please take the roll. Commissioner Anderson? Here. Commissioner Moran? Here.
Commissioner Kaun? Here. Commissioner Strongman? Here. Commissioner Kwok let me
know in advance that he could not attend this evening. Vice Chair Klaw? Here. And
Chair Needing? Here. 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? Just wanted to check. Perfect and
And now, 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, TR26068.
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 an on-site context.
This is where 1085 Hacienda Drive is located.
Tenderment plan designation is 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.
reasons for the approval was tree number one located here was damaging the hard
scape overcrowding and good forestry practices and tree number three located
south of tree number one with a proof of removal for a 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
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 standard set forth below that the tree's conditions such as disease,
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 blue gum or Monterey pine. So staff
recommends move to approve the draft resolution as outlined in Attachment 1,
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 of Miss 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 to
probably your expert answer that one. I'll ask Mike Vickers to come up to answer that one.
Good evening Mike Vickers, Assistant Public Works Director and one of my
responsibilities is 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
this climate. Thank you. Commissioner. Could you stay there, Mike? Quick
question. Could you, understanding you're not an expert, but could you maybe walk
us through what good forestry practices means, essentially, because we're, I guess
where I'm coming from is we're talking about removing trees in support of good
forest tree practices which might sound a little counterintuitive could you just kind of
elucidate on that yeah i mean um 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 um these redwoods are competing for sunlight and other resources oxygen water those types of
things by so the direction um given by the consulting uh certified arborist that we use
here in 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.
Can we show you understand?
Yeah.
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 that quite large redwoods grow at different paces, depending on the area, how much water
they're receiving, and those types of things, but I'm not certain of the age.
And from the pictures that you showed, it appears 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.
Can we short count?
Thank you.
I just had a process question.
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
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, good, 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 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 Excela,
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,
we'll 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 with the,
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
in 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 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 they 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 three criteria that weren't being met for the
one tree and then the good good urban urban forestry practices for those for
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, what it's,
the species, how close it is to, can you like 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 that is laid out in the municipal
code.
So he'll go through and evaluate.
Everything he does is from ground surveying.
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
or 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 how much more
to share.
I just wanted to make sure that,
and I knew this, it wasn't conjecture,
but the arborist was really using his or her skillset
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 a 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 were those flags verified
about what I read in the staff report?
I would have to turn that over to Gerardo.
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 true removal application.
That's why there's not an arborist report.
But there was an arborist that made the determination.
Right, not withstanding whatever report is typically provided.
Correct.
Sorry, now the boundary survey.
So I'll try to answer it.
The site plan that was submitted, there was no survey submitted with the street removal
application.
I understand in the appeal there was a shared property line question issue, which is why
that 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 what you're getting?
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 gonna 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.
Thank you.
Hopefully that is working.
You can also open up the, here you go.
Yeah, 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 – oops.
Sorry.
That one.
Okay.
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 1, the application is an approved material cited damage to adjacent structures
or hardscape, and for Redwood 3, and as well as 1, 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
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 trees is
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 asked the city to consider
the trees 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.
That's people walk in the morning and 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 about, really asking 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'm 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 you know 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
is made we you know should have the right to read the arborist report and
understand the findings a little bit more. Thank you. Thank you so much. And
now if the applicant has 15 minutes to make a presentation. Oh sure this is why
I have glasses. Thank you. Good evening my name is Ari Sagafi. I am the property
owner at 1085 Houseyenda 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
that 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 in 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.
trees they are claiming that were removed along the shared property line
and 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're 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 trees, fruit trees,
contributing to the nature space
where 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 commission.
I just wanted to point out,
Wanna 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 two code.
So to provide, you know, basically to take the tree out to save a hard scape 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 and then after they ask their
questions I'll give the five minutes which you can rebut any the public
comment from your husband. Oh I'm sorry the rebuttal will be from the applicant
first because you came if you wouldn't mind just staying 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 a rebuttal first. I'm sorry I made you stand up. 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 a bottle
rebuttal to the appellant. Hi, so my question was you talked about the 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, you know, have evidence from Roto-Rooter. We've gotten
it flushed out many times. We've put cameras down these pipes and we do it
quarterly but it seems to be a recurring issue and we've had
professional opinions that you know 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
ten years or more so I don't I think that counts as being grandfathered in to
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 arborist came to your house more than once? One time.
One time. Okay and they asked they did things in the yard. Yes I was not there
but my husband was there he did a walk around he you know 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 since the appeal was filed with
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, or am I beginning your title wrong?
since the appeal has
Started got it. Okay. Thank thank you so much
Chair have a quick. Oh yes, Commissioner Moran. Thank you
I'm curious about could you walk me through the 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 into that, but.
