HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-01-22 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting January 22, 2001
1. Presentation of a $26,000 donation to the City Council by
the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation.........................315
2. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Library Advisory Commission.........................................316
3. Appointments to Public Art Commission.......................316
3A. Report on Current Status of Utilities in View of Crisis in
Deregulation................................................316
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS..............................................318
4. Resolution 8032 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan Pursuant to Section 7.03(a) of the
Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract with the City and County of San Francisco”.......................319
5. Ordinance 4677 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $500,000
from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund for Contribution to the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County”.................319
6. Approval of the Acquisition and Resale of the Below Market Rate Unit at 2464 West Bayshore Road, Unit #1...............319
7. Ordinance 4679 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 Budget Adding 4.0 Full-Time Equivalent Positions in
the Utilities Department for the Dark Fiber Leasing Program”....................................................320
8. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Energy Masters International, Inc. in the Amount of $681,400 for Design and Engineering Traffic Signal System Retrofitting Services.320
9. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation..........320
01/22/01 91-313
9A. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation..................................................320
9B. (Old Item No. 11) University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District.........................................320
10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider updating the existing Ordinance 4362, the Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, Palo Alto Municipal Code,
Chapter 8.10 by adding redwoods or other species to the list of protected trees and noticing adjacent property owners of approved removals. Additional considerations
include potential changes to the definitions of “dangerous” and “dripline area,” and the prohibited acts section of the
ordinance, adding clarification to “existing building footprint” and adding a provision to allow removal of a protected tree that is crowding an adjacent protected tree..328
12. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements..............334
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. to a Closed
Session.....................................................335
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m............335
01/22/01 91-314
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m.
PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (via teleconference from Washington, D.C.), Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Presentation of a $26,000 donation to the City Council by
the Palo Alto Art Center Foundation.
Lucy Berman, Vice President, Palo Alto Art Center Foundation (PAACF) Board, presented a check for $20,000 in support of Project Look and an additional check for $6,000 to fund the 6-month intern for the project. PAACF was strongly committed to children’s art education programming. PAACF had a breadth of
programming both in exhibitions and course offerings. PAACF’s building was constructed as City Hall in 1951 and had benefited
only from seismic retrofitting. The Board wanted to improve the facilities to give Palo Alto a world-class art center. Over the past year the PAACF Board and staff worked together to begin the
process of designing a new facility. PAACF received grants from the Packard Foundation and the Non-Profit Facilities Fund to do
a facilities master plan. The plan included an architectural planning study, which was currently under way. PAACF thanked the City for its pledge to provide matching funding for the effort.
A joint site survey committee had been formed with representatives of PAACF, library staff, City staff, the Friends
of the Library, PAACF Board, and neighbors of the site. Letters of interest were currently being solicited for a master site study, which would look at the expansion needs of both
organizations and make recommendations for the footprint of the building and parking on the combined site. PAACF was pleased to
see the corporate communities of Silicon Valley begin to consider the art center for donations as the fundraising began for an expanded facility. PAACF also added more than 150 members in 2001; total membership was at 904.
Gwen Weisner was a dedicated, long-time volunteer with Project Look and presented checks and PAACF’s new t-shirt.
Mayor Eakins said they were splendid gifts. The City knew the hours of work and the effort that went into accumulating the
donations. No action required.
01/22/01 91-315
2. Selection of Candidates to be Interviewed for the Library Advisory Commission
City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Anthony Angiletta, Alexander Edelstein, Sandra Hirsh, Susan Jones, John Kagel, Tina Kass, Donald Langendorf, and Virginia Moshetta received four or more votes and would be interviewed.
