Shoreline Regional Park Community - Regular Meeting

Okay, I'm now going to call the order. I'm sorry, the Wednesday, June 17th, 2026 meeting of City of Mountain View's Parks, Recreation, and Urban Forestry Board. Allison, let's conduct a roll call.

Okay, we have Commissioner Bryant, Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Sylvester, Vice Chair Summer, and Chair Brown.

we've got since our last meeting of the year, we have a little musical behind behind us. Let's see, we'll now go on to the approval the minutes from the June 10 meeting, which was just last week. First of all, I just want to see if there's any public comment on the June 17. With that, bring it back to the commission. to see if anybody would like to make a motion. So moved.

Comment first. Tell me if I'm wrong. The minutes indicate a approval for OSHA to postpone the meeting.

I think so.

Yeah, we did vote no on something.

I can update that and I can bring them back the next time. Yeah, I can change that. I'm sorry, I did not hear that.

Are you clear on which vote it was?

It was to continue item 5.1 to a date to be determined and you voted no. Okay.

So I'll make a motion.

We have Commissioner Bryant, Commissioner Davis, Commissioner Sylvester, Vice Chair Sommer, and Chair Michener.

Passage 5-0. Okay, we'll now move on to oral communications from the public. This portion of the meeting is reserved for but it's wishing to address the commission on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three minutes and state law prohibits the commission from acting on non-agenda items. If you're in the room and would like to speak, please fill out a blue card. If you're online, please use raise hand feature, Zoom, and Allison Flynn will recognize you. So this first one again is the items that are not on the agenda. So this is one of the two tree appeals this would not be the time for me to speak. So is there anybody?

Yeah, you'll have an opportunity. That's not for now.

Not now. Not now? No, later. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody in the room? All right, we'll now close public comment.

Someone, Diana, is on, and she said they can sort of hear the music.

It's not loud. They can hear what's happening in the room. I think so.

Hi, board. It sounds a bit garbled. I will say that. We have any

If I think with IT, we have somebody here who comes to our rescue, so. Yeah, maybe we can pause.

Those online, we're going to pause for a minute or two to see if we can, we have band music outside and see if we can make this as clear as possible for people online. Give us a minute.

If we can't find the mic. . . . . . .

Are we sure they go to 8?

That's what it says online. It says 4 to 8 p.m.

The festival thing goes to 8 p.m. The music does too.

Oh, yeah, that I could not tell you.

I wonder what that is. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I guess the alarm is from China. Oh, across the street. Thank you. It's not working out. It's not you. It's me. I'm going to have to. Sorry. No more tree of kills for me.

Please. I can't do anything else. We're still here. Yes, they asked me not to return.

I don't know how bad. A drink.

I couldn't hear. I didn't have a drink.

We're going to direct them our shot.

It might be. Come on. Come on.

I don't know. I mean, I don't know.

If we put some stones over. Heather said we could.

Welcome back. Thanks.

So glad you guys got here on time.

That's a troublemaker. Because I think last time we wanted to. We're going to do this little bit like this.

Well, there is a. Let me show you. Yeah. We have two microphones in the ceiling here.

One is .

You see how that one's red now?

So that one's muted, so the sound is only going through this one microphone. And that's the one option you guys have. When the audience does talk, you may want to . But that's really the only audio option I have.

Diana, can you hear me very well right now?

Yeah, the sound actually sounds much better.

Right now, when they start back up, they will turn the volume down. We'll see how low, how much lower it goes back. Even the staff working out there said it was loud, so.

Thank you. All right, we're going to proceed to item 5.1 on the agenda.

We'll try to speak up just to be clear. We'll speak loud from This is a heritage tree removal application appeal at 560 Franklin Street. Before we start, I'm going to go through the procedures on this one, and I also want to introduce our two city attorneys. First of all, our assistant city attorney, Francesca Serrano, will be representing city staff, and senior assistant attorney, Dave Wilgus, will be representing the Brooklyn Forest Report. The process on this one is we will start with the staff report, we will then move on to the pellets will have 10 minutes. We will then go to the applicant will have 10 minutes, then it will come to the urban forest report for questions will then open it up for public comment. And then staff will have two minutes. And this time, the order gets flipped. And so the applicant will have two minutes. The appellate will have two minutes. And then PRC will deliberate to make motion to vote. Just to introduce the players on this, the owner is Michael Halleck and Robin Lin. The applicant is Kyle Smith. And the appellate is Timothy Lee. Kyle Smith, I don't know whether he is here or not, but whether he is here or he wants to allocate some of this time to the owner, that would be fine because he's probably representing the owner. And with that, I will turn it over to Forestry Manager, Russell Hanson.

Thank you, Commissioner. So again, we're here this evening to talk about 560 Franklin Street, Heritage Tree Appeal. On the slide that's currently visible, you can see the overall layout of the property. The yellow dot with the red circle around it is the location of the tree in question that we're here for the appeal hearing. That tree itself is one London plane or Platinus acerifolia. It has approximately a 24 inch diameter. It has good to fair health when we investigated or we inspected it. And ultimately it had what we felt was poor structure. The application itself from the property owner, or excuse me, from the property owner's representative, checked the box for the tree is in poor health and that the tree removal is necessary to construct new improvements. I'll get to that in a second. On the photographs that we can see on the screen here, it shows the existing condition before the prior, it shows the condition at the time of the application, which shows the prior home behind it, The tree to the left is the tree in question, again, that we're here for an appeal hearing on. And then there was some question about the tree to the right. Ultimately, that tree was removed by PG&E improperly. They did not have proper permits for that tree. And we are currently working through that resolution with them and the owner that once we figure out where we're going with everything else, we'll figure out where that replant or otherwise may go. But PG&E has committed to removing the remaining stump as well as giving a replant to the property owner so that they can replant it properly. If we look on the photo to the right, that shows kind of the alignment of the tree to the home. It's a little bit difficult to see here, but basically as you're standing on the street and you're looking at the tree, it comes approximately, I would say, three feet in front of the existing garage. It still does have, you can't see it in this photograph because the black car is there, but ultimately the existing driveway approach was maintained during construction. So that is still an option to maintain that driveway path. It just doesn't line up really easy. It makes it challenging for visibility for pedestrians or for cars that may be passing by as somebody's trying to back out. You know, there's just there's ultimately a little bit of challenge in terms of the alignment. If we go to the rendering that was provided to us from the property owner and their developer, their contractor. We can kind of see the overall scenario that we're talking about, where that driveway approach currently is lined up with the property line to the left. As you go to the right, I believe that driveway is nine feet across currently, is what the measurement on that one was, where the driveway that's behind it, they're trying to expand that to 18 feet to accommodate two cars in the actual private property portion of the driveway. And so you can see that creates some alignment issues where trying to pull in, especially if you were coming down towards the driveway and turned right into the driveway to almost make a U-turn to get back into that second spot. There's just some challenges there ultimately. And so to widen that driveway apron, we're already at the point where we're concerned about route loss or otherwise. And so it's really a scenario where we feel like either that current driveway approach is maintained or we actually take the tree and we allow them to expand it to 18 feet. Again, another drawing that's kind of representative. You can see I've got the 18 feet circled in the middle of the driveway in the red circle. You can see the two lines in red that are the driveway as it's proposed. And then as we get to the approach at the bottom, you can see that yellow is where we've highlighted the existing approach. The green circle is where the tree is located. And then that red circle or the red line, excuse me, would be where that apron feathers out a little bit. We always feather out our aprons just a little bit to provide some turning space as they go into that. And so that's for the angle or that's the reason for the angle on the line or the red line to the right. So those are the overall scenarios that we're looking at in terms of the layouts. When we get to the tree itself, the photograph on the left, I've got a couple three arrows there showing where basically the tree has previously been headed, as well as that you can see that it has been what we call V-shaped prune to provide adequate clearance. PG&E has certain requirements that they have to meet for the electrical grid. Typically that means at least three to five feet of direct clearance. They also tried to prohibit anything from growing over the top of the line that could fall and actually cross phase those lines, create power outages or otherwise. And so that's the concern we have with the existing tree is just that V-shaped pruning and the overall lateral limb structure is just less than ideal. It is more prone to limb failures or other issues. If we look at the tree to the right or the photo to the right, I've taken a couple of arrows as well to show where we have made some structural cuts. on those limbs in order for them to proceed with the construction of the home while all of this was kind of considered and so forth. They did need to gain access to that because they had their building permit. We worked with them to actually take those pruning cuts back to where we could as best we could to match up with the prior heading or reduction cuts. But in at least one of those cases, you can see the one to the top of the screen there, we actually had to come back an extra foot or so to provide adequate clearance for the crane to be able to lift the modules or the panels for the home itself. So overall the work that was done doesn't really impact or doesn't affect the way that we're looking at the structure of the tree. because they are simply reducing some end weights that we would have been concerned about anyways. That's why we allowed them to proceed with those pruning cuts. And so ultimately where we ended up with is that we found the condition of the tree required its removal because of the V-shaped pruning by the PG&E contractor. We felt that the staff's evaluation found that the removal of the heritage tree was necessary to construct improvements under Building Permit 25 11295. And then as the tree, as the tree impeded construction of the new driveway, staff's evaluation found that the tree, found that the aesthetic qualities and function of the trees do not provide significant benefit because of the reductions and so forth that are being done for the electrical clearance. And then lastly, staff's evaluation of the tree found that the tree should be removed due to good forestry practice as ultimately that tree itself should typically grow to 70, 80 feet plus, just doesn't have the space underneath the lines, etc. It will be requiring ongoing maintenance by PGD to maintain that. The tree ultimately just will not fulfill its full potential. And so out of all of those factors, we felt that it met more than just one of those criteria. That's why we have approved the tree. There is one additional note that I wanted to provide this evening. There were some questions about kind of how the property owner proceeded with construction under the permit and if it would have been affected if we hadn't or if we'd have done the appeal previously. Long story short, property owners originally filed this appeal or filed this application. We did allow for the removal of the magnolia in the backyard that that one ultimately was right within the footprint of the building or otherwise, and it just couldn't be saved and also had some other issues. So we approved that one. The second one was approved, but it was appealed because of the delays. When we had talked to the property owner about when we were going to be able to conduct the hearing, they were concerned about possible problems. And so we had a conversation with them, actually multiple conversations with them, and ultimately through those conversations, we kind of agreed that they could in fact proceed with construction, knowing full well that we may not finally approve this tree, and they may be dealing with the current design, and they were willing to accept those consequences, knowing that ultimately it may be denied and they have to work around it. So I just wanted to be clear with that, that the owners did work with us very closely to kind of get to that point as well. So that's where I'll stop this evening.

Thank you very much. We'll now move on to the appellant, Timothy Lee. How's your time? Up to 10 minutes. And again, you'll have two more minutes later on.

Thank you. Hold on a second. We want to turn the microphone on.

Thank you for your time and consideration. First of all, I'm really a proponent of all large city chapters regarding street trees and heritage trees. I believe in the benefits of handling the air quality oxygen, the absorption of carbon dioxide and oxygen gas. And I firmly believe that those issues have been to are mentioned in chapter 32. It was part of the existing driveway. I'm looking at it and it's on the side of where the driveway is. Although it might be awkward, it's accessible. The other thing is by finding the existing driveway or allowing a driveway, it may actually reduce on-street parking. On-street parking at the library is very limited. So I said, well, it might be the use of the existing driveway, but on-street parking is bad. And the other thing is that the pre-spacing tunes to London plane trees within a year. And these London train trees have survived under these very adverse conditions. Under the wires, with inadequate tuning, they cannot air. And they help survive. And they are living. And they're producing. They're in the community. And with that, they are trading. Living organisms are contributing to the community and the environment. Or a driveway. That's a good point. So the basis of my appeal is that we should have an idea of the wise use of alternatives. It's a new driveway, wise use for the life of the Southern Plain Tree, which has survived many years. Incidentally, I wonder if the ring pout, the one that was cut down, And so it has survived altogether. And I think that allow it to survive more.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. We'll now move on to the . And I don't know whether that's going to be Kyle Smith, Michael Halleck, or Robin Lin. Probably . OK. Go ahead. And if you want it, any of those other folks are here.

