Item # 6.
377196.7
limited to, compliance with the conditions that the City may establish before constructing facilities for, or providing, nonvideo services;
2. Any permit or authorization required in connection with operations on or in public rights-of-way or public property, including, but not limited to, encroachment permits, street work permits, pole attachment permits, and street cut permits; and
3. Any permit, agreement, or authorization for occupying any other property of the City or any private person to which access is not specifically granted by the State franchise.
C. Except as otherwise provided in state or federal law, a State franchise shall not relieve a franchisee of its duty to comply with all laws, including the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations, and other laws of the City, and every franchisee shall comply with the same.
D. Nothing contained in this section shall ever be construed exempt a franchisee from compliance with all ordinances, rules or regulations of the City now in effect or which may be hereafter adopted which are consistent with this section or California Public Utilities Code section 5800, et seq.
Item # 6.
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-04
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRASS VALLEY
AMENDING THE CITY OF GRASS VALLEY FEE SCHEDULE AS TO
TOBACCO RETAILERS
WHEREAS, the City has general authority to regulate business activities within its jurisdiction, and to impose fees to fund such a regulatory program (Cal. Const., art. XI, § 7); and
WHEREAS, any such fee is not a “tax” requiring voter approval as long as it is “imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof” (Cal.
Const., art. XIII C, § 1(e)(3)); and
WHEREAS, Chapter 5.56 of the Grass Valley Municipal Code, as amended by Ordinance #833, regulates tobacco retailers, and includes provisions regarding the issuance and renewal of licenses to engage in this business; and WHEREAS, Chapter 5.56 specifically authorizes the City Council to adopt fees to cover the costs to issue or renew a tobacco retailer’s license, and to process any appeal from a decision to suspend or revoke such a license; and WHEREAS, Chapter 5.56 distinguishes “significant tobacco retailers” from others who sell tobacco products, to recognize how the City must dedicate more resources to regulate retailers whose principal or core business is selling tobacco products; and WHEREAS, the City maintains a Fee Schedule listing the various administrative, regulatory, and other fees the Council has approved; and WHEREAS, City staff have analyzed the costs to administer the regulatory program described in Chapter 5.56, and they have recommended licensing and appeal fees to recover those costs.
Item # 6.
2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRASS VALLEY does hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. Pursuant to Chapter 5.56 of the Grass Valley Municipal Code, the City shall impose a fee of $160 to issue any new tobacco retailer’s license for a business other than a significant tobacco retailer, and a fee of $100 to renew any such license.
SECTION 2. Pursuant to Chapter 5.56 of the Grass Valley Municipal Code, the City shall impose a fee of $250 to issue any new tobacco retailer’s license for a significant tobacco retailer, and a fee of $250 to renew any such license.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to Chapter 5.56 of the Grass Valley Municipal Code, the City shall impose a fee of $275 to process any appeal from a decision to suspend or revoke a tobacco retailer’s license.
SECTION 4. The City Clerk or her designee shall update the City’s Fee Schedule to reflect the fees adopted under Sections 1 through 3 of this Resolution, which fees shall go into effect 30 days after this Resolution’s adoption.
SECTION 5. This Resolution shall go into effect immediately upon its adoption.
SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Grass Valley at a regular meeting held the ___ day of ___________, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
NOT VOTING:
_________________________________
Hilary Hodge
Mayor
Item # 6.
3 APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
_________________________________ _________________________________ David J. Ruderman Taylor Whittingslow
Assistant City Attorney Deputy City Manager & City Clerk
Item # 6.
City of Grass Valley
City Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Introduction of an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Grass Valley amending subsection (C) and adding subsection (D)(7) to Section 17.44.140 of Chapter 17.44 of Title 17 of the Grass Valley Municipal Code to allow eligible mixed-use projects to include up to 10 dwelling units in the Town Core zone pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.5
CEQA: Not a project pursuant to Government Code section 65913.5(a)(3) Recommendation:
1. That City Council find the Ordinance is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to California Government Code section 65913.5(a)(3).
2. Introduce the attached Ordinance No. 834, waive full reading, and read by Title Only, to amend subsection (c) and add subsection (d)(7) to section 17.44.140 of chapter 17.44 of title 17 of the Grass Valley Municipal Code to allow eligible mixed-use projects to include up to 10 dwelling units in the Town Core zone pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.5
Prepared by: Amy Wolfson, City Planner
Council Meeting Date: February 25, 2025 Date Prepared: February 19, 2025 Agenda: Public Hearing
Background: Staff have received inquiries from property owners about the possibility of converting upper-level offices to residential use along the Mill Street pedestrian corridor.
However, while the Town Core (TC) zone allows 20 dwelling units per acre, most of the buildings in this zone sit on very small lots, prohibiting them from taking advantage of the generous density allowance. Many of the buildings are large in size, and with the demise of office space interest in favor of home-office use, much of the non-ground level space is underutilized.