I wish I knew.
All I know is that there will be sewage
and the nasty smells in the backyard.
And then I usually start yelling for someone
and then wrote a router,
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,
Yeah, I would say that where we're having the 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 issues that might-
Yes, we have camera footage.
Because they put that down the pipe.
Yep.
Got it.
A comment from a fellow commissioner is divvying how old the house is if they had a subject
tank back in the past, it would go out and then around to the street because
that's the way my house was. They see her 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
I wanna make sure to offer that to you.
Thanks.
You know, I just, 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.
And it's really just a regular maintenance issue.
So I would hate to take down a large redwood tree
if 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 the 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, thank you.
The setbacks are for structures.
Okay.
And, you know, so when you are, is it typical that, that with a, as you say,
with a, when it's on a development, you know, of which the tree removal is part.
And it's just a simple question of 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?
Yeah.
Okay.
And 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? Did you see anything like that in this case? Whether it would be
a mitigation that 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 owners having.
Thank you.
I have to ask, could the City Arberyst, could he or she not make it today?
So the City Arberyst is a consultant. I went to the Public Works Department and
the assistant director was able to show up. Which we love you for being here.
so thank you you are enough I just I had to ask sorry any other and the glasses
I can see you all now I guess I I'm still trying to understand if after the
appeal was the after the appeal was submitted was the arborist consulted
again? So the process is the city arborist goes out and 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 you know submitted an 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. Kahn 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 Dorado 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
but 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?
my question, Jeremy Khan is not the city arborist. Oh, he is. I understand.
And through the chair, if I may, comment on the last question. So, Ally 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 the desire
about the Planning Commission.
So I do want to at least raise that as an option,
if that's something that's being proposed.
Okay, 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. Kahn
on the suitability of a 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 is,
there's information that sounds like words 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?
So I, Commissioner Strongman brings up a good point
because all, it sounds like what we're looking for
an objective standard, right, 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,
it would, I almost feel like the findings were made
if 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?
Oh, sorry, Commissioner Moran, and then Commissioner Anderson.
Just to your point, would that be an arborist's report?
An arborist's report is very lengthy.
But it's interesting, 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, you know, 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. I'm looking at the boxes that
have been checked according to the permit. I guess my question is are we
are we going out are we are we into deeper waters here with how things are
traditionally done when somebody applies to a tree and it gets appealed and
there normally is not what we're talking about.
there normally is not correct there's normally not in arborist report
required unless it was a new development application correct it is it is merely
the that is correct any development yeah so so normally in arborist report
which is expensive and lengthy and it's long is not required go ahead did you
want to just want to clarify a couple things yes first of all Jeremy Khan did
not inspect this tree. Got it. Another employee, another certified arborist, and a fire protection
planner with the city of, or sorry, 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 typically, when we're
dealing with an irregular appeal, the usual appeal as I described earlier. If
appeal is made and the appeal is denied, I don't 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 very helpful in question. The certified arborist that reports to
Jeremy, did he ever send any notes as part of his decision to Jeremy?
I'm sure there must have been something backing up the, oh okay. So I spent a
little time looking for it today, I couldn't find it. The only thing that I
remember reading was moving forward with the removal of the two redwoods. They
recommended that the stumps are not ground because what happens with redwood
trees is the root zones intertwine. Redwood root zones you would typically
Simply a tree of that height has a tap root.
Redwoods do not.
They have a more fibrous root and the rule of thumb is that the diameter of the width
of the root zone is equal to the height of the tree.
So you've got a 40 foot redwood, you've got a 40 foot in diameter root zone generally.
So it was the recommendation, I don't want to go as strong as a recommendation, the suggestion
was, do not remove the two stumps because you will impact the remaining tree.
And we heard also today that there was the reason part of the reasoning to file this
was because of damage to the pipes. Did they ever, did the applicant ever make that clear
to you or provide that evidence?
It should. No, the only the only box that I have the application here in front of me
And the only box that is checked is damaging adjacent structures. Yeah, I have the application for me
I wasn't sure if they separately provided that could one
You know reasonably describe piping and those types of things as structures or infrastructure possibly
But that's that's what it says here. Okay. Thank you. So any other questions. Oh
Commissioner Anderson. Yes. Um, I just want to say not only did we get
The check checked boxes
But in their memorandum that we got it was also like the paragraph
From the Public Works Department, but based on the site inspection that was done
You know explaining in some detail, you know the rationale for
Removing both number one and number three
So we weren't without the arborist information
Just as arborist and sorry I was looking for something more of like what I see in an arborist report
That's why I asked and as mr. Moran mentioned. That's really not right, which is which is not
I was just I was just curious because they they would have had that information in their head and knowing that it got
appealed
To me if I if I were them, I would have sent a quick little email like hey
But I'm not saying that that they didn't do their job. I can see Jeremy Khan
Okay
any other
Yes, the commissioner account
so
for the appeal
There's no need to show
an
Arborist
Justification of good forestry practices. Is that what we're saying here?
