City Council Meeting: February 19, 2008

Agenda Item: 6-A

To: Mayor and City Council

From: Eileen P. Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development

Subject: Appeals of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Applications for the Ficus Trees Located on the East and West Sides of Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard.

Recommended Action

Staff recommends the City Council deny appeals 08APP-001 and 08APP-002 and uphold the Landmarks Commission’s decision to deny Landmark designation applications 07LM-008 and 07LM-009 based on the findings set forth by the Landmarks Commission in its action on January 14, 2008.

Executive Summary

This report supports the Landmarks Commission’s denial of the two Landmark designation applications filed for the 153 mature Ficus street trees on Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard. Separate Landmark applications, and subsequently separate appeals, were filed for the group of trees on Second Street and on Fourth Street. Since the nature of these improvements is similar, as a matter of efficiency, one staff report addresses the analysis for both pending appeals.

There are a total of 153 Ficus trees located in the public right-of-way on the east and west sides of Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue to the south and Wilshire Boulevard to the north. Each of the Ficus trees is planted in grade-level openings in the sidewalk at the edge of the curb and has high rounded canopies that shade the sidewalks. The planting of some Ficus trees on Fourth Street was initiated in 1961 through the efforts of a Chamber of Commerce beautification committee and completed by the City in January 1965. The Ficus trees on Second Street were planted by the City in February 1967. The subject trees are located within the City of Santa Monica’s downtown Central Business District area.

On January 14, 2008, a majority of the Landmarks Commission determined that the Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets do not meet any of the six Landmark designation criteria set forth in SMMC 9.36.100 and therefore denied the applications by a vote of 6-1.

This report presents analysis of the Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets in light of the six Landmark designation criteria set forth in the Landmarks Ordinance, highlights the Landmarks Commission’s action, and addresses the appeals filed by Jerry Rubin and Treesavers that assert the Landmarks Commission erred in its denial of the two Landmark applications because the subject trees “should have been designated as Landmarks”. The appellants’ appeals filed on January 24, 2008 (Attachment A) do not elaborate further on this statement.

In consideration of the full record to date, it is recommended that the Landmarks Commission’s denial of the two Landmark designation applications be upheld and the appeals, therefore, be denied. The recommendation presented in this staff report does not have any budgetary or fiscal impact.

Discussion

Background

Ficus microcarpa ‘nitida’

The Indian Laurel Fig is an evergreen tree which is a native of Asia, common in the central province of Ceylon, up to an elevation of 5,000 feet. It grows indigenously in the peninsula of India and in China, but has been widely planted in the tropics and was introduced into the United States for ornament in the early 1900s. The Laurel Fig has been popular as a street tree in warm weather states such as California and Florida for decades. The Indian laurel fig is taxonomically confusing in the horticulture industry because its scientific name has been changed so many times in the last 30 years. The Indian Laurel Fig, which has obtained the scientific name Ficus microcarpa ‘nitida’, is also commonly referred to simply as Ficus trees.

According to the City’s Community Forester, the Ficus microcarpa ‘nitida’ is a fast growing, broad-headed, evergreen tree that can reach a mature height of sixty feet or more with an equal spread of its canopy. It is a commonly grown tree found throughout California due to its hardiness, and adaptability to urban conditions. With age, the Ficus tree can develop a massive, spreading, dense canopy that will cast deep shade. The trunk of Ficus trees are smooth and light grey in color and can grow to three feet in diameter at the trunk flare supported by an extensive surface root system that does best in a 20 foot wide parkway.

Research indicates that the combination of the Ficus tree’s inherent canopy properties and the subsequent hybridized resilient characteristics made Ficus microcarpa ‘nitida’ the primary choice in Southern California for postwar urban redevelopment streetscapes.

Perspective view of Ficus Trees on Fourth Street Perspective View of Ficus Trees on Second Street

Ficus Trees in Santa Monica

Following World War II, a series of efforts were undertaken by the City to document existing street trees and plan for new plantings Citywide. Many of the City’s existing street trees were part of the postwar redevelopment of Santa Monica. The 1956 City of Santa Monica Master Plan included a five-year tree planting program that sought to infill trees on those streets that were not planted. The program was continued with the 1962 Public Works Master Plan that mapped existing rows of street trees and made recommendations for a planting schedule to add trees to the few remaining treeless streets.

Data from the City’s Public Landscape Division indicate that nearly all of the Ficus street trees in Santa Monica were planted during the 1950s and 1960s. Maps prepared from the City’s planting records show that Ficus street trees were not planted in one specific type of area or adjacent to certain building types; rather, the Ficus were planted in both residential and commercial areas, and were planted in great numbers on numerous streets throughout the City. According to the 2000 City of Santa Monica Community Forest Management Plan there were 3,184 Ficus trees in Santa Monica based on actual field surveys conducted for this document. Based on this data, the Ficus tree is the second most prevalent tree in Santa Monica, second in number only to the Mexican fan palm (3,887 identified).

Historic Resources Inventory Status

The Central Business District was originally identified as a potential historic district in 1983 during Phase I of the City’s Historic Resources Inventory survey. At that time, the boundaries of the potential Central Business District were identified as including buildings in the 100 - 700 blocks of Broadway, Colorado, Santa Monica, Wilshire, and the 1200-1500 blocks of Second, Fourth, and a small section of Fifth Street. In addition, contributors to the potential historic district were identified as those buildings constructed from 1875 to 1944.

