Historical Advisory Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening. I'll call the roll. Board member Bevan.

Present.

Board member Brito.

Present.

Board member Kratty.

Present.

And chair Hernandez.

Present.

All present we have a quorum.

Woo hoo. That brings us to our first item of non agenda public comments. Anyone may speak for three minutes. Is there anyone joining us via Zoom?

We do have one member over Zoom. If you would like to speak, you may now do so.

Okay, great. Anybody in the live audience? Okay, super.

Can I apologize for missing last month's meeting? Without notice I do apologize to everyone for missing and

we'll try to do better. Thank you. Thank you. Meeting minutes. It's good you're here. Item 3a is the approval of the draft meeting minutes from our October 2 meeting which we continued from last meeting because we didn't have the correct number of people that had been at that meeting to approve those minutes. So if we could take up that item now, are there any corrections or additions to those minutes? Anyone want to make a motion to approve

those minutes? I'll make a motion to approve.

Do we have a second?

I second. This is for all of the This minutes that had

is for the first set of minutes, the 3A.

Just to clarify, yeah, I'll second that.

Okay, all in favor? Aye. Aye. And the ayes have it.

Okay, and Board Member Burrito, you were not present at that meeting, so we'll count you as abstain? I Or did you repeat?

I did end up watching.

Okay. So you're voting affirmatively. Correct.

Okay. Thank you. It is homework. Okay. Item 3B, those are the meeting minutes from last month, November 6. So we have a different group of people. And just to clarify, if you watched or read the, you know, if you watched the previous meeting, you could vote on those minutes as appropriately. So do we have any additions, comments, corrections on those minutes? Do we have a motion to approve those minutes?

So moved. Do we have a second?

Second. And all in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye.

And do we have an abstention or

An abstention.

Okay, thank you.

So the ayes have it. And on to regular agenda. Item 4A, Tilden Way. This is the City of Alameda Public Works Department in regards to some coastal live oaks. Do we have any staff presentations on this?

We do.

Good evening, esteemed board members, chair, thank you very much for your time. The item before you this evening is a request for a certificate of approval to remove three protected coast live oak trees located on the north side of Tilden Way just south there of the Fruitvale Bridge as part of a larger capital improvement project. The item is before you because the Alameda Municipal Code requires that the Historical Advisory Board approve a certificate of approval for removal of any protected trees. Protected trees do include coast live oaks that are above a certain diameter at four and a half feet above the ground. And because three of these trees can meet that criteria, they would typically require a certificate of approval to remove.

As several board members may be aware, the Historical Advisory Board has actually delegated to staff the authority to approve administratively the removal of coast live oak trees for a certificate of approval under certain criteria. The criteria associated with the staff level removal of coast live oaks is either that the trees pose a risk to public health and safety because they're going to fall on something or that the health of the trees as determined by a certified arborist is so poor that they can't be maintained. The three trees proposed for removal in question don't fall neatly into that criteria and because they're a part of a larger capital improvement project, staff determined it would be appropriate to bring the item before the historical advisory board to get your comments, feedback and hopefully approval. So just to provide a little bit more context, the larger capital improvement project is the Clement Tilden improvement project. This involves a series of phases and right away improvements to improve circulation, safety and in particular, which is of interest to the HAB, this is sort of the northern portion of this extent of the street just south of the Fruitvale Bridge there.

The removal of these three coast live oak trees to facilitate the improvements for the extension of the pedestrian bicycle path as well as the creation of the dog park there. So as you can see from the existing aerial here, resolution isn't great but you might be able to identify there several high voltage power lines that currently run basically straight through these three coast live oaks there that necessitate regular trimming that prevent the oaks from sort of having their fullest possible canopy. You can also see here sort of a variety of other trees that are proposed to be removed as part of the larger capital improvement project. However, I'll remind the HAB that the purview of this board is focused on the three protected coast live oak trees, not sort of the larger capital improvement project. The other thing I think I'll point out here is that the, actually it's probably just better.

So this is the existing and proposed sort of removal and planting plan altogether here. So the slightly darker green circle at the top of the image here identifies the location of those existing coast live oak trees. The red line through it identifies the location of those high voltage power lines. And then the sort of larger green circle towards the middle of the image identifies the proposed location of the eight replacement trees. It's worth noting here that that is a little bit of an update from the information in your staff report.

We had correspondence with public works throughout the week that identified the updated planning plans which do in fact propose eight new coast live oak trees to replace not only the three that are proposed for removal as part of this project, but also the already approved removal of an additional coast live oak as part of this project. So just a little bit of clarification, the section of the Alameda Municipal Code that requires that protected trees, specifically the coast live oaks in this case, get certificate of approval to be removed. Also requires that those trees be replaced for each tree removed to 10 gallon oak trees to replace that. And so the public works department has proposed eight coast live oaks for each of the four total trees to be removed, one of which is already approved, these three which is for your consideration this evening. The update to the plans was also accompanied by a brief update to the CEQA, which did not change any of the information there, but provided a little bit more context, including the state clearinghouse number for the 2009 environmental impact report that was prepared as part of the transportation element at that time, which considered the specific project, as well as the overall general plan EIR, which did consider some impacts as well.

