HomeMy Public PortalAbout09) 8A Review of Parks and Recreation Commissions Decision regarding Tree Removal at 6019 and 6023 Oak AvePARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 16 ,2018
TO: The Honorable City Council
FROM : Bryan Cook, City Manager
By : Cathy Burroughs, Director of Parks and Recreation
AGENDA
ITEM 8.A.
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION'S DECISION
REGARDING REMOVAL OF COAST LIVE OAK TREES LOCATED AT
6019 AND 6023 OAK AVENUE
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council is requested to :
1. Conduct a public hearing regarding the removal of two (2) Coast Live Oak trees
located at 6019 and 6023 Oak Avenue ;
2. Review the Parks and Recreation Commission 's decisions regarding removal of
the trees ; and
3. Uphold staff's determination to remove the two (2) Coast Live Oak trees .
BACKGROUND:
1. On August 15, 201 7 , the City Council approved a pol icy pertaining to public trees ,
private trees , and sidewalks . The policy confirmed the City's des ire to have
sidewalks on at least one side of every street. The policy also confirmed that if a
publ ic tree is causing damage to existing infrastructure , the tree should be
removed.
2 . On September 22 , 2017 , the Community Development Department (C OD)
contacted the Parks & Recreation Department (Department) requesting that Rob
Cruse , Tree Trimmer Lead Worker/City Arborist provide root pruning services on
the Coast Live Oak tree located in the public right of way at 6023 Oak Avenue .
Upon inspection , Mr. Cruse determined he would be unable to root prune th e tree
and also observed a large limb overhanging the adjacent sidewalk at that location
City Council
January 16 , 2018
Page 2 of 6
and at 6019 Oak Avenue . Due to the hardscape damage and liability con cerns
with the lack of pedestrian clearance , Mr. Cruse determined the trees would need
to be removed . The property owners/tenants at both addresses were notified of the
City's decision to remove the trees .
3. On November 2 , 201 7 , Sharon Kendal submitted a Notice of Appeal to the
Department appealing the removal of the Coast Live Oak tree located at 6023 Oak
Avenue , and Theresa D'Andria submitted a Notice of Appeal appealing the
removal of the Coast Live Oak tree located at 6019 Oak Avenue .
4 . On November 15 , 2017 , the Parks and Recreation Commission considered both
appeals , approving the appeal at 6023 Oak Avenue and continuing the appeal of
the tree at 6019 Oak Avenue requesting additional information from staff.
5. On December 5, 2017 , Councilmember Chavez requested that the City Council
review the decisions of the Parks and Recreation Commission regarding removal
of the trees at 6019 and 602 3 Oak Avenue .
6 . On December 7, 2017, the property owners/tenant at 6019 and 6023 Oak Avenue
were notified via mail of the City Council 's request fo r review of the Commission's
decision regarding the oak trees .
ANALYSIS:
The City of Temple City place s a tremendous value on its urban forest recognizing the
many benefits of a healthy robust urban fore st. Temple City has been recognized as a
Tree City USA for 14 straight years demonstrating a commitment to preserving and
maintain ing th is healthy urban forest. However, the City also recognizes that there a re
unique circumstances that impact the viability of trees in an urban setting. If not
properly maintained and managed , trees can pose a liability to persons and property .
Throughout the year the City receives requests from the public, City staff, or other public
entities requesting removal of trees located in the public right of way. The City's
ArborisULead Tree Trimmer, Rob Cruse , inspects each tree to determine if it should be
removed and if it meets th e crite ria for removal as outlined in the TCMC , including , but
not limited to , Section 3-4D-9:A (Attachment "A ").
At the request of the COD , Mr. Cruse inspected the Coast Live Oak trees located at
6019 and 6023 Oak Avenue and observed the following conditions :
1. Hards cape damage to street , curb , and gutter;
2 . Low hanging branches obstructing the free passage of pedestrians along the
sidewalk.
City Council
January 16 , 2018
Page 3 of 6
To determine if the roots of the tree at 6023 Oak Avenue could be trimmed to allow for
necessary repairs, COD staff removed the curb and gutter. Upon inspection , Mr. Cruse
determined that the roots from the Coast Live Oak tree were causing hardscape
damage , but he 'd be unable to root prun e the tree without jeopardizing its overall health
since the curb and gutter abutted the trunk of the tree . Any trimm ing of the root system
immediately adjacent to the trunk could jeopardize the stability of this very large tree .
