All right. We're going to start our meeting. We have everyone I anticipate being here. Is that correct?
It's a Bradley. It's easy to all be here by Zoom or any other means or okay. Then we are here. I'll call the meeting in the order and I'll ask for the roll call from Mr. Bradley.
They're doing here.
I can't remember where Eric. Here.
Count to remember his father, Adam. Yeah.
Count to remember summers. Here. And vice-maier disease, absent.
Okay. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance.
Yes, today I attended Lafco and one of the members was not there yet and he did about five more minutes.
So I was called upon to do the pledge of allegiance and it was the slowest pledge of allegiance.
I ever done to give the commissioner a few more minutes to get there. She did. She arrived right on time.
All right. Okay.
We're on to item four adoption of the agenda.
Ms. Bradley, do you have any changes to the agenda? I see we have a full house of nons on the agenda. Correct?
Correct. Let's see.
I'll look for a motion to adopt. There's obviously a lot listed on here that won't happen tonight other than the old business.
I'll look for a motion to adopt the agenda. I'll make a motion to adopt the agenda.
A second. All right. All in favor of adopting the agenda as is say aye. Any opposed?
None. All right. We have adopted the agenda.
No minutes. So we're on to public forum. I'll note that we've received some public comment under public forum and then we've also received public comment under the item to appoint one.
And I'll open the matter for public forum with anyone which is to approach your city council or only.
Seeing no public comment.
I always like going first.
Well, welcome. Oh, thank you so much. I've been here a long time and thank you for all your services, mayor, council, staff.
So I'm not sure what I can accomplish here. There's a little bit of a fee a complete with the trees obviously and you know that we can point to the responsibilities, but I think the overall arching aspect how I am approaching this is that.
If you're going to make a comment on trees, I'll come later on.
I didn't mean to be cut your off. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
Fine. Anything other than what's on the agenda? I typically read this, but.
Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. We'll get right to it in short order.
Mr. Man.
Good afternoon.
I'm waiting for my phone because this was kind of last minute. Usually I have things written now.
But I am urging you to consider the standards of leadership, accountability and public communication that this council demonstrates and expects.
I am one of the individuals referenced in a recent next door post by council member Aaron Barrick Barrick.
It is attached to my comment for your next session. So you can see it for what it says.
In that post, he publicly attributes patterns of behavior, motives and conduct to specific community members he has chosen to block on that forum.
Because I am among those blocked, I am prevented from seeing his statements in real time, responding to them or correcting the record in the same public forum where those statements are being made.
For the three other named community members he identifies each of whom he is likewise unable to view, respond to or correct his statements in that forum.
This is not just about a disagreement, it is about an elect official using his position to create and control a one sided public narrative about private residents.
In this case, a council member is using a widely accessible community platform to characterize residents in negative terms while ensuring those same residents cannot participate in the conversation.
That is not simply setting boundaries, it is exclusion combined with amplification and it raises serious concerns about fairness, transparency and accountability.
When council member Barrick or any council member communicates in public, the authority of that role carries with it using a public platform to describe residents who have no ability to respond undermines trust and sets a troubling precedent for civic engagement.
It also sends a clear message to the community, participation comes with the risk of being publicly mischaracterized without recourse.
That is a chilling effect on civil participation in public dialogue.
If this council expects professionalism, fairness and sound judgment from anyone serving as city manager, those same standards should be consistently reflected in the conduct of its own members.
I am asking that the council acknowledge this issue and affirm clear expectations for fair, transparent and accountable communication by its members.
Silence on this issue will be understood by the community, including myself and the other individuals named in council member Barrick's post as acceptance of this standard of conduct.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Others.
All right, and I did receive that letter and another letter, some more letter.
So just for the public at home, if there is public at home, the last comment you made about silence, that is kind of the process.
So we will take it up at another time, for sure, as I responded to you.
Okay. So Mr. Oliver, you know you're going to be allowed to make comment a little bit later. I apologize for that, but that's how it's going to work.
And I'm going to move right through it.
A lot of nuns here.
I did want to mention that Michelle Kovell issued a written comment.
I may have mentioned that earlier, but I don't know if I mentioned her name Michelle Kovell.
Thank you for that.
No reports by staff.
None, none, none.
We are moving all the way down.
There are any other items under our agenda, other than on to old business.
This will each all let you introduce the matter and we'll go from there.
Certainly. Thank you, Mayor.
Council members.
Good evening.
This matter is being brought back to you from the meeting on March 28.
Thank you. Thank you.
And we wanted to provide you an update both in response to some of the public comments that were made out the meeting as well as submitted in writing.
Mr. Jansson and Assistant Director of Public Works is here to make the presentation and provide more details associated with the project.
Thank you.
So if I may have a next slide, please.
So just as a quick recap, the matter doesn't work or does work.
Okay.
I don't know.
Yeah.
That's the one I look at, but also for the audience.
Either way, that's about right.
I wouldn't go that far.
You want your public to see it, too.
Okay, that's about right.
It works.
Cool.
All right.
All right. Again, as a quick recap.
The issue that we're seeking guidance from the Council on is an interfering gas line with the sidewalk improvement project.
Pull that mic.
I'll close it to you.
Thank you.
So as you can see in the image on the slide here, we thought the gas line was out in the street.