At the City Council meeting held September 12, 2023, council directed staff to prepare special studies to support the drafting of an ordinance that would incentivize conversion of underutilized upper and basement level spaces to residential use within the TC zoning designation.
Staff prepared a Request for Proposals that circulated in January and February 2024. However, the city did not receive any proposals. Shortly after, staff began to look at California Senate Bill (SB) 10 as a means to move the increased density objective forward.
SB 10 was adopted and signed by the Governor in September 2021 and allows local agencies to adopt an ordinance to allow up to 10 dwelling units on any parcel if the parcel is within a transit-rich area or urban infill site. The bill language includes an explicit clause indicating that adoption of an ordinance under its provisions is not subject to CEQA review.
Item # 7.
Proposed Ordinance: The proposed ordinance includes the following provisions:
Limits the maximum residential density to a minimum of 10 dwelling units per parcel.
This number can be made smaller, but not larger in order to comply with SB 10. A provision that disallows units permitted under this ordinance to be used as shortterm rentals through means of a recorded restrictive covenant. An off-street parking agreement approved by the city at a ratio of 1 space per unit located within1,300 feet of the property.
Pursuant to SB 10, a restriction that a minimum of two-thirds of the property be designated for residential use.
A restriction on ground-floor, street fronting space from being used for residential use in order to preserve the commercial and retail uses within spaces that are easily accessible to the public.
The goal of the proposed ordinance is to add to the revitalization effort downtown, encourage housing close to employment opportunities and close to the Tinloy Transit Station, and encourage investment in older buildings.
General Plan: The Town Core zoning designation has a corresponding Commercial General Plan designation and Town Center General Plan overly. The Town Center designation very specifically encourages mixed-use development and does not have a residential density range associated with it. The proposed ordinance furthers the following goals of the General Plan:
o Land Use- 9-LUP: Provide for higher residential densities on infill sites and in the Downtown area.
o Land Use- 23-LUP: Encourage mixed-use developments incorporating a variety of densities on infill sites and in areas proposed for annexation. o Housing- HE Goal D, POLICY 1: The City shall encourage private reinvestment in older residential neighborhoods and private rehabilitation of housing. (While the TC zone is not considered a residential neighborhood, but the program encourages reinvestment in older buildings for the purpose of housing.) Environmental Determination: Pursuant to Government Code section 65913.5(a)(3), an ordinance adopted under its provisions and any resolution to amend the jurisdiction’s General Plan, or other regulation, is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Planning Commission Recommendation: The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed ordinance at a public hearing held on January 21, 2025. Their discussion included consideration of reducing the number of units allowed to something less than 10, but ultimately their recommendation was to approve the ordinance as presented, which allows up to 10 units per State legislation.
Council Goals/Objectives: Adoption of this ordinance supports the 2022 Strategic Plan Update, Goal #1: The City of Grass Vally is dedicated to promoting programs and projects that improve livability and enhance the character and charm of Grass Valley.
Fiscal Impact: Drafting of the ordinance required staff time.
Funds Available: None Account #: TBD Reviewed by: City Manager Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance to allow up to 10 Dwelling Units in the Town Core Zone pursuant to SB10
Item # 7.
City Council
375288.3 1
Staff Report
ORDINANCE NO. 834
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRASS
VALLEY AMENDING SUBSECTION (C) AND ADDING SUBSECTION (D)(7) TO SECTION 17.44.140 OF CHAPTER 17.44 OF TITLE 17 OF THE GRASS
VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW ELIGIBLE MIXED-USE PROJECTS TO INCLUDE UP TO 10 DWELLING UNITS IN THE TOWN CORE ZONE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65913.5
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting held on September 12, 2023, the Grass Valley City Council directed staff to draft an ordinance that would incentivize conversion of under-utilized upper and basement level spaces to residential use within the Town Core zoning designation (the “Ordinance”); and
WHEREAS, the City of Grass Valley desires to incentivize investment in older buildings in order to preserve the historical integrity and aesthetics of downtown; and WHEREAS, the City of Grass Valley encourages housing close to employment opportunities and the Tinloy Transit Station; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Land Use Element includes policy 9-LUP to “provide for higher residential densities on infill sites and in the Downtown area,” and 23-LUP to “encourage mixeduse developments incorporating a variety of densities on infill sites and in areas proposed for annexation”; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan Housing Element Goal D, Policy 1 encourages “private reinvestment in older residential neighborhoods and private rehabilitation of housing”; and WHEREAS, the City of Grass Valley desires to promote the conversion of underutilized buildings for residential use in order for the City to meet housing demand and meet housing production targets of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) established by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD); and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 10 (Weiner) added section 65913.5 to the Government Code, effective January 1, 2022, authorizing a local government to adopt an ordinance to zone any parcel for up to 10 units of residential density if the parcel is located on an urban infill site; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 65913.5(a)(3) specifies that an ordinance adopted under its provisions and any resolution to amend the jurisdiction’s General Plan, or other regulation, is not a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Town Core zoning district is subject to adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards and state fire mitigation measures in accordance with section 65913.5(a)(4)(A).