Adding to the concern was the fact that th e tree is leaning s ignificantly towards the
private p ro perty .
When staff is faced with the decision to remove or not remove a tree located in the
public right of way , various factors are considered including , but not lim ited to, the
criteria for removal pursuant to §3-40-9 of the TCMC , other sections of the TCMC that
regulate streets and sidewalks , liability issues and risk assessment. Below is a
summary of the criteria staff relied upon when making the determination to re move the
two Coast Live Oak trees .
1) TCMC §3-4A-3: BUSHES OR TREES CAUSING OBSTRUCTION
"It sh all be unlawful for any person having control of any lot or premises in the city ... to
allow any limbs, twigs or leaves of any bush or tree growing in o r up on th e sidewalk ... to
interfere with or obstruct the free p assage of pedestrians along such sidewalk, p ublic
str eet or alley. Wh enever any bush or tree growing in or upon any premises in such a
m ann er that a ny portio n thereof sh all ever hang over any s idewa lk, public street or alley ..
. is greater th an fifteen feet (15 ') in height, th e lower limbs . . s hall be kept removed at all
times so that . . th e same are not interfering with or obstructing th e fee passage of
pedes trians or ve hicles alo ng such sidewalk, street or alle y."
Both trees recommended for removal obstruct the free passage of pedestrians
along the sidewalk . Neither has the required clearance specified in the TCMC . To
allow visually impaired persons clear access , ADA (Americans with Disabil ities Act)
recommends a minimum vertical clearance of 80 inches from any protrusion . Most
cities and other governmental agencies require a minimum eight foot (8 ') vertical
clearance. Large limbs overhanging a pedestrian sidewalk without adequate
clearance could lead to potential liability . At its lowest point the tree at 6019 Oak
Avenue is 4 ~ feet over the sidewalk ; the tree at 6023 Oak Avenue is
approx imately 5 ~ feet over the sidewalk. Removal of the branches is not
recommended due to their size and removal of the sidewalk is inconsistent with the
City 's tree and sidewalk policy adopted on August 15, 2017 .
2) TCMC §3-40-9:A REMOVAL OF PUBLIC TREES: Criteria for Removal
5. Obstructing curb, gutter or sidewalk re pair ... ;
7. Causing excessive damage to curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or drive ways;
12. Incompatible with the growing space or unsuitable for use in its present
lo cation;
City Council
January 16 , 2018
Page 4 of 6
13 . To facilitate hardsc ape repairs that cannot be completed with out severe root
pruning or other a ction that would jeopardize the health and stability of the
tree.
The tree at 6019 Oak Avenue is causing some hardscape damage to the adjacent
curb and sidewa lk. The sidewalk has been ground down and patched with asphalt
which is a temporary repair . It is expected that the sidewalk will continue to lift
over the next several years if the tree remains . The more significant issue , as
discussed above is the severe lean over the sidewalk with clearance of less than
five (5) feet , making the tree unsuitable for use in its present location .
The tree at 6023 Oak Avenue is causing more significant hardscape damage and
is obstructing curb and gutter repairs which cannot be completed w ithout
jeopardizing the health and stabi lity of the tree . Additionally , as discussed above ,
the tree is leaning over the sidewa l k without adequate clearance .
It is staff's professional opinion that there is potential risk associated with both
trees due to the significant lean and large branches overhanging the sidewalk. If
either tree were to fall , due to wind or other storm conditions , or due to failure of
the trees , the very large oak trees wou ld fall onto the private property.
Staff contacted the California Joint Power's Insurance Author ity (CJPIA) requesting
an opinion on the potential risk associated with the Coast Live Oak trees at 6019
and 6023 Oak Avenue . The CJP IA advised staff that there appeared to be
sufficient justification for remova l based on the opinion of a certified arborist and
lack of vertical clearance over the sidewalk .
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION REVIEW
The appeals to remove the tree at 6019 Oak Avenue by Ms . D'Andria and 6023 Oak
Avenue by Ms. Kendal (Attachments "B" and "C") were heard by the Parks and
Recreation Commission at their regu lar meeting on November 15 , 2017 . As with all
appeals the appellant has the burden of proof to show by clear and convincing
evidence , that City staff's decision to remove a tree is not authorized by applicable
federal , state or local law, or is inconsistent with the removal criteria per Sect ion 3-4D-9
of the TCMC .
