A proposal intended to clarify who is responsible for repairing Oakdale’s damaged sidewalks will have to wait after residents and City Council members raised questions Monday night over whether homeowners should be required to pay for damage caused by trees planted and maintained within city parkways.
Following an extended public hearing Aug. 17, the Oakdale City Council voted 5-0 to continue consideration of the proposed sidewalk maintenance ordinance until Sept. 21 while the city gathers additional information and seeks a legal opinion on how state law applies, particularly within lighting and landscape maintenance districts.
The ordinance, which was previously considered by the council July 20, would add Article VII, “Sidewalk Maintenance, Repair and Replacement,” to Chapter 30 of the Oakdale Municipal Code.
Under the proposal, adjacent property owners would be responsible for maintaining and repairing sidewalks fronting their property, consistent with the city’s interpretation of California Streets and Highways Code Sections 5610-5618. The ordinance would allow the city to inspect sidewalks and issue repair notices, while defining hazards to include displacement of at least one-half inch, cracking, deterioration, vegetation encroachment and root intrusion causing uplift.
The city could grind uneven sidewalk panels or remove damaged sections to address immediate hazards, but property owners generally would remain responsible for replacement. If required repairs were not completed, the city could perform the work and recover its costs, with unpaid costs potentially collected through a city utility bill or recorded as a lien against the property.
The revised proposal also included a hardship program allowing the city to pay for repairs for eligible homeowners, subject to available funding. Property owners receiving assistance would be required to sign an indemnification and release agreement and would remain responsible for future sidewalk maintenance. The staff report stated the ordinance would have no impact on the general fund.
During the council discussion, city officials said the hardship process had been further loosened from the version contained in the meeting packet. Residents would not be required to provide bank statements, W-2 forms or similar financial documentation, according to the discussion.
City Manager Jerry Ramar said, “We’re going to take the residents’ word for it that they have a hardship waiver. If somebody tells me that they have a hardship waiver, I’m going to take them for their word. We’re going to direct staff to get the work done for them.”
But much of Monday’s debate centered not on who fixes a sidewalk after it is damaged, but on who should pay when the damage is caused by a parkway tree the homeowner did not plant.
Vineyards resident Jan Trine questioned whether residents held financially responsible for sidewalks would also be given greater control over the landscaping causing the damage.
“If I’m going to be financially responsible for repairing the sidewalk because of the damage of what the parkway grass and trees have done, am I able to remove that brand new tree, remove the grass, and put in rock?” Trine asked.
She also questioned whether the city had considered a cost-sharing program for affected neighborhoods.
“If I live in an Oakdale home that doesn’t have the city parkway tree area, and I plant a big old pine tree, you know, six inches away from the sidewalk, and the sidewalk comes up. I get that. That’s on me,” Trine said. “But as it’s been stated today, we did not plant those trees.”
Oakdale resident Kathleen Westenberg, who said she has lived in the city for 22 years, argued the ordinance did not adequately account for the circumstances of individual lighting and landscape maintenance districts.
“This is not a fair and reasonable solution for sidewalk maintenance, repair, replacement in our LLMD districts, especially ours,” Westenberg said. “You have not addressed our specific LLMD. You’re just throwing us in with everybody else.”
Resident Jason Wyatt also urged the council not to adopt the ordinance, arguing that residents should not bear the expense of repairing sidewalks damaged by mature parkway trees.
“Homeowners did not choose these trees, they did not plant them,” Wyatt said, later adding, “The city needs to take ownership of its infrastructure, address the problem of illegal street trees, and find an equitable solution that doesn’t penalize residents with property liens for city-created problems.”
Council members voiced many of the same concerns.
Council member Jeff Kettering described having a parkway tree in Bridle Ridge that was planted roughly 20 years ago and is now lifting the sidewalk in front of his home.
“I have an obligation to protect the city, but I also have an obligation to all of you,” Kettering said, adding later, “I don’t have an answer because I see both sides of it.”
He said the larger issue will eventually require a long-term strategy extending beyond the sidewalk ordinance.
“We need a long-term plan to assess, and that long-term plan has to include financial resources that the city may or may not have right now,” Kettering said.
City officials said the proposed ordinance was brought forward at the request of the city’s risk management authority and warned that declining to adopt it could potentially affect the city’s insurance coverage.
That concern left council members weighing the city’s potential liability against questions of fairness to residents, particularly those living in districts where parkway landscaping is maintained separately from their private property.
Rather than proceed with the first reading, the council agreed to seek additional guidance. Staff will contact the city’s risk management authority about how other municipalities handle sidewalk responsibility and whether some cities have declined to adopt similar ordinances.
The council also requested a legal opinion — preferably from the city attorney — addressing the disputed interpretation of state law and how it applies to Oakdale’s lighting and landscape maintenance districts.
The ordinance is scheduled to return to the council Sept. 21.
Until then, the central question remains unresolved: When a public parkway tree damages a sidewalk, where does the city’s responsibility end and the homeowner’s begin?
