Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2000-10-23 City Council (9)
TO: FROM: City of Palo Alto C ty Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: OCTOBER 23, 2000 CMR:384:00 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE DESIGNATION OF A SILVER MAPLE LOCATED AT 1872 EDGEWOOD DRIVE AS HERITAGE TREE NO. 5 AND AN AMERICAN ELM AT 4226 PONCE DRIVE AS HERITAGE TREE NO. 6. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Council approve the designation of two trees for heritage status: a Silver Maple located at 1872 Edgewood Drive as Heritage Tree No. 5 (see Attachment A); and an American Elm located in the center of the San Alma Homeowners Association housing complex, at 4226 Ponce Drive, as Heritage Tree No. 6 (see Attachment B). BACKGROUND Chapter 8.10.090 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, entitled "Designation of Heritage Trees," provides for persons to nominate a tree on their property as a heritage tree. After City Council approval of such designation, the tree will be included in a listing maintained by the Planning and Community Environment Department. This listing includes information such as specific location, overall size and canopy spread. Once designated, a heritage tree will be subject to the provisions of the Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, unless removed from the list by subsequent action of the City Council. These regulations include guidelines and restrictions regarding pruning, removal and development that impact the tree. DISCUSSION Heritage Tree No. 5. Mr. Donald Starner and Ms. Mary Starner, owners of the property at 1872 Edgewood Drive, filed an application for heritage tree status for the Silver Maple located in the back yard of their property. The tree is an outstanding example of its kind and perhaps the oldest and biggest Silver Maple in the City. It provides aesthetic quality and shade to the surrounding area. CMR:384:00 Page 1 of 4 The Silver Maple meets the standards for heritage tree designation set forth in Chapter 8.10.090 and the Heritage Tree Checklist, which was developed by staff (see Attachment C)I Written request, consent and photographs have been received from the Starners. In addition, a written analysis of the tree’s specific location, size, dimensions and qualities was conducted by arborist Kenneth D. Meyer, of Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. (The letter of request/consent and arborist report are included as Attachment A). According to the arborist report, the appraised valuation of the tree contributes $16,900 to the value of this property. Staff recommends that this tree be designated as Heritage Tree No. 5, based upon the finding that it is unique and of importance to the property owner and community because it meets criteria 1, 3 and 4 of the following criteria set forth in the Tree Preservation Ordinance: (1) (2) (3) (4) It satisfies PAMC Section 8.10.090 requirements; It is an outstanding specimen of a desirable species; It is one of the largest and oldest trees in Palo Alto; and It possesses distinctive form, size, age, location significance. and/or historical Heritage Tree No. 6. The San Alma Homeowners Association, owner of the complex’ of homes at 4226 Ponce Drive, filed an application for heritage tree status for the American Elm located at the center of this complex. The tree has historical significance in that it is a significant tree located on the site where Don Secundo Robles, once the owner of all of the land that is now Palo Alto, built his adobe home in 1840. The tree is an outstanding example of its kind. It is 60 feet tall and is a landmark for the housing complex and the surrounding community. The American Elm meets the standards for heritage tree designation set forth in Chapter 8.10.090 and the Heritage Tree Checklist. Written request, consent and photographs have been received from the San Alma Homeowners Association, along with a written analysis of the tree’s specific location, size, dimensions and qualities by arborist John H. McClenahan, of S. P. McClenahan Co., Inc. (The request/consent letter and arborist report are included as Attachment B). According to the arborist report, the appraised valuation of the tree contributes $10,900 to the value of this property. Staff recommends that this tree be designated as Heritage Tree No. 6, based upon the finding that it is unique and of importance to the property owner and community because it meets criteria 1, 3 and 4 set forth in the Tree Protection Ordinance: (1) (2) It satisfies PAMC Section 8.10.090 requirements; It is an outstanding specimen of a desirable speci(s; CMR:384:00 Page 2 of 4 (3) It is one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto and; (4)It possesses distinctive form, size, age, location significance and/or historical RESOURCE IMPACT There is no resource impact expected as a result of these designations. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The recommended action would continue to promote the process of heritage tree designation and is consistent with existing City policies and urban forest goals and objectives. TIMELINE After designation as a heritage tree by Council, the heritage tree will be recognized as such immediately. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The designation of heritage trees is exempt from provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15061 (b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the designation will have a significant effect on the environment. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A:Donald and Mary Starner’s Request, Photographs, and Arborist Report Attachment B:The San Alma Homeowners Association’s Request, Photographs, and Arborist Report Attachment C:Tree Preservation and Management Regulations, Ordinance #4568 and Heritage Tree Checklist PREPARED BY:Dave Dockter, Managing Arborist, Planning Division DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: G. EDWA~ GA~WF Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: "3 tJDREY SZ’ MOtJRv Assistant to the City Manager CMR:384:00 Page 3 of 4 cc~Donald and Mary Stamer San Alma Homeowners Association Canopy: Trees for Palo Alto CMR:384:00 Page 4 of 4 Attachment A May 4, 2000 City Council City of Palo Alto P.O.Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 We request that our Silver maple be given heritage tree status as outlined in CPA Municipal Code 8.10.090. It is an outstanding example of its kind and perhaps the oldest and biggest in the city. It was here when we purchased our home at 1872 Edgewood Drive in 1964. Over the years we have cared for this magnificent Silver maple carefully and will continue to do so. In return we have benefited from its shade and beauty. Towering over our home, it is a natural air conditioner, even on the hottest days. It adds greatly to the canopy in our neighborhoodstanding taller than all but redwoods. We are sure it adds much to the serenity of our area and the property values of several homes including our own. We hereby grant consent to have our address and tree location included on the inventory list and map that may be utilized by Palo Alto residents interested in viewing the tree. It may be seen from the street but we would be happy to show its immense trunk to any who request to see it. Sincerely, Donald Starner Mary Starner Palo Ali~D3~;e’ © Heritage Tree #5 View of tree looking south, toward front of house, View of tree looking southwest, Mary Starner 1872 Edgewood Dr. Mary Starnor 1872 Edgewood Dr. Palo Alto, CA 94303.3015 San Alma Homeowners Association 4256 Ponce Drive Palo Alto, CA 94306 Attachment B 24 August 2000 City Council City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 We are writing to request that the American elm (L~mus americana) located in the center of our complex of homes be granted heritage tree status and protection as outlined in CPA Mtmicipal Code 8.10.090. San Alma Homeowners Association is located at the comer of Alma Street and San Antonio Road on the site where Don Secundo Robles built his adobe home sometime before 1840. Robles was the owner of all the land that is now Palo Alto. When San Alma was first established in 1974, the builders made certain that this large tree (then over 40 feet tall) would not only be protected, but would be the centerpiece of our group of 26 townhouses and eight condominium units. The tree is now 60 feet tall and has been regularly cared for by professional arborists. Since the tree is in the common area of the Association property, we can assure you that the tree will continue to receive the very best care. A map of our association layout of homes showing the location of the tree and photographs of the tree are enclosed. As you can see the tree is easily visible from the street and from a number of different angles. We would certainly agree to have the tree location listed on any maps so that others may enjoy it. Thank you for considering this request. Sharon Berm~ Vice President San Alma Homeowners Association JAMES M. McCLENAHAN DAVID F. MOORE JOHN H. McCLENAHAN S.P. McCLENAHAN CO., INC. ARBORICULTURISTS SINCE 19 | | CONTRACTORS LIC, #651341 # 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028 TELEPHONE (650) 326-8781 FAX (650) 854- 1267 GARY F. ARMSTRONG GENEK. PEGLOW MIGUEL A. BERUMEN August 4, 2000 San Alma Homeowners Association Attention: Mrs. Victoria Bosch 4226 Ponce Palo Alto, California 94306 Dear Mrs. Bosch: I have modified the tree assessment of June 21,2000 to correct errors in text and provide a more thorough explanation of the observations made during my site visit. Thank you for allowing me to provide this additional information. Very truly yours, S. P. McOL NAHAN CO~.~ By:H. McClenahan, Vice Pros:dent member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborist WC - ISA #1476 JHMc:pm cc: Mr. James Burch JAMES M. McCLENAHAN DAVID F. MOORE JOHN H McCLENAHAN S.P. McCLENAHAN CO., INC. ARBORICULTURISTS SINCE | 9 | I CONTRACTORS LIC. #651341 # 1 ARASTRADERO ROAD, PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94028 TELEPHONE (650) 326-8781 August 4, 2000FAX (050) B54-1267 GARY F. ARMSTRONG GENE K. PEGLOW MIGUEL A. BERUMEN San Alma Homeowners Association Attention: Mrs. Victoria Bosch 4226 Ponce Palo Alto, California 94306 Assiqnment As requested, I visually inspected the American elm (U/mus americana) to determine species, size, condition, location and appraised value. Methodolog.~ In determining Tree Condition several factors have been considered which include: Rate of growth over several seasons; Structural decays or weaknesses; Presence of disease or insects; and Life expectancy. The following guide for interpretation of Tree Condition as related to Life Expectancy is submitted for your information. 0- 5 Years = Poor 5 - 10 Years = Poor to Fair 10 - 15 Years = Fair 15 -20 Years = Fair to Good 20 + Years = Good In determining the monetary value, the adjusted trunk formula method of appraisal has been adopted for trees more than 30.0" inches in diameter. The adjusted trunk formula method determines the basic value and then adjusting that value depending on the trees condition and location ratings. Basic value is the cost of replacement and the increase in value due to the larger size of the tree being appraised compared to the size of the replacement tree. San Alma Homeowners Association Attention: Mrs. Victoria Bosch Page 2 August 4, 2000 Please be advised that the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers representing The American Association of Nurserymen, American Society of Consulting Arborists, Landscape Contractors of America, International Society of Arboriculture and National Arborist Association who have approved and adopted this method of plant valuation authored this method of plant appraisal. ¯ ¯ In determining species rating, factors considered include: climate and soil adaptability growth characteristics resistance to insects and disease maintenance requirements aesthetic values In determining condition