I'll just start. Thank you so much, Brent Forestry Department, Russell and Matt. Thank you so much for your thoughtful work during expanding Brent Forest. Can you speak a little louder? Yeah, thanks. Louder? OK. I'm sorry. Your job looks hard from the outside, so I'm sure it's much harder on the inside. So really appreciate you both shepherding us through this process and still trying to honor the charter of the department. So thank you very much. Also, thank you so much again to the commission, the committee for your time and consideration. I know there's so many competing community priorities and as a longtime lurker, I find that it's been very, you've deliberated them very thoughtfully. So thank you again for taking the time to consider this. Yeah.

Okay.

So I'm Robin, I'm the homeowner and applicant. In the past, I've spent quite a bit of time advocating for parks and open space in Mountview. So I appreciate the challenges related to that. I'm also a woodworker. So it's not like I want to burn trees down or anything. So I appreciate the value of our precious trees and forests. So this is to say, I didn't come to this application lately. But ultimately, I think for three reasons, we decided to file this application. Mainly, the first is community safety. The second is around biodiversity. And the third is the need to create a compliance site design. Next slide, please. So I'd like to really talk about the concept of right tree, right place. I absolutely support preserving heritage trees where possible, whenever possible. I think we should also really consider, we think about the heritage trees today. We also need to think about what are the heritage trees that our future generations will inherit. A tree planted today can become the Heritage Tree of Toronto, but only if it's given the opportunity to thrive. The London plane tree in question is, you know, it's a little small here, but it's classified by on the city tree list as a large scale tree not suitable to be planted under, thank you, under high voltage lights. And as a result of that, that's why PG&E has come periodically to, I guess, be it out or directionally pruned. In contrast, the types of trees that are allowed under high voltage power lines are small scale trees. And the one that we would replace this tree with is one of those trees. In other words, I think if If we think about today, if I were to apply to plant a London plane tree in that same location, city policy nor staff would approve this application. They'd be like, no way. Next slide, please. And rightfully so. I think both our arborist and the staff reports described a tree that has required this repeated directional turning by PG&E because of its location. Yes, the tree has survived all these repeated interventions, but I would say survival isn't the same as thriving, right? If you look at this tree, I mean, even with leaves on it, it's still... not like how we would want the tree to be represented in our city, right? And as has been stated, this directional pruning can contribute to weak branch attachments and long-term structural concerns. So I guess I wanted to take us through a little bit of what it would look like if the appeal was granted and the tree was allowed to remain, which is totally fine as well if that's the decision of the committee. I think what it would mean is that we would continually have to have ongoing intervention in order to make this coexistence work between the tree and borderlines. PG&E would have to, we would rely on PG&E to come make sure that they continually directionally prune it. And the city would have to continue to manage the remaining canopy and monitor it for potentially the remaining branches. In other words, like it commits us to a status, to an ongoing cycle of maintaining the situation for a species of tree that isn't well-suited to the site. Again, this is right tree, right place. And this is why that concept is so important. Rather than relying on indefinite pruning or maintenance to manage the conflict between the tree and power line, we have an opportunity right now to replace it with a species that can thrive, mature, that can become tomorrow's heritage tree. And I believe this is a better long-term outcome, both the community and our urban forest. Next slide, please. So in other words, this isn't like a choice between tree today or no tree. It's actually a choice between maintaining a large tree in a location where it's gonna require ongoing intervention that will potentially eventually weaken it to the point where it needs to be removed or replacing it with a species that's suited to the site that can mature, that can really contribute to our urban forest and the canopy that we all want. Next slide, please. So I think the second thing that, you know, in following along with silently with the committee, what the committee has gone through or kind of been working on over the years is looking at the biodiversity plan, which I guess will be reviewed next week or so by city council. And looking at London Plains, it's actually pretty close to, I guess, the 10% biodiversity kind of guardrails that we've put on the city. And so, you know, it represents a significant share of the city's free population, while our proposed replacement is still, you know, a little further behind. So I think approving this application would not only reduce our commitment, would not reduce our commitment to the urban canopy. It would actually strengthen it and create a more diverse and resilient urban force for future generations. Next slide, please. And yeah, so the last reason is in order to create the code compliance site design. We worked with the urban forestry public works department. We tried to find alternative site designs that would not only meet city code construction codes, but also serve the tree. I think if we had found such a solution, we would have obviously found it. We would have obviously pursued it. I think it was very unfortunate that during this time, a containing contractor came and randomly chopped down the other tree for unknown reasons. So that's probably what's not helpful for any of us, right? But I think given the fact that public groups public works determine that there are no other driver configurations and urban forestry ultimately remove the removal. Next slide. Lastly, I wanted to just kind of touch on the impact to our build. Our build is relatively small, but even small delays have had meaningful impact. All total, this is in a 20-month project, this has represented a three-month delay. Sounds like a little, but it's actually 15%. There's all the carrying costs, the... the work that city staff, that our engineers, architect builders, additional work that they've had to undergo. I raise this not because I want to complain. It's more just a real example of the impacts that our policies, very well intentioned, can have financially on myself and potentially builders, right? Mountain View is under a lot of pressure. build. And I think it's really just indicative of the challenges that people face. So anyway, I wanted to really just thank you all. I think the main point is thriving urban forests is what we all want. And I think this is one of the ways that we can function. Thank you.

Thank you. And you'll have a little bit more time later. So now I'm going to bring it back to the urban forestry board for questions. And I think for questions, let's start on this end and then we'll do the other part.

Okay.

Maybe you can put the

I'll just start talking while you're doing that.

Thank you. Sorry.

My understanding that the lower wires, the thick ones, are phone and cable. And those are the ones that are adjacent to the tree. Power lines with the high ones. Is that correct, Russell?

That is correct, yes. Sorry.

Okay. Great, yes. The tree is actually quite powerful. Yeah.

So I'm wondering about the driveway variations that were not quite

In terms of kind of the different designs that were considered or what's to bring it into compliance or both?

Okay, so ultimately what we were trying to do is figure out how closely we could shift it towards the tree without cutting so many roots that we basically became concerned. We also talked about even shifting it to the other side now that that other tree was gone and if we could get alignments. There were multiple kind of discussions that we had in terms of that. In terms of code compliance, the only one that I'm going to speak towards that I'm aware of was that typically we want driveways approximately five feet from a property line. We don't typically want them right up against the property line any longer. We try to create that, but they do allow variances. They do allow them to remain right up against the property line. In terms of the driveway five feet from the edge? No. Well, yes, that is a forestry practice as well. But what I was meaning to say is five feet from the property line to the start of a driveway approach. So right now, that apron is right at the property line. We were trying to shift that over even as little as three, four, five feet to get that accomplished. When we did that, we were still just to even get a little nine-foot driveway or otherwise that was usable that would meet code requirement. We were still way too close to the tree. We were going to be cutting into roots or otherwise that we were further concerned about the structure.

Yeah. Yeah. Well, I know lots of driveways that are on the property line, including mine, and it's a shared driveway with my neighbor, and that's one of the things that made it good down in commercial areas, driveways. So talk to me about this variance. driveway variance concept that all is occurring at the staff meeting.

Again, I won't speak to that because that's typically something that's handled under the permit with Public Works, but I would say yes. As far as I know, that never rises to council or commissions or otherwise.

Okay, so they make a discretionary decision based on what they're seeing inside about what to do.

Again, I can't speak to that other than to say that is my understanding. The staff, based on what they know have been approved previously or otherwise, is allowed to do that at the staff level.

Okay. Okay. provided to forestry from those conversations with just the idea of sticking down to a nine foot. So they would have to, the car that's the farthest to the right would have to kind of make a hard maneuver to get to that.

That is correct, yes.

That's all I have.

Thank you. is there nothing more the city can do in terms of demanding accountability that can we demand a little more satisfaction from that

There are mechanisms within the ordinance that we can do that. The problem is, is that they are somewhat subjective based on appraised values, which can be very difficult to assign, especially for a tree that's been removed. While we may have street views, it's about how current those street views are, et cetera, and kind of establishing that value because it's heavily weighted on health, structure, all kinds of other things that we may not be able to actually assign good values to. And so.

Questions. Were you the property owner when that tree was removed? Yeah.

I went there and happened to be there that day.

They were. With no notice. No. It was a contract.

Yeah, ultimately PG&E had gone through a transition with contractors that they do that frequently. Every year or two, they rebid their contracts and that frequently results in new contractors coming in. One of the things PG&E does is they hire one contract consultant company to do all their auditing and put, I'll say, temporary work assignments into their database for what should be done. In this case, they did that. They called it out for removal. What typically happens is PG&E then reviews all of those decisions before they get reassigned to a contract. In this case, that PG&E step got missed. The original consultant identified it for removal, and their contractor immediately jumped on the removal and took it down.

They identified it for removal based on the health of the tree? I don't know.

Don't know, but typically, yes, it's health and just overall risk presented.

Okay. You list a number of times the condition of removal is required as the structure is poor due to the shape of the unit. So... all the way down the street, you've got identical tree forms. So anybody along Franklin that could request for a move of the tree is granted because of the form forms?

Negative. I would not. There are additional considerations.

The form of the tree is significant. Is it true that the city just the city is responsible for doing that?

Again, the way property owners are responsible for the tree, that's the bottom line. By code, property owners are responsible for the tree and its maintenance. The city does try to supplement those services or supplement that by providing services such as pruning, removal, or planting so that we have better control over that and that we know that it's being done proper.

That is correct. Cool. Potentially yes, we would ultimately default back to PG&E to make sure the lines are cleared and everything first.

Well, but just the line clearance aspect of it. Once we know that it's clear and it's safe, that's typically when we send our guys in. They are trained in electrical hazard. I feel comfortable with them working there, but we just typically, it's a default. It helps us to kind of have them do that first. When we have done that in the past, we actually have staff out there on site talking with the contractor from PG&E working through the tree as they do.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you. Sorry. I'm breaking the sound. I have a number of questions for staff. We're looking at this tree. You mentioned that there are concerns about its structure, questions about its health. You said it could be in poor or mixed condition. So I have a few questions around that. How risky is this tree in terms of limb failure, especially the ones over the street that might go over the new house? How bad is this?

Sure. So within our industry, we have a free risk assessment formula that we use. In this case, we did not use that formula. So I don't have a hard answer for you. But just as a quick evaluation off of this, I would put it at probably a high risk. What we have is limited, moderate, high, and extreme. Those are typically. So it would be high, but not extreme. Typically on the extreme, because it's a balance as well. That risk assessment also takes into consideration not just the tree itself, but any potential targets. And so ultimately that's where we go with this one is that not so much targets a little bit over the street because it's a fairly significant parking on that street because of the library and some of the other activity in downtown. There's frequently cars that are parked underneath that. If you look at the street views, almost every one of them has cars there. And so that's one of the targets we would look at. The other target, at least for Limpop, other two would be sidewalk. We don't see that one as as high of a risk because the structure of the tree, the issue is more further out from the tree itself. But then as well, once that new home was constructed, the branches, as they existed previously, would have presented a opportunity to strike that home or otherwise, which would have increased that risk rate.

Thank you. And in terms of the health of the tree, is there evidence of disease or infestation or anything else that makes you rate it potentially poor?

