Attachment 8 - Letter from David Weissman to Town Council, dated January 1, 2017To: Town Council
From: Dave Weissman
Re: Strategic Goals Meeting 1/31/2017
RECEIVED
9s$.�9
1D'9 -. tt,m•
2. i 2017 \lot etANAL,
MAYOR &
MAW COUNCIL
I propose three areas that the Town Council can easily and effectively address in the coming
year. All 3 items are "low hanging fruit," that is situations where a minimum of staff time would
be required to have a significant impact. Actually, might such changes be made through the
Consent Calendar?
1. Clarify the Fence Ordinance for hillside areas (Sec. 29.40.030): Presently, our hillside urban
forest is well protected by the Tree Protection Ordinance. But a forest without its animals is
incomplete and non -sustainable and that is exactly the situation we have because there are too
many movement -restrictive fences in the hillsides. The HDS&G, page 42, photo on left side of
page, states that hillside fences should "...allow wildlife to pass through." This concept is
reflected in the Town's fence code Sec. 29.40.030 (b) (4) b: "Fencing proposed for rural or
hillside areas shall be of an open design..." The importance of this issue Is further discussed in
the attached page from the Summer, 2016, issue of the Committee for Green Foothills.
ACTION NEEDED: Reinforce the importance of Standards 1 through 6 of the HDS&G, pages 42-
43, that fences shall not interfere with wildlife corridors and that fences shall not be allowed in
areas that would impede the movement of wildlife. Define an "open fence" as one that permits
all animals, depending on their size, to either climb under, pass through, or jump over any fence
on the property, including side and back yards, and not just a front yard fence. Specify that
chicken wire, wire mesh, chain links, etc., over an open slat fence, is not considered animal -
movement friendly. Codify that this applies to any new hillside fence at any time, not just to a
fence associated with an A&S application, as staff currently maintains. Animal -restrictive
movement fences within 30 feet of the house (planting zone one), when needed to protect
landscaping, pets, pools, children, etc., can be animal restrictive, as the current code now
provides.
STAFF TIME REQUIRED: 30 minutes. In fact, all that needs to be done is listed above. I can easily
change or add a few words to the current ordinance to affect these changes.
2. Smoking Ordinance: When our current ordinance was passed in May, 2016, the TC said that
they wanted to revisit the ordinance in 1 year to see how things were going. The 1 year review
would be May, 2017. At that time, I propose, based upon current citizen feedback, or more like
a lack of any feedback, that two modifications be made: (1) That the smoking ban in multiunit
housing units (MUH) be expanded to include all such structures, whether individual units are
rental or privately owned, and (2) that the sale of tobacco and vaping products requires a
tobacco retail license (TRL), similar to that presently required for the sale of alcohol. Inclusion
of both of these issues was supported by the Youth Commission in 2016 but withheld from the
draft ordinance presented to the TC in 2016. The County's landscape has recently changed such
ATTACHMENT' 8
Clifw
•
that bringing these 2 isstiesback to you, is now appropriate and less risky. I present a few
remarks on each issue:,{...,, ,
.M€3. •e�,' ;�If^+,:c't '': 'tilt:
A. Santa Clara County outlawed smoking in all MUH in 2014 and Palo Alto followed in 12/2016,
with a phased in delay of 1 year. Such blanket coverage eliminates the issue of a class
distinction and treats all citizens equally. Presently, if one is rich enough to own their own
attached condo or town house, they can now smoke therein even if their adjoining neighbors
are affected. I do not propose or want to have the police going around and doing sniff tests for
secondhand smoke. But this would give a Town resident the option of forcing their neighbor to
stop smoking inside their unit, or on an outside balcony, if such smoke was affecting them and
causing a health issue, such as exacerbating asthma in a child or heart disease in the elderly.
Equal coverage, without financial discrimination, should apply to every resident in the Town.
B. Santa Clara County, in 2015, required all businesses located in unincorporated areas and
selling tobacco products, to obtain a TRL. Palo Alto followed in 12/2016, with the licensing and
enforcement to be administered under a joint program with Santa Clara County. I propose that
we follow Palo Alto's lead and enact a TRL provision and partner with the County as the
enforcement agency. The American Lung Association has found this policy to be an important
part for keeping under age kids from starting to smoke.
ACTION NEEDED: As above. A preliminary draft in 2016 already included these 2 items. They
just need to be reinstated within the current ordinance, and I can work with Mr. Schultz to do
that.
STAFF TIME REQUIRED: 60 minutes. At this time, I suggest that we let the Youth Commission
focus their efforts on utilizing the $20,000 grant awarded to the Town for business and citizen
education, posting of appropriate signs within the Town's commercial areas, etc.
3. Revision of hillside visibility methodology. In May, 2015, the TC sent this methodology back
to the PC for revisions prompted by a need to implement the goals of the HSD&G. The PC held 3
subsequent hearings in 2015, including one meeting exclusively dedicated to just this issue. A
total of 7-8 hours of hearings. This issue, in draft revision, was again considered by TC in
February, 2016, but based on citizen testimony, was returned to staff and the Policy Committee
for further work. And there it has languished for the last 11+ months. Two recent Planning
Commission A&S hearings demonstrate the need to finish this revision. Otherwise, the same
visibility issues that prompted 5 Town public hearings in 2015-2016, will continue to be "re -
litigated" over again. This is unfair to all concerned and a terrible drain on staff time with the
many appeals that can ensue.
ACTION NEEDED: Request staff to work with Lee Quintana and myself to rework the detailed, 3-
page draft that we did in 2015 and that was submitted for both PC and TC hearings. That draft
is easily updated to include those specific discussions and decisions accepted by the PC and TC
during their 5 hearings on this issue in 2015-2016.