This was derived from past mapping.
Next slide, please.
In reality, the gas line runs right through the sidewalk and right through each of the existing tree wells.
So each of the old trees were actually growing around it and it is fairly shallow buried.
Next slide, please.
So pipe is buried one and a half to two and a half feet below the surface.
So effectively it penetrates each and every root ball from the old street trees.
Next slide.
So we presented this item to City Council in March 24.
City Council had requested more information regarding the design options.
Utility location process and an explanation for why the utility conflict was not discovered prior to the start of construction.
Next slide, please.
So before we begin with that, the public works wishes to emphasize that the location of the utility is not the principal conflict.
It is the shallow buried depth of the utility that prevents the project from moving forward in accordance to the plan.
Had this utility been buried at a more conventional depth of 3 to 4 feet below grade,
some grinding wood would have continued with only minor revision to the plan.
Next slide.
So first major question, can the City reduce the scope of the project to allow PG&E time to relocate their utility?
The answer is yes, but this is not advisable.
And the reasons, a significant reduction in the scope is not going to entitle the city to a reduction in the contract price.
So even if we reduce scope, we're still paying everybody as much money to our contractor.
And also the project must be complete in order to receive the full O-Bag funding and to meet the city's funding match requirement.
So the city's best path forward that preserves funding is to deliver the project in full.
And reduce the project and reducing the project scope now in the middle of construction would likely deliver less benefit at a greater cost.
Next slide, please.
Can the City get PG&E to pay for a new sidewalk like it did near sunshine market?
So the answer is no. The project that PG&E performed near sunshine was a project of their own.
So they were fully and solely responsible for the cost of that project.
They had torn up the sidewalk for their own purposes to repair their own facilities.
And sidewalk restoration was simply necessary.
The city staff had done to simply direct them to restore the sidewalk in conformance with the sidewalk improvement plan that we already had in an area that is now considered part of the phase one B section.
PG&E within the phase one A section that we're discussing between pint and atoms is only obligated to adjust the elevations of their vaults and meter boxes.
And with no cost to the city.
But the city sidewalk improvements themselves are the sole financial responsibility of the city. Next slide, please.
What flexibility does council have?
So the options that preserve federal funding are very, very limited.
So the O-Bag 3 funding is available in the current federal fiscal year.
And that ends on September 30th, 2026.
And spent O-Bag funds become available to other bay area project sponsors at the end of the federal fiscal year.
So even though we have these funds obligated, they are risk of being de-obligated if this project drags out.
And as a result, other jurisdictions who are able to deliver their projects would potentially be able to be awarded our funds because we are held up for other reasons.
So again, the city's best path forward is to select an option that causes at least amount of delay and the smallest amount of additional expense.
Next slide, please.
Why the utility conflict was not discovered prior to the start of construction?
Because utility mapping acquired by our consultant BKF showed the gas utility to be in the street.
BKF incorporated this information into the original project plans.
Next slide, please.
When was the utility conflict discovered?
So, Jolati, our construction contractor.
Inform the city of the potential conflict on February the 12th, 2026.
And how did the city respond?
City staff directed Jolati to pothole the utility to confirm the location and depth.
Next slide.
What does PG&E say about this conflict?
So, public works met with PG&E representatives on April 2nd.
PG&E confirmed that planting street trees over a gas line is not the preferred practice, despite the fact that that is apparently what it happened before.
However, PG&E has not expressed any opinion about public works proposed plan to shift the tree wells, hydro-escalate, and plant 24-inch box trees over the gas line.
I did reach out to PG&E again today, just to let of know that I was about to say this in a public forum, they did not respond.
So, the public works recommendation for resolution of this conflict remains the same as that which we proposed on March 24th.
Next slide.
So, as a reminder, what we are suggesting is shifting the tree well locations away from the existing stumps.
So, the spacing will change slightly.
Where the stumps are located, these areas would be expanded into planters.
And the stumps would be cut flush with sub-grade. So slightly below the surface of the sidewalk. And a little bit of potting soil applied to it, and some form of low-growing vegetation. The plan that the city staff have generated, places these different planters, within about four feet of each of the new tree wells, so that the irrigation system already planned for the tree wells can simply be co-opted to provide irrigation to them.
The planter simply providing a small conduit or sleeve between the tree well and the planter, and drip irrigation can simply be pulled through at our convenience. Next slide, please.
So, this part you've seen before, the benefits of doing this is it has a minimal delay to the project. The gas pipe remains undisturbed. It has low additional cost, reduces the total amount of new concrete that we have to install.
Adds greenery, and the sidewalk remains ADA compliant. We'll be able to maintain a five foot minimum width, which is the minimum amount for a person in a wheelchair to do 180 degree turn. Next slide.
This slide you've seen before as well. These are the, these are the detriments to this plan. We will reduce the number of new street trees by three.
The surveyor will have to re-stake the tree well locations and add the planters. This is likely to incur an increased cost and change order from gelati.
Sidewalk is reduced to about five feet wide, but again this still is fully compliant with ADA.
The box size of the new trees must be reduced to 24 inches. Now council had previously directed public works to specify 48 inch box trees.
The original plan and the city arborous recommendation had actually been 24 inch. However, there had been previous public comment desiring to restore the look of downtown faster, which was why the 48 inch box trees were selected by council.