rating, factors considered include: rate of growth over several seasons structural decays or weaknesses presence of insects or disease life expectancy In determining location rating, factors considered include: site functional and aesthetic contribution placement San Alma Homeowners Association Attention: Mrs. Victoria Bosch Page 3 August4,2000 Tree Description/Observation American elm (U/mus americana) Diameter standard height: 39.5" Height: 60’ Spread: 60’ Condition: Fair Location: In planter area between roads .... Observation: Foliage, size and color are typical of the species. I observed minor damage from chewing insects. I did not see any evidence of large dead limbs or presence of disease. Many of the scaffold limbs exhibit numerous old pruning wounds with varied degrees of callus closure. Some wounds exhibit complete wound closure, while most wounds indicate partial closure. A few of the wounds are oozing sap. The main crotch contains two pockets of deterioration approximately one-foot deep. These two cavities have decayed sixty percent of the heartwood. The root crown is maintained at natural grade and is in direct contact with overhead spray irrigation. Discussion Foliage, size and color indicate normal tree vitality. The leaves indicate that nutrient and moisture uptake is adequate to sustain tree vigor. Damage to leaves from elm leaf beetle (Galerucella xanthomeloena) is minimal and insignificant to tree health. The healthy looking foliage shows no symptoms of Dutch elm disease (Ceratocystis. ulmi). Our records indicate a fungicide treatment (micro injection with Alamo) occurred on August 12, 1998. It is advisable to continue with a Dutch elm disease prevention program. Dutch elm disease is a devastating disease throughout the United States that often kills mature Elm trees very quickly. The wounds with varied degrees of callus closure indicate the tree’s natural process, called compartmentalization of decay in trees (codit). The callus roll formation created by this process is a tree’s natural response to "seal" decay caused from wounding. Once the wounds achieve complete closure, the decay will be compartmentalized. Some of the wounds are oozing sap. This is known as slime flux or wetwood and is very common in Elm trees. It comes from a bacteria fermenting in the heartwood, which builds pressure and forces the fermented sap (slime flux) out of wounds, cracks or crotches. Slime flux rarely causes serious harm to trees.* San Alma Homeowners Association Attention: Mrs. Victoria Bosch Page 4 August 4, 2000 Discussion continued An aerial inspection of the two pockets of deterioration indicates a sixty percent loss of heartwood. This degree of decay does weaken tree Structu re, however, does not create an immediate hazard. Decay of the main crotch should be monitored on an annual basis. The root crown area receives spray from over.head .irrigation. This can cause. deterioration of bark and increase susceptibility to wood rotting pathogens. Conclusion The foliage and rate of growth do indicate good tree vigor. However, abnormalities such as the slim flux, decay in main crotch, and wounds not completely "sealed" influenced my condition rating to fair. The condition rating is meant to be used as a guide and not necessarily an indication of tree mortality. Adoption of tree preservation recommendations often increases life expectancy. This tree is susceptible to Dutch elm disease, as are all mature American elms. Recommendation Monitor cavities at main crotch annually to determine rate of decay’. Continue a pruning program to reduce leverage weight every three to five years. Continue fungicide applications to aid in Dutch elm disease prevention. Maintain a spray program to control elm leaf beetle. Modify spray irrigation to prevent contact within six feet of the root crown. _Appraisal Basic Value Species Classification Condition Rating Location Rating $ 2O,089.o0 60% 65%13,058.00 83.3%10,877.00 Site 85% Contribution 85% Placement 80% Appraised Value .........................................................$10.900.00 San Alma Homeowners Association Attention: Mrs. Victoria Bosch Page 5 August 4, 2000 We thank you for this opportunity to be of service in your tree preservation concerns. Should you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, kindly contact our office at any time. Very truly yours, S.P. By: JHMc:pm cc: Mr. James Burch H. McClenahan, Vice President member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Certified Arborist WC -ISA #1476 Resources Pests of landscape trees & shrubs, 1994. Page 204, 205 University of California, Publication 3359 Russell 4271 Dochez Rubin 4229 Shelling 4221 Kim 4213 Wright 4205 Freeman - 4232 Wallach " 4238 Young/Wang - 4244 Parker - 4250 Indicates Guest Parking Areas Hemlock Court Villas de Sart Alma (not to scale) Sometime before 1840, Don Secundo Robles built this adobe home on the corner of what is now Alma and San Antonio Road. This is the area now occupied by our homes at Villas de San Alma. We thought all of our residents would enjoy reading about this area and how it was developed. The following pages are excerpted from the History’ of Palo Alto: The’,Early Years by Pamela Gullard and Nancy¯Lurid which was published in 1989 and is available in the Palo Alto Library. The Board of Directors San Alma Homeowners Association CHAPTER FOUR The Robles FamilyJ Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito When it became fashionable to own land instead of merely live on it, the area that was to become Palo Alto was divided among only three families: The Robles, the Buelnas and the Sotos. These familie~ presided over three large ranchos named for the stream that forms the border be~,een San Mateo and Santa Clara Coumies, San Francisquito Creek. Thus the rancho names were confl~singly similar: Rancho San Francisquito, Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito and ~ncho Rinconada del ~rwo de San Francisquito. In addition to these three, a small potion of Juana