.

City Council Preview: Tree Trimming Ordinance, Water Rate Increase

Below are some of the items up for discussion at tonight's City Council meeting.

The South Pasadena City Council meets tonight, with the open session part of the meeting starting at 7 p.m. at City Hall at 1424 Mission Street.

Below are some of the items up for discussion. The full agenda can be viewed here.

  • Amending a tree trimming ordinance to increase penalties for violations.  If approved, the change would allow the city to impose a "tree replacement fee" for up to double the value of the damaged or destroyed tree.  If the tree trimming violation happens on a property being developed, the change would allow the city to ban issuing new permits for up to five years
  • Discussion of extending the city's lease with the company that operates the Arroyo Seco Golf Course from four years to six years
  • A decision on whether to approve an 18 percent water hike and start the state-mandated public hearing process, with hearing to be scheduled in December.
  • A review of existing city properties and lease agreements to ensure that "the City is receiving the service/and or payment it deserves and that a good product is being delivered."
Ron Rosen October 04, 2012 at 01:14 AM
But is the city going to enforce the current ordinance against a "prominent" citizen who apparently cleared the trees from a lot without a permit?
Andy Krinock October 04, 2012 at 02:03 AM
I believe the "tree rules" are over too punitive, I don't believe they clearly define a tree. I requested the City contracted tree trimers to trim a tree in the parkway, it was killing my grass because it was too thick. I offered to pay for the extra work. They refused, stating they were not allowed, they just lopped off a few branches in about 8 minutes and went on there way. The City should have the trees trimmed properly or let the resident trim the parkway trees. The City is becoming left of CA government.
Andy Krinock October 04, 2012 at 02:05 AM
The typos are due to fury over the debates!
Christine Foster October 04, 2012 at 03:41 AM
If the City does not make an effort to correctly maintain trees in the parkway areas, and the said tree(s) that are dying hit vehicles or pedestrians walking by, does that mean the City will be liable for all damages/injuries caused by their trees.
Justanotheropinion October 04, 2012 at 06:39 AM
Tree trimming is a sore spot with me. Property owners need permission to remove a tree and are at the mercy of the City for approval. God forbid if you want to remove it to make room for an addition or landscape renewal or the roots are messing up your pipes and/or foundation. And yet, a few years ago, the City readily and easily removed the tress along Mission St. simply because they wanted to put in something else (and pls. spare me the "reason" for the change). If tree's are next to God in this city and the reason for removal is stringent, how was it ok to remove ALL the tree's on Mission because they wanted a different look but homeowners are held to a much higher and different standard? Seems like tree removal depends on who wants the tree removed.
Betty Jean October 05, 2012 at 11:09 PM
The first question that should be asked is who at the city is approving the city trees? Liquid Ambers, really? Why not just get a bulldozer for the sidewalks and residents property while you're at it.
BD October 06, 2012 at 01:46 AM
This is a joke. I have sustained over $12,000 in damages from a camphor & Liquid Amber in the parkway. The city will not let me remove them nor will they take responsibilty for their continued damage to my property. They are not California native trees and therfore may be removed under our current codes. However, the city refuse to allow me unless I pay for 30 feet of sidewalk repair, a new driveway and new curbs. Oh they are willing to give me .050 per sq foot for all of this, whoopee. Concrete is over $150.00 per yard to pour. The city also will not wave any fees for me to do such work. I would have to have an engineer for the curbs, but the city replaces them with city employees all the time, WITHOUT an engineering report. recently Milan and Oxley have been done by city workers, but yet I have asked multiple times for 15 years to have my curb replaced at my driveway. My lawn is dying and my sprinkler system has been destroyed three times over the last 15 years. I had our city Arborist out last year to tell me the Camphor is dying, BS it's still lifting the driveway, and the Liquid Amber, which is flipping the sidewalk, will do even more damage in the future. I said to him then lets get them out and I will replant new trees in the parkway. He said he can't do that. The city is so damn proud of their tress and love to stress that they own the parkway but they actaully have no legal liabiltiy to protect a homeowner from damages sustained by THEIR tress. Sad but true.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »