HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996-07-15 City Council Summary Minutes Regular Meeting July 15, 1996
1. Resolution 7608 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to
the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Albi, France≅79-403
2. Resolution 7609 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Linköping,
Sweden≅ ...............................................79-403 3. Proclamation re Block Parties Month...................79-403 4. Appointments to the Planning Commission...............79-403 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS........................................79-406 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 22 AND MAY 6, 1996............79-406 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and D. W. Young Construction Company, Inc. for Storm Drain Pipeline Rehabilitation Project - Phase I......................79-407 7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Davey Tree Expert Company for Landscaping Pad-Mounted Equipment.........79-407
8. Ordinance 4355 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Implementation of
the Palo Alto Together Program≅ .......................79-407 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS...................79-407 9. Conference with Labor Negotiator......................79-408
07/15/96 79-401
10. Air Cargo Operations Proposed for Moffett Federal Airfield - Draft Environmental Assessment (continued from 7/8/96)79-408 11. Council Members Fazzino and Kniss and Vice Mayor Huber re Traffic/Transportation Management Issues (continued from 7/8/96)...............................................79-411
15. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 8.10 to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Tree Preservation and
Management Requirements≅ ..............................79-415 16. Midtown Revitalization Follow-Up Report...............79-432 17. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements........79-433 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. to a Closed Session...............................................79-433 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m......79-434
07/15/96 79-402
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 SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
1. Resolution 7608 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to
the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Albi, France≅ MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to adopt the Resolution. MOTION PASSED 9-0.
2. Resolution 7609 entitled ΑResolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Recognizing the Presence of and Welcoming to the City of Palo Alto Exchange Students from Linköping,
Sweden≅ MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by McCown, to adopt the Resolution. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 3. Proclamation re Block Parties Month Mayor Wheeler presented the proclamation. 4. Appointments to the Planning Commission Council Member Andersen said although he was not able to attend the interviews, he had talked to the potential applicants and would be voting. He supported incumbent Victor Ojakian and Owen Byrd on the
first ballot. Mr. Byrd=s creativity and background with Santa Clara County and various roles in the City would serve the Planning Commission well. Council Member Schneider supported Leonard Ely on the first ballot. He was a third-generation Palo Altan and would bring the perspective of a resident with a long history in the community which she felt was something currently missing on the Planning Commission. Council Member Fazzino supported Mr. Ojakian on the first ballot.
07/15/96 79-403
Mr. Ojakian had been an outstanding member and leader of the Planning Commission and had a very strong neighborhood orientation. Mr. Ojakian did an excellent job of analyzing issues, focusing on the critical elements of an issue, and making tough decisions. He also supported Mr. Byrd who brought a nice mix of local and regional experience and a perspective which was increasingly
important as more decisions regarding Palo Alto=s future were made at the regional level. Mr. Byrd had outstanding environmental and neighborhood credentials and was committed to the economic vitality of the City. He also believed it was important to have someone serve who could represent the younger generation.
Council Member Kniss echoed her colleagues= comments regarding Mr. Ojakian who she would support on the first ballot. She also supported Annette Bialson who had served on the Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee (CPAC). She agreed with Council Member Fazzino regarding Mr. Byrd but thought Ms. Bialson had technical expertise and would bring a thoughtful and measured approach to the Planning Commission. Council Member Simitian supported Mr. Ojakian on the first ballot.
Mr. Ojakian=s reasoning was articulated in the Planning Commission minutes which helped the Council make better decisions. He also supported Mr. Byrd who would bring obvious credentials in terms of land use planning from a regional perspective. Mr. Byrd had been both a neighborhood and housing advocate, which was a balance that suited his priorities and values and reflected the values of the community. Vice Mayor Huber supported Mr. Ojakian on the first ballot. He also supported Annette Bialson who had served the City well in many capacities and particularly with regard to what she brought to the Council from the CPAC. Council Member McCown said the interviews were the most interesting and thought provoking she had seen in a while, and the Council had a very high quality group to choose from. She supported Mr. Ojakian on the first ballot for reasons stated by her colleagues. She also supported Ms. Bialson because of her participation on the CPAC. As a member of the CPAC, Ms. Bialson spent a lot of effort listening and trying to understand different perspectives which would be a valuable characteristic for a member of the Planning Commission. RESULTS OF THE FIRST ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR ARNOLD:
07/15/96 79-404
VOTING FOR BIALSON: VOTING FOR BLAKE: VOTING FOR BYRD: VOTING FOR ELY: VOTING FOR OJAKIAN: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Kniss, McCown, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian, Wheeler Assistant City Clerk Kathi Hamilton announced that Victor Ojakian received nine votes and was appointed on the first ballot. Council Member Schneider would support Mr. Byrd on the second ballot. Mr. Byrd was a committed citizen of Palo Alto, had worked tirelessly on environmental issues, and would serve the Planning Commission well. RESULTS OF THE SECOND ROUND OF VOTING VOTING FOR ARNOLD: VOTING FOR BIALSON: Kniss, McCown, Wheeler VOTING FOR BLAKE: VOTING FOR BYRD: Andersen, Fazzino, Huber, Rosenbaum, Schneider, Simitian VOTING FOR ELY: VOTING FOR OJAKIAN: Assistant City Clerk Kathi Hamilton announced that Owen Byrd received six votes and was appointed on the second ballot. Mayor Wheeler echoed the comments of her colleagues regarding Mr. Ojakian and congratulated Mr. Ojakian and Mr. Byrd on their appointments. Council Member Andersen strongly encouraged Ms. Bialson to apply again when the opportunity arose. Council Member Kniss said James Blake was a very impressive candidate and encouraged him to apply again when the opportunity arose. All of the candidates were very impressive.
07/15/96 79-405
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Joe Baldwin, 280 Waverley Street, spoke regarding requested data. Tina Gutierrez, 2850 Middlefield Road, No. 224, spoke regarding the
Human Relations Commission=s update on the sit/lie ban. Edmund Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding hidden
government (letter on file in the City Clerk=s Office). Tucker Spar, 951 Hamilton Avenue, spoke regarding the Palo Alto Civic League. Cary Andrew Crittenden, Chimalus Drive, spoke regarding homelessness. Margaret Ash, 3901 El Camino Real, spoke regarding homelessness. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme Street, spoke regarding illegal signs on El Camino Real. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 22 AND MAY 6, 1996 MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Minutes of April 22, 1996, as corrected. MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Fazzino, to approve the Minutes of May 6, 1996, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Andersen moved, seconded by Kniss, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 6 - 8. 6. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and D. W. Young Construction Company, Inc. for Storm Drain Pipeline Rehabilitation Project - Phase I; change orders not to exceed $65,000. Amendment No. 2 to Consultant Contract No. C4044556 between the City of Palo Alto and Brown and Caldwell for Consultant Services
07/15/96 79-406
7. Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Davey Tree Expert Company for Landscaping Pad-Mounted Equipment; change orders not to exceed $3,600.