Absolutely. Sycamores in general do have disease issues. Anthracnose, leaf pest, leaf scale, etc. So they have all of those. This is one of our, I'll say, non-cultivar trees. This is the standard London plane that ultimately in that case, it is susceptible. Powdery mildew, anthracnose, leaf scale. I'm sure there's a couple of other ones that I could probably list, but yes, they were present. I would simply say those are not always fatal issues. They do create stress. They do create other issues, but typically they will not kill the trees.

So with that said, what do you think the potential longevity of the tree is? There's a lot of unknowns, but is it towards the end of its life? Is it potentially in the middle of its life?

I'm not precisely sure on when it was planted. And so it's always very subjective to kind of say that. I'll answer that by saying that I do feel the tree would be around maybe not thriving, but surviving, likely for another 10 to 15 years. I think that is fair.

Okay, one more question for you. I know last week we talked about our concern about the overall canopy on Franklin, given the trees crossed on the library. Would the creek myrtle be the best choice of tree to provide enough canopy?

In terms of canopy, it's going to be very similar to anything else we would recommend. I would simply say we are not as big of a fan while it is only 5% as the property owner presented. We still, we like to keep those numbers as low as possible. And there are a lot of crape myrtles. The other concern with crape myrtles in general is there is a pest, glassy-winged sharpshooter. I don't know if you guys watch the news much about POSCO lately. POSCO brought in a bunch of vines that were infested with this pest, and they are scrambling to find them and get them back out because very, very dangerous to our wine industry. They carry Pierce's disease and can absolutely devastate an entire vineyard very, very quickly with the fungus that they carry. So crape myrtles would be typically avoided, but we would try and find something similar that the property owner would be supportive of.

And then I just have one more question, and this is for the applicant. I know the report talked about the potential for redesigning the driveway, moving it, maybe shaping it, curving it. I'm curious if you have estimates on the cost of doing that and also how much delay it would cost your overall project if you had to change the shape of the driveway.

Yeah, consider flipping it, right?

Unfortunately, I think for our that would have set us back half a year. And some of it Since they already kind of fabricated some of it. And so they would have had to scrap that. And also, I believe public works, all the driveways on Franklin are on the left. They didn't necessarily want to. Thank you.

Yes, a couple of questions. Just looking at the structure of the tree, sitting aside, looking at the branches, and actually following the structure of the tree.

What does it bring to the house?

Statement or question?

Statement and you say yes or no.

So yeah, absolutely. Pruning is an option to mitigate some of the risk that is presented to the home. I would simply say anytime we take a large canopy tree and we try and maintain it smaller, it doubles or triples our maintenance cost because the frequency and the tree response and and and.

And then just following up on what Commissioner Davis said about what health care is.

What is the difference between this three principles that were protected or not protected? It's not protected.

Sure. So ultimately it was really kind of a combination of factors. You know, health and structure were part of the consideration. Obviously the driveway construction and so forth were also something that we consider. Doesn't have to be done that way. And we fully recognize that, but that's where we kind of went, well, the health and structure is bad. They're trying to get this driveway into their home so that it makes it I'll say less intrusive to their drive path otherwise. And then as well, just the overall structure, because this one, again, if we look at the picture here, you guys can't, oh, I guess you can't see my mouth when it's not in presenter, but you can see that it was previously headed right here. This is an old cut. There were also old cuts that were made over here, here and here that ultimately those create structural weaknesses. Any branch that grows from that point out is going to be weak. And so those were, I'll say the kind of cumulative effects is that the health wasn't necessarily the best, it was good to fair. And then ultimately the structure was an issue because of the driveway construction or otherwise, we just felt this one was kind of rising to that level of, is it contributing much to the forest given we're gonna have to keep it headed back down to keep it under the lines off of the house, et cetera. Is it really going to do that? And so that was the other criteria where good forest practices is kind of where we relied on that as well but it just made more sense in this case to go ahead and allow for removal um So what you're referring to is then if we did enlarge the driveway to the 18 foot plus, that's going to take one additional parking space away from the community. In terms of that, we did not consider that. No. That's the only thing I can tell you.

Okay.

absolutely yes by taking another nine feet or so it is going to change the parking layout where you may lose a parking spot all right so i've submitted a lot of questions just because Or that one.

At least on my computer, it was a little bit blurred. So can you show me where the new driveway would be under the plan and where the pad for the second car, oops, sorry.

And so in this case, What we have currently is these two yellow lines at the bottom is the existing apron or driveway approach that goes across the park strip. And so then if you follow this yellow line here straight up, that is basically the existing driveway as it sits now. And so what they're looking to do is shift it further over to where they get some additional space, not just the limited eight or nine feet here where they get the full 18 feet out of that driveway. And then we would have this other apron kind of installed right here at this red line. Does that answer your question? Yes.

So the left side wouldn't be changing at all.

Correct. That's the property line.

So the ramp that's there could still be there, but it would be bigger, become wider or something like that.

Correct. As it's been presented to date, yes.

So that car, in theory, would probably dress See where the garage is. The one part garage.

It would end right about here. We're in between setback and line. That's going to be the approximate location of the garage.

So the second part would park where it would allow the first part to get to the garage.

Correct. That was part of the challenge is that ultimately, if you have one car parked in the driveway, that garage becomes inaccessible. So it would be a shuffling situation. You would either have to be in the garage first and then park in the driveway or shuffle cars to be able to accommodate it because it doesn't, as it existing now, it would have to shift a little bit to get into the garage.

Is that still the case? I mean, where would it, under the new, I'm looking at the whole red lines, where would the new car, where would the second car be allowed to park?

If it's through side by side, 18 feet across, that gives you nine feet each for both parking spots. Into the garage? Yeah, again, I think that one, maybe this is the better drawing. And let me kind of zoom back out a little bit. This one's the better kind of drawing where you can see if you have a car parked that goes halfway across the driveway, it's blocking at least one of those panels, this set of panels. would ultimately be blocked by that car that's parked here. If you parked it here, it would be a similar situation because it's a very short distance from that edge of garage to where the sidewalk is. There's not a lot, you know, it's not a 50-foot driveway where you can pull in, go around the car, and then come back.

Literally, you're just right there. Use that picture. I mean, if the driveway extends beyond where the black circle is, How is it still going to have to be?

Ultimately, the car that parks, well, true, perhaps in terms of the garage, you're absolutely correct. There is still some alignment issue there, but it does allow them to park two cars in the driveway where next to the library or the way we're parking is somewhat limited. It accommodates them putting two cars there.

I mean, you know, one of the questions was just whether whether there was an alternative to potentially an alternate driveway layout to maintain the existing driveway, add an adjacent concrete area for second park, thereby designing around the tree. And the response was, there is or was a second driveway design. So, I mean, I guess, can you tell me what that other one was that was considered? I mean, was it just this?

So the biggest difference that you're going to see that we considered was the swapping of the driveway from that left side to the right side. That to accommodate it, even on the left hand side, you're absolutely correct. It's still not a perfect scenario because any car that kind of parks where my cursor or that yellow or orange arrow is is still gonna create a little bit of an obstruction for somebody coming into the driveway. And so that was the reason kind of widening that driveway allowed both cars to pull in and at least park in the driveway without obstructions or otherwise having to shuffle.

All right, any other?

Or any person? I was just wondering, there was a garage door. There what, is a garage door?

Yes, correct. Yeah, that if we go back to this photograph, and then I'll zoom back in for you here.

It's a one-car garage.

Correct.

Correct.

So ultimately, yes, it would be one in the garage, two in the driveway. It could be potential to hold three cars. Yes.

So I have a question about wiring. I don't know what that is. UC Berkeley's Brow Plaza, their sycamores are cut down to these nubs every year. It's actually a technique.

So is that something you can do to your tree or do you need to start with a small one?

It is better to do when they are younger, but no, you absolutely could start that with an older tree. The issue is that when you pollard those, they tend to grow very, very fast. Bub Park, we have an area that's in that park where we have pollarded those. We let them go a maximum of two years between pollardings that we're trying to do, and they literally grow 40 to 50 feet if we do them any longer. Correct. Yeah, very narrow branches, very tall, upright. Yes, correct. And that's where we went with the doubling and tripping of costs.

Thank you. Sure. All right. Any other questions before we go through our second round?

Is there a pondering question?

Any other questions? All right. We'll now open it for public comment. Is there anyone in the room? If you are, if you could fill out a blue card. And if there's anyone online, use the raise hand feature. See Mr. Make his way to the mic.

Thank you.

I'm speaking as a homeowner and a resident of Mountain View. I have to say what I have to say is very short. Just go to the next slide. I won't use this one. I am supporting the staff position and I want to say also that I'm good friends with Michael Hallett and Rob Linn. So to me, this is a very simple case. There's criteria in the ordinance that must be met to remove a heritage tree. And not all four of them need to be met. But it's a balancing act, as you've heard. This is a rare case where the staff has found that all four criteria are met here for removal of a heritage tree. We have the condition. We have the necessity of improvements, which is in construction, the poor form of the tree, and forestry practices addressing the high voltage lines. And what we have here from the appellant Mr. Lee, what he has argued is really that heritage trees form a very important natural resource for a community. And he's absolutely right about that. And that's exactly what the Heritage Tree Ordinance recognizes and addresses. As you know, the threshold for moving a heritage tree is very, very high. It's very rarely, of course, for moving a heritage tree. So this is not... I don't think that the staff is being remiss in exercising their analysis. But I also would say, too, that the appellant really has not provided any facts, has not provided any expert analysis to counter the arguments made by the city staff. And I think that really is required. I also want to mention something about Robin Lin's presentation, where she really emphasized how much she supports heritage free. You should be reminded that Robin and I worked together with Friends of Mountain View Park. And that organization was really responsible for keeping the Mauna Loma field open and preventing the Mountain View-Wisman School District from completely fencing that thing off. So recognizing the value of the parks, the canopy, and the environment in Mountain View, Robin has worked hard in supporting me. So really, that's all I have to say. I would request permission by the opponents to reverse the decision of the city staff. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else in the room wishing to provide public comment on this? Is there anyone online?

Hello, everyone.

First of all, I want to thank everyone for the time today. I am the builder for Robin and also representing the architectural side. The staff had really valid questions and I just wanted to point some facts around them. Anything in the design that we offered and we tried to change and find different solutions during the process had to be coordinated between the different departments of the city. If it's public works, if it's the arborist, if it's planning department and also building department. And all the solutions that we were able to receive and which was presented today, it's the best solution, was after following all the building codes all across. To one of the questions that I heard is if we can expand the concrete path in a different way. And that's following under an issue with the planning department because you have a ratio that need to be applied between hardscaping and landscaping. And the location of the driveway have to be following based on the public works requirements. So we have done our best to find the best solution for this House and the community. And of course, offering a replacement for the tree. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Greenberg. Anyone else online? All right, I will now public comment and bring it back to the staff for up to two minutes or any final words.

Sir, you know, staff really doesn't have any additional comments. It truly for us just came down to the cumulative kind of criterias. When we saw so many criteria were being met that this was an opportunity to replace a tree that could present problems, challenges or otherwise with something that's better suited, perhaps accommodate two new replants along that park strip as it sits currently with the other tree. you're gonna have competing canopies. Even though we may put a smaller tree back in that park strip, it's still gonna be competing with that sycamore kind of a thing. And so it just ultimately, we had a lot of different factors that we were looking at and we just felt that this was a good forestry practice to replace a tree that could be problematic with something better.

Thank you. Okay, now we flip the order from the first time through and we'll go to our applicant, Ms. Lynn, for up to two minutes if you have anything else.

I just wanted to thank you all again and Russell and Matt for shepherding us through it. I know there was a lot of shepherding.

Thank you. Great questions. Thank you.

