HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-05-20 City Council Summary Minutes
Regular Meeting May 20, 1996 1. Interviews for Historic Resources Board...............79-162 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................79-163 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 1996.......................79-163 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Information Access Company for Subscription Services to Library Databases Provided via Internet.................................79-163 2. Alma Street Bicycle Bridge............................79-163 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................79-164 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative Subdivision Map for Palo Alto Medical Foundation Urban Lane Site (continued from 2/20/96)79-164 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Ordering the Vacation of Street and Utilities Easements on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Development Site at 795 El Camino Real (continued from 2/20/96)..............................................79-164 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Permit Streamlining - Customer Working Panel Report and Staff Response.............................79-165 7. Presentation of Proposed Tree Protection Ordinance for Public Comment and Council Discussion........................79-177 8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........79-196 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m............79-197
05/20/96 79-161 79-161
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met in a Special Meeting on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:55 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), Huber (arrived at 6:05 p.m.), Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider (arrived at 5:57 p.m.), Simitian, Wheeler SPECIAL MEETINGS 1. Interviews for Historic Resources Board ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
05/20/96 79-162 79-162
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Wheeler welcomed Selene Chan, a student at Jordan Middle School, to the Council Meeting. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding honesty in government. Bob MacElroy, 641 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Civic League. Alan Hirsch, 2539 Ross Road, spoke regarding an article in the San
Jose Mercury News entitled ΑBART Has a Sleazy Track Record.≅ Sandy Eakins and Will Beckett, representing the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC), spoke regarding an invitation to the final CPAC meeting on Wednesday, May 22, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 4, 1996 MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, to approve the Minutes of March 4, 1996, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 8-0, McCown absent. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Huber moved, seconded by Andersen, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 2. 1. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Information Access Company for Subscription Services to Library Databases Provided via Internet; change orders not to exceed $15,000. 2. Alma Street Bicycle Bridge Lease Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for Construction and Use of Alma Street Bicycle Path Amendment No. 1 to Cost Sharing Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Menlo Park for Construction of Alma Street Bicycle Bridge Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the City of Menlo Park for Maintenance of Alma Street Bicycle Bridge
05/20/96 79-163 79-163
MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS City Manager June Fleming announced that Item No. 6, PUBLIC HEARING: The Architectural Review Board and the Planning Commission re Council review of the adequacy of a Final Environmental Impact Report, for property located at 4290 El Camino Real (Former Hyatt Cabana Site) prepared for the Villages at Creekside project, had been withdrawn from the agenda by the applicant. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 3. PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative Subdivision Map for Palo Alto Medical Foundation Urban Lane Site (continued from 2/20/96) Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. City Manager June Fleming said the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) had submitted the necessary materials for the tentative map application that day. A representative from PAMF was suppose to attend the City Council Meeting, but a personal crisis prevented him from doing so, and the July 15, 1996, date was appropriate. Council Member McCown said she would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest, since the PAMF was a client of her law firm. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to continue the Public Hearing to July 15, 1996. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, McCown Αnot participating.≅ 4. PUBLIC HEARING: Resolution Ordering the Vacation of Street and Utilities Easements on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Development Site at 795 El Camino Real (continued from 2/20/96) Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Council Member McCown said she would not participate in the item due to a conflict of interest, since the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) was a client of her law firm. MOTION TO CONTINUE: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Huber, to continue the Public Hearing to July 15, 1996. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED 8-0, McCown Αnot participating.≅ 5. PUBLIC HEARING: Permit Streamlining - Customer Working Panel Report and Staff Response (continued from 4/8/96)
05/20/96 79-164 79-164
Assistant City Manager Bernard Strojny said on April 8, 1996, the Permit Streamlining Customer Working Panel (CWP) appeared before the Council, and Mark Johnson of Varian Associates presented an overview of the CWP report. Members of the CWP and staff were available to answer questions or provide further information. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing open. Jeff Vaillant, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, said the improvement process between the business community and the City of Palo Alto began 17 months before. The staff report (CMR:215:96) contained five recommendations: 1) to reduce the permit cycle time; 2) to improve customer service; 3) to increase standardization; 4) to use automation; and 5) to continually improve. The CWP requested that staff be directed to proceed with an implementation plan. Roger Kohler, 4291 Wilkie Way, joined the CWP in January 1995. Part of his goal was to make sure the proposals and items discussed remembered the residential homeowner. Overall, that was done, and all of the proposals would inherently help the residential person who needed a permit for a fence or patio deck, etc. The faster the bulk of the projects went through the Building Department, the more time staff would have to help the homeowner. The goal of the CWP was to free up some staff time in order for them to be helpful to all homeowners in Palo Alto. If all of the recommendations were implemented, it would be a tremendous asset for everyone in town. He commended all who participated from the various departments. Council Member Andersen said one of the areas of concern expressed by the small developer was that different cities were much easier than Palo Alto to get projects through the process. He queried whether the recommendations would bring Palo Alto to a point where there was a level of consistency and more efficiency than other communities. Mr. Kohler said not all other communities were more efficient than Palo Alto, and some of the counties were worse. He believed the recommendations would help the average small developer and homeowner get through the process faster. While on one hand Palo Alto was blessed with its own utilities, on the other hand it was a two-edged sword. He was not sure they would ever achieve the full one-stop permit process that other communities had because other communities gave the plan and then told a homeowner to go see Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E). While the Utilities Department was an added resource in Palo Alto, the it was also another component to be dealt with in any remodeling or building. If all the recommendations were implemented, the plan check time and the process through the City would be reduced. Currently, the quotes were six to eight weeks for a plan check for anything beyond a green tag building permit. An applicant could pay an extra fee and go to an outside plan checker which would take about four to six
05/20/96 79-165 79-165
weeks. There were so many zoning regulations, building codes, and structural elements involved with permitting that did not exist ten years before. There was no such thing as a simple addition anymore. While more time and effort were required by the homeowner, more help was also required of staff to guide someone through. Council Member Andersen clarified the plan check period was reduced about as far as possible at that point. Mr. Kohler said Palo Alto was experiencing quite a boom, and staff was overwhelmed with project after project not only in residential building but also in commercial. If everything were in place, there would probably still be longer than average time periods to get through the plan check. Chris Devos, 1501 Page Mill Road, commended Chief Building Official Fred Herman for his leadership to the CWP. His "can do" attitude was a refreshing change from what was experienced from others throughout the City in the permit process. Council should encourage all levels of the organization to demonstrate the same "can do" attitude. Mayor Wheeler declared the Public Hearing closed. Vice Mayor Huber referred to page 5 of the staff report (CMR:215:96) and the recommendation to eliminate the requirement to receive a building permit prior to issuance of a demolition permit. He recalled within the past month a situation in which the City ran into an issue of lost rental units when the demolition occurred because of the delay before building. He queried whether the present practice was costing the City replacement units. Chief Building Official Fred Herman said the only real impact of the current practice was the delay caused to those people who honestly wanted to tear down a home and build a new one. The particular project on Edward Avenue was an approved project which was delayed, and the homeowners could not get a demolition permit until after the project was approved. When that occurred, the building was demolished by the Fire Department in a training exercise, but the project was never built. Historically, when a person applied for a building permit for a new house, the hope was to start the site work to get ready to build the new home but the applicant had to wait until he/she had a building permit. People would lose three to four weeks in site preparation time while the permit was in process. Vice Mayor Huber clarified the recommendation referred to all buildings previously used for residential, not just single family. An apartment building with rental units in it could be demolished; and if that happened, the City would require some payment for loss of rental units.
