Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . . . Thank you. Thank you.

Bye.

Thank you.

Will the Secretary please take the role?

Yes. Commissioner Anderson?

Here.

Commissioner Moran?

Here.

Commissioner Cowan? Here. Commissioner Strongman?

Here.

Commissioner Kwok, let me know in advance that he could not attend this evening. Vice Chair Klaue? Here. And Chair Needing?

Here. Thank you. I don't see anything, but I'd like to ask, do we have anything on the consent calendar?

We do not.

I have some speaker identification cards, but I did want to make it clear that there are two opportunities for the public to be able to provide public comment. The first is during each item of the agenda, which we have, which you should have before you. And the second part is right now where you can provide a comment on things that are not on the agenda that pertain to the purview of the planning commission. So does anybody have any comments that are not on the agenda? no okay just wanted to check um perfect and now um i'd like to ask any of the commissioners if they've had any ex parte communication Lots of shaking heads, so that is a no. So now I'm going to move on to item number four, which is the public hearings. 4A is a tree removal at 1085 Hacienda Drive, tree removal permit TR 26068. And does staff have a presentation?

Yes, we do. In just a moment.

Okay, good evening, Planning Commissioners. My name is Gerardo Victoria, Associate Planner, Community Development. The project before you today is a true removal appeal located at 1085 Hacienda Drive. This is on site context. This is where 1085 Hacienda Drive is located. It's under a plan designation of single family low. The zoning designation is residential 15. and the trees outlined in red here are the ones proposed or were approved for removal by the Public Works Department right here. This is the actual site plan that was provided in the application and you'll note three total trees in the rear yard, two were approved for removal by the Public Works Director. So two Coast Redwood trees were approved for removal. The reasons for the approval was tree number one, located here, was damaging the hardscape, overcrowding, and good forestry practices, and tree number three, located south of tree number one, was approved for removal for good forestry practices, and as you can see the pictures from the backyard of the property owner. The appellant appealed the approval on May 6th and the reason for the appeal was tree number one was on a shared property line and tree number three was a mature tree that provided benefits to the neighborhood. The tree preservation ordinance findings That the director shall grant the permit if he or she makes any of the following findings. In considering the appeal, the appellant body shall also apply the standards set forth below. That the tree's conditions, such as disease, general health issues, damage, public nuisance, warrants removal and cannot be remedied through less drastic means. That the tree hosts a parasitic plant and or pest or disease that may endanger other trees. good forestry practices, and that the tree has been confirmed as a Tasmanian bluegum or Monterey pine. So staff recommends move to approve the draft resolution as outlined in attachment one, denying the appeal of the tree removal permit and upholding the public works director prior approval of the tree permit. Staff is available for questions. The assistant public works director Mike Vickers is also here available for questions. The property owner Ari is here available for questions and the appellant Ms. Carissa Harris is also here available for questions.

Perfect. Thank you so much for that thorough but concise presentation. Does anybody have any questions for staff? Yes.

I know that redwoods are native to California, but are they native to Walnut Creek specifically? And you probably need your expert to answer that one.

I'll ask Mike Riggers to come up to answer that one.

Good evening. Mike Vickers, Assistant Public Works Director. One of my responsibilities is to oversee the operations of the urban forest here in the city. I am definitely no expert, but I know that the redwoods are not native to this climate.

Thank you.

Commissioner.

Could you stay there, Mike? I have a quick question. understanding you're not an expert, but could you maybe walk us through what good forestry practices means, essentially? I guess where I'm coming from is we're talking about removing trees in support of good forestry practices, which might sound a little counterintuitive. Could you just kind of elucidate on that?

Yeah, I mean, depending on the situation, whether it's a dense forest or even in an urban forest setting, you can have trees that are competing for the same resources. And in this case, these redwoods are competing for sunlight and other resources, oxygen, water, those types of things. So the direction given by the consulting certified arborist that we use here in the City of Walnut Creek recommended that the removal of these two redwoods would provide a long-term benefit for the remaining tree and the overall urban forest in the area.

Commissioner Anderson?

Well, you're still there. Do you have an idea of how old these particular trees are?

I do not. I do not. I know they're quite large. Redwoods grow at different paces depending on the area, how much water they're receiving, those types of things, but I'm not certain of the age.

And from the pictures it appeared, as you showed, it appeared that at least one of the trees may be leaning slightly. Is that correct, or is that just the camera angle?

No, it's slightly leaning, but not in the position where the tree is at risk of falling or anything along those lines. Thank you.

Commissioner Cowan?

Thank you. I just had a process question. Um, so when, just for the public to understand how this process works. So when someone applies for a tree removal, you have the arborist take a look at the request, um, and the permit and provide their opinion. And then when there's an appeal, Do you go back to the arborist again? I guess what I'm not seeing here is any sort of written arborist report. So I'm wondering at what points in the process do we involve the certified arborist?