Briones’ holdings, M Purisima Concepcion, was located along the Palo Alto-~s Altos Hills border. ~other, El Co~e de Madera, spilled sligMy over the botmdaries of San Marco County into today’s Palo Alto These were the vast ranchos oI the Mexican era, the days of the dons. Although it is typical to say Spanish land grants, Mexico actually oxw~ed Calitbmia a~er 1821; al! of Palo Alto’s grants came filer that date. It is almost impossible to imagine today how large they were. San Fmncisquito encompassed the main pan of today’s Stanford campuS, Rinconada del ~rwo de San Fmncisquito extended from the Menlo Park border ofPalo ~to to the Midtown region, and Rincon de San Francisquito, the largest, occupied all of todw’s south Palo ~to, from the bW to th6 foothills. Vast indeed~ Initially these ranchos were giRs from the government of Mexico to people who had performed special favors, who had friends in high places and/ or who were willing to settle the ~ta California wilderness to help hold the land for Mexico against possibly a~ressive foreign governments. ~e ownem of the land that became Palo ~to obtained their propeW in the 1840s, the decade aKer the closing of the missions and before the gold rush. ~e} rode their beautiM horses, herded their cattle, traded hides to Yankee ships in exchange for manufactured goods, and little ka~ew that the era of their beautiful ranchos was to be short-lived, thanks to the little yellow nuggets that brought foreigners into California by the tens of thousands. Only glimmers of the stories of the ranckos remain, and much of the record that does exist is unclear. Many of the earl}, mncheros couldn’t read o1 write, and they considered careM record-keeping ~.~f land ownersl’~ip unimportant. After all, in those days acquiring land was almost as easy as stopping your- horse out on a California plain and declaring to the sky that all you surveyed was yours. The land was covered with oaks, the nearby hills were still inhabited hy grizzly bears, and California was a lonely outpost of Mexico. The Robles Family Sec’urKtino Robles, owner of the ra~c’ho tic:it occupied :ill of toda),’s st)ulh Palo Alto, mtlSt have been a nearly perlYct specimen of what histon’ and legend rept)n the dons of old Callt])rnia to have been. He was tall, well over 6’3", and a handsome, bhle- eyed natk,e Californian, I)orn in Santa Cruz in 1811. In an era’when excellent horsen~anship was the main delight in life, he was said to he the ~nest rider in the Santa Clara Valley. Early settlers reposed seeing him pick tip a row of silver dollars placed six feet apa~ on the ground while riding at a ~11 galk)p. One can conjure up an image of him, arising at dawn, dressing in a satin iacket and velvet breeches, pulling on kn~{ high t)uckskin boots, an’aying his fine horse witk sliver studded tack and galloping for miles toward the foothills on his own land. ~le sto~ of Don SeCulldino and Rancho Rh~con de San Prancisquito can begin witk cinnabar, quicksilver, the same substance that the Indians prized for decoration and that the miners would later use in gold processing. &s young men, boys really, in the 1820s, Secundino Robles and his brother 25 The Robles Family 27 Maria Atttonia Garcia Robles the Califomio women to come to the mission to collect their dead. One of those notified was Maria Antonia Robles,Secundino’s wife. Barely over five feet tall, about 26 years old, she harnessed the oxen and yoked them to the rough cart called a carreta for the drive to the mission, fervently hoping her husband was still alive. But she did not flinch, she had proved her courage earlier by not losing faith when several of her children died, and once, in refusing to give up blankets to an American intruder. Reports say this tiny woman struck the intruder and pushed him ctut of her house. Fortunately her bravery wasn’t to be tested again this day. Secundino was alive and well. On January 3, the two sides sat down to talk, which was the rancheros’ original goal. The treaty was simple: the hostages would be released, the Califomios would surrender their arms and returnhome, the Californios would not be molested by the American military, and horses and other supplies wouldn’t be taken from the ranchos without receipts. Treaty ceremonies took place on January 7, 184Z Upon the promise that there would be no more raids, the rancheros laid down their arms. One of Palo Alto’senduring legends is that Secundino Robles broke his sword in half before he surrendered it. However, in Secundino Robles her book on the Battle of Santa Clara, local historianDorothy Regnery, a meticulous researcher, says that no Californio made any dramatic gesture at the ceremonies. Perhaps it says something of the character of the man that this legend exists. Nine months later, in September 1847, Secundino Robles and his brother Teodoro bought Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito from Jose Penn. The purchase price for a large part of present day Palo Alto was around $3500 and was financed through that cave of cinnabar.A few years earlier, the Robles brothers had taken Andres Castillero, a Mexican mining expert, to their cave, He immediately recognized the cinnabar and its value, filed a claim with the Mexican government,and organized a company to work the mine. Secundino and Teodoro received a one-sixth interest in that company. The Robles brothers used this share to purchase the rancho.Local historians disagree as to whether the Robles brothers sold the one-sixth interest and then bought the rancho or whether they traded the mine shares for it. Since Jose pena doesn’t seem to appear in the considerable litigation over New Almaden Mine ownership, the former seems most likely,Theirs is not the only real estate transaction in the The Robles Family 29 connecting stairway. All evidence indicates that for many years the second story was a dancing floor open to the stars. Eventually the upstairs was enclosed and divided into three rooms. On each floor, doors opened to verandas which extended