Discussion at the Commission meeting focused on how the City could save the large
mature oak trees including re-routing the sidewalk onto private property to allow for
proper clearance and "bulbing " out the curb and gutter to m i nimize the impact of the tree
roots . The Commission ultimately approved the appeal for 6023 Oak Avenue and
continued the appea l of 6019 Oak Avenue requesting staff return with additional
information on the exact right of way and the width of the existing sidewalk . A copy of
the draft minutes from the November 15 , 2017 meeting are attached (Attachment "0 ").
City Council
January 16 , 2018
Page 5 of 6
Subsequent to the Commission meeting , staff received an unsigned letter from an
individual stating he/she lives on Oak Avenue near the Coast Live Oak trees request ing
the tree at 6023 Oak Avenue be removed . A copy of the letter is attached (Attachment
"E"). Staff also spoke with the property owner of 6023 Oak Avenue who indicated she is
"neutral" regarding removal of the tree.
ALTERNATIVES
The options discussed by the Commission (i .e . re-routing sidewalks and bulbing out the
curb) are currently not within the authority of City staff to implement. It is the C ity
Attorney's opinion that if the City Council does not support immediate removal of the
Coast Live Oak trees at 6019 and 6023 Oak Avenue , then the City must accept the risk
of liability associated with the trees remaining in their current condition . The two
alternatives discussed by the Commission could be considered to help mitigate the risk ,
but would require adoption of policies by the City Council in order to be effective . Below
is a brief discussion of each alternative and what process is required to implement those
alternatives .
1. Re-route Sidewalk
At both locations , in order to achieve at least eight foot (8') vertical clearance for
pedestrians, the sidewalk needs to be re-routed onto what is currently private
property . To accompl ish this , the City would need to acquire a portion of the
private property. In order to determine whether re-routing the sidewalks in this
location is viable , City staff would need to develop, and the Council approve , a
policy addressing when acquisition may be used to obtain necessary right-of-
way , whether fee title or an easement should be sought , and under what
conditions tree removal would be preferable to obtaining right-of-way.
2 . Bulb-Out Curb
In order to complete the necessary repairs to the street , curb and gutter at 6023
Oak Avenue , the curb and gutter would need to be moved away from the tree
into the street by approximately three feet. To accomplish this alternative , the
City would need to develop a policy that allows for bulbing out curbs in specific
locations of the City and under specific circumstances , as the City currently does
not allow for this and has no provision for dealing with parking or water f low in
gutters if bulbing occurs . In order to set parameters for bulbing , City staff and the
City's engineer should identify preferred locations and conditions for bulbing to
avoid traffic impacts and liability concerns and should bring a policy back to the
City Council for adoption .
The City currently has no policy in place to address either alternative . The City Council
could direct staff to pursue one or both of the alternatives above , however, there are
risks to not removing the trees and leaving them in place until such time as th e City
Council takes formal action to adopt policies for re-routing sidewalks and/or bu l bi ng out
the curb . Staff's recommendation is to remove the trees and replant and if the City
City Council
January 16 , 2018
Page 6 of 6
Council desires , to direct staff to develop one or both of the policies noted above in an
effort to address this issue should it arise in the future .
CITY STRATEGIC GOALS
City Council direction regarding removal of the Coast Live Oak trees at 6019 and 6023
Oak Avenue furthers the City 's Strategic Goals of Public Health and Safety and Quality
of Life .
