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Wheeler “not participating,” Fazzino
absent.
CLOSED SESSION
10/22/01 93-68
The meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m. to a Closed Session. 6. Conference with City Attorney - Pending Litigation
(continued from 10/15/01) Subject: In re Pacific Gas and Electric Company, a California Corporation, Debtor, U.S. Bankruptcy Court case No.: 01-30923DM
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a)
7. Conference with City Attorney -- Potential/Anticipated Litigation Subject: Significant Exposure to Litigation on One Matter
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) & (b)(3)(A)
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters
involving Pending Litigation as described in Agenda Item Nos. 6 and Potential/Anticipated Litigation as described in
Agenda Item No. 7. Mayor Eakins announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 6 and 7. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Vice Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b).
The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation
of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the
public to listen to during regular office hours.
10/22/01 93-69