Additional Documents

CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2025, AT 7:00 PM AMENDED ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS Amended Additional Documents to the December 3. 2025 City Council Meetings. The attached documents include submitted written public comments and amendments to the agenda. Submit by no later than 12:00 p.m., on the day of the City Council meeting. Correspondence received after this time will be distributed the following business day. AMENDED ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS TO THE DECEMBER 3, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS General Public Comment_Yvonne LaRose General Public Comment_Yvonne LaRose (2) General Public Comment_Yael Pardess Public Comment_Mendell Thompson_Item No. 9 Public Comment_Yvonne LaRose_Item No. 10 Public Comment_John_Item No. 11 (2) Public Comment_John_Item No. 11 Public Comment_Monica Leon_Item No. 15 Public Comment_Jeff Leon_Item No. 15 Public Comment_Angelo Gladding_Item No. 15 Public Comment_Barbara Eisenstein_Item No. 15 Public Comment_Alex Rajewski_Item No. 15 Memo for Item No. 15 Presentation for Item No. 3 Presentation for Item No. 4 Presentation for Item No. 13 Presentation for Item No. 15 1

From: Yvonne LaRose To: City Council Public Comment Subject: General Public Comment for December 3, 2025 Council Meeting - Proposal for On-Demand Transportation Contract Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 11:24:37 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. During a previous Council meeting, Mayor Pro Tem Rossi announced a plan to offer an on- demand transportation service for the City. Unfortunately, I don't remember if any details were part of that disclosure. What I DO remember is how much this City needs such a service that can fill the gaps of transportation after 4:00 PM, service available on weekends and holidays, and service when unexpected circumstances arrive and one MUST find a reasonably priced means of getting home. "Reasonably priced" and "on-demand" are critical factors in the creation of this service. Our Dial a Ride service is $0.50 for a one-way trip. But the service isn't available during all hours, nor on weekends, holidays, and after 4:00 PM. Reservations normally require at least 24 hours in advance. The next affordable mode of transportation is ACCESS which is available 24 hours a day, every day, including weekends and holidays. Although they require at least a 24 hours in advance reservation, once that reservation is made, it cannot be altered - even in a situation where the client becomes ill and needs to be transported to home immediately or if the event being attended either ends early or is cancelled once the client has arrived. The third alternative is using a shared-ride service such as Uber or Lyft. These services are available on-demand and 24 days a week, without prior reservations. They are also the most expensive transportation option, sometimes as much as $20-$35 for a one-way trip of 2.0 miles. In conclusion, I wholeheartedly support the concept of implementing an on-demand transportation service if it can meet the safety and cost comparisons to Dial a Ride or ACCESS. Additional important factors in having the service are having call-out protocols to notify the customer when the vehicle has arrived at the pick-up location, and courteous, responsible professionalism on delivery of service. Viva Yvonne LaRose, CAC Organization Development Consultant: Diversity/Title VII, Harassment, Ethics 2

From: Yvonne LaRose To: City Council Public Comment Subject: General Public Comment: Acknowledging Chief Solinsky"s Service to South Pasadena Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 12:29:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Council Comment Submission: Tribute to Chief Solinsky Scheduled for: First Week of December 2025 Council Meeting Timestamped: October 31, 2025, 8:00 PM Submitted by: Yvonne LaRose, Independent Consultant and Civic Steward When I returned to South Pasadena in November 2019, Police Department service was poor. Officers refused to respond to trespassing and safety concerns. Sometimes, they didn’t show up at all. One's mental stability was mocked. During a Zoom meeting in 2021, the public was asked what traits we wanted in our next Chief of Police, the loudest outcry was for better response to domestic violence calls. Under the stewardship of new Chief, Brian Solinsky, things began to shift. Trust was built. Mutual respect emerged, even across political differences. Officers learned the private stories behind each dwelling. Their responses became evidence of the Department's Core Values. There were lapses. Trust was sometimes erased. But in life-or-death moments—and in unflappable responses to stalking, harassment, lost property, and ACCESS failures—the Department responded with speed, accuracy, and integrity. These moments affirmed the human condition, honored safety, and dedication to threatened dangers. Earlier this year, I publicly acknowledged a 90–95% improvement from 2021. By September, I assessed a regression to 80%, with a desire to see that remedied. Recent community outreach efforts will help restore that upward trajectory. This is the department Chief Brian Solinsky leaves behind: one shaped not only by his leadership, but by the quiet transmission of change. I thank him for his stewardship, the one who carried community insight into institutional practice. Viva Yvonne LaRose, CAC Organization Development Consultant: Diversity/Title VII, Harassment, Ethics 3

From: Yael Pardess To: City Council Public Comment; Omari Ferguson; Janet Braun; Jon Primuth; Sheila Rossi; Michael Cacciotti Subject: Comments about New Tree Ordinance Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 6:33:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To: The City Council of South Pasadena From: Yael Pardess, Mount Washington LA 90065 Date: December 3, 2025 Re: Item 15. Consideration of Ordinance No. 2409 Amending Chapter 34 (Trees and Shrubs) of the South Pasadena Municipal Code I d like to comment on the updated ordinance. I live in LA but care deeply about our protected trees and the dwindling urban canopy. I have been following up this new ordinance and have several concerns. *Trees protected list- Should include Elderberries *E5-6- Allowing Insurance company to set the standards for tree removal is a bad policy. We see too many mature healthy trees being removed by owner without an arborist being consulted, because of threats of insurance cancellation. This committee must request an objective arborist review especially in light of Zone 0 that will allow excessive unnecessary tree removal. In many cases trees can be saved with a proper non excessive trim. It has been shown in recent fires that trees and hedges can save your home from fire, not endanger it as ZZ wants us to believe. There are trees that can save your home. There is no provision at all for tree ecology and what it offers as far as shade cooling and biological diversity around us. The ordinance is favoring development, and allowing easy removal of trees, over creating a sustainably co existance with nature. Ordinance must also take into account the fact that hillside trees are holding the slopes together. Isolating trees from each other, exacerbate heat islands, drying effect and fire dangers. Additionally- Trimming must exempt large branches,(Size to be defined) and cannot be over 25%. We see excessive disfiguring trimming all over Los Angeles, endangering both trees and homes. Ordinance should penalize over trimming of all trees. *34.7B-1 Why are fruit trees not allowed as replacement trees? Citrus fruits are known for their fire protective qualities. 4