05/20/96 79-166 79-166
Mr. Herman said that would still occur. If homes or multiple family units were removed, that would be tracked and applied to the new project. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said Council directed staff to return with a plan to close in on that issue with the Comprehensive Plan. Vice Mayor Huber referred to the CWP's recommendation regarding the use of contract plan checkers for peak periods whenever queue time exceeded five days versus target time lines, and he queried the difference. Mr. Herman said target time lines referred to projects of a certain size. The proposal was that if staff could not look at a project within five days, it was sent out to an outside plan checker. The problem was the limited number of outside plan checkers. If the fourth day came, and he sent the plan check outside because the policy was adopted but the outside plan checker could not get to the plans for 14 days and he could get to it in 7 days, he was better off promising something to the customer within a set period of time. It should not matter whether it was done inside or outside as long as staff could provide the customer with the knowledge up front that the customer would have a permit in 7 working days or in 30 working days. Council Member Simitian said the process was designed to include both commercial/industrial and residential building permits. The CWP had about 15 representatives, and it seemed there was good participation from commercial and industrial people. He queried how many among the CWP had particular interest or background in residential work, particularly single-family residential. Mr. Herman said Mr. Kohler was primarily involved in residential work, Charles Holman did a lot of residential; and Steven Cohen from Jack & Cohen Builders did commercial and some residential. The report and recommendations were also shared at the counter to show what was being done and to get feedback. Council Member Simitian said during the course of the last year plus, there seemed to be an increased number of people writing, calling, or casually commenting about their frustration with the process. For the most part, the people were not regulars or sophisticated users of the City's processes. He was concerned about hearing from those people who were not part of the routine because there were lots of things the City could and should do to make the system work better for people who were not routinely part of the process. He queried whether the changes would really make a difference for an individual's once-in-a-lifetime home remodel or new single-family construction and how the City could assess the
05/20/96 79-167 79-167
level of satisfaction for those individuals who were not a part of the process on a regular basis. Mr. Herman said the improvements were intended to fit the City's entire spectrum of customers. There were people who came in with no clue about what to do, and frustration was expressed by the "regulars" about why plan checkers spent so much time with people who had no clue when the "regulars" just wanted to get the permit and move on. Part of staff's job was to spend the necessary amount of time with its citizens and homeowners. The suggestion was once made for a "merchant's window." While some of the City's commercial customers would like that, staff was committed to fix the problems for everyone. The City had many handouts and would, within the a week or so, have a residential guidebook for making applications accessible through Palo Alto's Home Page on the Internet. Hard copies were already available. The implementation plan included improving the quality of the handouts so they were easy to understand, instituting follow-ups or monitoring how well the process worked, and receiving feedback. The more staff heard from individuals, the better the City would be prepared when someone walked in the door. Council Member Simitian queried how the follow-ups might work. Mr. Herman said they were random samples. A certain percentage or every third permit issued would be pulled out, and a follow-up questionnaire would be sent. Council Member Simitian clarified that would apply to the small projects as well as the larger, more sophisticated ones. Mr. Herman said that was correct. Council Member Simitian observed as much as the City tried to institutionalize improvements and make them a matter of routine. In many respects, the quality of the service and satisfaction of the customer were a function of whom they dealt with in the various departments. None of the changes worked if the person giving the service was not enthusiastic and effective. He queried how the straightforward human component of what the City did was factored into the process, and how the City ensured it moved from paper to reality in terms of the service given. Mr. Herman said for the first time in his 24 years with the City, he heard from the City Council, the City Manager, and the public about the importance of the permitting process. By hearing the item that evening, Council was saying the Building Division was a priority. The City Manager stressed the importance of good customer service throughout the organization. Customer training would occur, and if there were problems, necessary steps would be taken to resolve them. Unlike the Recreation Division or Community Services, citizens did not enter the Building Division for fun but
05/20/96 79-168 79-168
rather because they had to. People had a different mind-set when they walked in the Building Division, and he believed Council would always receive some complaints because the Building Division was a regulatory agency. People needed to understand that regulations were intended for their benefit. Council Member Simitian asked how the matter would be monitored by the Council for progress. Mr. Herman said staff would return to Council with an implementation plan. Currently, the process management program was underway, and individuals from every department involved in the permitting process met for four hours every other Friday morning to look at every step of the process. The point was to determine what was necessary, why certain steps existed, why a step took so long, what value was added by going through the step, etc. The process was very detailed. The consultant working with the group was involved with process, not permits, and was doing a great job. Council Member Simitian queried at what point and who would make the decision about whether the process worked or not. Mr. Herman said there would be constant monitoring, and when it was time for the implementation plan, staff would have recommendations and budget items. Once that occurred, staff would respond as often as Council wanted. He was sure Council would hear from the City's customers if a slide occurred. City Manager June Fleming said Council would first receive the overview of what staff intended to do with the implementation plan. It would be folded into the Mission Driven Budget (MDB), and staff would return to the Council with its midyear reports. It was also staff's intention, after the process had worked for a year, to return to Council with a status report. At that point, if Council believed those two checkpoints were not sufficient, staff could return more frequently. Council Member Andersen knew space was an issue with the one-stop permitting process and queried how much of an overall issue it was in terms of getting the entire process operating smoothly. He asked whether, in peak demand areas, it was possible for staff to bring in a part-time person to work within the department if necessary. Ms. Fleming said space was the key. If the City truly wanted one-stop processing, there needed to be enough physical space to have all the required departments in one place so a customer did not have to run throughout City Hall. Presently, staff had not found the answer of how to move staff around within City Hall and accomplish the true one-stop process. Staff would continue to work on it and make suggestions to Council to get it as close to one-stop as possible when the implementation plan returned. Staff also
05/20/96 79-169 79-169
considered moving the process out of City Hall into a nearby leased facility until appropriate changes could be made in City Hall to accommodate the process. She emphasized there would not be a one-stop permit process until everyone was in one place.
Council Member Andersen did not have too much trouble with people=s having to go to another floor in City Hall in order to finish things but queried whether the space issue had slowed down the process. While he could see some value in the true one-stop processing, he was well aware there were big cost-benefit questions. Mr. Herman said space made a great deal of difference especially in terms of those projects staff would approve over the counter. Currently, 78 percent of the projects were approved within 10 days. Unfortunately, the smaller projects were stressed, and so the bigger projects, e.g., a new house or a major addition or remodel, tended to wait. There were two things which went with a one-stop processing center: 1) the customer went to one place and things were handled quickly and efficiently; and 2) there was communication among those involved in the one-stop center. There were many benefits to having a one-stop, one location processing center. Council Member Andersen said when the implementation plans returned to the Council, he hoped the issues involved in a one-stop center would be considered as well. Council Member Kniss referred to page 8 of the staff report (CMR:215:96) regarding the effective use of automation. She queried whether the demonstration program developed by Andersen Consulting, Inc. was the same one as SMART Valley. Mr. Herman said that was correct. Permit status was already running on the Internet. Council Member Kniss referred to the need for additional resources and queried what it would take to be able to submit plans with the Computer Aided Design (CAD). Mr. Herman did not believe the actual amount of megabytes of memory was the problem. It was more the software costs, making sure each design team was using the same CAD system or compatible, and training plan check staff on how to read and interpret CAD drawings. While the technology was there, the average homeowner was not going to have a CAD system at home. Council Member Kniss queried whether there would be a point within the next few months when the program developed by Andersen Consulting, Inc. could be demonstrated to the Council.