During Phase III of the Citywide Historic Resources Inventory conducted between 1990 and 1993, additional properties were identified as contributing to the potential Central Business District. The potential historic district was surveyed again in 1994 following the 1994 Northridge earthquake, and again in 1998 as part of the Central Business District/Third Street Promenade Inventory update.

The subject Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets have not been identified during any of the previous surveys of the potential Central Business District as either individually eligible for designation or as a contributor to the district. In addition, the subject Ficus trees have not been previously identified during Inventory survey efforts as a potentially significant example of street trees or as a contributor to an historical landscape or streetscape.

Landmarks Commission Action

At the request of the applicants, the Landmarks Commission continued the initial public hearings scheduled for November 12, 2007 and December 10, 2007 in order to provide the applicants additional time to prepare information to present to the Landmarks Commission regarding the potential significance of the subject rows of Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets in downtown Santa Monica. Based on testimony provided by the applicants at the December 10th hearing, the Landmarks Commission also requested that staff provide additional information regarding potential cultural contexts identified during the course of the applicants’ testimony related to Environmentalism in Santa Monica and Feminism and the Women’s Liberation Movement in Santa Monica.

The Landmarks Commission held a public hearing for the two Landmark designation applications on January 14, 2008. The Commission heard extensive public testimony in support of the Landmark applications, and also heard additional information presented by the applicants that provided a narrative regarding the planting of nearly 60 trees in the broader downtown area as a result volunteer efforts initiated in 1961 from a Chamber of Commerce beautification committee led by local resident Mrs. Jacqueline Girion.

Following public testimony and Commission discussion, a majority of the Commission determined that the subject Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets in the downtown area do not meet any of the six Landmark designation criteria and denied both applications by a vote of 6-1. This majority of the Landmarks Commission concurred with the staff recommendation and based its denial of both Landmark applications, in part, on the following factors:

· While the Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets contribute to the streetscape and help to define the character of the downtown area, they are not individually significant and do not, as features of the streetscape, embody the history of the City’s Central Business District in way that warrants City Landmark designation.

· Within the context of the approximately 3,100 Ficus trees in the City, neither grouping of Ficus street trees or their associated linear canopies on Second and Fourth Streets possess characteristics of noteworthy or aesthetic interest or value sufficient to warrant City Landmark designation based on factors such as historic association, age, size, condition, or rarity that have been consistently applied in previous Landmark tree evaluations.

· The volunteer work of Mrs. Jacqueline Girion and the efforts Chamber of Commerce’s beautification committee during the 1960s redevelopment of the downtown area is important and also an example of a wide variety of volunteer efforts that are part of the larger tradition of activism that contributes to Santa Monica’s character. However, with respect to application of the Landmark designation criteria, the subject Ficus trees are not associated with a historic personage or correlated with important events in local, state, or national history in a way that distinguishes these trees from the over 3,100 other examples of Ficus in the City or from the other numerous street trees that were planted during the postwar years throughout the City.

· There are superior examples of Ficus trees that were planted in more appropriate grow spaces and have not been impacted by extensive root and canopy pruning in other parts of the City, specifically on Second Street north of Wilshire Boulevard and on Pearl Street between Fourteenth and Sixteenth Streets. In contrast to these better examples, the subject Ficus trees do not possess sufficient integrity to qualify as individual City Landmarks due to impacts resulting from extensive root and canopy pruning.

The full text of the Landmarks Commission’s Statement of Official Action is presented as Attachment B. The November 12, 2007 and January 14, 2008 staff reports and January 14, 2008 meeting minutes and are presented as Attachments C and D, respectively.

Appeal Summary

The appellants state that the Landmarks Commission erred in its decision to deny the Landmark designation applications. However, the appeal statement submitted by the appellants offered no evidence to suggest why the Landmarks Commission’s determination was inappropriate. The full text of the appeal is contained in Attachment A. Discussion and analysis of the applicants’ statement of significance contained in the Landmark Designation applications is presented in the Landmarks Commission staff reports contained in Attachment C.

The City Council, in its review of this appeal, must determine whether an improvement satisfies one or more of the following criteria set forth in SMMC Section 9.36.100 in order to be designated as a Landmark:

(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.

(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

(3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.

(4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.

(5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.

(6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.

Appeal Analysis

Based on the full record to date, including testimony and documentary evidence presented at Landmarks Commission public hearings, there is ample support for the Commission’s decision to deny both Landmark designation applications. Therefore, staff continues to recommend denial of these applications as detailed more fully in the staff reports provided for the Landmark Commission hearings (Attachment D). The following discussion presents summary analysis of the subject Ficus trees in light of the six Landmark designation criteria contained in SMMC 9.36.100 and summarizes the basis for staff’s determination.

Analysis of Designation Criteria

Criterion #1: It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City

The subject Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets are typical examples of the numerous street trees planted within the larger context of Santa Monica’s ongoing citywide tree planting program initiated in 1953 with the aforementioned Master Street Tree Planting Program. The rows of Ficus trees along Second and Fourth Streets were also planted in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Central Business District during the 1960s, which included a tree planting effort initiated in 1961 by Mrs. Jacqueline Girion and a Chamber of Commerce beautification committee and completed by the City in 1964-1967. In 1961-1962, Mrs. Girion was involved in obtaining the support of the City Council and local merchants for the planting of nearly 60 Ficus trees in the broader Central Business District.