We would simply be re-reverting back to that original plan that had been created by the landscape architect for the project gates and associates and had been recommended by our city arborous Carlos Urebe.
The street trees on the west side will still have a box size of 48 inches and look unbalanced.
Council does have the option to go ahead and re-revert the entire project back to 24 inch box trees in order to restore balance. However, public works is keenly aware that previous public desire would be to restore the look of downtown as fast as possible.
So we leave it to council discretion as to whether or not that is a benefit or a detriment. Next slide please.
Questions. I'm sure there will be many.
Why is PG&E resistant or apparently resistant to commenting on this and working through it with the city or would that be speculation on your part?
I mean you met with who did you meet with first of all?
So I met with Mark Van Gorder. He is our PG&E government liaison.
I know him well.
And Eduardo Ochoa. He is the, how can I describe this? He's kind of the overall utility guy or underground utility guy.
He is the person that we contact when we have utility relocations that have to be performed under the franchise agreement between the city and PG&E.
He coordinates this but he does he does not project manage. So he more or less sets policy.
We also met with a land agent whose name is escaping me.
Would we require some kind of a release or indemnification or something or permission or written permission for PG&E to plan over the existing pipeline as far as you know.
They have not requested anything of the sort.
Have there been discussions about moving potential trees away from the sidewalk.
At least in areas where you can do that obviously there's park and then there are buildings.
Has that been an option that's been discussed at all?
Particularly Lyman Park right there in the front.
In our meeting we briefly discussed the possibility of moving the trees to the back of sidewalk. So basically within Lyman Park.
PG&E did not express an opinion about this and I did go ahead and express the opinion that it was the city's preference to put the trees at back of curb so that they match the other side of the street and the rest of downtown.
With the 24 inch boxes be required change in tree or would be the same species.
It would be the same species. What is that?
It is Japanese zelcova and Chinese pistach, those are the species selected by council.
Okay.
What happens if we decide not to put in any trees and we go forward with the sidewalk.
What is your opinion of that?
It's a little bit fraught again because of the O-Bag funding.
So we by accepting the O-Bag funding and obligating that funding using the plan we have.
We've essentially entered into a contract with CalTrans that requires that we deliver these trees.
In addition, the replacement of the trees was one of the environmental mitigations we made for compliance with NEPA.
So we would be not complying with our promises under NEPA and I'm not quite sure how serious that would be to deliver say only half of the trees promised.
Do we have a general sense of the condition of the pipeline, the age of it and whether it's on some kind of a scheduled replacement program or do we have any kind of information on that?
First of all, I'm surprised that they allowed it the first time when those trees are planning what 35 years ago.
I'm not sure the exact date.
They were not young trees. I mean, these trees were probably in the area 40 to 50 years old.
So that would potentially put them as early as the 1970s when they were planted, which would also be consistent with about the time that polygast line was coming into common use.
So it's entirely possible both when in and about the same time. It's unclear which came first, the tree or the gas line.
How much is the city's match financial match to qualify for the O-bag roughly in general terms, if you know?
I don't know the exact amount off the top of my head. It is somewhere in the area of $300,000 in minimum.
And I believe we have a commitment closer to $400,000.
The reason I asked that I was wondering if we could buy some time by using those funds, maybe not getting the full bag funds and pleading with O-bag.
First of all, who have we talked anyone at NBTA or anyone who's managing the O-bag grant for NBTA?
So MTC would be our first contact. However, it is cultural assistance who is ultimately responsible for making sure we deliver the project and accordance with our application and obligation documents.
And then back to my question on the, you know, science and time.
So the buying some time issue is really governed by the O-bag obligation itself.
So the O-bag 3 program, which is what we are funded under, ends at the fiscal year, the federal fiscal year this year.
So September 30th.
At that point, the new O-bag program takes over.
And once we pass the effective data of the O-bag program, it's in CalTrans as best interest to ensure that the funds are expended immediately.
This is one of the reasons why we are at a risk of de-obligation.
So essentially the money that's promised to us is no longer promised to us.
And CalTrans then uses that money to start back filling other outstanding projects that are prepared to move forward.
But just need a little bit of more funding to get it over the finish line.
So what would happen is we would start to see the $1.2 million we have obligated slowly reduced over time.
And that's a hard day.
So it is not recommended to let this project extend past September 30th.
And I also want to remind council that, you know, our summer season is coming up here.
Ideally, we should have our sidewalks back in place so that those who are walking in downtown and visiting downtown businesses are able to do so in as much comfort as possible.
So folks can make hay while they have the opportunity.
All right.
Look through my colleagues, further questions or comments and open it to public comment after that.
For questions.
Thanks for the presentation, Erica.
It was great.
Wondering about the planners.
This idea of the planners.
Seems planners or planners to plan to.
Plancers above ground, right, resting I imagine.
Is that correct?
Where they're just sort of on the sidewalk.
So we there actually was a brief discussion about that with PG&E.
PG&E even offered that as a potential mitigation to put the new trees, the 24 inch box trees into above grade planners.
And not excavate at all.
Now, this doesn't help us with the existing stumps.
We would still probably need to cut those down to subsurface grade and provide some sort of low-growing vegetation to make that look good.