Item # 7.
City Council
Staff Report
375288.3 2
WHEREAS, the proposed Ordinance and increased density is consistent with the City’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing pursuant to Government Code Section 8899.50 and with programs of Goal A of the 2019–2027 Housing Element, To Designate Sufficient Land at Appropriate Densities and Establish Development Standards and Permit Procedures to Accommodate the City’s Share of Nevada County’s Housing Needs for All Income Groups; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after considering public comment, held a duly noticed public hearing and reviewed the draft Ordinance at its regular meeting held on _________________and voted ____________to recommend adoption by the City Council.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRASS VALLEY:
SECTION 1. RECITALS.The recitals and findings set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. CODE AMENDMENT. Subsections (C) and (D) of Section 17.44.140 of Chapter
17.44 of Title 17 of the Grass Valley Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows (deletions denoted by struck through text and additions denoted by underlined text):
17.44.140 – Mixed use projects
…
C. Maximum Density. The residential component of a mixed-use project shall not exceed a maximum density of fifteen units per acre. This standard shall not apply in the traditional community development zones.
1. The residential component of a mixed-use project shall not exceed a maximum density of fifteen units per acre. This standard shall not apply in the traditional community development zones.
2. A parcel within the Town Core Zone may be developed with a mixed-use project containing up to 10 dwelling units, subject to the approval of a Minor Use Permit application and compliance with the following standards:
a. The parcel meets the definition of “urban infill site” as defined by Government Code Section 65913.5(e)(3);
b. The parcel is not publicly owned land designated as open-space land or for park or recreational uses;
c. The maximum allowable density for the parcel does not already allow a minimum of 10 dwelling units; and
d. The proposed project is consistent with this Chapter, including the Project Design Standards outlined in subsection (D)(7) of this Section 17.44.140.
Item # 7.
City Council
Staff Report
375288.3 3
Nothing herein shall be construed to reduce the allowable density of any parcel in the Town Core Zone.
…
D. Site Layout and Project Design Standards. Each proposed mixed-use project shall comply with the property development standards of the applicable zone, and the following requirements.
…
7. In addition to the above standards, any mixed-use project taking advantage of the density allowance provided in subsection (C)(2) of this Section 17.44.140 shall comply with the following standards:
a. At least two-thirds of the square footage of the mixed-use project shall be designated for residential use.
b. Off-street parking at a minimum ratio of one parking space per dwelling unit shall be provided within 1,300 feet of the mixed-use project. A minimum of one parking space shall be assigned to each dwelling unit and be guaranteed by written instrument or agreement approved by the City. c. No dwelling unit created pursuant to subsection (C)(2) of this Section
17.44.140 in excess of the otherwise maximum allowable density for a given parcel shall be rented for a period of less than 30 days. Developers shall record a restrictive covenant prior to certificate of occupancy, limiting the dwelling units created pursuant to this section to rental periods of at least 30 days, and agreeing to the foregoing. The restrictive covenant shall clearly indicate the number of dwelling units that may be rented for less than 30 days and the number that must be rented for at least 30 days.
d. Dwelling units shall not occupy ground-floor street-frontage space adjacent to a public or private street, regardless of whether that street is open to vehicular traffic. Dwelling units may be allowed at ground level behind street-fronting nonresidential uses. The ground-floor street-frontage space within a mixed-use building shall be reserved for commercial uses, except for a lobby or other entry feature providing access to the dwelling units. …
Item # 7.
City Council
Staff Report
375288.3 4
SECTION 3. CEQA FINDINGS. This Ordinance not a Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 65913.5(a)(3) of the California Government Code, which provides that any ordinance adopted under its provisions and any resolution to amend the jurisdiction’s General Plan, zoning ordinance, or other local regulation adopted to be consistent with that zoning ordinance, shall not constitute a “project” for the purposes of CEQA.
SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council of the City of Grass Valley declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof despite the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional and, to that end, the provisions hereof are hereby declared to be severable.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its adoption under Article VII, § 2 of the Grass Valley City Charter.
SECTION 6. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published once in The Union, a newspaper of general circulation printed, published, and circulated within the City.
INTRODUCED and first read at a regular meeting of the City Council on the ___ day of ____________2025.
FINAL PASSAGE AND ADOPTION by the City Council was at a meeting held on the________ day of _________________2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINING:
________________________________
Hilary Hodge, Mayor
Item # 7.
