Proposal to Help Save Oak Forests : Environment: County supervisors are to consider an ordinance to charge developers for trees that they remove.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors will consider an ordinance Tuesday that is being hailed by environmentalists and tree preservationists statewide as a significant step toward protecting Southern California’s oak forests.

As drafted by county parks and forestry officials, the ordinance would give the county the option of requiring developers of unincorporated regions, such as the Santa Clarita Valley and the Calabasas area, to pay for trees they destroy.

Currently, the county oak tree ordinance requires builders to replace mature trees with saplings on a two-for-one basis and usually on the piece of land they are developing.

The resulting oak fund would be used to establish, enhance and maintain oak forests elsewhere in the county--in nine existing county parks, ranging from Eaton Canyon County Park in Pasadena to Castaic Lake State Recreation Area, and in other wild areas that are to be identified by the county forester.

“I’m really glad that Los Angeles is trying to do this,” said Ginger Strong, president of the board of directors of the California Oak Foundation, a statewide nonprofit agency. “It’s indicative of what’s happening up and down the state. People are starting to pay attention.”

Such awareness about the value of trees is especially important now, Strong said, because the economic recession is causing developers to worry more about using “every square inch” of their land. Establishment of large, off-site oak preserves is supported by environmentalists as a reasonable alternative because it allows entire ecosystems, complete with wildlife, to develop.

Although the current ordinance requires developers to plant new trees, they often are used in landscaping along streets, around swimming pools or crowded into small parks. Under those conditions the trees may not thrive and, even if they did, would not replicate the wild forests they are intended to replace.

The parks and other oak preservation zones created by the proposed ordinance would be wild areas suitable for hiking, not “water-the-lawn parks with a swing on them,” said Joseph Ferrara, chief of the county’s forestry division.

Ferrara said the ordinance is not aimed at large-scale developers, most of whom already must agree to set aside large chunks of protected or replanted woodland in order to gain approval of their projects from the county Regional Planning Commission.

Instead, he said, it would help the county deal more effectively with the smaller-scale developments, which only involve removal of a handful of oak trees.

“What is putting in two trees going to do for the future? Not very much . . . . The little guy really can’t make an impact on his own land,” Ferrara said. “But if you can take all these little guys’ contributions, put them into a fund and enhance an oak habitat, now you can do something substantial.”

The other parks that could benefit from the ordinance are Frank G. Bonelli Regional County Park in San Dimas, Charmlee Natural Area County Park in Malibu, Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area in Baldwin Hills, Marshall Canyon County Park in La Verne, Santa Fe Dam Recreation Area in Azusa, Schabarum Regional County Park in Rowland Heights and Whittier Narrows Recreation Area in South El Monte.

The charge for removing trees will be determined by Ferrara’s staff and no amounts have been set yet, he said. But he said rates probably would start at about $350 a tree, which is the estimated cost of buying a 15-gallon oak sapling and maintaining it for two years, as required by the current tree replacement ordinance.

Although he praised the spirit of the proposed ordinance, Rick Standiford, manager of the University of California’s oak woodland conservation program, said tree fees probably should be far higher, especially for older and larger specimens. However, the current county oak ordinance offers special protections for exceptionally large and old trees known as heritage oaks.

“You would have to look at what would be needed to get a tree up to that size, which for a 90-year-old oak could be quite a substantial amount of money,” Standiford said. “But you also have to look at the political economy--what people are willing to do.”

In Visalia, where Strong of the California Oak Foundation is city arborist, developers pay the city only the cost of the replacement trees--about $40 apiece. The city then plants the oaks in designated greenbelts and forms assessment districts, which tax future owners of nearby houses for some of the maintenance costs.

Under pressure from the environmental community, Los Angeles County passed its first oak tree ordinance in 1982. It required only two-for-one replacement. In 1988, that ordinance was revised and now requires that developers maintain the trees for at least two years and replace any that die within that time.

Independently from the new oak forest proposal, county planners are constructing what could be an even stricter tree ordinance at the request of Supervisor Mike Antonovich.

The ordinance is still being drafted but could require that developers replace trees other than oaks and set higher fees, perhaps up to $10,000 a tree, for the removal of the most important oaks.