Okay, I'm now gonna call the order the June, or I'm sorry, the Wednesday, June 17th, 2026 meeting of City of Mountain Views Parks Recreation and Urban Forestry Board.

Allison, let's conduct a roll call.

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

We have this is our last meeting of the year.

We have a little musical company.

Let's see.

Uh, we'll now go on to the uh approval the minutes from the June 10th meeting, which was just last week.

So this is going to be absolutely recovered pretty well probably from then.

Um first of all, I just want to see if there's any public comment on the June 17th or June 10th.

With that, uh, bring it back to the commission to see if anybody would like to make a motion.

So we'll comment first.

Comment first.

Tell me if I'm the minutes indicate a uh this approval or motion to uh postpone the meeting.

I think so.

Yeah, we did vote.

No, I'm something.

So I probably mumbled it, so if you didn't know that, I can update that and I can bring them back the next time.

Well, we can do that.

Yeah, I can change that.

I'm sorry, I did not hear that.

Um it was to continue item 5.1 to a date to be determined, and you voted no.

Okay.

So I'll make a motion.

So, all right.

Okay, don't you?

Okay, we have Commissioner Bryant.

Commissioner Davis.

Yes.

Commissioner Sylvester, Vice Chair Summer, yes, and Chair Mitchers.

Yes.

Passage 5-0.

Um okay, we'll now move on to oral communications from the public.

Uh this portion of the meeting is reserved for persons 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.

Allison Flynn will recognize you.

So this first one again is the items that are not on the agenda.

So if this is one of the two tree appeals, this would not be the time to speak.

So is there anybody?

Yeah, find the colour.

Yeah, you'll have an option.

That's not for now.

Not now.

No, not now.

No, later, yeah, later.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, anyway in the room.

All right, we'll now close public comment.

Do we have any idea what's going to be this maybe?

Um someone, Diana is on, and she said, sort of hear the music, but it's not loud.

I've done it for they can hear what's happening in the book.

Um I think so.

Hi, board.

Um, it sounds a bit garbled.

I will say that.

Okay.

Do we have any opportunities that can't help it?

Um, if I think with IT, we have somebody here.

It comes to our rescue, though, speaking.

We pause.

Yeah, maybe we can pause those online.

We're gonna pause for a minute or two to see if we can uh we have band music outside and just want to see if we can make this as clear as possible for people online.

Give us a minute.

If we can't find the book, we have to talk about it.

Yes, the car.

Are we sure they go to eight?

That's more of a business log, is that I'm not gonna pop up on here.

The festival thing isn't.

We have what the music does too.

Oh yeah, that I could not tell.

I wonder what we'll have for my jobs for our meeting.

Sorry, yeah, yes.

It's not a good time.

Yeah, half hour.

I guess the alarm is kind of building across the street.

If I can ask my couple, and the result is like I'm that much, I can no longer anyhow.

I've been unin it's not working out.

It's not you, it's me.

No, more tree appeals.

Sorry.

I can't hear any call.

Yes, they ask me not to reach.

Okay, you're just like, I don't know how that drain.

I for I could I couldn't hear it.

So it's like, I didn't have to be able to wait.

I don't know.

I mean, I don't know.

If we put something on the joke, such a nice panel.

I have last yeah.

But um, Patter said we can.

So that's okay.

I think last time we wanted to go back, yes.

Well, there is uh here else to show you.

So, uh, we have two microphones in the ceiling here, which one is auditory.

Go ahead and we should just there.

Well, I think you see how that one's read now, right?

So that one's muted, so yeah, sound is only going through this one microphone.

That's one option you guys have.

Um the audience does talk to you, maybe we'll move on.

So can we make it talk?

Okay, but uh, it's uh really the only audio option I have for people.

Unfortunately we don't have any like handle back to you, but that's right.

Diana, can you hear me very well right now?

Yeah, the sound actually sounds much better.

We can let them break right now when they start back up, they will turn the volume down.

Oh wow, we've got lots of we'll see how how much lower it goes back.

Even the staff working out there said it was loud, so how much of that is a good one.

All right, we're gonna proceed to item five point one on the agenda.

We'll try to speed draft this to be clear right now at the end of break, but we'll speak loudly.

Um this is a heritage tree removal application.

Uh appeal at 560 Franklin Street.

Um before we start, I'm gonna go through the procedures on this one, and I also want to introduce our two city attorneys.

First of all, uh, our city assistant city attorney Francesca Serrano, we'll be representing city staff.

And senior assistant attorney Dave Wilgus will be representing for the forestry board.

The process on this one is we will start with a staff report.

We will then move on to the appellate who will have 10 minutes.

We will then go to the applicant who will have 10 minutes.

Then it will come to the urban forestry board for questions.

We'll 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 uh deliberate and make function and vote.

For the just to introduce the players on this, the owner is Michael Halleck and Robin Lynn.

The applicant is Kyle Smith.

The applicant, 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 R.

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 in London Plain or Platinus Aceropolia.

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, excuse me, from the property owner's representative, check the box for the tree is in for 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 PGE 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 PGE 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 or their contractor, um, 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.

Um, 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 pod.

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 root 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 there.

So those are the overall scenarios that we're looking at in terms of the layout.

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.

PGE has certain um 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.

Um 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 anyway.

So that's why we allowed them to proceed with those pruning cuts.

Um, and so ultimately where we ended up with is that we found the condition of the tree required its removal because of the V shape pruning by the pre or by the PGE contractor.

Um we felt that the tree that the staff's evaluation found that the removal of the heritage tree was necessary to construct improvements under building permit 2511295, and then as the tree um as the tree impeded construction of the new driveway.

Um, staff's evaluation found that the tree are 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, kind 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.

Um, there were some questions about kind of the uh 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.

Um, 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.

This 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 cost over.

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.

Thank you very much.

I feel about up to 10 minutes.

And again, you'll have two minutes, two more minutes later on.

Thank you.

Hold on a second.

We want to turn the microphone on.

Oh.

There it goes.

Okay.

Thank you for your time, uh consideration.

Sorry.

First of all, um, really a component of all our three chapters regarding street trees and heritage trees, but maybe in the benefits of the air or handling the air quality, uh, oxygen, the absorption of carbon dioxide and gas food.

And I firmly believe that those issues have been to or uh subvention in chapter 32 and heritage tree important.

Um, smart about the existing driveway, I'm looking at it and it's on the side of where the new driveway is.

So that although it might be awkward, make the curve in it's acceptable.

The other thing is by why they the existing driveway or lower driveway, actually reduce on-street parking.

On street parking at the library, very limited.

So I said, well, I think the use of the library on street to talk about.

And the other thing is that the pre-spacing two London plane trees.

And these London train trees have survived under these very adverse conditions, uh under the wires, inadequate, error.

They're producing, oxygen, it's taking the options gas, yeah.

And with that, I think are trading living organism, contributing to the community and the environment or driveway.

So uh, basis of my appeal is that we should have idea of the wise use of alternatives.

It's a new driveway, wise use, or the life, the plane tree, which has survived many years.

Incidentally, I wonder if the ring top done is the one that was cut down.

And so that it's it has survived altogether, and I think that's allow it to survive more.

That you thank you.

All right, uh, we'll now move on to the apple.