*34.7B-5 and 34.9 Exemptions. With ZZ approaching, there may be an issue with replacing trees removed because of defensible space, especially if property is too small. Even with the allowance to replant them elsewhere at 50% of number required, City will lose countess trees. Not requiring a permit for removals in ZZ will allow people to remove trees unnecessarily, especially that could stay in ZZ and be trimmed accordingly. It should not be allowed. *34.7B-8- bond should be required, not “may” To make sure a max trees survive and are taken care off. Bond should be high. Developer opt to forfeit their bods and let trees die. It must be prevented *34.7B-c-1- Replanted tree number required (not associated with development) is too low. 1:1 for protected trees, significant trees etc. LA does not separate categories and all protected trees removed over a certain size call for a replacement ratio of 1:4 for protected and 1 for significant. For a city that cares for trees- your ratio is simply too low. *34.7B-c-2- a Ratio of 2:1 for protected trees removed. Too low, same note as above. As far as DBH required, if I understand it correctly at 16"- is too high. Most young trees are below this threshold and will be lost. I read at the beginning of ordinance that the DBH is 4.5”. Same as Los Angeles. It should be clarified Thank you for your time Yael Pardess 5

December 1, 2025 Re: Reappointment to Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority Board of Directors Item 9, December 3 Council Agenda Honorable Mayor Braun and City Council, As we near the end of 2025, I am happy to report that the Foothill Gold Line Construction Authority has now completed more than 34 miles and 23 of the 25 light rail stations entrusted to the agency since its inception more than 25 years ago. The most recent four station extension, from Glendora to Pomona, was completed on time and under budget earlier this year and opened for service this past September. As the Vice Chair of the Construction Authority board of directors, appointed by the City of South Pasadena since March 2021, and Chair of the Finance Committee, I feel great pride in the agency’s accomplishments during my tenure, especially as I hear how impactful the new light rail system is to the lives of the Glendora, San Dimas, La Verne, and Pomona communities. The work of the Construction Authority is not complete however, and I am dedicated to continuing to help lead the agency as we embark on the Pomona to Claremont project in the months and years ahead. The Construction Authority is currently underway with the procurement process to hire the design/engineering team, and separately the construction manager, for the next 3.2-mile project that will complete the final station in Los Angeles County, and I look forward to continuing to support the project and advocate for its future completion to Montclair and hopefully Ontario International Airport. I believe having consistent leadership during this period in the agency’s history is crucial and I hope you will allow me the honor to continue to represent South Pasadena on the Construction Authority board as we move into this important next phase. Unfortunately, I am currently out of the country and unable to be with you in person as you consider extending my appointment. I would be happy to attend a future meeting to provide a more detailed update on the project if that would be of interest to council. In the meantime, I would truly appreciate your support by allowing me to continue to represent the city on the Construction Authority board for the next term. Thank you for your consideration and happy holidays, Mendell Thompson City of Glendora, City Council Member 6

From: Yvonne LaRose To: City Council Public Comment Subject: Public Comment on Agenda Item 10 - City Council Meeting 12/3/25 Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 2:50:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. While reading the proposed amendment to SPMC Chapter 2 regarding Commission members and requirements for consideration several things leapt out that raise questions that need to be addressed. The first was that all of the previous definitions of Term of Office was adjusted to bring clarity to how filling an vacancy before a term ended was further clarified as well as how to calculate service for two terms with a 12-month lapse before being eligible for a new appointment. That was an understandable restatement. Clarification of how youth commission members is also defined in the amendment. That is also helpful. However, the terms of the Amendment become murky when we reach matters relating to the Public Safety Commission. "2.40 Creation. There is hereby created a public safety commission of the city. At least two of the members should have a background in public safety." While it is helpful to be specific regarding what constitutes being a baseline member of that commission, the phrase "background in public safety" is quite ambiguous. What constitutes a background in public safety? There are automatic deferrals to law enforcement, medicine, fire and disaster control. But there are other occupations that are also essentials to public safety that don't leapt to mind until deeper thought is given to the subject. In addition, it appears the Public Safety Commission is the only one that defines the character of its membership, whereas, in previous iterations, the character of the members is stated and defined. Why have those descriptions been deleted? Why is Public Safety the only commission with some limiting descriptions of it constituency? "Composition of Members" is mentioned three (3) times. At the first instance, it relates to the composition of members on the Public Works Infrastructure Commission. In that instance, the section was renumbered to read " Section 2.47-5" with no other change. At Section 29, "Composition of Members" is mentioned a second time as it relates to the Finance Commission. There, the item is repealed in its entirety. There are no specific areas of expertise required for inclusion. The third and final mention of "Composition of Members" is in relation to the Public Arts Commission (at Section 34 of the proposed Amendment) and is simply renumbered to read 7