ATTACHMENTS:
A. TCMC §3 -4D-9 : Removal of Public Trees
B . Notice of Appeal -6019 Oak Avenue , Theresa D 'Andria
C. Notice of Appeal-6023 Oak Avenue, Sharon Kendal
D . Draft Parks and Recreation Commission Regular Meeting Minutes -November 15 ,
2017
E. Anonymous Letter dated 12/18/2017
F. Photographs of Coast Live Oak tree-6019 Oak Avenue
G. Photographs of Coast Live Oak tree -6023 Oak Avenue
ATTACHMENT A
3-40-9: REMOVAL OF PUBLI C TREES:
A. Criteria For Removal: T he city values trees as an importa nt part of the environment and shall strive to
preserve them whenever pos sible and feas i ble. Subject to provisions of this article, the d irector or
his/her des ign ee shall be re spon sible for ins pection, ma intenance, remova l and replace ment of public
t rees, and may cause public trees to be re move d, or permit the removal of a public tree pu rs uant to a
permit, if they are deemed to be :
1. Dead ;
2. Dying, decayed or hazardou s, o r so weakened by age, disease, sto r m, fire, excavation, removal of
adjacent trees, or any injury so as to ca u se imminent danger to persons or property;
3. Structurally unsound du e to an abnorma l and uncorrectable structure or ap pea ra nce due to severe
prun ing or storm damage;
4. Diseased beyond reclamation, or the con dition of which is a so urce of prese nt danger to he a I thy
trees in the vicinity, providing that an inspection and notice attesting to such fact has been
completed by a sta t e licensed pest control advisor or arborist;
5. Obstructing curb, gutter or sidewalk repair, or in the way of a new curb, gutter or si dewa lk for which
an excep tio n to standard des ign is determined by the director to be inconsistent with established
policies and standards for publi c t r ee p lanting and maintenance;
6. In dangerous proxi mity to ex isting structures o r interfering wit h existing uti lities;
7. Causing excess ive damage to curbs, gu tters, sidewalks, or driveways;
8. Obstructing proposed improvement s so as to restrict eco nomic enj oym ent of the adjacent property,
including t he construction or safe use of a driveway or parking space for which a permit has been
is sued , unless such tree ha s been designated as an exceptiona l specimen tree;
9. Crowded by other trees and good horticultura l practices dictate removal of some of th em;
10. Otherwise healthy, but the removal of which is considered desirable because it is a proven nuisance
spec ies and/or in order to achieve a p ro pe r ly staged tree replacement sche dule which ena b les
several generat ion s of trees to exist simultaneously;
11. Causing an allergic rea ction to a property owner wh ose property is adjacent to the public tree. The
property owne r must provid e a certification from a physician lice nse d to practice in Cali fornia t hat
the tree is caus i ng the p roperty owner to suffer allergic reac tions . Exc eptional specimen trees may
not be removed purs uant to this subsection All;
12. I ncompatible with the grow ing space or unsuitable for use in its present loca t io n;
13. To faci litate hardscape repairs that cannot be completed without se vere root prun i ng or other action
that would jeopa rdi ze the health and sta bility of the tree. (Ord. 15-1007)
ATTACHMENT B
City of Temple Ci t y-Dep artment o f Parks and Re creation
10144 Bogue Street, Temple City CA 9178 0 (626) 285-2171
NOTICE OF APPEAL-TREE REMOVAL.
Fo r office use only
Fi l e Numbe r Fi led : /l --v-t ':}.
--------------------------~-----
Project Locat i on leO\ q CO<i. \A ftre.M. LLL By : ~W\
Please TYPE or PRINT all information clearly
APPELlAN T NAME: 1he~esA: D ' ~,'I\
APPELlANT ADDREss, Cao tq OA-\n We.> leM ple C.+-0, C&
(A ll corresponde nce will be m ail ed to t his address)
91tJZO
Phone: La~~) d.1Ce-4l-JD~ LAt>.JD.
w~CO ~: D-Co'-/t-ffA ~
Please state specif ic reason(s) for t h e appeal (u se sepa r ate s hee t if necessa ry)
REASON FOR APPEAL: ;)ee. f\.#qc.)J&) ~
APPELLA NT Sl GNATURE: =---+--v--:~~~~~-'c::::~--"'-_,.,...~~------...,..----
Pr intName :~·~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By si gning t h is N~tice of Appeal-Tree Remo v al Form , I hereby certify t hat I am a res ident or
property owner of the City of Temp l e City . I further ce rtify that I have read Section 3-40-9 of
·the TCMC, i ncluding the appeals p rocess .
Please r eturn th i s form by email to : dingram@templecity.us ., mail t o: City of Temple City, Attn :
Department of Parks a~d Recreation, 9701 Las Tunas Dr, Temple City CA 91780 or in person tat
t he Li v e Oak Park Annex, 10144 Bogue Street, Temp l e Ci t y.
