Cosmo Bua's Message

Again the City of Santa Monica is going to kill dozens of healthy trees merely for "design purposes." These are New Zealand Christmas (Metrosideros excelsus) trees. All of them, on Colorado Bl on both sides of the street from Ocean Av to Lincoln Bl, are to be torn out, hacked up, and thrown away. This so that replacements of a preferred species, Lemon Scented Gum (Eucalyptus citriodora) trees, can be planted in the holes left behind. As you read, this process has begun with the first seven trees, between 6th and 7th Streets on Colorado Bl, already red-tagged for removal.

These New Zealand Christmas trees will not grow too large for the spaces they are living in. They are not disturbing the sidewalks. Any future sidewalk problems, if any, will be minimal. They present no hazard. Several of them are quite young and were recently planted. They require almost no care at all. They are very well suited to our climate. All of them are healthy and thriving. They are evergreens.

There is easily thirty-five feet between each of these trees, and in some cases more than half a block to a block. One or more Eucalyptus trees can certainly be planted between each of these New Zealand Christmas trees, which would immediately result in both sides of Colorado Bl having been lined with Eucalyptus trees, as desired. Rather than killing the trees that are thriving there now, the City can replace them one by one over the years with the preferred species as they perish on their own. This will create generations of Eucalyptus- by spacing their ages- which is one of the main goals in managing our urban forest. In fact, to remove trees, Santa Monica's Forestry Management Plan (2000) requires that the following criteria be met: the tree must be dead; be expected to die within one year; be diseased with a strong potential to spread the pathogen; be hazardous; or be unable to support itself due to extensive root damage.

This is not "sustainable" behavior. Santa Monica can spend the same money and get twice the trees !
We must at least follow our own existing rules, as well as come up with better ways to care for trees in our city. What is Santa Monica teaching our children about the value of life when we just kill and throw away defenseless living beings as we tire of them with forever changing fashion? Why are we allowing all this thoughtless violence? Our world is already suffering global warming. These trees are alive. We should not be destroying them just because we feel like it.


PLEASE HELP SAVE THESE TREES - COMMUNICATE WITH:

Santa Monica City Council... council@smgov.net 310-458-8201
Mayor Ken Genser city@genser.org
Mayor Pro Tempore Pam O'Connor pam.oconnor@smgov.net
Councilperson Richard Bloom richard.bloom@smgov.net
Councilperson Robert Holbrook robert.holbrook@smgov.net
Councilperson Kevin Mckeown kevin@mckeown.net
Councilperson Bobby Shriver bobby.shriver@smgov.net
City Manager P. Lamont Ewell manager@smgov.net
Director Community and Cultural Services ccs@smgov.net 310-458-8310
SM Open Space Management Division Callie Hurd, Manager 310-458-8573
SM City Planning Arborist
310-458-8974
Community Forester Walt Warriner community.forest@smgov.net 458-8974
Environmental & Public Works Mgmt public.works@smgov.net 458-8221
Enviromental Programs Division environment@smgov.net 458-2213
Santa Monica Daily Press editor@smdp.com
SM Sustainable Works
310-458-8716
SM College/Center for Environmental & Urban Studies 310-434-3909
Sustainable City Plan (Environmental Programs Div) www.smepd.org 458-2227
SM Chamber of Commerce Environmental Affairs 310-393-9825
Natural Resources Defence Council ??????????
Environment Now www.environmentnow.org
310-829-5568
Heal the Bay www.healthebay.org 800-healbay
Coalition for Clean Air
www.coaltionforcleanair.org 310-441-1544
CA Coastkeeper Alliance www.cacoastkeeper.org 310-829-1229
SM Bay Audubon Society www.smbas.cjb.net
Santa MOnica BayKeeper www.smbaykeeper.org
Sierra Club www.angeleschapter.org
TreePeople www.treepeople.org
818-753-4600
Surfrider Foundation www.surfrider.org
The Argonaut carolhector@aol.com
LA Weekly submissions@laweekly.com
Santa Monica Mirror t.j.montemer@smmirror.com
LA Times letters@latimes.com

Inspiring Dignity

Susan writes:

In looking at the photos from yesterday and talking with people, I want to clarify that Jerry did not actually enter the restricted area yesterday of that particular tree before his arrest. He had been chained to another tree near Benihana's. He came to the second tree near Michael's after the workers left the first tree and started hacking the second tree. He was near its fenced area as we all were, and actually was being interviewed and filmed by KCAL-9 (and 2) and the next thing I knew, he was arrested and being lead away. Leading up to the arrest and after the arrest, Jerry was insistent and adamant that the trees needed to be saved but very polite with everyone. His dignity throughout yesterday's events and today in court were inspiring.
Susan

Living up to one's word

photo: Gillian Ware

Susan writes:

Jerry chained himself to a ficus tree this morning which was in the process of being dug up and removed. Cosmo, Shari, Jill, Dan, Alice, Richard and I (sorry if I missed anyone) were there for backup and support. Shari even entered the restricted area and stood near the tree. Jerry wouldn't leave. The city backed off and put the dirt they had removed back.Then they went to the next tree slated for removal and started chainsawing its roots and digging. Jerry came from the first tree and kept trying to get a meeting with Kate Vernez of Lamont's office. He wanted them to stop removing the trees while everyone could talk. KCAL 9 came. Jerry entered the restricted area around the tree and was arrested. KCAL 9 (and 2) filmed the scene, us, and an interview of Jerry and then his arrest. This happened between 11:00 and noon in front of Michael's on 4th. Jerry's brother and sister-in-law were going to bail him out. No word yet on his status or whereabouts. Hats off to Jerry for doing what he said he'd do. Thumbs down for the city that wastes so much money killing healthy trees and transplanting other healthy trees. Remember, the only reason the trees are being transplanted (and subjected to a slow death) is for a design change. The city admitted this! At least $11,000 per tree to boot.

Sherry writes:

Jerry was very, very effective today. He argued the Treesavers case and, as Susan said, he did what he said he would do. He brought more public attention to the matter and, in the face of an upcoming election, I can't help but think this will cause some concern for City Council candidates. It was very sad to see the trees' roots being cut -- so obvious that they will never survive any relocation. Getting arrested, while acting in a peaceful
manner, was a powerful statement. Thank you Jerry.

Marissa writes:

Treesavers...... you have been informed of the ordeal on 4th street regarding our ficus trees and Jerry's attempt to prevent their removal.

Let's bring positive energy to bear on creating a Tree Commission so that intelligent and caring decisions can, in future times, be made about the maintenance and expansion of our urban forest.

It was good to see the support Jerry received from the few fellow Treesavers that were aware of the situation today.

And Most of All.......THANK YOU JERRY RUBIN FOR YOUR UNSWERVING FOCUS ON THE TREES...AND TO SEIZING EVERY MOMENT AND MAKING THE MOST OF IT........in all aspects of the struggle!

photo: Gillian Ware

Treesavers 1-Year Anniversary

Jerry Rubin sends us this missive:

SANTA MONICA TREESAVERS TO HOLD A PUBLIC
ONE-YEAR ANNIVERSARY RECOMMITMENT GATHERING ON SEPTEMBER 12.

ENVIRONMENTAL SPEAKERS; TREE-SHAPED CUPCAKE DISPLAY; AND “SAVE OUR TREES” MARCH
TO HIGHLIGHT PUBLIC ANNIVERSARY EVENT

Santa Monica, CA — Santa Monica Treesavers will hold a free-to-the public One-Year Anniversary Recommitment Gathering on Friday, September 12, 2008, marking the day when the group formed last year to try to save more than 50 mature ficus trees along Second and Fourth Street in the Santa Monica Downtown District. The event will take place 6:00 PM at the Promenade Playhouse and Conservatory located at 1404 Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica.

The anniversary event will feature environmental speakers and a highlighted Tree-Shaped Cupcake Display set up on the Playhouse stage. Then, at 7:00 PM, Treesavers will begin a “Save Our Trees” March, starting from the Playhouse and proceeding north on the Promenade to Wilshire Boulevard then east to Fourth Street and south to Fourth and Broadway, ending where Treesavers held their first public gathering a year ago. Treesavers is calling on the City of Santa Monica to reconsider their plans to relocate seven mature healthy ficus trees from the eastside of Fourth Street. Treesavers is also calling on the City to create a Santa Monica Urban Forestry Commission.

Anniversary cupcakes for the tree-shaped display are being provided courtesy of Yummy Cupcakes Santa Monica Bakeshop. The venue is courtesy of Promenade Playhouse and Conservatory.

For further information call Treesavers at (310) 399-1000.

Candidate Forum Announced

Treesavers will hold a forum for City Council candidates on tree-related issues Thursday.

The event, moderated by former mayor Michael Feinstein, will take place from 6:30 to 9 p.m. at the Ken Edwards Center, 1527 Fourth Street, in Santa Monica.

Candidates will field questions from both the public and from each other.

Treesavers, which led a highly-publicized fight to save Downtown ficus trees is currently lobbying the City Council to form a Tree Commission.

The forum is free and there is free parking on site.


Here are a few links of some interest on this blog:

You won't change MY mind
A day that will live long in the memory of our citizens
People Notice when Trees are Cut Down
Petitioners Speak Out
Council Member Holbrook Opines
A High Priority Goal
Talking the talk
The element of shock
Not a good day?
Trees: Residents YES, City NO
City Council Rejects Treesavers Appeal
A Moment of Truthiness
A Biologist's Letter to City Council

Council Member Holbrook Opines

From today's Santa Monica Daily Press:

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."

Thousands of people signed petitions to save these trees, against stubborn, adamant opposition by the majority of City Council members--but for Mr. Holbrook the issue doesn't rise above the level of road maintenance.

Tree Commission Update

Jerry Rubin:

TREESAVERS " TREE COMMISSION" UPDATE-

By a Santa Monica City Council vote of 4 to 1 at last nights' Council meeting, a City process has begun that hopefully will lead to the establishment of an advisory Santa Monica Urban Forestry Commission.

The vote was to refer the issue to City Staff to recommend a process-possibly appointing a task force- to evaluate and study the best structure and scope that would serve Santa Monica the best.

The vote on the Treesavers agenda item request was-
Ken Genser ( who made the motion) YES
Richard Bloom YES
Pam O'Connor YES
Kevin McKeown YES
Robert Holbrook NO
Mayor Herb Katz and Bobby Shriver were not present.

This could be a very positive and cooperative City and community endeavor, But, let's keep gathering community support as this hopefully inclusive process begins.

Treesavers Candidates Forum

Jerry Rubin writes:

TO EVERYONE WHO THINKS OUR TREES
SHOULD BE A MAJOR ISSUE IN OUR
UPCOMING SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
ELECTION ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4 :

Treesavers will be holding a major, free-to-the-public evening of "tree speech" for all official Santa Monica City Council candidates---

"Santa Monica City Council Candidates Forum On Our Trees and Tree- Related Issues"
Thursday, August 14, 2008
6:30 PM until 9:00 PM
Ken Edwards Center Rooms 100-A and 100-B
1527 Fourth Street,Santa Monica
Free-to-the-public
Free on-site parking

Each candidate will have equal time for:
- opening statement
- closing statement
- questions from the public
- questions from other candidates

Candidate filing begins July 14 and ends August 8. Good luck to all candidates, including incumbents and new Council hopefuls.

There are many important issues and certainly our trees are a major one of deep community concern.

More details will be forthcoming but start networking this information now.

This will likely be the first of the candidate forums. We hope City TV or The League of Women Voters or maybe even a local paper will consider starting a Candidate Forum Master Calendar for coordination purposes.

Thank you and don't forget to register to vote!

Tree Commission update

Jerry writes:

After a very long Santa Monica City Council meeting on June 25, the Council postponed a number of agenda items including the Treesavers request for a Tree Commission and reset the date for a special City Council meeting on July 23d, at City Hall located at 1685 Main Street.

