Oaks board members Gerry Hans and Bob Young attended the Board of Public Works’ hearing on Friday, January 4th at City Hall at which the Board considered the application for removal of four protected oak trees at 5898 Lorae Place by the builder of the new house currently under construction there, Castle Management.   Gerry and Bob were joined by Doug Mensman and Jullian Harris-Calvin of Council District 4.

First the background:  The Native Tree Ordinance, adopted by the City to protect oak and walnut trees such as the ones in the Lorae Place application, was passed April 6th of 2006.  Castle Management’s building permits and documents for 5898 Lorae Place are dated April 23, 2006 or later.  In August of 2007, during the construction process, Castle cut down two of the four large native oak trees on the property – without having applied for a permit to do so, as is required by the Ordinance.  At that time, The Oaks Homeowners Association was told that the two remaining oak trees were to remain, and in fact Castle was asked by the City to place protective fencing around them.

On September 24, 2007, the two remaining trees were trimmed severely.  Gerry Hans brought this to the attention of the Urban Forestry Division, which acted on September 25th with a “stop work” order.

The developer honored the work stoppage for only a short period of time.  Castle did significant excavation on both the downslope and upslope sides of the two remaining large native trees during the last three months of the year.

On January 2nd Doug Mensman let us know that Castle had finally filed an application for removal of all four trees (the two that had already been removed and the two left standing but compromised) and that the Board of Public Works was to hear the application on January 4th.   Prior to the hearing, the Board’s inspector had recommended approval of the application for removal.

At the hearing, no one from Castle Management appeared to speak on behalf of the application.  Gerry and Bob spoke in opposition to the application, as did Doug Mensman.  Gerry referred to the specific language of the Native Tree Ordinance, which requires the granting of a permit before native trees can be removed (which Castle had not done) and forbids the compromising of a native tree by excavation or otherwise disturbing the tree’s root system, thereby rendering it no longer viable.  In fact, a legal interpretation of the Ordinance renders all four trees as “removed”.   Gerry requested a referral to the City Attorney for review.

Bob reiterated Gerry’s points, adding that the City departments -- Planning, Public Works, and Building/Safety -- need to better work together to uphold this important Ordinance.  Doug Mensman further amplified the basic objections to the application, speaking to Councilman LaBonge’s dedication to green areas and emphasizing that no permit had been sought or received for the initial two-tree removal.

The Board then began an extended discussion of the application.  All board members acknowledged that Castle had violated the Native Tree Ordinance but there was disagreement as to whether mitigation (planting of new trees in place of those removed) was remedy enough or whether there needed to be some penalty or prosecution for Castle’s violation of the rules of the Ordinance.   President Cynthia Ruiz advocated approving the application for removal of the two still-standing trees, but requiring some penalty for the two trees removed without permit.  However, two other commissioners, Paula Daniels and Ernesto Cardenas pointed out that, by compromising the viability of the two remaining trees, the contractor had technically removed all four trees without a permit.  Ron Lorenzen, the Street Tree Superintendent of the Bureau of Streets, told the Board that he had recently engaged the services of an arborist to examine the two remaining trees and found that they were, in fact, compromised.  Therefore the application before the Board was a request to approve the removal of four trees that had all already been removed.   And the two Commissioners argued that they could not grant a permit for the future removal of trees that had already been taken out.  

President Ruiz then summed up the choices before the board: approve the application, deny the application, or refer the application to the City Attorney’s office for possible prosecution.  Commissioner Daniels asked: “Can’t we deny and refer?”  President Ruiz said that yes, they could do that.  The motion was then made to deny the application for removal of the four trees and to refer the matter to the City Attorney’s office for possible criminal action.  The motion was approved. 

No motion was made to prevent Castle from continuing construction on the site at the present time.

Ron Lorenzen pointed out that, in light of the heavy rains expected in the LA area over the coming weekend, the two remaining compromised trees might possibly fall.   Mr. Lorenzen was suggesting that perhaps the two remaining trees, no longer viable, might best be removed for the reason of public safety.  The board acknowledged Mr. Lorenzen’s concern, but took no further action.  We took that as a declaration that the developer possesses the liability.