Council Gets Environmental
In Which: Monarch butterflies cause friction around the Airport, The Tree Preservation Ordinance gets yet another look, And one Councilmember thinks boldly about lowering greenhouse gas emissions.
Tree Preservation Ordinance
In another showcase of the slow and deliberate nature of government, the City Council had a Public Hearing last week about the Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Ordinance has already gotten comment once before from the Council and twice from the Planning Commission—Staff said that it’s been in the works for about 18 months.
There didn’t seem to be substantive changes from when the Planning Commission last took on the ordinance, and Staff called it a “relatively balanced and fairly flexible ordinance.” Native trees would still be protected in rear yards, despite initial pushback from the Planning Commission, but the presentation stressed that any removal due to fire risk would not fall under the ordinance. So, now that the new fire maps have been released, the areas in the hills with high fire risk would still be able to cut even native trees if it helps to address the fire risk.
Heritage trees—trees with special value as habitat or cultural markers—would need approval by the Planning Commission for homeowners, but the full City Council for developers. The in-lieu fee for not replacing the canopy on-site—125% of the value of the tree removed—doesn’t have a plan yet. According to Staff, that will be discussed in a future Council meeting in June, so it’s unclear what will be done with the money at this point.
The Public Weighs In
The public comment for the ordinance was generally supportive, calling for clarity or minor changes, if anything. One man took issue with eucalyptus trees, especially those on HARD property near his home that regularly drop bark and leaves—even sometimes branches—posing safety risks. He pushed for eucalyptus trees to be exempt from preservation due to their various issues.
A representative of 100k Trees spoke in support of the preservation ordinance, especially focusing on canopy expansion and the environmental justice benefits to planting trees in historically underserved areas.
Two representatives from the Clean and Green Commission warned about how the plan could affect the eucalyptus grove located adjacent to the Hayward Executive Airport. They reminded Council that the grove is the largest monarch grove in the East Bay and that removing them for the benefit of the Airport would be putting the near-endangered butterflies at risk.
Airport With Butterfly Wings
Councilmember Syrop expressed concern about the exceptions for the areas around the Hayward Executive Airport. “Our airport has been operating fine with the current preservation ordinance,” he said, “and I’m worried that if we move forward with being specific to exempting trees around the airport, this preservation ordinance is going to do the opposite.” Staff said that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) noted that the Airport is out of compliance and that they would seek to replace any removed trees with greenery that doesn’t attract wildlife.
Councilmember Syrop pushed back on the idea of wildlife risk and the idea that removing trees increases safety. “When we say ‘public safety’ around airplanes, it’s whose public safety we’re prioritizing,” he said. “A lot of residents on the other side of the airport see the trees as their protection from planes that come down. The trees to them are their public safety.” He also said he was worried about the monarch grove being removed without public input as a part of the Airport development plan. “The wholesale exception is something that still doesn’t sit right with me,” he said.
Councilmember Goldstein agreed that the trees around the Airport deserved a bit more care. “I think having a blanket waiver for the airport is—on the one hand it seems like a nice idea,” he said, “yet [people] on the other side of the airport… like the trees.” He explained that the trees on the South side of the airport were a nuisance and danger and the community was relieved to have them gone, but on the North side it’s a much different story. “There probably needs to be some hearing or adjudication process,” he said.
Regarding the monarch habitat specifically, Councilmember Goldstein said that, although monarchs very much like eucalyptus trees, they historically stopped at other native trees that may be suitable to replace the eucalyptus.
Councilmember Andrews was primarily concerned with complying with FAA regulations, regardless of the monarch habitat. “I definitely want to make sure we’re following FAA regulations,” she said. “And we can take community input, but we need to be safe with aviation.” She then inquired about whether or not monarch butterflies were even native to California. “Do we know if the monarch butterfly is native in this area,” she asked, “or is it just being introduced?” Staff said, “The migratory path goes primarily through the western coast of California.”