Positive, passionate and polite phone calls supporting the establishment of a Santa Monica Tree Commission should be sent in an ongoing manner,starting today.
City Council- 310-458-8201 council@smgov.net
City Manager- 310-458-8301 manager@smgov.net

More Information - Call Treesavers at 310-399-1000

Tree Commission Desirable

Jerry writes:

After a very long Santa Monica City Council meeting on June 25, the Council postponed a number of agenda items including the Treesavers request for a Tree Commission and reset the date for the July 8 City Council meeting at City Hall located at 1685 Main Street.

Positive,passionate and polite phone calls supporting the establishment of a Santa Monica Tree Commission should be sent in an ongoing manner,starting today.
City Council- 310-458-8201 council@smgov.net
City Manager- 310-458-8301 manager@smgov.net

More Information - Call Treesavers at 310-399-1000

"...a high priority goal..."

The Friends of Sunset Park Board of Directors to the Santa Monica City Council:

June 19, 2008

City Council
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401

RE: Urban Forest
Dear Mayor Katz and Honorable Council members,

Trees can have a huge impact on the quality of life in a city. Although Santa Monica has a comprehensive urban forestry program, and prides itself on its program, we believe that we can do an even better job. Although a number of residential streets in Sunset Park are lined with large, mature ficus trees that were planted in the 1960s (meeting over the streets to create what some children refer to as the "tree tunnels"), many of our other street trees remain small both in height and canopy, even when they grow to maturity.

The latest Sustainable City Progress Report (11/07) rates the percentage of canopy cover in Sunset Park at 30% whereas, for comparison's sake, portions of North of Montana rate as high as 75%.

On our 2005 FOSP neighborhood questionnaire, we asked whether residents favored replacement trees with larger canopies. The response overwhelmingly (72%) favored such a change to our urban forestry design.

Although a more ambitious street tree/larger canopy program will be more costly, we believe that the environmental and aesthetic benefits will far outweigh the additional costs. Benefits include shade and protection from the sun, absorption of CO2, oxygen production through photosynthesis, filtration of polluted air and water, retention of storm water runoff, providing wildlife habitat, reduction of the heat island effect, the beauty of a street tree canopy, and increased property values.

An enhanced street tree program should include:
● Making the maximization of each tree's canopy a primary objective of the street tree program.

● Reexamining tree selection in the street tree plan, both species and the size of specimens planted, as well as size of canopy at maturation.

● Making removal of trees a last resort.

● Establishing regular ongoing community education programs regarding our urban forest, emphasizing street tree care and maintenance.

● Reexamining our policies for root pruning and sidewalk maintenance with an eye to minimizing, if not eliminating, harmful root pruning.

● Considering expansion of parkway widths to preserve existing trees and to allow planting of larger trees.

We believe that in order to achieve these goals the community needs greater participation in policy-making and decision-making, as well as oversight of our urban forest. To that end we strongly believe that a Tree Commission or similar body is necessary.

We believe Santa Monica should set as a high priority goal having the best urban forest, having the largest tree canopy, and having the premier street tree program in California.


Respectfully,

Board of Directors
Friends of Sunset Park

Cc: Lamont Ewell, City Manager
Elaine Polacheck, Open Space Manager
Walter Warriner, Community Forest & Public Landscape Superintendent
Johnny Aguila, Community Forest Supervisor

Remembering the Trees

Treesavers will hold a public memorial service on Friday, June 13, 2008 to mark the destruction one month earlier of 23 mature, healthy Ficus trees along Second and Fourth Streets in the Santa Monica Downtown District.
[please click on image below to download the press release]

Summary Judgment

From Wikipedia:

Summary judgment is a legal term which means that a court has made a determination (a judgment) without a full trial.

please click on photo for larger version

This photo provides a concise summary of the issue: a dead tree, lying in the street in front of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

The Cost to the Taxpayers

CBS/Channel 2 covers the story.

In the video below, check out Ms. Kate Vernez' statement at 0:59: "the cost to the taxpayers was $100,000, not including legal costs." Now, it is important to understand that the lawsuit against the city--and the delays that resulted from it--was filed because the city called the trees "facilities" in the Environmental Impact Report for this project, thus bypassing important legal requirements in the process. There would have been no lawsuit had the EIR been properly prepared and filed, and the trees identified correctly. The project may well have had a different shape, and many more trees saved, had the city identified the trees as trees, and not as "facilities" in the EIR. Note also that the Court did not exonerate the City in this matter, it simply said that it was too late for a lawsuit, due to the expiration of the Statute of Limitations.

We agree that the $100,000 loss--if true--is a terrible waste. Has the City Manager identified the staff members responsible for calling trees "facilities" in the EIR? Will Ms. Vernez explain to the public what steps the City Manager has taken to avoid future misrepresentations of this kind?

[click on image to see video]

May 20th: Protest at City Hall

Please click on announcement above to download the entire press release.

Every week a new reason

Oh, so THAT'S why they chopped the trees down--this week, at least:

But city planners said branches of 54 of the trees interfered with bus traffic while roots cracked sidewalks, costing the city thousands of dollars in upkeep, repairs and payouts from "trip-and-fall" lawsuits by pedestrians, Vernez said.

I guess "design reasons" are out. Covering up merchants' signs--that's apparently not good enough any more. Diseased trees--did anyone say diseased? What--who, us? What about too much shade for shoppers? That's so, you know, 2007.

No, now it's because the trees were interfering with bus traffic.

Read this latest pathetic excuse [here].

Paving over paradise

please click on images for larger versions.

A day that will live long in the memory of our citizens

Bob Wolff, writing at 7:13am:

As Of 6:45 this morn, the city is cutting the trees down on 2nd street. It is blocked off from Wilshire to SM Blvd.

There are 10,000 people in this town who have requested--in writing--that this not be done without further examination. The contradictory statements by the city's experts; the adversarial--and indeed deceptive approach by the city's agencies and employees; the hostile and superior response by many members of City Council against their own voters--all of these came together today in this one big act of public destruction.

This day--and the people responsible for all this--will be long remembered in this town.

The Court Rules: you're too late to catch the city

COURT RULES AGAINST TREESAVERS

Press release:

Santa Monica, CA — Despite today’s Court ruling, environmental and community activists with Treesavers are pledging to increase their political and diplomatic efforts to save the threatened Ficus trees along Second and Fourth Streets in the Santa Monica Downtown District. The activists are insisting that the Santa Monica City Council and City Manager join with Treesavers and the community in seeking a business and environmentally-friendly win-win solution.

A California Appeals Court ruled today in favor of the City of Santa Monica saying the plaintiffs – Treesavers and Jerry Rubin – did not meet the statute of limitations in filing their claim that the City violated CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) regulations. Out of the 154 mature Ficus trees along Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard, the City plans to destroy 23 Ficus trees they claim are unsafe, and plans to relocate 7 other healthy Ficus trees – down from the previous 31 Ficus trees originally planned for relocation.

Treesavers say no healthy trees should be relocated for design and aesthetic purposes, and that an independent certified arborist, mutually agreeable to the City and Treesavers, should evaluate the other 23 trees as to the degree of their structural damage.

Organizers with Treesavers say that regardless of the Court’s decision, Santa Monica has an obligation to respect the will of the community, which has been shown through over 8,000 petition signatures, community-group and business endorsements, and overwhelming resident and visitor support, that the tree aspect of the City’s broader 8.2 million-dollar street improvement plan should not move forward as planned.

For further information call Treesavers at (310) 399-1000.

Just to clarify one very important point: the court did not rule that the city committed no wrongdoing (by declaring trees to be "facilities" in the Environmental Impact Report, thus avoiding important environmental requirements). It only ruled that it was too late to catch the city.

Who speaks for us?

URBAN FORESTS

Who speaks for us?
Trees in the city.
Crowded between sidewalks and street.

Smooth, rough, shedding, patterned
Big, small, straight, twisted, leaning
Man damaged trunks.

Weak, strong, tangled, reaching, broken branches.
Carrying a happy burden
Of leaves, needles, flowers, fruits, seeds, nuts, cones, fronds.

Urban forest , like all of us, living.
Young, old, healthy, sick
Needed, but needing man to care for us.

Give us our trees say the birds.
Our homes, food, gathering spots.
Resting, refueling migratory travelers.

Give us our trees say the children.
Swinging, climbing,
Cool shade under which to play.

Give us our trees
Strollers, shoppers, walkers, lovers say.
Dappled sunlight, green against the sky.

Give us your trees the foresters say.
You'll get reports, studies, meaningless meetings
Empty spaces not beauty; sticks not canopies.

Give us your trees developers say.
Chain saws whine and bite.
Trees disappear, left is developers blight.

Give us your trees the politicians say.
Here yesterday, gone today.
Nothing gets in our way.

Give us our trees
The people say and say and say.
And only the trees hear us.

Bob Wolff
May 2008

"Loony projects in the works"

Peggy Clifford writes:

When residents learned that the City planned to remove 54 (the number changes almost daily) ficus trees from Second and Fourth Streets in downtown Santa Monica as part of what it called an “improvement” project, they tried to reason with the City. When the City refused, the newly formed Treesavers , who soon numbered over 5,000, went to court and secured a temporary restraining order, blocking the removal of the trees.

Now, nearly eight months later, the restraining order is still in effect, the City still refuses to give an inch, much less respect residents’ wishes.

In the midst of this rising turmoil, the City chose to announce plans to remove 300 carob trees…on Earth Day, right before a Treesavers’ rally. It was an incredibly stupid move, an act of extraordinary hubris and a slap in the community’s face.

Read the rest of this honest and scathing editorial [here].

Talking the Talk

Arbor Talk, an on-line talk show on all things trees, interviews Jerry Rubin on the Treesavers' on-going efforts:

Segment 1: Jerry Rubin from Tree Savers of Santa Monica.

When the Santa Monica City Council decides to re-do the business district, they also decide to pull out the legendary trees that have beautified and adorned that district. Who's going to step in and stop this? Why, Jerry Rubin and Tree Savers.

Gee, sounds like a new Doo Wop Shoo Bop group! Listen to (or download) the program [here].

Call for Santa Monica Tree Commission

From the Santa Monica Daily Press:

With the current ficus fiasco in Downtown Santa Monica and now a dispute over the removal of 300 carob trees, environmental activists are calling on the City Council to create a commission that would advise on urban forestry matters.
The Santa Monica Treesavers last week requested the City Council initiate a process to establish a tree commission. Jerry Rubin, one of the leaders of the Treesavers, filed a written communications request to place a discussion item on a future council agenda.

Such commissions have been formed in municipalities across the state, including San Francisco’s Urban Forest Council and the Tree Commission in the city of Davis.
“We think it’s so important for the community to open up cooperative dialogue,” Rubin said in an interview on Tuesday. “We feel a Santa Monica urban forestry commission or tree commission would be a very appropriate thing and a long overdue needed advisory commission.”

Read the rest of the article [here].
See the original article [here].

Tree-lined streets reduce asthma

The BBC reports on a Columbia University study:

Columbia University researchers found that asthma rates among children aged four and five fell by 25% for every extra 343 trees per square kilometre. They believe more trees may aid air quality or simply encourage children to play outside, although they say the true reason for the finding is unclear.

The study appears in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

...The link between numbers of trees and asthma cases held true even after taking into account sources of pollution, levels of affluence and population density, the researchers said.

See the rest of this fascinating article [here].

Note to the City Manager and City Council: if we can outlaw cigarette smoking within twenty feet of a building opening, we can certainly plant more trees and help save kids from asthma. This ain't rocket science, friends.

Arrogance

Richard Martini, in a letter to the Santa Monica Daily Press:

Editor:

Who elected Mr. (Walt) Warriner the person to decide if a tree in Santa Monica lives or dies? I can’t believe the arrogance of this city employee, (the urban forester) who has declared, “A high risk tree is not acceptable to this city.” What’s his definition of high risk trees? The argument he uses — that the city lost a million dollars from a falling eucalyptus — is specious. Why not tear down all the eucalyptus trees in Santa Monica for fear of lawsuits? One carob tree falls, and 300 have to go. The same argument he’s made over the ficus trees (alternating between saying “every other ficus tree” is diseased, to “the canopy is bad for merchants,” to claiming that he can decide which trees are dangerous) is in full bloom when he declares the cities of “Glendale and Bellflower” don’t bother to consult their citizens when determining what to do about trees. Maybe I’m missing something. But it sounds much like the current Bush administration, telling the electorate to sit back while the “decider” tells us what’s best for us. Perhaps Mr. Warriner should get some tree sensitivity training. On the other hand, Mr. Warriner’s positions — it’s my way or the tree chipper — will certainly galvanize a sleeping electorate come election day.