The Chamber of Commerce beautification committee’s program to plant trees should be understood within the larger context of the business community and Chamber of Commerce’s efforts to economically revitalize the downtown area and make it more attractive to shoppers and visitors. The trees were planted as streetscape improvements in an area that had already attained its significance as the City’s oldest shopping destination and business district. Furthermore, the planting of street trees was only one component of a broader revitalization program that included other streetscape improvements as well as extensive remodeling and new construction of commercial buildings. As such, the subject Ficus trees do not individually exemplify, symbolize or manifest the history of the redevelopment of the Central Business District, which is primarily embodied in the redeveloped 3rd Street Mall and is also represented by other 1950s-1960s commercial redevelopment and infrastructure improvements in the broader downtown area.

It is also important to note that the group of 60 Ficus trees planted by the City in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce’s beautification committee was only one component of a much larger scale municipal tree planting effort underway throughout Santa Monica which commenced in 1953 and continues to this day. Research indicates that during the 1961-1962 fiscal year alone, in addition to the 60 Ficus planted downtown, the City also planted over 640 street trees in residential parkways in conjunction with the aforementioned Master Street Tree Planting Program.

Criterion #2: It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

To date, there have been five individual trees designated as City Landmarks. In order to provide some context about this relatively uncommon type of Landmark designation, the following is a brief description of some of the key characteristics that made each of these five trees significant as a Landmark landscape element:

1) Miramar Moreton Bay Fig Tree (101 Wilshire Boulevard)

· Planted in 1889 on the grounds of the estate of one of the founders of Santa Monica, Senator John P. Jones. Documented as fine botanical example of its species.

2) California Live Oak Tree (1443 Tenth Street)

· At the time of its designation in 1979, it was approximately 150 years old and was recognized as a large and rare example of its species in the City.

3) Eucalyptus Deanei Tree (522 24th Street)

· Documented as a rare species in California; determined to be the tallest Eucalyptus deanei in the United States, according to both Hastings & Heintz’ Trees of Santa Monica (1976) and Hodel’s Exceptional Trees of Los Angeles (1988); over 80 years old at the time of designation; planted by influential horticulturist Hugh Evans; associated with Santa Monica’s early horticultural history.

4) Deodar Cedar Tree (918 Fifth Street)

· Documented as over 100 years old at the time of designation; determined to be a large tree that has developed naturally therefore making it a unique and rare example of its species.

5) Eucalyptus Cornuta Tree (1407 Hill Street)

· Determined to be unique as a rare example of its species with co-dominant trunks measuring over 33 feet in circumference and over 50 feet in height; estimated to be over 90 years old and planted prior to the development of the City’s Sunset Park neighborhood in which it is located.

In contrast to the type of qualities attributed to the City’s five designated Landmark trees described above, an evaluation of the subject Ficus trees prepared by the City’s Community Forester and concurred with by the staff arborist at PCR Services Corporation indicates that these trees are not an excellent representation of their species and do not possess unique or noteworthy characteristics on an individual basis or as groups with their existing linear canopies. This is due in part to having undergone extensive root and canopy pruning over the years, a maintenance method required in part because of their placement in a confined grow space which has limited their ability to optimally develop.

Although there are examples of Ficus trees in good, moderate, and poor conditions on Second and Fourth Streets, none of the subject trees are an excellent example of their type or possess sufficient artistic or aesthetic interest in a manner that is similar to other Landmark designated trees described above.

In contrast, there are better examples of Ficus trees in the City that have been planted in groupings that have thrived in more appropriate grow spaces and consequently have not been subjected to the same type of pruning practices employed on the Second and Fourth Street Ficus trees. Excellent examples of such Ficus can be found on Second Street north of Wilshire Boulevard and on Pearl Street between Fourteenth and Sixteenth Streets.

Criterion #3: Identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history

With respect to the Landmark Criterion #3, staff concurs with the majority of the Landmarks Commission that found that Ms. Girion and the other beautification committee members’ community contributions through volunteerism were important and a representative example of the activities and contributions made by women of that generation. However, for the purposes of evaluating improvements for significance against the City’s Landmark designation criterion, the subject trees are not associated with an historic personage or with important events in local, state or national history. Specifically, collaboration between the City’s government and citizen committees, Chamber of Commerce committees, and fundraising organizations has consistently been, and continues to be, part of this community’s tradition of civic engagement. Moreover, there were other committees and individuals involved in the 1960s era redevelopment programs for the Central Business District and for other redevelopment areas in the City such as Ocean Park.

Criterion #4: It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.

Criterion #4 addresses the characteristics or attributes of a building and its architectural design. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to the evaluation of plant material or elements of a landscape such as street trees.

Criterion #5: It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect

With respect to Criterion #5, the plan for the 1960s era redevelopment of the Central Business District was produced by Victor Gruen, and the design of the 3rd Street mall was created by Charles Luckman. Both Victor Gruen and Charles Luckman were prominent master architects. However, based on current research, the individual rows of Ficus trees along Second and Fourth Streets are not related to the work or products of Gruen or Luckman.

Criterion #6: Unique location, singular physical characteristic, or established and familiar visual feature

The single rows of regularly spaced Ficus trees planted along Second and Fourth Streets are not readily distinguishable from other Ficus trees in the City that are presently abundant and ubiquitous in Santa Monica. Based on field surveys done for the 2000 City of Santa Monica Community Forest Management Plan, the entire grouping of Ficus on Second and Fourth Streets represent less than 5% of the total number of approximately 3,100 Ficus trees in the City. Furthermore, the subject Ficus trees are not planted in a unique location or configuration; they are rows of trees similar to those on numerous other streets in Santa Monica. Further, the subject trees do not possess singular physical characteristics of their type as there are better examples of Ficus street trees existing in the City. Finally, the subject Ficus street trees are not an established familiar visual feature in that application of this criterion has been consistently applied to important visual monuments in the City such as Santa Monica’s Civic Auditorium due to its grand scale and unique design and presence that commands attention as one travels south along Main Street.