8. Ordinance 4355 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1996-97 to Provide an Additional Appropriation for Implementation of
the Palo Alto Together Program≅ MOTION PASSED 8-0, Fazzino absent. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mayor Wheeler announced that Item No. 5, Vegetation Management at Byxbee Park - Rejection of Bids, had been removed by staff. Also, Item No. 12, PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider the appeal from the decision of the Architectural Review
Board=s conceptual approval of a minor modification to the public benefit for the Planned Community (PC) Ordinance 4268, allowing the elimination of four (4) rooftop figures as a public benefit and substituting it with artwork in the project's public plaza for property located at 200 Sheridan Avenue had been removed by staff for Planning Commission review; and Item No. 13, PUBLIC HEARING: Tentative Subdivision Map for Palo Alto Medical Foundation Urban Lane Site (continued from 5/20/96), and Item No. 14, 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 5/20/96), had been continued by the applicant. CLOSED SESSION The item might occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 9. Conference with Labor Negotiator Agency Negotiator: City Manager and her designees pursuant to the Merit System Rules and Regulations (Jay Rounds, Michael Jackson, Rodger Jensen, Susan Ryerson, Tony Sandhu, Larry Starr, Paul Thiltgen, John Walton) Represented Employee Organization: Service Employees International Union, Local 715 (SEIU) Authority: Government Code section 54957.6
07/15/96 79-407
Public Comment None. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 10. Air Cargo Operations Proposed for Moffett Federal Airfield - Draft Environmental Assessment (continued from 7/8/96)
Assistant to the City Manager Vicci Rudin said the draft Environmental Assessment (EA) had been circulated for review and the deadline for the 30-day comment period ended July 18, 1996, at
which time the City=s comments needed to reach National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). As federally owned property, the Moffett Federal Airfield (MFA) was constitutionally exempt from local land use policies. The decisions of local jurisdictions were advisory; however, NASA had expressed its intention to cooperate with neighboring jurisdictions to the maximum extent feasible.
NASA=s budgetary concerns would play a critical role in its decision making. The EA discussed the potential environmental effects of allowing air cargo operators to use the airfield as
members of the Department of Defense=s (DOD) civil reserve air fleet. Under the program, commercial air cargo carriers could access military airfields under the Commercial Access Demilitary Installations program. To participate in the program, in turn, commercial air carriers had to provide a percentage of their fleet of aircraft to the DOD during increased air lift activity times. For example, the program operated successfully during the Persian Gulf War when 20 percent of the air lift missions were flown Civil
Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF) carriers. She stressed the word Αmilitary
airfields.≅ The 1994 federal legislation that set up the CRAF program allowed commercial carriers to use military fields. Moffett, however, was a federal field. For the program to operate, additional federal legislation would be required. The City of Sunnyvale requested and Representative Eshoo and Senators Boxer and Feinstein agreed not to allow legislation to proceed until the local communities had an opportunity to fully review the issue and determine if the air cargo proposal was acceptable. Staff reviewed the EA with the objective of identifying any potential impacts on Palo Alto. The staff report did not address the adequacy of the assessment with respect to impacts on other jurisdictions. She had contacted the staff at the cities of Sunnyvale and Mountain View and reviewed their staff reports. The Mountain View City Council discussed the EA that prior Tuesday evening, and Sunnyvale would discuss it the next evening. Both cities had been actively working with NASA for the past several years as the transition from the
07/15/96 79-408
Navy to NASA=s management occurred. Each of the cities established hot lines for constituents to keep abreast of what was occurring, and standing committees were meeting on a regular basis with NASA. In 1994, NASA prepared a Comprehensive Use Plan (CUP) for implementing the transfer of MFA from the Navy to NASA. The CUP projected future uses of the airfield to the Year 2010. The EA used the 2010 baseline for purposes of comparing the impacts associated with the four alternatives that were evaluated in the EA. Staff questioned the validity because NASA had acknowledged that MFA would not reach that threshold of activity without the air cargo operation. A much better evaluation would occur if the alternatives were compared to the existing condition. Using the 2010 baseline understated the impacts of the air cargo flights. The draft comments on the EA focused on the inadequacy of the noise analysis. The analysis should be expanded to include verification that the approach and departure patterns used to develop the noise contours were in fact what would be used and that overflights of Palo Alto would not occur. Detailed illustrations of the typical patterns and altitudes which the air cargo aircraft would fly during the daytime and nighttime operations was deficient in the EA. It should also indicate if any overflights of Palo Alto would occur and what the resultant exposure projections would be. Finally, there should be some discussion of the relationship of atmospheric conditions and aircraft noise levels. She said the Council might want to add other points to the draft letter which staff had prepared for the Mayor to be sent to NASA conveying the
City=s comments. Council Member Simitian asked, with regard to the 2010 baseline, what the current number of flights on an annual basis was. Ms. Rudin said currently the number of flights was 24,000 which was much less than when the Navy was in full operation. The 2010 baseline suggested there would be 60,000 flights and an additional 20,000 overflights for a total of 80,000 operations. Council Member Simitian said in order to compare what the impacts would be, a more appropriate baseline might be the use of the 24,000 flights rather than the 60,000 flights. He asked whether that was the issue the City of Mountain View had raised. Ms. Rudin replied yes. Council Member Simitian asked whether staff would object to additional language in the letter to NASA which would include a concern that the potential impacts were understated, specifically with regard to the baseline figure, and a request that the lower figure of 24,000 actual flights be used as the baseline.
