OPINION

Citizens Speak Up About the Proposed Woodlands Ordinance

 In the following letters, Topangans express concern over the Draft Woodland or Protected Tree Permit Ordinance.

Be informed! Click below to download and read the ordinance yourself:

http://planning.co.la.ca.us/drp_revw.html

Back to the Table

Dear Editor,

We shoot ourselves in the foot when crafting environmental ordinances that have insufficient regard for the social and economic impacts on the human community. The Woodlands Protection Ordinance (WPO) needs to be redrafted with affected parties at the table.

In the Sunday L.A. Times (July 16, Section B, p. 1) "Times Are A-Changin'," one of our community--columnist Al Martinez--laments the fading free spirit of Topanga. As it stands, this proposed ordinance would be another step in squelching our historic community's unique character. Who would be fool enough to ever plant or nurture another tree on their property? Only the rich could comply in dealing with the welter of regulations and fees that the future of this tree ordinance entails for any number of unforeseen needs: new leach fields, garden, shed, bedroom add-on, etcetera. Those on ordinary salaries, or less, would likely defer maintenance, causing our community to become derelict, falling prey to the new breed of mini-developers who buy cheap and rebuild.

Topangans that I have known over the past 38 years have counted on their real property investment for their children's education and their own retirement. Trees that yesterday were an asset become a liability under the present form of the WPO.

Single-family properties under five or ten acres should be explicitly exempt! Let us remember that an ordinance is not "help." It is not education. It is a tool for enforcement for police power to ensure compliance. Clearly education about best management practices is what we need.

For this community--which has fought so hard to prevent massive development of the area--to fall prey to the mansionization that the WPO would foster, is to sound the death knell of the Topanga ethos.

- Rabyn Blake

P. S. How did "voluntary" and "non-regulatory" gathered information of our unique watershed get into Regional Planning's orbit to become a proposed countywide ordinance?

It's not too late to turn this around. More public input is required. It is not ready for approval. Call, fax or email our Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky: (213) 974-3333 (phone), (213) 625-7360 (fax), zev@bos.co.la.us (email) and Regional Planning Commission ordinance studies: (213) 974-6467 (phone), (213) 626-0434 (fax), or lstark@planning.co.la.ca.us (email).

(Editor's Note: In 1999, Rabyn Blake was named Citizen of the Year for her work to secure a Watershed Management Plan to preserve the unique character of Topanga Canyon.)

Trim the Woodland Ordinance

Dear Editor,

I'm a 50-year resident of Topanga and I'm stunned that the County would pass such an ill-conceived measure as the Woodland Ordinance. Perhaps the authors of this measure, not having lived in a wildfire area, were unaware of the fire clearance regulations for rural areas of the County.

Property and lives are saved by trimming trees off structures, electric lines, and steep embankments. And believe it or not our native trees thrive when they're trimmed up. The citizens of Topanga are now faced with an ordinance that demands fees for trimming the same trees and thickets that have been trimmed for years in compliance with the fire safety codes. This is an example of local government not doing their homework. Something needs to be done.
Will Regional Planning reimburse those of us who pay for a permit to trim a tree that gets incinerated in the next wildfire? How many people will nurture native trees only to pay thousands of dollars in fees when they mature? My neighbors are talking about cutting down their little oaks before it's too late. How much should a homeowner pay for permission to remove a dead tree? Why should he pay anything? Have the gods gone crazy?

Unfortunately, the Woodland Ordinance has not been well thought out, is not practical in any way, and will be very difficult to enforce. Trees burn in these hills and floods up-root just about anything growing out of an embankment. The Fire Department tells us how to manage our trees and shrubbery. God Bless our firemen. The County has no business collecting fees from private property owners.

- Harriet Swenson

Reply to Rosi

Dear Editor,

While I appreciate Rosi Dagit's response ("The New Woodland Protection Ordinance," Messenger, V. 24 No. 13, p. 14) to my letter ("Woodlands Ordinance; Getting Down to Cases," Messenger, V. 24 No. 12, p. 2) concerning the excesses of the Tree Ordinance and its heavy-handed, expensive and burdensome interference with the rights of homeowners, the improved procedures she discusses are still too much.