"Section 2.79-11." Again, there is no language that limits or expands the level of qualification to serve on that commission. The sticking point of the proposed Amendments is the specific delineation of membership on the Public Safety Commission while overlooking that matter in relation to the existing Commissions. The proposed ordinance states: “At least two of the members should have a background in public safety.” I ask for clarification of what the City means by “background in public safety.” If defined narrowly - only law enforcement, fire, or medicine - we risk excluding qualified individuals whose work has directly safeguarded our community in other ways. This is not about whether I, personally, could serve on the Commission. The definition of “background in public safety” is only the tip of the iceberg. Without clear definitions, residents cannot know whether their experience qualifies them to serve. That uncertainty itself becomes a barrier, discouraging participation and reinforcing inequity. The deeper concerns are how restrictive language can perpetuate exclusion, even unintentionally, and silence voices that should be part of our civic fabric, as well as providing an understanding of what is considered "public safety" background. At a recent WISPPA meeting, one community member responded to a rallying call for volunteers with the words: “If you can get acknowledged.” Their comment reflects the frustration of those who feel it is impossible to participate because their demographic is routinely overlooked. Their voice—and others like theirs—needs to be heard. Their absence from civic functions is not apathy; it is evidence of exclusion. Perhaps this needs to be remedied. Public safety is broader than disaster or emergency response. It is also about prevention, trust, and inclusion. I urge the Council to at least clarify this definition (or broaden it) so that all qualified community members from all walks of civic life may be considered. In the alternative, include "composition" for each of the commission descriptions. Outreach must extend to all members of our community, not limited to those who fit a particular image. Viva Yvonne LaRose, CAC Organization Development Consultant: Diversity/Title VII, Harassment, Ethics 8

From: John C. To: City Council Public Comment Subject: Email Comment for December 3, 2025, South Pasadena City Council Meeting for Item Number 11 Date: Monday, December 1, 2025 3:58:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Mayor Janet Braun, Mayor Pro Tem Sheila Ross, Council Member Omari Ferguson, Council Member Jon Primuth, and Council Member Michael A. Cacciotti, Important for South Pasadena City Council Meeting on December 3, 2025, for Consent Calendar Item Number 11. Please read this article below from GM Authority by George Barta. From, John By George Barta December 10, 2024 4:05 am Southern California Edison Adds 280 Chevy Silverado EV WT Units To Its Fleet One thing that the burgeoning market of electric pickup trucks and the well- established field of ICE-powered trucks have in common is variety. For 9

example, an electric full-size pickup can be a well-equipped premium vehicle like the GMC Sierra EV Denali or a no-nonsense workhorse like the Chevy Silverado EV WT. Utility company Southern California Edison (SCE) realized the potential of electric work trucks and added 280 Chevy Silverado EV WT units to its service fleet. In addition to the obvious environmental benefits, SCE is utilizing electric trucks to lower ownership costs by saving on fuel and maintenance. It’s a step toward SCE’s goal of a 100-percent electric light- duty fleet. "The deployment represents a pivotal step in SCE’s commitment to electrify our fleet and reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said Todd Carlson, Principal Manager of Fleet for Southern California Edison. "At SCE, we’re committed to leading by example in California’s clean energy transformation. Working with partners like Chevrolet allows us to integrate high-performing electric vehicles while improving SoCal’s air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions." 10

"We are excited to help innovative customers like Southern California Edison to meet their electrification goals with the Chevrolet Silverado EV WT as part of their fleet transformation," said Sandor Piszar, vice president of GM Envolve. "The Silverado EV WT combines the performance and reliability commercial customers expect with the benefits and low cost of ownership of electric propulsion." The 2025 Chevy Silverado EV WT just recently became available for retail sales in November. Previously, it was limited to fleet and commercial buyers like SCE. The 2025 Silverado EV WT lineup starts with the 2WT Standard Range model, equipped with a 14-module battery pack and four-wheel drive. This configuration offers an estimated 170 miles of range per charge and a starting price of $57,095 - roughly $10,000 less than the 2024 3WT model when configured with the 1FL Fleet Package. 11

For customers who need more range, the 5WT Extended Range model features a 20-module battery pack and four-wheel drive, starting at $69,495, and has a range of 422 miles. Meanwhile, the top-tier 8WT Max Range model provides a 24-module battery pack with four-wheel drive, boasting the longest range in the lineup at 492 miles and starting at $77,795. All Chevy Silverado EV model variants are underpinned by the GM BT1 platform and are built at GM Factory Zero plant in Michigan. 12

From: John C. To: City Council Public Comment Subject: Email Comment for December 3, 2025, South Pasadena City Council Meeting for Item Number 11 Date: Monday, December 1, 2025 3:38:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To Mayor Janet Braun, Mayor Pro Tem Sheila Ross, Council Member Omari Ferguson, Council Member Jon Primuth, and Council Member Michael A. Cacciotti, Important for South Pasadena City Council Meeting on December 3, 2025, for Consent Calendar Item Number 11. Please read below this press release by the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles City Council Member Bob Blumenfield, From, John Posted on 11/21/2023 **PRESS RELEASE** COUNCILMEMBER BOB BLUMENFIELD UNVEILS THE CITY’S CHEVROLET SILVERADO EV FLEET 13

**PRESS RELEASE** COUNCILMEMBER BOB BLUMENFIELD UNVEILS THE CITY’S CHEVROLET SILVERADO EV FLEET First municipality in California with this ½ ton all electric pickup truck WEST SAN FERNANDO VALLEY, CA – Pushing for innovations to reduce the impact of climate change, Councilmember Bob Blumenfield, General Services Department Assistant General Manager John Trevgoda, and LA Sanitation Chief Operating Officer Traci Minamide unveiled the City’s Chevrolet Silverado EV fleet. The first municipality to add the Silverado EV to its fleet in California, these ½ ton all electric trucks are capable of fulfilling endless applications throughout the City. “Leveraging the purchasing power of the city as a major customer can drive and support electrification and innovation, and it’s exciting to be part of this transition to electric vehicles throughout our City fleet,” said Councilmember Bob Blumenfield. “I’m encouraged by the collaboration with General Motors who have risen to the occasion to develop a pickup to be cleaner and better for our climate goals, and grateful for our departments and city workers who will use these vehicles every day to deliver services.” 14