But PG&E gave tacit approval to the idea that they would support the trees going in planners and know
new trees going in the ground where they would effectively grow around that gas line.
And isn't that that's the plan, right, that we're.
So above ground planters were not the plan.
Okay, so we were we were going to ground planners.
We were going to help me understand what that looks like.
I certainly can't.
So a four by four square whole would be left in the concrete.
A tree grate.
So an iron grate decorative with a frame would be placed within that and the tree planted in the ground there.
So the trunk would rise right up out of the ground just like every other tree on Main Street.
Now, what PG&E and my understanding of what you have suggested is that an above ground planter say something that sits two to three feet above grade or has the rim two to three feet above grade.
Plant the tree effectively in a pot.
Irrigate that and not put it in the ground at all.
PG&E has tacit approval of that idea.
I mean, they did volunteer the idea during our conversation on April 2nd as a mitigation.
And it would technically meet the requirements and our obligations under the O bag program.
The trees would be there.
They just wouldn't be in the ground.
We'd still have irrigation.
So the original plan that's good to know there's options there.
Or whether that's an attractive option remains to be seen.
But if we put it into the ground and these kind of underground planners with the grates.
Doesn't that prohibit the growth of these trees and it would seem like it would stunt over all growth.
And so there'd be a mismatch at some point anyways.
So what is placed in the ground.
Don't think of it as being like a pot buried in the ground.
And what they put in is a root barrier.
So this is essentially a plastic curtain that goes around the perimeter of the treeball or the rootball.
And simply prevents the roots from expanding outward.
They're still free to go down.
And then once they get below the root barrier, then they can expand.
The root barrier is used primarily for the purpose of preventing shallow roots from impacting the sidewalk and lifting it.
The species of the tree, both of these species are also not very aggressive to damaging sidewalks.
So there are roots usually do not cause a big problem.
But we do apply a root barrier.
Are we not concerned with the gas line?
Well, the roots can sort of mine just, you know, going down into the gas line.
The roots will grow around the gas line just like the original street trees would.
So it's a nightmare for future repair.
I mean, the situation that we would be creating by planting this trees is no worse than the one we had.
And no matter what, when PG&E goes to deal with this gas line, they will have to move it.
There is no question about that.
And that was the case long before this project was even considered.
So that brings up a question around.
Do we do?
Do we put any trees in there and wait for the ultimate?
Because we have not determined what I want to get into.
A lot of discussion without opening public comment, but nothing but no, I mean, make your point. I don't want to be concerted, but then we have a six o'clock.
I guess my point to discuss would be do we put anything at all and wait for the final determination of the Main Street property?
Yes, we'd have to go in, but we could prepare the site to do just this and a later date if that's what we decide to go, but it seems perhaps premature.
It jeopardizes our roadbag funding because of the opposition.
I'm sorry, so if we don't put trees in, there's no roadbag.
It jeopardizes it, so I don't know that we wouldn't be able to get maybe some of the funding.
The funding is delivered to us as a reimbursement, so work we don't do, we cannot be reimbursed for.
But more importantly, because planting the trees was one of the mitigations for NEPA compliance,
we are making ourselves less compliant with NEPA, and that is a big problem for federal funding.
That is one of the things that you can do that kills the funding it's in its entirety.
That would happen over the course of an audit, so we may not see the ramifications of that particular decision for several years,
but we may very well expose ourselves to what is called a claw back, which is where
Caltrans comes to us three years after we have finished this project and says,
nope, you didn't comply with the rules, we want all the money back.
That is a big pitfall, especially of these federal funding vehicles.
Any other brief clarifying questions before I open the public comment?
Yeah, thanks.
What's our total cost of this project that we'd seek back from our back, do we know?
So we have an award of 1.2 million dollars.
Right, but what's it take for this sidewalk or what's Jolati Billiness for?
Right, right now we're about, I believe, 1.8 million for the total project.
Okay, so we make up the balances as our match funding, and we do have a minimum match funding requirement.
And believe that's about 300,000, we're over that right now.
So there's a little bit of wiggle room on how much money we actually spend.
But then when we lose or get de-obligated and then do they reassess like a new fiscal year of,
and then you do reapply or where do you sit then?
There would be no re-application for this program.
Okay, this is it, and it ends and then makes a new program of something else.
Okay, exactly, and the new program will have different rules.
You'll actually see a recommendation about a back for for me.
Yeah, well I just risk doing anything that's unsightly or unappreciated by the town in our current state of being.
And I hear bad things about Chinese, Fistache, I'm not a professional, but you know, we all want to,
I think it's best to take time and do, I mean, I don't want to, you know,
step, you know, miss this money, but I really just want to stop making bad decisions,
whatever that may be, and what a tricky spot.
I mean, can we just fake the trees there and you know, do some plastic, get the big money,
and then, you know, do some sidewalks, I mean, they didn't stipulate, you know, real or not.
I mean, it's ridiculous, but I think about that spot, you know, being like,
I love benches or something.
Anyways, I think it's time to talk on.
Thanks, Mayor.
No, I just want to allow, so the planning commission started six,
we have a meeting at 530, so I'm talking sort of that, but I'm also a cognizant of that,
that we need open public comment, and then we'll bring it back.
I am opening public comment.
Thank you, Kelly Wheaton, Engelwood Avenue.
