The City has a problem. The Urban Forestry Division (UFD) has scores of trees sitting in boxes in storage that it can’t plant. Why is this? In large part it’s because when developers remove trees to build projects, they agree to replace them by purchasing new ones for the City to plant elsewhere. Unfortunately, due to budget cuts, the UFD has no staff to do the planting. And worse, when trees are stuck in boxes for long periods of time, their health declines, sometimes to the point where they’re not viable any more.
Actually, the City has an even bigger problem than this. We’re losing a huge chunk of our urban forest. Years of dry weather has already impacted the health of thousands of trees in the LA area, but now there’s a worse threat. A beetle called the shot hole borer has come to the region. It nests in trees and in the process often kills them. The die-off has already begun, and if it continues at its current pace we can expect to lose millions of trees throughout Southern California over the next several years. This isn’t just a matter of erasing pretty landscapes. As a result of this massive reduction of our urban forest, there will be impacts to our water resources, our air will be dirtier, and our cities will grow hotter than they are already.
So you’d think we’d be doing everything we can to protect the trees we’ve got. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Aside from the natural threats to our trees, development is taking a toll on the urban forest. City Hall is pushing hard to boost construction of housing and hotels, as well as office and commercial space. Which brings us back to the first point. Developers generally want to squeeze as much square footage as they can out of a project. Often they ask the City to reduce required setbacks, or even let them build right out to the property line. In many cases they also ask the City to reduce the requirements for open space. The Department of City Planning (DCP) is usually pretty generous in granting developers’ wishes, especially if it’s a housing project that includes some affordable units.
To give you an idea of how bad things have gotten, let’s talk about the City’s Protected Tree Ordinance (PTO). Some species are considered so important that we should afford them special protection. A while back the City Council approved the PTO in order to prevent their removal except under extraordinary circumstances. So how’s that working out? Not so good. In November of last year Councilmembers Paul Koretz and Mike Bonin introduced a motion to strengthen the ordinance. Here’s a quote.
”Unfortunately, trees are not being adequately protected and departments are not working well together to protect them. Trees are being cut before development permits are applied for, trees are not being protected during construction activities, and building permits are routinely issued without the Department of Building and Safety being aware of the presence of protected trees on the affected properties, all resulting in an accumulating net loss of trees, tree canopy and the accompanying ecosystem services across the City.”
This is serious. We need trees. Our water resources are increasingly stressed. LA’s air quality ranks among the worst in the nation. And temperatures in the city continue to rise. A robust urban forest would help us deal with all of those problems, but instead of enhancing our tree canopy we’re cutting it down.
The reason I’m bringing all this up is that there’s a proposal before the City right now to allow developers to fulfill the requirement for replacing trees simply by paying a fee. For new projects that remove trees, the City would calculate the required number of replacements (usually at a ratio between 2 to 1 and 4 to 1), and then bill the developer for in-lieu fees of $2,612 per tree. This amount would cover the cost of procurement, planting and providing water for three years.
At first glance, this might look like a good deal. The UFD doesn’t have staff to plant the replacement trees it’s been receiving, and storing them for long periods of time impacts the trees’ health. There apparently has been talk of restoring some of the UDF’s funding in the City’s next budget, which could lead to the hiring of personnel to plant trees. But that’s definitely a roll of the dice, since LA is struggling with a structural deficit, and for years now its budgets have been held together with scotch tape and bubble gum. Many City departments suffered staff cuts during the recession, and they’re all lobbying to restore those positions. So without any certainty over staffing for the UFD, the in-lieu fee probably seems pretty attractive, since the cost of planting and watering is built in. The City is outsourcing a lot of work already, and it could just hire a contractor to do the job.
But really, there are a number of problems with just charging an in lieu-fee….
First, it makes it even easier for the DCP to allow developers to do away with trees. If, in theory, all the trees that are removed will be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio or better, and if the money collected includes planting and watering, then why would they hesitate to reduce setbacks and open space? Let the developers do whatever they want! Problem solved. But in reality, we have no guarantee that this system will work as promised. Think about it. Supposedly the current system of requiring developers to replace trees was going to solve the problem. And what actually happened? We have a lot of trees sitting in City-owned storage areas. Some have been sitting in boxes so long that they’re no longer viable. And at the same time developers have been cutting down trees and putting hardscape in their place.
But the City would certainly spend the money they collect. Right? Not necessarily. You may recall that back in 2015 City Controller Ron Galperin did an audit of fees collected from developers. He found $54 million that had been sitting in City-controlled accounts for at least three years. This money had been collected, but it hadn’t been spent. Unfortunately, City Hall isn’t always great about following through.
