Letter to Santa Monica City Council

Dear members of City Council,

When the Tree People raise a question about the environmental services our urban forest provides, they point to a matter of great--and increasing--importance to Santa Monica residents. The staff report suggests that accumulating adequate data necessary for such calculations would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and that a much more important priority is the need to establish a long-range plan to diversify the city's forest.

But--how can you make a plan without having the information? You need the data in order to make a plan--there is no other way to prepare a plan than to know what is involved. Flying blind is no solution. And certainly not making a plan first, and THEN acquiring the data.

The staff report says:
"the stage is being set for future problems if we do not create an urban forest that is diverse in species as well as age."

That is indeed correct. But since our urban forest is, as the staff report suggests, "our most valuable asset next to its employees and volunteer staff," it is critically important to the people that live here as well. And developing a long-range plan without proper public input is a recipe for future conflict and upheaval on this issue, such as we have seen with the Second and Fourth Streets streetscape plan, the problems on Yale Street, and many others going back fifty years. It is, in fact, essential that any urban forest policy in our city incorporate extensive public input in its design, and that the resulting policy receive oversight from members of the public as well as experts in the field.

The staff report addresses two issues: the supposedly meager financial benefits derived by the 23 trees originally slated for destruction (no mention of the unidentified other trees deemed “too large for relocation”), and the need to genetically diversify the urban forest here.

The first item is based on 2001 figures, but those are largely obsolete. Energy costs, for example, have dramatically changed since then. But a much bigger issue has to do with the relocation of the other 51 trees: these trees provide specific benefits in their present locations. It's perfectly fine to have a tree filter pollutants out at the airport, but not if it stops doing that in the downtown area, where it is truly needed (never mind spending hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to yank out perfectly healthy trees).

The fact that the staff report doesn't address the specific LOCAL impact of tree removal means that the City Council lacks a truly critical tool in understanding what this plan actually does to the neighborhood, and to local merchants and visitors: lack of shade, inability to remove automotive pollutants, inability to retain stormwater drainage, for example. Will west-facing shopkeepers face soaring air-conditioning costs when the trees are removed? The store owners with whom I spoke were aghast at that realization, yet there was no concern evident by city staff. Do retail customers prefer heavily-shaded trees? Practically every study completed shows this to be the case, yet no studies were ever consulted here. What about the residents--do they prefer thin shade--and no shade at all during winter months, or do they want full-canopy evergreen trees? They were never asked (few residents live within the 300-foot boundary specified in the present policy, and city-wide the question was never raised).

It is simply not enough, in this day and age, to treat our urban forest along the simplest technical lines--it's all very fine to focus on structural soils and the like (at which Walt Warriner is a recognized authority), but we need a more comprehensive city policy which is pursued, implemented and enforced, going beyond the basic technicalities of tree maintenance. That is precisely what is lacking at present--and will continue to be lacking if the staff report is used as the sole basis for a new policy.

This reflects a structural flaw in the policy-making workflow employed by City Council at present: the council relies on practical technicians for the development of policy. Technicians play a valuable role, but purely technical abilities do not an urban policy make.

The second item, the need for genetic diversity in our urban forest, is a sensible and laudable objective. It SHOULD be included in an urban forest master plan. Unfortunately the replacement trees on Second and Fourth are all of a single type, thus defeating the genetic diversity argument. And besides, if the existing forest is aging and susceptible to pathogens, why not plant new alternative young saplings in between, and let them grow during the final life-years of the present trees? When the old ones are gone, the new ones will already be in place. In other words, the quest for genetic diversity in our urban forest does not mean the destruction or relocation of healthy trees, regardless of their age.

It's simply not necessary--in any plausible scenario-- to rip out perfectly healthy trees.

The staff report's call for a long-term urban forest policy in Santa Monica is an extremely laudable goal. The problem is that the current Community Forest Management Plan--the present urban forest policy-- is not being followed either in substance or spirit. So if staff is now proposing a new plan, or a new policy, why should we assume this one will in fact be followed? There is nothing in the staff report that suggests the new policy will be implemented and enforced, or how it can be done. In fact, only continuing public oversight will ensure that such a policy will be implemented.

The public's input in all phases of this revised policy is absolutely essential.

I believe we need a Santa Monica Urban Forest Commission, populated by interested and qualified members of the public, as well as city staff and other experts. We already have a Planning Commission, a Pier Commission, a Landmarks Commission and the Bayside District.They help deal with valuable parts of our urban environment that are of critical importance to the public. Our urban forest is likewise an extremely valuable asset, both environmentally and financially--it is past time to stop these absurd wars between the public and city government over saving our trees (and we’ve had several in the past few years) --it's now time to allow the true interested parties--the public--to participate in the actual decision-making.

To recap:

1. Updating the data on our urban forest is critically important. Staff should explore whether the data can be obtained in stages--perhaps divided by age or geographical location--thus amortizing the cost over time.

2. Public involvement in the development of an urban forest is also enormously important. The urban forest has become an essential asset to residents of Santa Monica. Ignoring residents' wishes will undermine the intent of any long-range plan: public access to the process must be easily available, detailed in its approach, and widely disseminated.

3. The public must also be involved in implementing and enforcing the urban forest policy. Our current policy provides no mechanism for such involvement, thus allowing passing whims to determine the shape and condition of our urban forest, without regard for the concerns of residents.

Thank you for your attention.

Daniel Jansenson