Conclusion

In summary, within the context of the thousands of Ficus trees in the City, neither grouping of Ficus trees or their associated linear canopies on Second and Fourth Streets possess characteristics of noteworthy or aesthetic interest or value sufficient to warrant City Landmark designation based on factors such as historic association, age, size, condition, or rarity that have been consistently applied in previous Landmark tree evaluations. Furthermore, while the subject Ficus trees contribute to the pedestrian environment on Second and Fourth Streets as streetscape features, they do not individually embody or manifest the history of the 1960s downtown redevelopment efforts, are not associated with a historic personage, and are not correlated with a specific aspect of the City’s history in a way that distinguishes these Ficus trees from the over 3,100 other examples in the City.

Based on the whole of the record regarding the mature Ficus trees located on the east and west sides of Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard, staff recommends that the City Council deny the two appeals because neither grouping of trees, in whole or in part, or their associated linear canopies meet the designation criteria established in SMMC 9.36.100 and are therefore not eligible for City Landmark designation.

Alternatives

As an alternative to the staff recommendation, the Council may consider the following with respect to the pending appeals if supported by the full evidentiary record:

1. Uphold the appeals and reverse the Landmarks Commission’s decision to deny the two Landmark designation applications, thereby designating the Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets as City Landmarks based on revised findings.

Environmental Analysis

The project is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of the State Guidelines in that CEQA does not apply to projects that are disapproved.

Public Outreach

The public notice for this hearing was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press and mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property.

Financial Impacts & Budget Actions

The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budgetary or fiscal impact.

Prepared by:

Roxanne Tanemori, AICP, Associate Planner

Approved:

Forwarded to Council:

Eileen P. Fogarty

Director, Planning and Community Development

P. Lamont Ewell

City Manager

Attachments

A. Appellants’ Appeal Statements

B. Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action, January 14, 2008

C. Landmarks Commission Staff Reports and Hearing Submittals, November 12, 2007, December 10, 2007, and January 14, 2008

D. Landmarks Commission Minutes, January 14, 2008

ATTACHMENT A

Appellants’ Appeal Statements

Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the Libraries.

ATTACHMENT B

Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action

STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION

OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IN THE MATTER OF

THE DESIGNATION OF A LANDMARK

_____________________________________________________________________

DENIAL OF LANDMARK DESIGNATION LC-07-LM-008 and LC-07LM-009

OF THE FICUS TREES ON SECOND AND

FOURTH STREETS BETWEEN

COLORADO AVENUE AND WILSHIRE BOULEVARD

SECTION I. Two applications were filed by the Jerry Rubin and Treesavers on October 16, 2007 to designate as City Landmarks the Ficus trees located on the east and west sides of Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard. The Landmarks Commission, having held Public Hearings on January 14, 2008, hereby finds that the subject Ficus trees located on the east and west sides of Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard do not, in whole or in part, meet any of the six criteria for individual landmark designation enumerated in SMMC 9.36.100(a). Therefore, the Commission hereby denies both applications based on the following findings:

(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City.

Ficus trees are part of the broad history of tree planting in Santa Monica. Yet, based on existing available research and a site survey, the rows of Ficus street trees on Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard do not individually exemplify, symbolize, or manifest the City’s larger Master Street Tree Planting Program initiated beginning in 1956. Specifically, the subject Ficus trees are not individually eligible under this criterion as they are a highly common street tree type as the second most prevalent tree in Santa Monica and are a typical example of the thousands of Ficus street trees planted in Santa Monica during the postwar years. Based on field surveys done for the 2000 City of Santa Monica Community Forest Management Plan, the subject trees on both streets represent less than 5% of the total number of approximately 3,100 Ficus trees in the City. Furthermore, collectively, the subject trees are not good representative examples of their type to distinguish them from the thousands of Ficus planted throughout the City of Santa Monica in conjunction with the broader Master Street Tree Planting Program, a tree planting and maintenance effort that preceded the planting of the subject Ficus trees and continues today through implementation of the City of Santa Monica Community Forest Management Plan. This is due in part to having undergone extensive root and canopy pruning over the years, a maintenance method required in part because of their placement in a confined grow space which has limited their ability to optimally develop in a manner that promotes the stability of their root system and limbs, while minimizing adjacent hardscape displacement.

The rows of Ficus trees along Second and Fourth Streets were planted in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Central Business District during the 1960s, which included a tree planting effort for the Commercial Business District, initiated by the Chamber of Commerce beautification committee in 1961 and completed by the City in 1964-1967, as part of the Santa Monica’s Citywide Master Street Tree Planting Program. By that time, the Central Business District had already attained its significance as the City’s oldest shopping destination decades prior to the planting of the trees. Although the rows of Ficus street trees along Second and Fourth Streets were planted during the time period of the 1960s downtown redevelopment, these trees are features of the streetscape and do not individually exemplify, symbolize or manifest the history of the redevelopment of the Central Business District, which is primarily embodied in the redeveloped Third Street Mall and is also represented by a group of other 1950s-1960s commercial infill development and infrastructure improvements in the downtown area. The Chamber of Commerce beautification committee’s program to plant trees downtown was also part of a larger effort to encourage the beautification of the broader Central Business District which also included extensive remodeling of storefronts and new construction. Therefore, the subject trees are not eligible under this criterion.