Richard Martini

See the letter [here].

Bon Voyage Jill

Gillian Ware, steadfast tree supporter and talented British artist par excellence:

Thank you for the kind send-off you gave me last night, but more especially thank you for the warmth & friendship you have all shown me over the last six months. The trees may have stopped me getting as much of my own work done as I intended but this has made it well-worth it- apart from the fact that I wouldn't have been doing the work if the trees had not been there in the first place- this was/is pay-back time.

And remember: as I said last night, I expect to see the trees still standing there when I return...

All my very good wishes and see you soon,

Jill

We wish Gillian safe passage and a wonderful trip home, and hope to see her back as soon as possible. Gillian's excellent blog is [here].

"The City needs to do the right thing"

Chris Paine, director of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" speaking before the Santa Monica City Council last month in support of the ficus trees:



See more Treesaver videos [here].

Changes to the City's Plan

Received from the City Manager's office.
[click on image for larger version]

Back by Popular Demand

SPECIAL Delivery

Treesavers attorney Tom Nitti:

The order from the Court of Appeal says I have 7 days to respond to the City's brief. The City delivered its brief to me approximately 4:00 pm on Friday, March 21. I finished my brief and my assistant Tony attempted to deliver it to the City approximately 3:45 pm on Friday March 28. The City Attorney's office was closed. No one answered at the phone number of the City Attorney, even though the message on the phone machine says several City Attorneys are available on Friday. Tony attempted to deliver the brief to [the receptionist], who was sitting at the information desk in City Hall. She would not accept it, so Tony left it with her. [The receptionist] then made a big show of throwing the brief in the trash can outside of City Hall, while yelling "you're too late!"

...Although City Hall is mostly closed, what kind of City government refuses to accept court ordered packages on a business day, during business hours? Who authorizes [the receptionist] to throw out deliveries to the City? Does she throw out mail deliveries on Friday? Does [the receptionist] throw out Fedex deliveries on Friday?

Nitti's brief in the trash outside City Hall [click for larger image]

Jerry Rubin retrieving the brief from the trash can [click for larger image]

"The Element of Shock"

Santa Monica Community Forester Walt Warriner has made hay of his claimed success at transplanting large urban trees. When questioned about the viability of removing 31 large healthy ficus trees from Second and Fourth streets and planting them elsewhere, Mr. Warriner says he's had a 95% success rate in transplanting such trees in the past.

Jump forward to the March 11th City Council meeting. During a discussion of the 20th and Cloverfield Streets streetscape improvement plan, Councilmember Shriver asks the outgoing head of Public Works, Craig Perkins, if larger trees could be planted instead of the thin young stalks shown in the plans. Here is Mr. Perkins' response [click below to play the movie]:

"a lot of times the element of shock that's gonna occur after the planting is gonna be exacerbated..."

Interesting. According to the Community Forester, large, fully-established, 40-year-old trees entrapped in concrete sidewalks on Second and Fourth Streets could be forcibly ripped out of the ground, transported elsewhere and then replanted with a 95% chance of success. But large trees grown under (presumably) favorable conditions in a nursery, then installed in a new, open construction zone with properly-prepared earth, well-drained soils and adequate irrigation--those large trees would be subject to "the element of shock," according to the head of Public Works.

Mr. Perkins:

"a lot of times that's the least healthy way to establish a tree, and have it mature the way you want it to mature...it's often a false trade-off to start with a bigger tree because, just because it's a bigger tree doesn't mean that it's a necessarily healthier tree or that it's going to grow as quickly once you establish it; a lot of times the element of shock that's gonna occur after the planting is gonna be exacerbated, so there's a lot of issues in terms of, from the arborist's profession, that we should bring to you so that you can have that discussion, so that you can know what those tradeoffs might be in terms of cost and, ah, what's gonna happen to that tree once it's planted."

The citizens of this city want to know: what are those tradeoffs, and what is going to happen to the ficus once they're yanked out and moved elsewhere? There appears to be some confusion among city officials as to the expected outcome, to put it charitably.

Should we be gambling with nearly $3/4 million in taxpayer dollars to carry out this ill-conceived experiment?

NRDC Weighing In

Read the rest of this great letter [here].

Fighting the Good Fight

These are our fellow citizens and residents, spending their precious weekend hours struggling for a worthy cause. They are motivated not by greed, power, money or a vain quest for egotistic satisfaction–but by a sincere and selfless desire to protect our community, our environment and our quality of life. We view their efforts with humility and gratitude.

(click photo for larger version)

San Fran tries rubber sidewalks

...San Francisco resident Louis Blumberg learned that under city law, he had to replace the uprooted concrete sidewalk in front of his house. Since he did not want to cut the trees in front of his home, Blumberg began researching rubber sidewalks, which were being used already in Santa Monica and Long Beach.

Imagine that: this gentleman didn't want to cut the trees in front of his property--and he wasn't even a community forester! But then, he did have Santa Monica as inspiration.

But--why rubber sidewalks?

The sidewalks, unlike concrete, do not need to be replaced when uplifted by tree roots and are made from recycled tires.

Read the rest of this interesting short article [here].

Joe Natoli

Susan Hartley writes:

...our good friend, Joe Natoli passed away yesterday morning at 9:00 am at a hospital in SM from a massive heart attack. Joe always wore his black seaman's cap over his white/gray hair, always spoke at City Council meetings and the numerous city meetings he attended, and always supported the Ficus trees.

Joe had a lot of good insight into the workings/misworkings of SM. He was always vigilant and saw through City Hall sheenanigans. He didn't let the rudeness of city council, staff, and commissions stop him from voicing his concerns...We wondered why Joe wasn't at the council meeting this Tuesday. Little did we know he would be gone the next morning.

The residents of Santa Monica and our beloved trees are more vulnerable now with Joe and his insights and perceptions no longer with us. He always had his eyes on the City for us. He'll be sorely missed.

More on Joe [here].

Here's Joe in top form, at the February 19th City Council meeting:

"It strains credulity"

A brief recap of the last few days' events.

3.7.08: Treesavers attorney Tom Nitti obtains a temporary restraining order, preventing the City of Santa Monica from destroying or removing any trees pending a review of the original restraining order and responses by both the Treesavers and the City of Santa Monica. [click on image below to see entire document]

3.11.08: The Santa Monica City Attorney responds by sending Treesavers' attorney Nitti a letter announcing the imminent destruction of the 23 trees the City has deemed unsafe, and demanding confirmation that Nitti is in agreement with the City's view of these trees. The letter was faxed to Nitti's office at 1:42pm, and demanded a response by 5:00pm. [click on image below to see entire document]

3.11.08: Treesavers' attorney Nitti responds to the City Attorney's letter: removing the 23 trees would be a violation of the Court order.

The City's consulting arborist, Cy Carlberg, in her report to the City of January 5, 2008, identified only 3 trees as having a high failure potential. The majority of trees in her report were identified as having a low failure potential.

In light of the staff reports, the City's history regarding these trees (it strains credulity to believe they all suddenly become dangerous at once!), and the City's consulting arborist report, as well as contradictory statements by the City forester too lengthy to detail here (but a ripe subject for a cross examination), it is my clients' position that the removal of 23 trees as a so-called danger to the public would be a violation of the Court order.

[click on image below to see entire document]

3.11.08: Treesavers issue a settlement proposal to the City of Santa Monica intended to "satisfy all parties, preserve the trees, and allow the City to proceed with the streetscape project." Treesavers will end all litigation in return for the City agreeing to protect the trees. [click on image below to see entire document]

3.11.08: The City of Santa Monica responds to the settlement offer: it posts, on a number of trees, a "Notice of Approved After Hours Permit," allowing construction to start at 6:00am instead of 8:00am. The reason? "To expedite project schedule."

Just to clarify: the Treesavers offer to settle, and the City responds by announcing an even earlier start time for the trees' demise. [click on image below to see larger version].

Costing the Taxpayers

The City Manager responds to the temporary stay order:

We are following this Court order and we expect to prevail. The facts have not changed and delay is costing the taxpayers. Twenty-three (23) structurally unstable trees must come down;

What does the city's own arborist consultant say about these "unstable" trees? She examined each one in detail, analyzed its condition and rendered her findings in a chart, contained in a report to City Council entitled Summary of Health and Structure of Ficus Trees. Here's an excerpt from the report containing the chart (portions highlighted for clarity--please click on images to see larger versions):

What did this city-retained arborist find? Of the 23 trees in question, only three have a high failure potential. Three--not twenty-three. To read the report click [here].

Mr. Lamont also writes:

Up to 31 trees will be relocated, some in the project area and others to parks.

The cost of relocating these 31 perfectly healthy, mature, thriving leafy trees, and replacing them with small, essentially canopy-less Ginkgos is at least 600,000 taxpayer dollars by the city's own reckoning. This, for some reason, is not considered a cost to taxpayers--does this money grow on trees?

Let's revisit Mr. Ewell's original statement:

The facts have not changed and delay is costing the taxpayers.

Yes, there is indeed a cost to taxpayers.

Submitting an Environmental Impact Report that improperly pretends trees are "fixtures" and not trees is costing the taxpayers. Needlessly relocating perfectly healthy mature trees only to replace them with others is costing the taxpayers. Taking away needed shade from businesses that depend on it for cooling is costing the taxpayers. Removing important--and natural--stormwater retention from the downtown area is costing the taxpayers. Reducing the ability to filter automotive pollutants is costing the taxpayers. Not protecting trees in the Second Street construction zone from damage (contrary to city policy) is costing the taxpayers. Refusing to acknowledge the stated and documented desires of thousands of petition signers is costing the taxpayers.

Citizens seeking justice in the courts is NOT a cost to taxpayers, Mr. City Manager.

Succinct and to the point

Let me get this straight:
At significant expense to taxpayers, these trees will be either uprooted and relocated or just plain chainsaw massacred into toothpicks, for what again?

• For being reckless enough to hang a branch in the way of an "oversized" Escalade trying to squeeze into a spot made for a normal car in front of Circuit City?
• For inconsiderately blocking the view at certain angles of a merchant’s sign that says "Bubar’s Jewelry," or "Bank of America," or "Dance Doctor"?
• For sadly possessing no historical significance or "characteristics of noteworthy or aesthetic interest or value…" as decreed by the Landmarks Commission?
• For conspiring to "all die at the same time" in a nightmarish scenario where all at once the streets of Santa Monica go barren, as envisioned by Cy Carlberg, the council’s independently contracted arborist?

Read the rest of this great editorial [here].

Stay of Execution

After a near-superhuman effort, legal hero Tom Nitti has won another reprieve in court for the downtown Santa Monica trees. A three-judge panel has agreed to keep in place the October 5th restraining order temporarily protecting the trees. The city has until March 21st to respond, and Tom will then have until March 28th to reply. At that time the court will either conduct a hearing, or rule outright on the merits of the case.

Please join us in humble thankfulness for the selfless, altruistic efforts of this dedicated attorney; a true environmental defender and civil libertarian.

Tom Nitti and Jerry Rubin announcing the original court injunction last October

"The trees are the city"

Oscar-nominated actor Bruce Dern on the Santa Monica ficus fight:



Thank you JenHeidiR.

"You won't change MY mind"

A brief quote from tonight's demonstration at City Hall. Former mayor Richard Bloom, to the assembled crowd of Santa Monica residents:

You won't change my mind.

Trivial Pursuit fans take note: Mr. Bloom is an elected representative of the citizens of Santa Monica.

More later.

Lost in the Courts

Tom Nitti, attorney for the Treesavers, is a true, skilled, selfless hero.

