See the Forest for the Trees: Pedestrian Improvements Not at Odds with Urban Forestry

October 4, 2007

Dear Editor:

Santa Monica is a city of many voices, views and needs and it is the job of City Council and city staff to ensure that we carefully listen and responsibly act in the broad public interest. Santa Monica has rightly earned its international reputation for and takes great pride in making sustainable and environmentally sound improvements in response to our community's diverse needs.

This is certainly the objective for the 2nd and 4th streets project. Our goal is to make sure that the public-including the elderly and those with disabilities--can safely traverse sidewalks, that streets are well lit to enhance safety, and that we properly manage and care for the urban forest in balance with necessary public improvements.

Given the tremendous amount of misleading information about the project, this letter is to clarify how we intend to achieve those important goals.

Major enhancements will be made to the pedestrian environment between Wilshire Boulevard and Colorado Avenue, including the addition of nighttime lighting and improving mid-block pedestrian crossings. This $8 million project was planned as part of the Downtown Urban Design Plan approved by City Council seven years ago.

Although the project design has been thoroughly reviewed and discussed in public forums before Council, the Architectural Review Board and Landmarks Commission over the past two years, misinformation continues to abound about the removal of 23 ficus trees. And while no one likes removing trees, it makes sense to do so when they have been identified as structurally unsound or irreparably damaged.

The city does not take this decision lightly. Out of approximately 153 street trees in the project area, the 23 ficus trees to be removed were evaluated and determined by our urban forester to suffer from internal decay, weakened root systems, poor canopy structure or damage to their canopies from oversized vehicles (see www.smgov.net/osm/forest.htm).

These findings were evaluated and confirmed by more than one independent consulting arborist. We must also point out that
ficus trees are primarily responsible for damaging concrete sidewalks and curbs because their growth patterns and root systems are not ideal for urban streets with limited growth space.

Ficus trees are one of the primary reasons for a substantial new investment of city funds in an accelerated sidewalk repair program throughout our neighborhoods to protect residents and visitors from unnecessary tripping hazards. The current situation is similar to last year, when eucalyptus trees that posed a danger to our community were removed. At the time that decision was made, some residents could not appreciate the threat until they saw for themselves the extensive internal decay of those trees.

While there will be a few less ficus trees in our community forest, the forest itself will be expanded by the 2nd and 4th streets project. One hundred and six ficus trees will remain in the project area. Thirty-one others will be relocated to city sites where they will have greater opportunity to thrive. Twenty-one palm trees will also be relocated within the city. A total of 139 new gingko trees will be planted in the project area, for a net total of 64 new trees on 2nd and 4th streets and 116 new trees within our city limits. Wherever possible, we preserve trees that can be relocated.

Our efforts are consistent with best practices of professional arborists and will result in the intelligent diversification of street tree species that will ultimately strengthen and enhance the vibrancy of our urban forest for generations to come.

We have twice met with representatives of the recently formed group, Treesavers, to review our extensive deliberative process that led to this necessary decision. They disagree with our highly regarded arborist and an outside expert from whom they sought advice. And while we respect their right to express their First Amendment views and to demonstrate, we are hopeful that those rights will be expressed civilly and peacefully.

It is a sound decision to remove trees that pose a danger to people using public streets. There is no "cure" for internal decay and no corrective pruning treatment for trees with damaged trunks or that are off-balance and present a risk to the public. Urban forestry is not uncontroversial, but it is based on good science that balances tree health with the complex requirements of the urban environment we live in.

P. Lamont Ewell
Santa Monica City Manager