Ann Christoph’s column on the proposed changes to our city’s wildfire fuel modification and fire safety requirements helped me understand why they are well-intended, yet too severe and partly counter-productive. It’s hard to defend trees when they are cast as a singular threat to the safety of our homes and lives. As viewed through the lens of fire officials, they are only potential kindling for dangerous wildfires. It’s not that simple. Trees sustain birds and wildlife, create cooling shade and clean our polluted air. They keep our planet, and all of us, alive. Talk about staying safe!
The current proposal would require homeowners who plan a major remodel to chop down any trees or shrubs that the fire department deems “targets” and extend within 10 feet of their house or cross a property line—or hire a consultant to defend their existence to the city. Just look around. Aren’t those most of our mature trees in town? This strategy would sacrifice many of our most established trees, which provide nesting and refuge for our soaring hawks, rodent-eating owls and migrating songbirds.
Our fire department’s position that trees are always harmful in fires is controversial at best, based on fire experts cited in the original General Plan. Wildfire experts disputed claims that certain species are more dangerous than others, and believe even “bad” trees, such as the eucalyptus, palms and pines on the new target list, especially well-maintained ones, can shield homes from embers and are less flammable (because of their high moisture content) than grassy areas. Some asserted that in extreme weather events, vegetation clearing did nothing to prevent loss of structures.
This report also fails to consider the many positive attributes of trees. Beyond maintaining our fragile ecosystem, they help define the beauty and character of our town. Trees soften the visual density of our homes and businesses, provide dramatic canopies downtown and privacy in neighborhoods, and green up our coastal skyline. Of course we need a plan that makes sure residents diligently trim and maintain our trees, and provide a defensible space for fighting fires. It’s easy, however, to justify almost anything in the name of safety, and overlook the costs of drastic measures. I’m not sure where to draw the line exactly, but I believe that pressuring residents to take down our largest, most beneficial trees is going too far.
Janine Robinson, Laguna Beach
Kudos to Janine Robinson! Trees are an integral part of what defines Laguna Beach. We should not be stampeded into destroying our charm and character by either the megadevelopers or by unscientific scare tactics. Of course Ray, Nokes and many in the Librate Laguna camp will likely take this issue and attempt to denigrate Village Laguna. However many of us realise that without such civic minded organisations that have an appreciation of the history and the future of this “little island” we would now be looking at thousands more homes and condos instead of the wonderful open spaces that will be enjoyed by future generations. As to the trees not only is the fire department willing to destroy them but also those that would cut down mature trees that are decades old and thereby make Laguna Beach look like a manicured, cookie cutter city. Most residents oppose this kind of so called improvement. The eclectic character of our city is one of if not the most important aspect of our charm and character.
After seeing the LTE by Larry Nokes about Historical Preservation and Village Laguna I relly don’t believe my comment needs moderation
Defending every tree in Laguna Beach on the premise that habitat for birds and other animals that like trees as reason enough to endanger valuable home people live in makes little sense. Considering the volume of trees, bushes and other animal/bird habitat in the surrounding area that will never be removed, the sentiment against providing some safety to homes seems a bit over zealous. The birds and other animals will do quite well and will likely not even notice the loss of a tree here and there. I would suggest the owner of the first house that the Save Laguna group saves through prohibition of the new rule be held liable for suit if a house burns down due to trees too close to housing causes that home to become involved in a wild fire as a result of a tree protected by their proposals.