City Council denies Treesavers’ appeal
CITY HALL The Santa Monica Treesavers’ bid to landmark a series of Ficus trees in Downtown Santa Monica got shot down on Tuesday by the City Council, but the battle doesn’t appear to be over just yet.
While the Treesavers’ four-month long campaign to landmark 153 Ficus trees along Second and Fourth streets failed after the council upheld a ruling by the Landmarks Commission last month to deny the designation, the matter of a court battle dating back to October remains alive.
The Treesavers filed a restraining order against City Hall in early October, alleging it had violated provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act when it failed to submit an environmental impact report (EIR) outlining the effects of removing 54 Ficus trees as part of the $8.2 million streetscape improvement project.
Assistant City Attorney Joseph Lawrence said at the time that an EIR was conducted in 1996 and again in 1997.
A superior court judge issued the restraining order against City Hall just days before the project — which includes street lighting and sidewalk improvements — commenced in October, keeping the trees in place per court order while the rest of the project continued.
The restraining order has since expired but the court hearing was placed on hold because the trees were temporarily protected when the landmarks application was filed later in October. Talks of continuing the legal battle were revitalized last month and city officials agreed to leave the trees alone until the court hearing on Friday.
But the court hearing was postponed because a new judge was assigned to the case and requested more time. Meanwhile, city officials have said they intend to bring the trees back into the construction picture after Friday.
“The city will hold back until Friday,” Lawrence said on Wednesday.“After that, the city will proceed with the project.”
Tom Nitti, a Santa Monica attorney representing the Treesavers, said he plans to go down to Downtown Los Angeles today to request the judge to hear the case as was scheduled on Friday.
“This puts the Treesavers in a difficult place,” Nitti said on Wednesday. “We’ll see what the judge decides to do tomorrow.”
NO DESIGNATION After the Landmarks Commission denied the landmarks application in early January, the Treesavers filed an appeal, hoping to convince the City Council there was historic as well as cultural significance associated with the trees.
The council upheld the Landmarks Commission’s ruling and followed city staff recommendation that the appeal be denied because the trees as a whole didn’t meet any one of the six criteria required for designation.
The Treesavers argued that there is historical significance tied to the trees, which were planted thanks to the efforts of a city beautification committee during the 1960s. The committee was led by Jacqueline Girion and Clo Hoover, the first female mayor of Santa Monica. The planting of the trees symbolize both the women’s and the environmental movements in Santa Monica, the Treesavers argued.
More than 50 people spoke on the issue, pleading the council to grant landmarks status, many focusing on the ecological benefits of keeping the trees.
“Save the trees, save the trees, save the trees,” Catalyn Dana said. “Thank you.”
Many of the residents said the council could “right” its decision last summer when it approved the streetscape improvement project. Some even requested the council to reexamine the project.
“I believe very firmly that every single solitary member of (the) City Council truly wants to save these trees,” Andrea Drever said. “I don’t think it’s too late to save these trees.”
The way councilmembers voted for the landmarks appeal closely mirrored that of the vote on the streetscape project last summer when Councilmember Kevin McKeown was the lone vote in opposition to the removal of the trees. McKeown was the only councilmember that voted for the appeal. Councilmember Pam O’Connor was not present at the meeting Tuesday.
“Whether the council tonight decides these trees are landmarked or not, the underlying decisions to remove them can be reversed,” McKeown said, who added he would favor bringing the project back to the dais.
“We operate in a criteria-based world and the landmarks world has survived only because it strictly adheres to making decisions on criteria,” Mayor Pro Tem Richard Bloom said. “From my perspective, the application and appeal do not justify landmarking the trees.”
Mayor Herb Katz said he knew Hoover personally. She was the mayor who appointed him to his first board — the Architectural Review Board. The mayor also added that he was one of the proponents behind a campaign that saved and landmarked a fig tree at the Fairmont Miramar Hotel that was planted by one the city’s founding fathers.
“As far as tonight goes and landmark goes, (the commission) did what they did correctly,” Katz said.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on February 21, 2008. Read the original PDF.