A homeowner should be able to cut down a tree on his own property without any kind of inventory and without anything more than the simplest inspection and approval. When someone wants to remove a tree to expand a house, install a pool, or improve a garden, there should be no impediments whatsoever. The existing tree ordinance, and the new, improved model, should focus on the wholesale destruction of our native woodlands by developers who would denude our hillsides to make construction easier.

If Rosi and other environmentalists believe that the cutting down of even one oak is wrong, then they should make that case to the homeowners and try, through education and persuasion, to prevent it. They should not force a homeowner to pay hundreds (more like thousands) of dollars and spend months going through an approval process. Perhaps some of that money should go directly toward planting new trees.

If an individual wants to build a new house on vacant land, then some inspection and inventory may be in order (not every tree on the property-just the ones that might be directly affected by the construction). If the property is blessed with many, many oaks, then the builder should be allowed to remove a few--say up to 10%--without restraint. Only if a large development is proposed, or if a single property owner wants to remove a large number of trees, should the process include inventories and experts and hearings.

How about this: To cut down a protected tree, one applies to a County agency and pays a fee of, say, $100 per tree, plus another $100 for the processing. An inspector comes to the property, verifies that the removal of the tree(s) will not destroy a woodland, marks the tree(s) that are okayed for removal (orange spots!), hands the homeowner a written permit and goes on his way--that's it. To paraphrase Gary Harryman ("Vandalism or Stewardship?" Messenger, V. 24 No. 13, p. 14), the "smart guy" could even wait in the truck. And the "Tree Fee" could be used for replanting in areas where it is needed most.

I sell real estate in Topanga. In my business I work on the frontlines of the continuing battle between homeowners and regulators. I do not know a single homeowner--not one!--who believes that the regulatory process that governs his/her decisions as a homeowner is fair or sensible. When those regulated cease to believe in the rules, they opt out entirely. Instead of controlling and guiding development (and improvements, like upgraded septic systems), the process serves to drive people underground. Then there is no review whatsoever. This is intolerable.

- Casey Kelley

Tree Police!

Dear Editor,

The Woodland Protection Ordinance scares the bejesus out of me! The righteous certainty of its supporters that the Ordinance is in my best interest frightens me even more.

I believe that the impact of this Ordinance will place homeowners--present and future--at odds with the very thing that it proposes to protect, that being certain native trees.

A recent article in the Messenger ("The New Woodland Protection Ordinance," by Rosi Dagit, Messenger, V. 24 No. 13, p. 14) suggests that the Ordinance process can be initiated by the homeowner simply preparing a "biological constraints analysis," a daunting task for the ill-prepared homeowner. This document of admission will be adjudged by a bureaucrat in a bureaucracy where the homeowner is a mere pawn. Now if that doesn't scare you, I suggest that you wake up to the technocracy that will eventually control the destiny of this community.
The tools of this technocracy will be aerial photographs, a database of the enumerated tree population created in the field by well-intentioned volunteers and lamentably, an angry neighbor. An infraction--innocent or intentional--will make criminals of us, subject to fines and liability of this I am certain.

Think twice before you plant that tree or, God forbid, trim it. Beware the Tree Police!

- Virgil Mirano

Connections

Dear Editor,

Connections--the events and happenings reported in the last Messenger brought to mind that PBS science show of the same name from several years back. For those who don't remember, in that show James Burke drew unexpected connections between seemingly unrelated historic social events and the scientific breakthroughs that grew out of them. It seems lately we're going at things bass-ackwards.

In three issues sure to impact Topanga, science appears to be dictating social policy rather than informing it. The three issues are the Light Resort and Recreation (RRL) Zoning Ordinance, the Woodlands Protection Ordinance (WPO), and the question of land usage in the possible acquisition of the Los Angeles Athletic Club property at the mouth of the Canyon. I have a few seemingly random thoughts about these issues that make them less random than appears on the surface.