And I don't know whether that's gonna be Kyle Smith, Michael Halleck, or Robin Lynn Robin okay go ahead and if you want it we're gonna need those other ropes or deer and you'll be really needing to I'll just start while you um yeah thank you so much um reinforced department Russell and Matt um thank you so much for your thoughtful work preserving expanding these are in forest slightly louder yeah thanks louder okay sorry um your job looks hard from the outside so I'm sure it's much harder on the inside so really appreciate uh you both shepherding us through um this process and still trying to honor uh the charter of the department so thank you very much also thank you so much again to the uh commission or the committee for your time and consider consideration uh I know there's so many competing community priorities and as a longtime lurker uh I I find that it's been very uh you've deliberated them very thoughtfully so thank you again for um taking the time to consider this uh yeah okay so I'm you know Robin I'm the homeowner and applicant um in the past I've spent quite a bit of time advocating for parks in open space in Mount View so I appreciate um kind of the challenges related to that um I'm also a woodworker so it's not like I you know want to burn trees down or anything so I appreciate the value of our our precious um uh trees and forest um so this isn't so this is to say I didn't come to this application lightly um next slide please uh but ultimately I think for three reasons um we decided to file this application um mainly uh the first is community safety the second is around biodiversity and the third is the need to create a compliant site design next slide please so I'd like to really talk about the concept of right tree right place um I absolutely support preserving heritage trees where possible um I whenever possible I think we should also really consider we think about heritage the heritage trees today we also need to think about what are the heritage trees that our future generations will inherit you know a tree planted today um can become the heritage tree of tomorrow but only if it's given the opportunity to thrive um the London plain tree in question um 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 oh thank you under high voltage lines um and and as a result of that that's why PGE has come um periodically to I guess we it out or directionally uh pruning um in contrast the types of trees that are allowed under high how high voltage power lines are small scale trees um and the one that we would replace this tree with is one of those trees um in other words I think if if we think about today if I were to apply to plant a London plain tree under in that same location I city policy nor staff would approve this application like they'd be like no way um next slide please and rightfully so um I think both the Arbor, our arborist and the staff reports describe a tree that is required this repeated directional pruning by PGE because of its location um yes, the tree has survived, you know, 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 on it um it's still not like how we would want a tree to be represented in our city, right?

Um, and you know, as uh as has been stated, um, 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 and the tree was allowed to remain.

Um is totally you know fine as well if that's the decision of the committee.

Um 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 lines.

Um PGE would have to, we would rely on PGE to come make sure that they continually uh directionally prune it, and the city would have to continue to manage the remaining canopy and monitor it for potentially um the remaining branches.

In other words, like it commits us to a status uh to an ongoing cycle of maintaining the situation where a species of tree that isn't well suited to the site.

Um again, this is right tree, right place, um, and this is why that concept is so important, right?

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.

Um, so in other words, this isn't like a choice between tree today or go 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 um can or urban forest and the canopy that we all want.

Um next slide, please.

So I think the second thing that um, you know, in following along with silently with the committee, how what the committee has gone through uh or kind of been working on over the years is um looking at the biodiversity, earth plan, which I guess will be reviewed next week or so um by city council, and looking at London Plains, it's actually pretty close to I guess the 10% limit biodiversity kind of guardrails that we've put on the city.

Um, you know, it represents a significant share of the city's tree population, while our proposed um replacement is still you know a little further behind.

So I think approving this application would not only reduce our commit or would not reduce our commitment to the urban canopy, would actually strengthen it and create a more diverse and resilient urban forest for future generations.

Uh next slide.

And yeah, so the last reason is in order to create the code compliance, it is worked with the urban forestry public works department.

We tried to find alternative site designs that would not only meet um city code construction codes, but also serve the tree.

I think if we had found such a solution, we would have obviously found it.

Uh we would have also obviously pursued it.

I think it was very unfortunate that during this time, a genetic contractor came and randomly chopped down the other tree for unknown reasons.

Um that's probably what's you know not helpful for any of us, right?

Um, but I think given the fact that public works determine that there are no other driver configurations and urban forestry ultimately with the remote.

And next slide.

Lastly, I wanted to just kind of touch on the impact to our build.

Like 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 um the work that city staff that our engineers, architect builders, additional work that they've had to undergo.

I rates 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 um I think it's really uh just indicative of the challenges that people face.

Um anyway, I wanted to really just thank you all.

I think the main point is thriving urban forests is what we all want, and we think this is uh one of the ways that we can function.

Thank you.

Thank you, and you'll have a little bit more time later.

Um so now I'm gonna bring it back to the urban forestry board for questions, and I think let's for questions.

Let's start on this end and then when we do the other part.

So we have that to be okay.

Uh maybe you could put the sort of background.

Well, just start talking about 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 are the high.

That is correct, yes.

Okay.

Um sorry.

Great, yes.

The tree is actually quite far from the power.

Yeah.

So I'm wondering about driveway static working.

Um, I think the work to the city standards.

We have any information about the work.

Yeah, that's what works for the strideway variations were share with us with the car.

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

Right.

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 be 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.

Um, 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.

So that's important.

In terms of the driveway five feet from the edge.

No, well, yes, that is a forestry practice as well.

But what I was 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 or 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.

Um, 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 mine, including mine, and it's a terror driver for my neighbor, and that's something that we had.

Right, so talk to me about this variant driveway variant concept.

That all occurring at the staff level.

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.

It's as far as I know that never rises to council or commissions or twice.

Okay, so they could make a discretionary decision based on what they're seeing and decide about the what to uh, you know, what makes sense to the harping ordinance.

I assume it's an important system.

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.

So I can think about a couple other ways to do that other than the Grime.

And still put the tree.

Okay.

Um, that saw you saw what's going to be provided to forestry from those conversations, but that's the idea of switching down to a nine foot.

So they would have to the car that the farthest to the right would have to kind of make a hard maneuver to get to that.

That is correct, yes.

Um, that's all I have.

Thank you.

Yeah, I should.

Um, first you're getting my mind.

Once again, GB is the region's uh here.

Um, is there nothing more the city can do in terms of standing accountability that we writer stuff?

But that's really can we uh see demand a little more satisfaction from the 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, etc.

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.

Uh questions, that's really um question for the property.

Were you the property owner when that uh tree was removed by?

Uh yeah, right.

I went there and then happened to be there that me, they were hyper, and then by the end of the day, with no notice.

Yeah, no, it was a contract.

Yeah, ultimately PGE 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 PGE does is they hire one contract uh consultant company to do all their auditing and put I'll say temporary um work assignments into their database for what should be done.

In this case, they did that, they'd called it out for removal.

What typically happens is PGE then reviews all of those decisions before they get reassigned to a contract.

In this case, that PGE step got missed.

The original consultant identified it for removal, and their contractor immediately jumped on the removal and took it down.

Um they identified it for based on the health tree or I don't know.

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

I have a okay.

Um this a number of times, yeah, for the uh the condition of free uh uh removal is required as structure is for due to the shape.

So all the way down the street, you've got identical tree forms.

So anybody along Franklin, put in the request remove the tree, and because of the four forms negative, I would not there are additional considerations, I the form of the tree is significant.

Okay.

Um is it true that the city just responsible for tuning?

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.

Yeah, because you contract the people that go through the city, it's that is correct, and uh just testing the situation, like for the commission, for a whole doing that if there's a safety issue.

Potentially, yes, we we would ultimately default back to PGE 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.

Um, 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 PGE working through the tree as they do.

Thank you.

That's true.

I guess thank you.

Sorry, that's a regular sound.

Uh I have a number of questions uh for staff.

Um we're looking at this tree.

Um, you mentioned that there are concerns about its structure, um, questions about its health.

You said it could be in poor next condition.

So I have a few questions around that.

How risky is this tree in terms of uh limb failure, especially the ones over the street that might go within your house?

Like how how bad is this?

Sure.

So within our industry, we have a tree risk assessment formula um 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, um, moderate, high, and extreme, that 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 um 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.

Um, and so that's one of the targets we would look at.

The other target, at least for limb.

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.

Okay, thank you.

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

Um absolutely.

Um, sycamores in general do have um disease issues, anthrachnose leaf leaf scale, um, etc.

So they have all of those.

This is one of our, I'll say non-cultivar trees.

This is the standard um London plane.

Um that ultimately in that case, um, it is susceptible, powdery mildew anthrachnose leaf scale.

Um, I'm sure there's a couple of other ones that I could probably list.

But yes, um, they were present.

I would simply say those are not always fatal issues, they do create stress, they do create other issues, um, but typically they will not kill the tree.

So with that said, um, what do you think of the potential volume that we have creates?

Given I 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, um, and so it's always very subjective to kind of say that.

Um 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.

Um, I know we 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?

It 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 five percent as the property owner presented.

We still we like to keep those numbers as low as possible, and there are a lot of crate myrtles.

Um, the other concern with crate myrtles in general is there is a pest, glassy wing sharpshooter.

Um, I don't know if you guys watched the news much about Costco lately.