07/15/96 79-409
Ms. Rudin said as discussed previously, it would be appropriate. Ellen Fletcher, 777-108 San Antonio Road, said as a resident on the southeast corner of Palo Alto, she was concerned about flights in and out of MFA. Not knowing whether there would be an impact or not, she was not opposed but asked the Council to be cognizant of the fact that the area was close to MFA. MOTION: Council Member Simitian moved, seconded by Schneider, to direct the Mayor to send a letter to the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) which states the City of Palo Alto=s comments concerning the Draft Environmental Assessment on the air cargo operations proposed for MFA. Further, that the letter include a concern that the potential impacts are understated, specifically with regard to the baseline figure, and request that the lower figure of 24,000 actual flights be used as the baseline. Council Member Andersen supported the motion. He expressed a concern with regard to the nighttime flights that came with those kinds of operators. The Tennessee operation that Federal Express used had literally hundreds of nighttime flights which landed one right after another for the entire night and flew out the same night. Much of the disturbance with that kind of cargo utilization was sleep patterns. He encouraged staff that the letter express an additional concern related to the impacts the operation might have on nighttime travel and the number of flights that might be going on in the evening. Council Member Rosenbaum commented that Mountain View was concerned it might be subject to unpredictable noise and might be stonewalled when a complaint was made. He supported the motion. MOTION PASSED 9-0. 11. Council Members Fazzino and Kniss and Vice Mayor Huber re Traffic/Transportation Management Issues (continued from 7/8/96) Council Member Fazzino said he and his colleagues believed that traffic/transportation issues could be better addressed to avoid dealing with those issues on a piecemeal basis. There was a number of suggestions in the memorandum before the Council regarding more viably addressing traffic/transportation issues including creating a more visible public forum by increasing Planning Commission attention as part of project approvals, establishing a separate Transportation Commission, establishing an annual Commission and Council review of transportation trends and net transportation
07/15/96 79-410
impacts of the previous year=s development decisions, more visible involvement by the Director of Planning and Community Environment and the City Manager, and developing a formal implementation plan
for the forthcoming Comprehensive Plan=s Transportation Element. They were not committed to any or all of the suggestions, but the entire Council would benefit by a discussion of those and other traffic/transportation management issues. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to refer
to the Policy and Services Committee review of the City=s current transportation management structure and to identify opportunities for improvement. Council Member Kniss said there were very few issues in the community that engendered the kind of comments and spirited discussion that transportation, parking, running of red lights, and changes in driving patterns did. There were many interesting issues because the streets were shared as well as public access. She had served as liaison to the City/School Liaison Committee for a couple of years and was impressed by what came before the committee with regard to the changes in driving patterns in the
City. As Council Member McCown had said many times, ΑThe enemy is
ourselves.≅ Looking back 25 or 30 years, the number of trips taken by community members were far less. As evidence, a person might go to an elementary school in the morning and watch how many children were dropped off. In previous times, before some schools had been closed, children were more likely to bike and walk. Driving children to school had become a pattern in the community. There was also a safety and fear factor, and parents felt more comfortable when their children were delivered to school by car which increased the number of car trips. Many families owned three and four cars, which was a dramatic change from the past. At the last Finance Committee meeting, there had been a long discussion with Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway with regard to how transportation was viewed and dealt with in Palo Alto. The Council was surprised to find out that many other cities had far more sophisticated ways of measuring traffic, changing the signal patterns, and observing traffic in general. For instance, the City of San Jose had a room filled with equipment to monitor traffic and to change signal patterns. Palo Alto did not as yet have the luxury of that high technology, and some of the ways traffic was measured were somewhat antiquated. Overall, the issue needed to be reviewed by having a discussion with the community, taking a realistic view of what was being dealt with, and having a discussion about the technology that was currently available in order to decide whether or not the Council wished to make that investment in a long-range capital outlay to change the traffic
07/15/96 79-411
patterns. She urged the Council=s support. Vice Mayor Huber said although he was one of the supporters of the memorandum, he did not support it in its entirety. He had grave doubts about the Transportation Commission. The fundamental reason for his support was that traffic and transportation needed to be elevated to a level at which it had not been in terms of visibility in Palo Alto. The suggestions in the memorandum identified a variety of ways to do that. The issue needed to be brought up to a level where the community was comfortable in terms of dealing with year-to-year reports, where to go, and whom to deal with because it was an issue that transcended everyone who lived in the community. Council Member McCown suggested simultaneous referral to the Planning Commission because she would be interested in hearing its perspective. She asked how the referral could be interrelated with the Finance Committee meeting item regarding Prioritization of Transportation Matters to be held the next evening. Council Member Fazzino viewed it as structural in nature and did not address specific traffic/transportation priorities. It was the way it related to ways in which the Council organized as a City and ways in which the Council involved the community in addressing transportation issues. The set of issues before the Finance Committee had to do with which traffic/transportation issues were priorities and, therefore, deserved funding. Council Member Kniss saw the issues as short and long term. What the Finance Committee would be looking at required some decision making that evening. It was the community communication that opened up the pathway for looking at it differently, and she believed it would be a relatively long assignment. Council Member McCown said that was the potential if the Planning Commission were to be the focal point for where the issues were analyzed at the first level, which would in turn relate to the advice that the Finance Committee might give or the Council might act upon with respect to the priorities. It seemed as if the Council were discussing different aspects of the same set of issues from two different vantage points simultaneously, and she had a need to see how those issues would be integrated back together.