05/20/96 79-170 79-170
Mr. Herman said the prototype system belonged to Andersen Consulting on Page Mill Road, and Council could request a demonstration. He clarified the system did not have the CAD portion in place. Council Member Kniss queried when the CAD portion might be in place for a demonstration because she did not believe there was anything more persuasive long term. The hotel demonstration was disappointing because if Council believed that was what a CAD looked like, it would be misleading, and she doubted any more funds would ever be allocated to it. Mr. Herman said staff already received CAD drawings, but they were in hard copy. Many architectural firms designed in CAD, and they looked like normal drawings except they were much neater. Council Member Kniss would be interested in knowing at some point what resources it would take to get the CAD software in place. Mr. Herman said a CAD system would be particularly useful in the Research Park forum where they modified their buildings over and over again. Council Member Fazzino believed the Building Inspection Division continued to do an outstanding job. Council sometimes forgot that it held its staff to very high standards when it came to commercial and residential development. Notwithstanding, the suggestions were excellent, and he was pleased with the work of the CWP. If each of the recommendations were implemented, they would go far toward instituting a true one-stop and responsive permitting process. He believed the most important issue was attitude and how staff approached issues. He was concerned about the statement that the mind set was different when people went to the Building Inspection Division because it was a regulatory agency. He was concerned about any presumption by the Building Inspection Division staff of an adversarial relationship from the start. He queried what type of training was anticipated in order to change the attitudes about working with the public. Mr. Herman believed the perception came from the customer side. No matter how City staff worked with people, if a person could not do his/her dream because of regulations, he/she would be mad at the City's staff. Customer service was staff's motto and the goal was continuous improvement. In terms of training, a draft program was already put together. Everyone involved in the permitting process had not been in the same room at the same time. When a staff meeting occurred, it was a matter of who would cover the counter and who would take care of the customers. Staff planned to close down for a few four-hour sessions to have all people in one room at the same time. The hope was to have the Mayor and/or Council Members and the City Manager attend, and customer service would be stressed from the top down and from the bottom up. The consultant was working with the Human Resources Department to design the
05/20/96 79-171 79-171
program. The consultant would also act like a customer for a day or two, hang around the counter, look at files, and listen in order to see both sides. Staff put a great deal of thought into how to do the important training. Ms. Fleming said staff looked forward to improving the process. The concerns raised by Council Members Fazzino and Simitian were the same concerns staff heard from the community. Everyone in the organization knew the present behavior and processes were unacceptable, and it would take a lot of retraining and time. There needed to be complementary rules, regulations, and processes in place to make it work. The fact that staff who had worked together on something had not been together in one room at the same time was astonishing. Getting those people together and trained would make a big difference even if nothing else changed. Staff was committed to improving the process. Council Member Fazzino sensed that in the past, there was more emphasis on the permits needed or the process itself rather than the objective to be achieved. He queried whether Mr. Herman believed the situation had changed so that when someone was at the counter on the fifth floor and dealt with a staff member, the first exchange with that individual centered around the objective rather than a focus on the permits or the process. Mr. Herman said the customer's objective was being stressed. Part of the problem was the approval process. There were so many rules to deal with an exception because of something done one time. Council would be surprised how many ordinances, regulations, and policies were in place to deal with the exception. The City was trying to get rid of those exceptions. People had been penalized for years over things that happened once. Staff now realized the City's rules had to be clearly defined and flexible enough to deal with the exception and keep within the envelope. The attitude had to be that it was the customer's project. With the steps required to get from point A to Z, if steps C, D, F, and G could be skipped, then it was up to staff to do so and get the project moving. Rather than sending a person away only to have to return again, the goal and most important thing was to find a way to send the person away with a permit in hand or a clear definition of what was required so the next time the person came would be the last. Ms. Fleming stressed staff was before the Council that evening in the midst of the beginning of a process. The finished product was
not in place, and it was valuable for staff to hear Council=s concerns so that what staff put in place emphasized the right things. When staff returned with the implementation plan, Council would know the parameters, the rules, and what to expect. Mayor Wheeler was also interested in getting as close as possible to a one-stop center particularly for the smaller projects. While she recognized the physical constraints, earlier in the year
05/20/96 79-172 79-172
Council looked at a request for proposal (RFP) for electronic help in the area of getting information electronically back and forth among various staff members in various departments. She queried whether the solution to the one-stop problem would perhaps be answered by electronic means rather than a rearrangement of physical space. Mr. Herman said electronic help was not a solution nor would it replace a one-stop center. It was an aid to mask the problems with the one-stop process. Currently, the City was delaying which system to go with until the management program process was completed because until the processes were redefined, staff did not want to computerize something which might change. Mayor Wheeler said staff indicated there would likely be some budgetary impacts with the program and that, as far as the CWP was concerned, as Council went toward using contract plan checkers, there was an acceptance that the result would be increased fees. She was concerned about increased fees for any project, particularly when talking about the inexperienced person or the person who would do a family room addition and probably never do another project. She was concerned about extensive additional fees which in some cases could make the dream family room an impossibility. She asked staff to include some ideas about the fee impacts to the customer when the implementation plan returned to Council. Mr. Herman said general clients who were in and out weekly probably supported the ones who had their one-time dream of a family room. Often, the one-time person required more time through plan check, additional inspections, and how-to hints, and the City probably operated at a loss with those projects. The policy was that each project should be cost recovery, and while there would be fee increases, there had not been a complaint about fees. The City's fees were at the low end of any surrounding jurisdiction. People did not necessarily care what the fees were; they just wanted their permits immediately. Currently, there were single-family homes and
additions going out for third party plan check at the applicants= expense because they wanted to get the permit faster. The issue would be addressed when staff returned, but staff did not plan to have the highest fees in the Bay Area, and he was sure the fees would still remain in the middle. Council Member Andersen commended Mr. Herman on the project. He was a somewhat skeptical when the approach to the project was first mentioned, but he was converted by Mr. Herman's "can do" attitude described by others. As he went through a plan check process as an amateur, he was well aware of the amount of strain and the tremendous work for the front desk staff of the Building Inspection Division. He did not know whether it had been addressed, but possibly people could rotate at that desk. If there had been thoughts on the subject already, he would be interested. The plan
05/20/96 79-173 79-173
check process was not attractive and did not get a lot of public attention. Staff was somewhat surprised that Council even had any interest in it. However, it was a bottom line in terms of how people perceived government. For that reason, as the implementation plan went forward, he would be interested in an opportunity to demonstrate to the community some of the technology and the kinds of changes taking place, through a Town Hall meeting or some type of open house situation. He believed it would help allow for a greater understanding and awareness of how the effort to be more customer service friendly was being carried out. As people became aware of the effort, their attitude and defensiveness alluded to by Council Member Fazzino might be eased as well. Council Member Simitian underscored Council Member Fazzino's comments that historically, the City viewed its role as an obligation to regulate rather than facilitate or accommodate. That meant all of the discussion focused around rule compliance rather than solutions. He understood staff could not design people's projects for them, but the comments he received from frustrated citizens were along the lines that although both the staff and applicant agreed the project was reasonable, staff kept saying
Αno.≅ He hoped staff could get past that. When he was Mayor and received those calls, he routinely routed them to senior staff members who, more often than not, were able to find solutions which both respected the integrity of the City's processes and rules and allowed whatever it was someone wanted to do to be done if it was a reasonable request. He was not sure whether that was why those people were senior staff members or whether the authority was not being given to people at the lower level. He hoped staff would become more solution oriented in its approach to applicants. In July when the implementation plan returned to Council, he hoped to see a formal status report as described by the City Manager, not just an expectation that staff would check back in. He wanted to see a real feedback loop, whether it was six months or a year for Council to check back to see whether things were working. He also wanted to see some formal use and display of the customer comments and feedback received by the random samples. Ideally, it would have been nice to have two people on the CWP who only wanted to do a home remodel once. While that would not have been an easy mix to get on the panel, he believed those people provided a perspective from a significant segment of the users that the City would not otherwise get. He was disappointed there were not more members of the press in the audience that evening because apart from the issue of government, serving the community in terms of some of the business and economic development issues was a big deal. Streamlining the building permit process was something which had real bottom line impacts for the City in terms of its economic growth. Vice Mayor Huber believed any plan which returned to the Council should formally express some philosophy. When he looked at the guiding philosophy and shared vision, he most liked the direction
05/20/96 79-174 79-174
that staff was empowered to solve problems and that staff should follow the spirit of the law, which to him implied that sometimes the letter of the law was not followed. His favorite was the common sense standard. It would be appropriate in any plan to have a statement of those principles. Council Member Kniss believed it was a perception problem rather than reality. Anytime there were elections or a lot of activity in Palo Alto, Council heard the perceptions. It was expensive to live, buy, or do anything in Palo Alto, and there were times when people were so frustrated about it that they would rather just "beat up" on the Building Inspection Division. How people were greeted and handled really made a difference. No action required. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 7. Presentation of Proposed Tree Protection Ordinance for Public Comment and Council Discussion City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the proposed ordinance before the Council was a draft but was rather a fully developed ordinance which went through significant public review. It was not a document with any recommendation either from the City Attorney's Office or from the Administration. There were some significant administrative and budgetary issues which he believed would be before the Council on May 21, 1996.
