City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 1 of 23 August 12, 2024 7 City of Lafayette
City Council and Planning
Commission Minutes
Lafayette Library and Learning Center – Don Tatzin Community Hall August 12, 2024 3491 Mount Diablo Boulevard, Lafayette, California 7:00 p.m.
As a courtesy, and technology permitting, members of the public may participate virtually. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time. Unless required by the Brown Act, City Council/Board meetings will continue despite technical difficulties for participants using the teleconferencing (Zoom) option. To participate virtually in the City of Lafayette’s public meetings and provide public comment, please follow these steps:
1. Watch or Listen: Meetings are broadcast on the City of Lafayette’s YouTube Channel:
http://bit.ly/LoveLafayetteYouTube.
2. Submit Comments Before the Meeting: Members of the public can provide public comment by sending an e-mail to [email protected] for City Council meetings no later than noon the day of the meeting. Those e-mails will be distributed to City Council, the City Manager, and the City Attorney, and will be posted as part of the public record.
3. Live Remote Public Comments: Technology permitting, members of the public may submit live public comment via Zoom conferencing by using the link below. You must download the Zoom app or software. Zoom meetings can be accessed by telephone, computer, or smart device. When the Mayor invites public comment for the item on which you would like to comment, please use the "raise hand" feature (or press *9 if connecting via telephone only) to alert staff you have a public comment to provide. Each speaker is allowed three (3) minutes to speak.
4. At the time and date of the meeting, please click this URL to join the webinar:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89008805648?pwd=ODQxRGxzaGNHSWVITUVFalFuUHBIZz09 Passcode: 426199 Or join by phone: Dial 1 669 900 9128
Webinar ID: 890 0880 5648 Passcode: 426199
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 2 of 23 August 12, 2024 Vice Mayor Kwok called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: City Council: Vice Mayor Kwok; Councilmembers Anduri, Candell, and McCormick
Absent: Mayor Dawson
Present: Planning Commission: Chair LaBonge; Vice Chair Radonich; and Commissioner Sturm
Staff Present: Niroop Srivatsa, City Manager; Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director; Arly Cassidy, Senior Planner; Jenny Rosen, Public Art Staff Liaison; Mala Subramanian, City Attorney; Joanne Robbins, City Clerk
3. Disclosure and/or Take Action on Remote Participation due to Just Cause or Emergency Circumstances Pursuant to AB 2449 (Gov. Code section 54953(f).)
4. ADOPTION OF AGENDA
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to adopt the agenda. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick; Noes: None; Absent: Dawson).
5. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Led by Vice Mayor Kwok.
6. VICE MAYOR KWOK
Land Acknowledgement Statement
We acknowledge that Lafayette is part of the unceded, ancestral homeland of the Bay Miwok people. The Bay Miwok and neighboring Ohlone people have lived in and moved through this place for thousands of years. They stewarded and shaped this land for hundreds of generations. We express our appreciation and gratitude for this profound legacy, which enhances and contributes to our lives to this day. We will strive to honor this land and strengthen our ties with the Indigenous communities that continue to live and work in our East Bay region as our neighbors and community members. We acknowledge and honor them and their ancestors, elders, and next seven generations.
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS (For Items not on the agenda
SHANE REISMAN said he is on the PTR Commission, and he described his work with members on various projects, said he is running for EBRPD Board and will appear on the ballot as a PTR Commissioner. He believes there is no one better to represent the needs of Lafayette and Lamorinda and no one that has the type of experience he has expanding access to parks. He asked for those who are interested in endorsing him, he will follow-up.
STELLA WORTHERSPOON recognized the Public Works and Engineering Department for an incredible amount of work they did this summer. In particular, she wanted to call out the work they did at the school sites at Acalanes and Springhill. They have completed the safety around schools’ projects, and it is great.
Tomorrow is the first day of school and today, many kids were on the campuses for the mascot days to get their schedules and get ready.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 3 of 23 August 12, 2024 CAROL MUROTA, and speaking on behalf of the League of Women Voters of Diablo Valley. She read the body of a letter of endorsement from their President regarding the League’s support of the City’s halfcent sales tax measure on the November 5, 2024, supported the oversight committee, and sunset of the measure in 7 years.
Councilmembers thanked the League of Women Voters for their support.
MIKE HAYES spoke about his request to form a committee or commission dedicated to AI media marketing literacy for the benefit of all Lafayette citizens. He spoke about AI’s transformation, thinks the community should be prepared for these changes, and said the League of Women Voters is hosting a presentation on this topic at the Library on Thursday, August 22nd.
8. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
City Manager Niroop Srivatsa gave the following update on department activities:
• From the Police Department:
o National Night Out was held on August 6th and was hosted at the Library and in partnership with Con Fire. They are discussing ways to engage the public more in this important night and encourage young families and all community members to attend.
Their Emergency Services and Crime Prevention Commissioners were there to assist in the event.
o The Police Department will be hosting the ever-popular law Citizens Academy starting in October. For more information on how the department functions and receive a deep dive into policing, she asked interested residents to sign up. There is an application form on the website, and it is 6 weeks of good training and exposure to the workings of the Police Department.
• From Engineering:
o CCTA’s consultants have started the Smart Signals Project design. Throughout this coming week, people will see consultants opening utility boxes to identify the kind of equipment present so they can be upgraded in a consistent manner. o The flashing beacon crossing has been added to the raised crosswalk at Stanley, adjacent to Acalanes High School and they have installed the reduced speed school zones around all schools. Also, the reduced speed limit signs have been installed for 8 segments of Lafayette that were approved by the City Council. As an example, the speed limit on Deer Hill has gone down from 35 mph to 30 mph. She encouraged everyone to keep an eye out for these reduced limits.
• From Administration
o The City has received a number of calls and questions about the litigation associated with the DIPS, or pathway that connects the Happy Valley/Glen neighborhood with Happy Valley Road. The City Attorney’s Office is preparing a statement and it will be shared with neighbors, the general public, and the City Council.
o City Clerk Robbins informed her that the City’s sales tax measure on the November ballot has been assigned a letter—Measure H.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 4 of 23 August 12, 2024 Councilmember Candell asked when the statement will be done for the Happy Valley/Glen neighborhood.
City Attorney Mala Subramanian stated it should be completed this week.
Vice Mayor Kwok opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
9. PRESENTATIONS
A. Tracy Robinson, Administrative Services Director - Introduce Elena Browne, Administrative Intern
Recommendation: Receive and file.
Administrative Services Director Tracy Robinson introduced Elena Browne, the City’s new Administrative Intern. She has been working in Administration this summer. She was born and raised in Lafayette and is currently a junior at the University of Oregon studying Environmental Studies with a minor in Public Policy and Planning. She loves to hike and be outdoors, and staff is very excited for her to serve as an Intern.
She has worked with Planning on some projects, social media, helping staff catch up on some filing, and Ms. Browne will be here until the middle of September.
Vice Mayor Kwok and Councilmembers welcomed Ms. Browne, and Ms. Browne said the work is going well so far and she looks forward to spending the rest of her summer with the City.
10. JOINT SESSION – CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION A. Arly Cassidy, Senior Planner
MCR01-24 Tree Ordinance Update: City initiated amendment of the City of Lafayette’s Tree Protection Ordinance (Chapter 6-17 of the Lafayette Municipal Code) to address issues identified by the City Council and Planning Commission, City staff, tree permit applicants, stakeholders, and the public. Staff is seeking the Council’s and Planning Commissions feedback on the recommendations and alternatives and will use this information to begin drafting amendments to the Tree Protection Ordinance.
Recommendation: Receive a presentation summarizing key issues, recommendations, and alternatives for updating the Tree Protection Ordinance, receive public comment, and provide direction to staff.
Senior Planner Arly Cassidy introduced staff’s consultant, Heather Coleman of City ConTEXT who will be presenting tonight. Tonight’s presentation is on the Tree Protection Ordinance update. This is the second joint meeting with the City Council and Planning Commission and this time, they are focusing on alternatives.
They are presenting policy options to choose from which will then inform the draft ordinance, which they will bring back for review in the fall.
There are known issues for both staff and applicants for tree permits with the Tree Protection Ordinance, including a lack of clarity in regulations and a lack of objective standards, permits required for desirable actions such as removing dead trees, and they have heard there are burdensome replacement tree requirements. They also are aware of changing conditions in the environment, such as wildfires, climate change, and hearing a lot about insurance requirements changing, as well. Added to this, the Safety Element was updated last year which does have a policy calling for the update of this ordinance.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 5 of 23 August 12, 2024 Regarding the timeline, the project kick-off was held in April. Since then, staff has been focused on community engagement and research and analysis and now are returning in August for this alternative meeting. Once staff has feedback, they will start developing the draft ordinance and hope to return in the fall for hearings and hopefully adoption.
Since they last met, they have been busy with outreach, review, and learning. She called out a few items, including the survey which was available through most of the month of May. They had a robust response with 280 participants after sending an email to every email they had for every applicant. They also want to call out that they have reviewed not only the City’s own policies and plans, their own ordinance, and other cities’ tree protection ordinances, but they have also done a deep dive into 10 years of data on all past tree permits to understand what they actually permitted. Finally, of great value were the interviews conducted with stakeholders and three experts in the UC Extension program which had a lot of good information for them.
Before diving into the themes of tonight’s presentation, staff learned a lot as they did this research, and they want to share that to explain where their recommendations are coming from. First is canopy cover. Canopy cover in the City has changed pretty drastically over the last 20 years during the time of the tree protection ordinance’s existence. They used a software tool for estimating this canopy coverage and this is not an exact number. They used Google Earth photos through I-Tool Canopy which is a software tool recommended to them by one of the experts they spoke with.
Using those Google Earth images, the estimates show that back in 2001, they were 31%. In 10 years, they grew to 41% and by 2021, the imagery was showing 59% canopy coverage. So clearly, the City’s canopy coverage is growing even if these numbers have a bit of room for error. In that time, the total number of replacement trees that were planted in the last 10 years were half of what would be required if the tree protection ordinance had been implemented strictly. The recommendation is for objective standards, but there is currently discretion to change what is planted, based on the situation on the ground. The tree protection ordinance called for 8,000 replacement trees to be planted, but instead, only 4,000 were planted.
Still, the canopy cover grew with these numbers and the City is doing quite well with canopy coverage.
Regarding wildfire risk, they are learning a lot about defensible space regulations. They are evolving quickly.
There are legislation changes at the State level that are coming their way. They learned a lot about this defensible space and how their understanding of wildfire is changing based upon the paths of wildfire. These three paths are described as direct flame, radiant heat, and wind-blown embers. This matters because it also ties into where fires start and the relationship between structures and trees. Many people are worried about wildfire and trees being on their land or close to their homes and they want to shed some light on how fire moves and why it matters.
Ms. Cassidy then displayed and described images of fire pathways to help frame why staff’s recommendations are what they are.
She then returned to the concept of trees and why they matter or not. In the interview with three experts from UC Extension, the consistent message was that trees rarely catch on fire and cause the house to catch on fire. This is partly because they are wood filled with water. They are learning how trees can direct water to a limb on fire and help extinguish it. So, they are rarely the cause of the home fire. The house, on the other hand, is often wood but completely dried out and when a house catches on fire first, it will burn and then leave trees that are singed or damaged, but rarely totally destroyed. They learned that this fire science is evolving and suggest that everyone should keep up with it.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 6 of 23 August 12, 2024 She turned over the presentation to Heather Coleman who will talk about the main themes of their recommendation and emphasized they will not be going through every topic from the staff report in their presentation tonight. They have slides for each topic to present when discussing it later on, but they have a link to the staff report which includes recommendations and alternatives.
Heather Coleman, Planning Consultant, City ConTEXT, gave a PowerPoint presentation from the staff report, stating that they found that their recommendations can be grouped into four main themes: 1) Protected trees; 2) Replacement trees; 3) Fire; and 4) Procedures.
Protected Trees: Under this theme, staff recommends continuing to emphasize protection of native species and large mature trees while refining the list of protected species to reflect flammability concerns.
Under this theme, they include size and species criteria, trees shown on approved development plans, and street trees or trees in the right-of-way.
Replacement Tree: Under this theme, staff recommends refining the replacement planting requirements so there will be appropriate spacing and to foster healthy tree growth, more feasibly fit trees on site, and be fair and consistent. Under that theme, the topics include the number and size of replacement trees, objective standards for reducing requirements, replacement species, and location of replacement trees, and in-lieu fees.
Fire: Under this theme, the recommendation is to make it easier for property owners to remove trees for defensible space purposes and then align the tree regulations with the vegetation management strategies for the different defensible space zones and make it easier for owners to remove dead trees. The fire risk and vegetation management topic has to do with defensible space, and dead trees is its own topic.
Procedures: Under this theme, staff recommends establishing clear and objective standards, minimizing the number of discretionary decisions, and deterring illegal tree removal. There is a topic on tree removal for safety and what the procedures are for that and a topic on penalties for violations.
Ms. Coleman explained that in their more detailed slides, there are a set of staff recommendations under each topic and also a set of alternatives. These alternatives are sometimes additional options that are in addition to the recommendation and sometimes they are instead of. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In concluding the presentation, she said the questions they have for the City Council and Planning Commission tonight are for each of the topics presented in the discussion section of the staff report, which are:
1. Do you agree with the staff recommendation, do you instead support one of the alternatives listed or another alternative that is not mentioned.
2. Do you need further research or analysis on any of the topics in the staff report or any additional topics.
Vice Chair Kwok asked for questions of the Planning Commission, and there were none.