Costco 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 crate 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.

Um I know the report talked about the potential for redesigning the driveway, moving it, maybe shaping it, curving it.

Um, I'm curious if you have estimates on the cost of doing that and also how much delay it would cost your overall projects.

If you've had to change the shape of the driveway, yeah.

Can you consider flipping it, right?

Or unfortunately, um, I think for our that would have set us back.

So half a year, and some of it um, since it's a I think they already kind of fabricated some of it, and so they would have had to scrap that.

Um also I believe I think it's uh public works since all the driveways on that on Franklin are on the left.

They didn't necessarily want to have a those years, we don't.

Thank you.

Yes, a couple of questions.

Um, just looking at the structure of the tree, staying slide.

Yeah, but actually, and then we got to put it on the actual way from the street.

Statement or question.

Statement and you say yes or no.

So yeah, absolutely.

Um, pruning is an option to mitigate some of the risk that it is presented to the home.

I would simply say any time 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 then uh just following up and what the Commissioner Davis said about what's how.

What is the difference?

Um that was it's not a bit of a problem.

Sure.

So ultimately it was really kind of a combination of factors.

Um, 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 or 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 fare, 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, etc.

Is it really going to do that?

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 another question I had, I'm not sure.

Um the question about this we have to do the driveway.

That is, it's costly flat, and how you desire our parts.

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, is the only thing I can tell you.

But I don't like the way that's why absolutely, yes, but by taking another nine feet or so, it is going to change the parking layout where you may lose a parking spot.

All right.

Okay.

So I submitted a lot of questions at that point.

That's five that goes, all right.

But I just I I want to drill down on the driveway thing.

Okay.

That one?

The driveway.

Just because on my computer, just 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.

Right.

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?

Yeah, so the left side wouldn't be changing at all.

Correct.

That's the property line.

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

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

So in theory, would park try to see where the garage is the one car garage.

It would end right about here at the where between set back and line, that's going to be the approximate location of the garage.

Okay, so the second car would park where it'll allow the first car to different.

Correct.

That 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 exists now, you would have to shift a little bit to get into the garage.

Under the new, I'm looking at full red lines.

Where would the second park about the spot?

It's moved.

Side by side, 18 feet across.

That's that gives you nine feet each for both parking spots.

Right.

I just put into the into the garage, yeah.

Yeah, again, I think that one maybe this is the better drawing.

And let me kind of zoom back out a little bit.

That 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.

How's it different on the plan?

But use that picture.

I mean, if the driveway extends on the black circle is, you're still gonna 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 white where parking is somewhat limited, it accommodates them putting two cars there.

I mean, you know, one of the questions was just whether um whether there was an alternate, is there potentially an alternate driveway layout to the same existing driveway, and a adjacent concrete area to your second parking part, thereby signing around the tree, and the response was there is or was a second driveway to side.

So I mean, I guess can you tell me what that other one was that was considered?

I mean, was it just this?

Okay, sure.

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 going to 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 kind of problem, yeah.

There was a garage door.

Yes, correct, yeah.

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

With the one car garage.

Correct.

Correct.

So we're making each other.

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.

It's actually a technique.

So is that something we can do with the tree or you need to start when it's small and it is better to do when they are younger, but no, you absolutely you absolutely could start that with an older tree.

The issue is is that when you blard those, they tend to grow very, very fast.

Um bub uh part.

We have an area that's in that part where we have ballarded those.

We let them go a maximum of two years between pullardings that we're trying to do, and they literally grow 40 to 50 feet if we do them any longer.

Yeah, and we want them to be correct.

Yeah, very narrow branches, very tall, upright.

Yes, correct.

And that's where we went with the doubling and tripping of cost.

Thank you.

Sure.

All right.

Any other questions before we go through our second round?

Is your question?

Any any other questions?

All right, uh, we'll now open it for public comment.

Is there anyone in the room if you are if you can fill out a good card?

Uh and if there's anyone who might use the raise hand feature.

See, Mr.

Make his way to the microphone.

No, no, no, no, no.

Okay.

My name is Bill Lambert.

I'm speaking as a uh homeowner and a resident of Mountain View.

Um, have to say what I have to say is very short.

Uh just go to the next slide.

I won't use this one.

I'll really work this over.

Um I am uh supporting the staff position, and I want to say also that I'm good friends with Michael Hallet and Robin Lynn.

Um, so to me, this is a very simple case.

Uh the uh uh there's criteria in the heritage tree ordinance uh for that must be met to remove a heritage tree, and uh not all four of them need to be met, but it's a balancing act as you've uh heard uh 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, uh we have the necessity of uh of uh uh um improvements, which is uh in construction.

Um the poor form of the uh of the tree and uh sports free practices uh pressing the high voltage lines, um and what we have here from the appell uh the appellant of Mr.

Lee, what he has argued is really that herd trees form a very important natural resource for our 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 necessary removing a heritage tree.

So this is not um, you know, I don't think that the staff is being remiss in um and you know exercising their uh analysis, but I also would say too that the appellant really has not provided any facts, has not provided any expert uh um analysis to uh counter the arguments made by the city staff, and I think that really is required.

Um I also want to uh mention something about uh uh Robin Lynn's presentation, where she really emphasized how much she supports her and tree.

Uh you know, should you should be reminded that Robin and I work together with Friends of Mountain View Park, and that organization was really responsible for uh keeping um the monoloma field open and preventing the Mount Viewman School District from completely fencing that thing off.

So recognizing the value of the parks, the canopy, um, and the environment and mountain view.

You know, Robin has worked hard and supporting.

So really that's all I have to say, and I would uh request that uh permission by the uh appellants uh to uh um reverse the uh decision of the city staff.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh anyone else in the room wishing to provide public comment on this.

Anyone online?

Yeah, we have a Mayor Greenheart.

Hello everyone.

Um, first of all, I want to thank everyone for the time today.

I am the builder for Robin, and also representing the architectural side.

Um, you the staff had really valid questions, and I just wanted to point some fact 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.

Um, to one of the questions um that I heard is if we can expand the concrete path in a different way, and that's following on their 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.

Uh, we'll now close public comment and bring it back to the staff for up to two minutes for any final words.

You know, staff really doesn't have any additional comments.

Um it truly for us just came down to the cumulative kind of criteria.

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 going to 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, this Lynn for up to two minutes.

If you have anything else, I just wanted to thank you all again for and Russell and Matt for shepherding us through it.

It was uh I know there was a lot of shepherding, but just too much question, and thank you for the question.

Great questions and done.

Trying to get a good decision.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll now move to the app, Mr.

Lee.

You have an extra two minutes if you would like to have appropriate points.

That's a difficult decision.

Okay.

However, I feel still feel that it's easy for people to deal with the clean canvas, and so they could bring in new ideas.

Well, we had dealing with a canvas which is existing as its existing tree.

The other thing is London tree street trees are quite resilient to pruning.

And I believe that there's the lifespan, some of these have been 200 years, and so that in any kind of a treatment of a London main tree, and I believe so some have been survived severe pruning and trained in the heart situation.

And with that, I leave it to you to make the decision.

And uh I hope that you would do well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh well now.

There's definitely a lot to unpack in this in this uh this item.

Um, and I'll as promised.

Um, now go back to urban forest board operations and I don't think that's okay.

Sure.

Um so um I walked down this block, frankly, at least a couple of times a week, and I had actually never realized, as I walked down the block and enjoyed the shade, but the trees had been taught that that they were only so tall and not tall, I truly never realized it until I went and looked at it from a distance.

Because the pedestrian experience on that block is wonderful.

There's planted script, there was shade, um, and uh this is what we want in terms of the kind of pedestrian space where we can walk pleasantly and in shade.

And and no amount of crape myrtles is going to give us that kind of canopy, and no crape myrtle is ever going to become a heritage tree.

It's just not that kind of tree.

I have two of them myself.

Um 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 was 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 house is there, uh, and you know, I I also asked a lot of questions, and my questions must have been very similar to yours because the answers that you received as my questions, uh, to me, it seems like that tree was condemned before it could come to the PRC for asking for help.

Um there is also for me.