City Council
Staff Report
375288.3 5
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
________________________________ ________________________________ Michael G. Colantuono, City Attorney Taylor Whittingslow, City Clerk
Item # 7.
361345.1
City of Grass Valley
City Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: A Resolution of the City Council Calling for a Ceasefire and an End to Violence Between Palestine and Israel
CEQA: Not a project as defined by the Public Resources Code section 21065 and CEQA Guidelines section 15378.
Recommendation: That Council discuss and consider the adoption of Resolution 2025-03 Council calling for a ceasefire and an end to violence between Palestine and Israel.
Prepared by: City Council
Council Meeting Date: 2/25/2025 Date Prepared: 2/19/2025 Agenda: Consent
Background Information: At the City Council meeting on February 19, 2025, Council Member Ivy introduced a motion, seconded by Council Member Bonomolo, to place a resolution before the Council calling for a ceasefire and an end to violence between Palestine and Israel. The motion was approved by a majority of the City Council.
Council is invited to review the attached resolution and provide direction on any modifications or additional considerations before taking action.
Council Goals/Objectives: N/A
Fiscal Impact: None
Funds Available: N/A Account #: N/A
Reviewed by: City Manager
Attachments:
Resolution 2025-03 Calling for a Ceasefire and an End to Violence Between Palestine and Israel
Item # 8.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRASS VALLEY,
CALIFORNIA, CALLING FOR A CEASEFIRE AND AN END TO VIOLENCE
BETWEEN PALESTINE AND ISRAEL
WHEREAS, The City of Grass Valley, California, stands committed to the Universal truth that all human life is precious, no matter a person’s faith, ethnicity, culture, ability, or political or religious affiliations, and that every human being deserves to live a life of peace and dignity; and WHEREAS, recent and ongoing armed violence against the Palestinian and Israeli people has resulted in the tragic loss of life of Palestinians and Israelis and injuries to many more innocent people on all sides; and
WHEREAS, Palestinians and Israelis both have a right to life, liberty, safety and security; and WHEREAS, there are a growing number of people on all sides of this tragic conflict who are calling for a ceasefire and new direction, engagement, and negotiations to lead to peace; and WHEREAS, the United States Government and Members of Congress hold immense diplomatic, military, and financial power that could save Palestinian and Israeli lives and seek a lasting peace, in our time and for all time; and
WHEREAS, the continued violence against the Palestinian and Israeli people and the rising anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and bigotry across the United States and the world deeply impact the people in our community in Grass Valley, California, many of whom have direct ties to the Israeli and Palestinian region and peoples; and
WHEREAS, Grass Valley, California, with a rich history of advocating for justice and peace, supports the dignity and safety of residents in every community regardless of what crimes any government may commit, and that peaceful diplomacy and mutual understanding is the only way to achieve these permanent goals; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is united in protecting Grass Valley, California residents against acts of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, as well as against hate crimes toward people of all faiths and religions, including our Arab, Jewish, and Muslim residents; and WHEREAS, the City of Grass Valley, California, recognizes the importance of the First Amendment and the fundamental tenets of respect, dignity, and thoughtful civil discourse that are hallmarks of this community, upholding the value of our residents expressing and listening to differing opinions and points of view, especially on subjects where there is disagreement; and WHEREAS, conflict among ourselves and among our community members can either exacerbate divisions or, if we are willing to engage with each other in difficult and important dialogues, can open doors to opportunities to find solutions that allow us to move forward as one community; and
Item # 8.
City of Grass Valley
Resolution No. 2025-03
2 194778.1
WHEREAS, the City of Grass Valley stands unequivocally against all forms of genocide and ethnic cleansing, recognizing these as crimes against humanity that must be prevented and condemned wherever they occur;
WHEREAS, the City of Grass Valley stands unequivocally against apartheid and the construction and expansion of illegal settlements and illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, recognizing these actions as violations of international law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GRASS VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, calls on the California Congressional Delegation to advocate for the following actions with regard to the conflict in Gaza and Israel:
1. Call urgently for an immediate, permanent, and unconditional ceasefire, an end to violence in the region, the safe and immediate return of all hostages and unjustly held prisoners, and the complete end to the occupation of all Palestinian territories; and
2. Immediately increase and ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance, including fuel, water, food, medical supplies, and medical personnel, which are indispensable for the survival of Gaza's civilian population.
3. For all parties to fully comply with national and international law obligations and ensure strict adherence to the Leahy Laws and international humanitarian laws by immediately suspending military aid and weapons transfers to any country or state credibly suspected of committing war crimes or human rights violations.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Grass Valley, California, condemns all forms of discrimination, including anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and anti-Palestinian and anti-Israeli bigotry.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, on behalf of Grass Valley, California, the City Council extends condolences to those in our community who lost loved ones, including children and elderly, in the terrorist attack on October 7, 2023, by Hamas.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, on behalf of Grass Valley, California, the City Council expresses profound sorrow over the loss of Palestinian lives, including children and elderly, by the indiscriminate retaliation by the State of Israel.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council, comprised of leaders of this community encourages all residents to embody the values of this City by seeking, inviting and practicing civil discourse, especially when we disagree, to strengthen our ties as a diverse, multicultural, and welcoming community.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Grass Valley at a regular meeting held the 25th day of February, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Item # 8.