Councilmember McCormick commended staff and the consultant for the staff report and staff synthesized down to what they need to study. Broadly, he referred to the canopy coverage and he asked if there is a desired number. Generally, more trees seem good, but he questioned if staff is shooting for something.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 7 of 23 August 12, 2024 Ms. Cassidy said there is no specific canopy coverage goal they found in any of their guiding documents. The Open Space Element does not have a canopy coverage number. The Tree Protection Ordinance does not have a number. They would suggest not including that discussion in this scope, but when the Open Space Element is next updated, it might be something that could be added to that Element. It is useful to have a goal and it is something that can be discussed loosely in the context of this discussion, but it does not necessarily belong in the Tree Protection Ordinance.
Councilmember Anduri commented that this was an exceptional staff report. All of the work that went into gathering the information and the way it was presented was almost too easy to go through it and understand it. He referred also to the tree canopy and said it strikes him as incredible in all senses that the City’s tree canopy would go from 31% 50 years ago to 59% now. He asked how confident was staff in the 59% number.
Ms. Cassidy said she is not at all confident that it is 59% exactly. She is very confident that it has gone up significantly. It is a software that makes assumptions about what shapes are. It looks at blobs on the satellite image and it is assuming something is a tree. They had the intern verify 200 dots about whether they were trees or not and it learned which shapes are trees. If a blob is round, it is a tree and if it is square, it is a house, so the software is learning as they verify. She thinks it is likely it is above 50% and very likely that the previous numbers were in the 25% to 35% range.
Councilmember Anduri said if it is above 50% that is a very high number for a municipality. Ms. Cassidy agreed and said the County averages around 31% which is from a publication referenced in the staff report.
Councilmember Candell thanked staff for the fantastic report. The Council received a letter from Will Elder about including several invasive tree species and asked if it is possible to include that in this ordinance at some point.
Ms. Cassidy said staff’s recommendation would be to cross-reference lists with the ordinance so they can update these lists without updating the ordinance and can look at adding those to any lists included.
Vice Mayor Kwok agreed it is unbelievable that in a decade, the City went up to 59% from 31% and he asked if this could be seasonal variation. He asked if one map was taken in the wintertime versus the summertime, and he asked if the intern was looking at the same time of year or same month when comparing 2011 to 2021.
Ms. Cassidy said she was not, and they did not have those photos available, so it is quite possible there is some variation due to seasonality. They used what they had available. Google Earth typically has one image per year. The farther back one goes, the fewer images there are. The farthest back they found was 1939 which was included in the staff report as an image which was equally in the low 30’s so things have oscillated back and forth a bit.
Vice Mayor Kwok opened the public comment period.
DAVID CLARK, Vice Chair of the Creeks Committee, said the committee does have an interest in this project. There is not a reference in the staff report to the Downtown Creeks Plan, so he was not sure if staff and the consultant have looked at this or not. The Downtown Creeks Preservation, Restoration, and Development Plan was adopted by the City Council in October 2017.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 8 of 23 August 12, 2024 Part of what was included in that plan were statutory references in an appendix in the back including changes that would need to be made to existing ordinances, in this case, the Tree Protection Ordinance.
This also exists, and he has a copy he could provide. Subsequent to adoption of the plan in 2017, the committee has spent a lot of time not so much on the Tree Protection Ordinance, but on the entire storm management and creek setback section. They appointed a task force which was Will Elder, Jeff Gilman, himself, and Matt Luttropp. They went through all ordinances and drafted specific language with redlines and underlines to implement what policies were adopted in the Downtown Creeks Plan. They have a working document with strikeouts which he could provide, as well. He was not sure he understood the response about a cross-reference in Will Elder’s letter.
The point of Mr. Elder’s letter is to include those invasive species so they can be removed so he is not sure they can do that absent implementing the statutory language they previously suggested. They are not huge changes. It is addition of a separate sub-section that would define what the invasive species was in the definition section, include items Mr. Elder has listed, and then there would be a subsequent section which would give the City the authority to either remove those or not replace them when they die. There are a couple of additional changes but not many, and he invited the Council and PC to consider what they did in the past and consider incorporating it.
ERLING HORN said he did not hear reference to the Downtown Street Improvement Master Plan that the City adopted in 1988 which, although has limited fire focus, does specify tree spacing, species, etc., and the City has been following recommendations. They have changed Mt. Diablo Boulevard from “a strip of bacon” to something that is 59% covered by trees during the summer. He thinks the Council and Planning Commission should review the DSIMP and see how it can be incorporated into this new Tree Protection Ordinance.
Public comment was closed.
Ms. Cassidy noted that staff was not planning on going through each recommendation. The staff report details all of their research, their recommendations made, and other alternatives as possibilities. She presented the first slide which includes a summary which will help the Council and PC track what the recommendations and alternatives are for each item.
Chair LaBonge said Commissioner Huisingh has provided written comments as he was unable to be at the meeting which staff has. He assumes those will become public and he did not have any comments on this item.
Vice Chair Radonich said she personally likes protection of additional oak species.
Chair LaBonge said he went through and marked off on the four items if he liked them and then an alternative. Ms. Cassidy asked whether Commissioners disagreed with any of the recommendation or have anything to add.
Vice Mayor Kwok said in this case, under Item 1.4 there are two bullet points with recommendations. He said in this case, Vice Chair Radonich has reviewed 1.5 and the first bullet point which adds “other oaks such as cork oaks, blue oaks, and black oaks” to the list of protected species.
Councilmember Anduri said it appears that blue oaks and black oaks are covered. They are on the list of protected trees, but cork oaks he did not see on the list.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 9 of 23 August 12, 2024 Ms. Cassidy confirmed they are included in the main list, so she apologized.
Councilmember Anduri suggested adding cork oaks. He said he agrees with the first bullet point and the second bullet point if they add “native species and” before riparian trees. He said he does not think they should increase the size from 6 to 12 for native trees on undeveloped properties. If an oak tree has gotten to 6” mark, he thinks it should be protected. Therefore, he is okay with raising the minimum size for all other trees but would like to keep it at 6 for native species and riparian trees, realizing they are just talking about undeveloped properties now.
Councilmember McCormick said he was confused by a sentence referring to Orinda’s list. He asked if Orinda’s species and criteria are identical to Lafayette’s, except that Orinda excludes a list of disallowed tree species. He asked how that is different from Lafayette’s.
Ms. Cassidy said the current Tree Protection Ordinance does not exclude any species. If it is a protected species being removed, they would require the same species to go back in, but there are other triggers for protection where you can plant any species at all versus with Orinda, certain species cannot ever be planted.
Councilmember Candell said she would put it up to 12” for all trees to help people understand what the ordinance is and not just the native species. In the alternatives, she does not agree with bullet 2 on the developed properties and raising the size of protected trees from 18” to 24”. She likes the 12”.
Councilmember McCormick asked if the Council needs to opine on the alternatives because he asked if those are not being considered. Councilmember Anduri said he is proceeding not to say anything about alternatives unless he wants it.
Ms. Cassidy said staff wants to know if the Council disagrees with the recommendation or would like to add any of the alternatives or anything else that is not included and written down.
