Increased Penalties May be Ahead for Cutting Down City-Protected Trees Without a Permit

After an incident in Old Pasadena in which two iconic, protected palm trees were cut down without the city’s knowledge, Pasadena’s Department of Public Works presented a recommendation to the Municipal Services Committee on Tuesday night to increase the penalties for violating the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance (TPO) in an effort to establish a stronger deterrent against violations, specifically illegally cutting down City-owned trees or actions that injure them.

It is not known if the recent incident at Old Pasadena’s former Twin Palms restaurant site motivated the recommendation. In that case, two city-protected 35-feet-tall Canary Palm Trees were cut down without city permission reportedly by the property owner, enraging tree preservationists.

In an Agenda Report for the City Council, Public Works Director Ara Maloyan said recent consultations with community stakeholders reveal that the current penalties no longer serve to deter violators, and are no longer commensurate with the violations.

Currently, the City imposes administrative citations per offense per City tree. Illegal tree pruning, activity that harms a City tree and removals are categorized as equal administrative citation offenses. The first administrative citation is currently $108.

If an offender violates the TPO consistently, the City may pursue prosecution through the City Attorney or City Prosecutors office.

Maloyan said the TPO should be amended so that, in addition to any applicable administrative citations, the City should consider adding the assessed value of the removed tree, the replacement costs for a 24-inch box tree in accordance with the current General Fee Schedule, and the removal cost as well.

In addition, the amendment should reflect a higher administrative citation especially for topping, pollarding lion tailing and root zone compaction, Maloyan said. When a TPO violation requires corrective arboriculture measures, the costs associated with them would be passed on to the offender.

Councilmember Margaret McAustin, who chairs the Municipal Services Committee, says she favors increasing the penalties.

“We really want to send a message that we want people to respect our trees and to be thoughtful of them during construction, which is the other part of the tree ordinance,” McAustin said. “Sometimes, I think that people are a little pro-forma about that and they don’t really take it seriously.”

Asked if she has an idea of how much the increase could be, McAustin said they are “looking at something closer to the market value of the tree.”

She says discussions on the amendment would be a good opportunity to show people that the City values its trees.

In the light of the recent rains, McAustin added the Municipal Services Committee will also consider that some trees really need to be removed or pruned at certain times because otherwise, they could pose a danger to the community.

Local tree activist Lori Paul, who represents Save Pasadena Trees, said protecting the urban forest in Pasadena is a complicated and every step that concerns it needs to be carefully thought out.

“My suggestion would be that you need to address infestation, you need to address tree canopy density and the quality of tree services to really be fair to homeowners and businesses and the public in terms of the urban forest in Pasadena,” Paul said. “Right now, the fines are either sometimes not imposed because there’s a variety of misunderstandings or failure on the part of the City arborists to really impose appropriate full fines.”

Paul also warned against placing the burden of paying fines for cutting down trees on affected homeowners alone.

“The tree services usually are exempt because the burden is on the homeowner to assure that what’s being done is appropriate under Pasadena’s ordinances,” Paul said. “I think placing all of the burden on the homeowner which might be an elderly person or someone who’s not as knowledgeable is perhaps the wrong place to put all of the burden of responsibility.”

After discussions at the Municipal Services Committee, the proposal will go up to the City Council around March 13, with a recommendation to direct the City Attorney to draft the ordinance.