Councilmember Bonilla clarified that any tree removals at the Airport have to be tied to safety concerns. Staff said that they will soon be getting a map of flight paths to really hone in on what trees would have to be removed or topped to clear flight paths.
Finally, Councilmember Syrop clarified that his concern was not with FAA regulations. “I want to be clear,” he said, “I’m not asking us to break the law.” He was instead worried about tying exemptions to the Airport executive plan. “When it says the City of Hayward Airport executive plan, anything can be in that plan, right? The next iteration could say we’re going to bulldoze the entire thing and pave it and then all of a sudden this exception is in compliance with the new plan and that’s what I’m worried about.” Staff said that they will clarify the language to ensure that safety will be the only reason for an exception.
Clarifying Language In The Ordinance
Councilmember Syrop then asked if there had been a cost analysis for the enforcement of the in-lieu fee and permitting. Staff said that they hadn’t done that. “I just want to make sure,” Councilmember Syrop said, “it doesn’t become an operating cost [to ignore the in-lieu fee].” Staff said that enforcement usually comes from complaints filed with Access Hayward and Staff is hoping “that we’ll start to see willful compliance.” They noted that of the 106 complaints from 2024, only 6 were for removal, the remaining 100 were about pruning.
Councilmember Goldstein pushed for some way of determining if a tree is hazardous beyond owner responsibility. “So that problem trees are removed before they actually become a real threat and danger,” he said. Currently, it would be up to the homeowner to hire an arborist to determine if the tree is a danger, which they may not do before it’s too late.
Councilmember Andrews asked about the responsibilities of other agencies—such as HARD or HUSD. Staff clarified that special districts often get exemptions from local ordinances. “They can exempt themselves from local land use control,” they said. “I think we should have a conversation with them,” Councilmember Andrews said, “There’s more of a potential partnership with those agencies.”
Councilmember Bonilla wanted the ordinance to be as clear and easy as possible for residents to follow. “Although I appreciate the comprehensive nature of this,” he said, “it is quite complex, right?” Staff said that they want to do a big outreach, but need the funding to do so. “We haven’t really done a robust outreach because we haven’t had the resources to really do that.”
Staff said that the complicated nature also makes it better for people. “[The ordinance] we’re proposing is providing flexibility that currently doesn’t exist.” But Councilmember Bonilla insisted that he wanted things to be clear. “[I want] something to really make this more intuitive,” he said, “so that we can drive higher levels of compliance.”
Councilmember Roche was concerned about the subjective nature of the Heritage Tree designation. “Who is the judge of this?” she asked. Staff reassured her that the City has multiple experienced landscape architects who would evaluate and identify trees and that the decision would mostly fall to staff on a case-by-case basis. “Every tree is gonna be different,” they said, “and that’s why, unfortunately, it’s really difficult to create a one-size-fits-all approach.”
She also seemed sympathetic with the comments from the Planning Commission, which initially tried to exclude rear yard trees from protection under the ordinance. “It is hard,” she said, “to say to somebody, ‘In your backyard we’re going to regulate whether you can take that tree out or not.’” However, she ultimately agreed with the need. “But I still think there’s a value in doing that to maintain Hayward’s tree canopy.”
Councilmember Zermeño was fully supportive of the ordinance. “I approve [the recommendations] 100%,” he said. “I’m happy this is being done.”
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Report
The City Council received an update on the City’s Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions from 2023. The news is, generally speaking, really good. The City has a goal to reduce GHG emissions to 30% below 2005 levels by 2025 and, as of 2023, has reduced emissions by 35%. Unfortunately, this was an decrease from the 2020 reduction of 42%.
The largest portion of GHG emissions in Hayward is from Transportation—primarily individual cars. It makes up about 57% of the GHG emission total, though that number is 31% below 2005 levels. The largest reduction came from electricity use, which is 86% lower than 2005 levels, largely because of the transition to Ava Energy as the default energy provider, which uses a high percentage of renewable energy.