Councilmember Candell said therefore, she will stick with her first one where she agrees with both recommendations.
Commissioner Sturm commented that she would be supportive of the alternative for undeveloped properties in conjunction with raising the protected tree size to 12”. She does not have data on this, but she thinks when looking at the tree coverage and canopy layout from the earlier time, that might be closer to what the City’s landscape looks like undeveloped or it is a balance of grasslands and trees. Maybe with climate change they want more tree coverage and buildings or structures shaded from view.
There are goals behind the Tree Protection Ordinance and in their hilly terrain grass often times does not grow very much under trees. So, having more trees and less grasslands can lead to more erosion too. So, probably there is a happy median where they need more tree coverage because it will be best for the community, and also still maintaining some of the grasslands that go along with the oak trees. Rather than saying every tree is good, she suggested looking at where the native trees are and the riparian corridors are and protecting those and letting the rest be native grasses, if possible.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 10 of 23 August 12, 2024 Vice Mayor Kwok said one of the striking things in reading through the materials presented is that it is very good staff talked with so many people, included their notes, and there is a broad range of technical experts in other cities. There was one sentence that said these tree protection ordinances really reflect a community’s values. As they went through 1 through 11, he asked how to make a decision on each one of these. He felt like this was a meaningful statement—what is the goal here and what are they trying to accomplish and what are their values that tree protection is trying to do. In re-reading as to why they did this 23 years ago, there is a statement of what they are trying to do. He would say, if they went from canopy cover of 31% to 59% it is a success.
As they sit here looking at the next two decades, he asked if they take what they wrote 20 years ago and keep doing that or he questioned if it is something different. He thinks it needs to be something different.
There are many frictions in this that are not perfect that need to be addressed. He would find it useful to know what values they are trying to achieve here so in a comment like that it is important to help them figure out how to make these decisions and not just amend something to be a bit better.
Vice Mayor Kwok referred to the next slide; Protected trees and trees on development plans.
Councilmembers all said they are okay with these, as well as Planning Commissioners.
Vice Mayor Kwok referred to the third slide; Protected trees for street trees.
Ms. Cassidy said she wanted to clarify that one of the items is in light green color and struck out. In conversations with the City Attorney, staff was given to understand they were reaching too far, and the in-lieu fund can only be used for something that would clearly fall under the purpose of the tree protection ordinance’s goal, which is to protect trees – not to pay fees. So, this is not something the in-lieu fees could be used to cover. They could restructure it for something like: “A City’s application for the tree permit would have no fee.”
Vice Mayor Kwok stated they are looking at two recommendations on the left column and three alternatives, and he asked for comments.
Vice Chair Radonich said she is uncomfortable with the now second bullet: Waive or reduce application fee if removal is City mandated. She thinks the permitshould be waived completely if the City is mandating it. Councilmember McCormick agreed. Clearly, the City is asking them to do it and making them pay a permit fee.
Councilmember Anduri said he agrees with the first one except for the last phrase: “…but allow replacement trees to be planted on any public street or right-of-way instead of in the same location.” There should be more of an assumption that someone will try to put it in the same place if they can because downtown street trees referring to the DSIMP there is a reason why those trees are there. To change the symmetry of the planting could be a problem. So, if they cannot absolutely plant it there, plant it elsewhere but he thinks there should be a big effort to keep it in the same place.
On the third one, Councilmember Anduri said he is okay with the first part, but “waive mitigation planting in case of replacement trees would only replicate the problem.” Again, he thinks they would have to be very sure there is no ability to put a tree in that same spot if they could not do something with the pavement or the area around the tree before eliminating a tree in that spot.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 11 of 23 August 12, 2024 Councilmember Candell said she was supportive of that. She is okay for removal of the City to pull tree permits. She thinks staff knows exactly what their intentions are for these trees, and she trusts staff. If they have to do it, they will have to be cognizant of it.
Councilmember McCormick said he also agrees and said it would help with public trust. When he saw that, if a City department is asking for it, the City is going to approve it,so it does not affect the trust factor or not. It is there for documentation, but he did not understand the trust issue.
Councilmember Anduri said he thinks it is important when talking about removing trees, particularly from the downtown area that they have two sets of eyes and views on it. As much as he loves Public Works, it is also useful to have Planning take a look at it.
Chair LaBonge said later down is an option where the Planning Director has purview to be that arbiter. It seems odd to have the City, but if they want someone watching it, he likes that idea. He thinks it is a little overreach to require the City require itself to do it. But, if you want someone to pay attention, the second eyes would be the Planning Director to approve it.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he is somewhere in between. He is definitely leaning to the theme of how do they streamline this tree protection ordinance. There is a lot of process in this that they might benefit from reducing and this is an example as to whether they should require the City to fill out its own paperwork to do this. If this could be streamlined, he voiced support to do so, but checks and balances is also good.
They are a limited resource City, and they have to work more efficiently, and he would hope to make this easier on residents, on the Planning Department, and the City itself but with some checks and balances.
He asked if there were other comments for Item 3, and there were none.
Regarding Item 4; Replacement Trees—the number and size required and asked for comments.
Councilmember McCormick said the context of the sheer number of trees and trying to find places for trees and arbitrarily planting pine trees too close. He thinks there should be simplicity and he thinks the 1 to 1 ratio recommendation was a good one.
Councilmember Anduri agreed with 1 to 1, using only the 15-gallon trees, but he is a little concerned if someone comes in and is applying for removal of a 30-inch diameter oak tree and the City is going to say that is okay, but they can plant a 15-gallon oak tree. Under the current ordinance, the person would be planting 10 trees, so he recommends that they plant one tree and pay the in-lieu fee for the other 9 they do not have to plant. He would suggest something like that. So, he would use the current standard and require the person to only plant one. He would think they could plant the others on the property if they want, but they would pay the in-lieu fee if they do not want to plant them at $260 per tree.
Councilmember McCormick said this gives people a choice of what to do, except for the one mandatory planting.
Vice Mayor Kwok referred to 15-gallon. He asked if they would have to use a 15-gallon minimum or he asked if they could do something larger.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 12 of 23 August 12, 2024 Ms. Cassidy said she believes 15-gallon is a standard size as nurseries, the same as 24” or 36” which are the steps up. The reference they made to an article in the ISA is that they wrote an article that said smaller trees transplant better. They do not necessarily grow faster, but they transplant better primarily because their root ball is smaller and is trimmed less so they recover more quickly and can be healthier faster and long-term. There is nothing against a large tree and there are applications with development permits where a larger tree might be more desirable for privacy concerns, but if only looking at the health of the tree, staff would recommend a 15-gallon.
Vice Mayor Kwok said if a larger tree were planted, it would not be compliant in terms of the recommendation, and Ms. Cassidy confirmed, but if someone wanted to plant something bigger, it could be approved that way as well.