"The Department of General Services thanks Councilmember Blumenfield and Mayor Bass for their leadership towards improving our environment while reducing our dependence on fossil fuels,” said General Services Department Assistant General Manager John Trevgoda on behalf of General Manager Tony Royster. “General Services continuously seeks opportunities to replace the City's fleet to EV vehicles and equipment. We appreciate General Motors working with the City to introduce the Chevrolet all electric Silverado for city use as we move towards meeting the City's goal of electrifying all of its fleet." “LASAN is proud to share in this climate action to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions," said LASAN Chief Operating Officer Traci J. Minamide. "Reducing the climate-impact of our services by utilizing electric vehicles like this new Chevrolet Silverado is a critical component of our environmental program." The 2024 Chevrolet Silverado EV All Wheel Drive has an estimated 450 mile range, 1440 pound payload capacity, approximately 10,000 pound towing capacity, and a 400v architecture, with the ability to charge at 800v/350 kilowatts, allowing the truck to charge 100 miles of range in approximately 10 minutes. In 2022, the Los Angeles City Council voted to transition to 100 percent clean energy by 2035. This plan, known as LA100, demonstrates that the City's goal of reaching 100 percent renewable electricity is achievable 10 years earlier than originally planned. In addition, the Council directed City departments to create an Electric Vehicle Master Plan to transition the over 10,000 vehicles into a green zero carbon fleet. This requires innovation for large scale industrial vehicles in addition to cars and trucks. Blumenfield added, “these new EV trucks are built for hardcore City work — they go 450 miles on a charge, have crazy torque, carry bigger payloads, require little maintenance, and they’re good for the environment.” The Mayor and City Council have directed all City departments to mitigate the effects of climate change in the City. As Chair of the Budget, Finance, and Innovation Committee, Blumenfield is working diligently with all departments, especially the General Services Department and LA Sanitation to electrify the City’s fleet. 15

16

From: Monica Leon To: Omari Ferguson; Sheila Rossi; Jon Primuth; Michael Cacciotti; Janet Braun; City Council Public Comment Subject: Tree Ordinance Urban Forestry Plan Needed Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 10:02:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hi, my name is Monica Leon and I am a resident and teacher at South Pasadena. On October 1st It was great to witness the involvement of South Pasadena residents of all ages in our city issues. We united to speak up our concerns about the flaws of the new tree ordinance that was about to be passed. Our voices were heard and for that I’m grateful. Thank you for pausing the amendment. However, the latest revision is more concerning than the previous one. The amendment gives full power to the Public Works Department to “...add to, delete from, or otherwise modify the list [of protected trees] without further action by the City Council”. This takes us back to the beginning of the issue and no improvement has been made. Now the decision of tree removal is at the mercy of the Public Works Department which lacks the knowledge and expertise of a certified arborist. The amendment also mentions the approval of tree removals in Fire Hazard Severity Zones; however, it does not mention anything about the critical hazard of mudslides due to erosion as a consequence of tree removal. The amendment does not mention anything about developing an urban forest tree management plan, which knowledge and expertise will guide you to make an educated decision about trees. Consult an urban forestry planner and then revise the ordinance. Thank you, -Monica Leon 17

From: J L To: Omari Ferguson; Sheila Rossi; Jon Primuth; Michael Cacciotti; Janet Braun; City Council Public Comment Subject: Tree Ordinance Amendment Date: Tuesday, December 2, 2025 8:41:00 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. This amendment shows progress but raises critical concerns. If the true goal is expediting removals for hazardous trees or loss of insurance coverage---pass that section immediately. The remainder contains flaws that fall short of South Pasadena's standards. Critical Issue: Unchecked Public Works Authority Any attempt to protect trees is erased by Public Works. They can change the tree lists at will and change it back once the damage is done. This is with no input from an Urban Forestry Management Plan or a certified arborist. Required Changes: Section 34.1(b) – Approved Replacement Tree List Strike: "and may add to, delete from, or otherwise modify the list without further action by the City Council" Add: "Any additions, deletions, or modifications shall require City Council/NREC approval." Sections 34.1(u), (y), (z) – Protected/Restricted/Fire-Hazard Lists Strike: "and may add to, delete from, or otherwise modify the list without further action by the City Council" Add: "Any additions, deletions, or modifications shall be adopted by resolution of the City Council/NREC." We need an Urban Forestry Management Plan for guidance, not liability-driven decisions. We asked for transparency. This amendment has too much buried in it. Neighbors have a say in their community and should be able to appeal. This past year we saw two appeals. This isn't costly with the available solutions. SaveSouthPasadenaTrees.org has a free tool for 100-foot radius notifications. Residents stand ready to create additional tools that streamline permitting while ensuring accountability. This is a Public Works challenge—allow residents to contribute solutions. South Pasadena deserves an Urban Forestry Management Plan before making irreversible decisions about our trees. Thank you, Jeff Leon 18