I am submitted a written comment, and I talked about Groundhog Day.
And now I really am feeling like Groundhog Day.
I was sitting in the back of the room.
I was sitting next to Leslie Milton.
I showed her this picture about the Japanese Delcova.
It is a totally inappropriate tree.
I know it very, very well.
There were four of them alongside my parents' house, and they lifted the sidewalk,
so that it was a very popular skateboarding jump.
I have a picture that I'm happy to share with you,
but it was eliminated a long time ago from the trees.
The other one, the pastache, is better.
It has some issues as well.
But I will just scream as loud as I possibly can against this tree,
and I'll just show you what I'm talking about.
No, no, no, no.
You can...
Well, that's fine, absolutely sent it to us.
Because it's like this around, it lifts up the ground,
the spread on, it's about 50B.
We don't know if it had a root barrier,
or not though when it was planted in your situation, correct?
But the thing with trees is whether you put a root barrier,
what you keep doing is taking a tree that has a certain way of being,
and saying, we're going to make you conform to our situation,
and you can only push that so far.
And this is just crazy.
And then on top of it, I mean putting on gas lines
when you know that the gas lines at some point
or other are going to have to be dug up,
which means all the trees are going to be cut down again.
It's like madness.
Thank you.
We understand the issues are conflicting in many ways.
Good evening there in Council,
Tamara Swanson, St. James Drive,
and just to sort of reiterate what's been said already
about the tree situation.
The answer still was not that the Mayor did pose a question.
Sir, and I'm sorry, I don't know your name.
Well, dress it to me, and then I'll dress it to you.
Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.
You had asked a question of this gentleman,
regarding his PG&E specifically been contacted
with regard to the age of these pipes,
and if they had any plans in the near future to revisit the pipes,
repair the pipes, replace the pipes,
and if there were a timeline attached to that.
All right.
That was not answered unless I did not catch the answer.
Okay.
Do you have other comments?
I do.
So with regard to the feedback funding,
so it appears that again,
the city has found itself into a reactive governance
rather than a proactive governance,
and that seems to be the state of affairs.
So with this funding condendrum,
again, I think the first step would be to contact PG&E
and not just leave a phone call and say they didn't get back to me
in 24 hours.
Continue to call, continue to get a live being on the phone
and just explain the conundrum that this city is in,
that we really do need some resources with PG&E.
We need some assistance,
and possibly we would love to partner with them,
possibly in the future with this,
if it were something that were on their slate
in the next three or four years.
If that were the case,
then maybe we do put some trees in the planters
that can be moved at a later date.
I don't know.
The second question is,
what those planters suffice for this funding from,
is it a bag?
Obag or NEPA?
You said the funding is from.
Obag.
And also has NEPA been contacted to say,
gosh, you know,
we've got this grant.
We are thrilled to have this grant.
However, we ran into some gas lines
where these trees were supposed to go and now
we're in this conundrum.
We find ourselves in a difficult place.
Has anyone reached out to NEPA?
If that's the correct?
Is that the correct organization
or entity to reach out to
to say that we've run into this pickup?
And could we maybe, again, partner,
work together?
We want to facilitate and honor our word?
But words don't just go to be honored
by for these organizations that are giving us funding.
Honoring has to go to the process
and the residents what we all are looking for
leadership to provide.
So that's a two-way street.
And I find it really interesting that
the council would be more interested in honoring
these organizations,
rather than the process of our own due diligence
and addressing these situations
in such a hasty manner,
rather than providing the due diligence
that could have been done again with a phone call
in the beginning of this to say,
let's confirm with PG&E these lines
or where they say they are.
Thank you.
Good afternoon.
My name is Michelle Vue Covell.
I just wanted to say a couple of things,
so I did send in a public comment.
It would be great to see what the 24-inch boxes
look like versus the 48 inch box sizes look like.
And it seems like actually,
I don't know, something that maybe we could do like Photoshop.
I'd be happy to do it if somebody gave me the picture of the trees
just so that I'm pretty good at Photoshop.
I just would like to see the scale of the trees.
Secondly, I think buying time,
I don't know how many times I've had to spend less money
on some plants and wish I had spent more money
on the plants and just got older plants.
So I didn't have to wait so long,
so I would really, I mean,
for me, straight down town,
as the west side, where the post office is,
if we can do the larger size trees, as Claudia said,
I would listen to her.
She's a really great landscape designer.
And she said that,
they kind of grow in pretty quickly,
so she wouldn't worry so much about the odd size.
To that point, I wouldn't go lower just because the other side
had to get lower.
I would try to go with 48 on the post office side.
It's interesting that the report presentation said,
that PG may know comment about planting the new trees
and the new wells,
but that it was clarified later
that they were completely suggesting on the April 7th
phone call that the above-ground planter
was a great mitigation approach to this,
so that the gas lines wouldn't be impacted by the trees.
So it sounds like they're actually okay with putting a planter
in above-ground.
They just didn't want to say anything about putting it in the ground.
The city council addressed you on this.
The word jeopardizes was brought up.
It says,
I think Mr. Barrick, you asked the question whether or not planting the trees
or not planting the trees or something,
but jeopardize the old bag of funding
as expressed by staff.
I guess jeopardizing isn't really clear to me
what technically is or is not going to happen.