City of Grass Valley
Resolution No. 2025-03
3 194778.1
ABSENT:
NOT VOTING:
____________________________________
Hilary Hodge, Mayor
City of Grass Valley
ATTEST:
________________________________
Taylor Whittingslow, City Clerk
City of Grass Valley
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Michael G. Colantuono, City Attorney
City of Grass Valley
Item # 8.
City of Grass Valley
City Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Engineering Services – Authorization to Award Contract CEQA: N/A – Consultant selection is a procedural action. CEQA review will be completed as part of the project work
Recommendation: That Council 1) authorize the City Engineer to execute a contract with GHD pending legal review, for Civil Engineering Design, Project Management and Environmental Services, in an amount not to exceed $1,449,871.25 for the Downtown Grass Valley Roundabout Project
Prepared by: Bjorn P. Jones, PE, City Engineer
Council Meeting Date: 02/25/2025 Date Prepared: 02/20/2025 Agenda: Consent
Background Information: On November 21, 2024, Staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for engineering services for the Downtown Grass Valley Roundabout Project. The project requires a full service consultant to assist the City in project and grant management; environmental services; traffic modeling; surveying; geotechnical services; hydrology and hydraulic services; preliminary and final engineering; public outreach; and preparation of project plans, specifications and estimate.
Two consultant firms submitted proposals and City Staff reviewed, evaluated the proposals and deemed both to be responsive and well qualified. Consultant team interviews were then conducted by a panel of reviewers and GHD was ultimately selected as the preferred consultant. Following contract negotiations, a total not to exceed cost of $1,449,871.25 was agreed upon with GHD.
Staff recommends that Council authorize the City Engineer to execute a contract with GHD, for engineering, project management and environmental services for the Downtown Grass Valley Roundabout Project. The City’s standard Professional Services Agreement template will be utilized for the contract, subject to minor revisions requested by GHD and as approved by legal counsel.
Council Goals/Objectives: A contract for Engineering Services executes portions of work tasks towards achieving/maintaining Strategic Plan Goal – High Performance Government and Quality Service
Fiscal Impact: Preliminary phases of the Downtown Grass Valley Roundabout Project were anticipated to be fully funded with Active Transportation Program (ATP) Grant funds. The total cost estimate and approved funding amount listed in the grant proposal for these phases was $1,325,000. Once a more accurate construction cost estimate is developed the
Item # 9.
City will look to move ATP grant funding forward into project development phases to fully fund the professional services contract.
Funds Available: Yes Account #: 300-406-63455
Reviewed by: City Manager Attachments: N/A
Item # 9.
City of Grass Valley
City Council
Agenda Action Sheet
Title: Potential Hazard Trees adjacent to Police Department and City Hall Parking Lot CEQA: Not a Project
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the removal of three redwood trees near the Police Department and three deciduous trees adjacent to City Hall and the City Hall parking lot to mitigate structural and safety risks, ensure compliance with the City’s vegetation ordinance, and support best fire safety practices.
Prepared by: Timothy Kiser, City Manager
Council Meeting Date: 02/25/2025 Date Prepared: 02/19/2025 Agenda: Administrative
Background Information: On December 6, 2023, the City hired a consultant, Leaf it To Me, Inc., to assess three redwood trees located near the police department, on the west side of the building by the stairs leading to the parking lot. Concerns were raised regarding the potential failure of these trees due to asymmetrical rooting and the risk of root damage to the adjacent retaining wall. To evaluate these concerns, the consultant conducted a Level 2 visual inspection and assessment of the trees.
The consultant’s findings indicate that the three redwoods pose a moderate risk for whole tree failure within the next five years. If failure were to occur, it is somewhat likely to cause severe damage. Additionally, the trees present a high risk for continued root damage to the surrounding hardscape, with deterioration expected to progress within the same timeframe and very likely to result in significant damage. Based on this assessment, the consultant has recommended the removal of the trees. A detailed written analysis is attached for the Council’s review.
To mitigate the impact of tree removal, staff recommends replanting three dogwoods as replacements. However, with the adoption of the city’s new vegetation ordinance, staff has identified three deciduous trees in close proximity to City Hall that extend over the building’s roof structure. Given the launch of the City’s vegetation inspection program, staff believes it is crucial to lead by example by removing these trees and redesigning the surrounding landscape to align with the ordinance and best fire safety practices.
