[0:07] Mic testing. Mic testing. Mic testing. Mic testing.

[0:42] mic test. Mic test

[3:20] Just waiting on him.

[3:25] » Forget about it.

[3:40] All right. Thank you for everyone's patience. Uh I would like to call to

[3:44] order the meeting notice for today. Uh, please join me for the pledge of

[3:47] » allegiance

[3:55] to the flag of the United States of America and to the stands one

[4:03] indivisible.

[4:09] » Roll call, please. Council

[4:14] member Chang >> here.

[4:15] » Council member Chowo >> here.

[4:17] » Council member Shepherd Romy >> present.

[4:20] » Vice Mayor Low >> present.

[4:22] » And Mayor Cho >> present. The agenda is posted 72 hours

[4:25] prior to each meeting at the following locations. City Hall, the Crawl Public

[4:29] Library, and the Stoman Building. The agenda is also posted on the city's

[4:32] website. Uh at this time, the city welcomes

[4:36] public public input. The public may address the city council

[4:41] on items that are not on the agenda. Pursuant to state law, the city council

[4:45] may not discuss take action on any issues not on the agenda. To ensure that

[4:50] everyone, including those joining us remotely, are able to hear all speakers

[4:54] clearly. Please speak directly into the microphone. Please note that all

[4:58] comments are limited to three minutes and will be timed by city staff. I'd

[5:02] like now to ask city clerk to explain how public comment will work. We will

[5:07] take in-person comments for each item. Please fill out a speaker card and turn

[5:11] it into me if you wish to speak on an item. There is a countdown timer

[5:15] displayed on the projector screen to help speakers keep track of their

[5:18] remaining time to speak. We will also accept comments from our Zoom

[5:22] participants. To give a public comment via Zoom, please utilize the raise hand

[5:26] function. When using this method, name yourself so that your first and last

[5:29] name are reflected for the record. If the comment is regarding a specific

[5:33] agenda item, please indicate which item. Comments will be accepted only until the

[5:37] end of the public comment period for that item. Staff will acknowledge

[5:41] individuals who have requested to make a comment at the appropriate time. I will

[5:45] then state the amount of public comments we have received by email for a

[5:48] particular agenda item. Due to technical limitations associated with gathering,

[5:52] printing, and sorting email public comment, the city has instituted a 3pm

[5:56] cutoff the day of a Wednesday city council meeting for emailed public

[5:59] comments. This is to ensure there is sufficient time to gather and provide

[6:02] the emailed comments to the city council. Any comments received after the

[6:06] 3pm deadline will be included in the public comment record but not be

[6:10] provided to city council during the meeting.

[6:13] » All right. So, does anyone here wish to speak at this time? If so, please state

[6:16] your name and address for the record. I know we have somebody

[6:22] uh in the crowd. Yeah, please. Please come up.

[6:30] » Yes, please. Yeah. [laughter]

[6:34] but equally important. So, um, good evening everyone. Thank you

[6:39] for having me here. Um, I just want to talk about October 19th of last year, an

[6:44] outofc control vehicle on Sierra Madre breached our property line

[6:49] going over 100 miles hour. Um, it barreled through our front yard, ripped

[6:54] down two mature trees, smashed our park bench into the air, punching a hole

[6:59] through our concrete wall and into our neighbor's bedroom. Fortunately, their

[7:04] grandchild wasn't wasn't sleeping in the bed that night. Although this magnitude

[7:09] was dramatic, these kinds of accidents on that corridor aren't rare. It's an

[7:15] ongoing threat. My name is Somia. I live at 1311 San Marino Avenue, just up the

[7:21] street. Um, I'm here to address this public safety hazard on this block of

[7:27] Sierra Madre and San Marino. Almost all of you who drive that intersection

[7:33] know how that current configuration is just fundamentally unwieldy.

[7:38] And that yield sign on my front yard is completely ignored. I pulled out today

[7:44] and people were speeding past me. This is this is this is a matter of every

[7:50] day. I have submitted photographic packet to all of you. Uh you will see

[7:56] you will see the the front yard invasion that we have the secondary collision

[8:02] that happened just a little bit later. Another collision that happened earlier

[8:07] this year from my neighbor two doors down and just yesterday. Many of you

[8:11] know about that wreck as well. Um our frontiers have become a recurring crash

[8:16] site. The constant honking from confused drivers is unyielding. I have elderly

[8:21] parents that live with me. we don't feel safe. Um, my neighbors experienced the

[8:27] same thing. You all know the northbound left turn pocket also is a problem. Um,

[8:34] I we've been working with Ambush's office and she's been telling us that

[8:38] there's a study in place. This has been going on since last year. We recognize

[8:44] Sarah Madre is a major regional feeder and I don't think San Marino should bear

[8:51] the financial burden of this. So, I've asked for two things if the council can

[8:55] accommodate. One is to commit to placing this traffic engineering report on our

[9:01] agenda soon for us to be able to hopefully discuss it um as a public and

[9:07] then and then if we can direct our staff to use funding that is available whether

[9:12] it's measure R or measure M I'm assuming we get some of those and I know they're

[9:15] allocated to us so we can actually find a solution permanently. We've shared

[9:20] many of these ideas with Amber and we think there are better solutions

[9:25] available than the ones that we have today.

[9:29] » Thank you. >> Thank you.

[9:32] » Um I think we'll we'll be I don't the traffic study is already published. I

[9:38] just want to clarify that if that's been published or not.

[9:40] » Mayor, no. The traffic study. Excuse me. [clears throat] I don't know if we're

[9:44] Would you like me to respond at the end of public comment? I don't know if

[9:46] there's any other I'll hold off, dude. So, thank you for your comment. Are

[9:50] there any other couple of commenters?

[9:55] You're you're welcome to be se Yeah. Thank you.

[9:58] » No. Okay. So, I guess that does conclude the public comment period.

[10:01] » Nothing online. Oh, >> I think you have it for a specific

[10:04] agenda item, correct? >> So, we'll call those public

[10:07] » unfortunately. Yeah, we we're going to have to table that to because it's it's

[10:10] tied to the agenda item. We're going to open that up for public comment when

[10:13] that agenda item comes up. You'll be called in in in just a few

[10:18] minutes. >> Perfect. So, Mayor, I think you're with

[10:22] the close of the public comment period. Yes. Um we appreciate uh the residents

[10:27] concerns. Director Shaw, Chief Entro, we've all been working on what we can do

[10:32] to help um address the issues of driving um unsafe driving in that intersection.

[10:37] Um, if I'm not mistaken, a traffic study is almost complete, if not complete, um,

[10:41] and should be going to a public safety commission meeting here within the next

[10:44] few months. So, if it's not on the September agenda, it's either on the

[10:48] November or, um, the January agenda. These things, unfortunately, there's

[10:52] process involved that we have to comply with state laws and conduct um,

[10:55] engineering studies to comply with said state laws. Um, so we wish things could

[11:00] happen overnight. We don't I haven't seen the study so I don't know whether

[11:03] the study actually um warrants specific engineering improvements and different

[11:07] things like that but we have to look at those um and they'll be presented to the

[11:11] public safety commission where the resident and others can go and speak at

[11:14] that commission at that time. So keep an eye out and I know um being in

[11:18] communication with director Shaw you'll know exactly when that goes to public

[11:21] safety so that you can come out and support um your position there. Thank

[11:25] you. >> As we'll move with city manager report.

[11:28] » Thank you. All right. Uh, mayor and council members, guests, and, uh, little

[11:33] league champions, uh, congratulations. We got a we got a long night, and so I,

[11:37] this is the first meeting we've had in a couple months, so if you'll indulge me,

[11:40] I just have a few slides here. Uh, let's start off with some fun stuff. I can

[11:44] click my way through this, I think. I sure can. Summer in San Marina. We

[11:50] talked about this when summer kicked off. It was a fantastic summer in San

[11:54] Marina. I hope folks here had an opportunity to go visit our uh summer

[11:58] concerts. Our I'll give you a couple statistics here. 863

[12:03] patrons registered for our libraries annual summer reading club. Um I believe

[12:07] that might be a record, but it's it's an amazing number when you consider how

[12:12] many folks actually live in San Marino, how many little ones we have in San

[12:15] Marino. 863 patrons for our summer reading club. 284

[12:20] patrons completed the challenge of reading for 50 straight days. Awesome

[12:24] work by our library staff. Really invigorating young folks to read through

[12:28] it. Uh patrons combined for a total of 16,934

[12:33] days read, which exceeded the reading goal of 10,000 days read. So library

[12:38] staff putting in work and folks just flipping through those pages. What an

[12:41] great great uh summer reading club that was. 4th of July, over 11,000 attendees

[12:48] at really Fourth of July, what was a spectacular parade. Many of you, I

[12:54] think, were in the parade. Uh we had a fantastic day. Thank you to the

[12:57] community and the council for making it a safe and enjoyable event. Summer

[13:01] sunset concert series, over 2600 attendees. So, if you didn't see one of

[13:06] those great concerts, please, we encourage you to come out and see those

[13:09] next year. Fantastic event. And our recreation programs generally had um

[13:14] over a thousand registrations this summer. So great recreation programs. Um

[13:18] great work by our many different departments this summer. Um it has been

[13:22] one of the hottest summers we've had in years. Today being no exception. So hats

[13:28] off to every department and I'm going to run through a couple different things

[13:31] here tonight. Um for those of you that don't know, um you will be receiving

[13:35] your ballot information from the county here uh shortly if you haven't already.

[13:40] Uh measure U is the uh continuation of the long-standing San Marino utility

[13:44] users tax that is up for renewal this November. On the ballot it will be

[13:49] measure U. So in addition to the council seats that we have on the ballot um we

[13:53] encourage all our residents to learn about measure U and the important role

[13:57] this plays in our ability to deliver services. The current measure uh

[14:01] generates nearly 6% of our entire budget. So, it's a very vital revenue

[14:05] stream and I encourage folks to attend and participate in this town hall we're

[14:09] hosting at the community center Tuesday, September 29th at 6 PM. It's going to be

[14:13] um uh a great opportunity for folks to ask questions and engage with us as

[14:18] staff and learn about it. It's one of those things that might be um back of

[14:22] mind for us, but it's an important very important revenue stream that sunsets

[14:25] next year and we're looking um to make sure that voters are educated on this

[14:29] particular topic. More more about this can be found on the city's website if

[14:34] you visit um samarinoca.govmeasurewu

[14:39] and you will see some banners around town driving uh folks to that website as

[14:43] well. Next item here I mentioned how hard at

[14:46] work our our staff have been uh particularly trying to protect uh little

[14:51] ones such as yourselves. You you guys are older, not that little. You're my

[14:55] height, but uh we're looking for things. Look around town. You're going to see a

[15:00] lot of awesome public safety improvements around town. These are

[15:05] studies that Director Shaw and our traffic engineering firm have been

[15:08] working on uh gosh probably the better part of the last year. These don't these

[15:12] don't happen overnight, but you're going to see several places where speed limits

[15:16] have been reduced everywhere we could to help make sure that uh our most

[15:20] vulnerable pedestrians, young children, anyone out on the streets are as

[15:24] protected as possible. Uh hats off to our public work staff. you'll see in the

[15:28] photo wearing hats uh that we're out there installing radar feedback signs

[15:31] different places all along Huntington you'll see new signs and I I'm thrilled

[15:36] to say that there are more in the works as far as public safety improvements. Um

[15:40] keep an eye out for the next public safety commission. Those folks will be

[15:43] doing some hard work here in September. Um and we're excited to bring back more

[15:47] improvements, some speed limit reductions and different things. um

[15:51] really carrying on the mission of this council to focus on public safety. As

[15:55] you can hear our folks working hard out there. [laughter]

[16:01] Next, uh one of the hardest things we do here is trying to balance um care of our

[16:06] own infrastructure just as you would around your own house. I wanted to

[16:10] highlight this. That door on the left um that's actually that door right there.

[16:14] Um and if you can see in the far left corner, it was basically deteriorated.

[16:19] We've had some awesome work put in by our public works staff and our

[16:21] contractors to make sure that we're protecting our assets here at city hall

[16:25] and are the great caretakers of the community's assets. So, I just wanted to

[16:28] highlight this important work going on around town. Yeah. So, check take a look

[16:32] at that door. It's not not the coolest thing, but I we think it's cool. Um,

[16:37] last but not least, we do have one of our amazing volunteer recreation

[16:42] commissioners received a promotion at work and could no longer participate on

[16:46] the advisory body and so he has created a vacancy on a recreation commission.

[16:50] Oh, didn't click. Thank you, Nicole. Um, please go out and apply for this

[16:55] position. Applications are open for the next month or so. We close applications

[16:58] on October 12th. You can learn more by visiting samosca.gov/advisorybodies.

[17:04] um just have to be a resident in town to uh take that position. Um please take a

[17:10] look, learn more, and we're hoping to get someone appointed by the end of the

[17:13] year. Lastly, I just wanted to congratulate I know we have several new

[17:16] staff in different places. Um I wanted to congratulate our new city clerk, Miss

[17:21] Kalistro. I wanted to congratulate a host of staff that have come back from

[17:24] maternity and paternity leave. I I said this earlier in the year, but I I think

[17:29] about 12% of our staff now have had new babies over the course of the last 10

[17:34] months. And so, uh, being a small staff, I think it's

[17:37] » our own team. >> We have our own [laughter] we are

[17:40] recruiting an entirely new generation of public servants. Um, so just

[17:45] » yeah, I I want to just take my hat off to all the folks that are, you know, our

[17:48] public servants that have been working this last week, but the last six weeks

[17:52] it's been incredibly hot. police officers, firefighters, public ser uh

[17:57] public works employees, everyone that's been out there making sure that, you

[18:00] know, after this rainstorm that we've had the last couple weeks that tree

[18:03] branches were cleared, the rain, the gutters were cleared. Um, a lot of these

[18:07] folks work out in the field all day long and they don't have the privilege of

[18:10] having an office like myself and others do. Um, and it's a tough day to be out

[18:14] and work and so Labor Day on Monday was one that I reflected on what these folks

[18:18] were doing. So, um, not having had a manager's report in a while, I just want

[18:21] to take my hat off to all of our public service professionals over the last six

[18:26] six or eight weeks of heat, um, the way that El Nino is looking for the rest of

[18:29] the year, it's going to be a hard year for us and the employees, and I just

[18:32] want to tip my hat to the council for your leadership and all the public

[18:35] service professionals you hear out there that did not have Monday off. Um my very

[18:40] last thing I know um Friday we have uh the 25th anniversary of the remembrance

[18:45] of the tragedies um that took place on September 11th. Um we will be having a

[18:51] visit from the San Marino Chinese Club who every year u even predating those

[18:55] tragedies has um done a wonderful appreciation. It's the what they call

[18:59] the 911 appreciation. So really for our public safety professionals. So, just

[19:03] wanted to extend a gratitude to um the Chinese club for hosting that for us

[19:07] this coming Friday. Um with that, mayor, council members, I'm available for any

[19:11] questions, but I appreciate you indulging me. And my very last item that

[19:15] I think we've disc I've mentioned up there, but because we have so many um

[19:19] items here going on the consent calendar after our ceremonial matter, I'd like to

[19:23] ask that if the council's willing, we move the consent calendar to be called

[19:26] before we get into the new business items, but we'll revisit that at after

[19:30] this report. So thank you again and thank you to our visitors.