Councilmember McCormick said if someone took out a tree that provided a lot of shade and privacy, if the applicant planted the next size up and was in violation of the ordinance that would seem counterintuitive. He thinks the goal overall would be to make this more streamlined and easier to understand so he would support a minimum of a 15-gallon tree but not punish someone if they plant the next size up or something.
Councilmember Candell said if someone removes a 30” oak tree, she understands people would be sad but then they would have to pay an in-lieu fee or plant 10 trees and not pay an in-lieu fee for the 9 trees they are not planting. She likes the 1 to 1, but she thinks the City is very aggressive on that part of the statute so she would be open as being not as aggressive.
Councilmember Anduri said he would be open to having it for every 6” which is more in line with what they have been averaging. He is saying if they go all the way down to 1 for 1, he did not see a 15-gallon oak tree that will take 20 to 30 years to mature to be in-lieu of a 30” tree that is removed. He thinks there should be more the person needs to do.
Ms. Cassidy said since they are not taking any straw polls or voting, staff will take what they hear and do their best to put that in the draft and then both bodies will have a chance to review it again.
Vice Mayor Kwok said this prompts another comment that in reading the commentary, they had arborists, homeowners, and developers say every site is different and they need to use their expertise to design what is right for this location. The City has these rules people must follow and they may not make any sense. So, he thinks they are well-intentioned to be prescriptive here, but he generally thinks they already have gotten to 59% canopy here. The goal is to let people make their own decisions. They are hiring arborist experts and he suggested letting them make the decision.
In this form, he did not think the City needs to be highly prescriptive, so he is leaning more towards simplification of this code, allowing for a 1 for 1 and if they stick their fingers too much in this, they end up with complication again. He thinks with 59% canopy, they should trust the public for a decade to have their arborist judge depending on the site.
Councilmember Anduri said, however, Vice Mayor Kwok’s comments do not really go to the canopy. In every case, they will have a reduced canopy which is okay, so he was not understanding this. The City is vastly simplifying the existing ordinance and going from subjectivity to pure objectivity here and giving options to the homeowner. He thinks this is very simple and understandable.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 13 of 23 August 12, 2024 Vice Mayor Kwok said he is in favor of the first bullet point as is and then the second bullet point as use of a minimum 15-gallon tree. Councilmember Anduri agreed.
Vice Mayor Kwok referred to Item 5 and asked for comments.
Councilmember Anduri thanked staff and the consultant for coming up with a proposal which he agrees with for Item 5, as is.
Councilmember McCormick agreed and asked what percentage of time does the Planning Director get involved in these and do the mitigation.
Ms. Cassidy said typically when the code references the Planning Director, it is meant to be the representative of all decision-making made in the department. So, the code usually refers to the Planning Director when, in fact, it is various staff members making the decision with the possibility to involve the Planning Director for additional support or review, if needed.
Councilmember Candell referred to the final bullet under Item 5.4 states, “Require/allow applicants to pay in-lieu fees if a property only has room to plant in Zone 0.” She does not think the City should be requiring them to do anything or pay the in-lieu fee if the only room left is in Zone 0.
Councilmember McCormick agreed.
Councilmember Anduri said what the City is doing is allowing someone to cut down a tree so they can put in an enlargement of their home and then saying this cuts out all areas where a tree can be planted. He wondered why they would not have to plant anything in-lieu.
Councilmember Candell said they are not required only if they are down to a Zone 0.
Councilmember Anduri said they did this by expanding their home. He thinks they should pay an in-lieu fee because they made the decision to expand their home. Councilmember Candell said she still does not agree.
Councilmember McCormick said in that scenario it feels disingenuous but there could be other times where people just do not have room on their property and had to take down a tree. It is difficult to know why people come to the City given all the different reasonings.
Vice Chair Radonich asked what if someone is trying to create a Zone 0 by removing a tree.
Councilmember Candell asked if this is for safety reasons which is covered later.
Ms. Coleman clarified that this is more pertinent to this current topic.
Vice Chair Radonich said she would need to think about it more.
Ms. Cassidy said for clarity they do talk about the location of replacement trees in a later section under Fire which is where they get to Zone 0.
Vice Mayor Kwok referred to Item 6; Replacement Tree Species and asked for comments.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 14 of 23 August 12, 2024 Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners agreed with this section.
Vice Mayor Kwok referred to Item 7, and there was unanimous agreement.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he likes the alternative idea of the EBRPD being a partner to offer in-lieu plantings there and he asked if staff actually discussed this with them.
Ms. Cassidy said this is not something they had time to reach out to them on, but just an idea.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he likes that idea, and he would have made calls to ask about that, but to the extent they are in the business of tending to their trees and have planning around where they would put them and their species, this was a good alternative to planting a tree on one’s property.
Ms. Cassidy pointed out that this stayed in when they previously had their own Parks, Trails, and Recreation Department included as an option. But, in speaking to the PTR Director, he told them they do not need help planting trees as the squirrels handle it just fine for them. It is quite possible EBRPD would have the same response.
Vice Mayor Kwok referred to Item 8 and asked for comments.
Councilmember Anduri referred to the second bullet point, “For trees that have branches and multiple trunks that protrude into Zone 0, allow branches and multi-trunk trees to be pruned back to 5 feet from the structure.” He asked if this is horizontally or vertically.
Ms. Cassidy said when they wrote it they were originally thinking horizontally, which is generally how Zone 0 is thought of but in speaking to experts, they did reference vertical heights to tree branches, and it might be wise to include all directions.
Councilmember McCormick said they suffered the insurance company threatening to drop their insurance unless people cut down trees. Orinda still requires a permit if Cal Fire requires people to cut down a tree.
This is where he thinks they need to make it easier for owners. They all benefit with a more fire-safe and defensible space property. It is not just the person and the house but the neighbors and neighborhood.
He thinks if Con Fire sends a letter to cut down a tree for fire safety, he does not know why the City would make people pay for a tree permit. Insurance companies are similar. He would be happy to let people slide on this assuming they could show a letter or proof from Con Fire or the insurance company.
Chair LaBonge said he supports that sentiment. He is a little worried if they give insurance companies a blank check to just require people to cut all trees down because it is a guarantee there will be less fires with all trees cut down. He does not trust insurance companies and would be careful on this, but he likes the sentiment. Councilmember McCormick said possibly there could be some sort of verification.
Councilmember Anduri referred to the first bullet, 8.4, and asked if the homeowner would file an application because there is not a reference to an application or notice. It states, “Without a tree permit or application fee….”
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 15 of 23 August 12, 2024 Ms. Cassidy said staff would create a new process where there is some paperwork but not an official permit. So, people would need to submit a site plan with photos of the tree location adjacent to the property within the 5 feet to verify that the tree actually exists and has that measurement. A photo with a tape measure would suffice, along with the location and the tree to be removed. Then, with that verification, staff can issue them an approval letter and there is no permit, fee, or further review.
Councilmember Anduri referred to the third bullet point and asked if staff had discussions with Con Fire.