Yeah, great question. This is a very unique situation for us in public works. In fact, this is the first one that I've experienced in this fashion in the 10 years that I've been managing the operation. Typically what happens is, just to use myself for an example, I live here in the neighborhood and I'm appealing, or sorry, I'm applying to remove a tree. That application goes into Accela. which our certified arborist has access to. He comes out once a week, reviews the permits or the application, goes out to the residents, inspects the tree, sometimes having to set up appointments and those types of things, get in people's yards. He will provide his response. If the tree is authorized for removal, he will authorize the permit. If the tree is denied, probably 40% 35 to 40% of the trees that are denied will get a written response within, I believe it's within 10 days. That response goes to my office. I'll review that response. I'll make an appointment and go out and visit the tree with the resident. If I need further assistance, I'll get the director involved and we'll go out and inspect the trees. If we need to take a step back and bring in our consulting arborist because maybe he didn't provide enough information, we have some additional questions, those types of things, we'll contact with him and go through that process. Why this is so unique is because this appeal, the appellant is a neighbor, not the resident. And this is the first time we've gone through this. Normally, the person appealing is the same person who applied for the application. So in an appeal situation, this does not come back to Public Works. It goes straight to the Planning Commission. So although I seen the appeal because it came to my office, it was then turned over to the Planning Department to move this forward.

Any more? So I've actually procured quite a bit of arborist reports and Typically an arborist which in this case it would have been the city which is perfect Would have done when they analyze a tree they do what's called a suitability for preservation I'm sure you've heard that terminology a ton right and they get to determine the livelihood of that tree are you saying that in his or hers expertise that it they made the determination that it had a low suitability for preservation, hence why they would have approved the removal of that tree?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm sorry, if you don't mind. Yeah, so there's, as I'm sure all of you are aware, there's seven or eight criteria in which the, which is in the municipal code that the certified arborist has to work within. And in this case, he found the, you know, three criteria that weren't being met for the one tree and then the good urban forestry practices for the second tree.

And just for everyone here who, I don't know if folks have ever heard that terminology, suitability for preservation, but could you just explain, because at least our arborists go pretty in-depth into the bark of the tree, the root of the tree, if there's any obstructions to the roots, the species, how close it is to, can you explain being more eloquent in this ordinance the detail in which an arborist would determine that suitability for preservation?

So the only time we require that type of report is upon request from the Public Works Department. And that... for the most part follows all the criteria within the, that is laid out in the municipal code. So he'll go through and evaluate. He does all, everything he does is from ground surveying. He doesn't, there's no elevation. He's not climbing the tree or anything along those lines. And he's really looking at, you know, the number one thing is if the tree has been infected and if the tree is at risk of falling are his main two concerns. And then secondarily, he gets involved in some of these other criteria that are infrastructure related. Yeah, without, I mean, I don't know. No, that was perfect.

I just wanted to make sure that And I knew this, it wasn't conjecture, but that the arborist was really using his skill set, his or her skill set to make that determination. The other question that I had, because there was a lot of discussion about surveys and there was a flag and there was, question about how that survey information came about a survey is very different than a boundary survey or a boundary survey truly determines a legal property line was that how how were those flags verified about what I read in the staff report I would have to turn that over to Geraldo I'm not certain yeah

So can I just answer a quick question that was asked before? So an arborist report isn't required if there's no development with a tree removal application. That's why there's not an arborist report.

But there was an arborist that made the determination. City arborist, yes. Right, notwithstanding whatever report is typically provided.

Correct.

OK. Sorry, now the boundary survey.

So I'll try to answer it. The site plan that was submitted, there was no survey submitted with this tree removal application. I understand as in the appeal, there was a shared property line question issue, which is why they were appealing the removal of tree number one. I believe, and I think when she comes up and Ms. Harris will clarify that, that's no longer an issue. There is no shared property line in question. Is that more what you're getting at?

Got it, yes, because I was reading that and that was confusing.

Okay.

Are there any more questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you so much. Then I will open up the public hearing. So this is going to be interesting because we have The appellant first, and they will get 15 minutes, and then the applicant goes second, and they will also have 15 minutes. And if you would kindly just state your name also, please. Yeah, of course. Thank you. Hopefully that is working.

You can also open up the...

Here you go.

Yeah. Yes, I do.

The last one. This one? Yep.

Great, thank you so much. Thank you, commissioners, for your time this evening. I really appreciate it. My name is Carissa Harris Adamson, and my husband, Nick Adamson, is here as well. We've lived adjacent to 1085 Hacienda for about 15 years now. If you go to the next slide, or is there a way for me to, maybe not.

Sorry. That one? Yes. OK, wonderful.

