By BILL BAUER, who is practically a landmark himself,
THE SECOND AND FOURTH STREETS ficus trees are before the Landmarks Commission again, tonight. Santa Monica Treesavers, a local environmental group, wants to landmark them to prevent the city from removing or relocating 54 of the “Green Gems”in the downtown Bayside area.
Originally, the city planned to remove half the ficus trees and a number of palms on Second and Fourth streets between Wilshire Boulevard and Broadway. The current plan is to cut down 23 “structurally compromised” ficus and relocate some 30 other trees to fill in the holes and even out the treescape. Although the latest plan will make for an attractive, healthy tree canopy downtown, a few vocal malcontents are still not satisfied and vowed to fight “to save all the trees.”
I have no idea what Treesaver’s leadership can honestly present to justify landmarking these trees. The city’s landmark criteria says that a landmark must “exemplify, symbolize or manifests elements of cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history and exhibit aesthetic or artistic value or noteworthy interest." These trees don’t.
The criteria also says the potential landmark should be “identified with historical personages or important local, state or national events; embody distinguished architectural characteristics or a rare example of architectural design, detail or historical type; be a significant example of the work of a notable builder, architect or designer and have a unique location, singular historic characteristic” They don’t meet this criteria, either.
There may be questions about “an established and visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the city,” but with so many ficus-lined streets in town and with most of the other trees in the Bayside area remaining untouched, this “visual feature" is as common as dirt.
Sadly, some smart, well-intentioned environmentalists are being discredited by being involved in this ridiculous charade. With so many individuals speaking for the Treesavers and issuing pronouncements which are misleading, inaccurate or, at best, contradictory, a valid movement is already being labeled “crackpot.”
Two of the movement’s most vocal individuals have boasted about plans to run for City Council, next year. One of the Treesaver’s founders has even been telling other people not to address City Council about the ficus because they’re “his” issue — proving this hyped-up controversy is strictly about someone’s self-promotion. Prolonging this foolishness accomplishes nothing except to make everyone involved look silly.
Tomorrow night, City Council will review design updates for the Civic Center “Village" — the 325 unit apartment/condo complex with 165 units of luxury condominiums and 160 units of “affordable” apartments crammed into a 3.3 acre site across from City Hall. The “Village” has been the subject of much controversy concerning height and density. A number of concerned citizens feel this could be “the new look” for Santa Monica as City Hall is on the verge of approving a number of other developments of similar size and scale.
Curbed.LA, a development/real estate blog posted last week, "A Curbed reader e-mails us... The good news for those of us who hate looking at poverty — the affordable units will be hidden behind the taller, better looking market rate units. As the reader notes: ‘The affordable housing is located back behind the condos, so you wouldn’t see them from Ocean Avenue or Olympic Drive. There will be 160 affordable units, meaning 160 families will be living in this ugly segregated area.’ The much nicer, market rate units are being designed by Moore Roble Yudell Architects of Santa Monica.”
Bottom line: The whole thing is too big, too ugly and a blight on the landscape, but City Hall is committed to it. So, after tinkering and nit-picking design details, this will still go forward. Unfortunately.
More often than not, I’m critical of City Council’s actions. However, I tip my hat to them for upholding landmark status on the courtyard apartment complex at 423-431 Ocean Ave. Designed by noted Santa Monica architect, William E. Foster, in the Colonial American Revival style, it’s a classic, period, Santa Monica apartment complex.
My hat is also off to the City Council for taking steps to protect elderly and disabled tenants from eviction at the Village Trailer Park, 2930 Colorado Ave. The owner of the site wants to develop 109-unit rent-controlled, affordable, single room apartments, 240 market-rate condominiums plus creative studio/office space and “neighborhood-serving” retail on the 3.85 acre site with parking for more than 500 cars.
However, the city holds the upper hand. The property is zoned for mobile home use, therefore the developer must get a change of zoning so he can build. By refusing the zoning change and buying the developer out, City Hall could kill two birds with one stone: Eliminate an overly large commercial development and maintain desperately needed, low income, mobile home housing.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on December 10, 2007. Read the original PDF.