Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident wins council approval to replace sidewalk damaged by city street tree; staff to propose waiver policy
Summary
A longtime Temple City homeowner asked the council to waive roughly $518 in encroachment and zoning fees after a city street tree’s roots damaged his walkway. Council approved the permit request and asked staff to draft a policy allowing fees to be waived when a city tree causes like‑for‑like right‑of‑way damage.
A Temple City resident asked the City Council on April 7 to waive roughly $518 in permit fees after a city crew removed a private walkway that had been damaged by the roots of a city street tree.
“I'm just going to do is just replace the exact same walkway in the exact same place on the property,” resident Richard Noak told the council, saying the tree roots pushed up the sidewalk and that parks staff had previously approved the tree removal. He asked the council to waive the encroachment and zoning fees required to reinstall the walk.
Council members pressed staff about whether a staff-level exception could be used in such cases. Legal and planning staff advised that a one-off discretionary waiver by staff would be legally risky, but the council could adopt a written policy directing that no fees be collected where a private driveway or walkway extending into the public right-of-way was damaged by a city street tree and the replacement is “like‑for‑like.” Staff offered to draft a policy for future council consideration.
After discussion, councilmember May moved and the council voted unanimously to approve the homeowner’s request, allowing the permit action to proceed as presented.
The council’s exchange made clear two separate outcomes: the immediate permit request was approved, and the council asked staff to prepare a policy option that could avoid repeated individual fee requests in future cases where city trees are determined to have caused damage and a like‑for‑like replacement is proposed.
Council members said they preferred a uniform written policy rather than ad‑hoc case-by-case discretionary approvals, and staff committed to returning with proposed policy language and any legal constraints.
The council’s approval concluded the item; the motion passed on a roll-call vote with all members voting yes. The council did not set the policy in place at the meeting; the policy is a follow-up assignment for staff.
