City hopes to preserve specimens located on private properties
CITYWIDE In response to resident complaints regarding the impact development is having on Santa Monica’s trees, city staff has proposed several strategies to conserve those rooted on private property.
The proposals range from the creation of an extensive education campaign about the economic and environmental value of trees to the development of a tree canopy conservation requirement that would be part of the building permit process.
The City Council could also go so far as to select certain species of trees or trees of a certain size for protection, prohibiting anyone from removing them unless there is found to be some kind of hardship.
Some communities have done that, focusing on trees native to California or those located in a particular area such as a scenic corridor or old orchards, said Walt Warriner, City Hall’s community forester.
In a city staff report, Warriner said that in developing a private tree canopy conservation policy, “consideration should be given to the development of a proactive, flexible approach that promotes voluntary tree stewardship throughout the community and encourages creative design solutions when construction might threaten existing trees.”
Any policy adopted should be rooted in collaboration with residents, the business community and developers, Warriner said.
Currently, there are no regulations governing the removal of trees on private property, except for the Landmarks Ordinance, which has a section set aside for the protection of historic trees that have a unique characteristic that is a familiar visual feature of a neighborhood.
Only four trees have been designated since the establishment of the preservation program in 1976, Warriner said.
Planning regulations do require that a minimum of one tree for every 1,200 square-feet of paved area be provided.
Additionally, in residential districts, new developments are required to provide two canopy trees in the front yard and three in the side yard of any project.
Developers are also required to protect trees planted by City Hall during construction. As the community forester, Warriner also reviews plans to determine the impact of a proposed project on existing trees and makes recommendation on which trees should be preserved.
That said, the decision to retain a tree is ultimately left up to the property owner.
The preservation of private trees is crucial to the overall health of Santa Monica, Warriner and tree advocates said. Not only do they beautify neighborhoods and provide shade from the heat, trees also provide oxygen and absorb pollutant gases and filter particulates out of the air. Trees also combat global warming, help residents cut down on their air conditioning consumption, and create economic opportunities.
Most importantly for homeowners, trees have been shown to increase property values by as much as 15 percent, said Laurie Kaufman, director of communications for TreePeople, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit that trains communities to plant and care for trees.
While TreePeople is not in the business of advocating for or endorsing preservation policies, but is more focused on education, Kaufman said it is important for cities like Santa Monica to focus on their urban forests and look at ways to protect them for future generations.
“On one side you have the important job of preservation, and on the other you have private property and can the city dictate what private property owners can do,” Kaufman said.
“If a home owner wants to take out an 80 or 100 year-old tree, does that tree not belong to the whole community since it is such a resource providing many benefits such as combating green house gases?” Kaufman asked. “It’s a tough question to answer but one that needs to be discussed and Santa Monica should be commended for doing it.”
Tom Larmore, a land-use attorney and chairman of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce, said there are bound to be various opinions about how far City Hall should go in protecting the private tree canopy.
“I don’t have a problem with there being some restrictions, but, as always, the details are important,” Larmore said, refer-ring to what types of incentives may be offered to residents and developers looking to make changes to their properties.
Several residents living north of Montana Avenue and in Ocean Park seem to be in support of protections and restrictions, as long as City Hall would be willing to provide assistance in the maintenance of the trees and other incentives, according to surveys that were sent out by two neighborhoods groups, the North of Montana Neighborhood Association (NOMA) and Ocean Park Association (OPA).
Elizabeth Riel Armour, chair of NOMA, said 70 percent of residents who responded to the survey said they would supportive incentives as a way to encourage preservation. Many also felt that education alone would not work.
“I think probably the most interesting thing with the survey was that people liked the carrot and stick approach, but the overriding concern was that people felt like developers are doing irreplaceable damage to the tree canopy and they are very concerned about that,” Armour said.
“As homeowners we feel we get the benefits of trees … and think long and hard before doing damage to a tree if we would do work on our property,” Armour added. “Residents feel that it’s not us, it’s the developers who aren’t building homes for themselves, but are building spec houses. They just go in there and clear cut the lot.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 19, 2007. Read the original PDF.