Okay, we'll now move to Mr. Lee. You have an extra two minutes if you would like

That's a difficult decision. However, I still feel that it's easy for people to deal with a clean canvas and so they could bring in new ideas. However, we are dealing with a canvas which is existing as is existing tree existing organism. The other thing is London street trees are quite resilient to pruning. And I believe that there's a lifespan that some of these have been 200 years. And so that in any kind of a treatment of a London plane tree, and I believe some have been survived severe pruning and trained in the part situation. And with that, I leave it to you to make the decision. And I hope that you will do well. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Well, now there's definitely a lot to unpack in this item. And as promised, we'll now go back to Urban Forest Board collaborations and

So I walked down this block at least a couple times a week, and I had actually never realized as I walked down the block and enjoyed the shade. But the trees had been topped, that they were only so tall and not taller. I truly never realized it until I went and looked at them from a distance. Because the pedestrian experience on that block is wonderful. There was a planting strip. There was shade. And this is what we want in terms of the kind of pedestrian space where we can walk pleasantly and in shade. And no amount of prairie myrtles is going to give us that kind of canopy. And no prairie myrtle is ever going to become a heritage tree. It's just not that kind of tree. I have two of them myself. So this is very difficult because the house is there. And a few months ago, we had a similar situation on Cuesta Avenue where there was also a pre-planned, previously approved house where we were asked to approve a tree being taken out because the driveway absolutely had to be there. but the house hadn't been built yet. And we said, no. And the house was built and the tree is thriving. And there we go. And now we're presented with a, the house is there. And, you know, I also asked a lot of questions and my questions must have been very similar to yours because the answers that you received answered my questions. To me, it seems like that tree was condemned before it could come to the PRC for asking for help. There is also, for me, if this is through, there is basically a taking of public space. There is a taking of shade, and now there is also taking of a parking spot, which doesn't belong to the whole house. And that's a parking spot in front of the library and it's shaded. So this is basically a taking from the public. Also, all the trees along that block It's the same kind of tree. I'm sure they're all more or less the same age. They must all have been planted more or less at the same time. They're all pruned in a similar way. And although... One of the commissioners asked the attorney last week about whether our decisions created a precedent. And he said, no, every case by itself. Nevertheless, when we talk, we frequently say, well, last year we decided so, so we should be consistent. And to me saying, yes, this tree is not in the right place, so let's take it out. is basically saying to all the homeowners, both along that street and in many other places in town where you have old trees, yes, go ahead. This tree shouldn't be here. Let's just put in a lot of grape myrtles and the canopy will happen because the power lines are more important or parking spaces are more important or driveways are more important. So I have very serious problems with this. And I was very interested in hearing what my fellow commissioners think about this and where you land on it. Because to me, it's really critical that it's a whole blog. And that's only the first step. Because there's lots of other blogs that are similar. So I will have more things to say later, but I wanted to start there.

Well, first of all, I want to thank the passion that both parties have shown for trees and for heritage trees and their role and their value in our society. It always makes this decision so hard when everyone cares so much. I am leaning towards supporting the staff recommendation to deny the appeal. There are a lot of challenges in this discussion, but I really think that this tree, especially given that it's high risk for failure and damaging cars parked that are going to the library or other people who live in the neighborhood or potentially falling on a person, I take that very seriously. I also think the tree is probably, as we look at it overall, is nearing the end of its life. and it would be good to start with a new tree that could become a heritage tree in the future. Unfortunately, I do not like the idea of having a crape myrtle there. I don't think that's a great choice in terms of a future heritage tree. But that is something I think we could work on. So that's where I'm landing here.

Mr. Davis? Well, I appreciate the steps. I know you guys have to balance a whole set of issues in for doing everything you can. Individual residents in the community, and as much as I antagonize you, I know it's hard. And I also appreciate the homeowner for the work that you've done in Mountain View. And I completely agree that, you know, that you wouldn't put that tree, you wouldn't approve that tree under the power lines. It's not the ideal. But he's been there for 60 years. And for all the reasons that Mr. Bryant stated, I think it does sort of, I think, I don't know, maybe I'm misreading it, but I think a lot of what I saw in the staff report was, okay, how do we accommodate this rivalry? And to me, as I said, the thing that really gets my love is PG&E. I think PG&E should pay to be redone. I think had it not been for that action, other designs could have occurred. Flip the planet, put the driveway, garage on the other side. But at the moment, I'm excited. I think the city code requires a nine-foot driveway. And above that, it's advantageous. But again, it's at the expense of parking a little bit. You don't exactly know whether it's a full parking space or a half a parking space, but . Yeah, the one that I would lean towards. It's going to be an interesting one. It always feels very

We're always so very particular and almost precious talking about one tree for an hour. And then I remember that our heritage tree ordinance is asking us to think this hard about every tree we remove. And I also believe that it's important for the appellant to get this through the process. And so while it may seem like we're nitpicking, I think that's what we're here to do. There's a lot, a lot here that, you know, it's troublesome. I feel like the tree removal permit having been delayed to the very end until after building permit issuance, until after construction has already started, that's not how this process should work. The horse left the barn. there anything that we could have done to save the tree, those options are gone. And that's not how it's supposed to be. I think some of that is happened because there was not the same level of planning review given that state approved prefab building with this much staff discretion there. Or maybe there was none I, you know, haven't dug into that issue. But I personally think that the forestry board has no discretion here. I think that removal is a done deal. there is no question that this tree serves the community purpose. I completely think that it does. And I also agree with some of the other commissioners observations that, you know, there's similar situations, just a couple of houses down where this, the same tree species has the bee pruning, but the difference is they're not building a home. And this tree, because of what, pruning was needed in order for the crane has now got a very inferior form. And so I do think this is an appropriate situation to hit reset, move the tree, and plant something that belongs under those power lines. There's so many situations where a large tree was planted under a power line in Mountain View and those trees have to be in order to you know, allow for the functioning utility. And we should be planting species under there that don't require mutilation. And, you know, yeah, you could continue to prune this, but in my mind, it's better to have a situation where your maintenance is reduced so we aren't spending all our money pruning these silly trees. So I think I'm going to support the deny the appeal and support staff's decision. That's doing that reluctantly. But I think in this case, the combination of factors, which include core form, nature of the improvement, and the other factors discussed in that That report, that leads me to support that denial.

Right. So I guess that brings it to me. You know, I've looked at this a couple different times. You know, it's a fairly mature London play tree that seems generally healthy. I think it would be a beautiful tree if the main central limb hadn't been topped off at a fairly low height. But unfortunately, it has been. The exaggerated V-shape is probably not a great structure long-term. I was going to comment on the arborist protection plans didn't account for brain mobility, but Now it actually sounds like maybe cutting those limbs actually might have been good for the tree. Anyway, I think it's sad that this tree has been topped off the way it was. Other similar trees on the block, and I really tried to look at them, seemed to have had less aggressive pruning, which let them develop more completely while still avoiding the PG&E . It's certainly possible this tree was growing in a different way than the others at the time of the topping, and it didn't have other pruning options. We don't know. You've got to get fine on this, but I don't see all those trees as being the same. They're all a little bit different, and I think each one would be a different situation, although I did consider the whole precedent thing. I do sympathize with wanting a driveway space for a second car because the opposite of this is that being across the street from a public library probably makes on-street parking difficult for the owner or if the owner is having anybody come visit them. I'm not, as I sort of I'm not entirely swayed by the necessity of relocating the driveway. I think that if this were a magnificent tree, there would probably be a way to build onto the existing driveway to allow that for a second car. But that alternate option is far less preferable for the owner who's now pretty far along in their development plans. So for me, the driveway argument isn't totally compelling in itself, but as with the staff report, it's an element in this whole thing. So for me, you know, again, a lot of this comes down to bits and pieces of different things. You know, when I look at the state of the tree, unfortunately, it's in a poor location and it's a victim of It's pruning history. It just seems like it's a nice tree. But again, it may be getting towards the end of its life when you have extended weight on some of those weed branches. I don't know how that would be. It just seems like this might be a situation where we're better served by replacement trees that can be located where they can flourish. or it could be a different species of tree planted under the wire. So I will probably be leaning towards denying the appeal and upholding the staff decision for removal. But I wanted to make a couple of extra other comments. First, I absolutely want to thank Mr. Lee for his concerns and the points he made about wanting to save this tree. I think in the meetings in the seven-plus years that I've been on the commission, I'd estimate that 90% or more of the time, this commission leans on the side of preserving heritage trees for a lot of the same reasons that he made in his appeal. This one to me just has a lot of things going against it. And I don't know how the final decision will go for sure, but thank you for caring and for taking the time to speak on behalf of a heritage tree. And I'll probably maybe echo a little bit of what Mr. Summers said. You know, I don't feel great about many of the events that transpired along the way to getting where we are. You know, the retraction of the removal application to facilitate building approvals, significant limbs needed to be cut, in order for the crane to move materials, the PG&E removing a nice tree. Well, I don't know whether it was nice or not, because it wasn't there for me to look at. And to me, the driveway plants seemed to almost got a gentle nod before the tree decision was final. I think you said preordained. think that in a lot of ways, it felt like there was going to be a foregone conclusion that this tree would be removed. So anyway, those are my thoughts. It's a difficult one. All these ones are difficult, and we have to try to look at them case by case.

So having started, I'd like to take my turn now. In this case, the way I look at it, we've all said that the process was really bad. The PG&E is just another obviously thing that should not have happened. The wink and the nod of yes, go ahead, of course, you'll be able to take out the tree. It's difficult not to believe that that must have happened. It's very sad that the applicant in the middle of a building process of homeowner, I don't know if you were the applicant, the appellant, whatever, but you should not have had to wait so long. Once the process starts, it should continue smoothly. Absolutely. On the other hand, saying, well, we'll think about the tree later on, but of course it will have to come out is kind of asking for trouble. So I think the city The process should have been improved upon rather than saying, oh, just continue with it. That's really problematic. We're supposed to look at these issues tree by tree, but I can't look at this tree by tree in this case. This is not tree by tree. This is block by block of any number of blocks. To say a tree that will thrive or a tree that will be able to grow into a heritage tree In that location, a new tree will never be more than a tiny little tree. That will not really, as far as biodiversity, the critters that it will support, the birds, the butterflies, it won't support anything. What it will be is a tree because the city said we need to put a tree in. So let's not talk about driving trees or biodiversity or canopy. That will not support anything. As we widen the driveway, I assume instead of two trees, there'll be one tree. Another loss for the community. As we say, well, it's too big a tree. It shouldn't be under the power lines. One option is to... underground the power lines. When we have new buildings coming in, new blocks being developed, the power lines aren't up in the sky, they're underground. And then the community can have the blessing of a livable environment, of canopy, of shade, of mitigation. If we agree on this, then on any of our streets, where there are old trees, we're saying, take out the old trees. They really shouldn't be planted here. Well, it's a great problem. I mean, they bloom very prettily when they're not covered in mold, which they frequently are. So I don't think I can support this, but I ask the commissioners who, if you vote for it, look at the conditions that you agree with. And if you're saying, yes, this tree shouldn't be under the power lines and it has been pruned to be away from the power lines and therefore its structure is poor and good forestry conditions required be taken out because it won't have room to thrive. You're basically saying, take out trees on the power lines. And those are all trees and you're taking away canopy. So be careful about what you're pruning. Okay, if I was trying to decide how would I vote for this? It seemed to me, though I don't think I'm going to vote for it, it seemed to me that the only thing I could agree about with what staff has been saying is they want to put in a driveway so that they got the treatment. So that's the condition of adding improvements. That's the only one that I would have felt in any way comfortable voting for. And then As I said, what's more important, the old tree or one new drive? You know, in new developments, there's tandem parking. You park one car after the other. And although it's not always the most convenient thing, it's really convenient. That's what new developments have. So that's for the members of the community who are supporting this to think about. But you can If you want to vote for, it needs to be taken out of the driveway, but I would ask you not to drive. Yes, it's on the power lines. Let's take it out to the driveway.