3. Appointments to Public Art Commission FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR PUBLIC ART COMMISSION
VOTING FOR CHRISTINE CHUTKOWSKI:
VOTING FOR MARTA THOMA: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian
City Clerk Donna Rogers announced that Marta Thoma received eight votes and was appointed on the first ballot. 3A. Report on Current Status of Utilities in View of Crisis in Deregulation
Mayor Eakins said Palo Alto was fortunate in owning its own
utilities, but it was part of a network. The City’s power came over Pacific Gas & Electric’s (PG&E) transmission lines to the Colorado station. Conservation could make a difference. She
visited the Utilities Control Center and saw how staff knew which sections of a block contributed a certain number of
percentage points to the overall load in Palo Alto. She called for an overall response to conservation. Other cities were investigating provision of refunds on utility users tax because
PG&E was charging a great deal more, but Palo Alto was not one of those cities because it had not increased its utility users
tax. She called for a Special Meeting about the utilities emergency and the electric shortage so that the community would have a chance to ask questions. City Manager Frank Benest announced a Special Meeting called by
the Mayor regarding Utilities to be set for Wednesday, January 31, 2001, at 4 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Director of Utilities John Ulrich said the City was expected to
have energy reductions in the same manner as other utilities in the State of California. Until the previous week, the situation
in California had not been bad enough to require rolling blackouts. There was a brief rolling blackout June 14, 2000, during the heat of the summer, which affected the City and several other local Bay Area cities. The energy shortage became serious the previous week and required the City to turn off
01/22/01 91-316
electricity for approximately 7,400 customers in Palo Alto for periods of up to one hour. The following day, the City rotated
3,400 more customers. So far, during the energy shortage, about 57 percent of Palo Alto customers experienced outages of approximately one hour. The City had considerable amounts of information available on its website. Information had been mailed out several months before about which block people were
in. The energy shortage was due to the State Legislature’s commitment to deregulation and the large demand for energy in California. Palo Alto still had long-term contracts and
ownership in generation sufficient to meet the needs of Palo Alto customers and residents. However, the transmission line
that delivered power to Palo Alto was owned and maintained by and under the control of PG&E and the Independent Systems Operator (ISO). There was an agreement that if there were shortages in supply or transmission capacity, Palo Alto would share proportionally in the energy shortage. There would be
times when Palo Alto would need aid and support for the transmission system from others. The Governor attempted to help stabilize prices, but he was not sure there was a short-term solution that would satisfy everybody. Palo Alto’s prices for electricity were about 50 percent below PG&E’s prices. Gas
prices were about 65 percent lower. Palo Alto had been able to avoid having to buy energy on the spot market, but it had a
problem because of the delivery. With the way the energy was sold and the environmental laws written, power producers could burn and use power plants for only a certain number of hours in
a given year. Already many were almost at the limit of their 2001 total annual usage. The plants Palo Alto had ownership in
were impacted, and air requirements were causing those plants not to be available during certain times. Hospitals and City Hall Emergency Operations Center (EOC) were not part of the
rolling blackouts. Since power outages were being controlled by the City, if any emergencies were phoned in via 911, the Police
and Fire Departments could call the Utilities Control Center to have the circuit or power turned back on. Significant communications were provided via bill inserts and on the website, and there were proactive efforts regarding conservation and load management.
Council Member Mossar heard a report from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) about backup generation,
which was something that some companies in the valley were interested in doing to protect them. The backup generators
tended to be diesel generators, and according to BAAQMD staff’s projections, the community could return quickly to air quality levels experienced 10 or more years before. It underscored the need for conservation. She was pleased to hear about the efforts of Mr. Ulrich’s staff.
01/22/01 91-317
Council Member Burch said his neighbor, who was bed-ridden, had
an electric oxygen generator and tanks that would last for a couple of hours. He requested clarification that a rolling blackout would last for only an hour, and then the next block would be affected.
Mr. Ulrich said that was the plan. Back in June 2000, he initially set the time at two hours, but it became too hot after one hour.
Council Member Burch clarified that after a block was down for
an hour, then the block would not be affected again until all the other blocks had gone through the rolling blackouts. Mr. Ulrich said that was correct. Even if a block went through a partial blackout, it would not be affected again until all the
other blocks went through. Council Member Burch knew block information could be obtained from the website. He knew that Block 19 was the next one up and then Block 15 after that.
Mr. Ulrich said the website address was www.cpau.com. Some
people did not have access to the web, but they could call the Utilities Department.
Council Member Lytle asked if there was any way that the blocks could trade blackouts for conservation.
Mr. Ulrich said staff was speaking with large customers on that subject. He was also convinced that the City needed to be
consistent with the way everyone was treated.
Mayor Eakins said it was an excellent presentation and people were welcome to look at the map on the wall to see where their blocks were located. Mr. Ulrich said the map on the wall was purposely vague for
confidentiality reasons. Staff did not want people to know which block was going out, except for the people who were within that block, so that way there was not a possibility of someone going
to an area when the power was out and doing something inappropriate. The map was primarily there to show the
complexity and the size of the blocks. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
01/22/01 91-318
Ben Bailey, 600 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding “the more useless cruelty: two more big swallows of beer capers.”
Sophia Dhrymes, 483 Hawthorne Street, spoke regarding the inauguration of President Bush, and the crisis the State of California is facing regarding electricity.
Jim Dinkey, 3380 Cork Oak Way, spoke regarding website notices needed: AT&T phone numbers, list of personnel to help, and instructions in what to do.
Ed Powers, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding good
government. Kip Husty, 922 Bautista Court, spoke regarding a claim against the City.
Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding the Sea Scout base.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 4 – 8.