[19:35] » No questions. All right. Now we move on to the

[19:39] ceremonial. So if I can congratulate or present the certificate to our 12U

[19:45] allstars. Congratulations for stay. [applause]

[19:56] I I was I was hoping to be able to attend the one. I think there was one in

[20:00] where was the state one? Sacramento or where where was it in?

[20:04] » Sorry, >> San Bernardino. I got I got the call to

[20:08] send at least a message. So, I hope you got the message uh before the game. But

[20:12] um congratulations. Amazing season. And thank you, especially you coaches. I

[20:16] know how much work and commitment it takes for the coaches and the parents to

[20:19] be out there uh dealing with the gear and transportation and snacks and all

[20:24] that. So, um it's a it's a real team effort and really want to congratulate

[20:29] the team and uh if we can have you come up uh we'll do a photo

[20:58] spread out.

[21:02] and the coaches too.

[21:09] [laughter]

[21:13] » Who wants to be?

[21:17] » We got a little more squeeze in a little bit more.

[21:21] » One of the coaches want to come on this side.

[21:29] » You guys know how to do this.

[21:44] Samino,

[21:53] two

[22:00] Congratulations.

[22:15] Nice job. Congratulations.

[22:21] » Congratulations. Congratulations. Nice job. That's a lot of work. I know

[22:26] it is.

[22:35] How fun

[22:41] » again.

[22:53] » Putting that list together was great. I drove around with that and my ridiculous

[22:59] map. We used to get a map to try to find it because I don't want to go, you know,

[23:03] like if I do it in the order.

[23:07] » Oh yeah. Well, that's what essentially this is. I just divide the city, you

[23:11] know, >> but they were all over the place.

[24:07] » [clears throat]

[24:11] » Okay.

[24:15] » So, let's

[24:19] just move on to the consent calendar. Um, does any council members wish to

[24:24] pull any items from consent? As a reminder, council members may vote no on

[24:28] specific consent calendar items without pulling the item for discussion. Are

[24:32] there? >> Yes. I would like to pull item number

[24:37] five, approval of amendment number two to the professional services agreement

[24:41] with the code group for building plan check, inspection services, and related

[24:46] budget adjustments. >> Any other items to be pulled?

[24:55] only number five. Vice Mayor, council member Cha. No.

[25:01] Okay. Um, do you want a motion? Do we have a motion for the other items?

[25:05] » And mayor, if I might just ask whatever motion um, you make reflect the changes

[25:09] that were distributed to the dis uh, for the two corrections. You just as

[25:13] corrected by staff would be perfect >> for consent items. Agenda item 12 and

[25:20] agenda item 19. >> Yes, ma'am. Okay,

[25:24] I have a motion for the other items. >> I move to approve

[25:31] » I move to approve consent items except for item number five and as amended for

[25:39] items 12 and 19. >> Second.

[25:44] » Second. >> Roll call, please.

[25:49] » Council member Ching, >> yes. Council member Chowo.

[25:52] » Yes. >> Council member Shepard Romy. Vice Mayor

[25:54] Low. >> Yes.

[25:55] » And Mayor Cho. >> Yes.

[25:58] » Okay. So, going back to consent item number five.

[26:03] » Just a quick question. We do have somebody who's speaking.

[26:16] » No, ma'am. I believe it is on item number one.

[26:18] » Okay. Got it. Thank you. Um my concern and I don't know

[26:28] the report and it has to do with um raising

[26:33] the expense cap or the or the costs because there's been an

[26:40] increased demand for plan check and inspection services and we're

[26:45] anticipating that for next year as well. So, it's both capturing the additional

[26:49] money spent in that area. And my concern is how much are we spending more and if

[26:55] we're increasing it, so to speak, for the projected uh continuing larger

[27:01] amount of work, are we um making sure that we are taking in the appropriate

[27:05] fees? Is this item because there was no revenue fee line or explanation of how

[27:12] much of this is being covered. Are we fully charging all of these things? Do

[27:16] we get completely reimbursed? I know from some of the large projects we do,

[27:20] but it's a a significant jump and we're planning it more next year. And this is

[27:26] a budget item that I think should be always a pass through. Um, so I wanted

[27:30] to make sure, but there was no information in the report as it stands

[27:33] and I should have told asked you before, so I apologize for that part, but I

[27:37] didn't want to approve it without knowing that this was uh these increases

[27:41] are covered by fees that we have are going to collect.

[27:44] » No problem. That's a great question. Um, so for the majority of these, these are

[27:48] fees that we collect. So once you obtain secure a building permit, you're

[27:53] basically paying for the service. So there's no expenditure from the city

[27:56] side other than uh, for example, the plan checking that can be connected to

[28:03] the fire station improvements. Those come under the city

[28:06] » of city property or city projects >> or or um, and those could be reimbured

[28:11] obviously through that particular process. But um uh city initiated

[28:16] projects. So if we were asking them to do a plan check for specific city

[28:21] project or they also have services for building inspectors. So if our building

[28:26] inspectors out for a week >> um you know we have them augment staff.

[28:31] So those are the type of of items that would be under our responsibility. for

[28:38] 90 some odd percent of this contract, it's basically the permit fees

[28:41] associated with projects. >> Okay. And and the I don't know if this

[28:46] included that or maybe I'm um compressing two things together that

[28:50] there's some expediting >> fees as well. So that is included in

[28:55] these numbers. How how we have big projects that are requiring I know it

[28:59] requires a lot of staff time, but I'm hoping that we're capturing some of that

[29:03] and passing it on to people who use more time.

[29:06] » It's included in the expedited fee. So the majority of the or the reason the

[29:10] main reason why we're asking for this increase in the budget is because of the

[29:14] capital improvement projects at the Huntington Library um and also the

[29:19] inspections that go along with it. So that's the main reason for this

[29:23] » and they will be and so just to circle back and those will be fully paid by the

[29:28] Huntington >> uh by the permit. Yes.

[29:30] » Through the permit. >> Yes. And council just for the record I

[29:34] just wanted to make sure for those that might be watching at home part of this

[29:36] action. Not only are we asking for the budget adjustment, we're also asking for

[29:40] um the exact same on the revenue side. So we're the the motion Yeah. The motion

[29:45] on page uh 323 of the packet reflects that we're um so we're making the

[29:49] adjustment on both sides of the bank. Yeah. Both side of the bank account on

[29:53] the ledger revenues and expenditures are going up. So we made sure that we caught

[29:58] that both sides. >> Okay. I just didn't see discussion of it

[30:00] and so I wanted to make sure that these were all caught and something ex except

[30:04] for city projects or exceptional circumstances where we cover if we need

[30:08] to hire a temporary person or whatever all these are passroughs and that we are

[30:13] moving both in the right direction. Correct.

[30:15] » Thank you. Those are my concerns. >> I don't have any problem um moving for

[30:19] approval if I don't know if any council members had any other Okay. So I'll read

[30:24] the make a motion. I move to approve the

[30:29] fiscal year 2526 BCA code expenditures and related budget adjustments. Approve

[30:34] amendment number two to professional services agreement with the code group

[30:39] inc. Doing business as BCA code. Approve the fiscal year 2627 budget adjustments

[30:45] and operate the and authorize the city manager, excuse me, to execute the

[30:49] amendments. >> Second.

[30:53] » Roll call. >> Council member Chang.

[30:56] » Yes. Council member Chowo, >> yes.

[30:58] » Council member Shepard Romy, >> I.

[31:00] » Vice Mayor Low, >> yes.

[31:02] » And Mayor Cho, >> yes.

[31:03] » Motion passes. >> All right. So, now we're moving on to

[31:08] new business. >> Thank you, Mayor, for the uh letting me

[31:12] pull that out and clarify that. >> Um, new business. Do we have somebody

[31:17] presenting? Yep.

[31:33] » [clears throat] >> Okay. Thank you and good evening, mayor

[31:36] and council members. Um the tonight's presentation is a followup to our summer

[31:42] 2026 tree removal uh report that was presented on June 26th and um and also

[31:50] includes a tree removal recommendations for our fall removal list. Um but I'm

[31:56] going to be focusing this presentation specifically on the follow-up that was

[32:00] requested for three of the trees that were presented in June.

[32:11] It's not doing anything.

[32:19] I don't think it's on.

[32:27] Thank you. Okay. So, um, just to give a brief

[32:31] overview for anyone watching at home, um, or in the room that may not be

[32:35] familiar with the city's urban forestry program, our the city's tree inventory

[32:40] includes approximately 9,500 trees that, um, we are responsible for maintaining,

[32:46] whether those are parkway, median, in our parks, on our um, uh, fiscal our

[32:52] municipal properties. Um so that is the ma the number of trees that we are

[32:56] responsible for throughout the city. Um as part of our urban forestry program we

[33:00] utilize Mariposa tree management um for providing the bulk of our tree

[33:04] maintenance services. This includes tree pruning, crown raising, palm tree

[33:09] prunings, um some tree removals, which is a very small portion of our budget

[33:13] and then also the replantings that come with that. Um and just an expanding our

[33:18] urban forest throughout the city. Uh this Mariposa's contract is an amount

[33:22] not to exceed of about half a million dollars. Um due to budget constraints

[33:26] this year we're budgeting closer to about $450,000

[33:30] um for their services. Obviously on an asus as needed basis they also provide

[33:35] emergency services um for callouts and things um of that nature.

[33:42] So bringing me to um the next thing I wanted to highlight here was just the

[33:46] city's street tree policy. Um as not noted in the previous slide um a small

[33:52] portion of our budget and the responsibility for our city's street

[33:56] trees um brings us into section 7.2 of our city's policy regarding the ress for

[34:02] tree removal. So staff or at this point our consulting arborist um utilize these

[34:09] reasons for bringing forward any trees that are evaluated um that have been

[34:14] determined to be either dead um they've reached over mature condition expected

[34:18] to decline um and result in death within a year um there's a number I won't read

[34:24] all of these are on the screen here for you um but there are a number of reasons

[34:27] bulleted here that are the basis for the recommendations that are included in the

[34:31] arborist report the pre- reports brought forward were determined to have been

[34:35] meeting at least one or more of these reasons to be brought forward.

[34:42] So, going back to June 26 um council meeting, the department presented 11

[34:49] city treeowned uh trees for removal at that point and at the council's request,

[34:54] three of them were um taken off the removal list and requested for

[34:58] additional evaluation. Um, pursuant to that, we did an

[35:03] assessment so we could determine the extent of each treere's decline, um, its

[35:07] structural condition, any potential treatment options, if any were

[35:11] available, and, um, whether treatment would reasonably extend the city's tree,

[35:17] um, life. So, pursuant to that, we did complete

[35:21] sonic tomography testing on all three of those trees. Um, the cost for that

[35:26] service is $1,800 per tree. Um and then one of the trees resulted in additional

[35:32] uh recommendation for doing a root crown excavation and inspection. Uh and the

[35:37] cost associated with that is just the hourly rate of our arborist consulting

[35:40] arborist at $200 per hour. Um and that was done on one of the trees.

[35:48] So the first tree on um in the report on the list oops

[35:53] where are we going?

[35:58] Okay. Sorry for the technical. I don't know

[36:02] why it's okay. So, the first tree I wanted to um discuss.

[36:08] I'm not pushing anything, so I'm not sure. Um the first tree is 1430

[36:14] Cambridge Road. Uh this is a coastlive oak with a 48.2 inch

[36:21] DBH. There it is. Um so you can see on the left hand side of the screen these

[36:27] are the sonic the results of the sonic tramography of the tree that was um

[36:31] performed by our consulting arborist. Um you'll see the sensors that were placed

[36:36] around and at they were placed at two different levels on the tree to complete

[36:40] this type of um study of the tree and then just the um the photo of the tree

[36:47] at large um or from a distance. So you can see the full tree condition in this

[36:52] photo. Um it was noted in the arbur report that this tree actually was in

[36:56] better condition than when it had been previously evaluated um back in January

[37:01] um than was expected. So as a result of the sonic tomography testing, we did do

[37:07] additional root crown excavation here um to see if there was any sort of

[37:11] pathogenic or other um defects within the root system. Um and at this point

[37:18] the recommendation was that we could continue monitoring this tree. It does

[37:21] have a ganoderma conchk um which ultimately will lead to the treere's

[37:25] demise. There's no cure or treatment for um ganodermma conchk but it is quite

[37:29] small at this point on this tree. And so the recommendation was that we could

[37:33] actually continue monitoring this one. On the next tree, I don't

[37:41] no um which is 2290 Sherwood Road

[37:47] is Coastal Live Oak, which is has a 38.5 inch DBH. Um you'll see on this one the

[37:56] sonic tomography. I'm not literally touching anything.

[38:02] Okay. Um

[38:07] uh can go back one slide please. Yeah. Okay. So there we go. So this is 2290

[38:10] Sherwood Road. Um so again you can see on the left hand side of uh the slide

[38:15] where the sonic tomography results um indicate is quite severely decayed um

[38:20] indicated by the very red um throughout the majority of the tree trunk at both

[38:26] levels that it was tested at. Again, you can see um basically the sensors that

[38:30] were placed around the trunk at the time uh this uh testing was completed and

[38:35] again the tree on the right. Um the recommendations for this tree is that it

[38:39] does need to be removed based on these results um as indicated in the arborist

[38:45] report.