Ultimately, the arborist report prepared for the project indicates that while there were alternative measures considered alternative pathways for the post bike and pedestrian path that ultimately this outcome was chosen because it preserves the greatest amount of overall canopy in the area and will result in ultimately the same sort of cultural context for the location of the new trees that the current trees enjoy. Likewise, it was identified that because the excavation earthwork grading all that associated with these improvements would likely damage the root zone associated with these trees that the deterioration of their health was very likely an outcome of their remaining in their current location. And therefore the arborist determined that the tree removal was necessary as part of the project. Ultimately, the findings that we were asking you to make this evening are associated with both the identification of the new location for the replacement trees and whether that contains the appropriate cultural context. And then of course, the consideration of the determination by the arborist that the condition of the trees cannot be remedied based on the necessary improvements associated with this project.

I think that's all the information I wanted to provide to you right up front. But certainly if there are any questions for staff, we also do have both our city engineer and the staff member responsible for the project here from Public Works to answer any very specific questions you may have that planning staff is unable to answer.

Okay, great. Thank you. Any questions for Tristan?

So it sounds like the reason why the trees need to be pulled down is really sort of multiple fold. One, there's a problem with the overhead wiring coming in or wires, the electrical wires. And then two, it's the planned path that's going in right now is going to potentially damage them. Was there any consideration to having the path go in a different spot? And what was the reason behind not going that route?

Yes, so there's a couple of different things there. The short answer to your question is yes. It was very carefully considered. In fact, there was a number of sort of alternatives that we could use. Ultimately those alternatives would have resulted in removal of a greater number overall of trees and a loss of the urban canopy, which is really important for us to preserve.

And ultimately it was determined that even if those alternative paths were taken, because of things like the overhead power lines, the likely damage to the root structures of those trees, that even if they had been maintained in their current location that the outcome would have been poor for their health. And that they may not have been able to maintain those trees consistent with the Arboricultural best practices that are identified in our street tree guide. So those best practices include things like not doing a bunch of grading improvement work in the root perimeter. So that was the reason for this pathway was to sort of mitigate impacts to the overall canopy while only impacting trees that were unlikely to do very well in the context that will result.

Sure. That makes sense. Thank you.

Question. I appreciate that the other alternatives were explored and efforts were made to avoid the removal of these trees. Was there a reason given why they chose two different types of oaks as opposed to replacing with more of the coast live oak going with different oaks?

Yeah, thought I should have clarified this a little bit more during my presentation. So to be clear, the information in the staff report has been updated because we received some new information from Public Works. They will in fact be replacing these oaks with the same species of oak tree, Quercus aquifolia, Coast Live Oak, in the quantity that is set out in the ordinance in addition to the Engelman's Oaks and Island Live Oaks that were proposed. I believe there's 15 or 16 of those. So those are in addition to the Coast Live Oaks that are intended to replace these trees.

Okay. Gotcha. I'm excited. Those are two great alternatives which we don't really have in this area. So I think that's going to be a nice addition. One thing that kind of caught my eye was the and I know this is the municipal code, replacing them with 10 gallon trees as I think it said that at a minimum and this proposes to put them go with a minimum of 10 gallon. I may defer to my friends in public works for that specific question.

But my understanding is that you're correct. The municipal code only requires a minimum of 10. Okay. But if I may. Okay. Thanks.

Yes, I could follow-up on that. Just want to introduce myself first. Ali Hatifi with the City of Alameda Public Works involved with the Clemente Tilen project. So the eight new replacement trees will be in '24 inches boxes. They'll be greater than the Tengon Okay. Sizes that are the minimum.

Okay. Great. Those are the the eight that was kind of in that lower circle. So not not in the area where the the trees are being removed. It was the

the light green circle.

Yeah. Okay. Correct. Okay. Gotcha. Alright. Thank you.

Yep. Thanks for your presentation, Tristan. One question I had that I didn't see in the Arborist report was, is there an approximate age of the trees just for general reference?

To our knowledge, none was provided by the arborist report. I actually had a similar curiosity myself and kind of did a little googling around and wasn't able to find a particularly good apparently there are various growth rates associated with various species of trees such that you can kind of inference it based on their diameter. But that growth factor was kind of unclear for this specific type of oak. So I wouldn't hazard a guess, but they're fully mature.

Okay. Yeah. That was kind of the sense I got. Just I curious whether the trees may have been planted kind of contemporaneously with the shopping center that's there, or maybe if they predate it, just to help with context, but

Yeah. I would suggest to you that they may not have been intentionally planted at all.

Yeah, that's true. That's a good point. Yeah, what was the other question? Oh, I'm curious what happens to trees when they're removed. Are they turned into mulch or composted or is there any sort of program to kind of try to identify a relocation site for a tree that would be capable of that? I know these have been trimmed quite a bit. I'm not sure how that affects lifespan or things like that.

So not to my knowledge. No information was provided to me regarding the considerations of relocation of the trees. I suspect, you may have that the trees may not be in very suitable condition for moving. And as I understand it, the mycorrhizal networks that kind of connect neighboring trees are really important to their health.