In spite of his best efforts, however, the judge in the case decided in favor of the City of Santa Monica that the statute of limitations was, in fact exceeded; too late to put a stop to the destruction. The city did not deny that it improperly called the trees "facilities" in the Environmental Impact Report and thus avoided the special requirements relating to trees (requirements that might have voided this portion of the streetscape project). No, the city only claimed that it was too late to catch them. The city's attorneys must feel very, very proud. And how does the City Manager's office feel about this?

“We’re very pleased with the ruling,” said Kate Vernez, a senior management analyst for the City Manager.

Pleased they didn't get caught in time. A true public servant, working on behalf of the people. The City Manager must feel very, very proud.

The court case is lost, and there are now no legal protections in place for any of the trees. They could--and probably will--be destroyed at any time.

The ball is now in City Council's hands. They can choose to hear what the public has been clamoring for, loudly and clearly at every possible opportunity, for the past six months.

Or they can choose not to. It is their choice to make.

The public will take careful note.

Sit-In at City Hall

TREESAVERS TO HOLD MARCH 5 PUBLIC SIT-IN AT SANTA MONICA CITY HALL IMPLORING CITY TO SAVE THE DOWNTOWN FICUS TREES

“TREE DIALOGUE NOT TREE DESTRUCTION” TO BE THEME OF PEACEFUL LEGAL SIT-IN

Santa Monica, CA — Treesavers will hold a peaceful and legal Public Sit-In in the lobby of Santa Monica City Hall beginning 4:00 PM on Wednesday March 5, 2008 to implore the City to listen to its residents, merchants, visitors and community organizations who overwhelmingly oppose the planned destruction and unnecessary relocation of more than 50 mature ficus trees along Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard in the Santa Monica Downtown District.

Treesavers say the six month struggle to save the threatened trees should, and still can, end in a business and an environmentally friendly win-win solution, but the City needs to do more to initiate a fairer process and demonstrate more accountability. Treesavers say the City should agree to reconsider the tree aspects of the 8 million dollar street improvement plan and agree to hold an all-inclusive and long overdue town hall workshop on the Downtown District tree issue.

What the City needs, Treesavers say, is tree dialogue not tree destruction.

Not a good day?

Gillian Ware:

February 19th was not a good day for Santa Monica's Ficus trees: Treesavers appealed to the City Council for the Landmarks Commission's ruling to be overturned (see post Ficus Trees not Landmarked, January 22nd)- this was denied.

Read the rest of this wonderful blog entry [here].

We love Gillian dearly. But some of us feel this was a great day for Santa Monica's Ficus trees.

It was the day we publicly celebrated the long-forgotten role of Jacqueline Girion and Clo Hoover in the annals of local environmentalist history.

It was the day tree supporters packed City Council chambers to the bursting point, showing the Council and the rest of the city the true support that exists here for preserving our dense-canopy urban forest intact.

It was the day when even the head of the Landmarks Commission spoke up on behalf of these trees.

It was the day when members of our City Council were made to put on record their individual positions on these trees in front of the entire city. It was also the day when the City Arborist and his outside consultant publicly contradicted most of what they had said in writing, thus throwing the city's entire case into confusion.

No, the trees may have lost Landmark designation that day. But they won recognition: for their environmental importance, their cultural significance, and their critical role in the history of this city.

And that counts for something.

Trees: Residents YES, City NO

Journalist and commentator Peggy Clifford:

Santa Monica residents have rarely been in better form than they were at last night's City Council meeting when they spoke on behalf of the 50-plus ficus trees the City wants to remove from downtown streets.

Unfortunately, the Council has rarely been in worse form.

There were dozens of residents, they ranged from students to older people, and they were uniformly passionate about the beauty and utility of the trees, and the multiple roles they play in downtown Santa Monica – softening the hardedged streets, providing shade, cleaning the air and generally elevating the prospect.

Read the rest of this fine article [here].

City Council Rejects Treesavers Appeal

The Santa Monica City Council has rejected the Treesavers' appeal of the Landmarks Commission denial of landmark status for the downtown trees.

In addition, the City Council also turned down a motion by council member McKeown to reconsider the tree portion of the streetscape project and reopen it for discussion. In the face of a packed, standing-room-only council chamber full of tree supporters, the City Council majority flatly refused to reopen the issue for reconsideration.

More on this later. In the meantime, Treesavers are holding a "Protect the Downtown Ficus Trees" Town Hall Meeting on February 28 to discuss the next, more serious steps to be taken in defense of the trees.

Everyone is invited.

What It's All About

At the beginning of this year, this blog published an overview of the city-caused difficulties facing the surviving ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets. We are repeating this blog entry--with minor editing changes--to help explain recent--and upcoming--events.

please click on photo for larger image

What the city is doing
Just a quick reminder of the basic issue here. On 2d and 4th Streets in downtown Santa Monica, the city wants to yank out perfectly healthy trees similar to "A" in the photo above, and replace them with juvenile, shadeless saplings similar to "B." (Photos taken on 32d Street, where similar replacements took place.)

Why the city is destroying or removing trees in downtown Santa Monica
The city claims many of the trees it wants to remove are damaged beyond repair, though an independent arborist's review claims otherwise--and even the city's own outside arborist (hired by the city to bolster its case) says that only a minority of those "damaged" trees actually have a "high failure potential" (3 out of the 23 trees slated for immediate destruction).

please click on photo for larger image

But the majority of the trees the city intends to remove–perfectly healthy by the city's own account–are being ripped out and moved away, at a cost of nearly $3/4 million, for what the city describes as "design reasons" connected with the 2nd & 4th Streets Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvements Project. The replacement saplings will take 15 to 20 years to grow to maturity, blocking views of the retail stores and providing little or no shade in the interim.

Widespread support against the city's position
The city's own design consultant described this option as far less environmentally beneficial than simply leaving the healthy ficus trees in place. On these heavily-traveled streets the replacement trees will capture significantly less stormwater runoff and automobile pollutants than the existing trees. With little protection for pedestrians, they will also create a worse shopping environment than the robust, shady canopy of the existing ficus grove.

The city's urban forester has in the past considered these ficus "a treasure" and the city's Seascape newsletter published glowing reviews of these trees' numerous environmental–and financial–benefits. An important environmental organization has publicly endorsed our efforts to save these trees, mirroring the sentiments of thousands who have signed our various petitions (including our on-line one). The on-going attempts to save these trees have received encouragement and support from major local publications and local realtors, and every single neighborhood group in Santa Monica, from the Friends of Sunset Park to the Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood Coalition has endorsed our efforts on behalf of these trees, keeping them where they are–protecting pedestrians and helping the environment as they have for the past forty years.

The city's reaction
In spite of all this, the city is intent on proceeding with the strange and ill-conceived plan to destroy or remove these fine trees, and do away with the distinctive appearance and environment of our tree-shaded downtown streets.

At a recent Landmarks Commission meeting, voting down their sole architectural historian--the Commission denied the Treesavers' effort to designate these magnificent--and historic--stands of mature downtown trees as landmarks. Treesavers have appealed that denial to the Santa Monica City Council.

What can be done
On Tuesday this week--at a special meeting--the City Council will be considering the Treesavers' appeal. Members of City Council have it within their power to acknowledge the landmark status of these trees with a single stroke of the pen.

Treesavers is inviting everyone who signed our petition to join us in a peaceful rally outside Santa Monica City Hall this Tuesday, February 19, 2008, 5:00PM - 6:00PM. A large crowd of supporters will greatly increase our chances of convincing the seven council members to vote in favor of preserving these landmark trees. Please bring along friends, family members, colleagues, neighbors... anyone you know who will be devastated by the loss downtown Santa Monica's most distinctive visual landmark: the magnificent rows of stately, mature ficus which provide such a unique identity to the city's central district.

Come join us for this unique organizing event and help save these trees!

Letter to City Council: Include the Public!

Tonight's City Council meeting agenda includes a request from two council members for a revision of the city's urban forest policy. Following is an exerpt from a letter to the City Council:

It's simply not necessary--in any plausible scenario-- to rip out perfectly healthy trees.

The staff report's call for a long-term urban forest policy in Santa Monica is an extremely laudable goal. The problem is that the current Community Forest Management Plan--the present urban forest policy-- is not being followed either in substance or spirit. So if staff is now proposing a new plan, or a new policy, why should we assume this one will in fact be followed?

Read the rest of the letter [here].

Echoes across the sea

A fellow blogger from Okinawa writes:

These dense and large-canopy ficus trees are their important resources. I really wander after losing the trees, what else they have in order to attract shoppers.

This weird logic is not only the city of Santa Monica but also everywhere. this kind of decision is usually not represented the people of the community but bureaucrats interest.

Read the rest of his blog entry [here].

Thank you, Katsunori Iha.

Ficus too large? Cut it down!

Too small to be landmarked. Too large to survive.

To carry out the Second and Fourth Streets streetscape project, Santa Monica's urban forester has decided some of the publicly-owned ficus trees on Second and Fourth streets are too large to be relocated--so they must be cut down and destroyed. The forester's Tree Removal and Replacement Fact Sheet says this:

Other trees were identified for removal in order to meet the lighting requirements of the overall design, while some trees were identified for removal because they are too large to relocate.

See the Fact Sheet [here].

These are, incidentally, the very same trees described by a member of the Landmarks Commission as unworthy of landmarking because they're too small.

Let's recap. The urban forester's Fact Sheet says some trees are in the way of the new lights. And other trees are in the way of the new "design" and are just too large to relocate. The solution to both problems? Destroy the trees.

Here's an idea: move the lights.

Sheesh.

Who is Alden Kelley?

Dr. Alden Kelley, (PhD, Plant Morphology, Purdue) is the independent arborist whose report supports the efforts to save the Second and Fourth Street ficus trees. A recent article describes him this way:

But who is Alden Kelley, ficus tree hero? He is a consulting arborist and the author of kids' books "A Tree is a Home" and "It Started As A Seed."

Read the rest of the article [here]. And another one [here].

One business listing describes Mr. Kelley's Consulting Arborist activities thusly:

Alden Kelley conducts professional and volunteer activities on behalf of trees, to promote understanding of their values, benefits and essentiality to human well-being, and to learn and teach how to care for trees in ways to foster optimum tree health, safeness and longevity.

Another listing describes his expert witness specialties:

Specialties: Tree value (damage or destruction); tree roots (structural damage, trip & fall); tree/branch failure; landscape misdesign; tree structure, morphology, anatomy, physiology, disease, insects.

From Dr. Kelley's web site:

Alden Kelley has been a consulting arborist for more than 24 years. He has served as an expert witness for 22 years. He has been a certified arborist ( I.S.A #267) since 1985.

Formal training includes a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in various plant sciences. Practical experience in tree pruning, planting, maintenance, and trouble-shooting has spanned 40 years of part-time or full-time activity.

Dr. Kelley’s primary goals are to promote the well-being of trees, and to maximize their benefits to people.

His functions are to diagnose problems that trees have (or cause); to prescribe appropriate ways to correct the problems; and to teach his cients what trees need, what values and benefits the trees have, and how to increase those values and benefits.

As an expert witness, he provides objective, accurate, detailed analyses, reports, and testimony.

A Moment of Truthiness

The City Arborist, at last week's Landmarks Commission Meeting (referring to the general appearance of the Gingko-planted areas intended for Second & Fourth Streets):

I don't believe that it will be much different, in the way of appearance..., as on, ah, Santa Monica and on Broadway in the Transit Mall area.
(Hear the entire meeting audio here).

Keeping in mind that these are not Gingkos, let's see what that Transit Mall appearance--promoted by the City Arborist--actually looks like:

(click on image for larger photo)

(yellow 'tree' labels added for ease in locating the actual trees)

Right around the corner, 50 yards away, is a still-untouched area of ficus trees slated for "redesign" by removing or relocating trees:

(click on image for larger photo)

Let's recap. The City Arborist, the Bayside District, unnamed property owners and City Council all want to remove the type of tree shown in the left-hand image below, and replace it with trees similar to the one on the right. Apparently that kind of streetscape (the one on the right) is less chilly and far superior for retail shopping, according to senior city employees who proclaim their love for trees.