And less compliant with the plan
if it is a gas line issue,
it seems like they would maybe understand
that it's out of safety
or potential future adjusting
and if they said that they could,
if the funding can still continue
with just putting a 48 inch box planter
above-ground temporarily to get the money from O-Bang
and get those 48 inch trees
while we then figure out the gas line later.
Perhaps we just put those above.
I don't think it's not the best solution,
but it seems like we still get our O-Bang funding
and we get the 48 inch trees
and they're not planted
where then we have to remove them.
I'm talking about having them planted above-ground,
so their roots don't interfere with the gas lines.
And I guess I'm seeing common situation
that I just want to make decisions out of fear
rather than on all of the facts and knowledge.
Like jeopardizing to me is a little bit the word
jeopardizing doesn't really explain
exactly what would happen.
Thank you.
It's you.
Oh.
Thank you.
All of our call will acclaim.
I just love problems.
So this is new for me,
this rendering of the surface plantings
in the old tree wells and they'll have new tree wells.
So I wasn't prepared for that
because people park along there.
So now when you get out of your car,
there's a high probability you're going to be going into a tree,
where you're going to be maybe going into this low level
landscaping because there's less sidewalk now.
So that's a little bit of a concern.
But I don't know the game with PG&E.
I don't know how it works with pipes,
but can't pipes be rerouted more inside the sidewalk
and then connected at the ends.
So when the PG&E pipe approaches the tree line,
it makes a soft angle and then goes down inside
of the full length of the sidewalk
and then comes back out on the other end.
So we can preserve the tree line.
Is that possible?
Well, we direct questions to us
and then he's keeping track.
Okay, I'm sorry.
You talk to us and then we will talk to him.
Okay, so the question is,
why can't the gas lines are flexible?
Why can't we just have a flexible?
Local detour, just a couple feet from the grinding zone to reroute that PG&E pipe. I mean, we could lay it in there and
tell PG&E connected later when we're done. So I'm looking for solutions here. I mean, and above ground plants, trees, and boxes, just not going to work. That's impossible. That's a short term solution.
It looks terrible. It looks going to be hokey. Those trees are going to outgrow that box. You're going to have to take the box away and you start all over.
So it seems like what I'm concerned about the pipe is I just spent a lot of money dealing with an underground pipe.
Because what happened is the organic material in the ground deteriorated over time, the ground sunk and cracked the pipe.
And I had to redo all this hard escape to deal with a crack pipe because the organic material decomposed.
And I was just stunned with what happened and I was thinking what if that happens here?
Where suddenly this pipe is giving way. It's an old pipe. We don't know how old it is.
And so now what we're facing is a short term solution and a long term solution and we're hedging the money against it.
Another metaphor is I just went through an awful remodel in San Francisco, a condo for my kids.
The door was in the wrong location. I just wanted to move it.
4,000 dollars job. Once we opened the sheet rock, it turned into a 30,000 dollar job because I had to reroute all this electrical.
And so I had to face the same decision. You know, overspan, get it right for the long term or do the short term and get it wrong.
And that's where we're facing. So that's my two cents.
I'd love to see if we could reroute that pipe.
Thank you.
This gentleman knew you heard some of those questions with respect to outreach to PG&E and takes two to tango, I guess, and they're not tangoing.
They did gas lines are extremely complicated. It's not like a water line gas lines are extremely complicated.
We involved in litigation with NBTA and PG&E and gas lines and the buying trail and it just kind of mind them.
But so I'm a little bit aware of the complicating factors.
But in a perfect world, we could deal with PG&E, right?
But that their processes are so slow.
So that's the principle. That's the principle problem.
Again, you know, the time frame with which to deliver this project and retain the funding is relatively short.
You know, we have been planning this project for almost a decade.
So we are at the finish line. It's just a matter of getting over that finish line.
Now, as for communication with PG&E, the meeting that I referenced on April 2,
and that was a Zoom meeting with three PG&E representatives and representatives of the city, including myself.
So we are talking directly.
Okay. However, PG&E has been reluctant to express a real opinion about this matter.
So they aren't stopping us from putting trees in the ground. They are not endorsing us putting trees in the ground.
The fact that we wish to put the trees in the same alignment as the original trees means that any problem PG&E had before this project remains exactly the same as any problem they have after this project.
You know, relocating that gas pipe right now.
That would take several months and forces to pause the project for several months.
And that's in the best case scenario.
And again, that jeopardizes the funding.
And I use jeopardize because I cannot say for a fact that we will be denied the funding.
It will become more of a discretionary thing on the part of culturens as to whether or not they claw back the funding at a later date.
Yeah, I get that.
I wanted to ask a question about B.K.F. but our turn is not here. So I'm not going to ask that question.
I probably wouldn't ask that question out loud anyway.
Yes, we are in a difficult spot, Mr. Leach. Anything else to add to this before we deliberate and make a video on the club's public comment?
No.
I clarify a couple of things.
I close it, someone will jump up immediately afterwards.
Now, clarify a couple of things.
NEPA stands for National Environmental Protection Action Act.
It's the equivalent of California's Sequa.
So it's an environmental process, not an entity, just to clarify that.
Yeah, it's a kind of a challenging dynamic.
I think I think the pots above ground is a creative solution, but to Mr. Coldwell's point.
How long is the temporary or temporary or short-term solution in the government world?
It could tend to be one of those things that is there for ten years.
So it's a terrible solution, but it's probably the best solution in my view.
You know, temporarily buys us some time, but I agree with everybody.
All the points are well taken, we're in a bad spot.
Absolutely.
I would also submit that, I mean, this is kind of the nature of construction in an old part of a town.
I mean, every town, every downtown that has construction in it, deals with these similar types of problems.
Existing infrastructure, once it gets mapped, you adjust, and then you have to pot hole and figure out where the depths are, and then adjust again.
Okay.
Anybody else wishing to comment before I close public comment?
One last public comment.
It's less nearly.
I know you, Oaks.
It was in my public comment the first time.
Can you put the mic in front of your face so we can hear you.
Thank you.
A little bit.
Yeah.
That's better.
It was in my comment letter the first time.
This side of the road is very hot and sunny.
I don't think even the buildings on the other side are very tall.
So you don't have a lot of shadow cast.
I think it would be nice to see the trees on the lima park side.
Leave the sidewalk to be smooth and renewed.
You don't mess with the gas line.
And I think as an option of creativity, it would also be nice to see.
Maybe another structure.
What comes to mind sometimes is like I say a covered bridge or a pergola or something that would continue to provide like some more shade at that kind of like that intense section.
Or the sun shining.
It could also be.
We want to bring tourists to the town.
I mean, you could look at these things.
Something nice and creative.
It could be a spot.
It could be a photo spot.
It could be a kissing spot.
It could be a merry me spot.
I mean, you know, lima park.
It could be a gateway to lima park.
I mean, this area is kind of a wide open space that could really be utilized way more creatively than just hey let's just put the trees back in and over the gas line.
It just seems like a terrible idea like everyone's expressed.
The PG&E is very slow moving and and I think PG&E can can do it and I think we can do it, but it definitely is going to require time and the funding.
We don't want to lose, but I think if we get the trees in, we're not going to lose the funding.
So I think we have good options that do not go back on the gas line and I think we have options for something creative and something for tourists and something to highlight lima park.
Thank you.
Okay, I'll close public comment and bring it back to the council.
My inclination is to move forward with the construction of a sidewalk that's safe for for pedestrians.
That's the ultimate goal that we're trying to achieve.
Hold off on trees.
Potentially.
Put some boxes there separately.
I actually do like the idea of.
Rethinking what we're doing there maybe the best place that there's a place to have an alternative to trees or something along with trees on lima park.
That might be something to think about.
We're not going to make that decision tonight, but it's something you know that the landscape architects and others can vision something for us.
Wow, that could be something there.
I have no idea what that would be.
That those are my thoughts. I don't feel comfortable replanting over the pipeline.
But I do feel very comfortable moving forward with the sidewalk and making it nice and safe.
That's the ultimate goal a safe sidewalk.
What do you what are your thoughts?
Others.
Yes, because you're mayor.
Oh, thank you.
Of course, I was.
Yeah, so I also agree that.
I don't want to plant any trees over top of gas lines.
I like the idea of, you know, like you Mr. Mayor, focusing on getting the sidewalk safe.
Whether it's planting trees in the lima park.
If that would suffice to not have to worry about them yanking.
Funds, but I sounded like you were indicating that that's not what they were offering.
We have made commitments in the form of the plan as it exists now.
By making major changes like this, especially changes that affect how we told call trends we would meet the requirements of NEPA.
We expose ourselves to the potential for a clawback.
And again, this this clawback can occur anytime up to three years after council accepts the improvements that we're building right now.
I won't say that we won't get to keep the money.
I'm just saying we are exposing ourselves to the possibility of losing the money and it is $1.2 million we are talking about.
But if I'm hearing council members musing for that better term, are you suggesting that we consider planting them at the back of walk along lima park?
Correct.
Okay.
As opposed to in the sidewalk.
On top of the gas line.
Yes, instead of on top of the gas line.
I would just point out we already have several large trees at the back of walk in lima park.
So there wouldn't be much to plant.
At least not until after the old city hall is maybe torn down.
But my understanding is it is still council's intent to sell that property to a developer.
Yeah, to be determined.
Like I said, I do not know.
I have not been privy to that.
So my thoughts broadly align with my colleagues.
I think planning over the gas lines is a mistake to be avoided to the mayor's point.
No question for me there.
I am sensitive to the funding issues you bring up.
It's an enterprise risk discussion.
Really, right?
What is it?
Is it real risk or perceived risk or somewhere in between?
I'm not an expert.
We probably don't have time to delve into that too much.
You had mentioned that the planners above ground wouldn't.
Correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth.
Sometimes you hear what you want to hear.
But I thought I heard that the planners above ground would suffice for the old bank funding.
It would technically comply with our plan.
We would be replacing the trees that we have removed.
That might be the way to go for me.
There are also planners above ground.
Temporary in nature by definition.
I'd like to see the planners.
Nice planners, not wood boxes.
Like we're bearing somebody.
But something a lot.
Those lines.
I think that would be the most prudent piece here.
And I think Mr. Jones, to your point about what we're going to be doing with Ironman Park.
We don't know yet.
That's been put on pause.
And I think that we'll get figured out in the future.