NO TE: The appellant has the burden of proof. In order for the appella nt to prevail, he/she
mu st show by cl ear and convi ncing evidence, that Ci t y staff's de_cis ion to remov e or not remove
a street tree is not authorized by applicabl e federal, state or local l aw, or is inconsistent with
t h e r emov al criteria per Section 3-4D-9 of the (TCMC) Temple City Municipa l Code.
~L \..., Itt~ V'ttNVI"-...l""' .---* E)th~ ReMedf~ QP-.e p~cV\C.~ Re~#eef\1{ctHq0~~.1 1 ~.
-?\~ f\-" C.JW1\0~ 1 I -s le tJ 0 N ~\\e o-1~~ h~~ , .. +Jd \ 1\Mb
t'b?ith bo~nJ~ ~ ~ovth bo~ t-Jc\. ~
-\)\ae~ ~eR-\ed-0~~ ~R u~h-t--0\.Me.-"-' ~,~b1'"\,~ ~ _
. __,. -::h tJ~ ,lC;f\::f e-(t\, -ea_-r-ei\Jte--ffie d.1J U feVVI€f\J'T~ ~ "-.i {!A-0)1 t p tJ ~ ~J.J ~e-.
:::;. [:, ~"e -l-Ive-~e -?0 rfl-e 1\-fP Aop~~ --tr-IM I¥\ IN& ~ ~RiltJ\~,
REASON FOR APPEAL:
a. The criteria for tree removal per section 3-40-9 of the Temple City Municipal Code
(TCMC) has not been met.
b . The reasons stated for removal by the Temple City Department of Parks and Recre at ion
are not factuaL
c. Removal of the trees(s) is inconsistent with purposes and intents and policies of Temple
City:
i. " ... to line its streets with trees and to conduct a consistent and adequate
program for maintaining and preseTVing these trees," (emphasis added) (TCMC
Article D . Tree Preservation and Protection, section 3-40-0);
ii. " ... to protect and preseNe all desireable trees that are located on the city's right
of way." (emphases added) (TCMC Article D . Tree Preservation and Protectio n ,
section 3-40-0);
iii. ·The city values trees as an important part of the environment and shall strive to
preserve them whenever possible and feasible," (TCMC section 3-40-9);
iv. " ... to govern installati on , maintenance and preservation of trees to beautify the
city, to purify the air, to provide shade and wind protection, and to provide habitat
for birds and other animals: (emphasis added) (TCMC section 3-40-0)
d . Any and all of the alleged r~sons for removal could be remedied with aHematives other
than d estroying the tree (s) and would therefore be preferable, as well as in keeping with
Temple City's policy and professed dedication to preserving the trees.
e . The alleged reasons for removal do not outweigh the benefits provided by the tree(s),
nor justify their destruction.
f. The city's overzealousness to remove healthy, mature trees betrays the spiri t of
representing itself as a Tree City USA by the Arbor Day Foundation.
-------------
ATTACHMENT C
City of Temple City-Departm en t of Parks and Recreation
10144 Bogue Street, Temple City CA 91780 {626) 285-2171
NOTICE OF APPEAL-TREE REMOVAL
For office use only
File Number _______________ _ Filed: ;t/;,/t1
Project Location --tJI;I<I-40~J--r-?'----_.~c......:al,L_-""'<...:=---------By:_011 __
Pl ease TYP E or PRINT all infor m ation cl ea rly
APPELLANT NAME: ~:l~tt='A(.4R.::o....=OL.lfl/~~t:..J....M£~AI~D~AL..:C...=-----------
APPELLANT ADDREss: 6o2 3 0-4 1< A11c. fc
{All correspondence will be mailed to this ad d ress)
9J7~0
Phone: 6 z c, -2rz--/3c; I Email: 11
,/l!tt'fAJ '/tJ /? /( 611? (__ Lj-1 eJ G-;n_;; I(... (.'" O/V}
TREE(s) LocATioN: ~o23 ~I<' Av~. 7C 9!7~0
Please state specific reason(s) for the ap.peal (use se parate sheet if necessary)
REASON FOR APPEAL: ----=..!f.~e:J .... ~.__~A'-LL-rr~A-~C.L..fi~C.._· .. L)L__ ________ _
APPELLANTSIGNATURE : ~ ~·~
Pr i nt Name: &i4rf?O/\J ~~41/M L
By signing this Notice of Appea l -Tree Removal Form, I hereby certify t hat I am a res ident or
property owner of the City of Temple City. I further cert ify that I have read Section 3459 of the
TCMC , including the appea ls process.