[38:49] Going on to the next tree which is 11:01 11:01 Lraine Road. Um

[38:55] also coastlife oak 55.3 inch DBH. Um in this one again you see the sonic

[39:02] tomography testing on the left. Um there's more yellow and orange. You'll

[39:07] see some more red along the perimeter of the tree. Um which the perimeter of the

[39:11] tree is what provides the support and stability for the tree. And most in the

[39:16] top um sonic tomography result is more at the base of the tree where the worst

[39:21] uh decay is being shown there. Um again this tree also has some very visible

[39:26] signs of structural defects, holes and ganoderma conchk um contributing to and

[39:33] ultimately its death um for this tree. [clears throat]

[39:39] Going on to the next slide. So again, this is just a summary of the additional

[39:42] evaluation that was completed for 1430 Cambridge. We completed the sonic

[39:46] tomography and root current inspection uh with no recommendation for removal at

[39:51] this time just to continue monitoring it monthly. The and then the next trees

[39:55] 1101 and Lraine Road and 2290 Sherwood Road both had sonic tomography testing

[40:02] and both were recommended for removal based upon the results of those tests.

[40:09] And last slide I think. And so in summary, um the

[40:16] as a follow-up to the summer 2026 presentation for the trees that were

[40:19] previously recommended for removal, we did complete some additional testing and

[40:24] of the sonic tomography. Again, those same recommendations I just discussed

[40:28] for those three trees. In addition to that, included in your pocket were 19

[40:33] additional trees um that were identified as part of the fall tree removal list.

[40:38] Um and those are included in your report and I'm happy to answer. So that would

[40:43] so with the total recommendation there's 22 trees in the listing because 1430

[40:48] Cambridge is not recommended for removal at this time and just to be monitored 21

[40:53] of the trees are currently recommended for removal

[40:56] including the two that were previously presented in June.

[41:01] questions from council.

[41:06] » Yeah, go for it.

[41:11] » Yeah. >> And then public comment or public

[41:15] comment. >> Okay.

[41:18] » Why don't we do public? Um, yes. Did you want to come up? You had a you had a

[41:21] comment regarding this item, I I believe, right? Was it the tree?

[41:26] Was it your

[41:31] » you could just let us know your name and your address? Yeah.

[41:33] » Um my name is Lakshmi ready. [clears throat]

[41:37] Um I'm not related to any of these trees and I first of all I want I would like

[41:42] to thank you Mr. Mayor and all the council members for the time for your

[41:46] time. Um I have a tree uh I had a oak tree that died in my backyard. Um it was

[41:54] um December 25. I've been trying to um you know I try it's been this is a

[41:59] problem for the over 10 months and I came here to um ask asking for a permit

[42:05] to remove it and several times and some like in January this year two aberists

[42:13] actually came and they certified that the tree is dead and uh then I paid a

[42:19] deposit and then on February 20 February 18th of is here. I got a email from

[42:29] Victor and he said, you know, with the permit number, everything. I thought I

[42:34] have the permit and then I arranged uh a license. I informed my neighbors uh did

[42:40] everything and and had the tree removed on March uh 11th.

[42:48] And then um I that tree was gone. It was a huge uh oak tree and I was afraid

[42:56] because the branches were all dead and if I were at the back even if one small

[43:00] branch fell that would cause a bad injury. And then um I kept communicating

[43:06] with Victor he never responded. And then in May, 5th of May, that uh I received

[43:13] an email from Victor that I need to plant um eight 24in box trees and four

[43:22] 36 in uh box trees or uh so either 8 24 in or 4 36 in. And I I'm a I'm a

[43:31] biologist. I have a PhD in biology. I'm also certified um master gardener from

[43:37] UCLA. I'm against box trees. I explained to him by then I already planted uh

[43:44] because tree was removed in March and his message was reply to me was on in

[43:50] May. Uh so by by then I already planted my trees at the back including an oak

[43:56] tree. And I I explained this to him. I can explain why box trees are not bad if

[44:04] I have time maybe at the end. And then um Aubris here is the gentleman came. Uh

[44:11] he checked all my trees. I planted lot of fruit trees, anything I wanted. And I

[44:17] also planted a uh oak tree. Uh uh you know I chose the really the one with

[44:23] pretty leaves and and the from a natural um you know natural tree a native tree

[44:31] as nursery uh in Santa Monica um and I planted and then he came and uh um uh

[44:38] visited it visited all the trees I planted and then I also sent uh u

[44:45] receipts for for what I purchased on um this is July. In the meantime, I

[44:52] corresponding with him, sending messages, no reply, but anyways, and he

[44:58] asked for the receipts and in July 17th, I sent him the receipts and then uh he

[45:06] and then again no response. I kept sending messages every week. Um I I

[45:12] didn't want to forget. I just I was uh the more it's delayed, I'm getting

[45:16] curious uh why is this happening? So I persisted. I sent uh messages every

[45:21] week. And then in August 21st last month,

[45:25] » Mr. We did three minutes. If I could give you 30 more seconds, can you wrap?

[45:30] Okay. Yeah. Is that okay? Okay. >> So, uh 8:21 he told me that I didn't I

[45:36] didn't get permit. I I removed the tree without a permit. And then he said um

[45:41] that I I I should plant eight 24 inch um trees otherwise I'm not getting my money

[45:49] back. And in the meantime I even contacted the uh Mr. Figurova and he

[45:55] called me and he said he'll get back to me. I never heard from him. I called him

[45:59] again. He called me today. just today he probably heard that I'm coming here and

[46:04] then I and he told me that I need to plant according to the ordinance eight

[46:10] 24inch oak trees and or four 36in oak trees and then uh he said that's the

[46:17] ordinance but I was never sent that ordinance by Victor and also um he told

[46:23] me that uh I I not to come today come some other day or something and so I I

[46:30] I'm here um to you know if it if the if we have to um plant eight oak trees and

[46:38] there is I don't think anybody knows about it or we'll plant eight oak trees

[46:44] for one oak dead oak tree say all I did was removing one dead oak tree and I've

[46:50] never been here I've been in the city for 26 years I never had any problem but

[46:55] this is the problem >> okay thank thank you for your comment on

[46:58] that I don't know how you want Uh >> so I'll I'll make I'll make a brief

[47:04] force. Um so if you'd like to you could take your seat if you'd like the public

[47:07] comments close at this time but just as general for the council. Um I know uh

[47:12] and I apologize for the communication issues. Director Figueroa. Um our code

[47:16] enforcement manager Mr. Alammon I've been briefed on the issue. Um what this

[47:19] is is unfortunately the code um does not provide relief to staff to be able to

[47:25] make such deviations. in the code uh when residents um Miss Ready or others

[47:30] pull permits for tree removals, right? The the permit states on there once the

[47:36] individual signs and accepts the terms of the permit states that they are

[47:38] required for certain replacement per the code. Um and so the staff do not have

[47:43] the ability to wave that type of requirement at the director level. Um I

[47:49] I believe the recourse uh might be to go to planning commission or an appeal. Do

[47:53] you want to come up and just talk? You know, anyway, you know what? Actually,

[47:56] it's probably we're going to deviate too much on this, so I don't want to unless

[47:58] the council wants >> I think we could just wrap up with

[48:00] procedurally. Yeah. If there's any >> help the res

[48:05] issues have heard or discussed at a body, we're

[48:09] probably not the right person or the right group at this time.

[48:14] » So, so as uh our city manager was saying, the code is the code. the code

[48:19] stipulates what the requirement is for uh the replacement requirement.

[48:25] The community development director does have the ability to reduce that. Um Miss

[48:30] Ready has been informed of that, but that depends on the conditions of the

[48:34] property. Um uh Miss Ready has been provided a pathway in terms of uh

[48:40] seeking relief uh in conjunction with the review of the community development

[48:44] director and staff. Uh absent that um there was an appeal period that lapsed

[48:50] could have been appealed to the planning commission and subsequently could have

[48:53] been appealed to the city council but uh as always staff will work with the

[48:58] applicant and uh see if there could be a pathway for a resolution. And just to

[49:03] clarify, so so I understand or so uh the uh community does and and the resident

[49:09] when a tree is removed, the idea is we refer to a the ordinance which has

[49:14] built-in provisions. California oaks are I believe are replaced with oaks

[49:20] specifically. So you cannot we as a governing body when we did that because

[49:24] of the California statewide laws we specified oaks for oaks and then there's

[49:30] a size and you calculate from there what the replacement is like how many small

[49:35] oaks would eventually grow to be the size and have the same coverage if you

[49:39] will as the dead tree or in this case a dead oak tree removed. Is that how it's

[49:46] done? Uh the zoning ordinance is specific in terms of it has a range in

[49:52] terms of the size of the removal and what the replacement requirement is and

[49:57] it also requires that oak trees be replaced with oak trees.

[50:00] » Right? So there's two things going on there that are written and that was

[50:04] adopted >> nearly a decade ago and and so everybody

[50:09] when they remove the trees falls within those parameters and you depending on

[50:14] the uh as a community development director you or whoever is a community

[50:18] development director and pastimes has some discretion given the topography and

[50:23] the the land the yard whether if it's too much for that they can actually

[50:28] donate them to Lacy Park or they just whatever. There's different options

[50:32] going on. >> We actually don't have a provision for

[50:35] uh donating. However, um based on conditions of the property, which I'm

[50:40] not familiar with, um there could be some relief. Um the only thing we cannot

[50:45] relief is or provide relief is on the species

[50:50] » oaks for oaks >> and otherwise they go down and we do

[50:53] have a specified list for the remainder of the trees, right? I mean, so we are

[50:57] trying to do natives or specific ones that are historically in our city.

[51:01] Correct. You can't pick something exotic or another palm.

[51:04] » Typically, a fruit tree will not suffice.

[51:06] » Okay. And so part of that maybe we need um communication in terms of a handout

[51:11] that goes out when people pull a tree removal permit that maybe explains the

[51:16] process and the timing. I just think generally because it's always something

[51:20] it's a lot of steps to go through. a lot going on to get a tree removed and to

[51:24] make the um >> the choices before it goes too far maybe

[51:29] um also really crystal clear as as concise I know because our not a lot of

[51:34] people look at our ordinances and know them as well as you do or we do

[51:38] » but thank you that's that's the only thing I wanted to clarify people hear

[51:41] this they understand >> okay thank you director

[51:45] um coming back to the public tree removal list uh council question uh

[51:50] comments questions comments Yes. So, I just wanted to highlight um

[51:54] and ask. So, when we were shown the tomography um reports, I guess I have to

[52:02] back up. I thought we were pulling those trees off of any consideration and they

[52:08] were to be monitored and care. I did not know that we were at the time of our

[52:13] June 26 hearing on this and we had our vote. I

[52:19] thought it was that we were going to do uh I don't know what you call caretaking

[52:25] on those trees to see what was appropriate. The testing would be do

[52:28] they need the you know oak fungus stuff in the soil or do they need what

[52:34] vitamins they need. I did not know we were going to get a second round of

[52:37] testing. So maybe there was misunderstanding on my part about the

[52:40] process. Um but I thought we had agreed that the those three first three trees

[52:46] which are out of order when we look at the pictures. So, it's kind of

[52:49] misleading when the second one is really the third one and the third one that's

[52:53] in terrible shape is the second one in our tree list, right? But be that as it

[52:58] may, there's a big distinction between tree two and tree. both in terms of how

[53:05] much green or the tomography showed that it was a healthy trunk and

[53:11] what could be done which I thought was the focus of the next 6 months to a year

[53:17] whatever until we get another tree removal. I did not understand that it

[53:20] was and I don't know if council members did that this was like 60 days later

[53:24] we'd be talking about the same three trees that we just voted on reserving

[53:28] and monitoring and seeing how they do. But so I don't know, maybe we need to be

[53:33] more clear at the end of this meeting tonight as to what a time frame is when

[53:38] we say monitor >> and we'd like to have trees get care,

[53:43] particularly some of these oaks that aren't dead yet. And this is a decision

[53:47] of council to be made, but I thought we did that at the last and now we have

[53:51] more. >> Before we go into the details, what what

[53:54] what is what are we making a decision on today

[53:59] » specifically? Yes, mayor. So, um I'm going to turn it over to the city

[54:03] attorney in just a second, but the again as this item is coming back before you

[54:07] again as a note and file. Um again, as the council's tree policy and I I

[54:13] understand it, but just as a reminder to answer your question, mayor, we're not

[54:17] asking for direction unless the council would like to provide direction that is

[54:21] in line with what this council's policy says right now that we bring you the

[54:26] certified arborist reports and the council reviews it. it would have been

[54:29] on consent um to be approved. However, the council's direction back in June was

[54:36] explicitly to conduct additional testing and return to the city council um as

[54:40] soon as possible. So, that's why these three trees are back before you. We

[54:43] conducted the additional testing or back before you with um you know 66% the same

[54:49] recommendation. But if the council has no alternative direction, it's a note

[54:53] and file and we'll proceed as the tree policy says it does. If the council

[54:57] wants to provide different direction that is uh deviating from the adopted

[55:02] tree policy, we're here to take that and we can provide context by way of um you

[55:07] know why the tree policy was put into effect by way of conversations with the

[55:10] city's insurer liability and those types of things. Um but again, unless you'd

[55:15] like other direction, this is a note and file item again um as it [clears throat]

[55:19] historically has been. So that's >> right. But I would like to point out

[55:22] that there are specific reasons that justify removals. Poor condition

[55:28] or some of these other phrases here. Leaning.

[55:34] Okay. If we were to remove trees that lean in this city, we'd remove half of

[55:39] our trees. I mean, literally driving around. I mean, so this is irrelevant.

[55:43] We have very specific that we expect residents and we ourselves to the same

[55:49] standard. A tree is dead. Dead. Dead. Not gonna die. Not leaning. Not doing

[55:56] well. Poor condition. Decay. I'm decaying. We could go back to this.

