Council prunes landscape law

This story appeared in the Antelope Valley Press March 23, 2001.

By BOB WILSON
Valley Press Staff Writer

PALMDALE - For 3 1/2 hours Wednesday night, the City Council pruned, trimmed, hedged, edged and fertilized a proposed ordinance that would require residents to maintain landscaping standards in their front yards.

But after the hourslong, detailed and tedious debate before an overflowing audience, the council still disagreed on what the appropriate level of landscaping should be.

And the audience - evenly split between disdain for the proposed law and approval - left knowing they'd be back for another round of debate in a month, after the council voted 3-2 to ease restrictions on what residents must and can do with their front lawns under the proposed law.

The changes hashed out Wednesday would make rules on landscaping less onerous for the owners of existing homes. The changes were approved by Mayor Jim Ledford and councilmen Jim Root and Rod Penner.

The language in the rules, which was based on regulations that tightly govern the construction of new homes, was questioned by councilmen Mike Dispenza and Rick Norris. The pair ultimately voted against changing the language to make it less oppressive.

Still many residents were not pleased.

"What I do with my property, as long as I don't endanger other people or create a health hazard or safety hazard, is my business," resident Glen Miller said. "I have one mother - she's sitting right here - and I don't need another one."

Resident Nannette DeBruyn told the council she could not afford to install a permanent irrigation system like the city's proposal would require.

Ledford told DeBruyn that financial assistance would be available to qualifying applicants.

Bob Schack, director of government affairs for the Greater Antelope Valley Association of Realtors, supported adoption of the lawn regulations and encouraged the council "to step forward and make it happen."

But Schack encouraged the city to help educate homeowners, especially first-time buyers, who lack experience in lawn care.

Resident Raul Figueroa noted similar ordinances in Glendale and Santa Clarita have helped increase property values and decrease crime.

Reached Thursday, Dispenza said he did not understand he was casting a vote against changing the wording for further review. Instead, he thought he was casting a vote on approval of the measure.

"I will never vote for something unless I actually see it in writing," he said.

During the meeting, Dispenza said he found the wording of the regulations imprecise and confusing.

"I've almost memorized the thing, and I still have problems with it," he said. "You're asking our citizens to comply with something that we can't even read and come up with answers. ... That bothers me."

On Thursday, that opinion hadn't changed.

"I still didn't have everything in my mind that I thought needed to be discussed and changed," Dispenza said.

Although he agrees with the goals of the proposed regulations, his preference is to accomplish them through volunteerism, not police power, Dispenza said.

Norris said he supported the regulations for new homes, but "I have a major problem making it retroactive to cover existing homes."

Based on a survey conducted by city staff, it is the existing homes that are the source of city's front-yard landscaping problem.

Norris said he also cast a dissenting vote because he thought he was asked to give first-round approval to the new rules.

Rather than casting votes to make changes, the council should have tabled the proposal, sent it back for revisions and brought it back for reconsideration, he said.

"Until the measure addresses all the issues and we have a final document in front of us, there is no reason to vote," Norris said.

Ledford could not be reached for comment Thursday.

The revised regulations are to be brought back to the council April 11 for adoption, rejection or further revision. To be enacted, the regulations must be approved twice.

Concern over the regulations drew a crowd that filled the 140-person council chambers and spilled to the walkways outside.

Of 28 people who spoke, about half favored the ordinance and about half opposed it, while a few merely wanted more information or raised questions.

One of the changes ordered by the council would eliminate a requirement for existing properties to have at least one tree in the front yard and two trees in side yards facing streets.

Although the requirement will remain in place for newly constructed homes, it will be only a recommendation for existing homes. Those failing to meet it will not be considered in violation.

Another revision will delete a rule banning various types of overgrowth, such as shrubs that block windows, plants that reach beyond planter areas and trees that grow into building eaves.

Also deleted will be a prohibition against planting cottonwood, eucalyptus, willows, Siberian elms, tamarack and Arizona or Leyland cypress trees and common Bermuda grass and pampas grass.

Although these trees are known to damage sewer and irrigation lines, use lots of water and die early, and the grasses are known to invade neighboring properties, residents expressed fear they could be targeted by city code enforcement officers for having them.