(click on image for larger photo)

Any questions? Contact City Council.

A Venice Author Writes

It is not very hard to entertain the idea that if they can cut some useful trees that are on the side streets, they could easily do it with my favorite big one next to the freeway.

If the city council wants to say goodbye, I just want to say hello.

Read the rest of Buraot's blog entry [here].
Buraot's blog is [here].

A British Artist Writes

photo by Gillian Ware

As an Artist, I was blown over by the wonderful avenues of trees in Santa Monica and decided I wanted to live here because of them. The Ficus, or “Green Gem” trees, I regard as one of the most beautiful. They are endlessly fascinating to draw, sculpt or photograph: one moment they can be perceived as elegant, multi-branched candelabra, the next as sensuous as human limbs- or part of an elephant’s body.

Read all of Gillian Ware's wonderful blog entry [here].
Her blog's main page is [here].

Jerry Rubin: "Save the Trees" Message Scroll

Jerry Rubin writes:
100-yard long "save the trees" message scroll

So far, hundreds of messages and drawings have been inscribed on the scroll that express gratitude for the downtown Santa Monica threatened trees, acknowledge their environmental importance and urge the city to change its policy. Plans are to present the scroll to the City Council.

The scroll is available for signing at community meetings, schools and neighborhood events. Just call 310.399.1000 to arrange for the scroll to be at your event.
(click for larger photo)

the open scroll (at left) in the midst of the action

Landmarks Commission votes thumbs-down

Tonight the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission voted to deny the application to landmark the trees on Second and Fourth Streets, by a vote of 6-1.

Voting to deny were: Margaret Bach, John Berley, Nina Fresco, Roger Genser, Barbara Kaplan and Ruth Shari.

None of these people are architectural historians.

The sole commissioner voting against the denial (meaning in favor of landmarking the trees) was Ruthann Lehrer--the sole architectural historian on the commission.

Let's recap: the architectural historian voted in favor of the tree landmarking. All the non-architectural-historians voted against.

Remind us again: what commission is this? Oh yes--Landmarks. Thank you.

Q & A

Q. Did anybody calculate the increase in stormwater runoff that would result from ripping out the large-canopy ficus trees downtown?
A. No.

Q. Removing the trees will likely increase energy costs for businesses on Second and Fourth Streets (reduced shade will require increased air-conditioning, especially for those businesses facing the western sun). Did the city calculate the expected increase in energy costs for businesses on these two streets?
A. Nope.

Q. Was this figure communicated to the business owners?
A. Nyet.

Q. Did the city anticipate the reduction in air quality that would result from the removal of the ficus tree canopy on these dense-traffic streets?
A. No evidence of that aforethought.

Q. How is the city planning on compensating for the loss of air-scrubbing foliage?
A. (urban forester's response): ...apparently the shade of the ficuses makes the area too chilly.

Q.Has Santa Monica used the service-providing value of its 100-million-dollar urban forest (under GASB 34) to improve its bond ratings?
A. [no response yet].

Facts? None needed.

From a study by the University of Washington's College of Forest Resources (emphases ours):

Ratings for both categories were significantly higher for the place that has large, full-canopy street trees. Place character (such as having a pleasant atmosphere and positive image) was rated 35% higher for the place having large trees... Consumers made judgments about their potential shopping experience based on tree cues.

Another portion of that U. of Washington study says:

RESIDENT AND VISITOR DIFFERENCES –
Business districts that have large trees are most preferred by both small and large city residents. Differences in response for the two groups were found only on Intermittent Trees. Potential visitors and tourists from large cities rated these street scenes lower.

From last week's L.A. Weekly article:

Rawson says Bayside’s board didn’t consult any studies. The city admitted in an October 2005 report that “it was difficult to assess community ‘sentiment’ since so few people” attended publicly advertised — but in fact largely unknown — tree meetings.

What was the explanation provided by the city's arborist?

...apparently the shade of the ficuses makes the area too chilly.

Strangely, nobody seems to be embarrassed about any of this.

Hitting the Nail on the Head

Another signer of our on-line petition cuts right to the chase.

Keep These Ficus Trees! My family loves visiting Santa Monica (from Ireland), and they particularly love walking and shopping on 4th street. They said it feels like a REAL CITY. The Promenade feels like an uncomfortable sun-baked mall, they say. Why on earth would anyone be so stupid as to cut these trees down?
Mark Gibney

Indeed.

Rubber Sidewalks in Santa Monica

Preventing problems with tree roots.
Good enough for Montana Ave. (see photo below; red arrows indicate rubber portions), but not for 2d & 4th Streets, apparently.

The city's design consultant for the streetscape project recommended using rubber sidewalks on 2d and 4th Streets as one alternative. The city decided against that.

(click photo for larger version):

Good enough for San Diego AND Santa Monica, Part 2

Here's what the City of San Diego's Urban Forestry Street Division thinks of large, mature trees:

-Large trees remove 60-70 times more pollution than small trees.

-Mature trees improve our aesthetic environment, absorb noise, are traffic calming, reduce stress and crime, and create a peaceful place to relax or socialize.

-Mature trees provide a sense of "home" to a neighborhood.

Read the rest of their article "Benefits of Trees" [here].

Mr Ewell: you were the San Diego City Manager when this was published. If this is good enough for San Diego, it is good enough for Santa Monica. Since you are now the Santa Monica City Manager, surely you can enlighten the City and the City Council on the benefits of these full-canopy, in-their-prime downtown shade trees.

Complying with Our Own Policies, Part 2

The second in our series of quick looks to see how the 2nd & 4th Streets Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvements Project complies with the city's own policy (emphases in the quoted portions are ours):

Policy 2.2: Implement preventative practices to prevent tree removal.

Within available resources the City will implement practices to prevent the removal of existing public trees whenever possible...The City will also explore new methods of repairing sidewalks using alternative hardscapes to provide safe and shady walkways.

Two questions:

a) How does the removal of over fifty trees square with a policy designed to "prevent the removal of existing public trees whenever possible?"

b) The new streetscape project does not include alternative hardscape materials (such as tile, rubber sidewalks, etc.); and the resulting walkways will not be shady with the leafless Gingkos. How does the streetscape project square with policy 2.2?

Answers:
a) It doesn't.
b) It doesn't.

Complying with Our Own Policies, Part 1

Does the 2nd & 4th Streets Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvements Project comply with the city's own policy? Let's take a look. The policy document can be downloaded [here]. (Emphases ours):

Policy 1.2: Establish optimum canopy coverage throughout the City.

Tree lined streets dramatically contribute to the aesthetic character of neighborhoods...In addition to planting trees in existing parkways, the City will continue to identify opportunities to increase canopy coverage in the community by incorporating landscaped medians and/or by increasing the width of existing parkways where feasible.

Question: viewing the photo below, please explain how yanking out tree A, and replacing it with tree B complies with Policy 1.2: Establish optimum canopy coverage throughout the City. You may use a #2 pencil. Take your time--no rush.
Please click on photo for larger version.

Good enough for San Diego AND Santa Monica

Excerpts from San Diego’s 2005 Climate Protection Action Plan, dated 7/05 when Lamont Ewell was its City Manager (emphases ours):

...200‐09 Street Tree Plan – Central Business District.
Continuity and uniformity of street tree planting in The Central Business District shall be established under this policy.

...600‐39 Land Guidance
Urban forests have also been shown to be highly effective in minimizing the urban heat island effect. Implementing these mitigation measures on a city‐wide level would lower ambient air temperature and reduce energy consumption which, in turn, would lower air pollution from energy production and minimize the chemical reaction that creates ozone.

The City of San Diego’s trees sequester about 9,000 tons per year and store a total of 1.2 million tons. These trees also remove 4.2 million pounds of pollutants, such as carbon monoxide and ozone, from the air each year. Additionally, trees help curb the “Urban Heat Island Effect” by providing shade to buildings and surrounding areas, and reducing the need to use air conditioners, which consume a great deal of energy. Reducing energy use is critical as energy production is one of the largest producers of greenhouse gases. Trees also help the infrastructure of cities by reducing stormwater runoff, preserving soil, and increasing the beauty of an area.

Mr. Ewell: if this is good enough for San Diego, it is good enough for Santa Monica.

With your experience in San Diego, you can enlighten the City and the City Council on its anti-environmental, anti-climate protection policies regarding the removal of these full-canopy, in-their-prime downtown shade trees. Why isn’t Santa Monica copying and implementing San Diego’s Action Plan? We don’t have the time or the money to be reinventing this wheel.
To download the full report click [here] or on the report's cover page below.

The L.A. Weekly's take on it

Nobody knows how Rawson and the Bayside group cooked up the curious theory that Angelenos want less shade.

...Rawson says Bayside’s board didn’t consult any studies. The city admitted in an October 2005 report that “it was difficult to assess community ‘sentiment’ since so few people” attended publicly advertised — but in fact largely unknown — tree meetings.

...But other city leaders are now admitting that the plan did not arise from concern over disease or other possible dangers caused by the trees. Rather, a powerful business owners’ association is almost obsessively convinced that storefronts on Second and Fourth streets are less popular than the jammed, pedestrian-only Third Street Promenade because — wait for it — the Promenade is planted with a more flowery tree species.

Read the rest of this fascinating article [here].

Worldwide Attention on Santa Monica's Ficus

According to Google Analytics, during the last 30 days visitors from 19 countries have spent time on this web site. Those countries are (in order of visit number and time spent on-site): Philippines, Canada, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, Norway, Singapore, Iran, Malaysia, New Zealand, Switzerland, United Kingdom, Lithuania, Italy, India, Ecuador, Brazil, Mexico.

Within the U.S., other than California the largest number of visitors came from New York, Massachusetts and Texas. And, to put it in perspective, there were more visits to the site from New York than from Santa Monica City Hall.

please click on image for larger version

One Answer

The City of Santa Monica is intent on replacing many of the ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets with Ginkgo trees. The ficus are evergreen, and retain their canopy throughout the year; the Ginkgos drop their leaves in the late fall and are bare till spring. Let's see what this actually means: the first photo (taken this week) is a ficus on Fourth Street:

please click on photos for larger versions

Here's a Ginkgo, also photographed this week, on Idaho Ave. (squinting is allowed):

An observer may be inclined to inquire as to the rationale behind this intended exchange. The city's arborist explains it thusly:

He said the City wants to plant the gingko trees on those streets to provide “more sunlight,” as apparently the shade of the ficuses makes the area too chilly.

(see the rest of the story in the Santa Monica Mirror [here]).

And the Bayside District's executive director explains it thusly:

[The ficus] is dense, and light doesn’t reach the sidewalk. People want more sunlight, and the expectation is that those streets [will] become more inviting.

(see the rest of the story in the L.A. Weekly [here]).

So: we alleviate the insalubrious nature of Santa Monica's chilly permafrost tundra by ripping out full canopy trees and replacing them with wintertime twigs. That will make those streets more inviting.

Let's recap:
(please click on photo for larger version)

Got it, thanks.

Ficus & Sidewalks

Some Santa Monica City Council members have expressed concern about the destructive effects that ficus trees purportedly have on sidewalks, and the tripping hazards they present. As the city arborist pointed out, however, preventing the ficus (or any trees) from lifting the sidewalk depends--in part--on proper pruning and sidewalk maintenance, among other things. Curious, we walked down Montana Avenue to observe how other trees (other than ficus, that is) affect sidewalks. [please click on photos to see larger versions].

not a ficus.


not a ficus.


not a ficus.


not a ficus.

not a ficus.


not a ficus.

not a ficus.


not a ficus.


not a ficus.


not a ficus.


not a ficus.

It is obvious that many types of trees can inflict damage on sidewalks, not just ficus. The city arborist was correct: preventing the ficus (or any trees) from lifting the sidewalk depends--in part--on proper pruning and sidewalk maintenance.

A quick, year-end reminder

Just a quick reminder of the basic issue here. On 2d and 4th Streets in downtown Santa Monica, the city wants to yank out perfectly healthy trees similar to "A" in the photo above, and replace them with juvenile, shadeless saplings similar to "B." (Photos taken on 32d Street, where similar replacements took place.)

