Residents and council clash after removal of trees at Glendale Gardens; city staff apologize

Residents of the Glendale Gardens apartment complex and nearby neighbors pressed the Glendale City Council on April 15 over mass tree removals at the property, saying the work began with little or no notice and caused safety, health and emotional distress.

Several residents and community speakers described heavy chainsaw work starting early in the morning, dust, falling logs and apparent property damage. “They started 20 minutes to 7 without notification of any kind,” said a resident, describing early-morning noise and ongoing dust and debris. Another resident described large logs falling near occupied apartments and said tenants worried for their safety.

City Attorney John Garcia and Community Development Director Bridal Calvert answered residents’ questions in the meeting. Garcia said the trees were on private property and were not protected under the city’s rules: “They are not protected trees. And those those trees do not need permits to be removed.” He told the council that staff had placed a stop-work type hold to review the work and that the city’s primary concern had been protecting the property’s historic character while addressing public-safety and fire-safety concerns.

Garcia and Calvert said the property is now in a very high fire severity zone and that the city’s fire and arborist staff evaluated the site. Calvert said the buildings’ large eaves mean some trees sit within five feet of roof eaves, which informed his department’s fire-safety recommendation. Garcia added that the city had intended to notify council and the public before the work proceeded, and he apologized: “I apologize. We all apologize. It was not the intent.” Calvert said a staff member had received an email about the planned work but had not passed it along; he said the lack of outreach to residents and the council did not meet city standards.

Residents disputed staff characterizations that work was strictly for fire safety. Several speakers said they had repeatedly sought information and been given inconsistent answers. Public commenters said portions of the property were now stripped of canopy: one councilmember described “the loss of close to 50 trees out of about 80 trees” on the property. Residents said the contractor’s crews were not adequately controlling dust and that property features, including fences and pool areas, were showing damage.

Calvert said the city had issued notices of violations for failure to maintain parts of the property and would enforce codes where appropriate. He also said the city had planned to require an environmental review (an EIR) of any proposed redevelopment of the site and that legal proceedings are underway: the property owner has filed suit seeking to overturn the council’s earlier decision to require an EIR.

Residents asked the council to inspect the site, document damage, provide transparent updates and explore legal tools that might prevent demolition by neglect or fund tree replacement. Councilmembers and staff agreed to increased site inspections and said they would share findings with the public. Calvert said staff would return to the council with updates and that the city would start issuing and pursuing enforcement actions where violations were documented.

Speakers who described the removal as “an arborist massacre” urged more protective rules for private trees; several councilmembers said earlier efforts to expand protections had not been completed and that staff would bring options back for consideration.

Councilmembers and staff said they regretted the communication failures and committed to more frequent updates. Residents said they will continue to document damage and pursue remedies through code enforcement and by participating in any pending litigation.