the full length of the house on two sides. Here, during the 1850s, the Robles family extended their famous Spanish hospitality to everyone around. There were almost monthly feasts, fandangos, and bar- becues. Guests would fe~t and dance"from Sunday morning through Saturday night. The men would be up at dawn to ride Don Secundino’s fine horses, inspect herds, hunt grizzlies and show their skill at galloping over the fields, not bothering to slow down for gopher holes, ditches, fences or gulches. The women would sew and talk. At night everyone would dance. The Robles adobe became a stage stop on the route between San Francisco and San Jose. Don Secundino was renowned for his generous and friendly offering of liquid refreshments. He staged bear and bull fights in his arena which dre~v large crowds. Hunters enjoyed stopping to rendezvous with others before and after the hunt; bear, mountain lion, deer, quail, ducks and geese still thrived in profusion nearby. Although the Robles hospitality was legend, Don Secundino and Dona lVlar,a Antonia are best remembered for the size of their family. History records that they produced an astonishing 29 children in the decades between 1830 and 1860. Less well known is that only eight lived to adulthood. Ten died before they were named. Juan I and Jose lived for eight days, Juan II for twenty, Jesus Maria, Gertrudis and Ascencion lived only to see their first birthdays. Maria Leonidas was two when she died, Lourdes was three, Rosario six and Maria Angela eight. The record of another who died in childhood is lost. Of the eight who survived, six were girls. Five of them had the first name of Maria. Jesusita and Guadalupe married Espinosa brothers, whose family owned the property in Monterey where the Hotel Del Monte was later built. They carried on family tradition, bearing 24 and 19 children. Jesusita is said to have been a beauty, the belle of fandangos and bull fights. According to a report by historian Cora Older, xvho interviewed Jesusita, then an old lady, in 1918, Je..susita once rode in a bull fight at Mission Dolores with 5000 people in The Robles adobe, where many of the Robles chiMren were born. At left is a separate kitd~en. The upper gallery was once a dance floor open to the sky. The adobe walls collapsed in the 1906 earthquake, and the buiMing was then demolished. Courtesy Palo Alto Historical Association The Robles Family 31 Guadalupe Robles de Espinosa (1840-1922), born in an adobe, mother of 19 children; the cares and joys of 80years show on ber faco in this superbphotograph. She lived to see the age of the atttomobile. ~ Courtesy Palo Alto HistoricalAssociation J. S. Mockbee offered this explanation in 1881: "It was their open handed generosity and abiding trust in all mankind that caused them to lose theiqvast holdings little by little. Eastern men took advantage of their hospitality and generosity." American and Californio ways of looking at land values were different. The infamous circus story is a good example. By all accounts, Secundino was a happy man who loved life, laughter and good times. When the circus came to town, of course he wanted to take his family. Being short of cash, as the story goes, he borrowed $75 from a "Yankee" and pledged land as security. The reports. do not say why it was such an expensive outing. Still short of cash when the’ repayment was due, Secundino deeded 50 acres of his rancho to the nameless Yankee. By 1876 the sprawling Rancho Santa Rita had shrunk from a400 acres to 300 acres. Gradually Secundino began to slow down. He gave up his beloved trips to San Francisco to see the sights. He was not seen so often riding along the roads of the peninsula astride a handsome horse. He loved to sit in the shade of his grape arbor and have a grandchild read the newspaper to him Or visit with friends passing by. His land and therefore his access to money was largely gone, but he could still offer the modest hospitality of a glass of wine. It has been said that he had more friends than any othe.r man in California. He died, a ward of the county, on January 10, 1890, a year after Palo Alto’s first streets were laid out. Maria Antonia survived him for several years, continuing the famous Robles hospitality by serving wine, milk and thin, sweet tortillas to bicyclists along E1 Camino. Mary S. Barnes interviewed her in 1894 for an article in Sequoia, a Stanford University publication. Attachment C ORDINANCE NO. 4362 ORDINANCE 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 REGULATIONS The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1.The,City Council finds as follows: (a) The City of Palo Alto is endowed and forested by native oaks and other heritage trees, which give the City a unique visual character and enhance property values. The vestiges of the original abundant oak forest so well adapted to much of this region, are increasingly threatened after more than a century of development, Preservation and maintenance of the remaining healthy native oaks and other heritage trees will retain their great historic, aesthetic, and environmental value for the benefit of all residents, Preservation of these trees is important for the following reasons: of the City; To protect and conserve the aesthetic and scenic beauty (2) (3) To encourage and assure quality development; To protect the environment of the city; (4) To aid in the reduction of air pollution by protecting the known capacity of trees to produce oxygen and ingest carbon dioxide; (5)To help reduce potential damage from wind; (6)To provide shade; (7)To protect property values; (8)To act as a noise barrier; and (9)To assist in the absorption of rainwater into the ground, thereby protecting against potential damages from soil erosion and flooding, as well as reducing the cost of handling storm water by artificial means. (b) In order to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the City, while recognizing the interests of the property owners in developing, maintaining, and enjoying their property, it is necessary to enact regulations for protection of specified trees on private property within the City. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8.10, Overview of Findings Tree Preservation and Management Regulations Chapter 8.10 TREE PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT I~EGULATIONS* Sections: 8.10.010 8.10.020 8.10.030 8.10.040 8.10.050 8.!0.060 8.10.070 8.10.080 8.10.090 8.10.100 8.10.110 8.10.120 8.10.130 8.10.140 Purpose. Definitions. Tree Technical Manual. Disclosure of information regarding existing trees. Prohibited acts. No limitation of authority under Titles 16 and 18. Care of protected trees. Development conditions. Designation of heritage trees. ’Responsibility for enforcement. Enforcement - Remedies for Violation. Fees. Severability. Appeals. Editor’s Note: Prior Ordinance History: Section 2 of Ord. 4362 was previously codified herein, and was not specifically repealed by adoption of Ord. 4568. 8.10.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to promote the health, safety, welfare, and quality of life of the residents of the city through the protection of specified trees located on private property within the city, and the establishment of standards for removal, maintenance, and planting of trees. In establishing these procedures and standards, it is the city’s intent to encourage the preservation of trees. (Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999) 8.10.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: (a)"Building area" means that area of a parcel: (1)Upon which, under applicable zoning regulations, a structure may be built without a variance, design enhancement exception, or home improvement exception; or (2) Necessary for construction of primary access to structures located on or to be coflstructed on the parcel, where there exists no feasible means of access which would avoid protected trees. On single-family residential parcels, the portion of the parcel deemed to be the buiIding area under this para~aph (a)(2) shall not exceed ten feet in width. (b) "Building footprint" means the two-dimensional configuration of a building’s perimeter boundaries as measured on a horizontal plane at ground level. (c) "Dangerous" means an imminent hazard or threat to the safety of persons or property. (d) "Development" means any work upon any pr.operty in the city which requires a subdivision, planned community zone, variance, use permit, building permit, demolition permit, or other city approval or which involves excavation, landscaping or construction within the dripline area of a protected tree. (e) "Director" means the director of planning and community environment or his or her designee. (f) "Discretionary development approval" means planned community zone, subdivision, use permit, variance, home improvement exception, design enhancement exception, or architectural review board approval. (g) "Dripline area" means the area within X distance from the trunk of a tree, measured from the center, where X equals a distance ten times the diameter of the trunk as measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade. (h) "Excessive p .tuning" means removal of more than one-fourth of the functioning leaf and stem area of a tree in any twelve-month period, or removal of foliage so as to cause the unbalancing of a tree. (i)"Protected tree" means: (1)Any tree of the spgcies Quemus agrifolia (Coast Live Oak) or Quercus lobata (Valley Oak) which is eleven and one-half inches in diameter (thirty-six inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade; and (2) A heritage tree designated by the city council in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. (,j)"Remove" means any of the following: (1)Complete removal, such as cutting to the ground or extraction, of a tree; (2)Taking any action foreseeably leading to the death of a tree or permanent damage to its health; including but not limited to excessive pruning, cutting, girdling, poisoning, overwatering, unauthorized relocation or transportation of a tree, or trenching, excavating, altering the grade, or paving within the dripline area of a tree. (k) "Tree" means any woody plant which has a trunk four inches or more in diameter at four and one-half feet above natural grade level. (1) "Tree report" means a report prepared by an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture or another nationally recognized tree research, care, and preset;cation organization. (m) ¯ "Tree Technical Manual" means the regulations issued by the city manager to implement this chapter. (Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999) 8.10.030 Tree Technical Manual. The city manager, through the departments of public works and planning and community environment, shall issue regulations necessary for implementation of this chapter, which shall be known as the Tree Technical Manual. The Tree Technical Manual will be made readily available to the public and shall include, but need not be limited to, standards and specifications regarding: (a)Protection of trees during construction; Co)Replacement of trees allowed to be removed pursuant to this chapter; (c)Maintenance of protected trees (including but not limited to pruning, irrigation, and protection from disease); (d) The format and content of tree reports required to be submitted to the city pursuant to this chapter; (e) The criteria for determining whether a tree is dangerous within the meaning of this chapter. (Oid. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999) 8.10.040 Disclosure of information regarding existing trees. (a) Any application for discretionary development approval, or for a building or demolition permit where no discretionary development approval is required, shall be accompanied by a statement by the property owner or authorized agent which discloses whether any protected trees exist on the property which is the subject of the application, and describing each such tree, its species, size, dripline area, and location. This requirement shall be met by including the information on plans submitted in connection with the application. Co) In addition, the location of all other trees on the site and in the adjacent punic right of way which are within thirty feet of the area proposed for development, and trees located on adjacent property with canopies overhanging the project site, shall be shown on the plans, identified by species. (c) The director may require submittal of such other information as is necessary to further the purposes of this chapter incIuding but not limited to photographs. (d) Disclosure of information pursuant to this section shall not be required when the development for which the approval or permit is sought does not involve any change in building footprint nor any grading or paving. (e) Knowingly or negligently providing false or misleading information in response to this disclosure requirement shall constitute a violation of this ci~apter. (Oral. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999) 8.10.050 Prohibited acts. It shall be a violation of this chapter for anyon~ to remove or cause to be removed a protected tree, except as allowed in this section: (a) In the absence of development, protected trees shall not be removed unless determined by the director of planning and community environment, onthe basis of a tree report prepared by a certified arborist for the applicant and other relevant information, that the tree should be removed because it is dead, dangerous, or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050(2) of this code. (b) In the case of development on a single family residential lot, other than in connection with a subdivision: (1) Protected trees shall not be removed unless the trunk of the protected tree is within the building footprint, or the director of planning and community environment has determined, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a certified arborist for the applicant and other relevant information, that the tree should be removed because it is dead, dangerous, or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050(2) of this code. (2) If no building footprint exists, protected trees shall not be removed unIess the trunk of the tree is located in the building area, or the director of planning and community environment has determined, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a certified arborist for the applicant and other relevant information, that the tree should be removed because it is dead, dangerou.s, or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050(2) of this code. (3) If removal is allowed because the tree is located in the buiIding footprint or building area, or because the director of planning and community environment has det.ermined that the tree is so close to the building area that construction would result in the death of the tree, the tree removed shall be replaced in accordance with the standards in the Tree Technical Manual. (c) In connection with a proposed subdivision of land into two or more parcels, no protected tree shall be removed unless removal is unavoidable due to restricted access to the property or deemed necessary to repair a geologic hazard (landslide, repairs, etc.) The tree removed shall be replaced in accordance with the standards in the Tree Technical Manual. Tree preservation and protection measures for any lot that is created by a proposed subdivision of land shall comply with the regulations of this chapter. (d) In all circumstances other than those described in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this section, protected trees shall not be removed unless one of the following applies: (1) The director of planning and community environment has determined, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a certified arborist for the applicant and other relevant information that the tree should be removed because it is dead, dangerous or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050(2). In such cases, the dripline area of the removed tree, or an equivalent area on the site, shall be preserved from development of any structure unless removal would have been permitted under paragraph (2), and tree replacement in accordance with the standards in the Tree Technical Manual shall be required. (2) Removal is permitted as part of project approval under Chapter 16.48 of this code, becai~se retention of the tree would result in reduction of the otherwise- pern~issible building area by more than twenty-five percent. In such a case, the approval shall be conditioned upon replacement in accordance with the standards in the Tree TechnicaI Manual. (Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999) 8.10.060 No limitation of authority under Titles 16 and 18. Nothing in this chapter limits or modifies the existing authority of the city under Chapter 16.48 of Title 16 (Architectural Review) and Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) to require trees and other plants not covered by this chapter to be identified, retained, protected, andTor planted as conditions of the approval of development. In the event of conflict between provisions of this chapter and conditions of any permit or other approval granted pursuant to Title 16 or Title 18, the more protective requirements shall prevail. (Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999) 8.10.070 Care of protected trees. (a) All owners of property containing protected trees shall follow the maintenance standards in the Tree Technical Manual. (b) The standards for protection of trees during construction contained in the Tree Technical Manual shall be followed during any development on property containing protected trees. (Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999) 8.10.080 Development conditions. (a) Discretionary development approvals for property containing protected trees will include appropriate conditions.providing for the protection of such trees during construction and for maintenance of the trees thereafter. (b) It