Even in an appeal. I understand that initially it's not needed
But in order to properly respond to the appeal
It would seem to me that we would want the details
We would want the arborist to respond to that appeal
Typically in appeal anyone can appeal for any reason
They appealed because like a miss Harris's presentation
She outlined three things of why they're appealing but they don't need it's not required for them to submit their own arborist report or their own
report or memo that's saying why they're appealing. They just tell us why you're
appealing, here's the one-page application, 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 like that I think
that's the kind of information that we're hearing here but I'm not seeing
in the memo or the 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 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 what 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 base water and nutrients and then it just repeats oh say okay it repeats
what the arbors did originally and then it says in evaluating the appeal staff
compared the appellants appellants stated benefits to the state of
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 that's not, 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, visibly, then it's hard to see where having
an arborist write that in a report.
It's pretty straightforward.
Mean it's right. That's right there
It's just it doesn't say the arborist said this but the public works is
basing this on among other things the site inspection so
I mean the arborist could go out and look again, but I don't think the condition is 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 forest deep
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 you know based on your
a question about our redwoods native to this area.
They are not, and they are quite destructive,
and they burrow into buildings and pipes and et cetera.
So 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.
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 both sides of the of the
story. So 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 once we've just 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 I I trust this staff
a lot and so I do I do agree with you does are there any other Oh Commissioner
I would like to make a motion to deny the appeal second would staff please
take the role yes I'm sorry just for the record was that Commissioner Anderson
that second strongly made the motion okay thank you Anderson second and to
clarify the motion was to deny the appeal and adopt the resolution and then
to take a quick roll call Commissioner Anderson yes Commissioner Moran yes
Commissioner Cown no Commissioner Strongman yes vice chair club 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
rustic I am an associate planner from the community development department
this evening staff are requesting a recommendation to counsel regarding
several proposed amendments to the municipal code.
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 1 and Type 2
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 this 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
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.
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 amendment doesn't the
amendments don't change what can be built for increased 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,
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 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 um presentation to any of my fellow commissioners have questions yes
commissioner strongman on the zoning text amendments uh item 12 it says on february 15
2026 the city council held a public hearing to consider the introduction of these yada yada yada
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, and light and air, or what?
Yeah, we will be holding the item
is scheduled for September 15th for City Council.
Commissioner Moran?
Thank you, Allison.
Could you go back a slide or two?
My question relates to, go back to the maps, there you go.
So the MHD area there, where is that?
This is, I apologize, the street names are hard to see in the image, but near
California, Olympic and Botelho and Alpine. That's what I thought.
Is that the only, is that an example? Oh, 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 thing
interesting
This is a
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 plan
development zones throughout the city so this happens to be one of those. Oftentimes
plan 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
Another example would be like the Shadelands Park area.
That is also a planned development area.
So therefore, does these new changes affect the Shadelands?
So in our housing element, the program H-4.1, or I, sorry, 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 require 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 plan development zones
throughout the city.
Sorry, that was a really long answer to that answer.
Yeah, 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 we hope Toyota will sell that place there
especially since we hope Toyota will sell that place and somebody will build something
there.
That the mixed use that we approved, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Is there any other, I can see everyone's really getting in there.
So my understanding 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
Okay, 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
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
Okay, so do we need to make a resolution? I think I first need to open up the oh
we will get there and so now I'm gonna open up the public hearing I don't do 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 of 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 it includes the clerical
corrections. And I apologize I missed the second again. Thank you so much.
Okay going around Commissioner Anderson? Yes. Commissioner Moran? Yes. Commissioner
Count? Yes. Commissioner Strongman? Yes. Vice chair Klock? Yes. Chair Needing? Yes.
The motion passes
Perfect now on to item number five in that this is for Commission
considerations
Is that
either way
Well, I have a few things if you don't mind
Nothing intensive just 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 22nd. 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. 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 last week right sorry the time
goes by very fast and we have another one at Broadway Plaza on Saturday and
so they're a 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. First off, 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 them only getting the planning commission. I'd love to see what
I used to. I did get it but that's curious to get I mean we have all the
schedules maybe it was a maybe there's 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. 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.