If this is through, there is basically a taking of public cities.

There is a taking of shade, and now there is also taking of a parking spot, which doesn't belong to the home office.

Uh and that's a parking spot in front of the library, and it's shaded, so this is this is basically a taking from the public.

Uh 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, it must all have been planted more or less at the same time.

Uh they're all pruned in a similar way.

And although one of the commissioners asked asked uh 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 great 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.

Uh and I was very interested in hearing what my fellow commissioners think about this and where you land on it.

Because this is to me, it's really critical that it's it's a whole block, and that's only the first step because there's lots of other blocks that are seen.

Um so I I will have more things to say later, but I I wanted to start there.

Um, first of all, I want to thank um the passion that that both parties have shown for trees and for heritage trees and their role and their value in our society.

Uh it all it always makes this decision so hard when everyone cares so much.

Um I am leaning towards supporting the staff recommendation to deny the appeal.

Um 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 uh and damaging cars parked that are going to the library or other people who live in the neighborhood or potentially falling on person.

I take that very seriously.

I also think the tree is probably as we look at it overall, is and is nearing the end of its life.

Um, and it would be good to start with a new tree that could become a heritage tree in the future.

Um unfortunately I I do not like the idea of having a great myrtle there.

I don't think that's a great choice in terms of a future heritage tree.

Uh but that is something I think we could work on.

Uh so that's where I'm landing here.

Commissioner Davis.

Well, I appreciate the steps.

I know you guys have to balance a whole set of issues and doing everything you can.

Individual residents in the community, as much as I antagonize you.

I know it's hard.

I appreciate the uh the homeowner.

Um the work that you've done in Mount View and uh I completely agree that you know the that you wouldn't put that tree, you wouldn't approve that tree under the power line.

Um it's not the ideal.

Um but the tree's been there for 60 years.

And for all of the reasons that Commissioner Bryant stated, I think it does sort of uh, which I think maybe I'm misreading it, but I think I a lot of what I saw in the staff report was how do we account for this problem?

And to me, the uh the best that I think that really gets my job is that PGV.

I think PGE should pay to that's redone with the right let's go.

Um, I think it could have not been for that action.

Other designs could have occurred, flip the play out of it with the driveway, but that's the other street, you think that um but at the moment I decided.

I would like to rethink how the uh I I think the city code requires a nine foot driveway, and you love that is uh advantageous, but again at the expense of the marketing a little bit.

You don't exactly know whether it's uh a full parking space or half a parking space, but that's just the essential stuff, which is just like so yeah, the moment I I would lean towards the ballot.

Okay, this is gonna be an interesting point.

Um it always feels uh very uh we're always so very particular and and almost precious talking about a a tr one tree for an hour, and you know, and then I then I remember that our heritage tree ordinance is asking us to think this hard about every tree room and I also believe that it's important for the appellant to get a decision process, and so while it may seem like for nitpicking, I think that's what we're should.

Um there's a lot a lot here that uh you know it's troublesome.

Um I feel like uh tree removal permit having been delayed to the very end till after building permit issuance until after construction is always has already started.

Um that that's not how this process should work.

The 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 it's state-approved refad building.

It was as much staff discretion there, or maybe there was none.

I I you know haven't dug into that issue.

Um but I I personally think that the forestry board has no discretion here.

I think that um removal is a done deal.

Um, there's 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 uh this tree, because of what pruning was needed in order for the screen, has now got uh 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.

Um there's so many situations where a large tree was standard under a power line and mountain view, and those trees have to be in order to um you know allow for the functioning utility, and we should be planting species under there that that don't require mutilation.

And you know, yeah, you could continue to prune this, but for in my mind it's better to have a situation where your 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 um deny the appeal and um support staff's decision.

That's doing that reluctantly, but I think in this case, the combination of factors, which uh include core form, nature of the improvement, and uh the other factors discussed in the staff report that that leads me to support the denial of the key, right?

Um so I guess that brings it to me.

Um, you know, I've looked at this a couple different times.

You know, it's a it's a fairly mature London plain tree that seems generally healthy.

Um I think it would be a beautiful tree if the main central limb hadn't been topped off at a fairly low height, um, but unfortunately it has been.

Um the exaggerated E shapes, probably not a great structure long term.

Um, you know, I was gonna comment on, you know, the arborist protection plans didn't account for brain mobility, um, but now it actually sounds like maybe cutting those limbs actually might have been good for the tree.

Um, anyway, I just I think it's sad that this tree has been topped off the way it was.

You know, other similar trees on the block, and and I really tried to look at them, seem to have had less aggressive pruning, which let them develop more completely while still avoiding the PGE wire.

Um, you know, it's certainly possible this tree was growing in different way than the others at the time of the topping, and it didn't have other pruning options.

Um, we don't know, but I I you know you gotta get fine on this, but I I don't see all those trees as being the same, they're they're all a little bit different, and I I think each one would be a different um situation, although I did consider the whole precedent precedent thing, um I do sympathize with wanting a driveway space for a second car, because the sort of 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's having anybody come visit them.

I'm not as I sort of harped on it, 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.

Um but that alternate option um is far less preferable for the owner who's now pretty far along in their development claims.

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.

Um, so for me, you know, yeah, a lot of this comes down to bits and pieces of different things.

Um, you know, when I look at the strait of the the state of the tree, you know, unfortunately, it's in a poor location and it's a victim of its pruning history.

Um it just seems like and it's it's it's a nice tree, um, but again, it may be getting towards the end of its life when you have extended weight on some of those V branches.

It I don't know how that how that would be, um, it just seems like this might be a situation where we're better served by replacement trees that could be located where they could flourish, or it could be a different species of tree um planted under the choir.

Um so I will probably be leaning towards denying the appeal and upholding the staff decision removal.

Um, but I wanted to make a couple of extra other comments.

Um, 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 you know, seven plus years that I've been on the commission, um, 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 that he made in his appeal.

Um, this one to me just has a lot of things going against it.

Um, but I don't know how the final decision will go for sure, but thank you for caring and for taking the time um to speak on behalf of a heritage tree.

Um, I'll probably maybe echo a little bit of what Mr.

Summer said, you know, I don't feel great about many of the events that transpired along the way to getting where we are.

Um, you know, the retraction of the removal application to facilitate building approvals, uh, significant limbs needed to be cut, um, in order for the crane to move materials, um, you know, the the PGE removing a nice tree.

Well, I don't I don't know whether it was nice or not because it's wasn't there for me to look at, um, you know, and to me, the the driveway plans seem to be so you almost got a gentle nod um before the tree decision was final.

It just I think you said preordained it.

I I just think that um you know, um in a lot of ways it felt like there was gonna be a foregone conclusion that this tree would be removed.

Um, so those are those are my thoughts.

Um it's a difficult one, all these ones are difficult, and we we have to try to look at them case by case.

Um, so that's those are but so.

Having started, I'd like to uh take my turn now.

Um in this case, the way I look at it, I've we've all said that the process was really bad.

The PGE is just another obviously thing that should not have happened.

Uh the the wink and the nod of yes, go ahead.

Of course, we'll you'll be able to take out the tree, is 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.

That what once the process starts, it should continue smoothly.

Absolutely.

Uh, 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, it'll be fine.

That's really problematic.

Um, we're supposed to look at these issue 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 four blocks to say a tree that will thrive or a tree that'll be able to grow into 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'll be is a tree because the city said we need to put a tree in.

So let's not talk about thriving 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 the liberal environment of canopy of shade of uh of mitigation.

If 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 critical, it'll be I mean they bloom very pretty, when they're not publicly mold, which they frequently are.

Um so I don't think I can support this, but 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 require to be taken out because it won't have room to thrive, you're basically saying take out trees under power lines, and those are old trees, and you're taking away canopy.

So be careful about what you're approving.

Okay, if if I was trying to decide how how would I vote like 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 let's take up the tree.

So that's the condition of adding improvements.

That's the only one that I would have felt in any way possibly voting for.

And then we said, What's more important, the old tree or one need to drive?

You know, in new developments, there's tandem parking, you park one car up to the other, and although it's not always the most convenient thing, though it's really inconvenient.