Council, This is an embarrassment. Tree City USA South Pasadena has been a Tree City USA community for over 25 years, demonstrating its commitment to protecting and enhancing the urban forest. Tree City USA means nothing. Shrubs Shrub protection is gone. After Councilmember Omari Ferguson's first council meeting I spoke with him and told him about shrub protections. He so confidently responsed "We're going to get rid of that." Councilmember Omari Ferguson removed a hillside of protected shrubs without a permit. There is a protected shrubland across the street from my house in his district that the Fire chief has applied for a grant to "manage". The fire chief does not know anything at all about plants or trees, native or otherwise. Omari Ferguson and our fire chief have failed miserably to lead during this transition. The tiny amount of guidance has been in direct conflict with one another. Our own building code discusses the need for shrubs and vegetation on hillsides for erosion prevention. We keep talking about trees under power lines. You need shrubs grown in standard form under and around power lines. Flame heights are kept low with multi-trunk shrubs. Proudly removing protections for shrubs now is a clear indication of a blissfully ignorant urban forestry system. Species The species lists provided are a joke. There are blatant spelling errors on the documents furnished by staff. The single pine species called out, Canary Island Pine, is considered one of the most fire safe. It is even included in the recommended species list which is just a copy/paste from LA County's outdated and woefully incomplete list. Where are the native, non-resinous deciduous trees such as California Black Walnut and Blue Elderberry that would be ideal specimens for fire safety and view preservation in the hills? Obviously these lists don't matter at all because this reading allows public works to change them completely at their will whenever and however they see fit. So the staff that has failed to produce City Arborist Rebecca Mejia to stand at the podium, failed to ask Public Works Operations Manager Catrina Peguero to stand at the podium, failed to present a species list of any quality, should be given full control over all species decisions moving forward. No Urban Forestry Management Plan is mentioned in this round. 19

Accountability Public Works has to get the city arborist to write a report to remove a street tree but no longer has to notify the residents? Public Works will hire their own City Arborist of unknown credentials instead of using one related to a city contractor? This absolutely can and will be a downgrade and a final lockstep towards full scale corruption of our tree authority. The only respectable oversight is multiple rotating independent consulting arborists. This move towards a single city arborist as the choke point of all tree removals is a broken implementation of our existing code: 34.12 (d) The reason for removal. Any trees proposed for removal due to poor health or condition shall have the condition of the tree documented in a written report prepared and signed by a certified arborist; The application is supposed to come with an arborist report. Nowhere does it say the City is supposed to furnish said report. This is just one of many instances of staff breaking the current implementation to establish a precedent to rewrite the code broken. Tree of Heaven This single species needs to be required removal city-wide. Palms You're banning all palms city-wide forever. The native Hooded Oriole sews its nests onto palm fronds. It's one of my favorite songbirds because of its bright yellow color, playful nature, beautiful singing and unique attraction to and sharing of the same nectar sources as hummingbirds–namely my year round flowering protected non- native 18' Cape Honeysuckle shrub. Palms are crucial lookouts for Owls and Hawks and their skirts are the only effective bat habitats. These animals keep our city free of vermin at no cost to us. These aren't just cozy ideas. This is delicate infrastructure. This isn't just pie in the sky environmentalism. This is hard reality being ignored for dubious reasons out of greed, ignorance and irrational fear, uncertainty and doubt. Palms are on postcards of Los Angeles all around the world. If maintained they aren't a fire hazard at all. Putting them on a restricted list because you've seen footage of them burning isn't making us safer, it's giving the appearance of making us safer while actually making us worse off. In twenty years the kids living in the City of Trees will have to learn the majesty of the Canary Island Palm on their phones. Fire Trees removed for fire safety MUST BE REPLACED BY SIMILARLY SIGNIFICANT 20

SPECIES. No significant trees are being put in the ground. Every single replacement tree that goes in the ground is a sub-tree or patio tree that stays or is kept well below the roof line. This is a complete and utter joke. It isn't safer and it isn't canopy forming. It's just the pathetic side effect of a failed urban forestry system run by people who don't care, can't care and won't care. Shrubs and hillsides need to be discussed with actual facts. Councilmember Omari Ferguson has derailed the conversation for his own personal interests and Councilmember Michael Caccioti has completely excused himself from any kind of actual understanding of or involvement in our urban forestry system while liaison to NREC this entire time. There is no leadership and there has been no leadership throughout this entire process. Nobody on staff has any clue what they're doing and it is resulting in mass removals and mass permanent butchering. The canopy decline is being touted as THE SYSTEM WORKING AS INTENDED. This has left Mayor Braun and Mayor Pro Tem Rossi to literally figure everything out in the eleventh hour with our city attorney and the couple of people from public works that have failed those who care about tree protections all along. The entire process has failed miserably. THE ENTIRE PROCESS HAS FAILED MISERABLY. Replacement Am I understanding correctly that replacements aren't triggered until DBH is over 16 inches? And despite these tree replacement numbers all permits processed this year thus far will be returning deposits for all but a single tree regardless of actual replacement quantities? So if they're required to plant only one and only 50% need to be planted on site–do they have to plant anything at all? If the numbers to replace are lowered the 50% onsite means something very different. There's been no actual study of any of these numbers. It's just spitballing whatever will be the least burden to tree removers. Again, an oak sapling, the best size to plant for long term health, is 15.0 There's no concept of Urban Forestry anywhere in sight. A significant frontage tree needs to be replaced with a significant frontage tree of higher quality or there'll be absolutely nothing but junk trees being put in the ground in perpetuity. Comments/Appeals Councilmember Omari Ferguson should have applied for a permit to remove the shrubs on his hillside and his neighbors deserved to be notified and allowed to provide comment. Again, here is a tool to get the addresses in the 100' radius instantly: ragt.ag/south- pasadena/trees/radius-map I've tried to make it abundantly clear the need for an appeal process and the need for accountability and transparency but I've been institutionally gaslit all along the way at a level that beggars belief. 21

Now I have to write it all down. I've been so patient and given everyone involved such a benefit of the doubt. Now the people of the City of Trees will have a full documentation of what is actually happening inside of our urban forestry system and I promise you it is going to be ugly. Legacy You will be named as the council that legitimized the full scale corruption of our urban forestry system and officially oversaw the tipping point toward the end of the City of Trees as we know it. The Very High fire hazard zone of Southwest Monterey Hills will be a treeless and otherwise stubcut concrete ghetto in ten years time. Where are the KPIs? Angelo Gladding Vice President, South Pasadena Beautiful 22