Any other comments or not? Go ahead.

I 100% agree that the process was broken here. I hope we don't. Regarding undergrounding, there is a PG&E undergrounding fund. that I think the rate payers pay into and it accumulates up and then they can underground blocks, but it's in a community like Mountain View, it's always completely oversubscribed. It'll be 50, 200 years before these residential neighborhoods get underground. So that is a, wouldn't it be wonderful kind of thing, but it really only is happening in new development. wholesale subdivisions. This is this situation is the exact reason that I remember 18 months or two years ago, I asked that we do some case studies in the urban biodiversity and forest plan just so that we could start to confront the trade offs and these types of issues. In my mind, A large tree doesn't belong on the side of the street that has a power line. You need to do them on the other side. And yeah, okay, we're dealing with an existing condition. But here we have an applicant coming along, building their dream home as they're allowed to do. And reality is the power lines are there and we have to figure out how to accommodate development. I don't think this is that different than the subdivision plans that we never see that are all decisions made by the community development department where they remove every single tree on a 20 acre property to build a large apartment building. This is not that different. And that happens all the time. And I hate it. I hate it that there's such a big difference between how we decide things and how they decide things, even though we're all looking at the same ordinance. ultimately i think it comes down to you know what's reasonable and what you know where we should be spending our money so in my mind with this situation the um the construction of the driveway and then the realization that the power lines are in fact actually there and it's one lot um big tree especially one that is mutilated beyond recognition. In this case, I do support.

So I guess that's where we are. I reject the foregone conclusion. There's been a travesty of bad decisions.

But

You know what? Franklin Street is ripe for a lot of redevelopment. Every single house has already been rebuilt. You can build the same thing, you can build a house and take out the tree. There's a lot of unfortunate aspects to this, but Commissioner Bryant announced that, you know, our I'm here to preserve the trees, even when there are circumstances that are less desirable. I think we're taking the tree out modification to the driveway. Even that sounds like it's not an ideal situation. I think I the votes already cast as far as I can tell, but I will be among those supporting staff.

Any other comments from commissioners?

For me, it's not about removing the tree to make room for the driveway. I think the tree is in poor structure, poor development. and presents risk. It is pretty clear that moving the driveway, but as you said, the car seems to be out of the barn at this point, so I didn't hear any compelling ways to move that driveway or make a parking pad somewhere else that would work. So my vote to go along with staff recommendation is based almost exclusively on the health of the tree and not about trying to create a driveway. And my concern is also not about it being under the power lines per se, it's how this tree exists right now.

I disagree with the health of the tree issue. I disagree. There's a thousand trees in Mountain View that have that exact form, under the power lines, and we deal with it. The tree is 60 years old. I think it's got much more than a decade left to live. My judgment is . Is it the most beautiful form? No. But that's because it's .

So let me add that when you walk along Franklin and you walk through the tree, you don't see the structure. You feel the canopy protecting you. It's not about the structure of the tree.

as far as I can see, taking it out. It's completely about the driveway.

But, you know, we each make our own decisions.

So I don't have a whole lot to add. I guess I want to clarify that when I said foregone conclusion or whatever, it wasn't foregone for me. I would have been totally willing. I mean, it didn't matter. I mean, no, I mean, no, I'm saying it might have been a foregone conclusion in some people's mind, but I would have been completely willing to go against This was a hard one. And for me, it's the combination of multiple criteria, bits and pieces on each one. And I don't have more to say. So I don't know if there's more comments or if somebody wants to make a motion.

I'm ready to make a motion, but if there's comments, I don't want to cut anybody off. I move that we adopt the resolution of the Urban Forestry Board of the City of Mountain View to deny the appeal, uphold staff's decision, and approve the removal of one heritage tree at 560 Franklin Street. Be read in title only. Further reading waived. That put one to the memorandum of resolution.

Motion by Commissioner Sommer. Is there a second?

I'll second with, I guess, regard as well.

Motion and a second. Is there any further discussion before we have a vote?

Yes. Yes.

All right. I think everyone who who

spoke on this, and I think a lot of people are passionate and have views on this.

It's a difficult one.

All right. Enjoy your new house. Are we ready to move on to the next one, or should we take, did you want to take a break?

I'd like to take a break.

Let's take a brief break. Also, what time do you have?

I'm back at 7. I'll give us about 5, 6 minutes.

So I have about, it's about 7.42 or 7.43 now. We'll reconvene at 7.50. So it's been 7 minutes.

Thank you.

Alison, are we on?

Are we being recorded?

You are.

So yes, video is active, but... Looks like we have everybody back, Alison, are we?

All right. We're going to reconvene. And we have item 5.2, the Heritage Tree Removal Application Appeal from 2714 Preston Drive. And I'm going to start by just to clean up everything. I'm going to reintroduce our two attorneys. I think everybody was here the first time. Assistant City Attorney Francesca Serrano will be representing city staff and Senior Assistant City Attorney Dave Wilgus will be representing the Urban Forestry Board. The process on this one is a little bit different because it's slightly different. So the order on this is staff will have, will make their presentation. The appellant will then have 10 minutes The Urban Forestry Board will then have questions. We'll open it for public comment. Staff will have two more minutes. The appellant will have two more minutes, and then it'll come back to PRC. The players on this one, I have the owner, Norm Steinberg. I have the applicant, Ty Williams. who is probably acting on behalf of the owner and the appellant is Richard Steinberg. So for the purposes of this, Richard Steinberg will be the person who will have the time, but he can allocate time to any of the others who he might need.

I'll be speaking for family.

Okay. So with that, I will turn it to Forestry Manager Russell Hansen.

All right, so again, we're here this evening to talk about tree appeal hearing for 2714 Preston Drive. in the overview that we have here to the left. I just want to clarify there was some confusion in the staff memo that you guys received. And so I just want to clarify when we're talking about the trees here, there was one pine tree located very close to the side fence at the top of the picture. and then another tree just adjacent to that, to the left of that. The numbers one and two got reversed, but in terms of the presentation, we're trying to clarify that. So the tree that is listed in yellow that we are here for the appeal is actually labeled tree number one on the application. Tree number two was the one closer to the street that had half dead One of the main leaders was that that one would be identified as tree two in this. And so we're considering tree number one. We'll go there if there's confusion or otherwise, please let me know. We can do what we can to clarify that to make sure everybody's on the same page. But ultimately, so tree number one is the tree to the left. As you can see in this photograph, the tree is the Pinus radiata, otherwise known as a moderate pine. It has an approximate diameter of 38 inches. It's in pretty good health and ultimately the structure is fair on the tree itself. On the application that we received for this tree, the property owner checked the boxes that the tree is dead and that removal was necessary to construct improvements. Unfortunately, that second box was checked in error. So it really is just related to the health of the tree and the turpentine beetles and the potential that this tree is going to die. So as we look at the trees individually, tree number one, again, the one under consideration here, you can see on the left a little bit better angle, a little bit better color on the tree itself. So you can see that it's fairly healthy. The close up to the right that we're looking at is evidence of red turpentine beetle being present on the tree. However, we felt that the number of strikes or otherwise were still fairly low. that the tree could potentially be saved, could be treated to reduce the potential future infestation or the accelerated, I'll call it decline of the tree. There's also at the bottom of that tree, significant amount of surface roots that are there. It does prohibit use of that turf a little bit. There are some turpentine beetle strikes on those roots, but again, our feeling is that they were far more limited than on the other tree. that that is something that could potentially be treated or otherwise to allow for preservation of that tree. When I talk about tree number two, as it should have been presented, this is the tree closer to the fence line or that exterior street. You can see on this one, far more dieback in that one entire leader of the tree, leaving just the other one. And then if you look at the photograph on the right, We had multiple strikes on that one. I'm going to say probably close to a couple dozen strikes that we were easily able to identify. Once we start to reach infestation levels like that, there really isn't much we can do. There's a lot of activity that's occurring inside of the tree that we cannot see. And basically what this insect does is it creates what we call galleries or tunnels inside of the tree, inside of the wood, similar to termite damage or otherwise, where they literally carve out sections They live in those tunnels. Ultimately, what they truly do is they strangle the tree because they attack that cambial layer that not directly responsible for the moving of water, that's the xylem and the phloem, but ultimately it impacts the flow of water or otherwise through the tree. So it leads to their decline. And so in this case, we agreed tree number two was far enough gone, it had far enough strikes, et cetera. We allowed for removal of that one. but on tree number one, he denied it. That ultimately in this case, wait a second so I can read them well enough. Staff's evaluation of tree number one did not find that the condition of the tree required its removal as health and structure are good. And there is no evidence of nuisance damage or interference that cannot be addressed through corrective pruning or other means. To that extent, we're talking chemical treatment to prevent future infestations or at least significantly reduce them. um second criteria that we were talking about staff's evaluation of the tree did not find the tree needed or the tree removal of the heritage find that removal of the heritage tree let me slow down and start over staff's evaluation of tree number one did not find that removal of the heritage tree was necessary in order to construct improvements as there were no improvements and proposed and the applicant acknowledged that this check box this box was checked in error In terms of criteria number three, staff's evaluation of tree number one found that the tree and structure are good, health of the tree and structure are good, and that the tree provides significant value and benefit to the neighborhood. And then lastly, staff's evaluation of the tree did not find that the tree should be removed to good forestry practices as no facts support this criteria were provided. And so again, our general feeling to kind of summarize all of that is that while we do agree there is beetle activity on the tree and that there is potential for this tree to decline and die, we also felt that the attacks were fresh enough that if that other tree were removed in a timely manner, that would remove some of the beetles that were in the area and hopefully reduce the likelihood of infestation. We also feel like there are applications of chemicals or otherwise that can be applied to the tree that if beetles do decide to attack the tree or otherwise, that it would prevent them from doing that because it would ultimately kill those bugs that were trying to attack the tree. So that's what I have for you this evening on this one.

Thank you. We'll now move on to the appellant, Richard Steinberg. You have up to 10 minutes and you can allocate any one of your things.

