The following letter was sent to Los Angeles Regional Planning, County Studies Department regarding the new protected tree ordinance proposal).
It was disappointing to read in our local paper about yet another County proposal for a new tree ordinance. Restrictive measures against building near an oak tree, creek, or stream bed are already in place, state wide. Your proposal would constitute an obstructive law that would adversely affect people who live on older properties. This is not about protecting trees but collecting fees. Homeowners who live near creeks and winter streams will bear the brunt of these additional costs. Sycamores don’t grow in Palmdale.
Where people live and children play, even natural resources require maintenance. If the canopy of any tree posed a hazard to one’s roof, the neighboring house, or a child’s play area, the responsibility for removing that risk belongs to the owner of the property. He should not be required to pay a fee to the County.
Homeowners pay for tree maintenance to keep driveways and private roads accessible for the Fire Department. California Fair Plan demands it. Safety issues are involved and in a wildfire scenario, a tree canopy over an access road is death to people and livestock fleeing the area. As for the 15-foot encroachment zone, one has to ask, did this statistic drop from the sky? Cattle and horses have coexisted with oak trees for hundreds of years.
There is no excuse for targeting a specific group of homeowners with excessive fees and an unenforceable ordinance.
Nancy Williams