Senior Assistant City Attorney Debra Cauble said for a number of years the City's Tree Task Force studied issues related to the protection of the urban forest in Palo Alto. One of the recommendations of the Tree Task Force was the adoption of a tree protection ordinance. In December 1995, the City Attorney's Office prepared the framework for such an ordinance based upon the extensive work done by the Tree Task Force. The regulatory approach the City Attorney's Office used in preparing the ordinance followed the memo Mr. Calonne sent to the Council in the Summer of 1995 and involved three key points: 1) the goal that regulations be as straightforward and clear as possible; 2) the regulations allow very limited discretion focusing on simplicity of administration; and 3) firm enforcement tools be available should the ordinance provisions be violated. With that regulatory approach in mind, the City Attorney's Office prepared a draft ordinance for Council's consideration. Her comments would focus on 1) which trees would be protected under the ordinance as drafted, 2) what new information would have to be submitted to the City with development applications, 3) what the rules would be to provide for ongoing protection of the designated trees, 4) what construction-related steps would need to be taken by persons owning the protected trees, 5) the tree manual, and 6) the recommended
05/20/96 79-175 79-175
penalties should the ordinance be adopted. As Mr. Calonne pointed out, staffing was another issue which Council would discuss at its Finance Committee budget hearing on May 21, 1996, although staff was available to answer any questions. The proposed ordinance would protect two categories of trees. First, as recommended by the Tree Task Force, there were two species of heritage native oak trees which were living in Palo Alto long before people were. To be protected under the ordinance, the trees would not only need to be one of the two species, Valley Oak or Coast Live Oak, but also would need to be of a specified size; i.e., when measured four and one-half feet above grade. The tree would need to be 36 inches in circumference or greater. Secondarily, there were so-called heritage trees. Any party could recommend that a tree be designated as a heritage tree because of some unique or historical significance, unusual size, or specimen of a particular species. The heritage designation would be made by the City Council for a tree to receive protection under the ordinance, and the ordinance would require the property owner's consent to designation. When a person filed an application for discretionary development, building, or demolition permits from the Planning Department, the applicant would need to provide the City with information as to the location, size, species, and drip line area of any of the protected trees as defined. In addition, the applicant would need to provide information regarding the location and species of other trees on the site or in the adjacent right-of-way if they were within 30 feet of the building area. If there were a 20-acre site, there would not be a requirement for information about every tree on the site, just those which could be impacted by the development. If there were trees on adjacent properties with canopies overhanging the project site, the location and species of those trees would also need to be included in the application material. The information would need to be provided in conjunction with discretionary development approvals as well as building and demolition permits. While the requirements were new, with respect to discretionary approvals such as Architectural Review Board (ARB) review, she believed the Planning Department already required a fair amount of information about trees as a standard. The ordinance would standardize the information and then apply it to the building and demolition permit processes as well. Once adopted, the ordinance would regulate a party's ability to remove a protected tree. As drafted in the ordinance, "removal" would not only mean complete chopping down or pulling out of one of the protected trees but also any other action which could foreseeably lead to the death of the tree, e.g., extreme pruning or poisoning. There were limitations on removal under the ordinance. First, in an instance in which no development was proposed and a person had a lot with a protected oak tree on it, the ordinance would prohibit removal of that tree unless the applicant obtained a certified arborist's report that was reviewed and approved by the City which found the tree to be dead, dangerous, or a nuisance. In cases of single-family development which could mean construction of a new single-family home or an addition to an existing home or
05/20/96 79-176 79-176
demolition, no protected tree could be removed without a certified arborist's report that the tree in question was found to be dead, dying, or a nuisance, or if the protected tree were located in the building area for the site. The building area was the area in which a person could legally build under the City's zoning code without a variance, home improvement exception, etc. In such a case, if a person were allowed to remove the tree because it would infringe on the building area, a replacement tree would be required. A protected tree could be removed in the case of single-family construction if the tree were so close to the building area that construction inevitably would lead to the death of the tree. In cases of all other development, a person with a protected tee that was dead, dangerous, or a nuisance could remove it if the tree were replaced or essentially an equivalent area on the site were preserved so there would always be a place for the replacement tree. A protected tree could also be removed if the tree would reduce the otherwise permissible building area by more than 25 percent. In that case, a tree replacement would be required. That would be determined through the ARB process. She noted a letter from the Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club (on file in the City Clerk's Office) which was one of the parties to whom the ordinance was sent to provide opportunity for comment. She agreed with the General Manager of the Club that the language as currently written contemplated structures and how the City would deal with a request to build a building. With a recreational activity like a golf course, there could be construction activity which might impact trees but which did not involve the construction of buildings. If Council directed staff to move ahead and return with an ordinance, staff would work with the recreational activity situation an area to ensure the language contemplated not only construction of structures but also other types of site activity which might impact protected trees. In addition to dealing with removal, the ordinance provided regulations in the form of a "Tree Protection Manual" which would specify maintenance requirements for protected trees and protection during construction. As a condition of discretionary development permits, currently staff required tree protection during construction. The ordinance would be a way to standardize those requirements, and it would also extend them to single-family development. The "Tree Protection Manual" would be prepared by the Public Works and Planning and Community Environment under the direction of the City Manager. In addition to existing remedies available for other provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), the ordinance provided the potential for civil penalties which would need to be imposed by a court. The ordinance would authorize a judge to impose a civil penalty up to $5,000 per violation of the ordinance. If the violation constituted removal of a tree, which would be the most common violation, the replacement value of the tree could be used as a standard for the civil penalty. The City Attorney's Office tried to look at more creative remedies which might be meaningful to someone who might be thinking about hurting a protected tree. The ordinance included the ability of the City to issue a stop work
05/20/96 79-177 79-177
order if construction were pending and the ordinance were violated. That would give the City an opportunity to develop a mitigation plan to address the tree ordinance violation. If a violation occurred prior to the filing of an application, the ordinance would provide the ability for the City to impose a moratorium on new construction until a tree mitigation plan was developed. Council Member Fazzino commended the report and said he was pleased with the general direction of the draft ordinance. He queried why the heritage native oaks were the only trees recommended for preservation. Ms. Cauble said the recommendation to preserve the two particular species of oaks emerged from the Tree Task Force, and she deferred to members of the Task Force for the history of the recommendation. Council Member Fazzino queried why a property owner's consent was required to designate other kinds of heritage trees. Ms. Cauble said while the recommendation was part of the final iterations of the Tree Task Force, part of the idea for the policy approach, which Council would want to consider, was to start out with what might be perceived to be the most important things first rather than taking a global regulatory approach. From that philosophy, the first two recommendations were whether there were some very special trees, which the community, including the property owner, recognized should be protected. The two oaks were deemed to be important to the City's heritage. Council Member Fazzino referred to the public property trees issue raised by Mr. Courington in his May 9, 1996, letter (on file in the City Clerk's Office) and queried how the ordinance envisioned protecting the heritage oaks as well as other heritage trees. Ms. Cauble said the proposed ordinance before the Council only dealt with trees on private property. Through the process, the City Attorney's Office recognized it might be timely to update the City's ordinance provisions regarding street trees. If the proposed ordinance were approved and the Tree Protection Manual were adopted which contained the standards for maintenance and protection, the City could choose to apply the standards to public trees as well. Council Member Fazzino queried whether the City Attorney's Office expected that at some point the City would include protection for public property trees in the ordinance or whether it would be better to adopt a separate ordinance related to public property trees. Ms. Cauble said the City already had the separate ordinance dealing with public right-of-way trees and, with the proposed ordinance, was actually under the same title in the Palo Alto Municipal Code