The city claims many of the trees it wants to remove are damaged beyond repair, though an independent arborist's review claims otherwise. But the majority of the trees–perfectly healthy by the city's own account–are being ripped out and moved away, at a cost of nearly $3/4 million, for what the city describes as "design reasons" connected with the 2nd & 4th Streets Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvements Project. The replacement saplings will take 15 to 20 years to grow to maturity, blocking views of the retail stores and providing little or no shade in the interim.

The city's own design consultant described this option as far less environmentally beneficial than simply leaving the healthy ficus trees in place. On these heavily-traveled streets the replacement trees will capture significantly less stormwater runoff and automobile pollutants than the existing trees. With little protection for pedestrians, they will also create a worse shopping environment than the robust, shady canopy of the existing ficus grove.

The city's urban forester considers these ficus "a treasure" and the city's Seascape newsletter published glowing reviews of these trees' numerous environmental–and financial–benefits. An important environmental organization has publicly endorsed our efforts to save these trees, mirroring the sentiments of thousands who have signed our various petitions (including our on-line one). The on-going attempts to save these trees have received encouragement and support from major local publications and local realtors, and every single neighborhood group in Santa Monica, from the Friends of Sunset Park to the Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood Coalition has endorsed our efforts on behalf of these trees, keeping them where they are–protecting pedestrians and helping the environment as they have for the past forty years.

In spite of all this, the city is intent on proceeding with the strange and ill-conceived plan to destroy or remove these fine trees, and do away with the distinctive appearance and environment of our tree-shaded downtown streets.

On January 3rd, the Treesavers will kick off the new year's tree-saving activities with a great mobilization meeting at the regional offices of the Natural Resources Defense Council in Santa Monica. Come join us for this unique organizing event and help save these trees!

El Segundo: where ficus once thrived before their removal.

This about sums it up

An on-line petitioner neatly sums up the issue:

I live on 2nd street and overlooking the trees that are designated to be removed. The polution and noise from the buses is as bad as it could be already. We need the green tree canopys to stop the reverberation of the noise and stop the fumes and purify the air . We also need the shade of the trees, since summer time the sun is very strong and some of my friends, who have lived for long time in much better shaded area of Santa Monica have aqcuired skin cancer from exposure to the sun. The birds have no place to live and nest. We are seeing the nests and eggs destroyed because of it. PLEASE SAVE THE TREES!
-Alice Mouradian

Questions for Santa Monica's City Manager

The Santa Monica City Manager is continuing his public "Can We Talk" sessions on December 19th and January 7th. Following are several urban-forest related questions for Mr. Ewell:

1. In developing the Second and Fourth Street streetscape plans, did anybody calculate the increase in stormwater runoff that would result from removing the large-canopy ficus trees downtown?

2. Removing the ficus shade tree canopy will likely increase energy costs for businesses on Second and Fourth Streets (reduced shade will require increased air-conditioning, especially for those businesses facing the western sun). Since the majority of ficus trees are being removed for "design reasons," did the city calculate the expected increase in energy costs for businesses on these two streets? Was this figure communicated to the business owners?

3. Did the city anticipate the reduction in air quality that would result from the removal of the ficus tree canopy on these dense-traffic streets? How is the city planning on compensating for the loss of air-scrubbing foliage?

4. An accounting question (we beg the reader's indulgence here). In 2004 the federal government introduced new accounting practices for cities' infrastructure and capital investments (Government Accounting Standards Board Statement 34). The new rules allow cities to count their urban forests as service-providing infrastructure assets (in their capital budgets). Ultimately, this can greatly improve a city's bond ratings. Calculating the monetary value of trees for improving air, reducing energy costs and decreasing stormwater runoff can be worth millions to a city. Question: has Santa Monica used the service-providing value of its 100-million-dollar urban forest (under GASB 34) to improve its bond ratings?
(more info on GASB 34 & urban forests [here]).

Original Consultant's Report Discussed Keeping the Existing Trees

When city officials explain why so many ficus trees must be relocated out of the downtown area, they point to "design reasons" or "design themes." But the designers of the streetscape plan actually included retaining these trees as a design option.

In their original presentation to the city, the design firm described the benefits and tradeoffs of saving the ficus trees. Pages from the report show that retaining the ficus trees was not only a viable option, but had significant environmental benefits as well. The report also discussed city efforts to make sidewalks friendlier to trees and the environment by using alternative paving materials. In the report excerpts below, notations made in red have been added by this blog for clarity. Please click on images to see larger versions.


fig. 1: Here's a page describing City Initiatives. Note the suggestion to use pervious concrete pavement (allowing water to enter the ground and irrigate the trees) and rubber sidewalks to help deal with roots (as was done elsewhere in Santa Monica). Neither of these made it to the final design.


fig. 2: Here the consultant shows how the existing ficus trees can be fully retained and still comply with the streetscape improvement objectives.


fig. 3: The design consultant actually discussed, as one of the options, retaining the ficus trees until they decline. The city ultimately decided otherwise.


fig. 4: This chart shows that keeping the existing trees would be better for the environment than replacing them--even partially--with new trees. Yet the less beneficial option was ultimately chosen.

The full copy of the report is available online, and can be seen [here]. It is a part of a larger presentation made by the designer; after downloading, scroll down about half way to see this portion of the report.

New York City Gets It

photo: www.streetsblog.org

"...in an interesting twist, the existing trees were left in place - right in the middle of the pavement. Ian Dutton, vice chairperson of Community Board 2's Traffic and Transportation Committee, said this was not a mistake by the Department of Design and Construction. "People really expressed concern that trees were being destroyed needlessly in this project," Dutton said. "So I think that was D.D.C.'s way of preserving these trees."

Read how NYC is keeping its existing trees, even as it renews and widens sidewalks: click [here].

San Diego Gets It

To protect a group of street trees in San Diego, it is first necessary to submit an official form nominating the trees for protection. Among the categories available: Parkway Resource Tree: Groups of trees in public right-of-way, public parking lots or trails.... San Diego considers groups of street trees as worthy of protection: Santa Monica should too.

Here's an excerpt from San Diego's Conserve-A-Tree Nomination Form (click on image to see the complete document); shouldn't Santa Monica have one as well?

Deja Vu All Over Again, 50 years later

The Evening Outlook
Wednesday, March 20, 1957

Council Aid Sought To Save Trees

Residents Prepare to Submit Petition

Petitions bearing signatures of at least 150 persons protesting the removal of Monterey pine trees from 14th Street north of Montana Avenue will be presented at Tuesday's meeting of the Santa Monica City Council, it was disclosed today.

..."We don't want to be unreasonable about this, but we are convinced these trees are not a menace to public safety..."

Read the entire article [here].

Theory vs. Reality

Second Street: Construction.
please click on photos to see larger versions

The city's Tree Protection Guidelines say:

Text & photo from the city's Tree Protection Guidelines document available [here].

In spite of its own guidelines, the city's contractor first cuts the roots...


...and then removes material by machine, instead of manually, as called-for in the city's guidelines.

SM Daily Press: It ain’t easy being green

The Santa Monica Daily Press:

It ain’t easy being green.

Sure, Santa Monica thumps its chest claiming to be as green a city as they come. Yet, pollution at the airport, notoriously dirty water off the coast, plans to remove healthy trees and a certain disdain for a bike riders group seems to prove the contrary.

So this week’s Q-Line question asks: Do you think Santa Monica is truly green or is it all just a bunch of propaganda?

Call (310) 285-8106 before Friday at 5 p.m. and we’ll print your answers in the weekend edition of the Daily Press. Please limit responses to a minute or less.

Treesavers: call the Santa Monica Daily Press and tell them what you think about the tree removal!

2d Street: No Tree Protection

The law is clear: all trees must be protected during construction. The city's Municipal Code spells it out thoroughly, and the city has even produced graphic guidelines to make this clear. Yet in the new Second Street construction zone, no tree protections are evident.

Santa Monica Municipal Code:

7.40.160 Protection of trees.
During the erection, repair, alteration or removal of any building, house, or structure in the City, any person, firm or corporation in charge of such work shall protect any tree, shrub or plant in any street, park, boulevard, or public place in the City in the vicinity of such building or structure with sufficient guards or protectors as shall prevent injury to said tree, shrub or plant arising out of or by reason of said erection, repair, alteration or removal. (Prior code § 7615; amended by Ord. No. 1242CCS, adopted 1/26/82)

The Santa Monica Municipal Code section can be seen [here].

And to avoid any ambiguity, the City also provides specific guidelines for tree protection during construction:

Policy 2.5 of the City’s Community Forest Management Plan mandates that contractors implement measures for the protection of existing City trees during adjacent construction activities. During construction projects, Tree Protection Zones must be established around all City trees prior to the commencement of construction activities.

Read the guidelines [here].

Take a look at the photos and see if the municipal code is being enforced and the guidelines followed:

Please click on photo to see more images.

How can we be this hypocritical...?

This week's Santa Monica Mirror editorial:

How can we be this hypocritical about our basic value systems and cut a beautiful existing canopy “because we have the money?” Especially on a street like 4th that is so heavily congested and appears to clean itself immediately with those beautiful overhanging ficuses

...The cutting of these trees will be no small matter. And what will be left will be a very sorry sight. There will be protests and the city will be under a major spotlight. The news reports around the region, where the City of Los Angeles is on a major One Million Tree planting program, will not paint this city in a good light. Other environmental organizations have promised to picket the city streets. The city will receive a black eye. It is a bad move. It is bad for the environment, it is bad for business, and it is bad for our conscience.

Read the entire editorial [here].

[link]

Local Realtor Speaks Out

We received this fine missive from local realtor Jodi Summers:

City Planning for Santa Monica should not include destroying healthy trees. It wasn't cool in 1934, and it's not cool now.

It seems like the City never learns. If you look on www.SantaMonicaLandmarks.com you’ll realize that Santa Monica went through a similar tree crisis in the 1930s.

...at the 1934 conference, Mr. Evans was critical of the fact that large old trees were being removed even then and emphasized the importance of retaining old growth trees.

Read the entire letter [here].

Claremont Gets It

Claremont, California. The City’s General Plan, General Policy 3 (page II/1-5) says:

The City shall encourage preservation and enhancement of existing landscaping, [emphasis ours] recognizing the importance of tree-lined streetscapes to the image of Claremont.

Incidentally, the section quoted above is from Claremont's Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan, for those who may be wondering about landmark issues...

Read the relevant document [here].

San Diego Gets It

Here's what the City of San Diego's Urban Forestry Street Division thinks of large, mature trees:

-Large trees remove 60-70 times more pollution than small trees.

-Mature trees improve our aesthetic environment, absorb noise, are traffic calming, reduce stress and crime, and create a peaceful place to relax or socialize.

-Mature trees provide a sense of "home" to a neighborhood.

Read the rest of their article "Benefits of Trees" [here].

San Diego also puts their tree-conservation policies into actual practice: their Planning Department's recommendations for the Uptown Community Plan Medical Complex area says this:

13. In the vicinity of the Fifth Avenue and University Avenue intersection, street trees should be chosen that will complement and reinforce the street tree theme of Ficus nitida which currently exists.

Read the rest of their recommendations [here].

Knoxville Gets It

Knoxville's Street Tree Master Plan:

Rows of ginko (sic) trees are not recommended as street trees because of their slow growth and spindly appearance for many years.

Read Knoxville's beautifully-illustrated 2002 Street Tree Master Plan [here].

Fort Collins Gets It

A city need not be large, wealthy, coastal and environmentally extra-progressive to protect its street trees. Here's how Fort Collins, Colorado does it:

CITY VEGETATION POLICIES

CAD-1.4 Street Tree design. Street trees should be used in formal architectural fashion to reinforce, define, and connect the spaces and corridors created by buildings and other features along a street. Canopy shade trees shall constitute the majority of tree plantings, and a mixture of tree types shall be included, arranged to establish partial urban tree canopy cover. Existing trees shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible. [Emphases ours]

Read the rest of their "Vegetation Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gases" [here].