Thank you. So as you've heard, what's at stake is these mature redwood trees. The permit requests the removal of two of the three trees. For redwood one, the application is an approved material cited damage to adjacent structures or hardscape. And for redwood three, and as well as one, good forestry practices were also cited. I think as was mentioned before, that there are three frameworks that supports preservation in Walnut Creek. First, whether or not the problem can be addressed through less drastic measures. Second is whether the ordinance recognizes public and neighborhood value. This includes size, age, condition, visibility, and neighborhood character. And then the third criteria is the finding of good forestry practices. And it does note that it should be supported by arboriculture evidence explaining why the removing of these particular healthy trees is necessary for the long-term health of the site. So this is the survey that we had initially relied upon to state that the redwood tree, one of the redwood trees was on the property line. And you can see on the left the picture of the three trees there. That's taken from our house, which is, again, we share backyards with the applicant. When we had the surveyor come out and do actually put in flags for the boundary, it actually was shown to be sort of just on the roots of the tree and not bisecting the tree, and therefore we're not claiming that this is a shared tree anymore. However, you can see that the picture on the left, these are both pictures from the permit. And the picture on the left shows damage to the fence, but a lot of that damage was actually done when they took away many trees that were on our property line that created sort of the visual and noise barrier between the two properties. And I have some pictures of that as well. And then the hardscape that they're showing damage to is on the right. What we've done since then is we have repaired the fence ourselves. It really wasn't very challenging. We modified the fence so that it was simply going over the root. We fixed the damage that was done from all the other trees that they took down. And you can see that the redwood right there behind the tree is one of the redwood trees that they would be taking down should this be approved. We feel that this demonstrates that there are reasonable modifications that can be made that are less drastic than removing the tree completely. We feel that fixing the fence, you know, it took an afternoon and changing or modifying the hardscape would be fairly minimal, take a minimal effort as well. The ordinance also asks the city to consider the tree's visibility and value to the neighborhood. These pictures show that these trees are actually visible from multiple parts of the neighborhood. It's not merely a private backyard feature for both of us. It can be seen from multiple homes, yards, streets, and is really a part of our established neighborhood canopy. Our neighborhood's a walking neighborhood. People walk in the morning, in the evening, and this really provides a lot of character. The trees provide a lot of character for the neighborhood. I really am here to ask the commissioners to consider having an arborist provide a report. We've lived here for 15 years. The picture on the left is what our property line looked like for 14 of those years until recently when they removed all those trees. All of these trees have been healthy for a long period of time, the ones on the left, The majority of them have been removed by 1085. Hacienda occupants, the ones on the right, are now the ones that are remaining. And then, obviously, they've requested to remove Redwood Tree 1, which is the one on the left. and Redwood Tree 3, which is on the right. Redwood Tree 3 on the right is close to Redwood 2, but Redwood 1 really is not very close at all to Redwood 3. Their branches somewhat interact, but it's not like they're right next to each other. And so again, I'm just asking for a little bit more information and clarification from the arborist as to why they seem to be competing for those nutrients and soil, et cetera. This space has supported many more trees in the past. You can also see on the right that we had trees all along this property line. Removing more trees is just going to remove more of the noise and visual barrier that we used to share. One of our biggest concerns is the shading and cooling benefits that will be removed when the trees are. Mature canopy shades, yards, hardscapes, fences, and nearby structures. It improves heat. It reduces heat exposure. The EPA states that trees and vegetation that directly shade buildings decrease demand for air conditioning. They've written that urban forestry can reduce nearby building energy demands by 10%. Cool California notes that shaded areas can be 20 to 45 degrees cooler than peak temperatures in unshaded areas. And you can see that the shading in our yard, I would imagine that in the afternoon it would also be their yard, is quite substantial because of these trees. And these pictures are taken after they tore out all the other trees that were along the property line. Removal is permanent. Replacement is not equivalent. It would take years, decades for an equivalent tree that provides the same amount of shade and benefit and cooling to the trees that are already there. These redwood trees already provide mature canopy. They already provide screening. They improve our neighborhood and obviously improve the habitat and cooling benefits. I don't think that the arborist was claiming that there was any disease or any risk of the trees falling down. So I believe it was really just based on sort of the crowding of the trees. And again, I just would love to understand a little bit more about that. So today, I just want to finish by asking you to just take a pause. We can't reverse a decision of cutting down a tree. Once it's gone, it's gone. And from what you heard, it seems like there was some sort of decision that was made. And I feel like before any decisions to approve removal a tree is made, we should have the right to read the arborist report and understand the findings a little bit more. Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And now if the applicant has 15 minutes to make a presentation. Oh, sure. This is why I have glasses. Thank you. Do you have the 15? Okay perfect.