Please r eturn this form by email to: dingram@templecity.us., mail to: City of Temp le City, Attn:
Departme nt of Park s and Recreation, 9701 Las Tunas Dr, Temple City CA 91780 or in person at
the Live Oak Park Annex, 10144 Bogue Street, Temple City.
NOTE: The ap p e llant ha s the burden of proof. In order for t h e app _ellant to prevail, he/she
must show by clear a nd convincin g evi dence, that City staff's decision to remove or not remove
a street tree is not authorized by applica ble federa l, state or loc al law, or is inconsistent with
the removal criteria per Section 3459 of t h e {TCMC) Tem ple City Municipa l Code .
REASON FOR APPEAL:
a . The criteria for tree removal per section 3-40-9 of the Temple .City Municipal Code
(TCMC) has not been met.
..
b . The rea·sons stated for removal by the Temple City Department of Parks and Recreation
are not factual.
c . Removal of the trees(s) is inconsistent with purposes and i ntents and policies of Tem p le
City:
i. " ... to line its streets with trees and to conduct a consistent and adequate
program .for maintaining and preserving these trees," (emphasis added) (TCMC
Article D. Tree Preservation and PrQtection, section 3-40-Q.);
ii. " ... to protect and. preserve all desireable tr~ that ~re located on the city's right
of way." (emphases added) (TCMC Article· D. Tree Preservation and Protection,
section 3-40-0);
iii. "'The city values trees as·an importa~ part ofthe.environment.and shall strive to
preserve them when.ever possible and feasible," (TCMC section ·3-40-9);
iv. " ... to .govern install.ation, maintenanc.e and preservation of trees to beautify the
city, to p~rify the air, to provide. shade and wind pFotection, and to provide habitat
for.birds and other animals." (emphasis added) (TCMC section 3-40-0)
d . Any and all of the alleged reasons for removal could be remedjed with alternatives other
than destroying. the tree(s) and would therefore be preferable, as well as in keeping with
Temple City's policy and professed dedication to preserving the trees.
e . The aHeged reasons for removal do not outweigh fhe benefits proVided by the tree{s),
nor justify their destruction.
f. The city's overzealousness to· remove heslthy, mature tre~s betrays the spir-it of
representing itself as a Tree CitY USA by the Arbor Day Foundation.
J '
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES
November 15 , 2017
6. PUBLIC HEARING
ATTACHMENT D
oRAf1
A. APPEAL OF STAFF DECISION TO REMOVE A COAST LIVE OAK TREE
LOCATED AT 6019 OAK AVENUE
Parks and Recreation Director Burroughs presented the staff report and
slide show presentation .
The Commission discussed options to not remove the tree including
trimming the overhanging branch and diverting the sidewalk.
Tree Trimmer Lead Worker Cruse stated drought related stress may have
contributed to the current condition of the tree noting that most of the die-
back is over the street side . He added that cutting the branch would create
an open wound on the branch and could subject the tree to disease , insects
or loss of the tree .
Chairman Baroldi opened the public hearing .
Theresa D'Andria . property owner (6019 Oak Avenue) asked "what if the
property owner would agree to moving the sidewalk on her property".
Director Burroughs stated that would need to be checked through the City
Attorney and discussed responsibility of the property owner regarding
liability.
Sharon Kendal , resident (6023 Oak Avenue) spoke to the appeal including
presenting photos showing trees with similar low limbs and sidewalks
diverted around the trees . Ms . Kendal asked about the possib i lity of the
property owner agreeing to have the sidewalk diverted around the tree onto
private property . She spoke on options to avoid removal of the tree such
as diverting the sidewa lk , ADA requirements and recommendations and
CEQA. Ms . Kendal reported that the condition of the Coast Live Oak tree
located at 6019 has been the same for decades with no reported injuries
due to the low hanging branch over the sidewalk .
Chairman Baroldi closed the public hearing .
Commissioner Georgino asked what the width of the easement is at 6019
Oak Avenue .
Mr. Cruse stated he believed it is 10 feet.
Commissioner Vance asked would the tree survive if the li mb that hangs
over the sidewalk were removed.
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES
November 15, 2017
Mr. Cruse stated possibly, however more than 2/3 of the tree would be
removed and the remaining portion on the street side has die-back . He
stated with a large cut it would take years for the wound to close .