4. Resolution 8032 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving the Interim Water Shortage
Allocation Plan Pursuant to Section 7.03(a) of the Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract with the City and County of San Francisco”
5. Ordinance 4677 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the
City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $500,000 from the Residential Housing In-Lieu Fund for Contribution to the Housing Trust of Santa Clara County”
6. Approval of the Acquisition and Resale of the Below Market Rate Unit at 2464 West Bayshore Road, Unit #1
Ordinance 4678 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2000-01 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $130,000 for Preservation of a Below Market Rate Unit at 2464 West Bayshore Road, Unit #1”
01/22/01 91-319
7. Ordinance 4679 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year
2000-01 Budget Adding 4.0 Full-Time Equivalent Positions in the Utilities Department for the Dark Fiber Leasing Program” 8. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Energy Masters
International, Inc. in the Amount of $681,400 for Design and Engineering Traffic Signal System Retrofitting Services
Resolution 8033 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Filing of an Application
With the California Energy Commission for a $224,700 Grant to Fund an Energy Efficiency Project to Convert Traffic Signal Incandescent Lamps to Light Emitting Diodes” MOTION PASSED 8-0.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS
MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Beecham, to move
Item No. 11 forward ahead of Item No. 10 to become Item No. 9B.
MOTION PASSED 8-0.
CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 9. Conference with City Attorney--Existing Litigation
Subject: City of Palo Alto v. Service Employees International Union, Local 715 (Re: Danton Camm),
SCC#CV773215; Danton Camm v. City of Palo Alto, SCC#CV772633
Authority: Government Section 54956.9
9A. Conference with City Attorney--Potential Initiation of Litigation
Subject: Potential Initiation of Litigation on two matters
Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(c)
REPORTS OF OFFICIALS
9B. (Old Item No. 11) University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District
01/22/01 91-320
Investments and Debt Manager Joe Saccio said Council approved two Downtown-parking structures. The City was beginning the
process of forming an assessment district, which would finance the structures. Staff was there to provide an update on the project cost and the financing plan and to answer Council’s questions of November 27, 2000, regarding the use or alternative uses of the former Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) site for
parking displaced during the construction. The two resolutions were for approval of acquisitions and improvements on Lots S and L and Lot R and approval of the Preliminary Engineer’s Report.
The Report discussed the boundary for the parking assessment district, the maximum assessment for each parcel, the assessment
methodology, the date for the public hearing, and the mailing of the assessment ballots. The mailing was restricted to approximately 100 property owners of the Downtown area, who would be responsible, along with the City, for the financing of the parking structures. The construction cost estimates was at
$45.9 million. There would be two bond issues. The first would be for refinancing existing Downtown University Avenue assessment bonds, repaying the City $1.4 million, primarily for the design of the structures. There would also be final design costs. In June 2002, the second bond issue would be primarily
for the construction of the two parking structures. The anticipated costs to the property owners would increase from 35
cents per square foot to approximately $1.45 per square foot. The City’s assessment would be approximately $76,000 per year. In addition to the parking structures, there would be space for
a Teen Center and/or commercial use. The debt service would be approximately $286,000, which would be paid by the General Fund
and could be offset by any space rented. Director of Public Works Glenn Roberts said on November 27,
2000, Council had questions and issues regarding the proposed replacement parking program that centered primarily around the
use of the PAMF site parking lot for temporary parking during construction. Staff did not have final recommendation or resolution to the issues and needed time to resolve them. Therefore, staff asked for Council direction to report back to Council in September 2001 with final resolution of the issues.
The September timeframe would take place before the project design was completed, before the specifications were completed, and before the project went out for bid.
Council Member Mossar requested confirmation that the time frame
would be after the ballot for the assessment. Mr. Roberts said that was correct. Since November, the Public Works, Planning and Transportation, and Police Departments had worked on the issues. For example, staff tried to find
01/22/01 91-321
alternatives for the spaces that would be displaced. Unfortunately, staff found that private property owners were not
willing to commit to any long-term leases during construction. Staff continued to pursue and negotiate the use of additional Webster-Cowper garage floors. Staff also explored the concept of valet parking on all City lots. In addition, staff was looking at all-day permit parking on the PAMF site to minimize traffic
disruption. City Traffic Engineer Ashok Aggarwal proposed restriping on-street parking in some Downtown areas or around City Hall to gain additional parking. Staff was also looking at
alternate Fridays, with the City’s new extended hours and 9/80 program, which freed up parking spaces. Staff also looked at
what could be done to provide all-day parking using ticket machines that could be installed in garages. Staff was examining all the issues and expected to return with a package in September that would satisfy all concerns.
Council Member Burch asked whether a parking structure had ever been considered for placement along Alma near Hamilton Avenue between Alma and the railroad tracks. Mr. Roberts believed that was private property.
Council Member Mossar said it belonged to the Joint Powers
Authority (JPA) and was leased to Ellison for a long time. Ellison’s lease was not renewed. The JPA was taking it back to provide parking for users of CalTrain.
Council Member Burch said that property might be a possibility.
