D.B.H. =
Definite Bad Handling
Find Out Why:

According to DBH: “…Erythrina Caffra [the Coral Tree] is inappropriate for the parks and other public areas in Marina Del Rey…]

DBH responded to our original complaint about trees potentially being cleared for a planned Selfie Sign and highlighted this on their FAQ.  Their first attempt said no way was this happening but perhaps after some internal discussion DBH has now decided to tell the truth.  For info, DBH are now calling this planned structure the ‘Gateway Monument Sign’.

Quote from DBH: ‘Trees do not heal when they are cut’  Any tree 101 course indicates the opposite. Trees heal when they are pruned correctly but won’t if they are hacked.

DBH seems to allow improper pruning practices which they admit on their website are harmful to trees and increase the risk of branches suddenly falling.  Proper pruning practices would mitigate these risks.

The trees DBH want to cut down are NOT at risk of toppling and could live for many more years (up to 100 years more) with proper care and maintenance, as evidenced by our Independent ISA Certified Arborist Report.

DBH’s poor management of the Coral trees seem to have caused public safety issues, which DBH are now blaming on the Coral Tree as a species.

DBH say they plan to replant the trees 1:1 in the park, but what they don’t want you to know is that they don’t actually have to.  They just deleted this from their website then added it back, but in a modified form (so there must be a lot of internal debate right now) “If it is not possible to plant a tree in the former location, it will be planted somewhere else in the Marina”.  Do we want some new dwarf trees in Aubrey Park or perhaps around the lobby of the new Marriott?

The MDR Land Use Policy includes setting policy for the management of important biological resources. 

DBH has not complied with the ‘Health & Safety Issues and Emergencies’ provision of the LUP’s Tree Management Policy #23 & #34.  They have not responded for comment – perhaps DBH are still figuring out what to say about this oversight.

DBH’s contractors are required to follow ANSI A300 standards, but DBH have failed to enforce them.  So they are spending our money but not checking that the work we are paying for is being done correctly.

LA City & County Parks, Culver City and Santa Monica are guided by urban forestry standards which are made available to the public online.  DBH does not have any standards and relies on a ‘Boilerplate tree pruning scope of work document’ which is not available to the public.

DBH do not have a public tree removal notification system, as is standard for LA City and Santa Monica, nor have they commented on public requests for one.

LA Parks make their tree inventory available to the public online – DBH uses the same tree management software but keep their tree inventory private.  The reasons for this are not apparent.

Should DBH really be allowed to manage trees given the above?  DBH is not exactly showing an exemplary approach so should they remain in charge of such a valuable resource to the community?

DBH’s arborist recommended retaining one of the four Coral trees as it did not pose a health & safety issue.  Nevertheless DBH have decided to cut down this healthy tree because they are not prepared to follow standard tree protection measures.

In the current climate we all live in this is inexcusable.  We need all the carbon sequestration possible.  Trees should not be treated as a ‘design element’ in the plans of a public administrator, as they are living organisms that we all rely on.

It appears that DBH would prefer to manage concrete than Coral trees.  The public have protested and the initial reaction of DBH has been to prevaricate, and hope that the issue goes away.

There have been breaches of DBH owned process which may be hard for DBH to explain to the public.  Each new version of the DBH FAQ on the subject suggests unresolved internal debate as the details continue to fluctuate.

The situation is actually really serious to the community, who expect DBH to come to terms and engage with those that are closely observing their record and policy.  

At the moment the public fear that DBH will simply act and continue what has been proven to be a misguided action in felling the trees – at any time and without any notice, using Health & Safety as an excuse, although we have exposed this course of action to be fallacious and self-serving. 

We also expect those that have responsibility for the department (i.e. in the management chain) to halt the action, step in and help to address public concerns.

When public funds directed to maintaining such a valuable resource have missed the mark, the public deserves to be able to speak directly with the responsible administrators.