City Manager June Fleming said the colleagues= memorandum spoke of how the organization should respond to the larger issue. It was an excellent suggestion that the Planning Commission review the item. It might be possible if the issue had gone through the procedures and a new process were in place; then the items going to the
07/15/96 79-412
Finance Committee the next evening would be going to the Planning Commission, but that was not the case. There was probably benefit in asking the Planning Commission to look at those items, but those items were specific and could be accomplished that evening. Additional input was good with regard to how the Planning Commission would react, but she would not suggest holding up the items. The items for the Finance Committee would be the type that if the Planning Commission were going to take a more active role, they would look at those items before they went to the Council. Council Member Schneider said the Planning Commission had its plate full with the upcoming Stanford EIR, and while she believed it was a good idea to have the Planning Commission review the issue, she wondered if a Transportation Advisory Committee would be considered in the near future because the Utilities Advisory Commission had been so effective in flushing out issues for the Council and explaining and pinpointing issues. Council Member McCown was not suggesting an in-depth undertaking of the assignment; but as part of a Planning Commission meeting, the item could be reviewed and feedback given regarding the concept to the Council so it could be combined with the Policy and Services (P&S) Committee assignment. Ms. Fleming reminded the Council that when staff went through the Organizational Review, one of the strong points made when transportation was looked at by the consultant was that Palo Alto needed to do integrated planning. When planning items surfaced, attention needed to be paid to traffic/transportation issues, which was one of the overriding reasons why staff and the consultant also recommended transportation issues stay in the Planning Department and not move to the Public Works Department. Council Member
McCown=s suggestion, which was supported by Council Members Fazzino and Kniss, was appropriate. The two items needed to be integrated and reviewed by separate bodies. She believed staff had received
the Council=s concurrence previously when the recommendation was returned in terms of how the department would be organized. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Palo Alto Municipal Code and state law required that the Planning Commission review the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and it sounded like the Council was suggesting expanding that to a longer range approach. Specifically, it was a review of the CIP for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Wheeler said that was correct. From a policy level, the Council had stated more and more over the past several years that it was imperative land use decisions and transportation decisions
07/15/96 79-413
be made in a cohesive way. She was concerned about the suggestion in the memorandum to form a separate commission. She believed the worst thing that could be done was to continue or exacerbate the appearance that transportation decisions were being made in a vacuum, separate from land use decisions and vice versa. She was in favor of utilizing the Planning Commission structurally to take a more active role in transportation planning which was a direction that needed to be taken. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to also refer the item to the Planning Commission for review. Council Member Kniss said she was not concerned with the two issues crossing over or interfering with each other because most referrals of that nature took some time to come to fruition. She doubted that the P&S Committee would review it before fall and the Finance Committee should move ahead with the issues for the next evening. She agreed with Mayor Wheeler that the decisions not be made too cumbersome. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORDINANCES
15. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 8.10 to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Regarding Tree Preservation and
Management Requirements≅ Senior Assistant City Attorney Debbie Cauble said there had been an extensive hearing on the item on May 20, 1996. There were two possible actions before the Council that evening as follow-up to the hearing regarding the possible enactment of regulations affecting certain trees on private property. If the Council wished to proceed with those regulations, the proposed ordinance would be introduced for first reading adding a new chapter 8.10 to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) enacting the private tree regulations. In addition, the Council suggested that if the City were to proceed with the regulatory approach, it should also consider an incentive
approach simultaneously. The City Attorney=s Office prepared an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to allow for preservation of a significant tree as a basis for approving a home improvement exception. Because it was a Zoning Code amendment, it required initiation by the Council and hearings by both the Planning Commission and the Council prior to enactment. Changes to the Tree Protection Ordinance since the May 20 hearing were highlighted on page 2 of the Report from the City Attorney dated July 10, 1996.
07/15/96 79-414
Council had a concern that the designation of heritage trees was unclear, and staff clarified that such a designation would run with the land and remain in place even through changes in ownership unless and until the Council removed the designation. In addition, the Council expressed concern that the proposed ordinance required a great deal of information from applicants even in situations in which the permit did not involve any change to the building footprint that could affect trees, and that section of the Ordinance had been clarified. There were several changes generated by staff in response to a community question that revisited the definition of building area. It was a term used in the Ordinance to define those circumstances in which a person could remove a protected tree, and it included an additional situation in which property owners had the right to do so. That would be when the trees were in the way of the only reasonable means to access the property which might occur, especially with a flag lot. After evaluating the time it would take for the new planning arborist to begin and prepare the tree protection manual which was an integral regulatory approach, the Planning staff had recommended January 1, 1997, as the effective date of the Ordinance. To clarify the applicability of the Ordinance for projects that were now in process, staff amended the draft ordinance to provide that any complete application on file as of the end of the year would not be subject to the Ordinance. Council Member Fazzino was concerned that speculators and developers in the next four or five months could cut down oak trees before the Ordinance went into effect. He asked why the Ordinance would not go into effect until January 1997. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said to implement and administer the Ordinance, staff would need some expertise that was not currently available in the Planning Department. That was the reason for the planning arborist position that was added to the adopted budget. The Human Resources Department indicated that filling the position would take 90 days, which was the middle of October, or possibly longer. In terms of implementing the Ordinance, there would be a variety of forms, flyers, and procedures developed which would have to be coordinated with a variety of City departments. Staff was concerned that the Ordinance would go into effect and staff would not be able to respond to the public because of the considerable number of applications that could fall under the Ordinance. Staff felt it was important to respond with good answers at the counter without hanging up applications in the plan check process. The January 1 date was selected in order to give enough time to recruit the position, hire the person, and put administrative procedures in place. Also, December was the lowest month of the year in terms of
07/15/96 79-415
plan check activity. Council Member Fazzino was concerned about threats to oak trees over the next four months. There was a recent example with a Downtown development project in which the developer was not sensitive to protection of trees. He asked whether there was another way to address valuable trees during the next few months. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council could ask the City Attorney to prepare a moratorium which was a policy matter. The Council needed to balance that against the way it would work with a delayed effective date. As Ms. Cauble had explained, the applications in effect and completed through the end of the year would be exempted which should be a signal that there was no need to take precipitous action. The Ordinance was generally reasonable, and if people had time to evaluate it, there was not as great a risk as it might seem. Council Member Fazzino said his second issue was with regard to the $310 fee for an arborist to review the plan. He could not believe it would take four hours for the arborist to read a report, particularly if the report stated very clearly and quickly that a tree was dead or diseased. Mr. Calonne said the fee was not a well worked out number. He had insisted that it be in the report because he was nervous about the question of how the fee should be handled with regard to passing an ordinance and returning at a later date with a figure. If Council approached the fee question from a generic policy level such as whether it should be subsidized or whether it should be full-cost recovery, that would give staff useful direction. He did not believe the number was intended to be a detailed figure. Council Member Fazzino clarified that it would not be an imposed flat fee of $310 for review of tree reports. City Manager June Fleming said the figure was a close guesstimate
