Re: “Residents should embrace tree ordinance,” Mailbag, Nov. 29. Not one person who spoke at the City Council’s study session at which the Council sought input from property owners on the proposed new protected tree ordinance criticized the merits of a reasonable protected tree ordinance. But we did let the council know that we object to the present draft of the proposed protected tree ordinance because it will unreasonably interfere with your and my rights to develop, maintain and enjoy our private property to the fullest extent possible.
We also told the Council about the Planning Department’s current control of our protected trees that goes far beyond anything authorized in the current Protected Tree Ordinance and the rude and bullying manner in which the code enforcement officer treats property owners. Lastly, we brought to the council’s attention the complete lack of notice to property owners of the existence of the present Protected Tree Ordinance and the unreasonable restrictions it imposes on us.
Even though we became a city in 1976, La Cañada Flintridge did not find it necessary to adopt the present protected tree ordinance until 2001. Our trees flourished even without a tree ordinance.
The present tree ordinance contains seven pages. The new protected tree ordinance is 16 pages long. All of the new language in the proposed protected tree ordinance is intended by the Planning Department to further decrease our enjoyment of our private property. We must let the City Council know that it should not adopt the proposed protected tree ordinance in its present form.
Richard S. Cohen
La Cañada Flintridge