05/20/96 79-178 79-178
(PAMC). The draft ordinance would be a new chapter to Title 8. Since the proposed ordinance dealt with certain processes, ARB, etc., which did not always apply to public trees, if Council wanted to update its regulations and policies regarding public trees, it might make sense to update the existing ordinance which applied to public right-of-way trees. Council Member Fazzino was interested in how the City might pursue the need to protect trees on public property. City Manager June Fleming said the City should not make itself immune from the same kinds of standards being imposed on others. Her objective would be for consistency. Mr. Calonne said there was not much reason to regulate the City in the same manner as a private property owner. The mechanism for the Council would be to take the Tree Protection Manual, which would include appropriate maintenance standards, and together with the City Manager arrive at some direction to compel the City's tree maintenance activities to meet the standards of the manual. The point would be to take the gist of the ordinance and use it as an administrative direction to the people who actually did the work. Council Member Fazzino referred to building areas and said the language seemed to allow people to do whatever they wanted to build what they were entitled to without any regard whatsoever for heritage trees. He queried what the language actually meant, whether there might be a way to tighten the language, or whether the ARB, Planning staff, and the Planning Commission might provide incentives or encourage variances to preserve heritage trees. Ms. Cauble said Council Member Fazzino was correct that the approach of the draft ordinance attempted to balance the ability of private property owners to do what they could currently do with their property under the PAMC with tree protection and weighed heavily in favor of continuing existing rights of private property owners. In drafting an ordinance which essentially respected the sanctity of the existing building area, staff recognized the balance more in favor of protecting existing rights to build versus to protect trees. The choice about whether to draft the ordinance in another way was a policy decision Council had to make. Mr. Calonne believed the ordinance drew a distinction between single family and nonsingle family. Ms. Cauble said the approach of the ordinance as currently drafted was more "hands off" with respect to single-family development. That was partially because the City had never regulated trees on single-family properties before, whereas the City already did that to some extent through the ARB process. Whereas the ordinance provided property owners could essentially do what they wanted within the building area for single-family lots, for discretionary
05/20/96 79-179 79-179
projects, subdivisions, commercial/industrial development subject to ARB review, trees needed to be protected unless they seriously infringed upon what could otherwise be done. The 25 percent figure was chosen as a way to mark the serious infringement but could be changed. Mr. Calonne said another value was the concept of replacement sites. The idea came out that preserving areas for little trees to get into heritage tree size was an important issue for the discretionary projects such as single-family tracts and nonresidential projects or apartments. Site preservation was a new concept and a significant change. Council Member Schneider queried whether, once a tree was nominated as a heritage tree, the designation passed through a change of ownership of a property. Ms. Cauble said staff envisioned the tree designation would run with the land much the same as a historic structure. Because several of the same questions had arisen, she believed the ordinance could be more clear on the point. Council Member Schneider said earlier in the evening, Council met with the Historic Resources Board (HRB), and one of the items discussed was whether, in a real estate contract, it should be noted that a house was a category 1, 2, or 3. She queried whether any similar discussion had occurred with respect to designated heritage trees on a property. Ms. Cauble did not know whether the City had control over the requirements for a seller to disclose. To the extent the heritage designation had a material impact on the development potential of the property, she believed it would be subject to disclosure. If the ordinance were adopted in substantially the same form as proposed, depending upon the nature of the site on which the heritage tree was located, the designation would not have a tremendous impact but could under other circumstances. Council Member Schneider believed the heritage tree designation could be a good selling point. Vice Mayor Huber queried, if he were a property owner who came in to do something perfectly legitimate which required no exceptions or variances, what control or discretion the City had to encourage him to build a couple of wings around the heritage tree rather than going through it or pushing out into the sideyard setback. Ms. Cauble said under the draft ordinance, the City could not force the property owner to do anything if the tree were located within the building area. Part of the reason the ordinance was drafted was to require disclosure of information about trees and to provide the opportunity for education.
05/20/96 79-180 79-180
Vice Mayor Huber said education would still make him apply for a variance if he wanted to build "x" square feet and still keep the tree. He asked whether there was a mechanism that encouraged a person who could legitimately take the tree down to do something. Mr. Calonne said there could be something in terms of specialized findings related to trees to justify a variance or exception. He recalled there was a strong sense that such a mechanism would be unnecessary because staff would probably be steering an applicant in that direction anyway. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle believed the disclosure that a special tree existed on a property, was grounds for a variance or home improvement exception (HIE). If the intent were to provide incentives or encouragement, it would be good to include it in the ordinance as a preamble or purpose statement because by virtue of allowing building in the area, it was acceptable to take trees out within that area. That needed to be countered or it would be tough for staff to continue with its current practice. Vice Mayor Huber agreed. What he did not want to happen, since the City was supposedly trying to save trees, was for the process to be such a hassle that people just decided to clear-cut the back lot. He wanted to see a very simple process to save a tree while getting some exceptions to make it work. He did not see that in the draft ordinance. Ms. Cauble said the point was well taken. Since the HIE process was designed to be the simple way, staff might want to change the language in the ordinance somewhat for clarification. She believed the HIE was focused on preserving architectural style, and the trees were an equivalent reason to allow an HIE. It might be an appropriate regulation change to parallel with the ordinance. Mr. Calonne said while such a change would be difficult, there was an underlying core policy issue. The model the Tree Task Force came in with looked to be "hands off" in areas where it could be. Staff went from there to defining the simplest "command" approach and did not look for incentives. Council could give staff a broad direction to revise the approach to include significant incentives, but it was not what the ordinance tried to do. While the incentives ranged from having a very simple permit process to some sort of square footage bonuses if certain kinds of trees were preserved, they were outside the charge of the initial direction. Council Member Kniss queried whether the ordinance addressed the problems. As she recalled, the goal was to protect trees the City believed had great value. Much of what the City was concerned about initially were trees being taken down by developers or by a neighbor when the tree enhanced another property. Based on how she read the proposed ordinance, it seemed relatively easy to take a
05/20/96 79-181 79-181
tree down especially if a property owner wanted to add on in the backyard. Mr. Calonne believed Council Member Kniss was mentioning a basic policy issue. The ordinance was a balance between the extent to which Council tried to fix and respect the existing property rights in the zoning versus the extent to which trees were protected. He hoped if the economics of tree preservation were what staff believed they were, the ordinance would not affect many single-family decisions. The economics became unclear from his perspective on the commercial, tract, or apartment development in which the self-interest of the owner differed from that of the ultimate resident. He was not sure there was a problem that required a prohibition for single-family residents. He was convinced by the Tree Task Force that there was an education
problem, and the ΑTree Protection Manual,≅ while cast as a regulatory document, was intended to serve as a vehicle for education.