the City Attorney=s Office made based upon some information from the Planning Division if it were to be totally cost recovered. The issue before the Council was whether it should be subsidized. Council Member Fazzino said the question remaining was whether it would take four hours to read every tree report, particularly if it were evident that a tree was dead or diseased. He understood if there were a complicated situation and a legitimate disagreement between the property owner and the City about the health of a tree. Mr. Schreiber said given the assumption most applications would
07/15/96 79-416
involve a field check and meeting with the applicant or his/her arborist, staff felt it was a likely figure of hours to be spent per application. Council Member Simitian said his questions also related to the fee issue. He recollected when the issue first went to the Council in 1992, there was a discussion about what the cost/fees would be. He had spent some time trying to figure out what the cost benefit was for the kind of ordinance being looked at at the time, which would have involved a far greater number of trees going to the City for review. Part of the issue discussed was what the cost of an arborist review was. The Council asked what the cost for a City staff member would be to look at that report because there would to have to be a review such as the one being discussed that evening. He remembered the cost being far less than $310 and more in the range of $75 to $100. Looking at something on the order of a couple of applications per year, approximately $50,000 a year, between what it would cost to get an arborist and staff involvement, rather than inhibit anybody from going ahead after
approving 90 percent of the applications under the Αhold ordinance≅ approach, the City could spend the $50,000 to plant new trees
instead. He did not begrudge the City Attorney=s advising the Planning Department to determine an approximate fee, but he wondered where the figure came from because it was far greater than the number he recollected. Mr. Schreiber said the figure came from taking the estimated hours and multiplying that by the salary plus overhead rate which was
part of the City=s adopted fee schedule for full-cost recovery applications. Council Member Simitian asked whether anyone recalled the conversation from 1992 he had referred to and whether the number was appreciably smaller. If so, he asked whether anyone remembered the rationale regarding what the difference was between what had been discussed previously and what had been discussed that evening. Ms. Fleming remembered the staff report and believed it was a different type of ordinance. It was before she became the City Manager, and she was not present the night the item was discussed. Council Member Simitian asked if there was a professional arborist on staff, why a tree report was necessary, especially if the arborist would not accept or reject the findings based on the tree report because he/she would go out and do a field inspection regardless. He recollected that in the old system, the Council was
07/15/96 79-417
looking at relying upon the licensed arborist to give an accurate report and the City arborist reviewing the privately retained arborist. Chief Planning Official Nancy Lytle said the two hours estimated to review an arborist report and have an independent evaluation from
the City=s professional arborist was based on the Planning
Department=s own experience with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) process wherein an arborist report submittal was required and the results ended up being evaluated and negotiated with the applicant. Essentially, there was a range of results that could be obtained from the professional arboreal community which required some discussion in order to understand what was being said. Staff had seen some inferior work from certain arborists which took approximately two hours to review. Council Member Simitian said if staff did not trust the tree reports and the reports had to be evaluated, the tree had to be viewed to exercise an independent judgment, and staff believed in its professional expertise that that was the only way a level of protection could be exercised, he was inclined to be guided. However, he still queried why a tree report was required at the front end anyway. Ms. Lytle said the generation of an independent tree report would take far more time than the evaluation of a tree report and would cost more. She did not know where the costs Council Member Simitian had commented on earlier came from, but she was sure it took more time than what was alluded to to get an independent arborist report. Council Member Simitian believed the Council was quoted a figure in the range of $100 for an independent arborist report but was presently being quoted a figure of $310 to look at an independent arborist report. Ms. Lytle did not recall a $100 arborist report, but staff reviewed
the reports based on staff=s experience through the ARB process. Council Member Simitian said in the examples described by Council Member Fazzino in which the tree was dead, he had a concern in asking someone to spend $400 for what appeared to be a fairly obvious case. He asked whether staff had that same concern. If staff were not concerned with the issue of overcharging on what was a fairly straightforward issue, he asked whether anyone was concerned about the backlash the City would receive with regard to a tree protection ordinance if people were going to be charged $400
07/15/96 79-418
to cut down a patently dead tree. Mr. Schreiber said based on experience, most properties did not involve dead trees. The problem was determining the quality and health of a tree that was not bad but not in extremely good condition either. That was when the judgment, analysis, and eventually debate came with the applicant. What was important to
underscore was Mr. Calonne=s comment that the number was put into
the staff report to get the Council=s attention so a policy direction could be given to staff regarding the level of the fee. From his standpoint as a department head, there was no objection to
the Council=s asking for a $75 to $100 fee, recognizing that a significant number of single-family properties would be dealt with. In the past, the Council, with respect to other fee areas, made decisions that full-cost recovery did not have to apply to single- family property owners. Council Member Simitian asked whether staff could be thinking about the issues of excessive costs to individual applicants, the potential for backlash against a fairly moderate and reasonable ordinance, the necessity of two different arborists reviewing the same tree, and/or if members of the public or the Tree Task Force who testified could give some comment. He would find that helpful in reaching some conclusions that evening. Ms. Fleming requested that the Council allow staff to come back with a recommendation. Her experience had been that when staff tried to respond in the same evening to those types of issues, the Council was not getting the best service staff was capable of giving. She suggested the Council continue the discussion of the issue and let staff return with a recommendation and that in the discussions, the Council be strong about whether or not it was willing to subsidize. Also, other jurisdictions could be checked out to see what was being done. She was aware of ranges from one jurisdiction requiring $1,600 just to make an application to another jurisdiction requiring a fee of less than the $310 mentioned.
Council Member Simitian asked the City Attorney=s staff whether the Council could proceed with a first reading leaving only unresolved the issue of cost recovery of fees so it would not deter taking action on the Ordinance. Mr. Calonne said the Ordinance did not compel the Council one way or another on cost recovery. In connection with the establishment of the actual fee, when staff returned to the Council with its recommendation, the Council could make a determination as to the appropriate level to be borne by the general taxpayer and to be
07/15/96 79-419
borne by the applicant. A decision did not have to be made that evening; and if he understood Ms. Fleming correctly, if the Council gave direction and some indication of whether it was interested in a subsidy, staff could go from there and return with some specific analysis. Council Member Simitian appreciated having the information raised that evening rather than after the fact.