As I write this on the 4th of July weekend, I'm thinking that the 'trouble' with Democracy is that sometimes "we the people" have the audacity to believe that means us. Not just U.S., but all of us. Fortunately (and thanks to the well organized response of horse-owning constituents), in the case of the RRL our politically astute Supervisor has recognized what went wrong. In sidestepping the input of "we the people," some of the Regional Planning Commissioners, in Zev's words, "became obsessed." But what (or who) is behind the obsession, I wonder.

Then there's the Woodlands Protection Ordinance. Curiously, it had its beginnings in public discussion, but when those discussions revealed strong reservations (many similar to those raised by Casey Kelley) the once public announcements of hearings, for some reason, disappeared, and all the rest of the proceedings, through preliminary approval at the Regional Planning Board level (the last step prior to final adoption by the Board of Supervisors) went forward without public notice.

I have a problem with the examples raised by Casey Kelley and the misimpressions they allowed. By limiting the discussion to oak trees, Casey's examples and Rosi's responses, while perhaps technically accurate, were misleading. Rosi stated that the proposed ordinance would reduce the costs incurred, and the hoops to be jumped through, by the individual homeowner. But by limiting the discussion to oaks, the reality that these hoops and costs are additional burdens imposed on the many more homeowners, particularly those who have been especially conscientious about maintaining any of the other couple of dozen protected species, is lost. The new ordinance does not make life easier for individual homeowners, it only may make it slightly easier for that smaller subset of them dealing specifically with oaks.
Procedurally, I also have problems when those who--if Laura Shell (Yaroslavsky's Deputy for Land Use) is to be believed--were behind the development of the WPO and misrepresent their position to the public. I was at a meeting attended by Regional Planning staff, where this same person offered database and mapping information (as well as training in its use) that was collected under a grant probably paid for by taxpayer funds--the same information we were all assured was strictly voluntary, and after all, the collecting agency had no regulatory power--for use in implementing and enforcing the WPO through Regional Planning. So much for non-regulatory use of our voluntarily offered data.

As law, the WPO is not even a good rough draft. To make damaging protected trees a crime, and then fail to define what constitutes "damage," is the equivalent of saying it's against the law to be bad and we'll decide, after we adopt the ordinance, what that means. The best rebuttal I've heard to that objection is, "No one has been fined or gone to jail for torturing trees with incompatible landscaping." If you don't intend to enforce an ordinance, why write it in the first place?

With any luck, our Supervisor will see the connection between what happened with the RRL and what's happening with the WPO, and act accordingly. This time not by only "blam[ing] the Planning Commission for not seeing the folly of what they were engaged in" but also by looking into the source of that folly.

Lastly, with the possible public acquisition of the Los Angeles Athletic Club property, hopefully more than the personal agendas of those same people who were behind the development of the RRL and WPO, and who (coincidentally?) have just received a $210,000 grant to study wetlands restoration, will inform and influence the decisions about the lives of those most directly affected. When humane and social concerns are allowed to be ignored in favor of a 'science' that furthers the ends of a few at the expense of the many, it is time for our representatives to take a second look. Zev, don't stop now. The majority of Topangan's are counting on you.

I've always had a problem with people who misuse 'science'--which at its base is nothing more than a methodology, a logical framework from which to view the physical world--to further personal ends or, by themselves, to engineer social change. As an educational tool, science is of paramount value in allowing a populace to make informed choices. But in the hands of those who act as unelected technocrats, it becomes just another tool for ignoring the will of the people.

- David Totheroh

What Happened to Common Sense?

Dear Editor,

I read Casey Kelley's letter regarding the Woodland Ordinance ("Getting Down to Cases," Messenger, V. 24 No. 12, p. 2), and I agree that the regulations are out of hand. Isn't it interesting what the term "protection" translates to? It means money and more money for the coffers of yet another government bureaucracy. Topanga is in wildfire territory. Residents are under the gun to clear "thickets" and trim trees whether they are protected or not. The Fire Department and California FairPlan officials demand it. Making your property firesafe is an expensive endeavor for most, and property owners should not then be burdened with additional fees to a government man for permits. What happened to common sense?