He is thinking about the concept of shaded fuel breaks. He asked if they need to figure out whether there needs to be a shaded fuel break, and not cut the tree but trim it up and take away the vegetation around it. Ms. Cassidy said this is something staff can include in their language. You can trust Fire to recommend for a shaded fuel break when that is possible versus a full fuel break, the difference being that a full fuel break is a complete removal of all vegetation. Often, this is used under wires with all trees removed. In a shaded fuel break, all the trees are trimmed up so fire cannot jump from the grass into the canopy.
Councilmember Anduri said since they have shaded fuel breaks and probably should have more around Lafayette, he wants to be sure they are consistent with that concept.
Ms. Cassidy said this item could be limited just to shaded. It could be recommended shaded if at all possible, and the Council and PC can limit it however they like.
Councilmember Anduri said generally, he is happy with all three of the bullets.
Chair LaBonge said if Con Fire says shaded, this is all they need to do---to go with Con Fire’s recommendation. So, he thinks a little additional language could be added.
Vice Mayor Kwok said on the first bullet he would like to revisit the second half of the sentence which requires the property owner to “show the tree location on a site plan” because this will use up staff time.
It is a process, yet he asked what value add is staff going to do if the City has a rule between zero and 5 feet you are permitted to remove a tree, he asked what further process is needed to verify that.
Ms. Cassidy agreed and said if the Council could choose to limit it to a photograph. One of the alternatives is not to require any verification at all and simply say, people are allowed to remove trees, no permit, if it is in Zone 0.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he would lean towards that way unless there is some value added of going through this extra process. Staff will look at it as 5 feet and he questioned what is the value added there. He thinks this adds work to staff whenever they have an objective criteria of 5 feet and it is measured, then that is what it is. He thinks the City penalizes honest people which is another theme that has been talked about.
This is an objective view. If it says it’s within the 5 feet, they will get a stamp of approval, so he does not see a great use of the City’s staff time on that.
Councilmember Candell said she agrees with that and said if they were going to keep it like this and requiring photos, she would want to be sure not to penalize them for not sending in a photo on time or something like that, because many people will not understand this and will hear from their insurance company, and they are going to remove the trees. Ms. Cassidy suggested a friendly retroactive amendment.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 16 of 23 August 12, 2024 Councilmember Anduri pointed out that based upon what the tree experts say, it is clear to him that you could have a 30” oak within 5 feet of a home pruned up to 40 feet and that will not be a fire danger and not what sets the house on fire. He does not see a problem with keeping those trees. The tree will not catch on fire before the house catches on fire.
Vice Mayor Kwok said this was a very good comment that was written, and the photos obviously showed that, but he has seen many houses where the leaves are all in the gutters that come down. It is not the tree trunk, but a problem where trees leave a lot of stuff and people do not maintain their gutters or roofs, and that catches on fire. He thinks, again, the Fire Department is already providing this guidance to clear out 0 to 5 feet, so he thinks the City should make it easier on residents to understand the simple message. If it is something 0 feet to 5 feet remove it, and not make it any more complicated for people.
Vice Mayor Kwok referred to Item 9; Dead or Dying Trees and asked for comments.
Councilmember Anduri said in the first bullet and first sub-bullet, it states, “as either fully dead.” He asked if there was something left out.
Ms. Cassidy apologized and said this is a mistake. They used to have “dying” included in the first recommendation and they took that out. Now the recommendation is just for fully dead trees.
Vice Chair Radonich asked, on average, how much is a tree permit versus how much is an arborist report.
Ms. Cassidy said a tree permit is $350. She was not sure what an average arborist report runs and would guess it is less than $1,000 to $2,000.
Vice Chair Radonich said if it was up to her, she would just get a tree permit and remove the dead tree rather than paying for an arborist report to get a free tree permit.
Councilmember McCormick said he would like to entertain Alternative 1 on that because they have lived this in the last 3 years. Their business has a parking lot with two giant oak trees. In 2001, one of the two oak trees fell over and crushed a car in their parking lot. Luckily, it was a Sunday, and the person was not in the car. The second oak tree six months ago started showing signs of distress and it was clearly dead.
Their landlord, because they are responsible for that, took out the tree because it clearly would have fallen but it was not dead. So, he is having to put in 4, 24” trees and with the arborist and tree permit, it about a $5,000 cost to him for doing the right thing. So, he would be very much in favor of that if it is certified as being very poor or on its way to demise versus making sure the tree is dead because the tree that fell on the car was unexpected, he would be sympathetic and would like Alternative 1 changing.
Commissioner Sturm said even if a tree is healthy, sometimes the soil erodes and it is just going to fall, and you can tell what is happening at the base of the tree before that happens. Sometimes there is also nothing one can do to save those as well. So, she would also be in favor of changing the wording to add a tree that is failing or nearly going to fall down, it would be deemed a safety issue.
Vice Mayor Kwok asked if she was referring to the third bullet in the Alternatives column to “allow Planning staff” instead of “arborist” to verify that the tree is dead, dying, or in danger of falling or a safety risk.”
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 17 of 23 August 12, 2024 Ms. Cassidy interjected that staff does have an exception to the tree permit requirement for trees that are hazardous. It is something people often erroneously try to claim, which staff rejects. But, when a tree is clearly leaning and when they have an arborist report that says this tree is on its way down and is an imminent threat to property or life, they do not require a tree permit at all. This is in the current code with no proposed changes.
Vice Mayor Kwok asked if that requires an arborist’s viewpoint, and Ms. Cassidy said yes, it does. He said again, for $1,000 he thinks that is an extra barrier. It is already costly for the services to be performed.
Ms. Cassidy said this is something they struggled with. They are aware that arborist’s reports are costly and take time when someone is worried about things. On the other hand, this is an area many people try to shoehorn trees that might fall in a year into the hazard section. Staff tries to allow people to use this exemption only when the tree is truly leaning and is in the act of falling. They have had a few examples that are very clear. It is leaning and it could come down in the next few days. This is where they use this exemption.
Vice Mayor Kwok asked if that would be for a protected tree. If it was a pine or eucalyptus leaning, he asked if they do not need a permit and someone could just cut it down, and Ms. Cassidy confirmed.
Councilmember Anduri said he thinks it is important to keep that in mind throughout this entire discussion.
Vice Mayor Kwok said it is worth educating the public and today’s discussion is really about protected trees. Unprotected trees of any size do not require a permit, do not have to pay the fee to take them down, and that is something again, members of the public would benefit from knowing that.
Councilmember Candell asked if Planning staff would be able to do this task.
Ms. Cassidy said she has spoken to Penn Philips, the City’s landscape consultant, and he says he would be willing to put together a guide, but it would be rough as they are not trained tree professionals. The idea is to eliminate things like site visits that take a lot of time. She does not know what would be involved and has never done a trunk coring or does not know how these things are judged. So, it would take some time to learn, and it would be an additional step. The only way to make it quick and easy would have to allow for some mistakes.
