Riding the Big Blue Bus down 4th St., I noticed a bunch of “Save these trees” signs attached to the ficus trees lining the street. Why? The Santa Monica City Council voted to remove these ficus trees — citing tree health, maintenance costs, and public safety issues — and replace them with gingko trees. That decision got a local organization called Santa Monica Tree Savers up in arms; this group’s now mounted a campaign and petition to stop the tree removal.
Of course environmentalists heart trees, so a knee-jerk reaction would be to side with the Tree Savers. TreeHugger reported on this fight — and by report I mean that in its typical TreeHugger fashion, got one side’s story then concluded that “It boggles the mind that anyone in this day and age would consider removing trees.”
But is the City of Santa Monica actually taking a tree-hating action? First, the trees, when removed, will be replaced with gingko trees — so we’re not talking about fewer trees, even though it’ll take some years for the gingko trees to provide the kind of canopy the ficus trees were providing.
And due to the racket Tree Savers’ve raised, the city’s now put out a 4-page fact sheet (PDF), complete with photographic evidence (to the left’s one pic), as to why some of these trees need to be removed. Some are getting banged up by buses because they’ve grown too far into the road, creating a safety hazard for bus riders and upping maintenance costs for the buses. Some have major wounds in the main stem, which’ll eventually make the canopy unstable and dangerous for pedestrians. Some have decaying roots, which again will destabilize the tree and create a hazard.
That argument’s significantly different from the Tree Savers’ main assertion — that the trees are slated for removal simply “to make those streets more attractive to the shopping public.”
That said, the city also notes that “Other trees were identified for removal in order to meet the lighting requirements of the overall design, while some trees were identified for removal because they are too large to relocate” — reasons that seem less important. If a tree’s too big to be relocated, why not just leave ‘em there?
And while Tree Savers’ argument’s too one-sided, some of the City’s information is too. The fact sheet states that “only 23 of them [trees] will be removed, amounting to less than 15% of the streets’ total canopy coverage.” However, that 23 refers only to the ficus trees are slated to be cut down and turned to mulch. 29 additional trees are slated to be relocated, as I confirmed today through Greg Davink of the Public Landscape Division. The city fact sheet cleverly avoids mentioning these 29.
Which is all to say that the Tree Savers’ campaign might have more teeth if it was limited just to safe, healthy trees, if any healthy trees are indeed slated for removal. Yes, I want tree-lined sidewalks, but I also don’t want a tree toppling over on me because its roots rotted up. Until Tree Savers makes it clear that the city is indeed removing perfectly healthy trees that don’t pose any danger to the public, I won’t be signing their petition.
Do other cities have such bitter fights over moving and replacing 50 or so trees?
[image from Santa Monica fact sheet]
Update, 10/4/07: The fighting continues! Tree Savers threaten hunger strikes; the city posts an arborist’s statement.
Ficus trees are a menace and should be removed thoughout the city. Their roots destroy sidewalks, making it impossible for a disabled person to use the sidewalk. To see a wonderful example of this, please go to Vermont between Hollywood Blvd. and Prospect (next to the car wash) and you will see a siesmic wave created by these “innoent” trees. The trees should be removed at once and replaced with a less destructive tree.
Comment by Eric — September 26, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Non-native? Not something that should be defended at all costs.
Destroys sidewalks? Not a good street tree.
Some trees shouldn’t be hugged.
Comment by Rafi — September 26, 2007 @ 7:52 pm
I hate ficus trees! They are so ugly. They are planted down Sunset in Beverly Hills too. Whos bright idea in the 50′s/60′ was it to plant all these all over LA? Even native Sycamore and elm are much more beautiful and provide better shade.
Comment by smo — September 26, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
My understanding is that Treesavers do not object to the removal of truly diseased trees. Apparently, the exact number of diseased trees is dwindling as definitions become more refined.
One of my own objections is the misuse, imo, of taxpayer funds to relocate perfectly good shade trees. These funds could have been used to support alternative methods of transportation, for example.
Some of us are also concerned about the disruption to the small businesses along 2nd and 4th Streets while the tree removal is going on.
I am forwarding the report from today’s meeting with the City Manager for more updated information.