Good evening. My name is Ari Sagafi. I am the property owner at 1085 Hacienda Drive. My husband, Joe Natina, was the one who initially submitted the tree removal permit. He is out of town, so I am here today. We bought this house together in 2024 in December. Joe's been living there for about 11 or 12 years, so he's well-versed with what that backyard has looked like. And we recently started making repairs this spring when we found out we're expecting our first kid in September, which is next month. There are three redwoods in our backyard, as you've seen. In April, we pulled permits for tree number one, which is causing severe damage to our property, specifically the hardscape, and a permit for tree number three, as that tree is impacting the growth of the biggest and healthiest redwood deemed tree number two, the one in the middle. As you have heard, the city arborist came to our property, evaluated all trees, and approved the removal of trees number one and three. We have basically done anything and everything that they've asked for. Visits, paperwork, any questions were available. and we were really truly hoping to have our landscaping project completed promptly. So it's one less thing to worry about for when the baby comes and for our dogs in the backyard. And this process has unfortunately held that up and ultimately made things more stressful and expensive. We really do think that the redwoods are beautiful and we appreciate the significance to California. That is why we are opting to keep the biggest tree causing the least amount of damage to our property and it is probably the more full tree and the most visible. I would like to also address a few comments from the appellant. The trees they are claiming that were removed along the shared property line in our backyard were not trees but evergreen shrubs, the oleanders that are poisonous to dogs, and we have two of them. And another thing about our trees in our backyard is that they are on the south end of our house, so we get a lot of shade from them in the afternoon. I'm not sure how much shade the appellants would be receiving from a north-facing tree. And one of the main reasons that we bought this house and chose to live in this neighborhood is because of how beautiful and lush our neighborhood is. We love to walk our dogs and be part of the community. We have been greatly looking forward to creating a garden and replanting, you know, trees, fruit trees, contributing to the nature space where, you know, our neighbors can enjoy walking and looking at our yard and then also where the local wildlife can interact as we have many baby deers. turkeys, sometimes even coyotes roaming our streets. My husband and I, we hope that you, the Planning Commission, deny this appeal so that our project can move forward and our family can enjoy our backyard. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Now what I'd like to do is I'd like to open it up to public speakers. If we have any. Yes, you have two. Sorry, I can't see. Just two minutes, please.

Thank you, members of the commission. I just wanted to point out, Walnut Creek does have setback codes, and setback for this particular property, R15, is I believe 15 feet. These trees are in the setback, and this hardscape that's being damaged is also in the setback, which I don't believe that is actually to code. So to provide, you know, basically to take the tree out to save a hardscape that's in a setback, I think that goes a little bit against the city code. And basically the setback's intended to provide screening, vegetation, that kind of stuff. It's not for hardscape. If a hardscape's been put in that area and it's damaging, being damaged by a tree, I think it's more of a hardscape removal issue than it is a tree issue. So I just wanted to bring that point up to you. Thank you.

Thank you. I am seeing no more public speakers, and so what I'd like to do is both the appellate and the applicant do have five more minutes to come up, but before you do that, what I'd like to do is... Actually, if we could have the appellant come up first so that my fellow commissioners could ask questions, if they have any, which I'm sure they do. And then after they ask their questions, I'll give the five minutes, which you can rebut the public comment from your husband.

You did a better job than I did, so I'm going to let him go.

Oh, I'm sorry. The rebuttal will be from the applicant first, but if you wouldn't mind just staying, is that okay with you? Yeah. Since I made you stand up, I apologize. I had you guys flipped. Would anybody have any questions from the appellant? And then we can bring the applicant, because the applicant does the rebuttal first. No? I'm sorry, I made you stand up. No worries.

Not a problem.

Before and then does anyone have any questions for the applicant? Yes. I'm sorry to make you. So if we may ask you a couple of questions and then what we'll do is we'll give you also your five minutes that you can make any sort of rebuttal to the appellant.

Okay.

Hi. So my question was, you talked about at least one of the trees being destructive to your home. From the photos, I could only see that one corner of hardscape. So can you explain what the destruction is that you're facing?

Yes, I would say the main destruction that we're facing is the obstruction of pipes. So we get sewage that is spewing into our backyard, which is pretty dangerous for us as homeowners and for our dogs and potential children. We have evidence from Roto-Rooter. We've gotten it flushed out many times. We've put cameras everywhere. down these pipes and we do it quarterly, but it seems to be a recurring issue and we've had professional opinions that it is the redwood trees that are causing that destruction along with the hardscape that's being impacted.

Anyone else have any questions? No. I did want to make sure that we gave you five minutes in case you wanted anything else to say about the matter.

Sure. About setbacks, I'm not super versed in it, but that concrete was put in by previous owners. So that wasn't something that we did that has been existing for probably 10 years or more. So I don't, I think that counts as being grandfathered into our property, if that wording is correct. But I have no further comments, and I thank you for your time.

Actually, I do want to ask one question. You had mentioned that the city arborists came to your house more than once?

One time.

One time. Okay. And they did things in the yard?

Yes, I was not there, but my husband was there. He did a walk around. He evaluated the trees. He's had further questions because of this appeal process, so they have called us and asked further. Unfortunately, my husband has usually been the one answering those questions, but there has been correspondence, I believe, between Gerardo and my husband.

Since the appeal was filed between specific questions from the arborist to your husband.

Sorry, I misspoke. Not direct questions from the arborist to my husband, but there have been questions from the planning associates. Sorry, I might be getting your title wrong. Since the appeal has started.

Got it. Okay. Thank you so much.

Chair, I have a quick question.

Oh, yes, Commissioner Moran.

Thank you. I'm curious about, could you walk me through the pipe issue just a little bit more? Because do you know, does your sewer line lead out to the street from the front of the house? I don't expect you to be an expert on that.

I wish I knew. All I know is that there will be sewage and nasty smells in the backyard and then I usually start yelling for someone and then Roto-Rooter or some other professional gets called.

I'm just trying to figure out where the pipes would be because they're in everybody's backyard is my point. Usually they go from the front out to the main road but

Yeah, I would say that where we're having this sewage explosion is probably 10 feet from where the base of this redwood tree is, or tree number one.

And whoever you've spoken with has said the roots are probably the issue? Is that my understanding?