Petitioners Speak Out

A small selection of comments from the hundreds of people who've signed our on-line petition. These are truly heartfelt comments and worthy of reading and reflection:

My wife and I recently vacationed in Santa Monica and were immediately drawn to the mature abundant branched thick green ficus trees lining the streets. It would be devastating to see these beautiful trees cut down if they are healthy and thriving.
Mark Hauenstein

Help keep Santa Monica looking beautiful...save and preserve our trees! Thank you for listening to our pleas...
Gloria Ainslie

The removal of so many majestic ficus trees from downtown already is terrible --and so hurts the friendliness of our city. Dear Santa Monica City Council, please look at the tremendous response of all of the people --who want you to do the right thing --and please change your minds; and save these big trees and their big, beautiful, and irreplaceable canopies, for the sake of us all.
David Busch

Dear Sir or Madam, I like Santa Monica. When I decide where to go shopping or for leisure time, I always head to where I see trees, as they relax me more than anything else in a city. But what is this Los Angeles mania to cut down beautiful and old trees? Trees create oxygen. Los Angeles needs MORE good air, not less! Trees create a spirited atmosphere. I go where the trees go. If the trees go away I won't want to go there anymore and my friends and my family actually all think the same. And we all do not care too much for the thought of miniature gingko trees. Actually oaks would be a lot more comforting. Thanks for listening. Georgina Rotter
Georgina Rotter

Looking more closely at these trees, i noticed that they are not exactly beautiful! Suddenly I felt all the more tenderness towards them. They are here, and they have been here for 40+ years and they need care and attention. And.... whoever made the LUDICROUS suggestion that they could be relocated to SM Airport--- must imagine that no one here is paying any attention whatsoever... no trees do well in that concrete under those jets, what a joke oh, well please come to your senses oand wake up to the idea that you also care about the mature grand trees of our city.
Dona Snow

Read the rest of the comments [here].

Treesavers Pulls Case, for Now

The LookOut news:

October 25 -- The Downtown ficus trees won’t be seeing their day in court, at least for now, after Treesavers took a motion for a preliminary injunction scheduled for Friday off the docket.

The motion to halt the City’s plans to compost or relocate 75 mature ficus and palm trees on Second and Fourth streets is unnecessary because the tree activists filed an application to declare the trees along the streets city landmarks, Treesavers said.

...Rubin said that Treesavers has not dismissed the case and is waiting to see if the City cooperates.

The case is “still pending awaiting the outcome of the landmarks determination,” Rubin said. “If the City doesn’t cooperate, Treesavers is reserving the right to go back to court in the future.”

Read the entire article [here]
[link]

Making opinions felt

Treesavers in front of City Hall, 10.23.07, just prior to a meeting of the Santa Monica City Council. Click on image to see larger version.

Treesavers Make Extra Efforts

The Santa Monica Mirror:

On Saturday, October 20, Jerry Rubin and other activists began a fast for the trees, announcing their action at a press conference at 2nd Street and Broadway, under one of the trees slated for removal and composting.

...“This is not a hunger strike,” said Rubin, who has fasted for many causes in the past. “This is an activist fast.” He said that the activists were to “fan out” along the Third Street Promenade and other downtown streets to collect signatures on a petition to be given to the City Council at the October 23 meeting, where the activists were again planning to speak before the Council.

Read the entire article [here].

[link]

Hunger Fast Press Conference, 10.20.07

Please click on images to see larger versions.

Treesavers, including high-school students, joining the fast.

Treesavers starting the fast with music.

A portrait of protestors: cross-section of Santa Monica society.

Landmark Application Filed!

The Santa Monica Daily Press:

This latest development essentially stalls any work on the trees until the Landmarks Commission brings the matter up during one of its scheduled meetings anytime within the next 65 days. Tanemori guesses that the commission won’t hear the matter until its December meeting.

Read the rest of the article [here].


...and the Santa Monica Mirror:

Another measure of protection for the threatened trees on 2nd and 4th Streets was added with the official “filing” of applications for City landmark designation on Tuesday, October 16. The municipal code prohibits “any alteration…removal, relocation, or demolition, in whole or in part, of or to a proposed Landmark” once the application is “filed” and until it is determined.

Read the rest of the article [here].

"...we hope someone has the sense to slap it down."

3 Years Ago: A Santa Monica Mirror editorial from October, 2005:

In addition, the notion of removing dozens of large, healthy Ficus trees, and replacing them with deciduous Ghinko trees, which will shed their leaves every fall, at a cost of over $750,000, is not merely foolish, it’s an obscene waste of money and trees.

City Hall prattles endlessly about our “urban forest,” even as it decimates it. Indeed, if accuracy counted for anything in City Hall, the City “arborist” would be called the City Logger.

Read the rest of this prescient editorial [here].

[link]

Treeless in Santa Monica

Click on image to see a larger version.Above, ca. 1931 : a view looking north up Fourth Street toward Santa Monica Boulevard (photo taken just north of Broadway). The Central Tower Building (still there today) is on the left; the Henshey Building seen in the distance on the right, at the corner of Fourth and Santa Monica, is the current location of REI. Note how the absence of shade trees has forced the merchants on the east side of the street (exposed to the hot south-west afternoon sun) to install large, deep awnings, obscuring their display windows from view. (Click on image to see larger version). Photo courtesy the Santa Monica Public Library Image Archives.

More historic photos of treeless downtown Santa Monica: click on images above, or [here].

50 Years of Fighting for Trees in Santa Monica

Local newspapers record the struggles: entries from the Santa Monica Public Library's newspaper index:

First of Monterey pines removed from 14th St.
Evening outlook. 03/14/1957

Council aid sought to save trees.
Evening outlook. 03/20/1957.

Monterey pines on 14th St. win reprieve.
Evening outlook. 03/28/1957.

Tree controversy grows in SM.
Evening outlook. 05/26/1970
Large trees are no longer being planted by the city of Santa Monica, and city councilman James Reidy Jr., for one, doesn't like it.

100 year old trees uprooted, moved : reprieve fails to save palms.
Evening outlook. 01/17/1981, A4.
Located at 202 San Vicente Blvd.

No shady deals : death of a liquid amber sparks SM protections.
The Outlook. 07/11/1988, A1

More headlines [here].

[link]

Plus ça change...

Six years ago, from the July 11th, 2001 Santa Monica Mirror:

A tree at Fifth Street and Santa Monica Boulevard is removed to make way for the Downtown Transit Mall.

photo courtesy Santa Monica Mirror

More photos [here].
[link]

Eight Years Ago

Several residents, some of them representing neighborhood groups, objected to their exclusion from the process, and went on to protest the removal and replacement of trees without input from citizens.

...Henderson, of Mid-City Neighbors, objected to the city’s “right to pull out “block after block of healthy trees. It takes 10 years to develop a [leaf] canopy,” she said. “Why would we want to go bare for ten years?”

Community forester Walt Warriner said that he would never advocate taking out a healthy tree. "It doesn’t make sense."

...Community forester Walt Warriner agreed. “The whole idea is in 20 to 30 years from now, people won’t look at [the community forest] and think, ‘What were these guys thinking?’”

Read this interesting article–written eight years ago, [here].
[Link]

SM Mirror: People Notice When Trees Are Cut Down

Santa Monica Mirror editorial:

If we were to listen to our esteemed Mayor Bloom, who seems to get on the wrong side of popular issues, the DECISION was made three years ago. Huh? Anyone recall that discussion? Did he really think when the time came to cut these trees down people were not going to notice?

Read the rest of the article [here].
[link]

Tehachapi News: Perhaps Santa Monica is More Progressive

From today's Tehachapi News.

Perhaps the difference between Santa Monica and Tehachapi is that Santa Monica is more progressive, the residents have more money, and they have a greater interest in their community than most Tehachapi residents do. They are not willing to mindlessly give in to political bullying. The City of Santa Monica pays closer attention to what city residents have to say because they are aware of the potential costs if they do not.

Read the rest of the article [here].
[link]

SM Dispatch: City Is Out of Order

The Santa Monica Dispatch editorial:

A majority of the Council members thinks and acts more like bureaucrats than representatives of the people. They have not simply stopped representing us, they have stopped listening to us. Today, City “procedures” count for more and have more weight than residents’ views and wishes.

Read the article [here].
[link]

KCRW: "Santa Monica's Chainsaw Massacre"

On Monday, KCRW's Which Way L.A.? program covered the tree issue in Santa Monica. Warren Olney interviewed Lynne Bronstein of the Santa Monica Mirror and Andy Lipkis of TreePeople.

MON, OCT 8, 2007, 7:00P-7:30P
Which Way, L.A.?
LA’s One Million Trees Campaign, and Santa Monica’s Chainsaw Massacre
Host: Warren Olney
Mayor Villaraigosa wants a million new trees in Los Angeles. But in some neighborhoods, residents say lack of maintenance has branches falling off trees that are already there. Meantime, the City of Santa Monica is trying to chop down ficus trees. Tonight we’ll hear about planting, pruning and politics in Southern California’s Urban Forest.

To listen to the program click [here].

Santa Monica Daily Press: "How far do you believe the tree activists can go with this fight?"

From the Santa Monica Daily Press (page 5):

Enough with the trees already

Local activists the Treesavers have been successful in their bid to delay the city’s plan to remove over 50 ficus trees from the downtown area. They are still short of their ultimate goal of saving the trees for good, but this development bodes well for their cause.

So this week’s Q-Line question asks:
How far do you believe the tree activists can go with this fight? Do you think the city is going to give the trees a reprieve or is this just a temporary victory?

Call (310) 285-8106 before Friday at 5 p.m. and we’ll print your answers in the weekend edition of the Daily Press. Please limit responses to a minute or less.

Treesavers: call the paper, and voice your opinions! Let City Hall know what you think!

Court Stops the Lumberjacks

The Los Angeles Times:

Court bars removal of Santa Monica trees

By Molly Hennessy-Fiske, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 6, 2007

Protesters obtained a restraining order Friday to stop the destruction of a stand of ficus trees in downtown Santa Monica that the city had planned to remove starting Monday as part of an $8-million downtown development project.

Local activist Jerry Rubin got the order approved by a judge on behalf of Santa Monica Treesavers. The order prevents the city from removing 54 ficus trees on 4th and 2nd streets unless they pose a danger to the public.

The city planned to remove 23 trees that its arborist considered damaged or diseased and to replant 31 of them elsewhere in the city.

Protesters doubt the trees are damaged and want time to get a second opinion.

"If the trees were truly a danger to the public, they would have been removed already," said the group's attorney, Thomas Nitti.

[link]

And The Lookout News:

Judge Bars City from Chopping Down Trees, For Now

By Jorge Casuso

October 5 -- The Downtown ficus trees slated for the axe were given a reprieve Friday when a Superior Court judge issued a restraining order barring the City from removing any trees along 2nd and 4th that don’t pose a danger to the public.

City officials said they would abide by the order until a hearing on the issue is held October 26. Although work will begin Monday on the $8.2 million streetscape project, no trees will be removed, they said.

Activists, who have stepped up efforts to block the City’s plans to compost or relocate 75 mature ficus and palm trees, declared a temporary victory in what could be a prolonged battle.

Read the rest of the article [here].

[link]

And the Santa Monica Mirror:

Ficus Trees Granted Stay of Execution

The scheduled removal of the ficus trees on 2nd and 4th Streets in downtown Santa Monica has been halted until October 26 by a temporary restraining order.

Jerry Rubin of Treesavers made the announcement at a special meeting held on the front lawn of Santa Monica City Hall on the evening of Friday, October 5. TV stations KTLA and KNBC were present, along with about 50 activists.

Read the rest of the article [here].

[link]

And the Argonaut:

Restraining order spares ficus trees — for now

The 54 ficus trees in downtown Santa Monica slated for removal as part of a streetscape improvement project have been saved — at least for the time being — after a Superior Court judge issued a temporary restraining order against the city, banning it from removing trees that are of no danger to the public.