Topanga Town Council wake up! The entire Woodland Ordinance needs an overhaul. Did you know the fee for a permit to take down a dead oak is $1,000? That doesn't include the cost to remove it. My neighbor has four young oaks growing near his house. Should he chop them down now? He thinks so. An elderly resident of 50 years needs her oaks pruned off the electric lines to the house. This is a safety issue. Does she have to prepare a biological constraints analysis? She is blind. Will the Regional Planning Director pay for someone to prepare her paperwork?

The trees listed on the protection list are not endangered nor do they need protection from the homeowner. You can buy any kind of oak tree you want at Green Thumb. They grow well. And when you chop them down 'cause you think they're dead, new shoots sprout out of the rotten trunk and the tree grows sideways, sometimes across a creek. When flooding rains arrive, the tree is carried downstream and logjams against anything it comes into contact with like the Greenleaf Canyon bridge. And then the creek changes course and washes out the boulevard. A large oak north of Red Rock got soggy roots one year and fell over and went down the creek like a lead-loaded missile, crushing a house on the way. And sycamore trees? They don't need wind to split in half and fall over. They are shallow-rooted and grow like weeds. After a flood, go down to Topanga Beach and look at all the sycamores that have washed down the creek.

Finally, there is the issue of liability. Should a government official or an arborist make a mistake about the health of one of these specimens and a limb then punctures a roof or falls on a house, what reprieve does the homeowner have? Can he sue the arborist? After all, the EPA holds their field reps personally liable for bad judgment calls.

I agree with Casey Kelley. We need to be in full partnership with the agencies setting up regulations in our community. If we're paying, it's time to have some input.

- Nancy Williams

The Woodlands Ordinance Will Be Pruned
County Delays Vote When The People Protest

By Michele Johnson

The people have spoken. Under pressure from developers and homeowners alike, the County Regional Planning Commission postponed a July 26 vote on the Woodland or Protected Tree Ordinance until September 27 or until, as Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky's aide Laura Shell puts it, "We can sit down with representatives and leaders to walk through the ordinance."

Already several key changes are on the table. The most potentially important suggestion, made by Planning Commissioner Esther Feldman at the July 26 meeting, was that a 40-foot perimeter around each individual home be exempt from the permit process. This idea is in force in a similar ordinance in Calabasas, and Regional Planning is considering adopting it. The County hopes that would answer a lot of objections raised by individual property owners.
At the meeting Feldman also suggested creating a tiered system of fees based on the number of trees that would be removed. In fact, it seems like it's back to the drawing board for the beleaguered County agency. Laura Shell even went so far as to say, "Maybe single-family residences should be exempt."

The news of the postponement of the vote has been hailed as a victory by the many Topangans who oppose the ordinance. They range from those who would like to see the ordinance completely abolished to those who would like it revised to ease the burden for the single-family homeowner. Dale Robinette, president of the Town Council, said he's heard from lots of irate people. "I got calls and e-mails from people I'd never heard from before. Personally," Robinette said, "I'm ecstatic. I'm a big believer in property rights."

In its recent newsletter TASC (Topanga Association for a Scenic Community) stated that though they support the idea of protecting woodlands and native trees, "The proposed ordinance goes too far and does it in an inappropriate way. Its implementation would impose onerous burdens on individual homeowners." Roger Pugliese head of TASC put it more explicitly: "The idea behind the ordinance is fabulous." But, in his opinion, "It's poorly written." He also feels the ordinance needs a public airing. "I think that what's important is that there's always community involvement."

Realtor Casey Kelley, who wrote one of the first letters to the Messenger objecting to the ordinance, agrees. (CLICK HERE FOR CASEY'S LETTER) "I think the postponement is obviously necessary because people awakened to what is going on." She believes, "The free zone is a step in the right direction." But she adds, "I go back to the original purpose of the ordinance--to stop wholesale trashing of our heritage." And, she concludes, "I'm not sure the ordinance should be applied to homeowners to begin with."