Council Member Kniss agreed the ΑTree Protection Manual≅ had been cast as an education document for a long time. She clarified Ms. Fleming's comment that the City would need to update the ordinance for its own sake. She would think the City would already be well aware of which trees had great value. The draft ordinance specified the Valley and Live Oaks would both be protected, and she asked what other kinds of trees would be protected. Ms. Fleming believed the issue was that while the City might not have as many rules, regulations, and technical manuals for guidance on tree preservation, the City did everything possible to preserve them when the City did the building. Her comments indicated a belief that the same rules which applied to anyone else should apply to the City. She believed City staff was extremely sensitive in its attempts to maintain the urban forest, and that was why the City had an arborist. She was thinking of more formalized rules. Regarding why only the oaks were specified, she believed it was more a matter of informal initial discussions, and everyone probably agreed the list of trees needed to be expanded. In terms of meeting the intent of the Tree Task Force, she believed the City Attorney's Office did an excellent job trying to strike a balance between preserving private property rights versus the need to pay some serious attention to the type of heritage trees. The draft ordinance was a first attempt, and areas where additional work was needed were identified. Council Member Kniss said one of the alternatives mentioned was size-based designated trees, and she remembered other communities did size-based designated trees as well. She believed that was one of the things she would like to consider. Mr. Calonne said in the early stages of the draft ordinance, the concept of size-based designated trees was discussed as was the
05/20/96 79-182 79-182
broader concept touched on by the Tree Task Force regarding urban forest protection. That was also not included in the draft ordinance. Council Member Kniss recalled the goal was to raise the level of consciousness in the community about what trees added to a community in terms of tree lined streets, not to mention protection from neighbors on relatively small lots. It made an enormous difference when trees came down, and it really changed the
perception of how an owner=s yard felt in proximity to a
neighbor=s. She believed there were probably more evergreens and those played a far greater role in the City's greenery. Council Member McCown referred to the provision about applying for a building or demolition permit and having to provide an inventory of what trees were on the property. She queried whether that would literally apply to someone applying for a building permit to remodel a kitchen when they were not changing anything about the footprint of the structure. Ms. Cauble said the intent was the inventory would only apply if the footprint were changing. That might be an area which should be clarified. Council Member McCown clarified the language in the tree manual when developed would be mandatory, and queried whether that meant a person could be cited and fined. Ms. Cauble said that was correct. Just as other agencies had regulations, including the City's Utilities Department which essentially had the force of law via the PAMC, discussions included putting detailed standards in the ordinance versus the manual. The City Attorney's Office and participating members of the Tree Task Force agreed that every year, more was learned about alternative techniques to provide for the health of trees. It made more sense to include the basic requirements in an ordinance and then have a manual which could be updated annually if necessary to include more ways in which people could do what they should do for the protection of trees. It made more sense to have a living document than an ordinance. Council Member McCown was somewhat concerned about the definition of "removal" including overwatering. The comment was included in the letter from Mr. Courington. She could foresee a situation in which a homeowner, believing they were trying to implement the best possible practices nevertheless overwatered or underwatered a tree and damaged it unintentionally. She clarified the removal standard would apply not only to the oaks but also to any other trees which someone agreed to designate as a heritage tree. Ms. Cauble said that was correct. The education process for the heritage trees would be easier because the City would know exactly
05/20/96 79-183 79-183
where it was through the process of designation. Educating people about the proper care would be simpler with regard to the heritage trees. With regard to the oaks, education was important. The City would have prosecutorial discretion as to which violations were pursued and in what manner. She understood one of the best ways to kill an oak tree was overwatering. If a person really chose to protect oaks, the value judgment of what to include in the standard needed to be made. Mr. Calonne said the ordinance illustrated in many places the difficult part of being practical versus covering all the bases. He would not want to be the prosecutor charged with proving that a tree died through overwatering. By the same token, it seemed appropriate for enforcement personnel to talk to people and ask whether they knew what they were doing. Council Member McCown appreciated the concept of bringing the draft ordinance before the Council to get questions, comments, and reactions without acting on the ordinance. She was concerned about how the City informed the public, and she clarified the draft ordinance was sent to all the neighborhood associations. Ms. Cauble said the draft ordinance went out to the City's list of neighborhood associations and some related groups. It also went out to the Chamber of Commerce, Board of Realtors, and selected tree professionals. She believed the draft went out to about 65 to 70 groups. Council Member McCown hoped the press would give headline coverage to the concept of tree protection so the word spread. It would be important before Council took final action to have a confidence level that the community was broadly aware of what the concept was all about and that Council knew what the public thought about it. Other Council Members might have already received feedback, but she had not received any, and there was not a large turnout that evening. Ms. Fleming said her office, the City Clerk's Office, and the City Attorney's Office could come up with a good public information package for the tree protection ordinance. Council Member Rosenbaum asked about enforcement if someone overwatered, underwatered, overpruned, or underpruned a heritage tree. Mr. Calonne said there was the broad policy question about whether a complaint-based code enforcement approach was the best way to go under the current circumstances. Identifying improper practices was essential to educating the community because what happened with
trees usually resulted from people=s ignorance. It was rare that people pruned a tree intending to kill it, and he did not envision going out and aggressively citing someone in that circumstance. On
05/20/96 79-184 79-184
the other hand, if someone cleared a site with the obvious purpose of evading regulations or gaining financially, that would be different, and discretion was traditionally exercised by whoever had to prosecute the ordinance. With regard to the difficulty of proof, the staff tree professionals were relied upon. If they believed they could prove a certain kind of intentional conduct injured the trees, the prosecutor would go with it on the reliance of the experts. Ms. Fleming said Council needed to decide whether it wanted an ordinance just to be on the books or an ordinance on the books which would be enforced with understanding and rationality. There were many ordinances on the books which were enforced on a complaint basis, and if people vigorously complained, the City probably would not have enough staff to enforce the complaints. She interpreted Council's actions as being serious about protecting the trees and preserving the City's urban forest, and she believed Council needed someone who could enforce what was on the books with understanding and temperance. Which meant knowing how to approach abuses and how to educate. When all else failed, the legal enforcement steps available would be taken. Mayor Wheeler said in the area where she lived, there was a number of significantly sized oak trees, if not aged, that were planted originally as street trees. The initial root structure of those trees was probably located on public property; however, in reality, the City did not have planter strips but rather front lawns. Those
trees would apparently be planted in people=s front yards. She queried whether those trees fell under the proposed ordinance or the current ordinance. Ms. Cauble said those trees would fall under both ordinances. The City's current ordinance regarding trees in the public right-of-way regulated what both City staff and private parties did to trees in a right-of-way. There were severe penalties for damaging trees in the public right-of-way. Under the proposed ordinance, if a private property owner had one of those significant oak trees in the public right-of-way, the City would require information if a private party intended to develop the property. If the proposed project would somehow impact the tree, the City would receive that information. As the ordinance was drafted, if the proposed project were a single-family residence and the proposed building were within the building area, the ordinance would not stop the building, but the City would have the opportunity to do education. If it seemed as if the City's public right-of-way tree would be harmed, the City had an existing ordinance which could be enforced. Mayor Wheeler queried how homeowners who had oak trees which the City declared protected would be notified.