Yes, we have camera footage.

Because they put that down the pipe?

Yep. A comment from a fellow commissioner is, depending on how old the house is, if they had a septic tank back in the past, it would go out and then around to the street. Because that's the way my house was. If they see where it went out and all the way around, it was about 150 feet around. You had to clean it out.

Thank you, Commissioner Strongman. Notes from Commissioner Strongman on sewer. Thank you so much. Thank you. And now I got this right. If you would like to do a rebuttal, you do have five minutes. I want to make sure to offer that to you.

Thanks. A lot has been brought up tonight about pipes and things that the arborists have said or deemed that have not been in writing and have not been provided, and it just doesn't feel quite right to me. It seems that with such a permanent decision that there should be some more something more in writing that is provided because otherwise anybody can come in here and say anything and I'm not saying that you're saying something that's untrue. I'm just saying that it seems like we at least should be able to have better information from experts to really identify what these causes are and feel comfortable enough with that to be able to put it in writing. So I just respectfully ask that we put a pause on this until there is a report from an arborist and there is maybe something in writing from a plumber that can actually verify that it is that redwood tree because we have the same issue. I mean, these houses are old and the pipes are clay and we have to basically clean out our pipes at least two to three times a year. It's preventative at this point because we learned that if we didn't do it, then we would have sewage in the yard. And so that just kind of happens with our trees that are around our yard. It's really just a regular maintenance issue. So I would hate to take down a large redwood tree if You know it can be handled in a different way So anyway, I just request that the commissioners maybe consider that option Thank you Thank you.

And with that I am going to close the public hearing and bring the discussion back to my fellow commissioners Yes, Commissioner Anderson.

Thank you. I have a couple of questions for staff, if I could.

Oh, beautiful.

The first one is a question of setbacks. Is there anything, you can't build a building into the setback, some exceptions, but is there any constraint on putting some hardscape in? No, there isn't. Okay.

Setbacks are for structures.

Okay. And, yeah, so when you are, is it typical that with a, as you say, when there's not a development, you know, of which the tree removal is part, that it's just a simple question of the landscaping, that there isn't an arborist report, that's the standard way to deal with these?

When there is a development attached, we do require an arborist report. What's unique about this one, and I think Mr. Vickers touched on it, is the approval is being appealed and it's just a tree, there's no development. So we wouldn't ask for an arborist report.

Am I answering your question? No. Okay. It was mentioned in some of the material we got that, as part of the ordinance, there's an exception if there's a reasonable way to mitigate a situation without taking the tree down. How do you evaluate those? And did you see anything like that in this case, whether it would be a mitigation that would accomplish would deal with the reasons for the removal, short of removing the tree.

Right, okay. So just some examples of tree mitigations, like you trim the branches, you trim the tree, or you establish some root barriers or something like that. Those are just two examples. I don't think in this case tree mitigation measures, unless you're removing the entire tree, would have helped with the issues that the property owner is having.

Thank you. I have to ask, could the city arborist, could he or she not make it today?

Um, so the city arborist is the consultant. I went through the public works department and the assistant director was able to show up.

So, uh, which we love you for being here. So thank you. You are enough. Um, I just, I had to ask, sorry. Um, any other, I have my glasses so I can see you all now. Thoughts? Uh, Commissioner Campbell.

I guess I'm still trying to understand if after the appeal was submitted, was the arborist consulted again?

So the process is the city arborist goes out, inspects the tree, and either approves it or denies it. If there's an appeal, it goes to the public works director or designee. at which time the director goes out and inspects it or takes the report as submitted in attachment three, the report that's submitted by the city arborist and either approves it or denies it. I don't know the process if Mr. Khan reviews the tree removal again or if he weighs in after it's appealed, after he decides.

Yeah, I can just share with you that it's my understanding that he only made one site visit, and he did not return after the appeal.

And I'll just add to expand on that. As Gerardo is mentioning, once the appeal comes into place, our ordinance code language brings that appeal to this body. So it's not necessarily a reset evaluation of the tree removal, it just brings it to this body to then review the findings and the documents that occurred during the permit removal process.

Okay, so the options that this body would have include requesting an arborist report, for example. Because what I don't see, I see the permit that the arborist approved, but there's no notes from the arborist in there. So we just don't see anything in writing to really describe the good forestry practices. So would that be an option for us?

Because my question, Jeremy Kahn is not the city arborist. Oh, he is. I understand.

Okay. And through the chair, if I may. Yes, please. Comment on the last question. So, Allie Wolf, the Assistant City Attorney with the City Attorney's Office. If there was discussion and direction from the Planning Commission to seek more information. That is an option this evening. The staff has made a recommendation and set forth all of the findings for the recommendation and the resolution. And if the Planning Commission determines it requires more information, it would have the option of seeking more information. There could be a consideration of continuing the public hearing if that's desire of the Planning Commission. So I do want to at least raise that as an option if that's something that's being proposed.

