Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Urban Forestry topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

El Segundo commissioners postpone choice for Library Park replacement tree, ask staff for fuller arborist report

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Recreation and Parks Commission heard public input favoring native trees and reviewed four staff-suggested evergreen candidates. The commission voted 5-0 to ask staff, including certified arborists, to return with a recommendation and additional operational information before selecting a replacement for the tree removed from Library Park.

Commissioners of the El Segundo Recreation and Parks Commission voted Tuesday to defer selecting a replacement tree for Library Park and asked staff to return with a fuller report that includes input from the city’s certified arborists.

The decision came after public comment from resident and El Segundo Blue Butterfly Conservancy chair Barbara Boland and a staff presentation outlining four staff-recommended evergreen candidates. Boland urged the commission to consider native species, saying, “It is the California coastal live oak.”

The commission’s motion requests a staff report with recommendations and operational analysis. Commissioners emphasized concerns about root damage to sidewalks, irrigation compatibility with existing turf, maintenance burdens, pollen/allergy impacts, and the park’s use as a concert and play area.

Joseph Casillas, a parks staff member who presented the options, described the four primary candidates as the Norfolk Island pine, Brisbane box, California pepper tree and a casuarina (Australian pine). “We'd plant more of a pine tree that looks familiar of a Christmas tree, so we could bring events during the Christmas time, to Library Park,” Casillas said when explaining the preference for the Norfolk Island pine as a seasonal focal point.

Staff and commissioners discussed tradeoffs among species. Commissioners noted that the Norfolk Island pine and several other suggested trees have surface-rooting tendencies that can damage hardscape; Casillas and others said the Brisbane box is less likely to be surface-rooted. Staff also described practical planting details discussed during the meeting: container sizes under consideration ranged from 36-inch to 65-inch boxes, larger sizes could require a crane for planting, and irrigation adjustments or turf removal might be necessary if a species with different water needs is selected.

Recreation, Parks and Library Director Allie told the commission the removed tree is currently being held offsite. “The tree still exists. It's at West Coast Arborist,” she said, and described a separate, unresolved question for city counsel about whether the wood could be repurposed by a private group that has offered to pay to have it milled for furniture.

Commissioners and members of the public urged prioritizing operational criteria and native species. Several commissioners said they prefer an evergreen so the park retains a year-round focal point; others urged natives such as coastal live oak or California sycamore for ecological benefits. Commissioners also asked staff to confirm whether recommended trees appear on the city’s approved tree list and to present clear comparisons of mature height, canopy shape, root behavior, pollen/droppings and maintenance costs.

After discussion, the commission voted to have staff return with a recommendation and the operational analysis requested; the motion passed 5-0. The commission requested that the follow-up report include participation or input from certified arborists Christopher Henson and Santos (staff), and that staff address irrigation, potential sidewalk impacts, box size/installation logistics and a recommended timeline for planting.

The commission did not select a replacement species at the meeting. Staff indicated they would return with the requested report, and commissioners said they expect that decision-making will remain at the commission level rather than requiring City Council approval unless otherwise directed.

Votes at a glance: The commission approved a motion to have staff return with a detailed recommendation and arborist input (vote: 5-0).