The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/10/1992 Minutes - Study SessionMINUTES OP TUE CITU COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MARCH 10, 1992 1. CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 P.M. Personnel - G.C. Section 54957.6 Litigation - G.C. Section 54956.9 No reportable action taken. 2. CALL TO ORDER: M/Kim called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. in Room CC -8, AQMD Building, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Kim. ROLL CALL: Mayor Kim, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Forbing, Miller and Werner. Also present were Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager; Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; Sid Mousavi, City Engineer/Public Works Director; Robert Searcy, Associate Planner; Ann Lungu, Planning Technician; Troy Butzlaff, Assistant to the City Manager; Kellee Fritzal, Administrative Assistant and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 3. DISCUSSION OF ORDINANCE NO. 92 -XX: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REPEALING PART 16 OF CHAPTER 22.56 OF DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 22 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED AND ADOPTING A NEW PART 15 OF CHAPTER 22.56 OF DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 22 PERTAINING TO TREE PRESERVATION - CDD/DeStefano reported that the Planning Commission adopted a resolution recommending adoption of a Tree Preservation Ordinance at a Public Hearing held January 13, 1992. The purposes of the Los Angeles County Oak Tree Ordinance adopted by the City upon incorporation and the proposed Tree Preservation Ordinance are similar. However, three major differences between the two ordinances include: type of trees to be protected, replacement ratio and size criteria for trees to be preserved. C/Miller opposed the proposed Ordinance for the following reasons: it prohibits anyone from topping trees on public or private property; requirements to prune a tree are too stringent; residents must comply with recommendations made in an arborist's report if they want to remove a tree; if a tree dies, a resident is liable for the replacement cost of the tree; if a resident prunes for three days, he can be assessed for three different violations; the Ordinance invades privacy; and it is in opposition to Fire Department regulations which MARCH 10, 1992 PAGE 2 i require all trees to be trimmed 4 feet off ground for weed abatement. If the Ordinance is passed, then it should be enforced. However, the financial impact to the City to enforce such an ordinance would be immense. He further opposed imposition of more layers of government on the community for a non-existent problem. C/Werner concurred that the proposed Ordinance goes further than what he would have liked. He suggested that the 2:1 replacement policy of the County Ordinance be updated and he explained that replacing a 100+ year old oak tree with two 15 gallon oak trees is not equivalent. C/Miller referred to a SEATAC meeting held December 3, 1990 in which Mr. Hewitt, an arborist appointed to SEATAC, recommended that nothing larger than 15 gallon trees be used because larger trees would not acclimate as well as smaller trees. C/Miller further stated that he was not opposed to a 4:1 replacement to guarantee that more survive. He indicated that, between staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council, any replacement ratio desired can be required when a project is reviewed and that an Ordinance is unnecessary. MPT/Papen noted that specifications of the tree replacement ratio are based on whether a parcel is less than an acre or more, which is aimed at heavily dense acreage not yet developed. She suggested including language indicating this in the Ordinance instead of a uniform policy for each lot. C/Forbing stated that this Ordinance would charge the residents of D.B. quite a lot of money and that the Ordinance currently in place is sufficient for the City's needs. In addition, he felt that a 2:1 replacement ratio appeared adequate. He recommended directing staff to table this Ordinance and retain the current Ordinance. M/Kim expressed opposition to the proposed Ordinance because he felt it would invade privacy and usurp individual rights, it would be expensive to D.B. residents and it would require additional staff for enforcement. Don Gravdahl agreed that the Ordinance should be discarded in that it would b'a too expensive for any resident with trees on their property. Don Schad concurred that proposed restrictions on public property are too severe but felt that a 4:1 replacement requirement should be considered, giving flexibility in the size of the tree for each individual situation. He explained that there are many heritage trees in D.B. that are over 400 years old that should be preserved. Jack Nelson, Red Calkins, Marshall Wise and Ross Bilotta agreed that the proposed Ordinance should not be adopted MARCH 10, 1992 PAGE 3 because they felt it is unnecessary, it takes away individual freedoms and takes away the right of property owners to do as he chooses with his property. MPT/Papen expressed concern that the meeting was not being conducted as a Council study session but rather as a Public Hearing. The Council agreed to allow the last audience member to speak. Roberta Ray stated that she does not want any more of her freedom taken away and that the financial impact to the City to enforce such an Ordinance should be considered. Al Rumpilla noted that if the Chairman opens the study session to public comments, then it becomes a public hearing. C/Werner suggested that Mr. Schad develop a list of what he feels are Heritage trees for Council review and direction to staff to keep an eye on those particular trees. He stated that he felt that changing an existing Ordinance that has worked for years would not make a lot of sense and recommended that the Council disregard the amendment. By consensus of Council, the proposed Ordinance was tabled. 4. ADJOURNMENT: M/Kim adjourned the Study Session at 6:50 p.m. ATTEST: Mayor LY DA BURGESS, CITY CLERK