(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value.

Although the rows of Ficus trees contribute to the streetscape and pedestrian experience on Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard, street trees of this type are too common in the City to meet this criterion. Characteristically, street trees throughout Santa Monica have generally been planted in uniform rows, with one species of tree per block and/or street. Based on field work conducted for the 2000 City of Santa Monica Community Forest Management Plan, there are approximately 28,000 street trees in the City, of which over 3,100 are Ficus trees. Furthermore, there are other better examples of Ficus trees in Santa Monica. Due to their location on busy commercial streets in close proximity to buildings as well as vehicular and pedestrian traffic, the root systems of the trees have been constricted by sidewalks and roadways. For functional and safety reasons, the trees have not achieved their aesthetic potential. This is due in part to having undergone extensive root and canopy pruning over the years, a maintenance method required in part because of their placement in a confined grow space which has limited their ability to optimally develop in a manner that promotes the stability of their root system and limbs, while minimizing adjacent hardscape displacement. Although the rows of trees were planted during the 1960s redevelopment of the Central Business District and are associated with broad history of tree planting in Santa Monica, the individual trees and tree rows are not aesthetically or artistically distinctive or noteworthy in comparison with other better examples of street trees of this type in Santa Monica found, in particular, north of Wilshire Boulevard and on Pearl Street. Therefore, the subject trees are not eligible under this criterion.

(3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.

The planting of approximately 60 of the existing 153 Ficus trees in the broader downtown area was initiated in part by the efforts of Jacqueline Girion and the Chamber of Commerce’s women’s beautification committee. Ms. Girion and the beautification committee were involved in obtaining the support of the City Council and local merchants for the planting of nearly 60 Ficus trees in the broader downtown area. While the volunteer work of Mrs. Girion and the efforts Chamber of Commerce’s beautification committee during the 1960s redevelopment of the downtown area are important and also an example of a wide variety of volunteer efforts that are part of the larger tradition of activism that contributes to Santa Monica’s character, with respect to application of the Landmark designation criteria, the subject Ficus trees do not meet this criterion because they are not associated with a historic personage or correlated with important events in local, state, or national history. In addition, there is no evidence of a connection between the Ficus trees on Second Street and Ms. Girion. Therefore, the subject trees are not eligible under this criterion.

The Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets are associated with the urban redevelopment projects of the 1950s and 1960s. Specifically, the Ficus trees were one of the predominant street tree types used in Santa Monica and throughout Southern California during this period. Based on field work conducted for the 2000 City of Santa Monica Community Forest Management Plan, there are over 3,100 Ficus trees in the City making it the second most prominent species of trees in Santa Monica. In addition, there are other better examples of Ficus street trees existing within the City. The Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets are not unique or rare examples of individual specimens or tree rows from the 1960s, they are not planted in a unique pattern or design, and do not embody distinct characteristics valuable in Modern historic landscape design. While the trees contribute to the character of the downtown streetscape, they do not give the streets an identity or unique characteristic that is particularly outstanding or distinctive in comparison to the other streets in Santa Monica where unified rows of trees are planted as part of the streetscapes in which they grow. Therefore, the subject trees are not eligible under this criterion.

(5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect.

The Ficus trees were planted during a period of redevelopment of Santa Monica's Central Business District. The plan for the redevelopment was produced by Victor Gruen, and the design of the 3rd Street mall was created by Charles Luckman. Both Victor Gruen and Charles Luckman were prominent master architects. However, based on current research, the individual rows of Ficus street trees along Second and Fourth Streets are not related to the work or products of Gruen or Luckman. Therefore, the subject Ficus street trees are not eligible under this criterion.

(6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.

Application of this criterion does not indicate that the subject Ficus street trees are an established familiar visual feature in that application of this criterion has been consistently applied to important visual monuments in the City such as Santa Monica’s Civic Auditorium due to its grand scale and unique design and presence that commands attention as one travels south along Main Street. The subject trees are comprised of single rows of regularly spaced Ficus trees planted along Second and Fourth Streets which are not readily distinguishable from other Ficus trees in the City that are presently abundant and ubiquitous in Santa Monica. Furthermore, the subject Ficus trees are not planted in a unique location or configuration; they are rows of trees such as those on numerous other streets in Santa Monica. Finally, the subject trees do they possess singular physical characteristics of their type as there are better examples of Ficus street trees existing in the City. Therefore, the subject trees are not eligible under this criterion.

SECTION II. I hereby certify that the above findings and determination accurately reflect the final determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica on January 14, 2008 as determined by the following vote:

AYES: Bach, Berley, Genser, Kaplan, Shari, Chair Fresco

NAYES: Lehrer

ABSTAIN: None

ABSENT: None

Respectfully Submitted

February 11, 2008

_____________________________

Nina Fresco, Chairperson

Attest:

____________________________

Roxanne Tanemori, AICP

Landmarks Commission Secretary

ATTACHMENT C

Landmarks Commission Staff Reports and Hearing Submittals,

November 12, 2007, December 10, 2007, and January 14, 2008

Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s office and the libraries.