Vice Mayor Huber wanted to follow up on Council Member Fazzino=s question with regard to effective dates and what could be done in terms of the Ordinance. He asked for a solution as opposed to why something could not be done until December and what could be done to ensure there would be an ordinance in effect. Mr. Calonne said to ensure there would be an ordinance in effect was one thing and to prevent bad things from happening until an ordinance was in effect was something else. He asked Ms. Fleming or Mr. Schreiber how it could be implemented without staff. Ms. Fleming said she could only recommend what Mr. Calonne had recommended that some type of moratorium be put in place until staff was hired. Vice Mayor Huber asked with regard to a moratorium, what would be prohibited. He asked how the Council would proceed. Mr. Calonne said the focus of the Ordinance was to prevent the needless removal of heritage trees which were basically two native oaks plus others that might be designated, and that was not an issue during the interim period. The simplest thing to do, which was not a recommendation or a suggestion, was to forbid removal of the two native oak species with some appropriate escape clause for urgent health and safety concerns. From there, staff could get more creative and complicated but not without putting some thought behind it. Council Member Andersen believed that full-cost recovery was not an appropriate approach to that type of ordinance and effort. The trees were being looked at as City resources; and for that reason, he had little discomfort with looking at it in the same way as a tree in a City park. He would not worry about full-cost recovery. Council Member Kniss referred to a memorandum attached to the City
Attorney=s Report from the Planning Division dated October 27,
1995, entitled ΑStaffing Required to Implement Tree Ordinances in
Four Nearby Cities.≅ She asked how those cities were able to get
07/15/96 79-420
the ordinances passed. Ms. Lytle said many of the tree ordinances had been in effect for a decade or more. Council Member Kniss said if there were any area in Palo Alto, aside from traffic and parking, where the City was lacking, it was in the area of trees which she found astonishing. She had recently viewed a demolished house in a Palo Alto neighborhood, and the trees in the back of the house disappeared. Whether those trees could have been protected or not, she did not know. There was no mechanism currently in place to protect a tree. She heard Council
Member Simitian=s concern with regard to cost and asked what the value of one of the trees really was. She was only referring to those specific trees mentioned that evening which were very few. Mr. Schreiber replied that staff did not have the expertise to give the Council a competent answer. The trees could be extremely valuable and might cost in the area of $10,000 or $20,000 for a large tree. Council Member Kniss clarified that people who sold real estate in Palo Alto would agree that the right kind of tree could add a value of at least $50,000 to a house. Ms. Fleming said staff did not know the precise dollar amount to add to trees. Everyone agreed that it was an important step for the City to take and that good heritage trees enhanced the value of a neighborhood or an individual piece of property considerably. Mr. Calonne said the bottom line was that in a community like Palo Alto, very few people were going to do something irrational to the trees. In order to create a regulatory structure to catch those few that would, everyone ended up being burdened. He did not have a solution. Council Member McCown asked if the Ordinance became effective immediately as opposed to the delayed date being proposed and if in the interim before the new position was filled, somebody felt the necessity to cut a tree down which would require a report and a proposal, staff was saying there was no personnel available to review that and make a decision or implement the Ordinance. She understood that staff wanted to get the manual written and get a person hired, but she asked in the interim period whether the City had the ability to at least respond to heritage tree requests for removal, either through the City arborist or the Planning Division staff that currently reviewed reports.
07/15/96 79-421
Ms. Lytle said the people staff had been using to assist in reviewing arborist reports were landscape arborists that triggered the evaluation of the City arborist. Staff did not do that for a variety of applications that the Ordinance would apply to. The projects that were currently in process and had been for several months and those currently being submitted that would take several more months did not contain the information that was needed to make the evaluation. Those applications did not show the trees in their side setbacks and would not disclose whether or not trees were there. Staff would need to have the ability to catch the applicant to advise him/her of the submittal requirements so it could be revealed to in the plans where those trees were located. Council Member McCown said if hypothetically the effective date were in 30 days rather than January 1, 1997, it would not apply to anybody who currently had a completed application. For anything already submitted or not completed as yet, staff would advise the applicant that there was an additional requirement with regard to having a heritage tree as defined in the Ordinance. If the building plans affected the tree and the applicant wanted to remove the tree, he/she would be required to submit an application through the process. In the perfect world, staff would like the additional staff and the development of the manual, but she did not understand whether staff was saying it could not on an interim basis enforce the new Ordinance while those things were being put in place. Ms. Fleming said one of the things she understood about the Ordinance was that certain manuals were needed in order to help staff make the decisions, and those manuals had not yet been completed. She asked how the Ordinance could be carried out without a part of the basic piece of it. Council Member McCown said what the Council was clearly concerned about was not a manual that was going to help someone figure out how to maintain a tree, but whether in the interim period before January 1997 some significant tree would be destroyed. That was an extreme case that people would be upset by if the City were spending five months trying to get the process in order. She asked whether there was some way to carve out that extreme emergency situation in which someone with an already approved application wanted to remove a tree because it was inconvenient, and staff could pick out those applications during the interim period. There might be other elements that staff would not be in a position to enforce until January, but she believed that staff could take that specific piece out and avoid the extreme unjustified cutting down of a tree that was perfectly fine but happened to be inconvenient. Ms. Cauble said in the format of the Ordinance before the Council, the tree technical manual was not only to be utilized for
07/15/96 79-422
maintenance or replacement standards but also to establish a uniform format for the tree report so citizens could get a handout from the City specifying the requirements. Hopefully, it would make it simpler and less expensive for citizens to comply. Also, Mr. Schreiber indicated earlier that one of the most difficult decisions a City could make with regard to a tree regulation scheme was not the obvious dead tree but the tree that a property owner felt was dying and might be dangerous. Part of what the Ordinance envisioned in the manual was to set out standards the City would use in evaluating whether or not a tree was dangerous. It was those two items that Ms. Fleming was referring to that would not be available at the early stage. Council Member McCown said there were two extremes and a place in the middle. There was the obvious dead tree and there was the
thriving tree that happened to be inconvenient for someone=s redevelopment plans but defined as a heritage tree. People would be unhappy if within the next five months a heritage tree were removed because the Ordinance was not yet in place. The middle ground was the case staff was talking about where there was an argument between arborists and guidelines and advance warning of what the guidelines were which could be very helpful and
persuasive. The Council=s concern was not the middle ground nor the dead tree but the great tree that would be protected after January 1, 1997, because it was clearly a heritage tree under the Ordinance. However, someone would have the ability to act and remove the tree during that interim period. That would be the type of case that people would be very unhappy with. She was trying to figure out some middle ground where that safeguard could be picked
up without interfering with staff=s legitimate concerns about doing the process correctly. Mr. Calonne said if the Council looked at some form of moratorium with an exception process built in, that would be as close as staff could get. He did not honestly know how or who would administer the exception process, but that would be the way to go about carving some middle ground during the interim period. Ms. Fleming had a suggestion that made sense, and that was to contract with someone with that expertise. The difficulty was having to exercise very broad discretion without the manual in place. It could be handled as a moratorium done on an exception basis. The other assumption was that there would not be dozens of applications. Ms. Fleming hoped everyone understood that the application process
would not be the City=s usual level of service. It might not be processed as quickly with the contract person, and there might be
07/15/96 79-423
some delay; but staff would process the application as soon as possible, and it would be better than doing nothing. Mayor Wheeler said she usually came from the point of view of how staff could make it happen rather than why it could not be made to happen. She asked whether the City would run into difficulty with a moratorium in place which seemed to be the preferred alternative. She asked whether there would be any problem with the legal requirements if the City took action on a development application within a certain period of time if a heritage tree were involved and the City would not let the developer continue because of the tree and the position the City was in due to being in between ordinances. Mr. Calonne said it would be something akin to an interim zoning action. The City could run into legal problems but it would not be unsurmountable. Nancy Fiene, 342 Kellogg, supported the concept of protecting the trees and allotting the necessary funds. She owned property that
had six trees on it that would fall under the City=s heritage criteria which was a buildable lot, but she did not know how a house could be built on the property and still protect all of the
trees. By the City=s criteria, it was a tree that was 36 inches in diameter at 4-1/2 feet. She was concerned the regulations were so inflexible that someone like herself who would want to do everything possible to protect as many trees as possible would be severely crippled in making any plans for the property. Kate Feinstein, 1600 Bryant, thanked the Council and staff for all the trouble they had gone through to try to fashion a tree protection ordinance for Palo Alto that would truly reflect community values and would be moderate and reasonable. The Tree Task Force welcomed the home improvement exemptions being considered that evening because incentives were preferable to penalties. The Task Force hoped in extreme cases of willful violations that there would be penalties enforced. A large component of the new nonprofit would be the education of the community with regard to trees. She hoped that when the new position was filled, there would be at least a partial
implementation of the Ordinance. She supported the City Attorney=s suggestion to put some type of moratorium in place and hoped the fees could be less so as not to put an additional burden on the citizens. She gave the City Attorney an example of an emergency ordinance from the City of Burlingame which was done for the same reasons being discussed that evening.