That's what new developments have.

Um, so that's for the members of the university, thinking of supporting this.

Think about.

But I would ask you not to drive.

Yes, it's underpower lines.

Let's take it out to the driveway.

Commissioner Comments or if not.

Um I 100% agree that the process was broken here.

I hope we don't have um.

Regarding undergrounding, there is a PGE undergrounding fund, that I think the ratepayers get 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 uh, you know, wouldn't it be wonderful kind of thing, but it really only is happening in new development, wholesale subdivisions.

Um, 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.

Um 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 uh building their dream home, as they're allowed to do, and um reality is the power lines are there, and we have to figure out how to accommodate development.

I don't think it's 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 large park 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, but 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.

Um in this case, I do support a circuit.

So I guess that's why we have to get people on the commission.

I reject the foregone conclusion.

There's been you know, travesty of bad decisions, bad ruining our lives, but you know what?

Franklin Street is ripe for um a lot of redevelopment, and every single house on the has already been rebuilt there to pull the same thing and build a house and take out the tree.

Um there's a there's a lot of unfortunate aspects to this, but uh put Commissioner Bryant on this that you know are here to preserve the trees, even when there are circumstances that are less desirable.

I think I think we're taking the tree out to put it in, I think a modification to the driveway, and yeah, uh we can just have to even that sounds like it's not an ideal situation, so uh I I think I left the both already cast, as far as I can tell, but uh I will be a one goes supporting staff.

Any other comments from commissioners?

Um for me, it's not about removing the tree to make room for the driveway.

I think the tree is in worse structure for both and presents risk.

Um it is pretty clear that moving the driveway, but as you said, the horse seems to be out of the barn at this point, so I didn't hear any compelling ways to move that driveway.

Um, or move or make a parking pad somewhere else that wouldn't work.

Um, so my vote to go along with staff recommendation is based almost exclusively on the health of the tree, um, and not about trying to create a driveway.

Um, and not that my concern is also not about it being on the power lines per se, it's how this tree exists right now, so I disagree with the health of the tree issue.

I disagree.

There's a thousand trees about yeah, it's that exact form under power lines, they have to deal with it.

Um tree's 60 years old.

Uh, I think it's got much more than a decade left to live.

So I I uh my my judgment is the health, which is it most beautiful form?

No, but that's because it's been butchered.

So let me we'll agree that's this degree.

But let me add that when you walk along Franklin and you walk on the tree, you don't see the structure, you feel the canopy projecting you.

Uh, it's not about the structure of the tree, as far as I can I can see from taking it out, it's completely about the driveway.

But you know, we each make a one speaker.

So I I don't have a whole lot to add.

I guess I want to clarify that when I said vote on 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 it might have been a foregone conclusion in some people's mind, but I would have been completely willing to go against this foregone conclusion.

Um this was a this is a hard one.

And uh and for me it's the it's the combination of step game.

It's it's a combination of multiple criteria um bits and pieces on on each one and uh I don't I don't have more details to 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 Mount View to deny the appeal of old staff's decision and approve the removal of one heritage tree at 560 Franklin Street, be read in title only further further reading waived.

Motion by Commissioner Summer.

Is there a second?

Motion and a second, is there any further discussion before we have a vote?

Okay, Commissioner Bryan?

No.

Commissioner Davis?

Yeah.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

I think the time we weren't anonymous, I guess.

Except for the time we've been testing.

It's great.

That concludes on what I should.

I thank everyone who uh who uh spoke on this, and uh I think a lot of people are passionate and um youth on this, it's a difficult difficult one.

All right, 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 little secret.

Let's take a brief break.

Um also what time do you have?

Uh we can come back at seven.

That'll give us about five six minutes.

Okay, so I have about it's about seven forty-two or seven forty-three now.

We'll we'll reconvene at 7.50, so it's been seven minutes.

It's hoping you have this.

You told people to pick up the screen.

Oh, I don't know.

I know all the Allison, are we on day being recorded or is that all?

You are, it's uh, good for green.

So yes, video is back up, but I think that do we give us a h do we give us a hug I know we'll have to do it.

I don't think that's actually a lot of questions.

Looks like we have everybody back.

I also know we have to buy the way it is.

All right.

Uh, we're going to reconvene.

And we have item five point two, uh, the heritage tree removal application appeal from twenty-seven fourteen press the drive.

And um, I'm going to start by just to have a clean uh tape of everything.

I'm going to reintroduce our two attorney because I think everybody was here the first time, but um, assistant city attorney Francesca Serrano will be representing city staff, and senior assistant city attorney Dave Wilgis will be representing the urban forestry board.

Um, so the uh order on this is staff will have uh we'll make their presentation.

The appellant will then have ten minutes.

Uh, 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 the PRC.

Um, the players on this one.

I have the owner Norm Steinberg.

Uh, I have the applicant Ty Williams, who is probably acting on behalf of the owner and the appellant.

It is Richard Steinberg.

So, for the purposes of this, Richard Steinberg will be the person who uh will have the time, but he is um allocate time to any to any of the others who we might yeah, I'll be speaking for a family.

Okay, okay.

Um, so with that, I will turn it to forestry manager Russell Jackson.

Excellent.

All right, so again, we're here this evening to talk about uh tree appeal hearing for 2714 Preston Drive in the overview that we have here to the left.

Um I just want to clarify there was some confusion in the staff memo that you guys have 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.

Um, one of the main leaders was dead.

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.

Um, 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.

Um, on the application that we received for this tree, the property owner checked the boxes that the tree is dead and that removal for was necessary to construct improvements.

Um, 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.

Um, 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.

Um 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 infestations or the accelerated, I'll call it decline of the tree.

Um, there's also at the bottom of that tree, significant amount of surface roots that are there.

Um, it does prohibit use of that turf a little bit.

Um, 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 die back 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.

Um, 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, about 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.

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 in 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 tech 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.

Up to 10 minutes, and you can allocate any one of your things.

Appreciate that.

Um, I'm Norm Steinberg.

I'm um the son of Steinberg, my dad, and there's like Marty over there.

So, anyways, uh my brother's on the line as well.

Um, 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.

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 in Canada.

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, not surprisingly, then we are 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.

It's about acting in a safe, responsible, practical manner.

How did we get here today?

Last year we noticed two pines not look healthy, and upon more observation, we came 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.

Equally, 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 staff's 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.

Feistamel said tree one might not be approved.

This came as a surprise.

It's just a month earlier, Arborist said both trees should come down due to pitch canker, a disease leading to tree death.

Mr.

Feistemble 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.

Feistemo visited.

This strengthens our position.

The denial notice refers to tree one as a quote, tree without major signs of decline or drought stress, that 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 roots showing bore 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 die back 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 beetle 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 fifth, staff believe that tree one may remain in good condition for several years, providing continued benefit to the community.

Our response is when Mr.

Feistamel and I spoke in March, it's more like a couple three years, and admitting this is subjective, he told me kindly 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 pest 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, understandably, 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 um uh the first these three next three first three pictures show a dive back on uh tree number one, so we can go to the next one.

And the next one.

Thanks.

And now next slide.

Um uh just a sample of frass uh that is is uh now seen.

Uh next, please.

Some more frass.

Uh next, please.

Okay.

So these um so two of these uh root areas is what um where the boreholes were uh noticed initially.

I want to take a picture of all three in the same, and now I'll show you how it's it's visible on three areas now.

So we'll go to the next one.

There's one, the next one, different route.

Next one, you can see the boreholes uh on that one.

So we got at least three that we're aware of.

Okay, next please.

Okay, so now we're gonna see sap and symptoms of um of the canker uh uh the pitch canker disease.

Um there's that.

Next, please.

That's please.

Next one, please.

This is throughout the tree, and and I don't I don't believe this was the case from Mr.

Pice Symbols there.

Um, okay, and then and this is the final slide where I tried to capture the roots to show you that it's a crazy maze.

And uh so we just we just don't know.

Um if we're gonna 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 we're gonna point that out.

It's the stability factor is on, and I don't know how we feel to ensure it would be okay.

All right, so that concludes my 10 minutes.