ATTACHMENT D

Landmarks Commission Minutes, January 14, 2008


	MINUTES
	REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION
	Founded 1875 “Populus felix in urbe felici”

Monday, January 14, 2008

7:00 PM

City Council Chambers, Room 213

1685 Main Street, Santa Monica

CALL TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION: The meeting was called to order at 7:10 pm.

1. ROLL CALL: Present: Margaret Bach

John Berley

Roger Genser

Nina Fresco, Chairperson

Barbara Kaplan, Chair Pro Tempore

Ruthann Lehrer

Ruth Shari

Also Present: Kevin McKeown, City Council Liaison

Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney

Roxanne Tanemori, Commission Secretary

Susan Umeda, Staff Assistant III

2. REPORT FROM STAFF:

Ms. Tanemori presented an update on appeals that will be brought before the City Council.

Chair Fresco asked staff the status of the letter to the City Council regarding fees assessed for landmark designation. Ms. Tanemori responded that more specific recommendations were going to be discussed by the Commission in terms of narrowing down the focus and intent of some of the proposed recommendations identified last month.

3. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS:

Chair Fresco made suggestions to the applicant related to the addition of pennants or banners on the rig and potentially modifying the fence in order to improve the appearance of the school.

Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan asked Mr. Conant if the words “Santa Monica” could be added to the proposed signage. Mr. Conant explained that it is important for brand recognition of the Trapeze School New York continue to be established since their school represents a specific type and quality of expertise and staff and student training.

Commissioner Shari suggested that an overlay with the words “now in Santa Monica” could be printed on the sign.

Commissioner Bach made a motion to approve Certificate of Appropriateness 07CA-012 for 370 Santa Monica Pier with the condition that flags or pennants be added to the site. Commissioner Berley seconded the motion.

A roll call was held for the motion and was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Bach, Berley, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Lehrer, Shari

4. OLD BUSINESS:

8-A. Landmark Designation Application, 07LM-008, to determine whether the mature Ficus trees located on the east and west sides of Second Street between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard should be designated as a City Landmark. (Continued from the December 10, 2007 Meeting)

Commissioner Genser made a motion to combine 8A and 8B. Commissioner Shari seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.

The Commission made ex parte communication disclosures.

Ms. Tanemori presented the staff report. Staff recommended that the Commission deny Landmark Designation Applications 07LM-008 and 07LM-009 based upon the draft findings in the staff report.

Chair Fresco asked staff to advise the Commission of the protection City Landmark designated trees would receive and the process for handling diseased or unstable trees which are landmarked. Ms. Tanemori responded that a Certificate of Appropriateness would be required to remove any landmarked trees; however there is also a maintenance clause in the ordinance that addresses this issue. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum added that that the ordinance also has a provision to deal with unsafe or dangerous conditions that would also apply to designated trees.

Commissioner Bach stated that the nature of public comment should address the new information only.

Chair Fresco made a motion to give eight minutes each to the applicant and owner to address the Commission, two minutes to each member of the public to address the Commission, and three minutes for the applicant and owner to rebut public testimony. Commissioner Berley seconded the motion. The motion was approved by voice vote.

The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Jerry Rubin (applicant), Michele Modglin, Charles Fredericks, Kate Holt, Dan Jansenson, Shepard Girion, Woody Girion, Susan J. Hartley, Gillian Ware, Freida Dubin, Gloria Lambden, Lisa Bakewell, Richard Ortin, Joe Natoli, Cosmo Bua, Louise Steiner, Andrew Gledhill, Sal Greenberger, Liz Greenberger, Martin Greenberger, Jon Mann, Gene Burke, Chris Paine, Marissa Rubin, Kathy Knight, Rolfe Wyer, A.M. Mann, Joe Farris, Gordon Anderson (Assistant City Manager who represented the owner) and Walter Warriner, Community Forester & Public Landscape Superintendent at Community Maintenance, Community Forest and Public Landscape Operations.

All of the members of the public supported the landmark designation of the trees on 2^nd and 4^th Streets. Ms. Modglin, Mr. Fredericks, Ms. Holt and Mr. Jansenson presented a report on Jacqueline Girion, who was an active member of the Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce Beautification Committee. Messrs. Anderson and Rubin presented the rebuttal.

Chair Fresco stated that an important part of the history of Santa Monica is the forming groups to make individuals heard. She stated that all of these local groups have maverick leaders. She also explained that she knows many John Muir School PTA presidents that deserve to have commemorations and she also knows lots of people who send numerous emails with babies on their laps. She stated that such people are so common to Santa Monica’s nature and so many have taken up interesting and important causes that singling out this one seems inappropriate.

Commissioner Genser asked Community Forester Warriner about the City’s success rate in relocating trees. Community Forester Warriner responded that he has had a 95% success rate and added that he has relocated various species of trees with great success. Commissioner Genser noted that the roots of the trees have been cut to accommodate the sidewalks on Second and Fourth Streets. Commissioner Genser asked Community Forester Warriner if pruning the roots would impact the trees’ survival rates. Community Forester Warriner responded that the trees identified for relocation would probably survive the move to either another place in the downtown or another part of the City.