Commissioner Georgine indicated she'd like to explore relocating the
sidewalk given the width of the easement.
Vice-Chairman Haddad and Commissioner Rosso commented that if the
sidewalk was relocated around the tree it would impact private property .
Director Burroughs discussed the City Council 's direction regarding
sidewalks and stated removal of the sidewalk is not an option .
Commissioner Vance moved to continue Item 6A to a future meeting with
staff to provide additional information on the exact right-of-way at the
property , seconded by Commissioner Georgi no and unanimously carried by
a voice call vote .
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner-Georgina , Rosso , Vance , Haddad, Baroldi
Commissioner-None
Commissioner-None
Commissioner-None
B. APPEAL OF STAFF DECISION TO REMOVE A COAST LIVE OAK TREE
LOCATED AT 6023 OAK AVENUE
Parks and Recreation Director Burroughs presented the staff report and
slide show presentation .
Tree Trimmer Lead Worker Cruse stated the City Engineer and Public
Services Lead Worker Martinez determined the roots were causing
hardscape damage to the curb and gutter and they should not be shaved
or trimmed back due to the tree leaning toward the property and proximity
to th e curb. He added that neither concrete nor asphalt should be put over
the exposed roots without grinding the roots which could produce a l iabi lity .
Director Burroughs stated if the tree is removed , a new tree will be planted
in its place . She added that the trees at both locations are leaning toward
the property and the City has the responsibility to protect the property . If
the tree fails it will not fall in the street, but toward the property.
The Commission discussed the condition of the tree including the possibility
of large winds taking down the tree and trimm ing the tree to even it out.
Tree Trimmer Lead Worker Cruse stated he does not recommend cutting
the branches of the tree as a solution explaining the process of trimming a
tree with large branches would expose the tree to a large wound that would
take years to close .
PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES
November 15 , 2017
The Commission discussed removal of curb and gutter were removed at the
property due to the standing water in the gutter.
Chairman Baroldi opened the public hearing .
Ms . Kendall . resident of 6023 Oak Avenue stated a puddle of water in front
of the property should not be considered standing water and said the City
ordinance is vague regarding the definition of excessive hardscape
damage.
Chairman Baroldi closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Georgina stated she looked at the tree after the curb and
gutter had been removed stating there is no way to tell what the damage
caused by the tree roots to the hardscape was .
Vice-Chairman Haddad said she concurred with the property owner adding
the tree is in good condition . She asked to table the item in order to have
staff explore any permeable products that can be used over the exposed
roots .
Commissioner Georgina moved to uphold the appeal reversing staff's
decision to remove the Coast Live Oak tree located at 6023 Oak Avenue,
seconded by Commissioner Vance and unanimously carried by a voice call
vote .
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioner-Georgina , Rosso , Vance , Haddad , Baroldi
Commissioner-None
Commissioner-None
Commissioner -None
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
A. SENIOR MASTER PLAN UPDATE (no staff report)
Commissioner Georgina provided a brief update on the recent activities of
the Senior Master Plan Committee . The next scheduled meeting is January
4 , 2018 .
Chairman Baroldi opened public comments .
Chairman Baroldi closed public comments.
Commissioner Rosso moved to receive and file Item 7 A , seconded by Vice-
Chairman Haddad and unanimously carried by voice call vote .
8. NEW BUSINESS
12/18/2017
Cathy Burroughs
Director
Parks and Recreation
Re: 6023 Oak Ave/OAK TREE
Dear :.\Is. Burroughs,
I am a long time residenr and live on Oak .-\venue in Temple City. I have heard all the
problems concerning the o ld oak tree at 6023 Oak .\ve.
'This is a beautiful old tree, but it is also a hazard. We have heavy foot traffic each and
every' dar on this street. .\ large nwnber of children walk to and from school using the
sidewalk under the tree. The tree· is O\'ergrown and the roots affect the sidewalk and
curb. It could and will continue to be dangerous and th e tree and its branches can fall
and hurt the children in addition to others.
Ple ase remove this tree. I am not signing this letter as the neighbors that are
demanding that the tree stay are di fficult to live around and I do not want them after
me.
Please help if you can.
ATTACHMENT E
ATTACHMENT F
6019 Oak Avenue
6023 Oak Avenue