HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/7/2025 Item 8a, Schmidt (2)
Richard Schmidt <
To:E-mail Council Website
Subject:agenda item 8a
Attachments:council staff report final pdf.pdf
Dear council, please see attached comments inspired by staff report.
Richard Schmidt
1
Oct. 4, 2025 Re: fire landscape regulations 8a
Dear Mayor and Council,
A few comments inspired by reading the staff report:
1. The staff report says nothing about an appeals process from administrative enforcement.
There should be one, and it should be free. Why? Because this forced “relandscaping” of nearly
3,000 private properties is an onerous imposition of authoritarian power – Trumpism, if you like
– and I shouldn’t think you’d want to hang your hat on that peg.
2. The staff report fails to quantify the $37 to $50 million personal and community financial
impacts of these measures (which, remember, do little or nothing to improve fire safety). There
are 2,845 properties in the “very high” CalFire zone (some, remember, unjustifiably so
classified). The city of LA estimates average cost of compliance at $13,000 per property.
Average means some higher, some lower. Costs could be frightenly higher for many of us.
(Several years ago, my large pine tree died; it cost $12,000 to remove it – for one tree!!)
Anyway, at $13,000 per property, the aggregate community cost would be $37 million.
Adjusting for the 36% higher tree cover per acre in SLO compared to LA, the hit could come to
over $50 million. That’s what your action will cost your constituents!!! That’s a dreadful hit for
the people. But it’s also a dreadful hit for the community’s economy as well: $37 to $50 million
taken out of shopping, eating in restaurants, recreation, and whatever – which means lost
business, lost jobs, lost prosperity, and lost sales tax to the city.
3. There will be devastating impacts on our urban forest and climate action planning from
massive numbers of tree removals.
The staff report skates around this without ever quantifying what they’re talking about; it hides
transparency behind opaque statements like the need to expedite permitting for tree removal.
So I’ll take a stab at quantification.
What does it mean for the urban forest if state “defensible space” rules are enforced? My back
of the envelope calculation is 11,000 to 12,000 trees removed on CalFire’s 2,845 very high
hazard properties. That’s absolutely devastating in terms of climate mitigation, urban cooling,
and carbon sequestration. Yet this goes without even comment in the staff report, let alone
any analysis to daylight the immenseness of the forest’s destruction.
4. Climate change is exacerbated by vegetation removal. This is ironic, and the staff report
misses the irony. On page 5, we are told wildfires are getting worse due to climate change, so
we must chop down our trees to save us from wildfire. However, chopping down trees itself
increases climate change (many ways: releases into atmosphere the carbon sequestered in cut
trees; eliminates the future carbon sequestering climate services of those trees; raises ambient
temperatures in areas where trees have been cut – tree shade and evapotranspiration cool the
earth, nearby trees and plants, us and our homes; more sun hitting ground dries out the soil
and dehydrates nearby plants, thus increasing flammability; drying out the ground damages
another carbon sink, that stemming from thriving soil micro-organisms; removing shade
encourages growth of grasses and weeds that are more flammable than shrubs and trees;
making our yards hotter increases our use of air conditioning; etc.)
The message seems to be we must make climate change and fire conditions worse to
compensate for climate change’s making fires more frequent. This would be funny if it weren’t
so seriously weird and misguided.
5. You are outlawing hedges. Which raises the question why? My primer gave clear examples
of how well-hydrated tall continuous hedges are fire protective.
My conclusion hedges are being outlawed comes from description on staff report page 13 of
spacing requirements for “shrubs.” Shrub is not defined. The report states shrubs in “groups”
(also not defined) can have a combined diameter of 10’. Diameter is an odd descriptor since it
suggests something round, but must instead mean “continuous spread” rather than circular
form. Anyway, with a maximum spread of 10’ comes a requirement for a 15’ separation from
other shrub groups. Which means a “hedge” could only be 10’ long; that if shrubs were to
continue in alignment with that “hedge,” as real hedges do, the “hedge” would consist of
alternate 10’ lengths of shrubbery with 15’ gaps of nothing. That’s not a hedge. It’s a bad joke.
It gets worse. According to the report’s description, groups of shrubs (our “hedge” for example)
must be separated from structures by 30’. What does that mean in real life? Our statutory front
yards have 20’ between front of house and sidewalk. So if hedges must be 30’ from the house,
hedges have been outlawed.
The implications are huge. Hedges provide a green privacy wall for homes. They absorb urban
noise. They purify urban air. They are wonderful and desirable additions to our cityscape. They
also can provide fire protection, as this Palisades fire example in my primer explained:
6. We will have an ugly, denuded and less livable city if prescribed vegetation removal
proceeds. An LA city committee provided this before and after view of an apartment complex
that implements the state prescriptions to show what’s at stake. We’ll see the same inhumane
ugliness in our neighborhoods.
Photo
7. The city’s asserted helplessness does not settle well. It seems to me you should be more
interested in fighting for your city’s future. For sticking up for your constituents; for saving the
community a $37 to $50 million hit to our personal pocketbooks. Faced with the biggest state
over-reach yet, instead of fighting with all you’ve got, you’re passively hiding behind “the state
made us do it.”
Frankly, your passivity makes me mad, and I’m surely not alone.
The law requiring application of CalFire’s faulty maps to cities can be amended or repealed (In
Oregon repeal is shaping up as a real possibility after constituents saw the impact of a similar
law). The board of forestry’s zone 0 rules are still in draft form, and with pressure on the board
and elsewhere can be influenced, changed or eliminated. The governor must sign off on new
zone 0 rules, so he can be pressured. If I were in your position I’d be raising hell, not saying we
don’t like it but the state made us do it. I’d be contacting all of the parties mentioned above
and making very firm statements that what’s happening isn’t right and needs to be changed. I’d
be asking Addis and Laird why they aren’t doing more. I’d urge them to repeal the legislation
causing the problems. I’d be seeking out other jurisdictions that find the new regimen
problematical and counterproductive, form coalitions with them, raise hell together. To do
nothing suggests you really don’t care. If you work at it, the bad parts of this can be changed for
the better. Perhaps the whole mess, as seems to be happening in Oregon after similar state
over-reach, could be eliminated. Please make an effort.
Sincerely,
Richard Schmidt