Commissioner Shari asked Community Forester Warriner to explain the rationale for choosing ginkgo trees, to address the issue of maintaining the trees, and to advise if the proposed tree type will create a public hazard. Community Forester Warriner responded that gingko trees were selected because these trees will develop a large canopy; the trees could grow in tight, confined quarters and will not displace the hardscape. Community Forester Warriner stated that the gingko trees will have a longer lifespan than Ficus trees. In regard to the maintenance of the trees, Community Forester Warriner stated that wet leaves from the gingko trees will not create a slip-and-fall hazard and that the ginko trees are easier to maintain than Ficus trees. He stated that Ficus trees drop berries throughout the year which has become a nuisance to many business owners. He noted that the gingko trees will produce their foliage in the spring, grow during the summer, and drop their leaves all at once.

City Council Liaison McKeown clarified that the Commission must determine whether the trees rise to landmark status. He stated that the City Council is the body to address the streetscape program or replacement trees.

Assistant City Manager Anderson reported that the Ficus tree at 1540 Second Street has been given a notice of determination and will need to be removed since the tree was deemed structurally unstable.

Commissioner Bach noted that trees, landscape, and amenities of streetscapes are important to the Santa Monica community. She also stated that this discussion served as a good reminder of the long tradition of community activism in Santa Monica and that there are many more individuals who could also be recognized for their efforts. However, she stated that these particular trees probably do not rise to landmark status as proposed in the applications.

Chair Pro Tempore Kaplan stated that the Morgan tree and the first tree that was planted in the downtown may have more significance than the groupings as a whole. She suggested that the Commission could commemorate these trees with a plaque. She stated that she could not support the landmark designation for all of the trees as a grouping because she is concerned about the structural integrity of some of the trees; however, two of the trees seem significant in terms of Santa Monica’s history. She also noted that the arborists’ reports provided conflicting information.

Commissioner Lehrer stated that some of the public testimony is compelling; in particular the presentation by the applicant provided significant amount information about the biography of Jacqueline Girion. Commissioner Lehrer noted that Ms. Girion was quite an extraordinary civic leader; through her leadership, Ms. Girion transformed Santa Monica’s landscape and was successful in building the kind of coalition in this City that gets things done. Commissioner Lehrer stated that Ms. Girion’s accomplishments represented a very high level of achievement not only with the trees but also her work with the schools. Commissioner Lehrer also explained that women accomplished things through volunteerism during those days. The Santa Monica Bay Woman’s Club cultivated that tradition in the past and it is still part of our tradition today. Although Ms. Girion is not traditionally defined as a historic personage, Commissioner Lehrer stated that Ms. Girion deserves recognition. Commissioner Lehrer noted that there are other people associated with the work that she did such as Clo Hoover and City Manager Bundy, whose surname is locally familiar. Commissioner Lehrer stated that the trees are part of the development history of the City. She also stated that when she did research for the Santa Monica Conservancy’s Downtown Walking Tours, the Conservancy looked at the formation of the Third Street Mall as a pedestrian mall, and the urban design plan which was part of an effort to attract businesses to downtown. Commissioner Lehrer noted that the City feared that businesses would leave Santa Monica when the freeway was completed; therefore, beautification efforts were made to revitalize business and make downtown a vibrant place. She stated that the tree planting program was borne out of this effort. Therefore, Commissioner Lehrer stated that this effort may meet Criterion #1.

Commissioner Lehrer also stated that the streetscape on Fourth Street is consistent; however, the streetscape on Second Street is more varied as there are younger trees which were in-kind replacements and consistent with the kind of policy that would be continued if the trees were to be designated. She also noted that there were gaps in the treescape; she noted that these areas look bare and odd. She also noted that a few locations had palm trees instead of Ficus trees. Commissioner Lehrer stated that she may be able to support a designation.

Commissioner Berley asked Commissioner Lehrer to expand upon her analysis for the trees meeting Criteria #1. Commissioner Lehrer responded that the staff report discussed some of the elements that support Criteria #1 but staff did not find that the associations rose to the level of significance for individual designation. For example, the downtown beautification project and revitalization were discussed in the staff report but the report stated that this movement, within the broader context of the history of downtown, did not rise to the level of significance. She stated that this is a judgment call and the Commission must decide whether it’s significant. Commissioner Lehrer also stated that based on Ms. Girion’s civic leadership in spearheading the tree planting program to beautify downtown Santa Monica and improve business, together with the other activities described by the applicants, she felt that Ms. Girion’s curriculum vitae was impressive. Commissioner Lehrer also noted that she did not know if Ms. Girion’s curriculum vitae rose to the level of a historic personage but she thought it might.

Commissioner Berley stated that trees are important character-defining features in districts since vegetation is one of the most apparent and visual differences between neighborhoods. Commissioner Berley stated that the applicant did a commendable job in presenting the history of the development of the downtown area and the downtown City beautification efforts. Commissioner Berley stated that these trees are an important character-defining feature of the downtown business district; however, they do not rise to a level of individual significance to be designated as a City Landmark. Commissioner Berley stated that he could not support designation in part because there are trees that were planted in the broader area of downtown and throughout the City and should more tree replacements be proposed in the future on other downtown streets such as Fifth or Sixth Streets or Colorado Boulevard, Landmark applications could be filed for those trees as well. He stated that if sufficient information was available to justify the individual significance of the trees downtown, he would not hesitate to recommend their designation. However, the trees on Second and Fourth Streets are a part of the streetscape and they do not meet the criteria for Landmark designation.