I guess I went over, let's say, still got a minute or two.

Okay, two minutes, a few more.

Oh okay.

Well, I'll save my closing remarks or for the end, but 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 uh the first uh presentation and deliberations.

Uh I can I could say first and I really appreciate everything else too.

So, thank you.

Yeah, okay.

All right, um, we'll now open that up for questions and flip the order this time.

Sure, I'll just ask that to respond to to what you just heard.

Um, this is the health of the trees is is not something I can have an opinion about.

So I depend on staff to tell me if you are the slice that we saw that does not present evidence on top of my progression problems that is more than what we expect.

Well, how does that respond?

Sure.

So first and foremost, I just want to kind of bring up the fact that we're talking about two different pathogens.

Um, when we talk about time pitch panker, that is typically something that is not as commonly fatal, I'll say.

Um, the trees can absolutely live with pitch canker for dozens of years, decades ultimately.

Um it really just depends on how healthy they are, the conditions that they're growing in, etc.

So absolutely some of 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 that, that is a sign that that's what we're dealing with ultimately.

That is basically a plugging of the vascular system right adjacent to that strike that causes it to ooze out that sap and form that bubble.

Um, 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, um, 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, galerizes 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.

Um not unexpected that the turpentine beetle is seeing some additional activity, um, especially given the warm spring that we had.

The beetles um in general, this year, we find have come out far earlier than typical.

And so to see them re-striking 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 re-emerge 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 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 so the chemical tree that is taken out or to the tree.

Free to be preserved, sorry.

Um and another question about the stability if one tree that is taken out.

Does that directly impact 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, right?

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's 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 as 100%, you're talking five 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 reduce, 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 infect further infesting the tree that's to be preserved.

Okay, thank you.

Those are the questions.

How long will it take if the beetles are not treated for it to become an infestation that may impact the livelihood of the longevity of a 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 this uh chemical the only way to treat the beetles?

Uh, it's expensive and it's also toxic.

Absolutely.

Um, yes, ultimately.

Um, 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.

Um, it's based off of uh the prosanthemum plant that that is used.

They use an extract of that is what we use.

Like a perithhean type.

Primethean, yes, correct.

Pyrethroid is what we also use.

Um, 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 innocent 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.

Um, 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 props, they're typically up where the flowers or the pollen or other things are.

Um, and so yes, um, those are really the only two treatments.

There are no, um, I am not aware of any other beneficial insects or otherwise that are predatory to towards this insect, towards this pathogen.

Um, and then beyond that, no mechanical controls or otherwise, we you know, 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.

Um, 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.

Um, 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.

Um, 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, right?

Yes, pine pitch canker.

Thank you.

Questions?

I think my question is overanswered just to there's not a concern of spreading to surrounding trees because they're pies.

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.

So, my questions were answered.

Okay.

Um, yeah, one or two.

Um, just a question for the applicant have you ever treated either of the trees?

Um, for any of the disease or anything like that, so like even when you saw the first one progressively getting a tree number one.

Well, we just yeah, we just noticed it last year, and that's when we immediately called an arborist up.

Yeah, um, yeah, I guess the question for you.

I mean, if this was your tree, would you would you treat it immediately?

Or yeah, yeah, I mean, if you were to keep it, yeah.

I it typically when we're reviewing these applications, um, you know, it's hard to say this completely, but I always look at a tree and go, well, if this is 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 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 replant it.

Yes, it is going to result in additional cost.

The two mobilizations for the contractor, it all comes at a cost.

Um, but again, the benefits that the tree 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 a lot of competency in the farmers community.

Yes, that's a common thing to deal with.

Yes, 100%.

Most pest control companies, so 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.

It is there a way to uh determine the efficacy after treatment?

You have to wait and see how 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 tested it against a pest on a specific tree or otherwise.

And so you would be applying off label, which is illegal and and so typically, yes, they've been proven to be effective, but I don't have that research at hand.

Any other questions?

All right.

Uh let's open it up for public comment.

I'm first checking in the room if there's anybody who would like to speak who's not.

All right.

Uh is there anyone online who would like to speak?

Yes, I like to speak.

Can everybody hear me?

Yes.

Hi, I'm Brett Steinberg.

I'm the youngest uh son of uh of uh Richard Steinberg and and Harriet Steinberg who passed away uh a few years ago, my mom.

Uh the biggest concern I have is safety.

If those that tree were to fall as a result of being unstable, either from the beetles or for the removal of the tree next door, or even weather for that matter.

Uh it is extremely tall.

It's gonna take out the neighbor's house.

It's gonna cause loss of life.

And listen, I love trees.

I mean, I I live in the hills, I'm surrounded by pine trees.

Uh I'm all about, you know, saving trees, but this is a scary situation.

God forbid that tree were to go, and there's nobody can tell us that it that can guarantee that tree would not fall sometime uh in the near future.

And I'm the one who discovered uh, you know, the the original, you know, sap uh on the tree when I was you know visiting on the tree that it has been approved, and but 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.

Appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Anyone else online?

Yeah.

All right.

Um, come back to staff to see if they have you have another two minutes if you like.

Sure.

I no, I don't have any further to add, I'll stop.

Okay.

Um back to you guys.

Okay, thanks.

Again.

Okay, the 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 disease.

It's 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 or 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 one already has beetles.

We believe the infestation will substantially worsen when tree two comes down and the beetles as the beetles go to tree one and then reproduce.

Additionally, it is unknown what effect the root system may have on the stability of tree one when tree two is removed.

Not taking both trees now places human lives at risk.

We respectfully ask the board to grant our request to remove lines one and two at the same time.

Thank you again.

Thank you.

Okay, um, we'll come back to the urban forest board for deliberation comments and Sandy.

If you'd like to start this one, sure.

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 um you all love the place and care deeply for it.

Um and thank you for your concern for use urban forest.

Um I looked at all the materials that provided, um, visited the site as much as we could.

Obviously, we didn't uh you know get permission to go into the backyard, but looked at it from uh multiple viewpoints on on the neighboring streets.

Um thank you for sharing the photos of the current condition, and it's clear that things have changed a little bit since SAF's um evaluation a couple months ago.

Um, I do find myself uh thinking that um it would be best to um uh deny the appeal and support staff's decision, um, and uh makes a lot of sense when I'm hearing from it from a city's urban forester that I pesticide treatment uh as soon as possible, uh is the way to go and uh and we'll we'll see how things um move forward.

Um don't think that we Matt the criteria for removal cartridge tree ordinance and um the tree is healthy, um showing minimal decline and uh uh with the removal of the neighboring tree.

Um what I'm hearing is that we don't have concern for any uh sudden you know tree loss or falling down.

Um, so I'm going to move on from there and like my fellow commissioners, I'm just saying.

But I have to say it's another question.

So procedural or policy wise, uh, should the commission agree with the staff decision, uh, but the homeowner was to find a rapid deterioration, deterioration of the tree, so could procedural standpoint, could you then quickly approve a removal?

Would we have to necessarily go through the whole or could our resolution stipulate agreement with staff tingent upon the ability to quickly make another determination of evidence exists that protect it from sure?

So I will I don't want to burden the homeowner with other lengthy process.

Um my inclination is I mean, I think this we're we're kind of in a position where this is true arbriculture, you know, probably beyond our pigment to understand all the second issues.

But uh, if if in fact danger became more eminent because there was a rapid infestation, I'd like to see them take action.

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

It could have been fast-tracked and not get in a long queue.

Um, take six months or something.

Right.

So the the reason we're here tonight for the process was because of the denial of the room.

And so if there were if there was enough evidence for staff to make that recommendation that that process would be faster.

So like I I greatly appreciate the homeowners' concerns and appreciate your your residence about you.

Uh, but I also really respect the professional capabilities of staff and both the staff recommendation contingent by the fact that if the situation changes, it's not a further one quickly.

Um I too was was deeply moved by the family's story, their commitment to the safety and beauty of their neighborhood.

Uh it is beautiful neighborhood.

I got to try to visit the tree too.

It's a little hard for the outside, but uh definitely understand what it was like to grow up with that tree and see it evolve over 50 plus years.