From: Barbara Eisenstein To: City Council Public Comment Subject: Agenda Item 15: Changes to Proposed Tree Ordinance Chapter 34 Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 11:57:47 AM Attachments: TreeOrdComments_251203.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I am attaching by comments on the changes to the proposed Tree Ordinance. I respectfully urge the City Council to take the necessary time to refine these provisions before adoption, ensuring the ordinance is both effective and practical for our community. Thank you for the steps you have already taken to ensure that our city provides the needed protections for our outstanding urban forest. Yours, Barbara Eisenstein -- Check Calendar for Upcoming Volunteer Days 23

To: The City Council of South Pasadena From: Barbara Eisenstein, 1852 Monterey Road Date: December 3, 2025 Re: Item 15. Consideration of Ordinance No. 2409 Amending Chapter 34 (Trees and Shrubs) of the South Pasadena Municipal Code Thank you for modifying the proposed tree ordinance based on earlier public input. Your willingness to incorporate community feedback demonstrates commendable responsiveness. While these changes represent progress, I believe several minor but important modifications are still needed. I outline two specific areas of concern and one general recommendation below. 1. TREE TRIMMING REQUIREMENTS (pp. 145-158) Current Language (p. 145, Section 34.4(a)): "A Tree Trimming Permit shall be required for the Trimming of any live foliage, limbs or branches of a Protected Tree." Concern: Requiring permits for all pruning of Protected Trees is overly restrictive and may discourage residents from performing routine, beneficial maintenance. For example, a resident pruning a low- growing limb that obstructs a sidewalk would need to obtain a permit—an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle for minor maintenance. Proposed Solution: Include a de minimis exception allowing unpermitted pruning when less than 10% of the live canopy is involved. This would enable responsible tree maintenance without excessive regulatory burden while still protecting trees from significant harm. 2. RESTRICTED TREES (p. 143) Current Language: "Restricted Trees" are Trees or species of Trees which have been designated by the Public Works Department as Trees that cannot be planted on any public or private property in the City. The Public Works Department shall maintain and periodically review the Restricted Tree list and may add to, delete from, or otherwise modify the list without further action by the City Council. Concern: The Public Works Department should not have unilateral authority to modify the Restricted Tree list without review by the appropriate commission or council. Additional Issues with Current Restricted Tree List: •Inconsistent enforcement: Sweetgum and magnolia trees appear on the restricted list yet continue to be planted throughout the city, representing a major policy shift without clear justification. •Typographical error: "Brazilian petter" should read "Brazilian pepper." •Unclear criteria: Only three specific coral tree species are listed. Given that many other coral tree varieties exist, the rationale for restricting only these species should be explained. •I think this is a typo: Eucalyptus river red gum \American sweetgum. I am not aware of a Eucalyptus River Red Gum/American sweetgum. •In general the tree lists should be carefully reviewed. 24

3. CRITICAL STAFFING NEED: CITY ARBORIST POSITION Current Language (p. 146, Section 34.4(d)): "The City Arborist shall evaluate each application for a Tree Trimming Permit..." Concern: Throughout this ordinance, critical responsibilities are assigned to a "City Arborist." Both tree trimming permits and tree removal applications require evaluation by a qualified City Arborist. However, the city currently lacks this essential position. Recommendation: The city must establish and fund a City Arborist position to properly implement and enforce this ordinance. Without dedicated professional staff, these well-intentioned regulations cannot be effectively administered. CONCLUSION Thank you for your efforts to protect our urban forest through these important changes. I respectfully urge the City Council to take the necessary time to refine these provisions before adoption, ensuring the ordinance is both effective and practical for our community. Respectfully submitted, Barbara Eisenstein 25

From: Alex Rajewski To: City Council Public Comment Subject: Tree Ordinance Date: Wednesday, December 3, 2025 5:03:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the City of South Pasadena. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. As one of the NREC commissioners I am happy to see the City Council considering a much- needed revision of the Tree Ordinance at tonight's meeting. I commend the council members and city staff for their effort and dedication to solving this, and for the incorporation of the extensive public comments. The revised ordinance is much clearer than the current version, and, I think, would be an improvement overall if adopted as is. That said, I believe a few additional refinements would strengthen it further. First, the lists of protected or restricted tree species could use more clarity. The current draft does not include unambiguous scientific names, which contributes to confusion in implementation. It would also be helpful to understand the criteria used to select these species so the lists can be thoughtfully maintained as our city’s forestry needs and climate conditions evolve. Likewise, updates to these lists should be more transparent, for instance requiring that amendments be reviewed or approved by NREC, the Planning Authority, or the Council, rather than managed solely internally. Finally, the ordinance mentions but does not define a "fruit tree" clearly. Given that these trees are considered distinct with regards to replacement requirements, I think the definition is important. I do not believe a concrete list of fruit tree species would be beneficial, but rather a more general rubric to define this category. For example: “Fruit tree means any tree intentionally grown or managed primarily for producing edible fruit for human consumption, where such fruit forms a substantial and recurring harvest under normal care. Trees that produce botanically edible fruit but are not ordinarily cultivated, maintained, or harvested as a food crop are not considered fruit trees." Thank you for considering these recommendations and for your continued work on this ordinance. Sincerely, Alex Rajewski, PhD Natural Resources and Environmental Commissioner 26

City of South Pasadena City Manager’s Office Memo Date: December 3, 2025 To: The Honorable City Council Via: Todd Hileman, City Manager From: Roxanne Diaz, City Attorney Subject: December 3, 2025, City Council Meeting Item No. 15 - Ordinance on Trees Attached is a further revised Tree Ordinance (Ordinance No. 2409). Revisions were made to clarify certain text and other nonsubstantive revisions were made. Text that was added is shown in “red.” Text that was eliminated is shown in strikethrough and is also in “red.” 27