Commissioner Genser noted that about a year ago, staff presented a courtesy review to the Landmarks Commission, Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board regarding upgrading Second and Fourth Streets. He stated that the Commission at that time expressed concern about the change in the character of the streets as defined by the proposed changes; therefore, some changes to the project were made. He stated that a letter from the City Manager was printed in the Santa Monica Daily Press stating that this issue was brought before the Landmarks Commission and that the changes were approved; Commissioner Genser reported that the Landmarks Commission was never given that formal authority to approve this project, in addition the Commission expressed some concern about certain aspects of the project. Commissioner Genser stated that he wrote a letter to the Santa Monica Daily Press explaining that the Commission had expressed its concern about the removal of the trees and other aspects of the project because it would impact the historic look of the streets. Commissioner Genser noted that he had phrased the words in his letter carefully because he did not say the project could affect the potential landmark status of the trees, rather the historic character of the street. Commissioner Genser stated that he is unable to make the leap from acknowledging that the trees add to the historic character of the street to individual landmark status.

Commissioner Genser stated that he spent a great deal of time walking on Second and Fourth Streets and important to his analysis of the issue was the fact that there are beautiful, fully-developed, and less-pruned Ficus trees north of Wilshire Boulevard on Second Street in addition to the almost 3,000 other Ficus trees in the City. These trees on Second Street north of Wilshire are fully-developed with full canopies because they are not restrained by the confines of the downtown business district. Commissioner Genser stated that there is a striking difference between the trees downtown on 2^nd and 4^th Streets and these more fully-developed examples north of Wilshire Boulevard.

Commissioner Genser also stated that there has been a lot of testimony about Jacqueline Girion, which he found somewhat compelling and interesting; however, Ms. Girion may not be a historic figure, although she is important. He stated the City Council would be the body to decide whether or not to move the trees and that the Commission’s mission is to determine whether these trees are City Landmarks; however, he cannot make that leap to find them to be Landmarks. He also explained that the public testimony mentioned two trees, the Morgan tree and the first tree planted as part of the downtown beautification effort. He felt that this may be an instance where a specific tree may have some significance. Commissioner Genser also stated that he has been on the Commission for seven years and since that time, the Commission has landmarked only three trees because there was a special threshold for these trees. These trees had a groundswell of public support and were individually important. He stated that he values everyone’s involvement and also acknowledged and that this topic has been a highly emotional issue before the community and that the interest shows that there is clearly support for trees in this City. Commissioner Genser concluded that as a group, the trees on Second and Fourth Streets in the downtown do not rise to Landmark status and even though they are important, findings cannot be made in support of Landmark designation.

Chair Fresco stated that residences of community leaders and activists from earlier eras have come before the Commission; the Commission determined that these structures did not rise to Landmark status based on an association with a locally significant individual. She stated that she would love to see a plaque in Palisades Park for the community to commemorate the work of Ms. Girion. Chair Fresco stated that many local groups and efforts have been incorporated to the community such as ‘save inspiration point’ or ‘save the pier’; however, while the trees were the work of a particular woman with a particularly high level of energy, they are not representative and do not tell that story.

Chair Fresco also explained that when she considered the statement of significance for the downtown and thought about the framework for the significance of the City’s downtown. She stated it is all of the buildings in the downtown identified on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory that tell that story; the trees are a separate matter and are a different chapter of that story. She also stated that a lot of important information was provided through public testimony but she cannot support the Landmark designation since the trees do not rise to that level of significance. However, she noted that some of the information brought up during this meeting should have some sort of recognition.

Commissioner Genser stated that the Commission reviews the integrity of a building and how much of the original architecture is remaining during a normal designation evaluation process. He again stated the trees on Second and Fourth Streets have been significantly pruned or altered and thus their integrity has been lost when compared to other Ficus trees in the City, in particular the better examples of Ficus north of Wilshire Boulevard.

Commissioner Berley made a motion to deny Landmark Designation Applications 07LM-008 and 07LM-009 for landmark status of the Indian Laurel [Ficus] trees along Second and Fourth Streets. Commissioner Genser seconded the motion.

Commissioner Bach thanked the community for attending this meeting and sharing a lot extraordinary information regarding the depth of feeling and importance and commitment to the tree canopy and also for highlighting the tradition of activism in Santa Monica.

A roll call was held for the motion and was approved by the following vote:

AYES: Bach, Berley, Fresco, Genser, Kaplan, Shari

NAYS: Lehrer

8-B. Landmark Designation Application, 07LM-009, to determine whether the mature Ficus trees located on the east and west sides of Fourth Street between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard should be designated as a City Landmark. (Continued from the December 10, 2007 Meeting)

(May be considered with Item 8-A)

This item was included in the discussion for Item #8-A.

8-C. Certificate of Appropriateness Application 07CA-004, 2617 ½ Third Street, for design approval of an addition to a non-contributing accessory structure in the rear of the property located within the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District. (Continued from the November 12, 2007 Meeting)

Commissioner Genser recused himself as he owns property within 500 feet of 2617 ½ Third Street. Commissioner Lehrer recused herself as she had written a letter to the Commission which expressed her views on this item which constituted prejudgment of this matter.

The Commission made ex parte communication disclosures.

Ms. Tanemori presented that staff report. Staff recommended the approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness 07CA-004 based upon the draft findings in the staff report.

Commissioner Bach asked staff to explain why staff used the guidelines for additions as opposed to the guidelines for new construction. Ms. Tanemori explained that the proposal is for an addition to the existing structure in the rear yard and the guidelines state that “there are two different approaches to the problem of inserting a new structure in a historic district.

Landmarks Commission Action

ABSTAIN: None

Respectfully Submitted

MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING OF THE

LANDMARKS COMMISSION