Obviously, when the Oak Tree Ordinance was drafted in 1982, it was aimed at stopping the wholesale destruction of oaks at the hands of developers' bulldozers. Today, developers are again in the forefront of opposition to the ordinance, confirms Laura Shell. The Building Industry Association, the developers' lobby, is firmly opposed to widening the ordinance. Rosi Dagit of the Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains (RCDSMM) warns, "As a County we're losing the battle big-time. There's a number of ways we can improve the ordinance, but we do need to move forward out of the oaks-only issue."

David Totheroh, who opposes the ordinance, disagrees. (CLICK HERE FOR DAVID'S LETTER) "I would like to see an exploration of the need for the ordinance. . .I have no idea what the need for an ordinance is." He feels a community meeting is called for. "We sure as hell ought to have something to say about it."

The County denies the charge that there has been little public involvement in the process. According to Laura Shell, in October 1999 the County announced the first public hearing on the Woodland Ordinance with "a mailing to an extensive list of homeowners groups and community organizations" including Topanga Creekside Homeowners Association; Viewridge Homeowners, Inc.; Topanga Skyline Homeowners Association; Homeowners Association of Viewridge Estates and Homeowners Association of Topanga. Then last January, after people complained that there was not enough community outreach on the ordinance, Shell says Regional Planning made a second mailing to notify organizations about the next scheduled public hearing. (The Messenger, TASC and the Topanga Town Council were not included on the list of those notified.) All together, Shell said, there were "six or seven public hearings."
Typically, she added, the County notifies people of the first public hearing on a subject, but after that, "It is their responsibility to check back with us. We do not do notification before every one."

Rosi Dagit says that she announced the date of the last public hearing at the Watershed Committee meeting held right before it. She couldn't speak at length about the ordinance at that meeting, she said, because she received a "late posting of the revision by Regional Planning." Dagit also attempted to set up a community meeting at Calamigos Ranch, but says the parties who'd offered to help canceled out. "As a result of the current concerns," she states, "I hope that this will finally occur."

So far, though, the County has no plans to hold a community-wide meeting on the subject, says Shell, but will plan to meet with civic leaders throughout the County instead. She did say that Los Angeles County would be open to sending a representative to speak about the ordinance to a Watershed, Town Council or other representative body's meeting in Topanga.

The RCDSMM has also been accused of offering to share information from the tree data collected for the City Green survey with Regional Planning so that they could use it to enforce the ordinance. Rosi Dagit hotly denies this accusation. "The tree inventory data collected by Topanga volunteers has never been requested by Regional Planning, nor any other regulatory agency, nor has it been offered to them." In fact no addresses or plot numbers are even attached to the data, she said. Laura Shell confirms this. "She never offered any data to the Commission on the ordinance." In fact to the contrary, Shell says, "She's given significant testimony requesting incentives for single-family owners."

THE ORDINANCE: A BLOW-BY-BLOW

Anyone can get a copy of the Woodland Ordinance and its recently printed guidelines. Just log on to: planning.co.la.ca.us/. But having the ordinance in hand may not be enough. There are many misconceptions about what the ordinance actually says. To walk through its minefield of confusing rhetoric, we asked Annie Lin, acting senior Regional Planning assistant to assist us.
As most of us know by now, the Woodland or Protected Tree Ordinance is actually a revision of the 1982 Oak Tree Ordinance. It widens the ordinance to protect the Western sycamore, California walnut and Joshua trees with one trunk measuring six inches in diameter and four and one-half feet above ground. It also extends protection to "specified native woodlands."
It holds that "a person shall not remove or encroach into a woodland, or protected tree or any tree that has been provided as a replacement tree unless a valid woodland or protected tree permit is first obtained."