[56:02] All of our trees in the city are decaying. We've been through this. We

[56:06] had meetings with the insurers. I was part of the original drafter of our tree

[56:10] preservation ordinance. It's been here for almost a decade. We met with them in

[56:16] the upstairs of the library and hashed through specific reasons having the

[56:21] arbururst report listing those publishing away. We're now a model for

[56:28] many other cities who want to preserve their trees because that's what makes

[56:32] our city. So our policy is to keep trees unless they're dead. And we ask our

[56:37] residents to do the same. I don't understand why half of this list and um

[56:44] my uh council member and I are the tree liaison have 22 trees that 11 or so are

[56:52] not even dead. So why are we asking our residents to fall within those specific

[56:58] conditions if we don't do it ourselves? These trees withtood the windstorm last

[57:03] year. These are all standing trees. We're not like, oh, you know, we don't

[57:08] care. These are trees that are maybe 100 or 200 years old. Yeah, they look like

[57:12] crap at times, but also they haven't gotten it, but whatever. I'm not going

[57:16] to argue about the details, but visual poor condition is not a reason in our

[57:21] city ever to remove a tree. So, I don't I don't understand why we even have some

[57:29] of these. And we went through I know that Hunter probably did it on his I'm

[57:33] sorry, Council Member Chang, I shouldn't use first name, probably did it on his

[57:37] bike and I did it in my car, but we went and looked at and took pictures of and

[57:41] read the reports down each of these trees. This is ours to figure out why

[57:46] some of these and they just like the one that is asked to be removed, it looks

[57:50] better than it did in January. Well, yeah, it's not dead. California oaks

[57:55] don't always look like fresh June bugs. they go through things particularly if

[58:00] they're older. So I I don't know why we're as a policy changing our policy.

[58:06] We have rules. We have specific statements in our tree preservation

[58:11] ordinance and we need to follow those whether we're the city or whether we're

[58:14] a resident and I'm asking to remove something from my own yard. We hold

[58:19] people to very high standards for tree removals.

[58:22] » So it sounds like we're talking by interpretation of our tree ordinance

[58:25] here. Yeah, if if I could. Um,

[58:29] » is that what it Yeah. I mean, there's a policy that the council has adopted and

[58:34] it says trees will be removed >> for these five reasons.

[58:37] » Sure. >> Um, and so what it sounds like, uh, and

[58:41] I don't want to put words in your mouth. Uh, it sounds like she's saying is that

[58:46] the reports from the Iris aren't tying into those five reasons,

[58:51] » right? And so unless they tie directly into those five reasons,

[58:56] she does not believe that they should be removed. And so either the arborist

[59:00] needs to be instructed that the report should tie more closely to the reasons

[59:05] in the policy or if the reasons in the policy aren't aroreally

[59:11] accurate, maybe the policy should be revised to reflect conditions that

[59:17] um that an arborist can actually evaluate rather than asking an arborist

[59:22] to tie into statements that an arborist wouldn't make about something.

[59:27] And just to the next layer of that um so there's seven there's seven different

[59:33] reasons right and I respect council member shepherd ramy you're the first

[59:37] the very first reason is that the tree is dead and then it goes on to say that

[59:41] any one of these as we had this discussion last meeting if it meets any

[59:44] one of these other conditions right if for example um the tree is determined to

[59:48] be a public health and safety hazard because of insert the reason right

[59:52] » potential for failure due to considerable dead or dying for branches

[59:55] roots are >> tr so so we It's specific. Read the

[59:58] whole sentence. >> Correct. Correct. Yeah, it's very

[1:00:00] specific. Or or any one of the other ones. And so the arborist makes a

[1:00:03] determination, right? I'll use I'll just pick a tree that I just um this one that

[1:00:08] I'm on. Um >> I guess my question more so, how do we

[1:00:12] address this without going through this every year,

[1:00:16] right? It shouldn't be coming to council every year for us to be reviewing

[1:00:22] » the arburous work. The policy says that there will be a report delivered to the

[1:00:28] council as a receive and file report. That's what the policy says right now.

[1:00:32] So unless that changes, staff has direction to bring this and put it on

[1:00:36] your agenda as a receive and file it. >> And it says the city tree leaison can

[1:00:41] verify the accuracy of the list and confirm that the proposed removals are

[1:00:45] consistent with the requirements of this policy. That is literally section 7.1 of

[1:00:50] our city street tree policy. That means that the liaison which is at this point

[1:00:55] council member Chang and I review the list. It will be different in three

[1:01:00] months and they could have a field day and chop down everything but right now

[1:01:04] it says that the tree leaison verify the accuracy of the list and confirm that

[1:01:09] the proposed removals are consistent. I'm reading this word for word with the

[1:01:13] requirements of this policy. It is not a receive and file. It is not a done deal.

[1:01:18] We have a say. It is built into the ordinance. So that is not right. That is

[1:01:23] a misstatement. >> Okay. Let's let's go around. Council

[1:01:27] member Chang any >> Yeah. So um just um to council member

[1:01:32] Sheper Romney's point. Um I also did visit each tree and summarized each one

[1:01:38] um put them into an Excel chart that I emailed to everybody. I color coded

[1:01:42] coded them red where I agree that the tree looks dead. Um, and it should be

[1:01:48] removed, which is about 10 of the 22 trees. And I believe council member

[1:01:54] Chiparami concurred on the tree is dead ones. The rest are in the monitor

[1:01:59] category where I saw leaves, the trunk looks okay. I mean, I'm not an arborist,

[1:02:04] but I mean, I'm looking at the tree. Yeah, you know, it's leaning, but it's

[1:02:08] leaning. It's not harming anything. It is leaning. There's one on Huntington

[1:02:12] that looks dead. There's a lot of leaves on that one, you know, that looks fine.

[1:02:16] So, that's just some examples. Anyway, so so the summary I have is is here. I

[1:02:21] don't know. Um I I'm just recommending that we the 12 that are colored yellow

[1:02:27] that we bring back, monitor it for a year, and then the ones that are colored

[1:02:31] red that that they are indeed dead and we can remove them at this time. That's

[1:02:36] my recommendation. El

[1:02:42] » the um trees that have been um listed on this list.

[1:02:48] Um director Shayen mentioned that the the

[1:02:52] city has about 9,500 trees. Um how were these particular trees um picked out?

[1:03:00] And I'm sure there was a lot more, but these are the ones that were identified

[1:03:03] as requiring requiring special attention whether for removal or

[1:03:10] or otherwise. Um any particular reason that how these were identified as

[1:03:16] potentially problems? >> So I would say this year we've um asked

[1:03:21] the arborist to assess approximately 45 trees. of those trees, about

[1:03:26] approximately 40% of them are not on the removal list. Um they were recommended

[1:03:31] for some maybe maintenance, pruning, monitoring, additional inspection, um

[1:03:37] maybe working with the homeowner to adjust irrigation or remove um planters

[1:03:42] around the base, things that that shouldn't be there for the health of the

[1:03:45] tree. So, not all of them came forward. Um the ones that did come forward in

[1:03:50] terms of responding to your question of how were they identified um come through

[1:03:55] a number of sources. Sometimes it's our staff that are out and about doing

[1:04:00] routine maintenance in the streets or elsewhere and they see a tree that looks

[1:04:04] concerning to them and they're like we you know obviously we're not the

[1:04:07] experts. I'm not an arborist. They're not arborists. And we say can the

[1:04:10] arborist assess this? Is there something we can do? Does it warrant removal?

[1:04:14] whichever way you know the arborist would recommend depending on the

[1:04:17] conditions of the tree. Um so some come from that way, others come through our

[1:04:23] gov or we're transitioning now to PSD citywide um through our service request

[1:04:27] portal. Um residents that either it's their own front yard trees that they're

[1:04:32] concerned about or um they're again just out and about around the city and

[1:04:36] they're submitting tickets. Um we do have a couple residents that frequently

[1:04:41] submit those um concerns to us and so we will go out and take a look at those.

[1:04:45] We'll have our staff go look at them first, say, does it look concerning? If

[1:04:49] it looks if there's an issue there, then we'll bring in the arborist and ask them

[1:04:53] to assess that tree and make the determination of again, does it need

[1:04:58] some sort of um intervention or maintenance that might help the tree or

[1:05:02] is it um potentially, you know, meeting one of these seven criteria, whether

[1:05:07] it's dead or poses some other safety hazard um or elsewise um that has been

[1:05:14] interpreted as meeting the um policy for recommending removal.

[1:05:19] Um and that's generally how they come forward. So through the residents or

[1:05:24] occasional well yeah predominantly residents or staff that report them um

[1:05:30] that we see them when we're doing our operations or just residents out in the

[1:05:34] community that have concerns. >> Thank you. And um I believe that we're

[1:05:40] all very um very protective of the trees that are in

[1:05:45] San Marino and would like to see them uh remain in place. Uh but at the same time

[1:05:51] I've also have heard of um concerns from many residents when it comes to u the

[1:05:57] safety and in in addition to ju not just trees that are in these kind of

[1:06:02] conditions but even with um healthy trees and I think we may have seen some

[1:06:08] examples. I received a message from a resident um I think it was a magnolia

[1:06:14] tree that showed a fairly large branch that had um fallen down and could have

[1:06:19] potentially caused some balling harm. But uh from my own personal experience,

[1:06:24] I have a amber oak in front of my house and and what I learned from an arborist

[1:06:30] is that those trees do shed branches um when they are in some sort of uh

[1:06:37] distress. And so, um, when it comes to trees that whose, um, conditions are

[1:06:45] compromised, I'm I'm just worried on some of these where they have large

[1:06:50] extended branches that are heavy and whether or not the, um, topography,

[1:06:57] tomography, um, um, evidence that was shown earlier

[1:07:03] would also compromise um, that situation and may or may not cause uh those larger

[1:07:10] branches to potentially fall and and they do hopefully uh nobody's in the way

[1:07:16] where they could be um hurt or worse.

[1:07:22] » Okay. And the So I'm sorry, can you repeat the question?

[1:07:25] » So the question is um we've we've seen large healthy supposedly healthy trees

[1:07:32] that have so-called shed branches. I'm just wondering with these trees that we

[1:07:38] have done some additional analysis through tomography or sonic tomography

[1:07:44] uh scanning would that impact the large heavy

[1:07:51] extended branches I guess is what I'm asking because when

[1:07:55] I look at the the uh tomography um results um

[1:08:02] going back to our previous uh council meeting where We talked about the um

[1:08:08] these particular trees and and their potential removal.

[1:08:12] I believe what my my recollection and may not be perfect was that we were

[1:08:16] going to um determine whether or not these can be treated in some manner so

[1:08:21] that we can um reverse its current condition. And I think the demography

[1:08:27] uh in one particular case with a lot of red probably is beyond saving. uh the

[1:08:33] ones that do show a lot of yellow. I guess my question is one is that

[1:08:38] reversible and two will that compromise the

[1:08:46] integrity of the large extended branches.

[1:08:49] » Okay. Um I may not be the most qualified person. I am not an arborist either. Um

[1:08:54] I will say you know based on my understanding in terms so following the

[1:08:59] council's direction in June again we our understanding was let's go out you know

[1:09:05] not just do a visual observation um an inspection of the tree which is what the

[1:09:10] arburous reports typically are. Um, but to better understand each of those three

[1:09:15] trees's conditions and to understand what may be treatable, not treatable,

[1:09:21] how bad is the decay, is there anything we can do. The results of those reports,

[1:09:27] you know, that testing is in here. Um, the two trees that showed a little

[1:09:31] better both have ganoderma conchs on them. Um, so to my knowledge, I don't

[1:09:36] think it's so much reverse reversible because there's no treatment for that.

[1:09:41] it does ultimately continue to decay and kill the tree in eventuality. I don't

[1:09:46] know how long that takes. I think a lot of it can be determined potentially

[1:09:50] from, you know, how the size of the conchks that are on there obviously is a

[1:09:55] better representation of the amount of decay. Um, but I do have our consulting

[1:10:00] arborist here um that I can defer to can be if you want probably a more technical

[1:10:05] response than I can provide to you unless that satisfies your question.

[1:10:12] Well, I guess my uh thought process is if

[1:10:17] the condition of the tree is not going to improve through treatment uh and then

[1:10:22] the other consideration is the cost of that treatment is I think another

[1:10:27] another uh consideration. But but if if the condition is not going to it's just

[1:10:32] going to continue to deteriorate over time. Um are we just delaying the

[1:10:37] inevitable? I guess is my question. If the condition of tree is eventually

[1:10:42] going to >> die,

[1:10:44] » whether it's going to take, you know, another year, two year, tenure, whatever

[1:10:47] the case may be. >> Yes, that's my understanding.

[1:10:50] » And you said the arborist is here. Does he want to

[1:10:53] » Peter is here. Uh this is our consulting arborist that um has worked a lot with

[1:10:58] our prior arborist um for the community development department on private trees

[1:11:03] and has been stepping in to assist us during our vacancy and current

[1:11:07] recruitment for a new city arborist. Um but he is here and he prepared these

[1:11:11] reports. If you would like him to address you

[1:11:13] » please love to um ask you um some questions. Yes sir.

[1:11:19] » And would you like to um please introduce yourself first?

[1:11:21] » Yeah my name is Pete Harish. I'm a consulting arborist. Been doing it for

[1:11:25] 45 years. >> Uh Mr. Harish, when when um can you talk

[1:11:32] a little bit about more about your experience when it comes to um assessing

[1:11:36] the condition of the trees that's in question here? Uh and your

[1:11:40] recommendation for the removal um based on your experience, how you came to

[1:11:47] those conclusions. >> Um well, I applaud your efforts to try

[1:11:51] to save trees. I think it's very admirable. Um,

[1:11:55] you know, I think you have a lot of risk with these trees and once they become

[1:12:00] defoliated, um, which is the case with most of those, um, they can't produce

[1:12:06] enough energy to defend themselves, um, so they start getting attacked. They get

[1:12:11] attacked by fungus, boring insects. They're basically

[1:12:16] nature's disposal company um to kind of take out stressed organisms. So, they

[1:12:23] have to get a head start uh because it takes a long time to break down a huge

[1:12:26] oak tree. That process has already begun in my opinion on all of the three oaks.