07/15/96 79-424
Marge Abel, 1601 Castilleja, wanted to reenforce that when ordinances had been proposed in other cities and there had not been a moratorium, there was documented history in which people were not rational and reasonable. Therefore, she supported a moratorium.
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, believed the Αlocated on
private property≅ clause should be removed so the same standards applied to private property owners and developers were applied to the City departments. She had hoped the Ordinance would stress education, and the City set a good example by its care of its own oak trees. Removing the clause would strengthen the Ordinance and send a message to the Community Services, Utilities, and Public Works Departments that when they had projects, they were subject to the same standards. She mentioned that the California Oaks Foundation had manuals on tree care that might be useful in the development of the manual. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, agreed that the cost recovery approach was somewhat excessive and that the Council should look at subsidizing. A range of $50 to $100 seemed more appropriate. The subject of tree protection had not been raised only four years prior but was raised in 1975 and lost to a 5:4 vote. He had some suggestions for modifying the proposed ordinance: 1) on page 3 of the Draft
Ordinance, section 8.10.20(h)(1) should read ΑAny tree which is fifteen and one-half (15.5) inches in diameter (48 inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half (4.5) feet
(54 inches) above natural grade≅; and 2) on page 6, section
8.10.090(a) should read ΑUpon nomination by any person, the City Council may designate a tree or trees as defined in 8.10.020(h)(1)
as a heritage tree.≅ A heritage tree should be defined by nature and size and not by vagaries of the property owners. The Ordinance should be simple, clean, and easy to administer. Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, was concerned that staff was trying to do too much in one ordinance. He believed there were two separate issues: 1) whether the Ordinance should be concerned with singly developed single-family homes or 2) single-family homes in general. That was the issue in 1975 that was controversial and led to a change of the 5:4 vote defeating the ordinance. The other part of the Ordinance dealt with commercial properties, multiple- family properties, planned community zones, properties requiring use permits, and other discretionary approvals. He agreed with Mr. Moss that all trees of a certain size should be protected, and those properties were limited in number and could be inventoried. Any opportunity to find out whether or not those trees were being protected, even with interior modifications, would be a good idea. He suggested that single-family homes be separated from other
07/15/96 79-425
properties requiring discretionary approval which would have the most impact on citizens. If the Council wished to treat the setback areas of single-family homes where neighbor would be pitted against neighbor, that should be a separate ordinance. His concern was that someone might feel so strongly about the single-family home inclusion in the Ordinance that it might lead to a referendum of a proposed ordinance or an attempt to initiate a repeal after the Ordinance had been in effect for a while. Then, if successful, everything would be eliminated including protection of the trees in areas requiring discretionary approvals and non-single-family areas which would have the most impact on neighbors. He believed it would be a mistake to treat single-family homes as written in the Ordinance because the most likely circumstance in which someone would complain would be after the tree had been removed, which might bring on an enforcement situation after the fact causing a penalty against the person who took the action. In the situation in which all trees were protected, the Council would have the ability, through a discretionary approval process, to enforce the
City=s desire to protect trees on properties. Lyn Nelson, 3000 Alexis Drive, Palo Alto Golf and Country Club, was slightly confused by the Ordinance. The Palo Alto Golf and Country Club (the Country Club) occupied 127 acres in Palo Alto which included over 4,000 trees with 53 different species. Occasionally, there was a need to redesign a golf hole due to safety issues or changes in the character of a respective hole. In that design, it might affect some trees designated as heritage trees or trees that might become heritage trees in the future. Since it was the nature
of the Country Club=s business to always have trees along those holes, she asked how the Ordinance could be dealt with since it had the opportunity for replacement if the hole were to be changed or modified. She felt the proposed Ordinance was difficult to understand just because the Country Club fell under open space and would not be using construction to add on a prospective golf hole but would only be changing the character of an existing hole. MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Huber, to introduce the Ordinance and initiate proceedings to amend Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.90.055 to allow protection of a significant tree as a basis for approving a home improvement exception. Council Member Kniss believed it was time to take action on the Ordinance and was disappointed that the Council did not have the mechanism to put the Ordinance in place that evening. Whether it would work or what problems might arise could be fixed at a later
date. She thought Mr. Moss=s suggestion was good, but that evening she would not change the Ordinance in any way for fear that it
07/15/96 79-426
might fall apart again being that the Ordinance failed in 1992 on a 4:4 vote and in 1975 on a 5:4 vote. She urged her colleagues to support the Ordinance. Council Member Fazzino supported the Ordinance and congratulated the Tree Task Force for bringing the Ordinance to the point it was at that evening. It was a wonderful first step. He yearned to go beyond that point as did Council Member Kniss, but he believed it was important to enact an Ordinance which had the support of the community and was focused on incentives rather than penalties. That was what was most attractive about the approach. He believed the Ordinance would not work without the strong support of the community, flexibility, and most importantly the focus on the
heritage trees. The City Attorney=s Office did a fine job in
crafting an ordinance which he believed would protect the City=s trees and at the same time preserve flexibility for property owners. He advised Ms. Fiene that it was his understanding she would be able to build in accordance with the regulations for her property and thus would not be affected by the Ordinance. The Country Club situation would have to be looked at, but he wanted the City to be as flexible as possible. He endorsed the recommendation to protect the trees with a moratorium during the interim period and concurred with Mr. Calonne that 99 percent of the citizens in Palo Alto, including developers, were rationale people and would act reasonably and appropriately. However, he was concerned with the 1 percent who might not be familiar with the heritage trees or the area and destroy a tree. With respect to full-cost recovery, he did not want to see the $310 fee being applied to every case. There were obvious cases in which trees were dead or diseased and a much lower fee needed to be charged. Mr. Calonne asked whether there was specific information the Council wanted such as comparisons to other cities. Council Member Fazzino said it would be helpful. Council Member Schneider supported the motion but did not believe the Ordinance went far enough in protecting the existing trees. She wanted to see additional provisions added as time passed. She was concerned with personal property rights versus saving trees. In the future, she wanted to see mitigations added for when trees were removed that provisions be made for replacement. Large specimens of live oak trees could be successfully planted to replace trees that were removed, which might be expensive but was one way of maintaining the trees and allowing for personal property rights to be maintained. Vice Mayor Huber believed it was time to move ahead and get an
07/15/96 79-427
Ordinance in place and then change it and toughen it up as time went on. The Council was in the encouragement mode, and he believed little or no fees were necessary in terms of cost recovery. Council Member Andersen supported the motion. He anticipated that the Public Works and Utilities Departments staff would live up to the spirit of the Ordinance just as would be expected by private property owners. He suggested the item be reviewed in one year, from July to July, for consideration of additional tree species being added. He wanted to get feedback on how the Ordinance was operating and see if the Council were prepared to add any additional strengthening features to the Ordinance. He agreed with Vice Mayor Huber regarding cost recovery.