OK. So it sounds like from what I'm hearing from folks here, there is a question of that the findings that were made by Mr. Khan on the suitability of preservation were not, yeah, they weren't frankly in the staff report for us to be able to review. So that is one point of discussion. I'm also hearing that It sounds like and it's not in the staff report because frankly I didn't read it that there could be because from what I read the damage from the roots in the tree was strictly for hardscape and that one little photo I saw but it sounds like now that there might be potential damage to pipes that serve the house so that was other information that I hadn't read in the staff report. So what I'm hearing is that there's information that it sounds like was not in here that people might want or need to make a decision. I'm throwing it out there as a thought. I'm not trying just to help. Yes.

What if we do require that and go through the expense of paying for a consultant to go out and do it and come back with basically the same information that should be removed?

Commissioner Strongman brings up a good point because it sounds like what we're looking for is an objective standard, an objective finding. What I'm hoping because this commission here trusts the city and usually when the city makes a recommendation, we trust the staff. I almost feel like the findings were made, they just weren't put in writing. How would the commission feel if the arborist from Dudek actually put the findings for the suitability for preservation objectively in writing for us? Is that appropriate? Sorry, Commissioner Moran and then Commissioner Anderson.

Just to your point, would that be an arborist's report?

An arborist report is very lengthy, but it's interesting. You know how you... You know how you have the receipt, and at the very bottom, you read how much it is? Or when you read a report, you're like, you scan at the very end, it says recommendations. They can get to the meat of it pretty quickly as to why objectively they made, and they have a whole scoring system on the health of the tree. And if Mr. Dudek truly did what he was doing pursuant to the ordinance, that he would have his own personal notes. with the bark, the height, all of the things, the species, and the Latin name. So it's almost a memo, perhaps, an arborist memo.

That, though, is not the traditional protocol of when someone applies for a permit, the arborist comes out. In a way, it is in writing already that I'm looking at the boxes that have been checked according to the permit. I guess my question is, are we going out, are we into deeper waters here with how things are traditionally done when somebody applies to remove a tree and it gets appealed and there normally is not what we're talking about.

There normally is not, correct. There is normally not an arborist report required unless it was a new development application, correct? It is merely the... That is correct.

Any development.

Yeah. So normally an arborist report, which is expensive and lengthy and it's long, is not required. Go ahead. Did you want to?

I just want to clarify a couple things.

Yes.

First of all, Jeremy Kahn did not inspect this tree.

Got it.

Another employee, another certified arborist and a fire protection planner with our consulting firm, Dudek, Drew Morgan, did inspect this tree. Drew reports to Jeremy, and that's why you're seeing Jeremy's information more so. So I just wanted to be clear about that. Our standard, when we're dealing with a regular appeal, the usual appeal as I described earlier, if appeal is made and the appeal is denied, I don't believe it's in writing, but we always follow up with the individual and say, if you can provide additional information from a third-party arborist, we will take that in consideration and reassess. We get that information from a third-party arborist because our arborist has already made a decision. We'll turn that over to Dudek, our consulting arborist, and say, please spend some time to review the feedback from the third-party arborist, and let us know if you agree, disagree, or if this helps clarify anything for you. That is a standard practice for us.

That was a very helpful thing. Oh, and question. The certified arborist that reports to Jeremy, did he...

Without the arborist's information.

and submit any correspondence that you'd like backing it up. And she did, she sent a page. So yeah, it's not required.

I think my question was the opposite of that, of the city's response to the appeal. So if the appeal is saying we think these trees should be preserved, they seem to be healthy, Can the arborist then respond and say, actually, tree one and three need to be removed for the health of tree two? I think that's the kind of information that we're hearing here, but I'm not seeing in the memo or in the permit. But I'm hearing it as perhaps what's happening. But I feel like that's not... Confirmed enough for me to feel comfortable making a decision to that is such a lasting decision Once these trees are gone, they're gone, right?

I do want to just say in the staff report. There's quite a detailed response to each Concern To the claim to each claim

So you're talking about page four, the acknowledgement of it being mature, large, healthy, beautiful, but also, okay. So they're saying it can be, well, this is just repeating the code. saying it can be removed when specific conditions are met, such as documented damage, overcrowding, or conditions. Good forestry practices also include thinning trees, reduce unsustainable competition for roots-based water and nutrients. And then it just repeats, okay, it repeats what the arborist did originally. And then it says, in evaluating the appeal, staff compared the appellant's stated benefits to the stated objective findings. And the staff found no evidence that the benefits outweigh the supporting of removal. So staff concluded that the city arborist determination was appropriate. So to me, the arborist was not consulted again. It was staff just re-looking at what staff had already determined, as far as I can tell.

If you wanted more details on page three, it says, the director determined the removal of both redwoods would support good forestry practices, meaning that the number, size, and spacing of healthy trees the parcel can sustainably support would improve through removal, allowing remaining vegetation to thrive. If that's information derived from the arborist, presumably, then, I mean, it's hard to see where having an arborist write that in a report. It's pretty straightforward. I mean, it's right there. It doesn't say the arborist said this, but the Public Works is basing this on, among other things, the site inspection. I mean, the arborist could go out and look again, but I don't think the conditions are going to change that much.