Vice Chair Radonich asked if there is an additional liability issue where with tree professionals they have insurance related to this matter, and if the City is asking, it is putting liability on the City.
Ms. Cassidy replied staff has not considered that at this time.
Councilmember McCormick said also in reflecting back to the Vice Mayor’s comment about trying to lessen the burden on staff, it is tough because this is a good over-arching goal too.
Vice Mayor Kwok said he wrote under this item that no permit required to remove a dead tree, but not require the letter from the arborist, and then they are relying on the homeowner to make that assessment, which can err on the side of over-cutting. But, on the other hand, it streamlines things in the spirit of streamlining. But they are letting people police their own trees. A dead pine tree is pretty obvious when driving down Hwy 24 and while not protected, they can be cut down, but oak trees may be more difficult to determine.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 18 of 23 August 12, 2024 Ms. Cassidy said for deciduous trees, it must be a summer permit. If there are no leaves on the tree, they are okay in calling it dead. But this takes out half the year.
Councilmember McCormick said if the City expands to the very poor condition or dead condition, he thinks they can all agree on objective standards for that. For the very poor or poor condition, he thinks you almost have to have an arborist to confirm this because that is very subjective at that point.
Vice Mayor Kwok referred to Item 10; Tree Removal for Safety and asked for comments.
Councilmember Anduri said he is a “no” on this item. Councilmember McCormick said he is also a “no.” Councilmember Candell asked and confirmed that if they are a “no” on this, then it is kept as is.
Ms. Cassidy added that there are two phrases proposed to be added. Currently, it states, “When the City must remove a protected tree it must be for the health, safety, etc.” So, the proposal is to add “…or another public agency or utility” and the language at the end would be “…as determined by the Director.
In this case, it would fall to the actual Planning Director to review an application from any outside agency or utility and say, is this actually a safety issue or is there general welfare at stake.
Vice Mayor Kwok said if the amendment does not take place and both those clauses are struck, Ms.
Cassidy said they would return to the phrase as it is now which reads, “An exception to the requirements of this chapter may be granted, When the City must remove a protected tree to protect health, safety, and general welfare of the community.” So, staff added to that.
Councilmember Candell said this is two pieces. So, “other public agency” is likely a “no” for Councilmembers and regarding “as determined by the Director” she asked who reviews it if the tree must be removed.
Ms. Cassidy said when an application comes in from the City, any staff member would review it. They were proposing the secondary phrase to put a close eye on any utility or agency application that might come in.
Councilmember Candell said she could agree with the second part and not the first part.
Vice Mayor Kwok asked and confirmed that Councilmember Candell would like to strike the reference to the public agency but would keep “as determined by the Director.” Instead of having staff look at this issue it would be amended to include the Director.
Councilmember Candell said she is thinking they would not have to get an actual permit, so if the City is not required to get its own permit, they still have the Director look at it.
Chair LaBonge said “by the Director” or “other public agency” which he thought a Director needed to do that versus staff. If it is just the City, he would be supportive of just Planning staff reviewing it versus the Planning Director. But, if they were to have other agencies, personally he was okay with knowing the director was going to be opining on it to avoid any trail of trees getting removed.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 19 of 23 August 12, 2024 City Attorney Subramanian said to clarify that, this is why “Director” was added—to have a second set of eyes on the other agencies or utilities. She also wanted to clarify that even if no changes are made there are some entities that are exempt from the City’s ordinance which would not change.
Chair LaBonge asked if those exemptions apply only if the City does not add this language or they are exempted regardless. Ms. Subramanian said they are exempted regardless.
Vice Mayor Kwok said there has been mixed feedback which is okay. He then referred to Item 11; Fines, Penalties, and asked for comments.
Councilmember Candell said she can agree with these, as well as Councilmember McCormick.
Councilmember Anduri said he thinks it is too low at $2500. He proposed using Palo Alto or Walnut Creek and said these were in 11-3. Palo Alto is $10,000 per tree, and Councilmember Anduri said he likes that given the scale that goes to the importance of the tree.
Chair LaBonge said his perspective on that is that if it was nefariously removed, he is all for that. It was just in the news about someone spiking a tree for a view and these things really happen. They have views that will be impacted, but he also gets nervous if someone makes a mistake and it clearly was not intentional. He asked if there could be a catch-all at the end that gives people an out to go back to a lesser amount. While they do not like to do exceptions, he wondered if this could be proposed.
Vice Mayor Kwok said it states, “Create fines for illegal tree removal of $2500 for the first offense and $5,000 for the second.” This is the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Anduri asked if the Walnut Creek example is the no fault where it is cut for any reason, the person would be subject to the penalty.
City Attorney Subramanian said they do not know this, but the concern she has is the nefarious intent would be hard for staff to be able to prove or not prove.
Councilmember Anduri said in a case where a neighbor starts to cut down his tree and he stopped and 3 years later he goes out and cuts it down, the City can show intent in some cases.
City Attorney Subramanian said yes, in some cases where they have documentation like a notice of violation, it was the same owner, etc., but there could be scenarios where the house was sold, and it was a different owner who did not know.
Councilmember Anduri said his only concerns is they have seen so many cases of protected oak trees that have been cut down without getting a permit. The canopy has expanded, but still these heritage oak trees or even 20” oak trees are very important to the way the City feels when driving through it. While they simplify the process and make it clearer, he thinks they should make clear that if someone acts maliciously to avoid the process and cut a tree, there is a penalty for that.
Councilmember McCormick said he noticed that the staff recommendation accelerates versus the Walnut Creek looks like it is $10,000 for as many trees.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 20 of 23 August 12, 2024 Councilmember Anduri said he does not think that solves the problem. The person with one big oak tree on his property is one and done.
Chair LaBonge said maybe the accelerator should be like what Walnut Creek does on the size. He likes this because if it is a massive one, hopefully someone would think it through versus a little one they made a mistake on. It is the real large trees that neighbors argue over because it is a massive view. If they were doing a larger one tied to size, he would think it would be more fitting of the problem they are trying to solve.
Councilmember Anduri asked in the Palo Alto example, it is the reproduction cost of each tree. He asked how that is calculated.
Ms. Coleman said she is unsure of that, but they can look into it. In looking at Menlo Park’s, on the appraised value of the tree, and there will either be a cap or a minimum, or whichever is lower or higher.
This way, one could capture a greater fine for a larger tree, so there are ways to calculate the environmental value of a tree, but she was not sure about what Palo Alto means about the reproduction cost.
Councilmember Anduri said he did the math on the Walnut Creek on the hypothetical 30” tree, it would be a $10,000 fine.
Commissioner Sturm said in terms of matching the dollar value to the value of the tree, to her if you think about how old these trees are, this is where the value comes in because they cannot be replaced. So, to her it would make sense to tie the dollar value to the size which is also the age of the tree.
Councilmember Candell agreed that makes sense and then someone is not penalized as much for a small tree.
Commissioner Sturm commented that an older, larger tree has more embodied value.
There were no further comments on Item 11, which was the last item.