Mr. Roberts said the City could speak with CalTrain about any short-term potential. Multi-level parking would involve issues
of timing and construction.
Vice Mayor Ojakian said in addition to the issue of private ownership, the original parking committee deemed the site not suitable for a structure. Mr. Saccio said staff would be mailing notices, ballots and
additional information to property owners by February 3, 2001. Shortly afterwards, staff intended to hold workshops with the property owners and with the Chamber of Commerce. On March 19,
2001, there would be a public hearing. At the close of that hearing, the ballots would be tallied.
Council Member Mossar said the Council had been told that approval of the engineer’s report was key for a number of reasons, many of them attached to the requirements of Proposition 218 and the City’s ability to fund the project. She
01/22/01 91-322
understood staff’s clear recommendation for approval, but she asked what the Council should be concerned about.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Sue Case said staff gave Council the total dollar amount that needed to be collected. Staff divided that dollar amount, using a certain formula, among those responsible to pay the assessment. Prior to Proposition 218, if
Council found that there was hardship or miscalculation, adjustment could be made and the amount could be reallocated among the payers. Per Proposition 218, however, there was an
obligation to bring forward to each individual property owner the maximum dollar amount required to be paid. Once the process
was in motion, the City either had to redo the process and reallocate or the City would have a subsidy for someone on account of hardship. City coffers would be affected. There was a question of whether the City was giving a gift of public funds. Staff’s message was that the process was much more rigid than
before. There was a certain amount built in for adjustments, but the uncertainty in construction prices was the problem. Council Member Mossar said it was more than just being comfortable with the engineer’s report. She clarified the
concern was that when and if the Council approved it; the City was stuck with the results.
Ms. Case said the Council was not making decisions that evening that were permanent. The Council was preliminarily approving the
engineer’s report. The professional engineer was required by Proposition 218, and staff had the right to rely on that
professional opinion. There was no other information that was contrary, and so the Council could feel comfortable with preliminarily approving the engineer’s report.
Council Member Beecham asked whether staff, given the importance
of setting a number in stone, was comfortable with the number. Mr. Roberts said staff was. City staff worked together to structure a project that was responsive to issues. Staff had the advice of an outside consultant in preparing the engineer’s
report. City staff who reviewed the consultant’s work included those involved in administering the current assessment districts. Protests were possible when the item would return to
Council on March 19, 2001. If so, there was a contingency built into the project that could handle minor discrepancies. He felt
very confident that there were no major discrepancies in the report. From a technical standpoint, the work was adequate, respected the legal parameters, and could be delivered within the budget cap.
01/22/01 91-323
Council Member Mossar thought it was a lot of money for a City commitment in advance of other possible financial commitments
that the City had on the table. If the City accepted its fair share of the assessment for the project, there was a piece the City paid for that could generate revenues or cost the City additional dollars. She was nervous about committing a level of assessment without committing to spending additional money or
using the part of the project to generate revenues, which could offset the assessment.
City Manager Frank Benest said staff planned in the next three or four months to return to Council with recommendations
regarding the space, how to pay for it, and how it would benefit the City and programs. Staff wanted to avoid designing the space and then changing its mind. Council Member Mossar was also interested in knowing in advance
what the City’s financial outlay would ultimately be. There were two very different scenarios in the staff report (CMR:114:01). Mr. Benest said staff would have the financial data in a few months. The City needed to pay its fair share. There were two
major issues. The first was the mix of strategies the City used to minimize the replacement parking issue. The second was the
add-on space in front of the parking structure. Long before coming back with replacement parking solutions, staff needed to return to Council with a strategy that made sense fiscally,
including how the City dealt with its portion of the assessment, what to do with the space, and how it related to other goals.
Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats said Attachment F of the staff report went through the numbers.
Council Member Mossar said that attachment made her feel there
were some fundamental policy issues the City was not acting on in advance of the decision to move forward with a very expensive project. Council Member Beecham asked staff for its thoughts on any
appropriate campaign to ensure that the vote would provide a result the City desired.
Mr. Benest said staff believed if the downtown property owners wanted additional parking structures and were willing to pay,
the process should be driven by the property owners. A group of downtown property owners had been working with City staff and the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and had been critical in terms of shaping and forming the whole assessment district. Staff would provide information and answer technical questions, but
01/22/01 91-324
property owners needed to promote the parking structures and work to get it passed.
Mr. Roberts said the process was underway and was going well. The private sector was leading it, and Chop Keenan was chairing that activity. The extremely good news was going out to property owners that the final maximum assessments were actually less
than what had previously been calculated. Council Member Kleinberg said one of the features of the large
buildings was space for youth activities and/or nonprofit service organizations. As the retail and office space rents
escalated and the nonprofits were in jeopardy of losing their ability to function in the City, it became more important for the City to consider a place for them. The scenario in Attachment F made it tempting to forget how important it was for the City to try to provide space for the nonprofits.