Appreciate that. I'm Norm Steinberg. I'm a son of Steinberg, my dad. And it looks like Marty over there. So anyways, my brother's on the line as well. So first we want to thank you and express our appreciation to the Urban Forestry Board for hearing our Heritage Tree Appeals. I'd like to begin with a brief background. In the quest of providing the best quality of life for their children, our parents, Richard and Harriet, moved to Mountain View in 1971, buying a house at 2714 Preston Drive that has been our home for 55 years and counting. Growing up at 2714 wasn't only great because of the friends we made and continue to keep, but also notably watching a mini forest develop before our eyes, including three redwoods that continue to stand tall today. With our parents originally coming to California from New York, having several trees in the yard was gratifying, as we still recall our dad comparing the climate and scenery of Mountain View to the uncomfortable humidity and concrete-dominated landscape prevalent from where they grew up. Not surprisingly then, we were exposed to nature, particularly the Sierras, at a young age, and it was not by accident that when I first became eligible, I purchased a lifetime senior pass to the National Parks. I mention all this to let the board know that our family do not view the outdoors, and in this case, trees, as something to be taken for granted. Rather, we appreciate its beauty, its purpose, and what they provide. In many decades residing on Preston Drive, the family have been outstanding and responsible stewards, providing regular maintenance services to the trees on our property. We don't come here to make an appeal haphazardly, or based on lack of respect or convenience. Quite the contrary, our appeal to remove the pine in question, along with its closely neighboring pine, which has been approved to come down, is about acting in a safe, responsible, practical manner. How did we get here today? Last year, we noticed two pines that look healthy and upon more observation, became very concerned. The trees are not only close proximity to our home, but also the homes behind and to one side of us. Should this tree fall, the structure hit would not only cause extreme damage to it, but more importantly, could result in death if people are present at the time. If the tree were to fall to the side where the street and sidewalk sits, pedestrians, including children, will positively be in harm's way. again, likely resulting in death. We contacted a certified arborist, Ty Williams, with Urban Tree Management to examine the health of the trees in question. Mr. Williams inspected the trees in February 2026. As you know, Mr. Williams prepared a letter which was included in our appeal application, as well as submitted to you by Mountain View staff in advance of this meeting. The Mountain View staff's recommendation To deny our appeal is based on the city's inspection by arborist Matt Feistheimel back in March of this year. Although both trees have beetle infestation, Mr. Feistheimel said free one might not be approved. This came as a surprise as just a month earlier, an arborist said both trees should come down due to pitch canker, a disease leading to tree death. Mr. Feistenmiller went on to say that if we observe changes to the tree in question to contact him and he would come out to the house again. There have been highly noticeable and increasing disease to tree number one since the time Mr. Feistenmiller visited. This strengthens our position. The denial notice refers to tree one as a, quote, tree without major signs of decline or drought stress. There is minimal evidence of bark beetle attacks on the tree. Staff letter states its reasons for their recommendation to deny our appeal. I will go through these reasons now with our response. Mountain View staff notes, boring insect holes were identified on two routes. Our response, there are now at least three routes showing boring insect holes. Number two, staff identified evidence of bark beetle frass on both trees. Tree one has significantly less damage with only one section of the lower trunk exhibiting evidence. Our response, there is pitch canker disease and additional frass has been discovered. Three, staff notes the pine did not appear to contain any major dieback or dead branches that usually result from a bark beetle attack. Our response is that today shows a noticeable increase of dieback in dead branches. Fourth, staff disagree with the claim that removing only tree two will expose tree one to more beetles. If tree two is removed in a timely basis, it will reduce the potential spread of beetles to tree one. Our response is that tree one already has beetles and will get hit hard by more beetles and multiply as soon as the first tree gets removed. Just don't believe tree one will make it much longer and thus it makes sense to remove them both at the same time. And staff believe that tree one may remain in good condition for several years, providing continued benefit to the community. Our response is when Mr. Feistamo and I spoke in March, it's more like a couple of three years and admitting this is subjective, he told me finally, to keep an eye on tree one, especially when the weather gets warm. Although the city's initial inspection reported the pine to be overall healthy with minimal pests and no disease issues identified, this is clearly not the case today and thus makes practical sense to remove both trees at the same time. I recently took pictures of the tree, which I'll show now. Also included is a photo of the root system As there is concern that roots from both pines could be intertwined or interconnected, a definitive answer cannot be given, understandable, affecting the stability of tree one once tree two is no longer there. And this is the reason for the denial letter calling for the careful removal of tree number two. Okay, we're ready for it. Okay, so here's, these three, next three, first three pictures show a dieback on, Tree number one. So we can go to the next one and the next one. Thanks. And now the next slide, just a sample of frass that is now seen. Next, please. Some more frass. Next, please. OK. So two of these root areas is where the boreholes were noticed initially. I want to take a picture of all three in the same, and now I'll show you how it's visible on three areas now. So we'll go to the next one. There's one. Next one, different route. Next one, you can see the pore holes on that one. So we got at least three that we're aware. OK, next please. OK, so now we're going to see sap and symptoms of the pitch canker disease. There's that. Next please. That, please. Next one, please. This is throughout the tree. And I don't believe this was the case when Mr. Bison was there. Okay. And this is the final slide where I tried to capture the roots to show you that it's a crazy maze. And so we just don't know if we're going to be able to do a proper, you know, cutting down of tree number two, what that might do in terms of tree number one. So I wanted to point that out. The stability factor is unknown. And I don't know how we would be able to assure it would be okay. All right. So that concludes my 10 minutes. I guess I went over, it looks like.

Still got a minute or two.

Okay, I'll save my closing remarks for the end, but if you have any questions, and again, I just want to thank you. Having sat through, since I do have a few seconds, having sat through the first or listened through the first presentation and deliberations, I can say firsthand I really appreciate everything you folks do.

Thank you. All right, we'll now that out for questions and flip the board at this time.

Sure, I would just ask staff to respond to what you just heard.

This is the health of the trees is not something I can have an opinion about. So I depend on staff to tell me if you are the slice that we thought it does not present evidence of progression problems that is more than would be expected. How does that respond?

Sure. So first and foremost, I just wanted to kind of bring up the fact that we're talking about two different pathogens. When we talk about pine pitch canker, that is typically something that is not as commonly fatal, I'll say. The trees can absolutely live with pitch canker for dozens of years, decades. ultimately. It really just depends on how healthy they are, the conditions that they're growing in, et cetera. So absolutely, some of the photographs they showed that showed that kind of blister or bubble would be what I would consider that pitch canker. That is a sign that that's what we're dealing with ultimately. That is basically a plugging of the vascular system adjacent to that strike that causes it to ooze out that sap and form that bubble. But it typically is very localized, and again, not problematic unless you get hundreds of strikes across the tree. In the case where we looked at the tree, we did not feel that it was rising. Absolutely, there are dozens of pitch cankers or otherwise in the tree, but just don't feel like it rises to that level that pitch canker is a problem. When we talk about the turpentine beetle, that is a far more aggressive, far more problematic pest or pathogen. absolutely attacks the tree, gallerizes the tree, and creates a problem for the vascular system where it just can't transport water or sugars and starches within the trunk of the tree any longer. And so the tree completely collapses in very quick order. Not unexpected that the turpentine beetle is seeing some additional activity, especially given the warm spring that we had. The beetles in general this year we find have come out far earlier than typical. And so to see them restriking that next tree or otherwise is to be expected. Again, we haven't seen or heard anything that gets us to the point where we feel like it is risen to the point where that tree is going to die in the near future. That's where we went with if we actually get that other tree out, remove some of that pest or otherwise it reduces the likelihood, then we do the chemical applications or otherwise any that are remaining or even the ones that are already in the tree, Should they reemerge as a part of their normal life cycle to go infest another tree or otherwise, they will chew through those chemicals. Those chemicals, it's a trunk application typically that we use. You can do a systemic injection on it as well. Ultimately, what ends up happening is the pest chews through that wood that has been treated. It kills the pest. So it can't actually emerge from the tree and fly and infest another tree or come back and get on this tree, even in a different location, higher up or down lower otherwise. And so not disputing either of those cases, it's just staff's opinion ultimately that they don't rise to the level just yet. And if we take these proactive steps as soon as possible, there is the potential that we can save that tree for a number of years.

So I've got to So the chemical applications of the tree that is taken out or to the tree.

Free to be preserved. Sorry.

And another question about the stability. If one tree is taken out, does that directly affect the stability of the tree?

It will have an impact, but staff does not believe it's going to be a significant impact. If we think about Tree roots are not uniform. That's the first place I will start. But if we think about them in a somewhat uniform way, like we do the upper canopy of a tree, typically it's fairly uniform. It just depends on where it's grown. In this case, not too many obstructions on that ground plane where we feel that it would have been prohibited, like it would be against a roadway or otherwise where water is not getting into a soil. The tree will adapt by putting more roots in another direction kind of a thing. So in this case, we felt like it was fairly uniform. if you consider that circle of the canopy to be kind of equivalent to the root system of that same tree, and you simply take out a tree that is within that circle, because we absolutely agree that these roots are going to be intermixed, that ultimately that stump is within the root system of the tree that's to be preserved, we don't necessarily have to grind that entire area where all of their roots are for the tree being removed, We can just simply grind the stump and any of the directly adjacent surface roots. So our area becomes much smaller. If you think about the full canopy is 100%, you're talking 5% or 10% of the root system that's going to be impacted. It's going to be impacted. It's going to have an influence, especially a tree that's being infested or infected with this pest. We don't have the scientific research behind it 100%. But we are convinced that these trees, when they become stressed or otherwise release pheromones or otherwise that are attractive to these pests. And so by doing that stump grinding, there is the potential that that fresh wood chip or otherwise may attract some pests, but that's where we went with that chemical treatment in conjunction with the removal, is that would prevent any new pests from arriving and further infesting the tree that's to be preserved.

Okay, thank you. Those were my questions.

How long will it take if the beetles are not treated for it to become an infestation that may impact the likelihood of the longevity of the tree?

Very subjective. It's going to be different for every tree. But I will say, I have seen trees get infected their very first year die. I have seen that. More typically, it's three to four years.

Is chemical the only way to treat the beetles? Because it's expensive and it's also toxic.

Absolutely. Yes, ultimately. One of the chemicals that can be used is less toxic. It is more directed towards the specific insects or otherwise. So not necessarily toxic to humans or otherwise. It's based off of the persanthemum plant. They use an extract of that is what we use.

Like a pyrethian type.

Pyrethian, yes, correct. Pyrethroid is what we also use. Ultimately, the problem with that chemical is we do fear that that is more of a broad spectrum where it will potentially affect bees and other beneficiary insects that we don't want to impact. And so it's that balance again of using something that's more isolated. The other chemical typically is done as a trunk application, bottom 10 feet, and it doesn't get up into the canopy or otherwise. So it's not as impactful to these other insects or otherwise typically. Because you don't get a lot of bees that land on the trunks. They're typically up where the flowers or the pollen or other things are. And so, yes, those are really the only two treatments. There are no, I am not aware of. any other beneficial insects or otherwise that are predatory towards this insect, towards this pathogen. And then beyond that, no mechanical controls or otherwise, we can't put metal bands around the tree or anything along those lines to kind of prevent that. They will find a way around that and still attack the tree.

And on the canker, I know you said it's usually not fatal, but should that be treated? And is that also a chemical?

There is no treatment for the pine pitch canker.

One more question. Are there other species nearby that could also have these beetles or get canker infestation? Anything in the yard or nearby?

Not that I am aware of. And again, this is more of a pine problem. It would not go after redwoods that they also have in the yard. It would not go over most of our broad leaves or otherwise. It's very unique to our pines. They are a pine beetle.

And the canker is also a pine.

Yes, pine pitch canker.

Thank you.

I think my questions were answered. So there's not a concern of spreading to sorrelty breeds because they're

For the most part, correct. The longer we leave these in here, this insect is not like some of our others. It does have a good flying range, so it can go several miles while it's spreading. So absolutely, there are other trees that could potentially be impacted, but that goes back to removal as soon as possible and treatment of where we do see it occurring otherwise to prevent it from spreading further.

All right, questions were answered.

Okay, one or two. Just a question for the applicant. Have you ever treated either of the trees for any of the disease or anything like that? So like even when you saw the first one progressively getting a tree number two?

Yeah, we just noticed it last year and that's when we immediately called an arbor and stuff. Yeah.

Yeah, I guess the question for you, I mean, if this was your tree, would you treat it immediately? I mean, if you were to keep it.

Yeah. Typically, when we're reviewing these applications, You know, it's hard to say this completely, but I always look at a tree and go, well, if this was my tree in my yard, what would I be doing with it? Would I be seeking to treat it or would I be seeking to remove it? That is one of the questions that I ask myself about every single tree. And in this case, I likely would make the decision that, yeah, we can save it. We can get the other tree taken out, get a replacement, let it grow for a couple of years. Then if this one does continue to decline or die, even if they treat or don't treat, you have the ability you've got one that's already started to regrow now you can take this one out and reflect yes it is going to result in additional costs the two mobilizations for the contractor it all comes at a cost but again the benefits that the three provide we felt were sufficient enough to act on preservation for now all right do you have any other questions yeah that that treatment is

There's a lot of competency in the arborist community. Yes. That's a common thing to deal with.