Okay, so there was finding one and finding three. that were satisfied and no alternative measure could be reasonably addressed. I think what I need to do is I just need to get out of my head because I'm used to seeing our risk report with far more information than this and that's just part of my line of work. But I do agree with you that really what was trying to be done in this memorandum is just to synthesize the fact that the findings were made in a very, very short form. that it would support the good forestry practices for that particular species in proximity to one another in a backyard is what I'm reading. It's just shortened.

I feel the pull between the different groups here, and the opinions are strong and well stated, and I thank you for your time stating them. And I personally know, based on your question about are redwoods native to this area, they are not, and they are quite destructive, and they burrow into buildings and pipes and et cetera. i feel like the city's processes are very consistent and they follow the processes consistently and they have the arborist weigh in and they review the permits and and i'm tending to trust their expertise that if this can be thinned out that that one tree is going to have a better chance to last long term but i feel the pain so i just want to acknowledge uh both sides of the of the story so

And I think, Commissioner Anderson, sorry, your light is on. Okay. I think the reason why we keep talking, you know, why we've, been discussing every angle is because this commission is very, very thorough. And so we wanted to make sure that we looked at this and we have different experiences that it really goes to the root, no pun intended, of what an arborist report would do and what the professional, which is a certified arborist, would do in making a finding. And I also agree with you that when it says structure, the structure could be anything. So it could also be the pipe. I always trust the staff a lot, and so I do agree with you. Are there any other? Oh, Commissioner.

I would like to make a motion to deny the appeal. Second.

Would staff please take the roll? Yes, I'm sorry. Just for the record, was that Commissioner Anderson that seconded? Strongman. Strongman made the motion. OK, thank you. Anderson second.

And to clarify, the motion was to deny the appeal and adopt the resolution. Correct. Thank you.

And then to take a quick roll call, Commissioner Anderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Moran?

Yes.

Commissioner Cowan?

No.

Commissioner Strongman? Yes. Vice Chair Klopp? Yes. And chair needing. Yes. So the motion passes.

Well, thank you for everyone for that item. Now moving on to public hearing item number B, which is zoning text amendment for accessory dwelling units. And staff does have a presentation on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Good evening, chair and commissioners. I'm Allison Restick. I am an associate planner from the community development department. This evening, staff are requesting a recommendation to council regarding several proposed amendments to the municipal code. Oh, my goodness. Tonight, I will walk through three sets of proposed zoning text amendments covering accessory dwelling units, public hearing notices, and planned development permits as it relates to a housing element program. I'll briefly explain what is changing, and more importantly, why we are making these changes. First, we'll discuss accessory dwelling units. The following changes to our regulations reflect updated ADU law and State Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCDs, ADU guidance. The addition of a definition of state exempt ADU replaces the use of type one and type two terminology to categorize ADUs in the current code. The proposal removes these terms and instead uses the state's framework of state exempt ADUs and ADUs subject to local development standards, which provides a clearer way to organize the regulations. Proposed modifications to allowed ADUs on a single family residential lot follow HCD's recently updated guidance, which determines that a single family property may accommodate up to four accessory dwellings. That includes one ADU subject to local development standards, two state exempt ADUs, and one junior ADU. Additionally, updates to junior ADU kitchen, deed restriction, and owner occupancy requirements improve consistency with state law and simplify requirements to facilitate junior ADUs. Collectively, the changes clarify and reorganize the existing provisions to make them easier to understand and navigate. The next amendment topic focuses on public hearing notices. The proposed changes to the section are primarily administrative. No changes are proposed to which projects require public hearings or public notice. We're simply clarifying and reorganizing the provisions to make them easier to understand and apply. The addition of a summary table of notice requirements provides a quick way to identify which notice type and timeframe applies to a particular action. Overall, the goal is to make these requirements easier for staff, applicants, and the public to navigate while maintaining compliance with state law. The last set of amendments are related to the housing element program H4I. One of the goals in the housing element is to reduce governmental constraints on housing development. Program H4I recognizes that the plan development permit or PDP process creates an additional discretionary approval for residential projects in the MU or mixed use plan development and the MHD or high density residential plan development districts. Proposed amendments would remove the PDP requirement for new residential development in these two districts. Instead, residential projects that comply with objective design standards would proceed through the city's existing design review process. The PDP requirement would remain in place for non-residential development. But most importantly, the amendments don't change what can be built or increase development capacity. They lessen the level of discretionary review strictly for residential projects. Please note that staff has identified a minor error in the draft ordinance after the agenda packet was published References to walnut municipal code should be corrected to walnut Creek municipal code throughout the document Overall The proposed amendments will make regulations clearer and easier for applicants, staff, and decision makers while maintaining consistency with state law and implementing an adopted housing element program. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending Council find the project exempt from CEQA and adopt the proposed ordinance implementing the amendments including the corrections to the based on the clerical errors explained tonight. That concludes my presentation and I'm happy to answer any of your questions.

Thank you so much for that presentation. Do any of my fellow commissioners have questions? Yes, Commissioner Strongman.

On the zoning text amendments, item 12, it says on February 15, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the introduction of these yada yada yada um i have a hard time predicting the future of the city council that they will actually held a meeting on the 15th and do that um am i an error or what yeah we will be holding the item is scheduled for september 15th for city council thank you uh commissioner moran thank you allison the

could you go back a slide or two i just my question relates to go back to the maps there you go yes so the the mhd uh area there where is that this is um i apologize the street names are hard to see in the image but near california olympic and patello and alpine those roads that Is that the only, is that an example of where, or is that it?

This is the only location for the MHD district, is this specific area near Alma.

What does OC stand for, the blue?

Oh, office commercial.

Office commercial, thank you.

interesting this this is a um existing multi-family development there right yeah so why then is why is that just little piece the only mhd area i guess you know because there's plenty of apartment buildings and condos and whatnot i just that makes sense

Yeah, so you guys are probably aware that Walnut Creek has several planned development zones throughout the city, so this happens to be one of those. Oftentimes, planned development zones are focused into just one specific area, and it allows for a variety of different development regulations and land uses, so this happens to be one of those.

But it's the only one.

Correct. So another example would be the Shadelands Park area. That is also a planned development area.

So therefore, do these new changes affect the Shadelands?

So in our housing element, the program H-4.1, or I, sorry. I, thank you, Allison. It was only focused on these two areas because it's looking to make residential development more permissible. So because these areas are mixed use and high density residential, they require this additional PDP permit, or the plan developments required these PDP permits, and so does our zoning ordinance. The housing element, you know, In order to further fair housing under the state laws, they wanted us to look at these zones to remove that PDP. I don't believe the PDP requirement is on some of the other planned development zones throughout the city. Sorry, that was a really long answer.

No, that answered my question. OK, thank you.

And isn't it? I really like seeing this because I know that cleanup is important, especially when a lot of PDPs resulted in ordinance that could then be subject to a voter initiative, which is the whole point of state laws. Especially since

Especially since we hope Toyota will sell that place there and do something.

Especially since we hope Toyota will sell that place and somebody will build something there.

The mixed use that we approved. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay. Is there any other? I can see everyone's really getting in there.

So my understanding of this is very straightforward updates that we're required to do to stay in line with state law.

Yes, this one in particular is in our housing element as a program that we must comply with.

Does that mean that it would then be a ministerial approval?

No, okay, you would still go through the design review process Depending on the proposed project would follow the code And the hearing body that is recommended in the code whoever they're recommending her and then it would end up in a reso But that's the whole point is that you don't need an ordinance.

I

Right. The PDP was essentially an extra application. So you have your design review application and then a PDP application. This removes that additional application, again, to kind of help streamline the process. But it would still go through the appropriate review bodies as necessary.

Okay. Any other questions for staff? Perfect. Thank you so much. Thank you.

OK, so do we need to make a resolution?

I think I first need to open up the public. We will. With that we will get there. And so now I'm going to open up the public hearing. I don't I do not see anyone in here, so I'm going to close.

the public hearing and now i would welcome a motion i'd like to make a motion uh uh infirming the resolution recommending adoption of an ordinance amending various section of title 10 chapter 2 zoning of the walnut creek municipal code to implement housing element program H4-I to update regulations regarding accessory dwelling units and public hearing notices in accordance with state law to improve organizational clarity and consistency.

Second.

Why did I choose to read the longest resolution?

I would just like to clarify if the motion includes the clerical revisions in the CEQA findings.

Yes.

Yes, it includes the clerical corrections.

And I apologize. I missed the second again. Second here. Thank you so much. OK. Going around. Commissioner Anderson?

Yes.

Commissioner Moran? Yes. Commissioner Count? Yes. Commissioner Strongman? Yes. Vice Chair Klopp? Yes. Chair Needing? Yes.

The motion passes. Perfect. Now on to item number five, in that this is for commission considerations. Either way.

Well, I have a few things, if you don't mind. Nothing intensive, just a peek at the schedule. And I know you guys get it via email. But just to reiterate, we do anticipate having planning commission meetings from now until October 22. So we have something either locked in and or tentative all through September and October. And I do want to highlight specifically for October 22nd. That will be another special meeting It'll be a joint commission with the design review Commission and we will be bringing forward the general plan existing conditions report to you all I And then my last thing is that, kind of in the same vein, our general plan update pop-ups have begun. So our first one, I believe, was last week, right? Sorry, the time goes by very fast. And we have another one at Broadway Plaza on Saturday. plethora of pop-up opportunities for yourselves or anybody in the community to come and learn a little bit more about the general plan. So that is all I have for you. Thank you.

Question for staff. Previously, I mean last year or so, we used to get not only the planning commission schedule but the design and review schedule weekly. And that stopped. I'm only getting the planning commission. I'd love to see what the design review. I used to.

Maybe it's just you. You're special. You get it?

I did get it, but I'd be curious to hear.

Yeah, I mean, we have all the schedules. Maybe there was something going on before where you weren't supposed to get both of them, but it's not an issue. We have them all on deck. If that's something this body would like, we can definitely include it.

I would like it.

It helps you just know what's coming or when that happened so that you can go back and look for the meeting.

Yeah, not an issue. Any commission member staff reports or announcements now? Seeing none, let's adjourn. Thank you.