Um with that said, I think I will be going along with Staff's recommendation.

I am a little concerned about treating the tree with pesticides of either the more natural type or the uh more chemical type.

Uh, but I think in this case it might be a good first option, but I also second Commissioner Davis' idea that something goes wrong and it declines very quickly.

But can this be fast track for a discussion with the LCD?

If the tree goes a rapid decline versus going through a really long process to review the tree.

Um yeah, I think that's what I have to say.

Yes, I I too from outside two trees, one clearly needs to go, and the other one at this point looks great from the outside.

I understand your your concern that that tree should should uh should progress as rapidly as the other tree.

And obviously, since one tree progressed so quickly, you would like to just deal with it.

I think you 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 our arborists uh 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 is obviously everyone's main concern.

Uh so committees is charged with trying to protect uh our heritage trees.

And in this case, I don't think right here it would be meant for taking tree out.

So I will be supporting staff's uh recommendation.

So for myself, you know, and when I visited the site, again, we can't get into the backyard, but I did uh maneuver around to different vantage points.

Um tree looked to be in pretty good health.

Um it's definitely one of the larger trees on the block, you know, and together with the adjacent redwoods, you know, that cluster of trees definitely stands out neighborhood.

And you know, I would say that you know, if the pine weren't there, the redwoods, which are even taller, would remain standout trees in the neighborhood, so so that's um a good thing.

Um, you know, just from my vantage points, um, you know, I thought the tree was mostly lush.

Um, I thought that there were some brown needles, um, but it didn't appear to be entire branches again.

I couldn't get to every spot of the tree.

Um, so that just seemed to me to be sort of normal sort of seasonal die-off, but again, that was just for my vantage point.

Um, there were plenty of new green sprouts and needles on all areas of the tree, so it did appear to be generating um new growth.

Um, so at the present time, you know, I again uh we're relying like others on staff opinion, um, that the tree remains healthy, and that the beetle infiltation at this point isn't pervasive and it's treatable, and so I think it would be important to to try to try to treat it.

Um, I did ask myself, is that because I was leaving now?

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 I I again that's probably not a perfect question, but uh but I don't think we I don't think we would be looking at removing that tree if it was just but there are interdependencies, so it's a completely a valid question.

Um again is as has been stated if the conditions change and the beetle starts to kill off significant portions of the tree, um that would constitute a change in circumstance and would allow for a uh reapplication, and I would hope that um you would apply immediately, and I hope that it would be addressed immediately.

Uh and again, you know, the city code states that we need to uh render decisions with the emphasis on preserving heritage trees.

Um so again, we want to try to do everything possible at the current time to try to preserve the tree.

So like others, I I will be siding on the side of denying the appeal and upholding the staff decision to deny removal at the present time.

Uh I don't know if there's any other comments or if somebody wants to make a motion.

I'll do both.

Um Mr.

Greenberg, you have a really impressive, I'm sorry.

You have a really impressive family, and everyone's really well spoken.

So congratulations.

Uh however, uh, I'm gonna move that we adopt resolution of an urban forestry board, the city of Mountain, to deny the old staff decision.

Uh, deny the removal of one yardage tree at 2714 drive to be read in the long further reading way.

That's not important.

We've got that one.

Maybe some of that.

So uh we have a motion by Commissioner Davis, second by Commissioner Summer.

Any discussion before the vote?

Yes, Davis.

Yes, can I hear it?

Yes.

All right, so that includes that item.

Um, very much for everyone participating in that uh thank you for hearing it.

I wish you luck.

I mean, I hope that the three matter of five survives.

I hope um, that's yeah, I'm thinking, yeah.

Oh, yeah.

Well, your sons, you have your sons that'll help.

That's right.

You can get that one, I think.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, look at night, right?

Yeah, there are one side running.

All right.

Uh we'll move on to item 5.3, which is the fiscal year 26-27 parks and recreation urban forest report work plan.

Um process on this, just quickly we'll have a staff report.

Uh we'll take questions, we'll open it for public comment and then hopefully bring it back to the PRC for discussion and a motion.

Um sort.

So I will turn it over to uh director Joan Rashawn to take a lead of this.

Good evening.

Once again, commissioners.

Uh so as you're aware this time every year, we come forward with uh our annual work plan for the next fiscal year, and that is attachment one to the staff report.

Um at the top of our uh of the attachment shows our ongoing work items, and then our uh fiscal year specific items that we've identified so far.

And again, as you are all aware, this is a continuing process of of adding and moving as we go.

But this is a snapshot as of today of what we have uh upcoming.

And so some of the things I want to highlight is the uh Thompson Mini Park concept and name recommendation moving forward.

Uh, we've talked about getting together with the visual arts committee, and I'm not sure if you have noticed that uh the city council is approving the a new position um for uh leading that effort.

So that's exciting.

Um as well as um the review of the recreation financial assistance program that we are looking at May, that is one of the um short-term items that are identified in the um recreation strategic plan.

So looking forward to to bringing that and I we have the ability uh for some of those other short-term items to bring more of those forward within the fiscal year.

Um, and as you'll see at the end of the end of uh June coming forward with the biodiversity and urban forest plan implementation progress update, and then uh it is staff's uh plan to come back in September when you come back into um after the the summer break to bring the parks and recreation strategic plan uh for that update as well.

That's why you don't see it on this um on this work plan item.

So that we're not um doing too much in one and allowing the the fiscal year to end and we're bring a full plan of um data and um information to you.

So uh with that I'll turn it back to the chair and I'm happy to answer any questions.

All right, uh we'll 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 that there are the strategic plan.

So you're saying it doesn't appear here because it's outside the fiscal the fiscal year, so it'll be in the calendar year, but not the fiscal year.

Okay, so yeah, so again, the the plans are getting parts 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 verge us on a comment, but anyway, it would give many people less hard for if you made a little note saying the strategic plan will be coming in that calendar year, but not just to be clear about it.

And go to that, not to sweep over everybody, but so are you saying that it was just adopted, you would go a year before any kind of reporting.

And not to say we won't be bringing information to you at the end of a meeting and then providing updates, but for the for the formal annual report, which is pro which is designated within the the plan itself, that's when we would be bringing those.

Again, we're creating dashboards um and other ways for the public and you to see our progress moving forward, and so as the the timeline moves on at the end of the meeting, if there's a question, we can answer things, 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 Rank 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 aren't you saying if it's something like July August September 2027.

Right.

Ah okay um well can I make a comment about that?

Well we'll do the comments okay all right questions yeah I mean those questions and then we'll do a question is what are yeah yeah yeah um couple questions the is interesting the uh the retro rate separation I had thought that was like way off in the future is that is that more our design progressing on that kind of thing or it might be snow or you'll learn more as this comes comes to you I am not in a position to provide much detail on that one at the moment.

Okay.

And then um so again congratulations on the terabella acquisition there will there be anything to share talk about on that but that's a year and a half could be for that possibly could work as right okay and now for my traditional rant here.

So this is just questions bring it back to can I include my comment with the why I can't do this in the comments it's the question still it's gonna come up so it's gonna answer the question.

We can make a question back as an urban forestry board who's um apparently sole function is to adjudicate an ordinance which is presumably being updated.

But for which we have absolutely no visibility to the timing the scope the um wouldn't it so it's question wouldn't it be good to share at least at some level with the commission whose ostensible role is to uh manage this topic I have some understanding of the update on the heritage 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 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 any anything else to to add to that.

No it's a big it's a big ordinance like I said before we're gonna take phases and actually I was just mapping out my suggested 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 gonna map that out we're already working on it um it's gonna be a big lift but it's important we need to do it and get started.

And so yes once we have uh that mapped out we can give some general milestones and timelines for this group of be willing to share some input all right uh there are questions I'm sorry I just had a couple questions pickleball is that just gonna be sort of a pleasant surprise it'll happen and we don't want to put it on the official because you don't know talk to me about pickleball is the fastest growing sport in America's up for an answer on the very quiet balls I mean, I'm assuming that sometime in the next year, right there might be a pickleball I don't know.

Is there a reason to not have to do it?

Uh it's too early to say.