Yes, 100%. Most pest control companies, Pied Piper and those types of organizations don't even have to be tree companies, but the pest control companies can treat that. It's very common.

Is there a way to determine the efficacy after treatment? Do you have to wait and see it?

Yeah, ultimately it is effective. I know that just from personal experience that these are chemicals or treatments that I have applied when I was private sector treating trees. that allowed us to reduce the amount of additional infestations or otherwise. So anecdotally, yes. Scientifically, yeah, I could probably come up with a research paper when they originally did it because they can't label it for a tree unless they've tested it against a pest on a specific tree or otherwise. And so you would be applying off-label, which is illegal. So typically, yes, they've been proven to be effective, but I don't have that research at hand.

Any other questions? All right. Let's open it up for public comment. First, checking in the room if there's anybody who'd like to speak who's not. All right. Is there anyone online who'd like to speak?

Yes, I'd like to speak. Can everybody hear me? Yes. Hi, I'm Brett Steinberg. I'm the youngest son of Richard Steinberg and Harriet Steinberg, who passed away a few years ago, my mom. The biggest concern I have is safety. If that tree were to fall, as a result of being unstable, either from the beetles or from the removal of the tree next door, or even weather for that matter. It is extremely tall. It's gonna take out the neighbor's house It's going to cause loss of life. And listen, I love trees. I mean, I live in the hills. I'm surrounded by pine trees. I'm all about saving trees. But this is a scary situation. God forbid that tree were to go. And there's nobody can tell us that can guarantee that tree would not fall sometime. In the near future. And I'm the one who discovered, you know, the original, you know, sap on the tree when I was, you know, visiting on the tree that has been approved. And, you know, from the time we called the arborist, you know, to the time, you know, he came out to see it, you know, half the tree was already dead. it moved pretty quick. Uh, and, and every time I visit my parents' house, I've always looked at those trees and up. And until that one time they were totally healthy and, and it moved quick. So my biggest concern is safety, safety, safety, safety. Thank you. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Anyone else online? All right. Um, We'll come back to staff to see if you have another two minutes, if you like.

Sure. No, I don't have any further to add.

I'll stop. Back to you guys. Okay, thanks.

Okay, closing statement here. Although the arborist inspection from earlier this year shows tree one is having less infestation than tree number two, It is clearly diseased, is rapidly increasing as evidenced by pitch canker disease, increased dieback and frass, and additional root exposure to insect boreholes. Rather than wait some period after tree number two has been removed to begin the process to remove tree number one, it's practical sense from a safety and economic view to take this action at the same time. As noted earlier, should tree number one fall, It will not matter which direction it goes. Barring a miracle, it will either crush our house, a neighbor's house, or land in the sidewalk and street where families and their pets regularly pass by. This very real potential of human tragedy and devastation can be completely eliminated by removing both trees now. Tree 1 already has beetles. We believe the infestation will substantially worsen when Tree 2 comes down and the beetles go to Tree 1 and then reproduce. Additionally, it is unknown what effect the root system may have on the stability of Tree 1 when Tree 2 is removed. Not taking both trees now places human lives at risk. We respectfully ask the board to grant our request to remove pines one and two at the same time. Thank you again.

Thank you. OK. We'll come back to the Urban Forest Board for deliberation and comments. And Sandy, if you'd like to start.

I enjoyed hearing the applicant's story of living in Mountain View all these years and growing up on the property. And it's clear that you all love the place and care deeply for it. And thank you for your concern for Mountain View's urban forest. I looked at all the materials that provided, visited the site as much as we could. Obviously, we didn't get permission to go into the backyard, but looked at it from multiple viewpoints on the neighboring streets. Thank you for sharing the photos of the current condition. And it's clear that things have changed a little bit since staff's evaluation a couple months ago. I do find myself thinking that it would be best to deny the appeal and support staff's decision. And what makes a lot of sense when I'm hearing from a city's urban forester that pesticide treatment as soon as possible is the way to go and and we'll see how things move forward. Don't think that we've met the criteria for removal that contain in the cartridge tree ordinance. And if the tree is healthy, showing minimal decline and With the removal of the neighboring tree, what I'm hearing is that we don't have a concern for any sudden tree loss or falling down. So I'm going to move on from there. And I'd like to agree with my fellow commissioners, I have to say.

But I have serious question. So procedural or policy? Should the commission agree with the staff decision? But the homeowner was to find a rapid deterioration of the tree. From a procedural standpoint, would you then quickly approve a removal? Would we have to necessarily go through the whole Or could our resolution stipulate agreement with staff hinging upon the ability to quickly make another determination if it exists that effective for you? Sure. I don't want to burden the homeowner with other lengthy process. My inclination is I mean, I think we're kind of in a position where this is true agriculture, you know, probably beyond our understanding of all that. But if, in fact, danger became more imminent because there was a rapid devastation, I'd like to see that big action.

Well, yeah, I can answer that. And under 32.31, if there is a material change in circumstance like you're suggesting, they could appeal to the director and have this reassessed.

Could it be fast-tracked and not get in a long queue, take six months or something?

Right. So the reason we're here tonight for the process was because of the denial of the room. And so if there was enough evidence for staff to make that recommendation, then that process would be faster.

So, Mike, I greatly appreciate the homeowner's concerns there. I appreciate your your residents but also really respect this national. With the staff recommendation continue by the fact that if the situation changes.

I too was deeply moved by the family's story and their commitment to the safety and beauty of their neighborhood. It is a beautiful neighborhood. I got to try to visit the tree too. It's a little hard from the outside, but definitely understand what it was like to grow up with that tree and see it evolve over 50 plus years. With that said, I think I will be going along with Steph's recommendation. I am a little concerned about treating the tree pesticides of either the more natural type or the more chemical type. But I think in this case, it might be a good first option. But I also second Commissioner Davis's idea that something goes wrong and a tree declines very quickly. Can this be fast-tracked for a discussion with Russell's team if the tree goes to rapid decline versus going through a really long process to review the tree?

that would be my where my concern is right now um yeah that's what i have to say yes i i too from outside your two trees one clearly needs to go and the other one at this point looks great from the outside i understand your your your concern that that tree should should should progress as rapidly as the other tree. And obviously, since one tree progressed so quickly, you would like to just deal with it. Easy to understand that. And yet the tree looks fine at this point. I don't have the professional knowledge to judge what should be done and what will happen. I have to trust our others' judgment on that. I think it's been our experience that if a tree is in rapid decline, staff will deal with it expeditiously because the matter of safety is obviously everyone's main concern. committees is charged with trying to protect our heritage trees. And in this case, I don't think we're going to be bad for taking the tree out.

So I will be supporting staff's recommendation.

So for myself, you know, when I visited the site, again, we can't get into the backyard, but I did maneuver around to different vantage points. Tree looked to be in pretty good health. It's definitely one of the larger trees on the block. And together with the adjacent redwoods, that cluster of trees definitely stands out in the neighborhood. And I would say that if the pine weren't there, the redwoods, which are even taller, would remain standout trees in the neighborhood. So that's a good thing. Just from my vantage points, I thought the tree was mostly lush. I thought that there were some brown needles. But it didn't appear to be entire branches. Again, I couldn't get to every spot of the tree. So that just seemed to me to be sort of normal, sort of seasonal die off. But again, that was just from my vantage point. There were plenty of new green sprouts and needles on all areas of the tree. So it did appear to be generating new growth. So at the present time, you know, again, We're relying, like others, on staff opinion that the tree remains healthy and that the beetle infestation at this point isn't pervasive and it's treatable. And so I think it would be important to try to treat it. I did ask myself as I was leaving, if the dead pine didn't exist and we were only looking at this tree in a vacuum, would we be contemplating removing it. And again, that's probably not a perfect question, but I don't think we would be looking at removing that tree if it was just. But there are interdependencies, so it's not completely a valid question. But again, as has been stated, if conditions change and the beetle starts to kill off significant portions of the tree, that would constitute a change in circumstance. and would allow for a reapplication. And I would hope that you would apply immediately, and I hope that it would be addressed immediately. And again, the city code states that we need to render decisions with the emphasis on preserving heritage trees. So again, we want to try to do everything possible at the current time to try to preserve the trees. Like others, I will be siding on the side of denying the appeal and holding the staff decision to deny removal at the present time. I don't know if there's any other comments or if somebody wants to make a motion.

I'll do both. Mr. Greenberg, you have a really impressive family and the Everyone's really well-spoken, so congratulations. However, I'm going to move that we adopt the resolution of the Urban Forestry Board of the City of Mountaineer to deny the appeal and uphold the staff decision, and deny the removal of one heritage tree at 2714 Teston Drive to be read, any title only, further being waived.

I second.

So we have a motion by commissioner Davis second by commissioner summer. Any discussion before. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

everyone participating in that. Well, thank you for hearing that. I wish you luck. I mean, I hope that the three. It's only a matter of time. Survives. I hope I'm tough enough to realize that.

Oh, yeah.

Well, your sons, you have your sons to help. That's right.

Russell.

He lives over in Santa Cruz. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right, we'll move on to item 5.3, which is the fiscal year 26-27 Parks and Recreation Urban Forest report work plan. The process on this, just quickly, we'll have a staff report. We'll take questions. We'll open it for public comment, and then we'll bring it back to the PRC for discussion and a motion of some sort. So I will turn it over to Director John Marchand

Good evening once again commissioners. So as you're aware this time every year we come forward with our annual work plan for the next fiscal year and that is attachment one to the staff report. At the top of the attachment shows our ongoing work items. And then our fiscal year specific items that we've identified so far. And again, as you are all aware, this is a continuing process of adding and moving as we go. But this is a snapshot as of today of what we have coming. And so some of the things I want to highlight is the Thompson Main Park concept and name recommendation moving forward. We've talked about getting together with the Visual Arts Committee, and I'm not sure if you've noticed that the city council is approving a new position for leading that effort. So that's exciting. As well as... the review of the Recreation Financial Assistance Program that we are looking at May. That is one of the short-term items that are identified in the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. So looking forward to bringing that and I have the ability for some of those other short-term items to bring more of those forward within the fiscal year. And as you'll see at the end of June, coming forward with the biodiversity and urban forest plan implementation progress update. And then it is staff's plan to come back in September when you come back into after the summer break to bring the parks and recreation strategic plan for that update as well. That's why you don't see it on this work plan item. So that we're not... doing too much in one and allowing the fiscal year to end and we're able to bring a full plan of data and information to you. So with that, I'll turn it back to the chair and I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right. We can ask questions and we can be a little less formal on this one. So anybody who has questions, feel free.

Well, really my question was about The strategic plan. So you're saying it doesn't appear here because it's outside the fiscal year. The fiscal year. So it'll be in the calendar year, but not the fiscal year. Okay.

So again, the plans are getting Parks and Recreation strategic plan was just adopted. Coming up on the end of the fiscal year, same thing with the biodiversity plan. And so in theory, we want to be in a place where we can get on a fiscal year cycle to report.

So this verges on climate, but I'll say it anyway. It would give many people less heartburn if you made a little note saying the strategic plan will be coming in that calendar year, but just to be clear.

Can I repeat that? Not to sleep over everybody, but so are you saying that if this was just adopted, you would go a year before any kind of reporting?

Not to say we won't be bringing information to you at the end. a meeting and providing updates, but for the formal annual report, which is designated within the plan itself, that's when we would be bringing those. Again, we're creating dashboards and other ways for the public and you to see our progress moving forward. And so as the timeline moves on at the end of the meeting, if there's a question, we can answer it. But we are actively in the process of developing how we can introduce the dashboard so that we're providing ongoing updates through the process.

so are you saying that it wouldn't it would be after june 2027 for the parks and rec strategic plan would be after this the summer break in september which is after this yeah because this work plan goes all the way till june of 2027 are you saying something like july september 2027 right ah okay um well Can I make a comment about that? Well, we'll do the comments.