Mr. Yeats said staff presented the numbers in order to give Council as much information as possible for the decision that Council would make in the future. There were many scenarios with the space in downtown. Staff looked at the Youth Master Plan,
the downtown rental rates, and the appropriate mix of leasing and using the space so that the cost to the General Fund would
be minimized. Council Member Lytle clarified the notification of the
assessment to the 274 parcel owners was being done by the property owner group, not the City.
Mr. Roberts said there were two separate but parallel processes. The process for advocacy was being led by the private sector,
and staff had intentionally removed itself from that advocacy role. Staff had provided and would continue to provide
information. If Council gave its authorization that evening to move forward, all the information contained in the engineer’s report would be transmitted directly to the property owners as part of the ballot election process.
Council Member Lytle clarified that the property owners were not notified of the amounts prior to the current evening’s meeting.
Mr. Roberts said they were not notified officially by staff.
Council Member Lytle asked what would happen if the measure failed. Mr. Benest said it was a community effort to help deal with a very serious problem. Adding two parking structures for a very
01/22/01 91-325
vibrant downtown was the best way to proceed. If it failed, the City would have to regroup with the community and figure out
whether to live with the current parking problem or whether there were some other things that could be done. The City was in a facilitative mode and a support mode as opposed to being the primary mover.
Council Member Lytle said staff had given assurance that it would be researching the possibility of converting one of the structures as a toll collection garage, even if it meant loss of
a few parking spaces to get the toll booths in. She asked if that cost had been estimated in the numbers.
Mr. Roberts said staff continued to research that possibility through the design stage of the project. There could be a conduit that could be used for future wiring and installation of a gate arm or ticket dispenser. Council’s direction to staff
that it could be done with the possibility of losing a few spaces made it much easier to provide for in the future. Roxy Rapp, P.O. Box 1672, said the downtown group included himself, Chop Keenan, Warren Thoits, and Jim Baer. The group met
almost every other week, and a letter with their phone numbers would be mailed out that week to all the property owners. They
would follow up with a phone call to each property owner to answer any questions and to encourage a positive vote.
Council Member Mossar said her comments regarding the City’s costs, Attachment F, and Council Member Kleinberg’s comments
underscored the fact that there were some significant policy issues. She was looking forward to further recommendations from staff, but it was not a foregone conclusion that the City could
or would afford any particular option. MOTION: Vice Mayor Ojakian moved, seconded by Beecham, to adopt the resolutions. Resolution 8034 entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto of Intention to Make Acquisitions
and Improvements - University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District”
Resolution 8035 entitled “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Palo Alto Preliminarily Approving Engineer's
Report and Directing Actions with Respect Thereto - University Avenue Area Off-Street Parking Assessment District”
01/22/01 91-326
Vice Mayor Ojakian said it was a process that began sometime in 1995 with a committee that he was originally on. The engineer’s
report contained a clear picture of the benefits and the apportionment formula in the schedule, which was very helpful. Although it was preliminary, it provided clear information for the affected individuals and what their potential assessments were. The City found that Proposition 218 was a difficult piece
of legislation to deal with. With the parking assessment district, there was an advocacy group. With the parking assessment, the financing was set out, and there was the
potential of making it work so that the City’s costs were covered. There was hidden revenue, which was potential
additional sales tax revenue that the City could receive by having improved parking. Regarding the alternative parking situation, Council wanted staff to pursue all options. No one was comfortable with having the PAMF site used for the whole year and a half as a parking alternative. He suggested finding
space in segments, for example, from Stanford for six months. Regarding the 8,100 square foot non-parking structure at the corner of Lytton and Bryant, he said there was a policy on the Council that for existing infrastructure, the City should identify different revenues to try to pay for it. For new
infrastructure, the City should try to identify new funding sources. The two would be kept separate to make sure that the
City took care of its existing infrastructure. Somewhere in the formula the non-parking space had to generate enough revenue to handle the costs. He hoped the motion would pass because it
would be very difficult later on to generate the energy, time, and money to approve a parking structure.
Council Member Fazzino supported the motion, although he continued to have concerns about the size of the project, in
particular the proposed structure on Bryant. Architecturally, the City could have been more creative and could have
incorporated more retail along the sides of the building. He was concerned that the most prominent structure in downtown Palo Alto in five years’ time would be a monstrous parking structure. Nonetheless, additional parking capacity was needed, and it was time the property owners decided whether or not they wanted to
move ahead with the project. He congratulated staff in putting together a fair financing plan. Herb Borock’s proposal about space to be provided by local government officials should be
explored. He agreed with Council Member Mossar that some of the issues regarding usage and City participation needed to be
addressed later on. MOTION PASSED 8-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
01/22/01 91-327
10. PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider
updating the existing Ordinance 4362, the Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10 by adding redwoods or other species to the list of protected trees and noticing adjacent property owners of approved removals. Additional considerations
include potential changes to the definitions of “dangerous” and “dripline area,” and the prohibited acts section of the ordinance, adding clarification to “existing building
footprint” and adding a provision to allow removal of a protected tree that is crowding an adjacent protected tree.
Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote said staff was returning to Council based on Council direction given September 11, 2000. Council had asked staff to prepare an amended tree protection ordinance, which would include redwoods, to the list of
protected trees within the City of Palo Alto. Council had also asked staff to develop a public outreach program to notify and discuss potential changes with members of the community. Staff developed the public outreach program, which included a website, an e-mail address, advertisements in the newspaper, and mailings
to over 180 different organizations that dealt with landscaping arboriculture issues. Staff also held a public forum on December
12, 2000, which was attended by 25 people. Overall, staff received over 100 responses to the public outreach program. As a result of that program as well as staff’s own analysis of the
existing ordinance and staff’s experience implementing the ordinance over the last four years, staff made recommendations
for six minor changes and clarifications to the existing ordinance. The first was to add redwood trees more than 18 inches in diameter to the list of protected trees. Staff
chose 18 inches in diameter because that was considered a mature redwood tree of about 20 years of age, which was consistent with
the age of a mature oak, at about 20 years. However, the sizes were different. An oak at 20 years would be about 12 inches in diameter. Staff also recommended a provision to allow for the removal of protected trees based on overcrowding of a site so that it would give the Director of Planning & Community
Environment additional flexibility when looking at the density of trees on a site and the growth patterns of those trees. If protected trees were growing in such a way as to threaten other
protected trees, there would be a means for approval of a tree removal permit. Staff also recommended that the word “dangerous”
be changed to “hazardous,” which was the correct term used in the profession of arboriculture. For practical purposes, staff recommended that the drip line be measured from the edge of the trunk of the tree rather than the center of tree. It was very difficult to find the exact center of a tree. Staff also
01/22/01 91-328
recommended that a definition of “basal flare” be added, which was the hump at the bottom of the trunk where the root system
and structure began. Other parts of the ordinance mentioned that protected trees should be retained unless the trunk touched the existing structure or the basal flare was under the existing foundation or touching the foundation and causing harm to the tree. The six primary amendments that staff recommended to the
existing tree ordinance were found in Attachment C of the staff report (CMR:112:01). Attachment A was merely an ordinance that included the redwood addition only. Staff recommended approval
of Attachment C.
Council Member Burch asked about notification to neighbors. Ms. Grote said that issue was brought up at the public meeting and in some e-mails. Staff recommended that notification not be provided for a couple of reasons. The primary reason was that
protected trees would only be removed if they were hazardous, dying, or already dead. Therefore, removal should not be delayed because it would be a benefit to neighbors and property owners to remove the tree as quickly as possible. Notification would not help the situation.
Council Member Lytle commended staff for the format of
Attachment C and the recommendations made beyond Council’s direction, which were based on feedback staff received from the outreach. The most significant item she saw was the recommended
change in the definition of an existing building footprint. The original ordinance was prepared with the understanding that
building footprint meant the “entitled” building footprint under the Zoning Ordinance. That was documented in the staff reports that accompanied the original adoption of the oak tree heritage
ordinance. She clarified that by changing it to “existing building footprint,” it made a stronger slant toward the
protection of trees and away from the rights of the property owners to their full zoning building footprint. Ms. Grote said if a building were to be removed and a new proposed building would cause the removal of the protected tree,
Planning Arborist Dave Dockter would advise people that it was not something the City encouraged or allowed and that in fact an amendment to the ordinance was passed which would entertain
variances in order to save the protected tree. Staff considered “existing building footprint” consistent with how staff applied
the ordinance in the field and the direction and advice that staff gave to people as they came in for redesigns, remodels, and new homes.
01/22/01 91-329
Council Member Mossar clarified there was wording in the original ordinance about expansion of existing buildings and
that those buildings might not be built into the tree’s canopy except under a set of circumstances. Ms. Grote said that was correct.
Council Member Mossar said that addressed the concern that Council Member Lytle had raised. It did not wipe out someone’s ability to expand his/her house.
Ms. Grote said if expansion reduced the potential building area
by more than 25 percent, then removal of the protected tree would be allowed. Otherwise, a property owner would not be able to remove the tree. There were other allowances, such as coming into the drip line by a certain amount as long as the root structure was not being damaged or the tree overall was not
being harmed. Mayor Eakins said when the original ordinance was written in 1996, only the trunk was protected. She believed that in 1997, the change was made that addressed Council Member Lytle’s
concern.
Council Member Lytle said she accepted staff’s recommendation that the way the ordinance was being administered was the result of a subsequent change to the original ordinance.
