> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# City officials consider new urban forestry commission
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/city-officials-consider-new-urban-forestry-commission/
- Published: 2008-07-25T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-25T00:23:58.000Z
- Author: Melody Hanatani
- Tags: Government & Politics, Downtown, #archive-import

*Commission would advise on tree issues*

City officials will begin exploring the possibility of forming an urban forestry commission, the advisory board sought by activists who launched a campaign last year to save a group of ficus trees in the downtown area.

The City Council on Wednesday directed its staff to report back with a suggested course of action for studying the feasibility of a tree commission, a process that could include an ad hoc task force to examine the issue.

“Treesavers see this as a real bridge-building endeavor between the community and the city,” Jerry Rubin, one of the founders of the Santa Monica Treesavers, said. “It’s not just going to be my point of view or the point of view of the Treesavers.”

Several other California cities have formed such commissions, including Davis.

The grassroots organization filed a request for the council to initiate the analysis in April, pursuing an advisory committee that would discuss matters related to the city’s tree canopy, including maintenance and removal policies.

The ficus trees grabbed headlines after the council last summer approved a controversial proposal to remove and transplant 54 of the mature shady specimens, a monetarily small aspect of an $8 million Downtown beautification plan that included sidewalk replacement and lighting improvements.

A lawsuit contesting the tree portion of the project went to the California Appellate Court, which ultimately rejected the Treesavers’ petition in mid-May. Two days later, City Hall removed the 23 structurally deficient ficuses that were condemned for posing a public safety risk. Another seven trees — shaved down from the original proposal of 31 — slated for relocation have yet to be moved.

Whether the canopy issues would be examined by a new commission or a branch of an existing body will be determined later. There are currently more than 20 boards and commissions that advise the council, which appoints the members.

“I think there are legitimate questions of what are the appropriate times to remove trees or not,” Councilmember Ken Genser said. “I think such a commission, or whatever body it might be, would be a good way for information to be examined.”

Councilmember Pam O’Connor suggested that several existing boards and commissions that also currently deal with trees be consulted, including the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board, which both deal with issues related to urban design, and the Landmarks Commission, which has historically designated a handful of trees.

“How do we integrate their expertise?” O’Connor said.

The lone vote in opposition to the staff study was Councilmember Bob Holbrook, who was one of six city officials who supported the beautification plan in its entirety.

Holbrook said he didn’t believe it would be the best use of resources, pointing out cases in the past when staff was asked to study an issue, only to return back to a council who voted against the recommendation.

The councilmember added that he didn’t see the need for an urban forestry commission.

“We don’t have a public works commission, we don’t have a roads maintenance commission,” Holbrook said. “We have a professional urban arborist who is well respected and he makes recommendations to the council and I think that’s enough.”

Jump hedline: Commission would advise on tree canopy issues.

Suggested pullquote: “I think there are legitimate questions of what are the appropriate times to remove trees or not.”

Councilmember Ken Genser

Lucida Grande 40, 4 0 400 0¬ 1 0 40, Minion 40, 4 0 231A 0¬ 1 0

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on July 25, 2008.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/072508.pdf?ref=smdp.com)