Second, while charging the in-lieu fees may lead to a better replacement rate in the future, there’s no guarantee that the City will do anything about the trees the UFD currently has in stock. If the budget for the next fiscal year doesn’t include funds for additional staff, these trees could easily sit in storage until they die. It’s been suggested that non-profits could step in to do the planting. If that’s a possibility, why hasn’t it already happened?
Third, and most important, this is not a solution, it’s a quick fix. In order to find a solution, you have to first identify the problem, and the City hasn’t done that. It’s proposing in-lieu fees as a way of replacing trees that are cut down for development, but that’s really just one aspect of the situation.
The real problem is that we’re facing a potentially devastating loss of our urban forest.
If we fail to maintain our urban forest, our air quality will suffer, our water quality will be diminished, and LA will continue to grow hotter than it already is.
LA needs a comprehensive, holistic approach to managing our urban forest. We must do a complete inventory of the city’s tree canopy, and also an inventory of space available for planting trees. We then need to use this data to develop a unified policy based on actual science that will address all aspects of the problem. Rather than coming up with quick fixes to deal with tree loss caused by new development or sidewalk repair or insect infestation, we need an integrated approach that brings all these things together.
In other words, we need to gather the data, look at the science, and then develop an actual plan.
If we don’t do this, our urban forest will continue to decline, and we will suffer the consequences.
If you want to take a look at the proposed ordinance, here’s the link.
If you want to contact your City Council rep about this issue, be sure to include this council file number in the subject line.
CF-16-0461
And to make sure your comments are included in the file, don’t forget to copy the City Clerk.
cityclerk@lacity.org
Finally, if you want to voice your comments in person, this issue will be considered by the Community Forest Advisory Committee (CFAC) later this week.
CFAC Meeting
Thursday, March 1, 1:00 pm
City Hall, 200 N. Spring St, Room 361
[USE MAIN ST. ENTRANCE.]
For more information, follow the link below.
The Horizon and the Skyline 
Any idea why the trees that _do_ get planted are typically non-native? Something like 90% of plants have a beneficial association with fungi and native fungi don’t always adapt or interact well with non-native trees. And yet, instead of planting black walnuts and oaks (which support a variety of fungi and in turn, a healthier ecosystem), I keep seeing mostly African, South American, and Australasian trees going into the ground — and seemingly as often as not — dying a bit later.
Thanks for your comment. You are definitely better informed about this issue than I am. I’m just beginning to learn about the importance of our urban forest and the consequences of decline in tree canopy. I’ll be at the CFAC meeting this Thursday, and will see if I can bring this up. I do understand the importance of planting native trees, and clearly the City should be using those species when replanting.
I’m no expert — I’m actually just learning about the very real interconnectedness of native flora, fauna, and fungi through the Los Angeles Mycological Society.
I also wonder why, with developers clearly so eager to develop, we don’t ask for more from them. In Germany, for example, new constructions over a certain size are required to have green roofs. I never hear anyone talk about green roofs here. I’m neither NIMBY nor YIMBY but QUIMBY (which someone else coined to mean “quality in my back yard”). To me that means gray water systems, solar panels, transit boards, affordable units, and greenery — instead of more car storage.
I absolutely agree. Developers are making a fortune off the projects they’re building, and we ask very little in return. In fact, a number of projects currently in the pipeline are getting huge tax breaks, even though the investors already stand to make significant profits. All of the things you list are important, especially affordable housing. Currently the City offers substantial benefits to developers who include as little as 10% affordable, which means 90% of new units are beyond the reach of the average Angeleno. Unfortunately, the way the system works now, it’s geared toward maximizing developer profits instead of building quality communities.
Thanks for writing this. You covered a lot of the issues. Unfortunately no one has the will to try stop them from cutting the mature trees in the first place. Their carnival barker cry is “ Two for one” and the dazzled public, mistaking an increase in quantity as a gain doesn’t get it that this multiplication is actually a deadly subtraction.
I went to a meeting about this.It held before the Public Works and Gang Reduction Commitee and voiced my concern. My Council Member Ryu is on this Commitee. I wonder what it means that it is now. in CFAC’s hands?
Is this pro forma rigmarole or are we making any progress in protecting our trees? I’ll try to make this meeting.
I think CFAC is in a tough position. They understand that development is depleting our urban forest, and I think they’re as frustrated as anyone that the UFD doesn’t have funds for staffing. I think they would love to see the City fully fund a robust program to expand the urban forest, but they know the chances of that happening are small. My impression is that many CFAC members see this as a pragmatic approach that will actually get some trees planted. It will be interesting to see what recommendation they make on Thursday. But whatever CFAC does, I think all of us need to put pressure on City Hall to take this problem seriously. Garcetti talks about the importance of our urban forest, but at the same time he’s pushing for projects that rob the city of trees.