OK. All right.

There's only questions. Yeah, I mean, those are questions, and then we'll do .. My question is, why don't we just .. Yeah, yeah, yeah. A couple of questions. It's interesting, the separation. I had thought that was like .. Is that more of a design ?

You'll learn more as this comes to you. I am not in a position to provide much detail on that one at the moment.

Okay. And then, so, again, congratulations on the Terra Bella acquisition. Will there be anything to share about that year and a half? Could be. Possibly. Okay.

And now for my

traditional rant here. This is just a question to come back and bring it back. Can I include my comment? Why can't I?

This is a comment.

It's a question still. It's going to end as a question.

As an urban forest report who apparently sole function is to adjudicate

ordinance which is presumably being updated but for which we have absolutely no visibility into the timing the scope the wouldn't it be so it's question wouldn't it be good to share at least at some level with the commission whose ostensible role is to manage this topic i have some understanding of update on the heritage tree ordinance.

So the, and I will look to the assistant director for clarification if necessary. The biodiversity urban forest plan has that as an action item.

Okay.

And so that's getting adopted next week in theory. And that puts us in a position to start working on those and putting together the overall plan, right? I don't know if you have anything else to add to that.

No, it's a big ordinance. Like I said before, we're going to pick phases and actually I was just mapping out my suggestion for phases. We're meeting with the city attorney next week or the week after before she goes out on maternity leave to talk about what that looks like and how we're going to map that out. We're already working on it. It's going to be a big lift, but it's important we need to do it and get started.

And so, yes, once we have that mapped out, we can give some general milestones and timelines.

This group would be willing to share some input.

All right, other questions? I'm sorry, I just had a couple questions. Pickleball, is that just going to be sort of a pleasant surprise that will happen and you don't want to put it on the official? Talk to me about it.

Pickleball is the fastest growing sport in America. How's that for an answer?

I mean, I would assume that sometime in the next year, right, there might be a pickleball. I don't know. Is there a reason to not have a pickleball?

It's too early to say. Keep an eye out on future council agendas.

So it could be a pleasant surprise.

I don't know if it's coming to us anymore. That's true too.

And then just another. question you probably won't be able to answer. But when I saw the grade separation, you know, it struck me that Caltrain is talking about all sorts of potential cuts. And, you know, if things don't pass, you know, they're going to cut service. And yeah, so anyway, just a question that you might not be able to answer, but our city's Palo Alto and you can move forward a little slower on grade separation because they want to make sure that CalTrain is a ongoing, although maybe the grade separation should happen regardless of the training, if you have any.

All I can really say is that design, from what I understand, is funded. As far as construction goes, the city's interested in looking at a number of variety of funding sources. state and otherwise. And where they are on that, I don't know. That's going to have to be part of the staff report that managed forward.

Any other questions? All right. Public comment. Is there anybody online that has questions? Okay. So I'll just bring it back to us if

any other comments before we uh move to push this along well i do have a comment that feels like too long to go until september 2027 before we have any discussion or agenda item about the strategic plan i guess

question could be could there be an item on here would you not want to put it on here um to not have the full annual report but to just have a mid-year progress update or something like that i'm thinking it's kind of a good opportunity to put some of the work you know the behind the scenes staff work in front of the public and i mean because otherwise

It looks as if it's on a shelf. I mean, obviously, part of this is setting staff's work plan, too.

I'm going to look at Assistant Director to see if she has any comments. I can add color, but do you have anything to say in response to that?

Yeah, I do. I thought both plans should be on. And that's my biodiversity plan is on. I think even if I don't have all the data, which is going to take a while to produce, I know the opportunity to provide that feedback to you. That's why it's on there. So I'll be coming with an update as much as I can. Whatever we're working on behind the scenes, it may not be pretty, you know, we might not have a dashboard up and running quite yet, but at least it's at the checkpoint. It's an opportunity to have that dialogue and ask questions. So I suggest it will speak on there.

Yeah, so thank you, number one.

I don't really know. Like I said, I don't know anymore.

So I think, What we can do is because I think it's on a quarterly basis, we give some high-level updates up to the city manager's office of where we are on certain items. So whether that's within the... monthly report or we can provide those to you. You can ask questions forward. But that's another way that we can provide those updates where we're at. And then if at the end of the meeting you have questions regarding what we submit, we can chat about those.

So that would kind of get the report that you prepare for the city manager out in the public and the public could read it, but then there really wouldn't be any opportunity for that. comment or share their feelings about one direction or another.

At a starting point, we're going to be bringing some of those initial items moving forward as we can.

Well, I know there's a ton of short-term projects that are going to be moving forward and it's going to start showing up on the platform through the programs and things like that and budgets and such, but I feel like we ought to be able to tie it back to the strategic plan at about the one year level and not because that summer break is what I'm sort of bothering me. I feel like June would be perfect. Perfect timing, age 27. I mean, I feel even the something more like a free dashboard, that's kind of like implementation plan piece that you're going to build the dashboard out of.

or so early in that process.

I wouldn't want to do it in June. It's like we have a lot of stuff in June and we're probably going to have six heritage-free appeals. But in May, there is the review of the recreational financial assistance program, which is part of the strategic plan. And I don't know if maybe there could be a piggyback on that, just a brief review. I don't know, I'm just throwing it out. I don't want to create, well, anyway, that's.

That was going through my head too. Back to one of the action items.

Other comments?

Yes, so I will be here next year. I think it's a great idea to have updates coming up along the way, but I hope that there will also be a PRC meeting, both for the biodiversity plan and for the strategic plan to, you know, Consumers Shelter was talking about adaptive management, the lessons learned and adaptations needed or maybe adaptations not needed. Presumably this is new. Presumably there will be adaptations needed and having that as kind of a working PRC meeting to look at what has happened. Have there been roadblocks that were not expected? things that went a lot more smoothly or things that need to be changed for a year. So I'm hoping those are two completely separate things from the updates versus the working through. Just to continue what was being said about the Heritage Reordinance, I hope One of the lessons learned for me from two humongous plans is let's not give the PRC and the community the finished product. Let's not go have staff or consultants work with it and then present the community and the PRC with the finished product and say, do you like it or don't you like it? I hope the PRC can be part of the process. Like, for example, the process that hasn't been talked about in the, whichever of these two plans, which is very difficult for me to keep separate, which plans is what, the idea of the tree pilot and the plant pilot, of having like a group that will work on it with representatives from the PRC, from advocacy groups. That kind of work with the community and the PRC should be done for the street workers, too, because it will just make the whole process richer and much easier to do the results. I'm hoping that becomes part of the work plan for the PRC. And I'll be watching and listening to you guys.

Any other comments? Okay.

I'll just kind of piggyback on what Commissioner Bryant just said. I mean, you know, I love co-creation type of processes. They do, however, take away the council discretion. And except that I think so does delivering a completed product. So I know that it becomes a struggle to figure out where to gather public input, how much to involve people in things. Ordinances are the last place you want to have a big, giant committee process. But there might be something that could precede the ordinance development. Because ordinances are technical and legal. You need technical expertise and legal expertise to write them. But as to the policy perspective, separating that out, having some kind of workshop preceding the ordinance development might be a good way to go. But I'm not sure that belongs in a PRC meeting.

So with the legal language, of course not. That's what the lawyers are for. But what do we want? What trees do we want? What is the result we want? That is work for the PRC. And it doesn't take away... For the PRC to be working on this doesn't take anything from council. For staff to work on it, bring it to the PRC, then work on it together, that council wants that because they are so, so pressed with everything that they need to do that getting a product that the advisory body has looked at is helpful to them. And if they don't like it, they can say no, and they frequently have. That's not a problem. We are advisers. But the product will be better if it gets around of the advisory body as community presentation. And the legal language, for goodness sake, that's for the lawyers.

All right, I don't know if there's more comment. I don't know if we want to move this forward. I don't know if Director Marchant has, are you going to maybe add a line about the strategic plan or are you not?

Yeah, within number 13 review, part of the review of the financial assistance program, state high-level parks and rec strategic plan update, In advance of the annual update and for that way it's being weaponized is like.

hey. With that amendment.

One musters other comments to say, do you want to make a motion to approve this amended plan and forwarded on to the Council.

I'll make that motion. I mean, we approved the fiscal year 2627. Showing an attachment line item. 13 is a moment ago. And to be forwarded to.

I have a motion is there a second second.

Any further discussion. Yeah, I'll I'll support this in both or. I just had a trial will say I don't feel like there's any heavy and I don't feel like I feel we're sounding more like an advisory body. There's arguably three things here that, you know, are calling for advisory input. The election of officers, the acknowledging annual report, acknowledge annual report, acknowledge annual report. That's a lot of listening, you know, candidate presentation. That's just a lot of listening to stuff. And we're not advising anything, really. So, I mean, this is great. Send it to council. I realize this is a procedural thing you have to do. I don't know that we're... Functioning is an advisory body by providing much advice.

Except we may talk more than you want. I'm not sure.

Give us a five-minute time limit or something like that.

I mean, item two on work items, I mean, I think that showed up here because of discussions we had here last year at this time. And I think that the mini park design will be a substitute.

As I looked at this as well, I thought the same thing. However, we have a lot of irons in the fire and there are some things that i can't that i can't speak to because council has not taken action yet and that i know that those as long as council approves that those are going to be part of a additional work items and so i'm in this difficult place right now to put everything into the work plan my little editorial comments be careful what you wish for

All right.

If there are no other comments, let's vote.

Commissioner Bryant? Yes. Commissioner Davis? Yes. Commissioner Sylvester? Yes. Vice Chair Sommer? Yes. And Chair McShane?

Yes. All right. That takes us to Item 6, Commission Staff Announcements, Updates, Requests, and Committee Reports. Director Barchant?

So this is our last meeting before... Our summer break will be back in September. If you enjoy some time off. Just a reminder that Saturday is Pride event. So hopefully you are able to come out and see it for our second annual. Obviously our summer concerts on the plaza and others are taking place. This will be the end of our first week of summer camps. So far, so good. Everything's been going well. And it's great to see all the activity at the pools and parks and everything else. So it's great to see. Above and beyond that, I mentioned council will be meeting for their final meeting before break as well on Tuesday next week. That agenda should be posted by the end of the day tomorrow. I suggest you take a look at it. and uh within that is also um the fiscal year budget um that's coming forward um will you be presenting at that meeting i will not be presenting no i will be i will be present at the meeting yes even in closed session i will know um There is a long list of items coming toward the end of the fiscal year that typically happens. This one is even longer with almost 30 consent items, I believe, to bring forward. So I do encourage you to look at the agenda when it's out. If you have questions, once that is out, feel free to reach out to me.

All right. Any other. Commissioners.

Well, I just have. A question on it. We were discussing. The situation. And in the worst.

In the worst.

Scenario. Extremely different. Right now. as in Franklin Street, both the back and the front of the library. And I hope staff is beginning to think about what the options will be.

Yes, I want to preface with we don't have all the facts. and we need to look at what options there are moving forward. And while I pressed Russell, we also need to verify, right, of what's happening and whether there's options to look up. And as we go through this process, Yes, of course, there has to be some plans in place to start preparing for what might be.

Right. Well, I mean, even things like the climbers on the library, the planting spaces in front of the library, if even more trees grow, then something to make the place pleasant again even temporarily while staff figures out the long-term implications that will require both budgeting and a lot of creative thinking and it will it's not something when we do we require a lot of thinking so i hope you you will put that in courses any other commissioner comments

All right. Our next meeting is Wednesday, September 9th at 6 o'clock back at Rank Store, presumably. And with that, I hope everybody has a nice summer and we will adjourn.

Over the summer break, IT has scheduled time.