At a future meeting, Staff intends to present a landscaping plan for City Council approval that will demonstrate fire-wise landscaping options. The goal is to showcase alternatives that eliminate trees in Zone 0 (the 0- to 5-foot area adjacent to a structure) while providing guidance for residents and contractors on creating safer, more resilient landscapes.
Item # 10.
Finally, it is important to note that once these trees are removed, the stumps must either be ground out or treated with an herbicide to prevent regrowth. Without proper treatment, the trees will regenerate from the stumps, leading to continued root damage.
Council Goals/Objectives: This item portions of work tasks towards achieving/maintaining Strategic Plan: Community Safety and City Infrastructure Investment.
Fiscal Impact: The Fiscal Impact to remove the trees would be less than $10,000 based upon estimates received to date.
Funds Available: Yes Account #: General Fund
Reviewed by: __ City Manager
Attachments: A – Pictures of trees proposed to be removed B - Leaf it To Me, Inc. Report on the Redwoods
Item # 10.
Attachment A – Photos Of Trees To Be Removed
Item # 10.
CA Lic. #799133
PO Box 1795, Cedar Ridge, CA 95924
[email protected]
(530) 477-9822
December 9, 2023
The City of Grass Valley
c/o Tim Kiser
125 E Main Street
Grass Valley, CA 95945
Dear City of Grass Valley,
Per your request, I have prepared a tree failure risk assessment and root damage risk assessment for the three redwood trees next to the police department building. This assessment is based on a 5-year time frame.
I have concluded that the three redwood trees are moderate risk for whole tree failure and a high risk for root damage to hardscape. It is possible within the 5-year timeframe for whole tree failure to occur, and if whole tree failure were to occur, it is somewhat likely to cause severe damage. These trees are high risk for root damage to hardscape. It is probable within the next 5-year timeframe that the damage will continue to occur and is very likely to cause severe damage. I recommend these trees be removed.
It is important to note that once these trees have been removed the stumps will either need to be ground out or treated and killed with an herbicide or the trees will grow back from the stumps and root damage will continue. If trees are replanted, they should be small stature trees more appropriate for the small size of the planting site. I also recommend that the damage that has been caused by the roots be inspected by a qualified professional to determine if and what repairs need to be made to the retaining walls, stairs, and parking lot.
Background
On December 6, 2023, I met with Tim Kiser, City Manager, to look at three redwood trees at the police department, on the west side of the building by the stairs to the parking lot. There was a concern that the trees could fail due to asymmetrical rooting and a concern about the root damage to the retaining wall the trees are planted above. I performed a basic, level 2 visual inspection and assessment of the trees.
A Basic, Level 2 Visual Tree Inspection and Risk Assessment following ANSI Standards consists of a qualitative visual inspection of the trees and surrounding site, and a synthesis of the information collected. This Tree Risk Assessment is based on a 5-year inspection interval. Please be aware that Tree Risk Assessment considers known targets and visible tree conditions and represents the conditions of the trees at the time of these
Item # 10.
inspections. In addition, the time frame for risk categorization should not be considered a “guarantee period” for the risk assessment.
The basic premise of tree risk assessment is to help tree risk managers make an educated decision on how to reduce their risk to tolerable levels. All trees provide benefits, and all trees pose some risk. Usually, the benefits provided by trees outweigh the risks they pose. The only way to eliminate all tree risk is to eliminate all trees.
Tree Risk Assessment Methodology
There are three components to a Tree Risk Assessment: likelihood of failure, likelihood of impact, and consequences of failure and impact. For each combination of tree part and target, I rated each of these components. Then I combined them according to International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Best Management Practice for Tree Risk Assessment using the tables in Figures 1 and 2 (page 6) to produce a risk rating for each tree part and target combination. Lastly, I assigned an overall failure risk rating and root risk rating for each tree equal to the risk rating of the tree part and target combination with the highest risk rating. I followed this process for my risk assessment of each of the 3 redwood trees.
Targets
I assessed multiple targets. For tree failure risk and for tree root impact risk, I assessed the targets as either the retaining wall, the steps, the curb, the drain, the building, the foundation, and parking lot. These are all fixed targets and are not practical to move.
People and cars are mobile targets traveling through these areas. They have a frequent occupancy rate in the tree failure target zone. In addition, root damaged hardscape features may increase tripping risk in these areas.
The target zone is defined as the area in which the tree is more likely to fall if it were to fail, or the roots are most likely to grow. For trees in which the direction of fall was not clear, I assessed the likelihood of impact by assessing all possible directions the tree could fall as weighted equally. For whole tree failure, I defined the target zone as 1.5 x tree height. For branch failure, I defined the target zone as 2X the dripline of the canopy.
These trees are growing in heavy clay soils. Average root length is twice the tree height. I assessed the likelihood of impact by assessing all targets within twice the height of the tree. For this assignment, I determined target zones by visual approximation only.