05/20/96 79-185 79-185
Ms. Cauble said City staff did not currently know the whereabouts of all the heritage trees, and she envisioned some type of a joint effort by the City and the private tree advocates to get the information. The ordinance proposed a slightly delayed effective date beyond what would otherwise be the case partially to allow
development of the ΑTree Protection Manual≅ and to provide additional public information. The time limit might even be extended to later in the fall or to January 1997 to allow the process to happen. Mayor Wheeler queried whether staff envisioned, as the City became aware of heritage trees and protected oaks, that the trees would be noted in a particular property's file in the Building/Planning Department similar to how the historic inventory was put "on the system." Ms. Lytle said yes. Every registered heritage tree would have some kind of evidence of the process which would appear in the property file. She agreed the geographic information system (GIS) would be a perfect application for the information received on heritage trees. Mayor Wheeler asked, when single-family property owners arrived at the counter for the first time, whether they normally arrived at a point in their own planning and design process when it would be easy to talk to them about alternatives or whether they generally came in with full plans for approval. Ms. Lytle believed they arrived at all different stages. It would be much easier for staff to insert any type of regulations as early as possible. When a person arrived with designs which conflicted with City regulations, that was when an adversarial relationships occurred.
Kate Feinstein, Tree Task Force Member, 1600 Bryant Street, supported the proposed ordinance. It was a pleasure to work with the City Attorney's Office. The process had been underway for four years. The advantage of the long process was that there were current heritage tree ordinances throughout the Peninsula, and the City was able to learn from what others did. For those who believed the ordinance went too far, there was anecdotal evidence regarding the loss of oak trees over the past ten years. In 1970, a study was commissioned by the City of Palo Alto, and it identified the threat to the native oak forest and outlined some recommendations. The preservation of even one or two heritage sized oak trees was significant to the public, and the recommendations endeavored to strike a balance between public benefit and private property rights. Only large species of the Coast Live Oak and Valley Oak which did not occur within the buildable area of properties were recommended for protection. Heritage trees would be voluntary. There was no permit process
05/20/96 79-186 79-186
envisioned, which was less bureaucratic than was found in most jurisdictions, and no notice was required. In terms of the standards to be available for the regulation of trees so the process would be less arbitrary, the standards document was not quite as difficult as it might appear because there were many other cities which already had standards manuals, and the City would utilize those resources. In terms of why the Coast Live Oak and Valley Oak were specifically addressed, those two trees were native to Palo Alto and California. While there were oak trees all over the world, most people who came to live in the Palo Alto region did not necessarily identify oak trees as being a native trees but rather focused on redwood trees, which was Palo Alto's symbol. The native oak trees did not grow all over Palo Alto, and she believed the trees referred to by Mayor Wheeler were Holly or Cork oaks, and they were not native to Palo Alto. Valley Oaks and Coast Live Oaks were threatened throughout California, and there was an Oak Tree Foundation of which she was a member. There was an effort to raise the consciousness about preserving the trees which were so characteristic of California. The trees lived 150 to 300 years, and they were not easily replaced. Heritage trees were envisioned as being self-designated and not only nominated but also removed from the list voluntarily by homeowners. The recommendation was that the ordinance not be too heavy-handed. The proposal was an opportunity to provide incentives. Some communities gave awards out on Arbor Day, and it was a chance for people to learn more about how to take care of significant trees, to understand their value, and to bring them forward to the public. In terms of the building area issue, she supported those who requested a little more flexibility. She believed the Tree Task Force envisioned that in the permit process, there would be an opportunity for City staff to suggest alternatives. The proposal reflected the experience and success of the City of Burlingame, but she also supported the proposal of Vice Mayor Huber. In terms of flexibility and incentives, there might be an opportunity to help people who could not afford to care for trees by fees that were collected, or if penalties were collected, those funds might be directed to helping people take care of significant trees on their property. The overwatering of oaks caused them eventually to die. She believed realtors would be useful in providing information about what was regulated and how to care for heritage trees. The City could send its information with utility bills, and tree services were a good resource for information. She urged enactment of the reasonable and balanced proposal which everyone endeavored to make considerate
of homeowners= rights versus the public benefits of preserving the trees. Mayor Wheeler queried how many Valley Oaks and Coast Live Oaks there were. Ms. Feinstein did not have an exact number but said it was hundreds to thousands. The original proposal was to preserve all trees over
05/20/96 79-187 79-187
a certain size so that the City would not have to go out and count trees over a certain size. Marge Abel, Tree Task Force Member, 1601 Castilleja Avenue, said the current standard was to not prune more than one-third of a tree at a time. The technical tree manual would provide the opportunity to stay flexible with the standards as people learned more about the trees in the urban situation. With an ordinance on the books and the tree manual in place, the responsible arborist could provide the information to homeowners to show them what needed to be done to properly care for the tree. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, believed it would be confusing to have those trees nominated and/or adopted by the property owner listed as heritage because two identical trees on two adjacent properties could be treated differently. It might be simplest to go back to what was proposed almost 20 years ago and protect any tree of any species over a certain size. In terms of withdrawing trees from the protected category, no criterion was given, and some should be established to do so; e.g. specific hardships, disease, and damage by outside sources. It was important for citizens to know what they could or could not do and what to expect in the permitting process discussed earlier. The proposed ordinance indicated if trees were located in a single-family development where an owner intended to build, the tree would no longer be protected. Someone who wanted to get rid of a tree could just change the footprint of the development and put the house where the tree was. Something should indicate the heritage nature of a tree, and there needed to be a request for some specific relief. People should be encouraged with alternatives so a tree might not need to be taken out. The Barron Park Association Board meeting would not be held until May 21, 1996, so the draft ordinance had not been discussed yet. He supported the need for a tree ordinance. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, said the draft ordinance responded largely to concerns of people in single-family areas in north Palo Alto where the two species of trees were mostly found. Publicity
might reveal some single-family homeowners= opposition because the ordinance pit neighbors against each other. On the other hand, more protection was needed to protect other parts of the town where the concern was trees of any kind on multiple-family and commercial parcels. Page 2 of the proposed ordinance mentioned buildable area as the area larger than the allowable site area and the actual footprint of the building. Various parts of the ordinance provided the ability to cut down trees regardless of how much of the buildable area was actually used. He proposed that a third type of protected tree be "any trees or plants required to be retained, protected, and/or planted as a condition of the approval of the
development.≅ He would add "underwatering" as an action which could lead to removal of a tree. In commercial and multiple-family redevelopment, the various actions mentioned were often deliberate. On page 4, disclosure of information was required only when a person made application for a development approval or a demolition,
05/20/96 79-188 79-188
but there was no protection when someone wanted to redevelop commercial or multiple-family parcel and wanted to clear trees before he/she came in for development approval. There needed to be some protection for that situation. Regarding the reference for tree replacement and a Tree Protection Manual, he believed the replacement standards should be written into the ordinance and should be by value rather than by the number of trees. The dollar value could come from a number of different sources, and only one of the sources was mentioned. The ordinance indicated retaining equivalent area on a site when a tree was removed and mentioned only protecting the tree from development of any structure. He believed it should be extended to include any impervious area. The first paragraph on page 7 of the ordinance referred to "replacement ratio," and he believed the words should be "replacement value." Under "civil penalties," a particular guide for plant appraisal was mentioned as a source of determining value. In the Santa Clara County General Use Permit for Stanford University in which a value replacement was required, a different appraisal society was mentioned. While he did not know whether it still existed, it could provide two different kinds of value and one might be a higher dollar value than the other, and he preferred the higher value be indicated. Vice Mayor Huber believed it was important for the ordinance to include something similar to the HIE process so as to provide some flexibility for staff to work with a homeowner to retain the trees. Council Member Simitian queried which specimens the HIE process would be used for. Vice Mayor Huber said the specimens controlled by the ordinance. Council Member Fazzino commended staff for its work to date and believed it was important for the minutes to reflect Council's hearty endorsement of the work of Tree Task Force and the City Attorney's Office and to reaffirm its support for the program. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to direct the City Attorney to prepare a Tree Protection Ordinance for first reading. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the City Attorney be directed to include a process similar to the Home Improvement Exception (HIE) process in the draft Tree Protection Ordinance. Mr. Calonne said the other issues included the question of just Oak trees, more general size limitation, which trees were protected, specialized findings, underwatering, more public outreach, planted trees as a condition of approval, and special building permit applications applying to footprint only changes rather than interior only changes.