[1:12:32] Um I don't think their condition is reversible

[1:12:37] uh from my experience. Um and to me, in my opinion, it's not worth the risk that

[1:12:43] you're facing. And I'm not here to tell you what to do with your trees. You're

[1:12:47] free, you know, do whatever you want. My job is to give you my professional

[1:12:51] opinion. Um my opinion is that you've got a lot of risk in leaving these trees

[1:12:56] and sooner or later something's going to happen.

[1:13:00] » Yeah. So >> um you mentioned that um these uh trees

[1:13:05] as their health goes into decline that uh it tracks certain

[1:13:11] funguses or fungi or insects or whatever the case may be.

[1:13:16] » Um what's the risk of that spreading to other trees, let's say healthier trees

[1:13:21] that >> well th those organisms are always

[1:13:24] present. Um it's kind of like the flu bug. It's always around, but it only

[1:13:29] attacks you when you're stressed, right? You're vulnerable, you're tired, you're

[1:13:33] you're not eating properly, you get attacked. Okay. Um, so that's kind of

[1:13:38] the same the way it is with trees. Um, so these trees are stressed for certain

[1:13:42] reasons, cultivation practices, overwatering, underwatering.

[1:13:47] Um, they can't defend themselves from those organisms. So um those fungi are

[1:13:53] always present but they only really start acting on the tree when a tree is

[1:13:57] vulnerable. And the mechanism is basically starch. So through

[1:14:02] photosynthesis trees can produce a lot of starches and that's what they use to

[1:14:06] fight fungus off. And when they can't produce enough starch they get attacked.

[1:14:11] And boring insects once they get in there uh they have pherommones that

[1:14:16] attract more boring insects and they all come in there. It's a big party. But I

[1:14:20] think you have a lot of risk with leaving some of those trees. I mean,

[1:14:23] that's your decision. Um, but I think you've got a lot of overextended

[1:14:28] branches with a lot of end weight on them. And you know, it's not just wind

[1:14:33] that causes tree failures, it's heat. I used to get more emergency calls uh

[1:14:38] during heat waves than any other time. Um, I think you just had a tree failure

[1:14:43] here couple weeks ago when it was really hot. Um,

[1:14:47] I owned a tree care company for 36 years. A matter of fact, I used to trim

[1:14:51] trees for you guys years ago. Um, so I've had a lot of experience with um,

[1:14:57] tree failure and tree failure cleanup, you know. Um, you got a lot of

[1:15:02] liability, I think, keeping these trees. That's something you got to consider.

[1:15:06] Um, I admire your efforts in keeping trees. I think it's very admirable and

[1:15:11] uh, but I think you got to take a hard look at the liability.

[1:15:18] You mentioned weight um on some of these and I know that you know we've got

[1:15:22] different trees and so it's hard to um uh to estimate you know some of the

[1:15:29] weight of some of these extended branches without pointing the specific

[1:15:32] tree but um but we are talking several hundred pounds. So is that correct?

[1:15:38] » Well it's the weight on the extremities that has more effective you know because

[1:15:42] of leverage. Um, so a lot of these extremities need to be reduced. If

[1:15:46] you're going to retain these trees, I I would suggest that you do some uh endway

[1:15:52] pruning. Uh, otherwise, you know, I think you're going to have some issues.

[1:15:56] You know, >> you read my mind. I was going to ask,

[1:15:59] you know, does it make sense >> uh to minimize the risk of some of these

[1:16:03] trees um hurting people or hurting property um to to trim them back uh and

[1:16:10] leave, >> you know, the trunk of the tree uh where

[1:16:14] it's at and and try to salvage the tree for however long it's going to live

[1:16:21] before it ultimately dies. since it sounds like

[1:16:24] » some of these trees may not um >> go back to a a more healthy condition,

[1:16:29] » but it it based on what I heard just now, uh that would be also another

[1:16:33] recommendation if we don't remove the trees to at least um trim them back so

[1:16:38] that those branches uh won't be a potential um harmful Yeah.

[1:16:45] » impact to the uh community. >> I think it'll lower the risk. It's not

[1:16:48] going to remove it, but I think it would lower the risk. But those ganoderma

[1:16:52] comps are it they're pretty common and there's no cure for them. And they're

[1:16:57] really small usually uh when they're really big there's a lot of decay

[1:17:01] associated with them. When they're small they're usually just beginning. I have a

[1:17:05] lot of you know high-end clients that I do tomography year-over-year. So I track

[1:17:10] the decay progression when they have those. So I know a lot about it. Um the

[1:17:15] ones that we're talking about here they're they're small comps. Um

[1:17:19] eventually it's going to be a death sentence and eventually it's going to be

[1:17:22] a structural uh issue. The tree will fail eventually if left alone.

[1:17:29] » Thank you. >> Okay, vice mayor.

[1:17:34] So just to follow up with uh Charles's uh questions and so to your uh

[1:17:40] opinion for for experience of course those trees like like you just mentioned

[1:17:44] it's beyond it's not reversible and then beyond just pluming alone would not

[1:17:48] would not would not be a solution. It would reduce the risk but it's not gonna

[1:17:54] » it's actually could aggravate the problem too because it's a stressful

[1:17:57] process. You know pruning is not good for trees. It's a necessary evil.

[1:18:02] » Um, and you are stressing it even more by doing that. But I think the risk that

[1:18:06] you're up against >> and to your knowledge, are you able for

[1:18:11] example, you know, beside besides the three big trees, the the others, you

[1:18:16] know, of course on the the other 19 trees and half of them are dead. That

[1:18:20] that's no question. And the the other half it's either declining or or is a

[1:18:25] serious decay. And those those trees if we you know try to keep

[1:18:33] it or or try to try to do something to save it you know grooming it or or doing

[1:18:40] some you know uh uh medication or how long do you think you know if it

[1:18:46] works or it doesn't work how long would it take if we don't see or we can see

[1:18:51] any result if we try to save it for one last time

[1:18:55] » I have yeah I That would have be a case byase basis. I'm not sure about that.

[1:19:00] » I think a lot of these trees are already dying

[1:19:03] » because they're not producing enough. They're using more energy than they're

[1:19:05] bringing in. They're already actively dying in my opinion.

[1:19:11] » And usually when the tree is dying, how long do they see?

[1:19:14] » Sometimes they can hang on for years. They produce adventitious roots when the

[1:19:19] whole lateral root system has been eaten away and they produce adventitious roots

[1:19:24] and they just hang on and they still have green on them but there's no

[1:19:28] stability at all. And I've seen that many times in my career where

[1:19:33] large oak where the whole root system's been eaten away and the only thing

[1:19:38] really holding it up is the balance that the branches provide. And if one of

[1:19:42] those branches breaks away shortly after, I've seen several times where the

[1:19:46] whole tree will topple because it really didn't have enough roots to stand on its

[1:19:50] own if it weren't for that balance, you know. So,

[1:19:55] you got some risk to think about. Thank you. You know, as a well, as a

[1:20:03] yourself, I believe you have, you know, well, a passion and love with all this

[1:20:08] plants. So do us. You know people in summer know we love our trees. Of

[1:20:12] course, we're evaluating the balance between safety and we and and and of

[1:20:17] course the should protect all this to preserve all this trees and we're trying

[1:20:22] to find a balance and hopefully uh through your opinion we we're able to

[1:20:27] save some of the trees if by prrooming it to you know to certain extent not to

[1:20:32] hurt it and to see if can come back to life and in your opinion may if we do

[1:20:38] that can some of this tree come back to life? Well, I was honestly I was

[1:20:42] surprised with the tree on Cambridge, 1430 Cambridge. I was really pleasantly

[1:20:46] surprised that it had sprouted back. >> It may have a chance, but um I think you

[1:20:52] have to watch it closely. I do believe those branches, just like

[1:20:56] you were saying, are way overextended over Monterey Road. Like I get scared

[1:21:00] driving under that thing. Just a matter of time before one of those fail. And

[1:21:05] that's irregardless of its condition. Um I think that really Yeah. Yeah. There's

[1:21:11] a lot of trees around town like that that are healthy, but they have poor

[1:21:18] structure in my >> Thank you.

[1:21:24] » Okay. Um I'm just going to take a step back on

[1:21:29] this one and I'm just trying to figure out what we need to do here. And from

[1:21:32] what I'm hearing, I think it's going to be very selective, subjective

[1:21:38] to different people. I don't know if the step here is we have

[1:21:43] to update our policy, bring more clarity. I mean, from what I'm seeing to

[1:21:47] keep it from us as a council governing body, it seems like it should be more of

[1:21:53] a policy shift or hired professional problem or whatever it is. We have to

[1:21:59] make a decision there. But I'm just concerned that this can be I guess

[1:22:04] what's the difference when we're tree leison and we become regular residents

[1:22:07] with the same opinions, right? And the same opinions on certain

[1:22:12] trees or if the arborist did a good job. Um I think that's the concern. If we

[1:22:17] need to tighten up our verbiage, I don't know, detail out more in the policy, I

[1:22:23] think that's what we should probably do. Um I I don't I mean otherwise we can sit

[1:22:28] here and talk for hours. I just don't see what we're working towards.

[1:22:33] And that way it'll give everyone comfort here and then I know

[1:22:39] for Amber and Barbara clear direction in terms of how to operate otherwise we're

[1:22:45] just going to be stuck in this loop picking at the list. Right. I mean even

[1:22:50] the verbiage I'm not sure I haven't read exactly but the even the tree leaison

[1:22:54] what their exact right I heard the word review

[1:22:59] but I don't know the rest of that how that reads out

[1:23:04] again it becomes a legal legal ease kind of thing

[1:23:07] » right um mayor I appreciate that that guidance so it sounds to me and I think

[1:23:12] if I'm interpreting council sheepard Romney's um concern so help me with this

[1:23:16] the section that we're tightening up is not necessarily the liaison's review

[1:23:20] portion, but there seems to be concern over the criteria with which we're

[1:23:24] using. Right. So, the bullet points are the ones that the council may want to

[1:23:29] look at and say, >> it sounds like both to me, right? It

[1:23:32] sounds like the >> You're right. I think you're bringing up

[1:23:35] the process, >> right?

[1:23:36] » What is the purpose of the liaison where it is,

[1:23:40] » right? In this consulting, we used to get the list ahead of time and then we

[1:23:45] give the comments back and then there's more time than what we have right now,

[1:23:49] which we're doing it all here and that was not the process before. These last

[1:23:53] two are different than normal. >> Okay.

[1:23:55] » Okay. But I'm just saying so maybe that needs to spell out if we if if it's

[1:24:00] continuing if there's a consensus as to how the process would work better um for

[1:24:06] the liaison to get it ahead of time and communicate back their observations

[1:24:10] because we're in agreement about the list keeping some on um you know even

[1:24:15] among them but so and then also there's what uh um city manager is bringing up

[1:24:22] is section 72 which provides the policy is justifications for tree tree removals

[1:24:27] and there's seven reasons specified there.

[1:24:30] » Okay, >> the first is the tree is dead, but then

[1:24:32] there's other ones. Overmature, declining health, death within a year.

[1:24:36] Okay, >> tree is infected with a pathogen that

[1:24:39] cannot be cured, blah blah blah. So, there are specifics, but if we need to

[1:24:43] talk through that and bring it forward, >> I guess it sounds like there's still

[1:24:46] going to always be a level of >> Yeah.

[1:24:48] » unclarity there where, you know, um but if we need to tighten it up, maybe we do

[1:24:52] that. I don't know. I mean, I I do agree. I I I've heard both sides. I

[1:24:57] think it all makes sense. Everyone makes sense. Policy, I understand. You got to

[1:25:01] follow policy. I understand professionals. We got to trust

[1:25:04] professionals, insurance, all that stuff. But I think we just need to This

[1:25:09] seems like if it's with us, it's a policy thing that we need to tidy up and

[1:25:13] update, right? Instead of >> Correct. It's So, this is entirely We're

[1:25:20] » to be honest, mayor, council members, right? You know this, we work at your

[1:25:23] pleasure um to carry out your policies. Um this report in the last several and

[1:25:29] all of them that have come before you over the last few several years since

[1:25:33] the policy was adopted, staff um have been operating under the um pretense

[1:25:38] that they were complying with the policy. It sounds like um the council

[1:25:42] would like to either we're not complying with the policy or the policy would like

[1:25:47] to be changed. whichever one is true. Um our balance here on on balance, right?

[1:25:54] We're trying to balance um the recommendations of um the arborist, the

[1:26:00] licensed professional with the the policy that the council has in place

[1:26:04] with the third pillar of the stool, which is um our responsibility to manage

[1:26:08] liability and public safety. >> Um and so this report before you is our

[1:26:13] best balance of those three things, right? um complying with the policy. We

[1:26:18] truly believe that the report before you complies with the city's policy, the

[1:26:21] council's policy on tree removals. If we missed it and we got it wrong, we're

[1:26:24] happy to go back and look at it again. Or if the council says, "No, you got it

[1:26:28] right, but I don't like this the outcome, right? What you baked, I don't

[1:26:33] like how it tastes, do it again." Um we can do that. Um or, you know, we don't,

[1:26:39] right? We don't do this type of work anymore. Um there is that as well. If

[1:26:44] there's a disagreement with this list right now, the immediate thing is are

[1:26:49] they I guess are we making a motion or move to exclude certain trees and that's

[1:26:56] what we're going to be making a decision on

[1:26:58] » that that's what you did last time right?

[1:27:01] » So I guess if that's the case then do either of you want to make a specific

[1:27:06] and and I would just I believe there's one tree that is in proximity to

[1:27:10] » Right. So I have to remove myself in regards to

[1:27:14] the third oak, but the tree number two on the list.

[1:27:19] » So, if you're going to make a motion, you might

[1:27:22] » if there's a motion to be made, why don't one of you make a motion and then

[1:27:26] we could just >> and we can also talk about then

[1:27:28] » make a vote or Yeah. >> look at the um tree ordinance and the

[1:27:34] process to help clarify. >> That could probably follow up then,

[1:27:38] right? we decide on a whatever motion today for whatever is in front of us

[1:27:41] then we can do a followup for the updated policy

[1:27:45] » and have a discussion about that >> whatever the council's pleasure

[1:27:47] absolutely we're happy to do it you've heard you know our concerns the risk

[1:27:51] we're happy to do whatever you'd like absolutely

[1:27:52] » all in one motion >> yeah whatever yeah whatever you have in

[1:27:55] » two motion then just for the record the tree specifically I know we have a

[1:27:59] numbering discrepancy but the tree specifically

[1:28:01] » first >> 1101 Lraine

[1:28:03] » 1101 Lraine is the tree that uh councilor Shepard Ronnie will be

[1:28:06] recusing herself from so Right. And that's tree number two on the list of

[1:28:10] 22. >> Yes.