Keep an eye out on future council agendas.

Okay.

I should enjoy the Oracle.

Sorry.

So it could be a pleasant surprise.

Or not to count.

No, it's coming to us anymore.

That's true.

And then just another question that you probably won't be able to answer.

But when I saw the grade separation, you know, it it struck me that Calterin is talking about all sorts of potential cuts, and you know, if if things don't pass, um, you know, they're gonna cut service and yeah, so anyway, just a question that you might not be able to answer, but our cities Palo Alto and you're gonna 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 trade.

If you have any all I can really say is uh that design from what I understand is funded.

Um as far as construction goes, the city's interested in looking at a number of a variety of funding sources, um, state and otherwise uh and where where they are on that, I don't know.

Um that's gonna have to be part of the the staff report that managed forward.

Any other questions?

All right, uh public comment or not.

Is there anybody?

Is there anybody on online that uh has questions?

Okay, so 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 an agenda's item about the technical strategic plan.

I guess the 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.

But I mean I obviously it's a part of this is setting staff's work plan too.

So I'm gonna look at assistant director to see if she has any comments.

I 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 why biodiversity plan is on.

I think even if I don't have all the data, which is gonna take a while to produce, I know the opportunity to provide that feedback to you.

Um 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.

Um it may not be pretty, you know, we might not have a dashboard up and running quite yet, but um at least it's it's a checkpoint, it's an opportunity to have that dialogue and ask questions and um so I I I suggestible speed on there.

Color to add to that, yeah.

So thank you, number one.

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

So I think what we can do is because uh we I think it's on a quarterly basis, we give some high-level updates um up to the city manager's office of where we are on certain items.

So um whether that's within the um monthly report or we can provide those to you.

Um you can ask questions forward.

Um, but that's a another way that we can provide those updates of where we're at, and then if at the end of the meeting you have questions regarding what we submit, and we can chat about those.

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

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

And well, I know there's a ton of short-term projects that you know aren't that are they gonna be moving forward and it's gonna start showing up on the programs and things like that and in 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 uh because that summer break is what I'm sort of bothering me.

I feel like June would be perfect, perfect timing.

Maybe you need the 27.

I mean, I feel even the uh something more like a free dashboard, which that's kind of like the implementation plan piece that you're gonna build the dashboard out of the or so early in that process.

Uh yeah, and I just see I don't know.

I mean, I just you know, I'm just uh you know, I see your I wouldn't want to do it in June.

It's like we have a lot of stuff in June, and we're probably gonna have roots here to free deals.

Um 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 I don't know, I'm just throwing it up.

I don't want to create well anyway, that's that was going through my head too.

Okay, back to one of the action items, other comments, yes.

Um so I will be here next year.

Um I think it's it's a great idea to have um 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 John Smoke Schulter was talking about adaptive management, the lessons learned and adaptations needed, or maybe adaptations not needed, but presumably this is new, because there will be there will be adaptations needed, and having that as kind of a working PRC meeting to look at what is happen at what has happened, have there been roadblocks that were not expected, um things that went a lot more smoothly or things that need to be changed for for the year.

So I'm hoping those are two completely separate things from the updates versus the the working thing through um just to to continue what was being said about the heritage tree ordinance.

I I hope one of the lessons learned for me from two humongous plans, is let's not give the PRC and the community 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?

Uh 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 as well.

The the idea of the the triple edit and plant palette of of having like a group that will work on it with representatives of the C from advocacy groups.

That kind of work with the community and the PRC should be done for the street ordinance too because it'll just make the whole process rich and much easier to do the results.

I'm hoping that becomes part of the work plan PRC.

And I'll be watching listening to you guys.

Any other records comments.

Okay.

I I'll I'll just kind of um back on what Commissioner Bryant just said um I mean you know I love co-creation type processes um they do however take away the council discretion and except that I think so does delivering a completed product.

So I know that it's a constant struggle to figure out where to gather public input how how you know much to involve people in things um 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 you know ordinances are technical and legal technical expertise and legal expertise to write them but as to the policy perspective you know 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 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 to what is the result we want that is work for the PRC and it it doesn't take away for the PRC to be working on this doesn't take anything from council for staff to to work on it bring it to the PRC then work on it together that council wants that because they are so pressed with all everything that they need to do that getting a product that the 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 advisory notes but the product will be better if it gets around off the advisory body as community representation 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 Marshant has um are you gonna maybe add a line about the strategic plan or you know we do it within number 13 review part of the review of the financial assistance program state uh high level uh architect strategic plan update in advance of the annual update in September that way it's being weaponized okay with that amendment um there's something one certain other comments um just anybody you want to make a motion to approve this amended work plan and forwarded on to the city council.

I'll make that motion um I would we approve the fiscal year 2627 parking or connection and report plan um uh showing an attachment.

We can addition uh line item up yeah, 13 uh uh moment ago, and uh to be forwarded to the council for your clients.

We have a motion, is there a second?

I'll second.

Any further discussion?

Yeah, I'll I'll uh support this and vote for the motion.

Um I just editorial, say I don't feel like there's any heavy 50.

And I don't feel like I feel we're a sounding board, like an advisory.

There's arguably three things here that you know are calling for advisory input.

The election of office is acknowledging annual report, acknowledge annual report, knowledge annual report.

That's a lot of listening, you know, canopy presentation.

It'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, get it approved.

I realize this is just this is a procedural thing you have to do.

Um, just I don't know that we're functioning as an advisory body by providing bunch of lines.

So I mean we may talk more than you want.

Sure, I mean, I mean, it was five-minute time limit or something like that.

I mean, item two on on the work items.

I mean, I think that showed up here because of discussions we had here last year at this time.

And I I think that the uh any part design will be uh substitute.

And I will I as I looked at this as well.

I I thought the same thing.

It is a it's like however, we have a lot of irons in the fire right now.

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 gonna 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.

All right, um, if there are no other comments, let's uh vote.

Commissioner Bryant, yes, Davis, Chair Sylvester, yes, Vice Chair Summer.

Yes, and Chair Michelle.

Yes, all right.

Uh, that takes us to item six uh commission staff announcements, updates, requests, and committee reports.

Director of Rashon.

So this is our last meeting before our summer break.

We'll be back in September.

If you enjoy some time off, um just a reminder that Saturday is Pride event, so hopefully you are able to come out and see it for our second annual um obviously.

Our summer concerts on the plaza and others are taking place.

We it's will be the end of our first week of summer camps so far.

So good, everything's been going well.

Um, and uh it's great to see all the activity at the pools and the parks and and everything else.

So it's great to see.

Um above and beyond that.

I mentioned council will be meeting uh for their final meeting before break as well on Tuesday next week.

Um that agenda should be posted by the end of the day tomorrow.

I suggest you take a look at it.

Um 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.

Yeah, there is a long list of uh items coming toward the end of the fiscal year that typically happens.

This one is even longer with almost 30 consent items, I believe.

Um to bring forward.

Um, so I I do encourage you to to look at the uh agenda when it's out.

If you have questions once that is out, you're feel free to reach out to me.

Any other announcements?

What about commissioners?

Well, I I just have a question, comment.

We we were discussing with the situation in the park.

And in the worst in the worst uh scenario, your park is going to look extremely different from what it is right now, as we find straight the both the back and the front of the library and uh I I hope I hope staff is beginning to think about what the options will be.

Yeah, so I wanna preface with we don't have all the facts, and we need to look at what options there are um moving forward, and um while I trust Russell, we also need to verify, right?

Of what what's happening and and whether there's options to um to look options.

Um as we go through this process, yes, of course there's 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 planning spaces in front of the library.

If lots of even more trees grow, uh then something to make the place pleasant again, even temporarily while staff figures out the the long-term implications.

That'll require both budgeting and a lot of creative thinking.

And it will, it's not something one can do we need to require a lot of thinking.

So I I hope you will put that in process.

Any other commissioner comments?

All right.

Uh our next meeting is Wednesday, September 9th at 6 o'clock.

Back at Rankstorf, presumably.

Yes.

And uh with that, I hope everybody has a nice summer and we will adjourn.

Over the summer break, IT has schedule time