05/20/96 79-189 79-189
Council Member Fazzino queried the best way to address the issue of the public property tree. Ms. Fleming assured Council that staff intended to pursue it, and he queried whether a statement was needed from Council in support of the effort. While he agreed it needed to be a separate issue, he wanted it to be separate and parallel. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the City Council support a separate but parallel process for the protection of trees on public property similar to the regulations adhered to for private trees. Council Member Andersen supported the proposal. He was interested in the incentive element to assist in encouraging some of those owners of the heritage trees. Council Member Kniss queried the best way for Council to protect more than the two oaks designated. Mr. Calonne said it depended on the value Council was trying to protect. If "big" was the value, then Council should pick a size limitation. The comment made earlier regarding the urban forest was predicated not so much on "big" as it was on groupings and other values. The measurement standard was an easy one to apply and was commonly used. Council Member Kniss clarified the measurement standard was what most of the surrounding cities used. Ms. Cauble said most of the ordinances she had looked at from
Northern California either had an Αevery tree over a certain size" specification or a list of protected species which was typically longer than Palo Alto's. Some communities also looked at groupings of trees as protected. While the elements could become very complex, any tree over a specified size was probably the most frequent manner of regulating trees. Council Member Kniss queried what size staff would recommend if Council were to ask staff to return with something similar. Ms. Cauble said if that were the direction of Council, the City Attorney's Office would consult with the Tree Task Force. There was a lot of commonality among cities as to what standards were used. Council Member Kniss was concerned that there were many other heritage trees in the community besides just the two oaks. Council Member Fazzino said while he would be sympathetic to an evaluation of other tree types or size which might be included in an ordinance, he also wanted to be practical. For the first round,
05/20/96 79-190 79-190
he believed it was best to begin with the two oaks and address others later. Council Member Rosenbaum referred to Mr. Moss' comments that the first proposal was considered in the early 1970s, and defeated by a 5-4 vote. At that time, staff was enthusiastic, but there was a room full of people who objected to the ordinance. When the matter was before the Council three years before, Council Member Kniss moved that Council advise the Tree Task Force that Council approved the concept of an ordinance, and that motion was defeated. It appeared staff and the Tree Task Force listened to the vote because the proposal was a far more modest one than Council first discussed, which was good. He still had the same objections and believed the advantage of any type of mature tree to a homeowner was so obvious, no one would intentionally attempt to destroy a tree or remove it. It would be a frivolous and expensive action. He had the feeling that Council could rely on the intelligence of the average Palo Alto residents to look after their trees since they were obviously of such great value. In spite of the more modest ordinance, it looked like it might well pass. He still had his original objection and would not support moving ahead further. Council Member McCown said the other question posed in the letter from Mr. Courington was not just how many trees there were but rather how many trees were at risk of the kind of conduct the ordinance tried to address. She asked how many situations there were in which absent City regulations some human act was going to intentionally remove a heritage tree from the community. Council did not have an answer to that. If the package returned to Council, she queried whether it would be possible for staff to also have some estimate of what it would cost the City of Palo Alto to implement the ordinance. Ms. Cauble believed if Council's direction were to expand the scope of the ordinance to cover all trees of a certain size as opposed to just the two oak species, staff might want to comment as to whether that would change the estimate. Ms. Fleming said the cost information was contained in the staff report (CMR:270:96) which would go to the Finance Committee on May 21, 1996. The full cost of the planning arborist position was $82,000. Council Member McCown clarified the $82,000 only included the planning position. She was interested in all the costs including a total City Attorney implementation. The other issue was if Council did not know the magnitude of the problem, it was difficult to evaluate the cost benefit of implementation of an ordinance. It was a legitimate concern, and she wanted an idea of the magnitude of the problem before she would vote on adoption of the ordinance. If Council were to support an ordinance, the direction of the one
05/20/96 79-191 79-191
proposed was one with which she was comfortable. There was still the fundamental threshold question which had not been answered. Council Member Simitian recalled Council had a lot of specific information from neighboring jurisdictions about the number of applications received each year and the percentage approved. He believed Council was able to extrapolate reasonably, if people were required to get a permit to cut down a tree on their own private property, how many people would come forward. He recalled Council estimated 200 to 300 applications for a city the size of Palo Alto, and typically 85 to 90 percent of the requests for permits were granted. The argument he made for the more balanced approach was that to create the bureaucracy then suggested that in order to end up dealing with 20 or 30 trees given the cost and imposition on the citizenry did not make a lot of sense. It appeared as if the Tree Task Force figured out which 20 or 30 trees they were worried about making sure the City did not lose. He was comfortable with the approach taken by the Tree Task Force and believed it struck the right balance. He recalled the proposal three years ago was 16 inches in diameter. He remembered thinking 16 inches was not an appropriate standard for every homeowner for a tree that did not have special characteristics. It was ironic Council was having the discussion given the comments earlier in the evening about the building permits and the cumbersome nature of getting them. Chief Building Official Fred Herman then indicated all the ordinances on the books that required 100 percent of the people to go through the process in order to protect the City against the one percent of the time problem. The Tree Task Force did an admirable job of trying to balance the ordinance to focus on those narrowly defined problems which needed to be addressed without pulling everyone into the process unnecessarily. Council Member McCown said before Council had an ordinance for action, she wanted to know staff's best projections on the costs of implementing the ordinance. Ms. Fleming said the information would be put together when the matter returned to Council. Council Member Simitian's memory regarding other cities was in the packet that evening with a report to the Finance Committee. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that the staff return with the cost for implementation of the Ordinance. Council Member Kniss was prepared to look at the concept of other heritage trees at a later point. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Rosenbaum Αno.≅ COUNCIL MATTERS 8. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements
05/20/96 79-192 79-192
Mayor Wheeler asked for a Council Member to volunteer to substitute for the current City liaison for the City/School Liaison Committee meeting scheduled for Thursday, May 23, 1996. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:28 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.200 (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.
05/20/96 79-193 79-193