By MELODY HANATANI AND MICHAEL TITTINGER Daily Press Staff Writers
The trees are safe... for now.
Environmental activists out to stop City Hall from chopping down more than 50 ficus trees along Fourth and Second streets got a Los Angeles Superior Court judge on Friday to grant the doomed trees a stay of execution.
Judge John P. Shooks issued the restraining order against City Hall, effectively putting the brakes on a project that was slated to begin Monday morning.
A hearing is set for Oct. 26, at which time the court will consider several options — whether to impose a preliminary injunction, which in essence would serve the same purpose as the temporary restraining order prohibit City Hall from proceeding with the plan or allow project to commence, according to Tom Nitti, an attorney representing the Treesavers, an ad hoc group of residents that oppose the removal and transplantation of the 54 ficus trees.
727,“The judge felt that, in weighing everything... he thinks there should be further public discussion,” Nitti said Friday.
The basis for filing the temporary restraining order was that the Treesavers felt that City Hall violated the California Environmental Quality Act and failed to submit an environmental impact report (EIR).
The trees are part of an estimated $8.2 million streetscape improvement project that will improve sidewalks and enhance lighting on Second and Fourth streets, from Colorado Avenue to Wilshire Boulevard. The controversial tree removal and transplantation portion of the project account for about $600,000 of the total cost.
Still, the impact of the court ruling remained unclear Friday afternoon, with the Treesavers still preparing to stage an all-night vigil downtown, from Sunday night into the following morning, when crews were expected to begin cutting down those ficus trees deemed structurally unsound.
“The Treesavers will still be out there (despite the ruling), because they think this is still going to happen,” said J. Scott Smith, a participant in the activist group.
Kate Vernez, assistant to the city manager, told the Daily Press that the city planned to abide by the ruling, and that no trees would be felled Monday.
“While we were granted the right to remove dangerous trees, in the (interest) of caution, we’re going to leave the trees as they stand and make our case before the court (on Oct. 26).”
Lawsuit a long time coming
During Friday’s hearing, Assistant City Attorney Joseph Lawrence claimed that an EIR was conducted in 1996 and again in 1997. Nitti countered that the report in 1997 did not include a study on the trees, nor the effect of removing them from the downtown area.
Lawrence contends another report, conducted in October 2005, did clearly mention the trees.
441,“I pointed out that, in 2005, the city said that an EIR was not necessary and the judge picked up on the contradiction by the city,” Nitti said.
Lawrence is confident City Hall will prevail at the next court hearing because the regular judge that will preside then — David Yaffe — wasn’t present at the hearing on Friday. Yaffe’s regular substitute judge was not available either, he added.
The assistant city attorney pointed out that the time period in which a lawsuit can be filed claiming that CEQA was violated is 180 days from when the report was conducted.
“So the time between now and October 2005 is four times 180,” Lawrence said. “The lawsuit is way too late.”
The court order does not prohibit the city from removing those trees that are deemed a danger to the public by the community forester.
About 23 of the 54 ficus trees have been determined as structurally unsafe and were slated to be removed. The remainder will be transplanted to other locations in the city, including the Santa Monica Airport. Each empty ficus plot will be replaced with two gingko biloba trees.
The news of the temporary restraining order comes two days after the Planning Commission decided to recommend that the City Council hold the project and bring the matter back for another round of public discussion.
Under City Council rules, an issue that has already been acted on can return to the dais if a member who voted on the prevailing side requests it be brought back. The streetscape project, in its entirety, was approved 6-1 in August, with Councilmember Kevin McKeown being the lone vote of opposition.
Mayor Richard Bloom and Councilmember Bob Holbrook said they do not intend to bring the issue back before Council. Councilmember Herb Katz said he would bring the matter back if he thought it was necessary.
Councilmember Bobby Shriver was not available for comment and both Councilmembers Pam O’Connor and Ken Genser did not return a call seeking comment.
3F3,A regularly scheduled City Council meeting is planned for Tuesday.
“I appreciate the fact that they’re expressing their opinion,” Bloom said Friday. “I don’t think... it provides any new information or raises any new issues.”
Holbrook added that if the project was halted, it would cost taxpayers thousands of dollars in contractor’s fees that have already been expended.
One of the reasons why Holbrook supports the project is because it eliminates a safety hazard posed by the trees, whose overgrown roots have raised sidewalk panels.
“You can’t believe the number of people who have been hurt by displaced sidewalks in the city,” Holbrook said Friday. “We’ve had people with broken arms, broken legs and broken hips file lawsuits against the city and we’ve had to settle.”
Katz, a professed tree-lover, said he needs a few facts verified before he will consider bringing the matter back to Council, including a definite answer as to whether the trees are decayed and if they can be moved successfully.
487,“Before we jump on it and say ‘let’s bring it back,’ I want to see where we are,” Katz said on Friday.
On Wednesday, the tree discussion was placed on the Planning Commission agenda by commissioners Julie Lopez Dad and Jay Johnson.
The commission concluded that the issue warranted more discussion based on the level of public outcry.
Some councilmembers believe the Planning Commission acted out of their purview.
“They should not have brought it back,” Katz said.
But Johnson said on Friday that it’s the commission’s responsibility to provide a forum for residents clearly upset about a controversial project.
“Hopefully, we can continue to work for a so-called win-win solution,” Johnson said. “In particular, they can start on Monday to remove the clearly diseased, decayed and non-controversial trees... and it may give City Council time for Tuesday night (to reconsider) at least additional discussion.”
Jump hedline: Trees get a few more weeks.
Suggested pullquote: “We’ve had people with broken arms, broken legs and broken hips file lawsuits against the city and we’ve had to settle.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 6, 2007. Read the original PDF.