shall be a violation of this chapter for any property owner or agent of the ’owner to fail to comply with any development approval condition concerning preservation, protection, and maintenance of any tree, including but not limited to protected trees. (Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999) (1) (2) significance. (c) 8.10.090 .Designation of heritage trees. (a) Upon nomination by any person and with the written consent of the property owner(s), the city council may designate a tree or trees.as a heritage tree. (b) A tree may be designated as a heritage tree upon a finding that it is unique and of importance to the community due to any of the following factors: It is an outstanding specimen of a desirable species; It is one of the largest or oldest trees in Palo Alto; It possesses distinctive form, size, age, location, and/or historical After council approval of a heritage tree designation, the city’clerk shall notify the property owner(s) in writing. A listing of trees so designated, including the specific locations thereof, shall be kept by the departments of public works and planning and community environment. (d) Once designated, a heritage tree shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter unless removed from the list of heritage trees by action of the dty council. The city council may remove a tree from the list upon its own motion or upon written request by the property owner. Request for such action must originate in the same manner as nomination for heritage tree designation. (Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999) 8.10.100 Responsibility for enforcement. The following designated employee positions may enforce the provisions of this chapter by the issuance of citations: chief building official, assistant building official, code enforcement officer, planning arborist. (Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999) 8.10.110 Enforcement - Remedies for Violation. In addition to all other remedies set forth in this code or otherwise provided by law, the following remedies sha11 be available to the city for vioIation of this chapter: (a)Stop Work - Temporary Moratorium. (1)If a violation occurs during development, the city may issue a stop work order suspending and prohibiting further activity on the property pursuant to the grading, demolition, and!or building permit(s) (including construction, inspection, and issuance of certificates of occupancy) untiI a mitigation pIan has been filed with and approved by the director, agreed to in writing by the property owner(s), and either implemented or guaranteed b3i the posting of adequate security. The mitigation plan shall include measures for protection of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for replacement of each tree removed on the property or at locations approved by the director of planning and community a.nd by the director of punic works, if replacement is to occur on punic property. The replacement ratio shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in the Tree Technical Manual, and shal! be at a greater ratio than that required where tree removal is permitted pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. (2) If a violation occurs in the absence of development, or while an application for a building permit or discretionary development approval for the lot upon which the tree is located is pending, the director may issue a temporary moratorium on d~ve!opment of the subject property, not to exceed eighteen months from the date the violation occurred. The purpose of the moratorium is to provide the city an opportunity to study and determine appropriate mitigation measures for the tree removal, and to ensure measures are incorporated into any future development approvaIs for the property. Mitigation measures as determined by the director shal! be imposed as a condition of any subsequent permits for development on the subject property. (b)Civil Penalties. (1)As part of a civil action brought by the city, a court may assess against any person who commits, allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this chapter a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars per violation. (2) Where the violation has resulted in removal of a tree, the civil penalty shal! be in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars per tree unlawfully removed, or the replacement value of each such tree, whichever amount is higher. Such amount shall be payable to the city. Replacement value for the purposes of this section shall be determined utilizing the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. (c) Injunctive Relief. A civil action may be commenced to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such violation. (d) Costs. In any civil action brought pursuant to this chapter in. which the city prevails, the court shall award to the city all costs of investigation and preparation for trial, the costs of trial, reasonable expenses including overhead and administrative costs incurred in prosecuting the action, and reasonable attorney fees. (Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999) 8.10.120 Fees. Tree reports required to be submitted to the city for review and evaluation pursuant to this chapter shall be accompanied by the fee prescribed therefor in the municipal fee schedule. (Ord: 4568 § 1 (part), 1999) 8.10.130 Severability. If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidi,ty shall not affect any other provision of this chapter which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this chapter are declared to be severable. (Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), I999) 8.10.140 Appeals. Any person seeking the director’s approval to remove a protected tree pursuant to this Ordinance who is aggrieved by a decision of the director may appeal such decision in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 16.48.090 of Chapter 16.48 of the Municipal Code. (Oral. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999)