City officials meet with residents to discuss tree plan
CIVIC CENTER A contested citywide carob tree removal plan, criticized by shade-loving residents skeptical of the evergreen specimens’ terminal diagnosis, will get another look by City Hall before they’re uprooted.
The announcement came during a community outreach meeting on the project at the Civic Center on Wednesday, city officials agreeing to reassess the criteria used to determine which of the 630 carobs in the city should be removed.
The reassessment could affect the 202 trees that are slated for removal in the second phase of the plan.
The estimated $395,000 project calls for the removal and replacement of 300 trees identified as having a high probability of failing, 98 of which were tagged as having the highest risk potential and will be removed this month.
The trees were assessed in the study by HortScience, which rated the carobs on a scale of 1-12, the latter as having the highest risk. The 98 trees that will be removed first were all rated above 10, and almost all trees were ranked higher than an eight. Fourteen trees were rated as a seven but are in very poor condition and will be removed.
Residents during the meeting questioned the methodology used in determining the trees that should be removed, pointing out that the carobs that ranked between seven and nine should be reexamined because certain factors might have inflated their score.
Jim Clark, a consultant with HortScience, explained that the 12-point rating system was based on three factors, each of which were ranked on a scale of one to four — the tree’s likelihood of failure, the size of the tree or limb most likely to fail and the type of activities and objects on which the tree or limb might fall. The score for each factor was added for the final rating.
“We know a tree with a 43-inch diameter would do more damage than a tree (a few inches) in diameter,” Clark said.
Brian Varnum, an outspoken critic of the plan who lives in the north of Montana Avenue neighborhood, pointed out some possible weaknesses in the formula, noting that some trees slated for removal might be big but have a low potential for failure.
“Any large tree in this city is doomed,” Varnum said.
The meeting was the first public outreach gathering that the City Hall has held since the ficus tree fiasco erupted last summer, a plan that has been tied up in court. The trees are part of a larger beautification project in Downtown that includes improving sidewalks, extending curbs and enhancing lighting along Second and Fourth streets.
Jerry Rubin, one of the leaders of the Santa Monica Treesavers, a grassroots effort formed in response to the ficus tree issue, said the community forum should’ve occurred long ago.
“It would’ve served the community well before the Second and Fourth streets ficus process,” Rubin said.
The news of the carob tree plan surfaced more than two weeks ago when a funding allocation request for the project was placed on the City Council agenda. The item was pulled shortly before the meeting commenced to give the public more time to comment. Several residents attended a press conference hours before the council meeting to express their concerns about the project, questioning the necessity of their removal.
More than 60 carob limbs and trees have failed in the city since 2001-02, more than half of which have occurred since the beginning of 2005-06, according to Community Forester Walt Warriner.
City Manager Lamont Ewell took responsibility for placing the plan on the fast track, urging that criticism expressed in the past several weeks be directed at him, not Warriner.
“When I saw it reported that 98 trees were rated that high... I had to make a call and I put it on the council (agenda),” Ewell said.
The meeting included an overview of the project and a panel discussion featuring experts in urban forestry, such as Glenn Flamik, who oversees urban forestry for the California Department of Fire and Protection; George Gonzalez, the chief forester for the city of Los Angeles; and Gordon Mann with the Sacramento Tree Foundation.
The experts mostly agreed that one of the toughest choices that an arborist faces is removing a tree, adding that all foresters are tree-lovers, but have to weigh that with public safety.
Several of the arborists had seen a copy of the report and defended Clark in his assessment. Flamik, who works with cities across the state, said he had personally checked out some of the carob trees tagged for removal.
Some residents complained of lost shade on their homes if the trees were removed, pointing out that the carobs serves as the only barrier between them and the sun.
“I’m going to have sun just hitting the front of my house,” said Doris Sosin, who has a carob tree rated as an eight. “It’s a problem to lose a great canopy and I think we here in Santa Monica want that canopy.”
City officials stressed the risk that City Hall faces in knowingly keeping trees that do have a high risk, pointing out that legal fees in lawsuits are paid by taxpayers. Many of the trees, while appearing healthy on the outside, are structurally deficient on the inside, they said.
Varnum said he felt the meeting was a step in the right direction and hopes City Hall will follow through on reexamining the 202 carob trees.
“It’s a rare thing to happen for them to work with the citizens,” Varnum said. “In general, I think the (carob) tree plan is a reactionary plan driven by finances and not with consideration for the value of the trees.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on May 9, 2008. Read the original PDF.