And this wouldn't preclude a redesign of Lyman Park or an expansion of Lyman Park using the city hall property.
That's yet.
That's all in front of us.
So this seemed that seems like a prudent way to move forward for me.
I'm interested in my colleagues.
They get sort of checks the most boxes in a difficult situation.
I think what we're leaning into is the idea of sidewalk covering everything.
And then we set a planter with a tree on top sort of safely.
And then we mitigate the potential jeopardy of losing the owe beg money that we've already taken it.
They might come back with after three years.
I mean, and if that's like a real and a okay solution with the community, then I mean that.
You know, it's the one.
The one caveat there and the one amendment to that is we have these tree stops that we will take down a little bit lower.
Like we put the boxes on top.
Keep in mind those tree stumps will will rot in place.
So it's not advisable to put concrete over the top of them.
No, that's a flag will fail and fail quickly.
Same goes for trying to put a large pot of tree on top of that stump.
Because again, the stump will right away and the tree will tip sink.
Who knows what.
We can.
It's not going to be as aesthetically pleasing that that most of us would would desire.
That is correct.
But it's a temporary.
What?
I don't know.
You know, temporary and sailing.
It could be for a while.
Unfortunately until we get the gas pipeline issue resolved.
So.
Miss Summers.
I go ahead.
I just wanted to.
To explain that one little point?
Yeah, or perhaps, you know, there's a bench that's inset from the curb, so, you know, people can open their door and then there's a, I don't know, something to enjoy at least.
It's pretty hard, but yeah, I was really curious about the stumps and how to get rid of those. I mean, that's a, you know, just small cuts and
Well, that's referred to as handwork and that was actually a gelatin suggestion was that we pay a very substantial sum of money.
I do not have an exact amount to have each of those root balls carefully removed by hand.
So, essentially a single technician with a saws all in many, many hours to carefully remove those root balls.
It still doesn't move this gas pipeline and it doesn't save this gas pipeline either.
No matter what, this gas pipeline is too shallow and is running through too many existing root balls.
Do we, by the way, do, it comes to mind, do we know where the gas pipeline is?
South of Adam Street?
We do not.
We do not examine that.
We're going to be facing another issue unless we get that one locked in.
We're not going to open a public comment.
We already have a close session that's starting that should have started.
I'm sorry.
Correct.
We actually do because I believe part of the paper rehab project.
We did USA for those and so we do know what this line is.
Okay.
That's good enough.
Mayor.
In regards to them, giving us the information through BBK or BBKF, like is there any liability in that in their guidance and going,
Yep.
I think we should defer to Council on that one.
Yeah.
I think we should defer to Council on that one.
Yeah.
I don't know.
Correct.
Absolutely.
I think one of the things we'll want to look at is the spacing of the planters assuming that's the direction
Council is giving unanimously or majority.
Where the planters are spaced to not affect how they land on the parking T bars.
So we're parking is so people aren't opening their doors into planters.
Yes.
So it's a little bit of coordination on our part to figure that out.
All right.
Do we have consensus or is there a little bit of a wrinkled by anybody or change?
We just have to beg for mercy that those.
By the way, can you.
So if you if you do get the box three, four, eight and she's probably.
Are you able to replant those somewhere else if we have other areas in our city that could use the trees.
Say it to year from now or six months from now, eight months from now, could we relocate those.
Boxed plants somewhere else in our city so that they.
So the trees have not yet been purchased.
Okay.
So we would still have the flexibility to either downsize the tree that we're planting or to cancel.
That particular part of the application.
All right. Again, the trick with the canceling is it again jeopardizes this.
So back funding.
Okay.
Well, we have to be in discussions with all of the the players and.
We have a gas pipeline issue.
I do agree that that's a good narrative to tell.
It's like, hey, we're confronted with an issue.
The pipeline is a lot closer to the surface than anyone could have imagined.
Probably even PG&E.
I bet it's a prize of them.
I mean, it's it's not that far under the ground.
It's just amazing.
It did surprise them.
Yeah.
Okay.
What do you need for us, Mr. Leach?
I have the direction to believe the direction is to go with.
Planters.
I believe the direction is to go with the largest tree we can.
Whether it's a 48 inch box or 36.
We'll work through that process.
Definitely not the Japanese.
Will we go with the Chinese at this time?
I respectfully.
No, I appreciate that.
I think the species has been.
Spect and bid.
That was part of the bid process.
Yeah.
Believe we change the species based upon the commentary from.
Okay.
Phase one B.
I don't know if there was anything else.
That'd be favorable if there's still an option.
They have an order.
So we can pick up councils direction at the November 2024 meeting.
What was that.
The Chinese pistach and the Japanese silcova were the consensus two trees.
Both of these trees were also recommended by our landscape architect.
And also by our.
Our city artist.
All right.
Well, we'll lean to the Chinese.
We have a choice there.
Got a pistach.
We don't.
We don't just call out at our public meetings public comment is close.
I know people are excited continue to.
Right in comments.
That's the only way I can say that.
We have another meeting that's critically important for our city at this point.
Do you have enough direction there before we go on to our close.
We're going to be meeting for our close session.
That's there's.
Okay.
Anything else for the good of the order before I turn this meeting to our close session.
All right.
Let's go.
Downstairs.