Ms. Cassidy said the Council and Commission have answered staff’s questions and she thanked them for their \ comments. They will parse their notes and the next step is to bring a draft ordinance in the fall.
11. CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor Kwok asked and confirmed there were no requests for removal of any items, nor public requests or public comments.
A. Minutes – July 22, 2024
Recommendation: Approve.
B. Utilize Public Works Maintenance Yard Sinking Funds to Repaint Shop and Office at 3001 Camino Diablo
Recommendation: 1) Transfer $38,174 from Fund 016 Public Works Yard Maintenance Sinking Fund to the General Fund and authorize use of funds for repairing and painting the corporation yard office, shop, and fence. The sinking fund portion of the project costs will be billed to 011 310 906 and $10,000 of the costs will be billed to 011 310 861.02.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 21 of 23 August 12, 2024 C. Legislative Committee
1. Bills of Local Importance
a. SB7 (Blakespear): Regional Housing Need: Determination Recommendation: Watch
b. SB610 (Wiemer): Fire Prevention: Wildfire Mitigation Area: Defensible Space: State Fire Marshall
Recommendation: Oppose unless amended
c. SB1509 (Stern): Negligent Operator Treatment in California Act Recommendation: Support
d. AB2561 (McKinnor): Local Public Employees: Vacant Positions Recommendation: Oppose.
e. AB2557 (Ortega): Local Agencies: Contracts for Special Services and Temporary Help Recommendation: Oppose.
2. Lafayette Adopted Bill Positions and Legislative Bill Matrix Recommendation: Receive and file.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to adopt Consent Calendar Items A, B, and C.1 and C.2. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick; Noes: None; Absent: Dawson).
12. OLD BUSINESS – None.
13. STAFF REPORTS
A. Jenny Rosen, Staff Liaison to the Public Art Committee Request for Approval of Public Art for Wood Haven at 3742 Mt. Diablo Boulevard – APN 241-010- 042
Recommendation: Approve the public art proposal by artist Mariana Botero for Wood Haven at 3742 Mt. Diablo Boulevard.
Staff Liaison to the Public Art Committee Jenny Rosen gave the staff report and overview of the recommendation to approve the public art proposal by artist Mariana Botero for Wood Haven at 3742 Mt. Diablo Boulevard, which is for a 6-condominium unit complex. She said the property owner, artist, and member Erling Horn are present to answer any questions.
Erling Horn, member, Public Art Committee, commented that the owner and artist collaborated together and came up with a very superior art project to the greater benefit of the City, the property owner, and to those who will live there. On behalf of the Committee, he asked for the Council’s support of approval.
Mariana Botero, artist, gave a brief presentation of the public art, noting she is the artist and interior designer of the project. The art piece is at the south end of the project where every owner of the building will be able to drive by it, and they received feedback regarding the colors. The sculpture is constantly changing, and people will see it differently each time they pass by it from a different angle with six different colors.
Councilmember McCormick asked and confirmed the landscaping shown is not included with the piece.
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 22 of 23 August 12, 2024 Councilmember Candell said the design is sort of a star or fan, and said she loves the colors and design.
She was initially concerned with the order of the colors which she sees are different.
Ms. Botero explained that the order of the slide is going through the color spectrum which she displayed and described. What might have been confusing is that the drawings are the 3-D models and not projecting the exact colors as they would look. She is confident the colors will be similar to the color spectrum. Every glass piece will be 12” to 18” away and will not be the same effect.
Councilmember Anduri said he attended the first meeting of the Public Art Committee, and he voiced appreciation with the interaction between the committee, the artist and the owner to end up with this better artwork. It was great to see it in action. He referred to the colors used and asked if they will be reflected on the individual units.
Ms. Botero explained there are six different colors, six condo units, and each condo unit number is going to have in the wayfinding of the main door one of those six colors. So, part of the beauty is that secretly it is the idea of six different units with the community living together and creating something new when they come together.
Vice Mayor Kwok complimented the work, and he opened the public comment period. There were no speakers.
ACTION: It was M/S/C (Anduri/Candell) to approve the public art proposal by artist, Marian Botero for Wood Haven at 3742 Mt. Diablo Boulevard. Vote: 4-0-1 (Ayes: Kwok, Anduri, Candell, and McCormick; Noes: None;
Absent: Dawson).
14. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None.
15. ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT – None.
16. COUNCIL/COMMISSION REPORTS
A. Councilmembers report on activities and consideration of matters a Councilmember wishes to initiate for placement on a future agenda.
Councilmember McCormick said he is on the Recycle Smart Board, and they are working on new franchise agreements for recycling, compost, and garbage disposal. Last week, he toured a couple of composting facilities in the Manteca area they are considering bidding on. There is a lot of education done for residents and composting, and it was interesting to see how seriously the Board is taking it, and the amount of what is given back to the land in the central valley. He will report back as they get closer to the new franchise agreements.
Vice Mayor Kwok reported that he and Councilmember Anduri as liaisons to EBMUD would like to provide an update on the shortening of the Lafayette Reservoir Tower. On May 28th the Council heard an update from the 5-member citizen technical advisory committee expressing their concerns about EBMUD’s approach to retrofitting the tower. EBMUD representatives that re-stated their rationale for their approach. They are still in disagreement, and they agreed to escalate the matter to the State of California regulator, the Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD).
City Council and Planning Commission Meeting Page 23 of 23 August 12, 2024 Last Wednesday, August 7th, they met with DSOD in Sacramento in a two-hour plus session. Lafayette was represented by the City Manager, himself and Councilmember Anduri and all 5 members of the citizens technical advisory committee. EBMUD also had 3 representatives present and in listening mode only. They met with 5 members with DSOD and the citizens committee posed their concerns and questions and DSOD responded. Despite DSOD managing 1,234 dams statewide, the members were very familiar with Lafayette’s Reservoir Retrofit project because all had worked on it going back 15-30 years. They had specific knowledge. It was a good opportunity to receive clarifications from DSOD and for community members to be heard.
This was a very technical conversation but as the next step, he and Councilmember Anduri are asking staff to write a follow-up letter to the DSOD summarizing what they felt were the key take-aways from that meeting. They want DSOD to confirm the accuracy of their notes and conclusions which they will then share soon. They will place the topic on a September agenda so as to discuss it more fully.
City Manager Srivatsa asked for the Council’s approval to place this item on one of the two agendas in September. Vice Mayor Kwok confirmed there was a majority approval to place the item on a September agenda.
Councilmember Anduri voiced appreciation to all 5 of the technical advisory committee members to take the time to make the trip to Sacramento and were very impressive when presenting. He thinks DSOD understood the City has expertise, that there are alternatives, and a more comprehensive report will be given at the September meeting.
Vice Mayor Kwok opened the public comment period, and there were no speakers.
17. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS – None.
18. ADJOURNMENT – 9:08 p.m.
APPROVED:
__________________________________
Gina M. Dawson, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Joanne Robbins, City Clerk