Linda
Meeting with Santa Monica City Manager
DATE: September 26th
PRESENT:
Santa Monica City Manager Lamont Ewell
Community Forest & Public Landscape Superintendent Walter Warriner
Chief of Police Timothy J. Jackman
Activist, Jerry Rubin
Activist Michele Modglin
Architect, Daniel Jansenson
Filmaker Chris Paine
***BULLETIN****
Special Meeting with Santa Monica City Manager
A group of Treesaver activists had a special meeting today with
Santa Monica City Manager Lamont Ewell, Chief of Police Timothy
Jackman, and Community Forest Superintendent Walt Warriner at Santa
Monica City Hall. The meeting was held to get an update on the
City’s plans, exchange views, and open dialogue on the contentious
issue of removing over 50 ficus trees from 2nd and 4th streets in
Santa Monica.
Speaking with the City were activists Jerry Rubin, Michele Modglin,
filmmaker Chris Paine and architect Dan Jansenson.
Mr. Ewell explained the city’s position on the streetscape project
and the pending destruction of 23 mature trees. These are the trees
that were recently marked with notices, and would be the first to be
cut starting October 8th. Mr. Walt Warriner, the Community Forest &
Public Landscape Superintendent said that some of these trees were
suffering from irreversible decay and pruning damage, but others had
been marked for removal not because of “structural integrity issues”
but because of “design issues,” meaning that future construction
would damage those healthy trees irretrievably so they would be
removed in advance of this construction.
After intense discussion on this issue including the misuse of the
term “sick and diseased” during City Council hearings to describe
those trees, Mr. Ewell said the City would review these 23 trees to
differentiate between trees that were indeed damaged/unsafe and those
being destroyed to accommodate the new street design.
There was some brief discussion about the ability of the city to
change its design, the cost of delaying contractors, provisions of
the disabilities act and other issues. It remains the position of
Treesavers that design changes can be made to conform with all
federal regulations and provide both improved lighting and street
environment, without cutting down or removing mature healthy trees.
Jerry Rubin expressed grave concern for the future of the remaining
31 trees that are slated for relocation. Dan Jansenson pointed out
that past attempts to relocate large Ficus trees, on Santa Monica and
Colorado Boulevards, were foiled when the trees’ roots were
discovered to be entangled in underground pipes and other
infrastructure. Mr. Warriner said it is the the City’s policy, when
discovering such a condition, to leave the tree in place and not
destroy it. Mr. Ewell also made a commitment to leave such trees in
place in such circumstances. Treesavers believes that the city
should not destroy or transplant any healthy trees unless they are
truly identified as structurally compromised.
Michele Modglin told of the enormous public opposition to the tree
removal which she has been witnessing while handing out Treesaver
notices at the farmer’s market. Dan Jansenson said public opposition
to the tree-removal plan is real, and that the huge public-relations
problem of destroying trees at a time of Global Warming was
attracting attention not just here but around the world. Chris Paine
said that when he was filming “Who Killed the Electric Car” in
conservative regions of the country, he was often asked why more
liberal areas of the country never had their environmental
controversies made public, and that this was exactly such an example–
the reason he was covering this issue now.
The Treesavers group expressed the need to keep the healthy trees
from being removed or relocated. Jerry Rubin asked that the tree
destruction be postponed, and the issue discussed more fully in a
public forum. Mr. Ewell pointed out that there were no City Council
meetings scheduled prior to the start of the work, so there was no
opportunity to develop such a forum.
Mr. Rubin said that the survival of these trees was so essential that
a special public meeting could–and should–be called; especially
since this issue was never treated as a separate issue from street
improvement, and that the destruction of healthy trees was often
hidden from public debate (the issue was not even mentioned in the
published agenda for the final vote.) A task force could be formed,
with the participation of City staff and members of the public, to
discuss these trees and how they could be saved. Jerry Rubin
expressed the desire to make an optimistic, hopeful announcement at
the Thursday Treesavers meeting.
Mr. Ewell promised to examine the first batch of 23 tree removals, to
identify more precisely those trees that would be removed for design
reasons, seeing if there was an opportunity to avoid their removal.
He also said that although he could not, at today’s meeting, make any
commitments regarding the remaining 31 trees and any special forums,
he was intent on keeping the dialog door “cracked open,” and was
appreciative of the opportunity to have this dialog with concerned
members of the Treesavers group.