[1:28:13] » You want >> Yeah, you want

[1:28:16] » Okay. Um I'll make a motion to um remove the trees.

[1:28:25] Um 3 6 [snorts] 7 8 9 12

[1:28:35] » 14 >> 14 16 18 19 20 and 21.

[1:28:43] » I'll second that motion. >> Roll call.

[1:28:48] » Council member Cheng. >> Yes.

[1:28:50] » Council member Chowo. >> No.

[1:28:53] Vice Mayor Low. >> Yes.

[1:28:55] » Mayor Cho. >> No.

[1:28:57] » Oh, that I could vote on that one. >> Council member Shepard

[1:29:01] » and then I'll leave for or whatever. I'll step off the D.

[1:29:10] » So, the question remains about the other trees on the list. One, two, four, five,

[1:29:16] 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 22. All

[1:29:23] right. What was the >> right? Okay. So, are you specifically

[1:29:27] talking about the tree on Lraine now? >> Yes.

[1:29:29] » Okay. So, we're specifically talking about tree 1101 Lraine.

[1:29:33] » Okay.

[1:29:40] » So, what staff are looking for is either a motion to um remove to keep the tree

[1:29:46] because the as the report reads, no action will result in the removal of

[1:29:49] that tree. So, if there's a motion to remove that tree, that's what staff are

[1:29:53] going to look for direction for. If not, we can move to the rest of the list.

[1:29:58] » Are we willing to uh consider trimming back some of the extended

[1:30:04] branches as another option or I mean, is it either remove or don't remove or is

[1:30:09] there a third option to to um trim it back?

[1:30:14] » It's at the council's pleasure. You heard that,

[1:30:16] » right? You know, Mr. Mr. Harish mentioned that, you know, trimming the

[1:30:20] tree may cause additional stress, I think were your exact words. So,

[1:30:24] whatever the council wants to do, I'm not, again, I'm not the arborist. It's

[1:30:27] not what I studied, but um if you want to try that out again in the balance of

[1:30:33] um tree preservation, liability, and you know, the recommendation, whatever you'd

[1:30:38] like to do, we're happy to do it. >> And then the question would be how much

[1:30:42] of it are we trimming? Are you going to let it if that's the route you go? Are

[1:30:46] you comfortable leaving it at our hands? Because we if we trim it, just know that

[1:30:50] there is going to be a trunk standing. >> We're not the special. Right.

[1:30:54] » Right. So, let let me try this. >> I move to remove tree number two 1101

[1:31:00] Lorraine row from this list and keep it on a monitor status.

[1:31:07] » Doing anything. >> This is the removal list, right? So,

[1:31:11] we're removing it from the list means it won't be removed.

[1:31:15] » Removing from the removal list. So, two negatives, we're we're keeping it.

[1:31:18] » Correct. >> Removing it from the removal list.

[1:31:21] » And his >> and his action has no his his motion is

[1:31:25] not requesting any trimming. >> Right.

[1:31:28] » It's just to monitor it till the next time we meet on the trees, which is next

[1:31:35] year, right? >> Second.

[1:31:39] I'll second that since that was a you know

[1:31:42] » I think we last time that was the agreement so

[1:31:46] » remove it from the removal list. >> Yes. So I'll I'll second that.

[1:31:54] » Roll call. >> Council member Chang.

[1:31:57] » Yes. >> Council member Chowo.

[1:32:01] » So we're just voting on whether to just not remove it.

[1:32:05] » Correct. Keep the tree or not? The motion. The motion is to keep the tree.

[1:32:08] But we're not saying what we're going to do about the tree.

[1:32:10] » Correct. And if you wanted to introduce a substitute motion, you could.

[1:32:18] » I like would like to uh I guess amend that motion to to at least

[1:32:24] uh mitigate some of the risks of because that is a tree that I want to take a

[1:32:29] look at in some of the and and kind of and what Mr. Harish had mentioned not

[1:32:34] just that tree but other trees. You know, as you're driving down some of the

[1:32:37] streets that have large branches that that almost completely grow across the

[1:32:43] street. I I do look at those and you know have imagined um other trees that

[1:32:49] I've seen that have toppled over and blocked a street.

[1:32:53] » That's the motion. >> So

[1:32:55] » that's another So I guess what shall I do then? Should

[1:32:59] I make it amend a motion to >> let's first vote on this one, right?

[1:33:03] » Yeah. Let's finish this one. >> Let's finish up this motion to remove it

[1:33:06] from the removal. >> Remove it from the removal list. So it

[1:33:09] stays. >> Yes. Yes. No. No. So now what?

[1:33:12] » No. I don't She hasn't called the role. It did. We already

[1:33:15] » No. >> No. So we have So there was a yes. You

[1:33:17] called. >> Then

[1:33:20] » yes. Council member Chang said yes. And then the next vote was to council member

[1:33:23] Chow. Member >> Chowo. No.

[1:33:27] » No. So the motion dies.

[1:33:30] » Motion dies. >> That's a tie.

[1:33:32] » So wait, does that mean the tree is going to be removed now? Because it's

[1:33:35] staying on the removal list. >> Yes.

[1:33:38] » Yes, that's what it means. >> That you're

[1:33:42] » Well, first we want to take it off the list and then do whatever you want to do

[1:33:46] with it. >> Well, we can open up for discussion. Why

[1:33:49] don't we do that? You want to discuss? >> Why don't you make a point? I I think

[1:33:54] the first thing is to get it off this list because this is these are the trees

[1:33:57] coming down on on the list. So we we don't want to remove it. So let's take

[1:34:02] it off the list first and then we can do whatever you can suggest another motion

[1:34:06] on what we how we should proceed. So that's his point. Anything to add?

[1:34:12] » So we're voting on whether or not to take that off the list and then decide

[1:34:16] what we're going to do about that tree. >> Already voted remove it

[1:34:20] » on that motion. But it didn't pass. >> Uhhuh. Pass.

[1:34:24] » So there's no motion on the floor right now.

[1:34:26] » No motion voting on anything until somebody makes a motion.

[1:34:29] » So what now? >> Do you have any other comments?

[1:34:31] » No. Oh, you have >> vice mayor.

[1:34:33] » Then so then I'll make another just, you know,

[1:34:38] » com. Why don't you make any comments first if you maybe sway one of these

[1:34:42] guys? you know, keeping a list but closely monitoring it, you know, and

[1:34:47] then if we can do anything to mitigate the risk since it's mentioned and then

[1:34:53] from from from the report seems like the red part, you know,

[1:34:59] smaller than the other one that's needed to be removed and it has immediate risk

[1:35:04] right away. So, seems like we we have time for that. So I would like to give

[1:35:08] it another chance but just for that tree alone

[1:35:12] » and but we should do something yes to mitigate risk. So, so that's my you know

[1:35:18] keep it on the list but we should do something even at minimum we should do

[1:35:22] something and give it a little time and closely watch it to make sure it doesn't

[1:35:26] fall since >> I know it takes more manpower more

[1:35:29] resource we'll see but you know just to show how much you know we we we do value

[1:35:34] our trees in in summary you know assisting

[1:35:38] » okay and just just to rationalize my my decision here on both it's I don't

[1:35:45] I don't want to be liable for for being this expert that I'm not and I'm leaning

[1:35:50] to trust on our experts. That's really what my vote comes down to. So, if you

[1:35:55] anyone wants to make another motion,

[1:36:07] » so since the last motion was a tie, what does that mean? Where

[1:36:11] » motion fails, right? >> Motion fails. So someone someone can

[1:36:14] introduce another motion if you'd like now or if at whatever the presiding

[1:36:18] officer says there's no motion on the floor. We'll move on.

[1:36:23] » So if there's >> Yeah, if you have another motion if if

[1:36:26] you want to clarify more on what you're thinking and that'll

[1:36:31] change you that change your decision. [laughter] That's what it comes down to.

[1:36:37] I guess my motion would be to explore

[1:36:42] the option of trimming back some of the extended branches to minimize any

[1:36:47] potential risk or um damage or harm.

[1:36:53] » Okay. So just for clarification [clears throat] so staff has clear

[1:36:57] direction is the is the motion to explore which

[1:37:02] means they will study it and then come back to you or is the motion to delegate

[1:37:08] to staff trim the tree in lie of removing the

[1:37:12] tree

[1:37:21] staff wants to implement what you guys want us to do. We just don't know what

[1:37:24] you want us to do. >> So, if you want us to study it more and

[1:37:27] come back with other options, that's one motion. If you want us to don't cut it

[1:37:30] down, but trim it instead, that's a second that's a different motion.

[1:37:39] » I'm inclined to just make a motion to to trim the the branches. I I believe the

[1:37:44] um information that was provided by our

[1:37:48] arborist was was does uh explain what we're what the city

[1:37:54] faces if we don't do anything. and and the fact that when you look at the size

[1:37:58] and weight of these of these extended branches that um a risk of failure

[1:38:03] especially given the condition of the tree that could potentially

[1:38:11] create some great harm. And so um if nothing else uh

[1:38:16] given the condition I I would like to make a motion then to trim back the

[1:38:22] branches. We have a second

[1:38:32] » and so and then to closely monitor it within

[1:38:37] certain timeline is that I don't know if >> so amending the motion

[1:38:44] » because now we're doing something but I don't know what's the next right

[1:38:48] » so >> monitoring

[1:38:49] » we trimmed it and then >> correct so monitoring trees is its own

[1:38:54] uh completely different. Um, >> but after we trim it then and then

[1:38:59] » Right. It's correct. >> You're bringing up a great point, Vice

[1:39:02] Mayor. And so after we trim it, then we will it'll stay until it does one of two

[1:39:06] things. It either falls, fails. If if that happens, right? Just like any one

[1:39:11] of us. >> It doesn't take away the risk to the

[1:39:14] trade itself to the president. >> Correct. And we'll keep an eye on it.

[1:39:17] Staff, our staff, we'll keep an eye on it as best we can. And if we see a

[1:39:21] condition that uh raises extreme concern, you know, if we see the conchk

[1:39:26] or something else a whole open up, we'll go out there. Um why I'm saying this

[1:39:31] very specifically is our staff will do that. I'm trying to balance, you know,

[1:39:35] with all due respect, Mr. Harish, I I don't want to continue to have to pay,

[1:39:40] you know, thousands and thousands of dollars every month to monitor the

[1:39:43] trees. You know, as you're suggesting, I want to make sure that we define if um I

[1:39:47] know council member uh Chang, as you said, monitor the other trees. we define

[1:39:50] that it is, you know, our staff going out there to monitor the trees. They're

[1:39:54] not trained professionals, but we're going to look for what we can. Um or if

[1:39:58] the council's interested in setting up an appropriation for additional funding

[1:40:02] for the monitoring or a monitoring program, um we you instruct us to do

[1:40:08] that, right? Um we need to have that conversation simultaneously. So, I just

[1:40:13] Yes. >> Correct. I mean the monitoring and

[1:40:17] treatment you know as you saw the cost for just the sonic tomography was $1,800

[1:40:20] a year. One other question because earlier u Mr.

[1:40:24] uh mentioned that heat can have some effect to the and take taking that the

[1:40:29] extreme [clears throat] weather would be make may be facing especially elenials

[1:40:33] coming what about the rain if there's heavy rain could that be potential risk

[1:40:38] to any trees that's not properly maintained or

[1:40:42] » yes most of our emergency callouts um when we have had limbs that have fallen

[1:40:48] or whole tree failures have been heat related or storm related or wind related

[1:40:53] But the rain certainly um >> definitely

[1:40:57] » can be a contributing factor to a failure

[1:41:00] » something not just leave it there since it's already you know that's that's my

[1:41:04] concern since we keep we decided to keep it because since like it still has some

[1:41:08] chance you know the the red part is not like the other one and like well when a

[1:41:14] doctor sees a patient still breathing I don't want to just kill it rightology

[1:41:19] [laughter and gasps]

[1:41:22] which we We treat trees like family grand. Sorry, that's a seminal thing.

[1:41:26] So, but but but again, we don't want to just leave it there, especially knowing

[1:41:32] what we we may be encountering or facing. So,

[1:41:36] » that was the recommendation, but I mean, >> can I can I summarize I think what I

[1:41:41] hear. So, you're saying trim the tree and have staff monitor the tree for till

[1:41:48] the next reporting period. see if there's improvement or still

[1:41:52] » and report on the condition at the next reporting period.

[1:41:58] » We can keep it on the tree removal report and bring back uh visual

[1:42:02] observations uh once the tree is trimmed and keep reporting back. Um it'll just

[1:42:07] be on the tree removal list. So there's a question there,

[1:42:12] right? we would report back and when we see it have something else that

[1:42:17] we believe is another risk, we're likely going to have this same conversation

[1:42:21] again, >> right?

[1:42:22] » So, if we're okay with that, that's fine. We we'll keep it on that list or

[1:42:26] leave it off the list until such period that we see it reach a

[1:42:32] point that now it's an emergency. And at emergency

[1:42:35] level, we probably won't have the time to wait for a council meeting, right? Um

[1:42:40] if an emergency we see it leaning on a Monday.

[1:42:43] » Oh yeah. >> It's coming out that afternoon. I just

[1:42:46] want to be transparent with the council as long as we're all on the same page.

[1:42:49] Monitoring if we see something there has to be that trust with staff

[1:42:55] and we recognize I think the length of this meeting and this topic and the past

[1:43:00] ones are not lost on staff. You know, we do everything we can, as vice mayor

[1:43:04] said, to honor the trees, do everything we can, and half a million dollars in a

[1:43:09] budget for tree preservation is is not taken lightly.

