[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.