Tree Information
There are three redwood trees growing from the planter bed between the police department building and the parking lot. The first redwood tree is a 36-inch DBH (Diameter at breast height) tree on the far left of the stairs if standing in the parking lot facing the building. This tree is in good health. It was planted within a few feet of the retaining wall which is on two sides of it and the parking lot is on the other sides. The trunk is now within 5 feet of the eave of the building. Due to the planting location, the tree’s primary structural defect is an asymmetrical root system which is already causing root damage to the retaining wall. This tree is a moderate risk for whole tree failure and a high risk for root damage to hardscape. It is possible within the 5-year
Item # 10.
timeframe for whole tree failure to occur, and if whole tree failure were to occur, it is somewhat likely to cause severe damage. The tree is high risk for root damage to hardscape. It is probable within the next 5-year timeframe that the damage will continue to occur and is very likely to cause severe damage. I recommend this tree be removed.
The second redwood tree is 35-inch DBH on the left of the stairs if standing in the parking lot facing the building. This tree is in good health. It was planted within a few feet of the retaining wall, which is on two sides of it, and the parking lot and stairs are on the other sides. The trunk is now within 10 feet of the eave of the building. Due to the planting location, the tree’s primary structural defect is an asymmetrical root system which is already causing root damage to the retaining wall and stairs. This tree is a moderate risk for whole tree failure and a high risk for root damage to hardscape. It is possible within the 5-year timeframe for whole tree failure to occur, and if whole tree failure were to occur, it is somewhat likely to cause severe damage. The tree is high risk for root damage to hardscape. It is probable within the next 5-year timeframe that the damage will continue to occur and is very likely to cause severe damage. I recommend this tree be removed.
The third redwood tree is 40-inch DBH and is on the right side of the stairs if standing in the parking lot facing the building. This tree is in good health. It was planted within a few feet of the retaining wall which is on two sides of it and the parking lot is on the other sides. The trunk is now within 4 feet of the eave of the building.
Due to the planting location, the tree’s primary structural defect is an asymmetrical root system which is already causing root damage to the retaining wall, curb, and parking lot. This tree is a moderate risk for whole tree failure and a high risk for root damage to hardscape. It is possible within the 5-year timeframe for whole tree failure to occur, and if whole tree failure were to occur, it is somewhat likely to cause severe damage. The tree is high risk for root damage to hardscape. It is probable within the next 5-year timeframe that the damage will continue to occur and is very likely to cause severe damage. I recommend this tree be removed.
It is important to note that once these trees have been removed the stumps will either need to be ground out or treated and killed with an herbicide or the trees will grow back from the stumps and root damage will continue. If trees are replanted, they should be small stature trees more appropriate for the small size of the planting site. I also recommend that the damage that has been caused by the roots be inspected by a qualified professional to determine if and what repairs need to be made to the retaining walls, stairs, and parking lot.
Item # 10.
Photos
Item # 10.
Item # 10.
Figures
Figure 1: Risk assessment matrix (1 of 2). This matrix synthesizes the likelihood of failure and the likelihood of impacting the target.
Figure 2: Risk assessment matrix (2 of 2). This matrix synthesizes the likelihood of failure & impact and the consequences of impact.
Glossary of Terms
Level 1: Limited Visual Assessment - Involves a visual assessment of trees near specified targets, conducted from one side, looking for obvious defects. Level one assessment is the fastest, but least thorough means of assessment, and is best of large populations of trees when time and resources are limited. This type of assessment is often done on a specified schedule or immediately after storms to rapidly assess a large number of trees.
Level 2: Basic Assessment - Involves a detailed visual assessment of trees and the surrounding site, and a synthesis of the information collected. Level 2 is the most commonly performed assessment and is ground based. Inspection of all sides of the tree from some distance, as well as close up is part of a basic assessment.
Simple tools may also be used to gain some useful information, including measuring devices, binoculars, magnifying glass, mallet, probe, digging tools for minor excavation, compass and camera.
Level 3: Advanced Assessment – Involves a detailed assessment of tree parts, defects, targets or site conditions.
Level 3 assessments are usually performed in conjunction with or after a basic assessment if additional information is needed. Advanced assessments might include aerial inspection, assessment for internal decay, root assessment, measuring change of lean and load testing.
Target – People, property, or activities that could be injured, damaged, or disrupted by a tree failure.
Likelihood of Failure
Likelihood of impacting Target
Very Low Low Medium High
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely
Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Likelihood of Failure &
Impact
Consequences
Negligible Minor Significant Severe
Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme
Likely Low Moderate High High
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
Item # 10.
Static Target - A target that cannot be easily relocated. It is present 24 hours per day, seven days per week.
Building and landscape fixtures are considered static targets.
Movable target - A target that may be relocated as a mitigation strategy.