[1:43:14] And and I just want to make another observation and and one of the things

[1:43:17] that I've noticed uh as far as the trees, I guess this goes back to 2010

[1:43:22] 2011 when we had a major um um wind incident and and a lot of large trees,

[1:43:28] healthy looking trees that got blown over and and then looking at some of

[1:43:32] those and even going back to last year, u I was surprised at how shallow the

[1:43:38] root system was given the size and the the, you know, the overall width of the

[1:43:46] tree. So, um, what we're talking about is the

[1:43:51] condition of the tree, but we have no idea what that root system looks like

[1:43:54] either, which may or, and Mr. Harish did mention if you were to have a tree

[1:44:00] that's out of balance, if they have two large branches and one of them breaks

[1:44:03] and and if there was a a more shallow uh root system that that would also

[1:44:10] exacerbate its potential of toppling over or falling over when we So, I guess

[1:44:15] that's the other question is these trees we didn't do any type of root assessment

[1:44:21] as far as the stability of the tree. Uh we did a root crown excavation on 1430

[1:44:28] Cambridge which was ultimately recommended to be monitored. Um we have

[1:44:32] done that on one or two other trees that aren't on the removal list. um looking

[1:44:36] at the root system that I recall um >> the trunk flare

[1:44:43] » the what >> the base of the trunk it's not a root

[1:44:47] » right >> but it's just a a visual observation

[1:44:53] » looking for root decay at the base of the trunk or signs of

[1:44:59] » All right um let's let's wrap up this item do we have a motion on this or

[1:45:07] or not >> motion. So there was a motion. Do we

[1:45:11] have an amendment or do we have a second?

[1:45:13] » Can we repeat the motion? >> You want me to make a

[1:45:16] » Yeah. >> However you'd like it. It was your

[1:45:20] motion, so you could restate it however you'd like. Motion to

[1:45:26] keep tree number two

[1:45:30] and to trim back the large branches to

[1:45:40] » as as best the arborist and staff believe

[1:45:42] » to mitigate under the guidance of the arborist the extent of risk that we can

[1:45:49] I guess >> okay

[1:45:51] » his motion Yeah, staff understands it, right?

[1:45:54] » Yes. Under the guidance, the arborist will look at what can be done to

[1:45:58] mitigate risk to the greatest extent possible while retaining the tree and

[1:46:02] continuing to monitor it. And I think the last part was for how long or I

[1:46:07] think we determined to come back at least report on its condition at the

[1:46:10] next time we bring a removal report before you. We can tell you what's been

[1:46:14] observed from between now and the spring report.

[1:46:18] » Can I ask another question of the arborist?

[1:46:20] » No, no, no. Finish, finish, finish. Let's finish this. There's no there's no

[1:46:23] clarity here that we're going to get to specifically where we can

[1:46:27] » precision pre precisely. >> Well, there was a condition on that

[1:46:31] particular tree that I observed and I don't know if I what I observed was um

[1:46:37] um was a concern or not and I was just going to ask for some clarification on

[1:46:41] that. >> But how is that going to change your

[1:46:43] motion right now? >> Yeah,

[1:46:45] » it wouldn't. >> Yeah. So, let's finish. [laughter]

[1:46:49] But it was the per the reason for the reason.

[1:46:54] » Okay, we got second roll call. >> Council member Chang,

[1:46:59] » yes. >> Council member Chowo,

[1:47:00] » yes. >> Vice Mayor Low,

[1:47:03] » yes. >> And Mayor Cho,

[1:47:04] » no. Okay, passes. >> Um, one thing we didn't have, so we

[1:47:10] removed trees in the first motion from the removal tree list. the remaining

[1:47:14] trees other than the one we just had a motion on. Are we just continuing to

[1:47:20] monitor them? Do you when would you want them to come back or they're just

[1:47:24] removed at this point?

[1:47:27] » Yeah. So, what would what would the council like us to do with the trees

[1:47:29] that you removed from the removal list? >> Give them appropriate care.

[1:47:34] » Who made that? Who made the first motion?

[1:47:36] » I'm sorry. I heard I >> Who made that first motion?

[1:47:39] » First motion was the council member Chang.

[1:47:40] » What did you clarify? Oh, so the first motion was to uh to remove the trees in

[1:47:46] red on that list. I said >> correct.

[1:47:48] » Okay. So, leave them on this list, right? This is a removal list.

[1:47:52] » Correct. >> So, leave those red ones on the list and

[1:47:54] everything else comes off. >> So, the other ones we're keeping.

[1:47:57] » Keeping. >> Correct. Now, the direction is what

[1:47:59] would you like us to do with those trees?

[1:48:02] » Keep them. >> Keep them. Keep report them.

[1:48:04] » They need to monitor and such time a condition looks worse, we bring them

[1:48:08] back. Same as that one 11:01 except we're not

[1:48:13] pruning any of them. >> So I'm sorry. So same but we will not be

[1:48:16] conducting sonic tomography. We're just going to conduct visual inspections of

[1:48:20] these trees and >> you know as as their conditions worsen

[1:48:26] » to >> or improve like

[1:48:27] » or improve. Absolutely. Absolutely. >> There's only

[1:48:30] » I'm sorry. >> Oh my god. It's like there's beetles

[1:48:33] talk and there's like one tree that has freaking beetles. So let's be honest

[1:48:37] here. >> All right. So, so that's that's the is

[1:48:39] that enough clarification? We're going to just

[1:48:41] » we'll continue monitoring them and caring for them in the way we normally

[1:48:45] would unless >> the condition worsens or hopefully

[1:48:48] improves. >> Okay.

[1:48:50] » Okay. Okay. Let's move on to the next next item.

[1:48:56] » Let's go. Professional design services agreement.

[1:49:00] » Okay. I don't have the click here.

[1:49:06] » Okay. Item number two, uh this is for the Lacy Park office renovation. This is

[1:49:11] for awarding a professional design services agreement with LOC architects.

[1:49:16] Um this item was in has been included in our capital improvement program budget

[1:49:21] and we're bringing forward um why this project was originally presented. We'll

[1:49:27] go into the next slide. um as presented during our uh capital improvement

[1:49:32] program budgeting uh during our annual budgeting process. The this project was

[1:49:36] recommended for um inclusion in the in our budget because of the aging

[1:49:41] condition and deteriorating condition of the facility. It's a 1930s era parks and

[1:49:46] recreation um excuse me, parks and public works office facility um with

[1:49:51] aging um systems, building systems, plumbing, HVAC, electrical. Um there's a

[1:49:57] number of code compliance issues and other associated um uh water intrusion

[1:50:02] uh issues that have occurred over the many decades the building has been

[1:50:06] there. It was identified on our historical resources um inventory as a

[1:50:12] contributing uh back factor or contributing building to the historic

[1:50:16] nature of Lacy Park. And um so the significant obviously deferred

[1:50:22] maintenance and operational deficiencies, ADA compliance and um

[1:50:26] insufficient just functionality of the building is why this project was

[1:50:31] recommended to move forward in our budget originally. Um going to the next

[1:50:35] photo. Um many of you have all seen this. A lot of this is just showing the

[1:50:39] existing conditions. You go to the next slide. um the office space, the

[1:50:44] restrooms that are only male restrooms and don't

[1:50:48] provide any privacy if you walk out of the office into them. Um there's just a

[1:50:52] number of issues with just the general layout and functionality of the space.

[1:50:57] Next photo uh sorry slide. Um so included in the uh scope of the work for

[1:51:02] the renovation includes ref reconfiguring, modernizing the spaces.

[1:51:07] Um obviously upgrading our building systems. Um making sure that we're code

[1:51:11] compliant when it comes to ADA fire life safety. Um some minor structural

[1:51:16] strengthening and site drainage improvements. And of course um foremost

[1:51:21] I want to point out is the historic character of the building because it is

[1:51:24] a contributing building. The intention of this project is to preserve the

[1:51:29] existing exterior appearance um and to focus primarily on the interior um

[1:51:34] preserving that historical nature of the building.

[1:51:38] Um so the city did issue an RFP um back in February when we were first

[1:51:42] contemplating this project for the compet competitive procurement and

[1:51:46] selection of an architect to deliver this um project and we received four

[1:51:51] proposal four proposals in response to that solicitation

[1:51:56] um identified in the staff report. Dunar Architecture, LOC Architects, Onyx, Onyx

[1:52:02] Architects, and Studio Tsquare um were the four proposals that we received. We

[1:52:08] conducted we reviewed the staff reviewed the proposals, conducted interviews um

[1:52:12] and ultimately are recommending moving forward with LOC architects as the um

[1:52:18] firm to deliver this as providing the best overall combination of their

[1:52:23] qualifications, experience, their understanding, project approach and

[1:52:27] cost. um in meeting all of the selection

[1:52:30] criteria for this work. Um this gives you a little bit of

[1:52:35] background. I won't go through all of this. It's included in their proposal,

[1:52:38] but um just they've have a significant inspir um in the area on historic and

[1:52:43] non-historic projects um particularly adaptive reuse in terms of how we're

[1:52:48] going to be reconfiguring spaces and working on historic projects like the

[1:52:52] Hollywood Bowl. Next one. Um, so the fiscal impact and

[1:52:58] project funding, um, our fiscal year 2627

[1:53:02] adopted CIP budget includes an appropriation of $250,000.

[1:53:07] Um, and with the proposal that we received from LOC Architects, the

[1:53:11] proposed contract fee is $135,330

[1:53:17] and there's sufficient funding in our budget without any um request for

[1:53:21] additional appropriation to move forward. So, the uh recommendation

[1:53:25] before you is to approve a professional services agreement for architectural

[1:53:30] design services for the Lacy Park office renovation project with LOC in the

[1:53:36] amount of $135,330 and authorize the city manager to

[1:53:42] execute the agreement on behalf of the city. Um we do have the principal from

[1:53:46] LOC here as well um this evening if you had any questions for him, but otherwise

[1:53:50] I'm happy to answer any questions. All right. Any questions from the

[1:53:55] council?

[1:54:02] » Yeah. Uh, director Shaw. Um, so there were three other bids on this and where

[1:54:07] did they fall like price-wise? >> Um, so they ranged from uh just under

[1:54:13] basically $100,000. We had one for $99,75

[1:54:19] uh was the lowest proposal that we received. Um the other two uh we already

[1:54:24] know as LOC's at 130 135,000 approximately. Um the other two were 147

[1:54:31] and then 267,000. Um as these are professional design

[1:54:35] services. We don't select um the consultant based solely on price. We

[1:54:41] obviously look at qualifications, references, experience. there are

[1:54:44] project understanding and all of those factors results in the ultimate um

[1:54:49] recommendations that we read before you. >> Thank you.

[1:54:55] » Any other questions on this side?

[1:54:59] » Scope of the um of this contract is is mailing for the interior then not not

[1:55:04] the exterior. >> Correct.

[1:55:11] » Thank you, Vice Mayor. and then along with that. So, so since

[1:55:18] it's a big range from 90,000 to 260 for the same scope of work and I'm wondering

[1:55:24] what's the besides of course I know experience and all those but because the

[1:55:28] material selected or because this is same space and same and then why it

[1:55:34] » well this isn't for the construction so this is specifically for design services

[1:55:38] associated >> um so it doesn't have anything to do

[1:55:41] with the materials selection um at this point um that obviously factor into the,

[1:55:46] you know, anticipated uh construction estimate for the project is in the like

[1:55:50] $750,000 to million dollar range depending on, you know, as we've um get

[1:55:56] into the project design and dealing with the issues um with the systems and

[1:56:01] upgrades needed >> and we're only touching the interior,

[1:56:04] but if we >> predominantly there is some site work

[1:56:07] for like ADA accessibility, we do have to factor in path of travel. So there

[1:56:11] could be some exterior and drainage site improvements but mi but to the exterior

[1:56:16] of the building itself minimal um if any we're we're intention is not to touch

[1:56:20] the exterior of the building >> and so since you know you mentioned that

[1:56:25] this is a significant part of historic you know part of AC park and everything

[1:56:30] will be preserved as is to >> the exterior look of the building will

[1:56:36] be will be maintained as it is today. Um we're not touching that at all. This is

[1:56:42] really reconfiguring spaces >> once the the renovation started for

[1:56:46] example the design and then if we discover certain part that's

[1:56:49] deteriorating will be on you know just interior repair and we need to do

[1:56:53] something then it'll be done. I mean because I saw also on the you know the

[1:56:58] uh qualification for for the OC that that they also have experience in in in

[1:57:03] restoring or or doing something like historic project in uh ro uh I mean the

[1:57:09] the Hollywood ball. >> Correct. So to the extent that we had to

[1:57:14] um address anything exterior that could affect the appearance the goal of that

[1:57:19] would be to historically preserve the look and character of the building as it

[1:57:24] is. consulting where they have someone in house that has knowledge for

[1:57:28] designing or repairing historical you know repair related you know structure

[1:57:35] or or >> yes I mean there you know and in our

[1:57:38] interview process with them they do have um experience with the secretary of

[1:57:41] interior standards for historical properties um and they have worked on

[1:57:45] historical properties um that had criteria that had to be preserved um but

[1:57:50] I'm if you would like anything further I can have him expand on

[1:57:56] Thank you. >> Okay.

[1:57:57] » Okay. Councilwoman Sheperon. >> Yeah. It occurred to me on this subject

[1:58:01] and I appreciate that um Council Member Lo brought this up. The historic

[1:58:05] integrity of the building. A lot depends on the exterior. And I did see in the

[1:58:10] finer print of the proposal that they're planning to change all the doors and

[1:58:14] windows. And that brought a concern to me. I know that if we do replace windows

[1:58:19] obviously and and do a um an extensive remodel, we should be doing double glass

[1:58:25] or whatever is the appropriate for the um insulation standards that we now

[1:58:30] have. But I'm hoping that we still use wood or something off of our approved

[1:58:37] list that resembles that or whatever. And I don't know the

[1:58:42] commercial grade version of this. So I don't know if the approved list includes

[1:58:46] such things. So I don't know that much detail about it. But I just want to make

[1:58:49] sure for our windows and doors because that would affect wood that will affect

[1:58:55] the look um if we don't try to replicate sort of style-wise what there are now.