There are several exemptions. One of the most important reads, "Cases of emergency caused by a protected tree being in a dangerous location or condition, or being irretrievably damaged through flood, fire, wind or lightning, as determined after visual inspection by a licensed forester with County Forestry and Fire Warden." First question: Is this one man or two? One Forester/Fire Warden, Lin responds. Foresters can be tough with their calls, some opponents claim. Does the County give them guidelines to follow? Not really, says Lin. They develop their own guidelines. "It's really their call." She's hoping that will change with the adoption of this ordinance. "We are working to establish better guidelines for consistency."

Tree maintenance is also allowed, "limited to medium pruning of branches not to exceed two inches in diameter." When asked if this isn't micro-managing--I mean, can't we leave this up to the good sense of the individual? Lin replied, "Right now that is still the case. That may change in the meetings."

Also exempt: "Maintenance and/or brush clearance required by the Fire Code." The need for clearance has to be certified by a County Forester/Fire Warden. But the notice of removal that you get from the Fire Department is the only piece of paper you'd need, says Lin. That acts as official certification. So removal or pruning for fire brush clearance is exempt.

Also, according to the guidelines, if you're a single-family homeowner, you don't need a permit unless you plan to remove or encroach three or more trees, a heritage oak, or replacement trees you added to obtain a past permit.

So even if the 40-foot rule weren't in effect, there are not too many situations in which the average homeowner would need a permit to remove or prune protected trees or woodlands. But if you do, there's no doubt about it, the process is a pain. First there's the fee. As the fees now stand, a tree permit would cost $486 total for the combination of trees or woodlands affected. You'd need a detailed site plan and photographs of the woodlands or protected trees. The photos would actually mean less hassle than before, Lin says, since you would no longer be required to measure every tree for identification. In the old version, too, you "used to inventory all oak trees within 200 feet." Now just those directly involved need to be inventoried.

WHAT'S A WOODLAND?

Let's say you have a woodland on your property--that's "a native tree dominant plant community in which three or more adjacent trees are of a species listed in" the ordinance guidelines. Those plants and trees run to four pages in the guidelines. How is a person supposed to know whether they even have a woodland as defined? I mean, some of us aren't botanists. "You're right," concedes Annie Lin, and she agrees that "maybe more detailed description or pictures of trees" might help to clue the clueless in.

So let's say you have a woodland on your property.

More than a simple permit might be required to remove or encroach upon it. Fees could jump to $2,130 if a public hearing is required, and if a biological constraints report is necessary an additional deposit of $1,000 would be required that would be drawn on as necessary. These fees will probably be tiered in the final version, based on how many trees are to be removed. This wouldn't include the private costs of an expert to draw up the report.

A biological constraints analysis is theoretically required whenever a woodlands would be affected. The analysis would include a "field reconnaissance" by an arborist, biologist or botanist and require a host of other information, including maps and photos.

If the 40-foot exemption is passed, it would be unlikely the average homeowner would have to face these daunting obstacles often. And already, with the waivers set forth in the guidelines, a biological constraints analysis or public hearing would seldom be necessary for a single family homeowner. Except for the heritage oaks measuring 36 inches around or historically significant trees, no analysis is necessary if the woodlands comprise an area of less than 1/4 of an acre,have five or fewer keystone/associated trees measuring at least six inches, or if the homeowner only proposes to remove two or fewer trees. A single family homeowner would also not need an analysis if the woodlands are simply being encroached upon within 15 feet of the woodlands boundary.

And, says Annie Lin, that list of exemptions "is not exhaustive" and may certainly be expanded.

THIS IS WHERE IT GETS COMPLICATED

If you get the ordinance in your hot little hands, the part "Application-Burden of Proof" on p. 15 might seem particularly onerous. The director, hearing officer or commission could decide to ask us to prove that our woodlands will not affect "biotic resources" nearby--that is, a neighbor's woodlands or creek. We also could have to prove no soil erosion would happen. Most of the provisions in this section seem aimed at the developer, but the question remains: Why not say so?

The Woodland or Protected Tree Ordinance has only just begun to evolve into what it will eventually be. Now that the first battle has been won, says Roger Pugliese, "We need to approach this in a rational and sane way."

"On the same hand," he continues, "we need to protect as many trees as we can. I love trees."