Council Member Rosenbaum shared Mr. Calonne=s comment with respect to Palo Altans being reasonable and rational and recognized the value of large trees. Staff had done its best to demonstrate how cumbersome and expensive it was to remove a tree. He felt the $310 cost recovery fee was unnecessary. Council Member Simitian agreed with his colleagues regarding cost recovery. He felt the Council was in the right place at the right time with respect to the level of protection that would be
provided, and he agreed with Mr. Calonne=s assessment in terms of the need to regulate larger numbers to protect the City from a relatively small number of people who would behave in a way that was contrary to public interest. He suggested the maker and
seconder of the motion with respect to Council Member Andersen=s suggestion of a July to July review consider that it be a real year from January to January in order that the Council have better data to work with. With regard to the issue of the level of coverage, he tried to recall how it came to the point it was at in terms of what was covered and what was not. The prior proposal involved trees of any and all species that were 16 inches in diameter, and at that time, the Policy and Services Committee reviewed what the experience in other communities was. What was discovered in other communities was that 80 to 90 percent of the applications that were submitted were approved by local jurisdictions because people knew what the ordinance required and did not submit applications that did not meet the ordinance requirements. The Council would be in a position of whether it was going to regulate 300 applications and end up approving all but a handful and imposing the cost of $300 to $400, whether it was the property owner or the City, which would calculate out to a cost of $120,000 if the 300 households a year was multiplied by $400. It would then be realized that if 270 of the applications were approved, it would be better to plant $120,000 worth of trees which would be much more than the 30 or 40
07/15/96 79-428
trees of questionable value. He asked why that approach had been stepped away from previously. He would be happy to review it in a year, but he believed the Council was best to limit itself to regulation in those instances when it was really necessary, and it should be done moderately and with an artful and light touch. He complimented the Tree Task Force on bringing the issue to the place it was at that evening which he felt avoided the backlash that was likely to have otherwise greeted the Ordinance. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to direct
the City Attorney to return before Council=s vacation in August with details of a moratorium to provide protection until January 1, 1997. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to review the Ordinance in December 1997 to possibly expand the Ordinance to include additional trees. Council Member McCown was concerned with the language in the Ordinance which defined removal to include actions forseeably leading to the death or permanent damage to the health of a tree, including excessive pruning, cutting, overwatering, unauthorized relocation or transportation, trenching, excavating, paving within
the drip line, etc. The Tree Task Force=s comment regarding the educational aspect of what was intended had to be ahead of any penalty focus. Technically, if those acts constituted removal, they would also support the fines and penalties. An area that needed to be acted upon was where someone cut a tree down just because it was inconvenient, but the Council needed to be careful and try not to use the Ordinance in a way that punished a person for acts or mistakes made unintentionally. She did not believe that was the intent, but she felt it was an area that needed to be watched to see how the Ordinance worked once in practice. Mayor Wheeler said since 1992, the Ordinance had garnered some additional support and respect due to the passage of time and the careful creative work done by the Tree Task Force which was commendable. An important issue alluded to by Council Member Andersen was the conduct of the City with regard to its heritage trees. MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION to direct the City Attorney to bring back ordinance language to protect the
City=s heritage trees. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Rosenbaum Αno.≅
07/15/96 79-429
RECESS 10:02 P.M. TO 10:15 P.M. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS 16. Midtown Revitalization Follow-Up Report Mayor Wheeler proposed that due to the importance of the item, it might be well to continue the item to the next regular City Council meeting. Since a number of speaker cards had been received from members of the public interested in the item, she suggested that
they be held by the City Clerk=s Office. Those cards would be taken for public testimony in the order in which they had been received that evening at the next meeting. Council Member Andersen was concerned with the fact that many people, including consultants, had been waiting a great length of time that evening to speak to the item or answer questions. Also,
there were several items pending based on the Council=s response to the item. He was personally not persuaded that the item should be continued, but if the Council and the main players involved preferred to wait, he would concede to that. City Manager June Fleming said staff had asked the consultants about their availability for the following week, and there should be no problem. Council Member Simitian preferred to move ahead with the item that evening and did not support a motion to continue. Council Member Schneider supported a motion to continue but apologized to staff and the consultants for making them wait so late. The decision to continue should have been made earlier that evening prior to the break. Council Member McCown supported a motion to continue. There were 13 speaker cards from members of the public, and since the Council would want a complete presentation from staff and the consultants, the public would be asked to wait until after midnight which would be a great disservice. MOTION: Mayor Wheeler moved, seconded by McCown, to continue Item No. 16 to the Regular City Council Meeting of July 22, 1996. MOTION PASSED 8-1, Simitian Αno.≅ COUNCIL MATTERS
07/15/96 79-430
17. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements Mayor Wheeler announced that applications were available for the
Canopy Steering Committee from the City Clerk=s Office. ΑCanopy:
Trees for Palo Alto≅ was a new independent nonprofit. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. to a Closed Session. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving labor negotiation as described in Agenda Item No. 9. Mayor Wheeler announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 9. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:45 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.
07/15/96 79-431