And

so my expectation would be that that would so significantly compromise itself that it maybe wasn't seriously considered. I don't suppose public works has any information about what occurs with the removed trees. I certainly do not. I'm afraid that wasn't something that was considered under our the ordinance only requires that we consider the removal of those trees and their replacement. So

for these three oaks, nothing has been considered for removal or reuse. Obviously, they were not suitable for relocation or replanting. The only trees it's okay if I go outside the I previewed this real trees, but the only trees we identified for potential reuse within the project were the eucalyptus trees to kind of be used as like a planter box area that could set up for some of the new trees that'll be planted in the future dog park area.

Okay, yeah. I primarily ask that question just thinking of the, which I suppose is still ongoing, the urban forestry plan and thinking of kind of shade canopy equity across the island and looking at projects as maybe opportunities to say, hey, if we can save a tree, could it go somewhere where it's needed? So that's primarily, I think that's the first one.

Thank you. Other questions? Thanks again for the presentation. I found it all pretty cut and dry myself as far as understanding those trees. On your question of what you can do with trees, I think these are too small to be effectively harvested.

Some arborists will cut them down in large sections so they can be remilled. And there is some market for that, but it's probably not appropriate given these trees. Like if it were a 100 foot redwood, like yeah, let's mill it, it's good wood. These are relatively speaking small so I'm not sure what good firewood.

Yeah, yeah. And I'll add, it's good to have that kind of context even just through this kind of conversation because we will probably come across a project here or there where there's a residential tree removal and those can sometimes shade properties I and things like

always think about things in terms of like opportunity costs. How much would it cost to replant one of those trees? Well you could probably plant a 100 more 24 inches box trees for the same cost of moving one. So I like to look at it in those general terms. Yeah. The

relative cost, I just happened to You bought it. Be logged into it. I've been doing landscaping lately. A 24 inches box, close to Live Oak is $220 from a local nursery. Just to put it in perspective, you could jump up to a 48 inches box and that's $1,200 So the prices graduate Exponentially.

Exponentially. You know, you go up to a 48 inches box, you know, or even a, you know, a 72 inches box and now you're talking about a $6,000 tree. So obviously six times eight, you know, that's a big ticket. Where is that money best spent? I am very encouraged that you are gonna get at least somewhat of a larger tree. I always think hey we're all not gonna be here that long. We would love to see a little bit more tree before we pass away. So get a bigger tree if public works can afford it go for the 36. Anyway, other further questions? I think everybody's pretty much set.

So should we look at the resolution or

Can I ask sort of an aside question? What's the schedule like for this? When is there a schedule for completion? Oh, that was a bad question, wasn't it?

Certainly I'll defer to them for the project schedule as a whole. I will add that this sort of approval process will also require planning board hearing which is going before them on Monday as well as the city council.

I won't hold you to it. I'm just curious what the current

schedule There's work going on in that area right now.

I drove by there to try to understand it better, so I did see that.

Yeah. So in terms of the current schedule, our contractor just mobilized at project site. For the trivial timeline, we'll be going to planning board on Monday, December 8 for their input and recommendations for the removal of all trees and then I'll follow with a city council meeting on December 16. Once we get the approval from council, we can proceed with tree removal as part of the demolition work that's associated with the project. Construction itself is expected to last at least a year.

So prior to constructing all the landscape improvements and planting new trees, obviously there several improvements that all need to be constructed such as the new roadway, the runabout along with the new bicycle and pedestrian facilities before we get to the landscaping permits.

That's really important and really nice. I noticed that the work that they've done in Oakland and right now it's a path kind of to nowhere once you hit Alameda. So it'll be very exciting when this thing can continue. It becomes part of a much larger plan. So I applaud it. Thank you. If

I may, before public comment, I did wanna point out and thank you to the Secretary of the Board. The city attorney's office did provide us with an updated CEQA. Think I mentioned at the beginning of the staff report that does include the state clearinghouse number for that 2,009 environmental impact report. So I do just want to acknowledge that before the board makes any motion that that motion should include a reference to this updated resolution that has that additional CEQA information. Thank you.

And is that, that's not integrated in the Legisstar version of the resolution? Is that

what No, you're the Legisstar version of the resolution does in fact have that updated language with the state One the clearinghouse version. Exactly. Okay, got it.

Public comments? Are there any online visitors?

If you'd like to comment, please raise your hand. No public comments.

Any in person public comments? Okay. So, I think that brings us to our discussion. I'm personally feeling very comfortable with this. I feel like it's all justified and part of a great new improvement plan. Any other thoughts, comments, anybody wanna put forth a motion to adopt the resolution?

You know, I thought staff did a good job of explaining the situation and answering all of our questions. And it is something, you know, as a citizen of Alameda, I'm excited to see happen. I know these things take time. I will be patient. But I make a motion to approve.

I'll second.

All in favor. Aye. Aye. Unanimous approval.

Motion carries. Motion carries.

Excellent, thank you. Thank you all for coming. Board communications, item five. Are there any board communications? Seeing none, staff communications.

I don't think I have anything this month.

Okay, great. So that brings us to our final item, number seven, adjournment.