1 CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA ORDINANCE NO. 2409 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 34 (TREES AND SHRUBS) OF THE SOUTH PASADENA MUNICIPAL CODE IN ITS ENTIRETY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH PASADENA, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Chapter 34 entitled “Trees and Shrubs” of the South Pasadena Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: “CHAPTER 34 TREES Sections: 34.0 Purpose. 34.1 Definitions. 34.2 Maintenance of Trees on Private Property. 34.3 Maintenance of Trees on Public Property. 34.4 Tree Trimming Permit Requirements. 34.5 Tree Removal Permit Requirements - Not Associated With Development. 34.6 Tree Removal Permit Requirements - Associated With Development. 34.7 Tree Removal Permit Replacement Tree Requirements 34.8 Emergency Trimming of Mature Protected Trees. 34.9 Exemptions. 34.10 Obstruction. 34.11 Violations. 34.12 Penalties. 34.13 Administrative Regulations. 34.14 Conflict with Laws. 34.0 Purpose The City of South Pasadena is forested with a variety of trees that contribute to the long- term health, welfare and quality of life of the residents of the City. It is the intent of this Chapter to establish conditions and regulations for the protection, removal and replacement of existing trees and the installation of new trees t to further the reasonable enjoyment of private property. Further, it is recognized that trees are an asset to the community and residents are attracted to the urban forest of the City. Trees provide a variety of benefits to the community including enhancing the City’s beauty and character, preserving the historical significance of trees to our City, furthering the creation of natural gathering spaces, reduction of noise pollution, enhancement of neighborhood character and aiding in the establishment and maintenance of tree cover on private and public lands 28

2 in the City. This is balanced with ensuring that trees are maintained in a healthy and non- hazardous condition. 34.1 Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth below: (a) “Administrative Regulations” means the administrative procedures, regulations and guidelines adopted by the City Manager or his designee pursuant to Section 34.16. (b) “Approved Replacement Tree List” means a list of species of Trees that are approved as replacement trees as required by this Chapter. Such List shall be maintained by the Director in consultation with a Certified Arborist. The Public Works Department shall maintain and periodically review the Approved Replacement Tree List and may add to, delete from, or otherwise modify the list without further action by the City Council. (c) “Certified Arborist” means a professional in the tree care industry who has received their arborist certification through the International Society of Arboriculture. (d) “City Arborist” means a Certified Arborist designated by the Director as the “City Arborist”, provided that the City Arborist must be independent from any landscape service provider under contract with the City for the general maintenance of the City’s parks and green spaces and trimming of the City’s Trees. (e) “Code” means the South Pasadena Municipal Code. (f) “Commission” means the City of South Pasadena Natural Resources and Environmental Commission or a successor body to the duties and responsibilities of such Commission. (g) “Damage” means, as a verb, any act which causes injury or disfigurement to a Tree, including death of a Tree, and as a noun, injury or disfigurement of a Tree, including death of a Tree. (h) "DBH (diameter at breast height)" means the diameter of a Tree measured 4½ feet above natural grade. For any tree with multiple trunks, the DBH shall be the sum of the diameter of each trunk measured 4 ½ feet above natural grade. (i) “Deadwood” means limbs, branches or a portion of a Tree void of green leaves during a time of the year when green leaves should be present on a healthy Tree of that type. (j) “Developer” shall have the meaning set forth in Section 36.700.020 of this Code. 29

3 (k) “Development” means any construction, installation, reconstruction, demolition, or moving of a building or structure on property located in the City. Development also includes the grading, excavation or compaction of soil and flatwork. (l) “Director” means the City’s Public Works Director or his or her designee. (m) “Drip Line” means an imaginary line defined by the branch spread of a single tree or group of trees. (n) “Emergency” means a situation where action must be taken to Trim a Protected Tree pursuant to Section 34.810 because the Protected Tree is an immediate threat to life, property or public safety. (o) “Heritage Tree” means a tree of historical value, which has been designated by the City as a South Pasadena historical landmark and includes any tree designated by resolution of the City Council to be of special community value as an aesthetic, ecological or historical resource. (p) “Intentional Violation” means a violation of this chapter (Trees) that is committed by any Person who has actual or presumed knowledge of, or who has previously violated, its provisions. A Person, including a commercial Certified Arborist/tree trimmer, a general contractor, or anyone who has previously filed an application for a Tree Trimming Permit or a Tree Removal Permit in the City shall be presumed to know the provisions of this chapter. (q) “ISA” means the International Society of Arboriculture. (r) “Oak Tree” means species of tree of the genus Quercus. (s) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, trustee, receiver or other entity. A Person also includes a Developer. (t) “Planning Review Authority” means the City employee or body (Director of Community Development, Cultural Heritage Commission, Planning Commission or City Council) identified by the City zoning code as having responsibility and authority to review and approve or disapprove Development permit applications described in Article 6 (Zoning Code Administration) of the City zoning code. (u) “Protected Tree” means those species of trees designated by the City as “Protected Trees” in a resolution adopted by the City Council and the following Trees whether or not so designated by the City Council and that have a DBH of 4 inches or more: (i) Oak Trees, including Coast Live Oak, Holly Oak, Southern Live Oak, Scrub Oak, Canyon Live Oak, Engelmann Oak, California Black Oak, Interior Live Oak. (ii) California Bay Laurel. (iii) Desert Willow. 30