Council Member Kleinberg asked where the 25 percent allowance
instruction was in the ordinance. Ms. Grote said it was Section 3(d)(2) on page 5 of Attachment C.
Mayor Eakins declared the public hearing open.
Carolyn Reese, 80 Kirby Place, said redwoods were beautiful, majestic trees and were part of the California heritage. They added tremendous character to the neighborhoods, and many people lived in Palo Alto because of the beautiful neighborhoods.
Houses could be rebuilt or remodeled, but once a tree was removed, it was gone and was no longer in her life or her children’s life. She went to the meeting in December and
listened to the presentation by Mr. Dockter and Ms. Grote, who explained the proposed ordinance to everyone. People there had
concerns, which were adequately addressed in the proposed ordinance. She supported the inclusion of redwood trees in the ordinance.
01/22/01 91-330
Phil Salsbury, 1345 Martin Avenue, said he and his family lived on Martin Avenue for 23 years and in Palo Alto for nearly 30
years. The reason he liked the neighborhood was because of the community, the fantastic neighbors, and the urban forest. It had taken Mother Nature decades to put that forest in place, but it took a chainsaw and bulldozer only hours to remove it. During the previous summer, an issue arose in which the property on the
corner of Lincoln and Martin was bought by a developer. The existing home was demolished, and the gateway redwood tree was slated for removal for the new speculative home to be built.
When neighbors became aware of the proposal, they went to City Council in July 2000. As a result of many people’s efforts, the
tree was saved, and the neighborhood was grateful. There needed to be checks and balances so that a neighborhood could be protected against the commercial developers whose main objective was building large houses. The proposed ordinance represented a good solution. It was a win-win for the community and for the
neighbors, and he urged the City Council to support the ordinance. Brian Steen, Box BE, Los Altos, lived on Redwood Circle and was pleased to be a Palo Alto resident for the last year and a half.
He was the director of the Sempervirens Fund. The Sempervirens Fund and its predecessor, the Sempervirens Club, had been
preserving redwood forests in the Santa Cruz Mountains for 100 years. The record stood at about 20,000 acres. The Fund had spent over $12 million to buy an additional 1,400 acres in the
Santa Cruz Mountains. By adopting the proposed ordinance, Council had a chance to do something that would be important for
another 100 years. However, with current and future property values, Council would be challenged with violations, requests for variances, and enforcement problems. He was pleased to see
that the staff did a very thorough job of surveying other Bay Area cities. Within that survey, it was evident that most cities
had enforcement problems, and there were costs associated with the enforcement. He urged the Council to pay attention to allocating funding and staffing resources so that the City could deal with the future problems. In looking through the survey, he noticed that most Bay Area cities generally protected all trees
over 15 inches of DBH height. Palo Alto should do the same thing because sycamore trees were also important. There were neighborhoods with significant sycamore trees. He noticed in the
recommendations that other species were not to be considered yet probably because of enforcement costs and problems. He urged
Council to take the longer, 100-year view. Jean Wilcox, 4005 Sutherland Drive, hoped the Council would not approve the redwood tree ordinance because it infringed upon basic property rights of Palo Alto homeowners. There were many
01/22/01 91-331
hundreds of redwood trees in the City, and they were not an endangered species. The trees were beautiful and planted in an
appropriate location, but someone with a tiny backyard in South Palo Alto might find a 30-year-old redwood tree overwhelming. Redwood trees had a finite life and should be recycled. She noticed that new ones were being planted every week somewhere in the City, thus ensuring a rotating crop of healthy redwood
trees. She reminded Council of the post-Civil War history about the importance of retaining individual property rights. If the Council found it absolutely necessary to pass the ordinance, she
hoped they would not be tempted to expand it beyond coastal and valley oaks and native redwood trees. However, she urged the
Council to refrain from controlling whether homeowners kept or removed redwoods from their own private properties. The proposed ordinance was unnecessary and was an attempt to micromanage what individual homeowners did in their yards.
Alex Edelstein, 355 Santa Rita Avenue, was a senior policy analyst for Santa Clara County Supervisor Liz Kniss. He was strongly in favor of adding redwood trees. However, he questioned the penalty level written in the original ordinance. Development costs in the City had skyrocketed. If a developer
bought a lot with a beautiful redwood tree and a house, and the developer or contractor cut the tree down in the middle of the
night or by accident, the fine was $5,000. The development might be delayed, and the developer might have to agree to a mitigation plan that would cause the developer to pay for trees
somewhere else in the City. However, he feared that with hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars going into
the construction of speculative houses, the penalty level made it too easy for the fine to be factored into the cost of development. The level of penalty in the ordinance as it was
written four years before might not have enough strength to help in the cases in which it was most needed.
Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, supported expanding the tree protection ordinance to include protection of other species of mature trees. She was concerned about the decision to protect redwoods and not any other species, which had not been discussed
in public. She believed the people who gave comments about protecting redwoods did not realize that their comments would be used in statistics that showed they did not support protection
of other trees. The numbers presented in the staff report (CMR: 112:01) did not reflect that many of the people who responded
wanted to protect other species of trees. Staff seemed not to be recommending other species of trees because of limited resources. If the Council made a decision to protect redwoods that evening, their message might be to forget other species. Her other concern was the noticing requirement. With a hazardous
01/22/01 91-332
situation, a notice of tree removal should be posted as soon as possible either on the tree or at the street front of the
property. She did not see that as a problem. Mayor Eakins declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Burch, to
include redwood trees in an update to existing Ordinance 4362, the Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 8.10 (Attachment C).
Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Chapter 8.10 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Define Certain Redwood Trees as Protected Trees to be Preserved and Protected, Permitting the Removal of Protected Trees That Damage Other Protected Trees, and Modifying Certain Definitions”
Council Member Fazzino said staff made the case that redwoods needed to be protected every bit as much as heritage oaks. He knew other cities went beyond the two species and protected others, which the City could look at in the future. However, he
believed it was extremely important that the City move slowly, educate the public, and enlist the support of the public.
Education was a big part of the program. He was sensitive to the issue of infringing on property owners’ rights. At the same time, many cities in the Bay Area and throughout the state had
ordinances that went far beyond Palo Alto’s. Given Palo Alto’s name and history, wonderful urban forest, and identification
with preservation of trees, it was unbelievable that the City had not had a very strong ordinance. Speculative development over the last few years had threatened the life of many
outstanding trees, redwoods in particular. He commended staff on proposing a program that could easily be enforced. He supported
the staff recommendation. Council Member Burch said it was the felling of many redwood trees that brought the issue to Council’s attention. He remembered the gateway tree at the corner of Lincoln and Martin,
and noted it was Mr. Dockter who convinced the builder to modify the lot line so that the tree and the house could co-exist. More trees could be protected, but the City was taking a major
step forward in protecting the redwood trees. Sycamores were beautiful trees, but beautiful trees to one person might not be
to another. That was a reason to decide on redwoods because almost everyone would agree that redwoods were important trees and were worth saving. He supported staff’s recommendation.
01/22/01 91-333
Mayor Eakins thanked Council Member Burch for the initial work. She thanked staff for a well thought-out recommendation. The
point about education was important. People needed to learn to plant the right trees in the right places so that there would be fewer difficult situations in which a beautiful tree had to be removed or pruned to make way for power lines or something else. She supported staff’s recommendation.
Council Member Beecham said Council Members probably did not support public notice of tree removal because if there were no
specific point for the public to have input as in a public hearing, then the City generally did not do noticing. Not
requiring public notice of tree removal was appropriate. Mayor Eakins said the staff report (CMR:112:01) stated that existing resources could be managed to handle enforcement for adding the redwood trees. To add many more would require an
additional staff person, which the Planning Department did not currently have and was not ready to staff. As Council Member Fazzino said, the City would move steadily and slowly and see how much education made a difference.
Council Member Lytle commended staff for the outreach program and the method of presenting the policy choices to the Council
in the staff report (CMR:112:01). In line with the comments made about public education, she asked about the technical tree manual that was called for when the ordinance was originally
adopted and whether the manual was completed and available for the public.
Ms. Grote said the technical tree manual was about 90 percent completed and was not available for public review. The ordinance
changes would be incorporated in the manual, and the manual would be ready in February 2001.
MOTION PASSED 8-0.
COUNCIL MATTERS
12. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Vice Mayor Ojakian requested the City Clerk state the deadline
for the applications for Council vacancies.
City Clerk Rogers announced the deadline to be Wednesday, January 31, 2001.
01/22/01 91-334
Vice Mayor Ojakian announced that the City Manager would hold another presentation regarding City Finances at the Palo Alto
Art Center on Saturday, January 27, 2001. Mr. Benest stated the next presentation would be a specific dialogue to Service Clubs at 7:30 a.m. on Wednesday, January 24, 2001, and a meeting at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, January 27, 2001,
at the Palo Alto Art Center. Vice Mayor Ojakian stated he had represented the City at the
recent Santa Clara County Cities Association meeting. At the meeting, Assemblyman Joe Simitian spoke regarding the first
Assembly Bill No. 100 that would try to get back the ERAF funds to the cities. He also congratulated Sue Case on her recent marriage. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. to a Closed
Session.
The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Existing Litigation as described in Agenda Item No. 9 and Potential Initiation of Litigation as described in Agenda
Item No. 9A. Mayor Eakins announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item Nos. 9 and 9A.
FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:50 p.m.
ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk 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.
01/22/01 91-335