Mobile target - A target that is constantly moving or stopping intermittently. Such targets include people, animals, bicycles, and vehicles.
Target zone: The area in which a tree or tree part can reasonably be expected to fall if it were to fail.
Occupancy rate: The amount of time that a mobile target is present in the target zone.
There are four possible ratings:
1) Constant: Within the assessed time frame, the target is always or nearly always present in the target zone, 20-24 hours per day.
2) Frequent: Within the assessed time frame, the target is present in the target zone for a large portion of the day, month, week, or year, averaging 4-20 hours per day. 3) Occasional: Within the assessed time frame, the target is infrequently or intermittently present in the target zone, averaging 0.25-4 hours per day.
4) Rare: Within the assessed time frame, the target is present in the target zone for a very small portion of time, averaging 0.25 hours per day or less.
Likelihood of failure - The chance that a tree or tree part could fall within a specified time frame.
There are four possible ratings:
1) Imminent: Without regard to the assessed time frame, the tree or tree part is about to fail or has already started to fail.
2) Probable: Within the assessed time frame, the tree or tree part may fail in ordinary weather conditions. 3) Possible: Within the assessed time frame, the tree or tree part may fail in extreme weather. 4) Improbable: Within the assessed time frame, the tree or tree part may not fail, even in extreme weather.
Likelihood of impact - The chance that the subject tree would impact the target if it were to fail. This is primarily determined by the occupancy rate of the targets, the direction of the tree’s fall, and any potential protection factors.
There are four possible ratings:
1) High: If the tree or tree part were to fail, it may be expected to impact the target. 2) Medium: If the tree or tree part were to fail, the chance of impacting the target is approximately 50/50. 3) Low: If the tree or tree part were to fail, it would be unlikely to impact the target. 4) Very Low: If the tree or tree part were to fail, the chance of impacting the target is remote.
Item # 10.
Consequences of impact - The amount of damage or harm caused by a tree or tree part failing and impacting a target. It may be personal injury, property damage, or disruption of an activity.
There are four possible ratings:
1) Severe: Hospitalization or death of a person, or property damage over $20,000. 2) Significant: Personal injury that does not require professional medical care, or property damage costing less than $20,000 to repair.
3) Minor: Very minor personal injury, or property damage costing less than $1,000 to repair. 4) Negligible: Property damage that can be easily repaired. No personal injury.
Risk Rating: The combination of likelihood of failure, likelihood of impact, and consequences of impact.
There are four possible ratings:
1) Extreme: access to the target zone should be restricted immediately and mitigation should take place as soon as possible.
2) High: mitigation should take place as soon as practical. 3) Moderate: mitigation should take place as soon as pruning cycle allows. 4) Low: The risk may be mitigated as pruning cycle allows, or the tree may be retained and monitored.
Timeframe: The period of time over which the risk is assessed. For this assignment, I used a timeframe of 5 years.
Limitations
I relied upon historical information regarding the site and the subject trees that you provided to me. For the purposes of this report, I assumed all of the information you gave me to be true. If any of the information provided to me is found to be inaccurate, the conclusions in this report may be invalidated.
My observations are based on a strictly visual inspection of the property, and some hidden or buried symptoms and signs may not have been observed. I did not conduct excavation, coring, or aerial inspection to make observations. Additional work would be needed to conduct root crown inspections and extent-of-decay analysis on the trees if these additional inspections are desired.
Although the condition of the trees will change throughout the year, my analysis is only based on the observations I gathered at the time of inspection. I do not guarantee the safety, health, or condition of the trees. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies in the trees may not arise in the future.
Arborists are tree specialists who use their knowledge, education, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living trees.
Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to structural failure of a tree or damage caused by roots. Trees and roots are living organisms that grow and fail in ways not fully understood. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Item # 10.
Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
Conclusion
I have concluded that the three redwood trees are moderate risk for whole tree failure and a high risk for root damage to hardscape. It is possible within the 5-year timeframe for whole tree failure to occur, and if whole tree failure were to occur, it is somewhat likely to cause severe damage. These trees are high risk for root damage to hardscape. It is probable within the next 5-year timeframe that the damage will continue to occur and is very likely to cause severe damage. I recommend these trees be removed.
It is important to note that once these trees have been removed the stumps will either need to be ground out or treated and killed with an herbicide or the trees will grow back from the stumps and root damage will continue. If trees are replanted, they should be small stature trees more appropriate for the small size of the planting site. I also recommend that the damage that has been caused by the roots be inspected by a qualified professional to determine if and what repairs need to be made to the retaining walls, stairs, and parking lot.
If you have any further questions, please feel free to give my office a call.
Sincerely,
Aero Acton
Aero Acton
ISA Certified Arborist #WE-4022A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
ASCA Tree & Plant Appraisal Qualification
Contractors State License Board
CSLB #799133
Item # 10.