[1:59:00] And to just put in modern windows in order to get the LED rating or something

[1:59:05] to me might be adverse to the because it's right across from Therner House and

[1:59:09] the goal that we're doing. Yes, and that has been considered. So, yes, that would

[1:59:12] be part of the project is um similar to what we, you know, even did at San

[1:59:16] Marino Center that we would either be preserving to the extent the windows

[1:59:19] that we can and or replacing something that looks like what we have so that we

[1:59:24] wouldn't be affecting the appearance of the building knowing that it's across

[1:59:27] from the house and that it is a historical building and its location in

[1:59:31] the park. >> Thank you. So that was just the doors

[1:59:33] and windows thing brought raised a question and I wanted to ask that but I

[1:59:36] appreciate I know that you're doing a good job and these seem like an

[1:59:39] excellent group to work with with their past experience. So thank you for

[1:59:43] bringing them forward. >> Okay, no questions for me. I guess we'll

[1:59:47] open up for public comments if any >> nothing online.

[1:59:53] Okay, closing the public comments and do we

[1:59:57] have a motion here from the council?

[2:00:03] I move to approve a professional services agreement for architectural

[2:00:07] design services for the Lacy Park office renovation project with LLC, Inc. in the

[2:00:12] amount of $135,330 and authorize the city manager to

[2:00:17] execute the agreement on behalf of the city.

[2:00:21] » Second roll call, please. >> Council member Chang,

[2:00:25] » yes. >> Council member Cha,

[2:00:27] » yes. >> Council member Shepard Romy,

[2:00:29] » I. Vice Mayor Low. >> Yes.

[2:00:31] » And Mayor Cho. >> Yes.

[2:00:33] » Motion passes. >> All right. I think that's it for today's

[2:00:38] meeting. Do we have any uh written communications or public

[2:00:44] writings for distribution? We already got Yeah, we already got

[2:00:49] that. Um any other items that council would like to add to a future agenda?

[2:00:55] » Yes, I have two. One has to do with the tree issue. if we're going to um bring

[2:01:00] back the ordinance. I don't know if other council members uh feel that we

[2:01:04] need to work on either the process or the

[2:01:09] preservation the removal reasons restating those. I don't know if we want

[2:01:14] to do that um to avoid

[2:01:19] and clarify help speed it along when tree lists

[2:01:26] removal lists come forward in the future so we could streamline that process.

[2:01:30] » Do you have a time uh I guess a time on the agenda that we want to try to get

[2:01:37] that on? >> I would like to do it in October,

[2:01:41] November. I don't know. >> So I guess if we do then should we have

[2:01:45] I guess it would be whole you would >> the tree leons would work

[2:01:50] » recommendations and then >> the staff

[2:01:52] » staff would work. Would that be possible? I guess what would it be?

[2:01:56] » Yeah. Um so if there's a consensus of the council to um open up the policy and

[2:02:00] make amendments to the policy, we can certainly do that with the tree liaison

[2:02:04] being the council appointed individual. So we won't set up an ad hoc or anything

[2:02:08] else. Um but I'll be completely honest with the council. I I don't think this

[2:02:11] can come back in in the next 30 or 60 days given the way the council agenda is

[2:02:16] set up. The next Friday meeting, just for daylighting, the next Friday meeting

[2:02:20] in two weeks, we have two appeals, two planning commission appeals that are

[2:02:24] coming before this council on a Friday morning um as the action items in

[2:02:28] October. We plan to bring um several items hopefully. We'll have the speed

[2:02:33] study before you and a couple other things. I just I don't know to be honest

[2:02:38] if director Shaw and director uh Figureroa have time to do that

[2:02:42] particularly with the fact that we do not have an arborist on staff yet we'd

[2:02:47] be working with either um consulting arborist Harish or someone else. So if

[2:02:53] you'd like us to work with Mr. Harish and continue to do that or we were

[2:02:57] largely I think you know councelor Shepard and I had conversations about

[2:03:00] looking at this when we can once we have an arborist on board. Um, I understand

[2:03:04] it's, you know, important for the council member to get it done, you know,

[2:03:07] before her term. Whatever the council's pleasure is, I just I don't know, to be

[2:03:11] completely honest that we'll be able to get something done without a full-time

[2:03:13] arborist on board um in in the next few months.

[2:03:21] Um, it seems like we can work with Mayor

[2:03:25] Posa who is providing a half a million dollars of tree services and they must

[2:03:29] have a person on staff who could consult with us considering they are the ones

[2:03:33] that do our tree care and our maintenance and our trimming which a lot

[2:03:38] of these troubled trees are part of. And so I would think that they would be a

[2:03:43] good group. But again, I don't know if there's so much time in a day and I

[2:03:48] don't want to not do it, but I'm hoping that we could look to them and work with

[2:03:53] them for some guidance and also do research of what other cities have done

[2:03:58] and see if there's any more useful language that could help the council

[2:04:01] resolve these things quicker and, you know, with less specifics because I

[2:04:07] understand everybody doesn't want to talk about every tree every time, right?

[2:04:11] So I'm trying to help the process. >> I would agree to that because right now

[2:04:15] we're making this as a a blanket decision. Every time it's a blanket and

[2:04:19] then we have to pay >> right

[2:04:20] » and so we should separate the process. that tree is dead. certain other things

[2:04:25] if there's room we should at least start to look into those otherwise you know

[2:04:29] like like using the first three trees as an example if we use it as a blanket you

[2:04:35] know in a you know make a blanket decision last last time one of the three

[2:04:41] will be will be removed without the second look and now there's a scientific

[2:04:45] evidence showing that it actually can be safe so it's not that and then so just I

[2:04:51] just want to make sure this new policy identifies you know, further separate.

[2:04:55] So we don't have we don't make the blanket decision. We don't also don't

[2:04:59] pick tree by tree every single time. So just that's the direction.

[2:05:03] » It doesn't seem like we're going to be able to fit on the next agenda. So why

[2:05:06] don't the tree lelayison on see how much can get done in the interim and then if

[2:05:10] we bring it up on that agenda that meeting for the next one then and we're

[2:05:14] ready we can discuss it. >> Okay.

[2:05:15] » The following. >> It's two weeks, right? So I think

[2:05:19] » I'm not expecting this at all this month. I thought this October or

[2:05:22] November. Um well >> you can kind of brainstorm.

[2:05:25] » Yeah. So let me just just so we can plan it out together. I

[2:05:30] want to make sure we set a realistic expectations. Our

[2:05:34] we're looking at calendars. So we will be publishing the agenda for the

[2:05:38] September meeting here in um today's the 9th. In 10 days time,

[2:05:42] » right? >> So September's off the table. October

[2:05:45] would be October 14th or the 30th. We have two dates. we um we would be

[2:05:52] publishing those agendas within 30 days give or take that I don't know will give

[2:05:56] enough time for the leaison to do meaningful work given how important this

[2:06:00] is um we can what we can do is >> well we have to do something

[2:06:04] » yeah let us go back and do this let us and I don't want to make the next

[2:06:08] council walk into this and having not done it right

[2:06:12] » at least attempted to do something that's better for everybody that helps

[2:06:16] » I think we I think we generally know where the council is on this there's you

[2:06:18] know a strata that you want us to look at. What we'll do is two things. Let us

[2:06:21] go back and find um a handful of tree ordinances from a handful of different

[2:06:25] cities to see how other folks do it. Um if the council, the tree liaison would

[2:06:30] like to provide their input on the current ordinance. Um we will work as

[2:06:34] hard as we can. Um I just I didn't want to, you know, set unreal expectations as

[2:06:38] we're trying to finish up the fire department project and a couple

[2:06:41] different things. Um we also have to move the November meeting because of

[2:06:45] Veterans Day. Um, so we'll dance around all this, but the city attorney, do you

[2:06:51] want to add something, Mr. Montes? >> Yeah, just for clarification. It's not

[2:06:54] an ordinance. It's the city's it's the council's policy.

[2:06:56] » Okay. >> So, we'll So, I see a consensus of the

[2:07:00] council. We'll start some work on that. We'll do it as as expediently as

[2:07:04] possible. Um, >> and then what was the other? You had

[2:07:08] another agenda item you wanted to add. >> Oh, and the other is related to the

[2:07:14] trees as well. And this has to do I um would like our uh this is not a

[2:07:23] high staffed thing but we talked about the um trimming of trees that are

[2:07:29] overextended and ill health and etc. And I know that um it would be behoove us to

[2:07:37] do that. And if it is an extra expenditure that's beyond I don't know

[2:07:41] what is covered within our Mariposa um uh existing contract where it's a

[2:07:47] certain amount per year max. And so I wanted to see if we could just follow

[2:07:50] that down before storms get here. I do appreciate other council members

[2:07:55] concerns about the trees and residents concerns and we are expecting this is

[2:08:00] something to do. So, this isn't necessarily staff time and writing

[2:08:03] anything up, but can we um ask Mariposa for um I don't know, a prophylactic

[2:08:11] trimming of stress trees that have been on this list or on a main thoroughare

[2:08:17] and overhang. Um can we have that type of thing that's done in a conservative

[2:08:21] way but to help um minimize potential branch loss or something? ask them to

[2:08:27] come earlier than they might otherwise, you know, following the schedule or

[2:08:31] something like that. >> Yes,

[2:08:33] » we can we can assess that. Um, a vast majority of the budget is dedicated to

[2:08:39] the grid pruning, um, which will start in well, depending on weather, but

[2:08:43] likely, you know, fall time like we would normally in October or so. Um, we

[2:08:47] obviously spent a significant amount recently on all our palm tree pruning.

[2:08:50] Um, that does eat up the vast majority. Um, we have a little bit left for some

[2:08:54] minor prunings and things around. >> Cut those down and they make a real

[2:08:58] mess. But anyway, they're very [laughter]

[2:09:01] » to maintain. >> You understand what I'm saying? We could

[2:09:04] highlight that for them and and invest a little bit more money out of the grid

[2:09:08] pruning process into doing some for this potential storm.

[2:09:15] » Does that make sense? I mean, I think >> is that a preemptive

[2:09:18] are we doing preemptive work within our budgets? Is that is that what we're

[2:09:21] talking about? Okay. >> Yeah. So, we have so we have grid

[2:09:23] pruning as as director Shaw mentioned. So, what we will do is if I understand

[2:09:26] the direction of the council member is as we do grid pruning, if there are

[2:09:30] opportunities to to trim back street overhangs and other overhangs within our

[2:09:36] budget, we will do that uh more prophylactically than we have in the

[2:09:39] past. Right. Traditionally, we don't cut things that are just overhangs here and

[2:09:43] there, but we will look to do that where we see some trees that might pose

[2:09:47] greater risk than others. >> The older ones or some of these that are

[2:09:49] on our list, >> right? And do I see a consensus of the

[2:09:52] council to do that? >> Do you need it? [laughter]

[2:09:56] » I just want to make sure. Yeah. I mean, I'm just nodding heads. I see one

[2:09:59] nodding head, too. Yeah. Okay. No one's No one's objecting. So, thank you.

[2:10:02] [laughter] >> Okay. Thank you. And I'm sorry, Director

[2:10:04] Shaw. I know you have a lot on your plate, but it should be something they

[2:10:07] can keep. >> And one quick item. I don't should be

[2:10:09] » agenda item. Go ahead. >> Uh well, it's related to uh what again

[2:10:14] the uh the uh Elino will be may be facing. I know the county had meeting uh

[2:10:19] in preparation for this year Elino may be facing. I know the chiefs uh probably

[2:10:25] have been working on already. I just want to make sure that our city also has

[2:10:29] a plan or you know is prepared to to to deal with that you know and and then

[2:10:34] pruning the trees overhang is part of that. I think that's an important, you

[2:10:38] know, thing to do facing that. So, so just I just want to make sure if that I

[2:10:42] don't know if that's going to be a should be an agenda item, but I just

[2:10:46] want to make sure ROC has planned for Absolutely. And we will be reporting on

[2:10:51] um so Chief Ra will be making a presentation at the next public safety

[2:10:55] committee meeting on El Nino and some of our preparations. We will keep the

[2:10:58] council apprised during my uh city manager reports at the next several

[2:11:01] council meetings. Um you'll see a lot of information in the weekly briefings

[2:11:05] going out. Uh we've got quite a bit of robust information, but the preparation

[2:11:08] started actually a couple months back. You know, the palm tree pruning was part

[2:11:12] of that. Uh cleaning the catch basins, the contract um to award the catch basin

[2:11:17] screens today was part of that. There's a lot going on, but we'll make sure that

[2:11:20] we continue to put that information out into the universe.

[2:11:26] » Okay. And then any any special adjournments from anyone?

[2:11:29] » I do. Okay, >> I would appreciate the council if we may

[2:11:34] adjourn this meeting in memory of John Snare. He was a product of our local

[2:11:39] schools. Um he played in sports throughout uh Valentine, Huntington,

[2:11:45] Foxes, and San Marino High School on the football team where he won the coaches

[2:11:49] award his year um when he was senior. And he was an incredible young man who

[2:11:55] touched many lives through the community groups as well as Boy Scouts where he

[2:12:00] was actively involved in our community and making it better. And um we lost him

[2:12:05] way too soon before the age of 30 to cancer. And um his family and uh as you

[2:12:11] may know the snares, there's a couple families in town who live here and have

[2:12:15] a dentist back just nearby. Um and so he is surrounded by um

[2:12:23] anyway a very loving family and um also um

[2:12:31] W. Michael Johnson who was a city council member from 1988 to 1992 and

[2:12:36] also I believe he was president of San Marino historical society and he came

[2:12:40] into many planning commission meetings and was very involved who I'm sure all

[2:12:44] of you if you were on planning commission he was a very devoted

[2:12:47] community member as well. So, those are just two people who I know in my life,

[2:12:51] but I'm sure there's been losses, but I wanted to make sure that we mentioned

[2:12:57] » um I would also like to um make a special German to um Mr. Robert Bob

[2:13:03] Gerald Twist. Um also, um former council member uh two terms from 2001 to 2009.

[2:13:12] Also served twice as the mayor of San Marino.

[2:13:23] All right. Um, on that Somber note, I adjourn today's meeting. Uh, and our

[2:13:28] next meeting will be September 25th at 8:30 at city council chambers.

City Council Regular Meeting 09-09-2026

Transcript