A large increase in emissions came from Off-Road Vehicles, which also includes construction and landscaping equipment. That is at 148% of 2005 levels—largely attributed to increased construction throughout the City. However, those emissions make up only 6% of the total GHG emissions in Hayward.
At the request of the City Council, the Hayward Executive Airport’s emissions data was included in the GHG Emissions report for the first time. The airport made up 0.8% of the City-wide total and 1.3% of the transportation emissions.
With all of these numbers, Staff stressed that the 2030 goal of a 50% reduction from 2005 levels is a long way off. They also said that this was not a complete Carbon Footprint as it doesn’t include upstream production and transportation emissions for food and other goods, just the emissions produced within Hayward itself.
How Do We Get There?
Councilmember Zermeño started by asking how the City could possibly meet is emissions goals. “It’s going to be very difficult to meet the next goal,” Staff said, “which is 55% by 2030.” They mentioned reducing the use of natural gas, which is 27% of the total GHG emissions, but that cars are the main driver. “Transportation is our biggest sector.”
Councilmember Roche asked, “What is our biggest bang for our buck as far as making a change?” Staff again said reducing natural gas use in homes, but conceded that even that is allegedly controversial. She then asked what local jurisdictions were doing around vehicle emissions. “Because I just think that it’s a really hard area,” she said, “that’s going to be harder unless you just wait for people to adopt electric vehicles.” Staff’s only suggestion was to “encourage folks to use alternative transportation.”
Councilmember Syrop pushed back on the idea of relying on electric vehicle adoption. “It’s not just about buying green vehicles,” he said, “it’s about changing the ways in which we travel. When we talk about facilitating walkable neighborhoods and building new amenities in our neighborhoods, those are ways in which we reduce greenhouse gas emissions, too.” Beyond that, he also stressed the other benefits of changing the built environment. “So there’s an economic development portion to this, there’s a zoning portion to this… I hope we’re thinking about attacking this from all these angles beside ‘Go and buy a Tesla.’”
Councilmember Bonilla asked how our 2021-2023 increase compared to other local cities. Staff said that they haven’t reviewed data from other cities and that many others haven’t done theirs yet. Hayward is, apparently, unique in doing a GHG emissions inventory every year. “We’re going in the opposite direction from where we want to be going,” Councilmember Bonilla admitted.
Councilmember Andrews asked if the Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) would have an adverse impact on our climate goals. Public Works Director Ameri said that the WRRF produces all of its own electricity—and even has extra that it pushes to City Hall. There is even more capacity, but there hasn’t been a need for it, so the solar farm on site will be expanded as the site grows and needs more energy, effectively maintaining its carbon neutrality.
Percentages Don’t Tell The Full Airport Story
Councilmember Syrop pushed back on how the emissions from the Hayward Airport were framed in the Staff Presentation. “The total [airport] emissions was slightly higher than all of our bus emissions in this report,” he said. “We have, conservatively, 4,000,000 bus rides in a year… compared to the 122,000 operations at the airport. So this is still a significant amount of emissions for a very small amount of residents or users of the airport.”
Not mentioned in the Staff Report was that the Hayward Airport only very recently started offering unleaded gasoline for the aircraft there, meaning that beyond GHG emissions, lead is still in the majority of the fuel burned at the airport—something so damaging that reports have estimated that, before it was banned, it was responsible for millions of cases of psychiatric disorders, lowered IQ, brain damage, and elevated mortality.
In response to concerns about emissions at the Airport, Mayor Salinas described a discussion he had with Whisk, which is attempting to develop autonomous electric air transportation, in Fremont. The Mayor said that it is trying to be “as accessible as Uber or taxis.” Although he admitted that there are currently difficulties between FAA regulations and balancing battery weight and lift. However, Mayor Salinas seemed bullish on the company, “The future of this autonomous flying machine… is pretty significant and it would be a game changer, at least around the Bay Area.”