_____________________________
Comment by Linda — September 26, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
I am a member of the Treesavers group. We’ve made it very clear that the diseased and damaged trees are not in dispute–once it’s been clarified that there’s no hope of saving them safely. But 31–and possibly more–perfectly healthy, mature and strong trees are being removed to make way for a replacement monoculture tree–Ginkgos. And while I have nothing against Ginkgos, the fact remains that it will take at least 10 and likely 20 years until they are large enough to provide shade.
Those are large, mature Ficus trees with a proven track record in providing environmental benefits, as shown by the UC Davis report linked on the Treesavers web site. The same study shows that the dollars invested in maintaining these trees (and their roots and sidewalks) is amply repaid in the benefits provided by these trees. Take a detailed look at the actual studies, and notice the cost savings these trees provide. If you prefer not reading the study, take a look at the city’s own evaluation of these trees, in their in-house newsletter:
https://www.santa-monica.org/seascape/04summer/4.html
The sidewalks on Second and Fourth Streets are, in actual fact, hardly affected at all by these trees, as any local passerby can see. And besides that, the city has already provided an alternate technical means of dealing with sidewalk issues elsewhere in the city, in the form of rubber sidewalk inserts that allow water and air to reach the root system (preventing it from heaving). This system–invented and patented in Santa Monica– is cost effective and successful–in real life installations, throughout the city. No reason it cannot be used here.
No–these trees, shady and beneficial, are being removed because some people believe that merchants will benefit from their absence, and developed a poorly thought-out streetscape design that calls for the removal of healthy mature trees. And if you think that large, mature sidewalk-encased trees can be relocated easily, then ask the forester’s staff why it was necessary to destroy several large Ficus trees on Santa Monica and Colorado Boulevards several years ago, during a previous streetscape effort. The answer: it’s not very easy, and the process often fails. To fully understand the difficulty, please visit our site and read the detailed article on Ficus relocation in Hong Kong, a few years ago.
The city is proposing to spend $700,000 to remove large, healthy, mature trees. Is this the best and highest use of our tax dollars? Why not simply plant additional trees, of various species for genetic variation, and let these Ficus live out their normal life span?
I invite everyone to visit the site and see the photos of a similar project in El Segundo, completed several years ago. Those photos show precisely what we are trying to avoid.
One more thing: GreenLAGirl–please take a look at the city’s own information on the total number of trees removed, vs. the number of damaged or dangerous trees. If you find a difference, I invite you to sign our petition. Thank you.
Comment by Daniel Jansenson — September 26, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
Hey Daniel — I spent a good amount of time both on the Tree Savers website and blog today — neither of which had any means by which I could contact members, btw — and I have to say that it’s not at ALL clear that your org doesn’t dispute the removal of diseased trees.
I even read the SMPD article the Tree Savers’ website kindly linked to too — and the writer of that report doesn’t seem to have gotten this message from the Tree Savers either. The message instead seems to be that Tree Savers doesn’t believe any trees to merit removal at all, because in their view, no trees are diseased / pose a threat to public safety (see also Spill’s quote on p. 10; he too describes the message he got from Tree Savers as simply being the trees are not diseased — without explanation).
Again, I’d just like to know if there are trees slated for removal are indeed healthy, and if so, which those are. As I pointed out above, I’m skeptical about the city’s argument for “removal in order to meet the lighting requirements of the overall design” and “removal because they are too large to relocate.” But because Tree Savers has not made clear that the org only disputes removal of healthy trees — and seems to have put up signs on EVERY tree slated for removal regardless of health — I find Tree Savers’ arguments too one-sided to get behind.
Comment by Siel — September 26, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
Siel,
The reason for the lack of clarity on the topic of diseased trees, is that the city itself was unclear on the topic–until today’s meeting. Until now the matter was described in broad, general terms–”diseased trees” without providing any evidence of such a condition, and leading to a legitimate questioning of such broad statements.
As it turns out, none of the trees are diseased (in fact the City Manager himself expressed confusion on this issue today). Some trees–21 according to the forester–have either been damaged by passing vehicles, or are suffering from irreversible decay due to improper root pruning (over a period that includes his own tenure, by the way), or have inherent structural damage. Two of the trees will suffer irremediable damage from the acts of construction that will take place.
And while in the city’s handout referenced above some of the trees have structural damage requiring destruction of the tree, it is not at all clear that the damage produced by passing vehicles is serious enough to warrant removal of the tree. The city’s specific statements, both in their handouts and in our meeting today, focused on decay and inherent structural damage.