4 (iv) Catalina Ironwood. (v) Sycamore Trees, including California Sycamore. (vi) Toyon. (vii) So California Black Walnut. (viii) Hollyleaf Cherry. (ix) Heritage Trees. (x) Any tree designated by the Public Works Department as an additional Protected Tree, which shall be maintained as a separate list of Protected Trees and periodically reviewed by the Public Works Department. The Public Works Department may add to, delete from or otherwise modify their list of Protected Trees in consultation with a Certified Arborist without further action by the City Council. The Public Works Department shall maintain and periodically review the Protected Tree list and may add to, delete from, or otherwise modify the list without further action by the City Council. (v) “Protection” means the safeguarding of Trees through proper treatment. (w) “Public Works Department” means the department of the City that oversees all public works issues in the City (x) “Radius List” shall have the same meaning as set forth in Section 34.6(b)(5). (y) “Removed” or “Removal” means uprooting, cutting or severing of the main trunk(s) of a Tree. (z) “Restricted Trees” are Trees or species of Trees which have been designated by the Public Works Department as Trees that cannot be planted on any public or private property in the City. The Public Works Department shall maintain and periodically review the Restricted Tree list and may add to, delete from, or otherwise modify the list in consultation with a Certified Arborist without further action by the City Council. (aa) “Restricted Trees in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone(s)” are all Restricted Trees and other Trees designated by the Public Works Department as Trees that cannot be planted in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone or High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Public Works Department shall maintain and periodically review the Restricted Trees in Fire Hazard Severity Zones list and may add to, delete from, or otherwise modify the list in consultation with a Certified Arborist without further action by the City Council. (bb) “Significant Tree” means any Tree with a DBH of 12 inches or greater. (cc) “Sycamore Tree” means species of tree of the genus Platanus. 31

5 (dd) “Standard of Care” means compliance with American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) current standards for tree care, irrigation, maintenance, pruning and Trimming. (ee) “Tree” or “tree” means a woody perennial usually having one or several main stems. (ff) “Tree Removal Permit” means a permit issued by the City for the Removal of a Protected Tree, a Significant Tree, a Restricted Tree or a Restricted Tree in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone pursuant to Section 34.5 or Section 34.6 herein. (gg) “Tree Trimming Permit” means a permit issued by the City for the Trimming of a Protected Tree pursuant to Section 34.4 herein. (hh) “Trim” or “Trimming” means cutting into the live wood of a Tree to remove limbs, branches and/or foliage or otherwise removing a Tree’s limbs, branches and/or foliage in a way that will not foreseeably cause the Tree’s death or permanent damage to its health. Trimming may include pruning and removal of Deadwood. 34.2 Maintenance of Trees on Private Property. Private property owners or tenants shall be responsible for the maintenance of trees on their property owned or leased property in accordance with the Standard of Care. As applicable, property owners or tenants shall also comply with the City’s Water Efficient Landscape provisions set forth in Article III of Chapter 35 of this Code, as it pertains to the maintenance of Trees. 34.3 Maintenance of Trees on Public Property. (a) The Public Works Department shall be responsible for the maintenance of all trees on public property including but not limited to public rights-of-way and public parks. The Public Works Department shall prepare and implement an the annual work plan for the maintenance and/or removal of trees on public property. , which may include requests from oOwners or tenants of real property requesting the trimming and/or removal of a tree or tree(s) located in the adjacent to a public right-of-way may request trimming or removal of a tree or tree(s) located in such right-of-way adjacent to their respective properties. The City may adopt regulations pursuant to Section 34.136 addressing such requests, including the determination of the cost sharing for the Trimming and/or Removal. (b) As set forth in Section 31.48 of this Code, the property owner or tenant shall be responsible for irrigation of parkway trees in any public right of way adjacent to their owned or leased property. 32

6 34.4 Tree Trimming Permit Requirements (a) Tree Trimming Permit Required. A Tree Trimming Permit shall be required for the Trimming of any live foliage, limbs or branches of a Protected Tree. (b) Tree Trimming Standards. Any Person Trimming a Protected Tree shall comply with the Standard of Care in addition to the following: (1) Trimming of Protected Trees shall conform to the ANSI A300 Pruning Standards and the ISA Best Management Practices. (2) Trimming of a Protected Tree that is an Oak Trees shall only be permitted between June 1st and September 30th of each year. Tree Trimming Permit applications requested outside of that time may be approved by the Director if necessary to address hazardous or Emergency conditions as determined by the City Arborist. (c) Tree Trimming Permit Application. An application for a Tree Trimming Permit shall be filed with the Director in a form provided by the City with the nonrefundable application fee in an amount established by City Council resolution. The application shall contain the following information: (1) The name and residence or business address of the applicant; (2) The location and description of the property on which the Protected Tree(s) are located; (3) A description of the proposed Trimming of the Protected Tree(s), and the reasons therefor. Photographs may be attached as exhibits to the application, if requesteddesired; (4) The name and California contractor’s license number of the Person who will perform the Trimming. Tree Trimming Permits shall only be issued to Persons possessing a C-27, C-49 or C-61/D-49 California contracting license and a valid City business license. The City Manager is authorized to update the licensing requirements through the adoption of regulations pursuant to Section 34.136; (5) Any additional information or documentation as the Director may require. (d) Tree Trimming Application Review. The City Arborist shall evaluate each application for a Tree Trimming Permit considering the criteria set forth in Section 34.4(e) and shall provide a recommendation for approval or denial and the reasons therefor to the Director. The Director shall evaluate such application along with the recommendation from the City Arborist, and after considering the criteria set forth in Section 34.4(e), the Director shall either approve or deny the application. If an application for a Tree Trimming Permit is denied, the Director shall notify the applicant in writing within 10 business days of the date of decision. The written denial notification shall set forth the reasons for the denial and time in which to file an appeal. 33

7 (e) Tree Trimming Permit Review Criteria. The Director may approve an application for a Tree Trimming Permit if the Director determines that one of the following conditions is met: (1) Trimming is necessary to maintain the health of the Protected Tree, which may include structural pruning to reduce tree failure, crown cleaning, thinning or reduction to maintain the health and safety of the Protected Tree or other routine trimming that is essential to the Protected Tree’s health. (2) The live foliage, limbs or branches of the Protected Tree pose