The press release mentioned above is where we stand today. If our position has not been clear till now, I hope it is as of this moment. Thank you for your consideration.
Comment by Daniel Jansenson — September 26, 2007 @ 10:12 pm
Great coverage and comments. I’m doing what I can to spread the word here as well. We can always find “reasons” to reduce the amount of bothersome nature we live with in our cities but should we?
And to the Ficus-haters, perhaps your ire is better directed and the human factors that make your lives difficult (poorly maintained or adaptable (read: recycled rubber) sidewalks, lack of cut curbs and accessible routes, etc.) Nature is destroying our concrete? What?
http://canuckoutofwater.blogspot.com/2007/09/someone-has-stellar-powers-of.html
Comment by dianejwright — September 27, 2007 @ 9:21 pm
Some of the confusion regarding how many trees are to be removed by the city versus how many Treesavers are talking about can be resolved if you trace back the contradictory statements of the city on the issue. Despite being depicted as a “treasure” and the very best choice for the city by City Forester Walt Warriner’s in a 2005 interview, http://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2005/May-2005/05_28_05_A_Passion_for_the_Citys_Roots.htm
the city’s plan as originally proposed called fro uprooting every other ficus tree
http://www.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2005/20051011/s2005101108-B.htm
compare “Existing Conditions B1 & B2″ to “Proposed Layout C1 & C2″
Its current plan as bid and posted is much the same, though half the plan diagram seems to be missing from the web post
http://www.smgov.net/cityclerk/council/agendas/2007/20070814/s2007081401-J.htm
An interesting note is that on the city’s homepage
http://www.smgov.net/home/index.asp
where the upcoming plan is linked to, it mentions that two trees will be planted for every one removed — and the accompanying photo is of two full grown trees, ficus, not the scrawny ginko’s that will take their place.
In short, the city spends money on sidewalk repair or mitigation (replacement with rubber) and someone thought it was a good idea to rip out every other ficus, regardless of condition. That was the plan. Perhaps, due to public objection, they may, if we keep the heat, limit removal to only those trees seriously damaged, which if they are a danger to the public or other trees we have no objection to. Those are far fewer in number than the original plan entails. This is what we’re pushing for.
The ginkos are more susceptible to creating alergic reactions in people, and will take twenty years at least to attain similar stature, and even then because of the shape will not provide the same benefits the ficus trees currently do.
Comment by Charles Fredricks — September 28, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
“Until Tree Savers makes it clear that the city is indeed removing perfectly healthy trees that don’t pose any danger to the public, I won’t be signing their petition.”
Please take a look at the blogsite–I believe the group has now made it as clear as it is possible to make. We look forward to your signature on our petition. Thank you.
Comment by Daniel Jansenson — September 29, 2007 @ 8:51 am
Daniel — If you knew even the “reason for the lack of clarity on the topic of diseased trees,” then why did you begin your first comment with “We’ve made it very clear that the diseased and damaged trees are not in dispute”? If it’s unclear, you haven’t made it clear, dude. That said, thanks for admitting as much.
I’m v. confused by your claim that none of the trees are diseased, but perhaps I have a wider definition of what disease is. I mean, I’d call “irreversible decay” and “inherent structural damage” signs of disease, but whatev. In any case, I’ve written a new post ’bout the tree fight –
Comment by Siel — October 5, 2007 @ 7:27 pm
I hate ficus trees! West Hollywood needs to follow Santa Monica and remove those sewar clogging, sidewalk lifting, street buckling trees from the residential areas!
I wonder how many of these tree savers live with a monster ficus in front of their homes? Have the funds to get a rooter company to come out twice a year, or even have the $12,000-$15,000 needed to repair a destroyed lateral line to the city sewer? WeHo considers lateral lines the responsibilty of the homeowner even though line breakage by city ficus roots are in the street.
Comment by Anonymous — January 4, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
I absolutely agree with post 12. Most of the huggers would certainly sing a different toon if they were facing a massive repair bills for their lateral. The city writes laws to protect themselves and offer zero assistance to honest tax paying owners. Its simple the roots tresspass into my pipe. If this was your neighbors tree and not the city its a open and shut case of fault to the tree owner. There’s a pecking order. Saftey, property damage then tree. Logical?
Hug it?….I would like to strangle it.
Comment by DC — January 29, 2008 @ 3:16 pm