Attorney Tom Nitti — who has volunteered his services to the Santa Monica Treesavers group that is fighting to save the mature ficus trees along Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard — obtained the restraining order in Los Angeles Superior Court Friday, October 5th.

Read the rest of the story [here].

[link]

Announcement photos in front of City Hall (please click on images for larger versions):

Tom Nitti and Jerry Rubin making the announcement

Jerry adding detail.

Tom Nitti providing detailed description of the injunction

John Quigley discussing the meaning of the injunction

Samohi students expressing support

From the Editor: Santa Monica Mirror

I simply cannot let one more week go by without discussing the ficus tree situation on 2nd and 4th Streets. Besides, next week might be too late. People are apoplectic about the thought of losing these mature trees. Who in this day and age cuts down large, mature trees to plant baby trees whose growth potential is but a fraction of the trees that will no doubt be turned into kindling (when they don’t survive the move)? Walking down 2nd and 4th Streets is always a pleasure because it is shady and cool; people waiting for the bus have a respite from the harsh, unrelenting Southern California sun.

Read the rest of the editorial [here].

Another battle to preserve urban ficus

The designers of the renovation say they favor smaller trees, arguing the current ones dwarf the surrounding buildings and block views. But when workers showed up with chain saws to cut up the tree tipped over by the bulldozers, angry residents stood guard around the laurel and stopped them.

Santa Monica, 2007? No: Oaxaca, May, 2005. The very same type of tree that is at the center of the contentious fight in Santa Monica, was the focus of protests in the historic city of Oaxaca, Mexico when the trees were threatened there--as they are here.

Organizers and supporters of the protest say that they are outraged not only at the destruction of the tree; they also call into question the project’s necessity and a lack of openness in its planning.

Read the entire story [here] (scroll down to mid-page).

Petition signers are adding comments

Please read the statements written by many petition-signers; they are cogent and passionate: to read them click [here]. (There are six pages of signatures and comments; switch pages by clicking on the arrows above the comment area on each page).

Who's Visiting?

Here's a Clustrmaps diagram of visitors to our web site, world-wide, as of October 3, 2007. The red dots indicate location and number of visitors (larger dots=more visitors).

[please click on image to see larger version]

A Biologist's Letter To City Council

[letter sent 10/3/07]

Dear Councilman Shriver,

By way of introduction, my name is Dennis Parker and I am both a biologist (Cal State Univ. Sonoma, 1976) and Arizona attorney (Southwestern Univ. School of Law, SCALE program, 2001) by trade. I have worked in the rather contentious arena of environmental issues and policy, particularly those involving threatened and endangered species, for many years and, if anything, I've learned that the actual consequences of environmental policy decisions are almost always much more complex and of greater consequence to environmental sustainability and well-being than they appear on their face. The proposed removal of ficus trees on 2nd and 4th Streets and their replacement by Ginkgo Biloba trees, I believe, is an excellent example of such.

Little known to many, and of little discussion until now, is the critical fact that the ficus trees of Santa Monica and the greater Los Angeles area as a whole play a critical role in sustaining the well-being of both resident and migratory avifauna of our region...

Read the rest of this amazing letter [here].

Scenes from a March

Please click on images to see larger version.

photos: Debra Fredricks

Treesavers--Second Meeting with City Manager

***BULLETIN****
Special Meeting with Santa Monica City Manager

Following up on last week's meeting, a group of Treesaver activists had a special meeting today with Santa Monica City Manager Lamont Ewell and Community Forest Superintendent Walt Warriner at Santa Monica City Hall. The meeting, called by the City Manager, was held to get a renewed update on the City's plans and maintain the open dialogue on the contentious issue of removing over 50 ficus trees from 2nd and 4th streets in Santa Monica.

To read entire story, click [here].

Planning Commission to discuss Tree Removal

The Santa Monica Planning Commission has placed the tree removal issue on their agenda for discussion and public input!

Santa Monica City Hall, City Council Chamber (2d Floor).
Wednesday, October 3, 2007--7pm, item 11-E. More info [here].

Note that this item is only one of several that evening. It is important that many people come to this meeting to show support for these wonderful trees on Second and Fourth Streets. It is possible that the item will be opened up for public discussion; in this case members of the public will be permitted 3 minutes each to address the Commission. Please attend if at all possible; this is one meeting where the public's presence can really make a difference.

Ficus trees used by migratory birds

A biologist writes to us:
"...By way of introduction, my name is Dennis Parker and I am both a biologist and attorney (Arizona). While I was attending law school at Southwestern in L.A., I observed the importance of ficus trees to many species of birds. Because of the ficus's habit of producing small figs in abundance during the fall and winter months, it is an important food source for migrants such as the Cedar Waxwing, a bird which breeds much higher in elevation. I observed hundreds of waxwings feeding on figs on and around the Southwestern campus during the years I went to school there. I also observed lots of American Robins doing likewise, and observed many Yellow-rumped Warblers in migration that were also drawn to the ficus trees where they were feeding on insects associated with the abundant fruits. I also saw Orange-crowned Warblers in the ficuses, but didn't observe what they were eating.

Other species I observed catching insects among the ficuses included two species of flycatchers: Western Flycatchers (which are migratory) and Black Phoebes (which seem to be resident). Beyond these species, I also observed many House Finches and Mockingbirds feeding on the figs (both are residents). I also observed both Peregine Falcons and Cooper's Hawks in the area where the birds were feasting on figs, and observed the latter actively attempt to take birds drawn to the ficuses on more than one occasion.

I also observed large numbers of Conyers (30+ to a group), among other parrots, taking advantage of the abundant fruit production of the ficus trees. An interesting interaction also occurred regularly between the conyers and the waxwings. Conyers would actively run off the waxwings. But the waxwings would only retreat temporarily and a short distance away, wait for the conyers to become so absorbed in eating figs that they ignored them, and then the waxwings would slip back into the ficus trees in small groups until all of them were back and feeding. This would continue until the conyers once again noticed the waxwings and ran them off again. This would occur several times over the course of an hour or so.

The reason I mention all of this is that I have witnessed similar uses of ficuses by many of these birds in Santa Monica as well, and in reading about the City of Santa Monica's ficus removal plan, and then going to your website, I didn't see anything about how important the ficus and its fruiting habits actually are to both migratory and resident bird species. I believe this fact is important and needs to be emphasized if the ficuses on both 2nd and 4th Streets are to be spared from the axe.

Sincerely,

Dennis Parker"

A note to our supporters, friends and members

A brief note to our supporters, friends and members: please do not adhere any announcements or press releases to any street poles, electrical boxes or other city-owned (or privately owned) facilities. Whenever we've attached anything, it has been to the threatened trees only--and then only with green ribbons for easy removal. It is not our intent to add to the city's burden; we all live here together in the city we value. Thank you most kindly.

Other Cities Preserve Their Trees

During a visit last year to the ancient city of Colonia, Uruguay, we experienced beautiful street scenes, where large, thick-canopy majestic trees add immeasurably to the overall experience of the visit. Aside from the environmental benefits, these trees play an important role in attracting visitors from around the world. If Colonia, Uruguay can preserve their trees, surely Santa Monica can, too?
[please click on photos for larger versions]

Marching to Save The Trees, October 2

[press release]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Jerry Rubin (310) 399-1000
Dan Jansenson (310) 451-5907
Susan Hartley (310) 458-3700
Chris Paine chris@papercutfilms.com

EMERGENCY MARCH TO SAVE THREATENED TREES IN DOWNTOWN SANTA MONICA TO TAKE PLACE OCTOBER 2

note: to read full article, see archived text [here].

Treesavers meet with Santa Monica City Manager

***BULLETIN****
Special Meeting with Santa Monica City Manager

A group of Treesaver activists had a special meeting today with Santa Monica City Manager Lamont Ewell, Chief of Police Timothy Jackman, and Community Forest Superintendent Walt Warriner at Santa Monica City Hall.

note: to read full article, see archived text [here].

Treeless in El Segundo

Some years ago the city of El Segundo went through a similar controversy with their Ficus trees. Huge opposition to the removal of the trees (part of a downtown streetscape redesign project). A petition with over 2000 signatures was presented in opposition to the tree removal, but in the end City Hall prevailed and most of the trees went down.

Some original survivors remain in small portions of the downtown area; these are representative of the original trees [click on photos for larger versions]:



It was Main Street and immediately adjacent streets that lost most of their Ficus trees. Here's what the area looks like today (the replacement trees shown here are Ginkgos):






One and two blocks away, perhaps because of an absence of money--or a surfeit of common sense--the original trees were preserved. This is what that area looks like today [click on photos for larger versions]:








There are downtown areas where the few surviving Ficus trees continue to exist (and thrive); those areas present striking contrasts with the new Ginkgos (the photo below shows a surviving Ficus in the foreground, and a small new Ginkgo in the back, against the building):

Treesavers Rally, 9/23/07

Jerry Rubin reading the opening remarks at the rally.
[Please click on photos for larger versions]

[photo: Martin Rubin]

[photo: Martin Rubin]

[photo: Martin Rubin]

More photos: click [here].

Wakey, wakey, time to get up.

Click on photo for larger version:

photo: Debra Fredricks

Santa Monica Daily Press: "Is the Whole Endeavor a Waste of Time?"

From today's Santa Monica Daily Press (page 5):

"The ficus fiasco continues

An ad-hoc group of local activists has come together to save the trees on Second and Fourth streets following a City Council decision to remove the mature specimens.

So this week’s Q-Line question asks:

Do you think they should continue their crusade to save the trees or is the whole endeavor a waste of time?

Call (310) 285-8106 before Friday at 5 p.m. and we’ll print your answers in the weekend edition of the Daily Press. Please limit responses to a minute or less."

Treesavers: call the paper, and voice your opinions! Let City Hall know what you think!

Letter to the Editor

To: editor@smdp.com
Subject: Ficus Trees NOT Diseased

FICUS TREES NOT DISEASED
Despite earlier statements to the public that 23 of the 54 ficus trees on 2nd and 4th Street are "diseased", City Forester Walt Warriner and the City of Santa Monica NO longer make that claim. In conversations and in the official notices posted on trees, the City's non-specific explanation is: "The criteria for removal included but were not limited to internal decay, extensive root pruning, poor canopy structure, damaged canopies from oversized vehicles, DESIGN FACTORS and too large for relocation." (Emphasis added.)

Walk along 2nd and 4th street and you will see NO signs of any of these critera being met. Instead, you will see well-kept, magnificent trees, approximately 40 years old, with a lifespan of 150 years, bringing much needed tree canopy coverage to the downtown area.

The downtown area presently has only 5% tree canopy coverage according to the just released Sustainable City Progress Report (http://www.smgov.net/epd/scpr/index.htm). With the City's planned destruction of the 2nd and 4th Street trees, that inadequate percentage will be drastically lessened.

Santa Monica needs to stop its plan of mass tree destruction and plant more trees, not destroy healthy, mature trees because of "design factors". Our City is better than that.
Susan Hartley

Marked for Execution

The notices went up today. This is one of the marked trees, on Second Street near Santa Monica Boulevard. The notice is on the sidewalk side of the tree.

[click on images for larger versions]

Autumn Equinox Treesaver Pep Rally

[press release]
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS TO HOLD SEPTEMBER 23 “AUTUMN EQUINOX TREESAVER PEP RALLY”

FOLLOWING RALLY, ACTIVISTS WILL TIE GREEN RIBBONS AND POST “SAVE THESE TREES” NOTICES ON SCORES OF THREATENED SANTA MONICA DOWNTOWN TREES

Santa Monica, CA – Tree-loving environmental activists will gather in Santa Monica at the start of the September 23 Autumn Equinox to hold a “Treesaver Pep Rally” in opposition to the City’s planned destruction and relocation of scores of mature ficus trees in the Santa Monica Downtown District.

To read full article, see archived text [here].

Before & After

Last year the city removed a number of Ficus trees from 32d Street and replaced them with the same Ginkgos they plan for Second and Fourth Streets. The Ficus on 32d Street were apparently diseased or in evident decline. The photo below shows a healthy, mature Ficus (similar to those on Second and Fourth Streets) to the left, and the new small replacement Ginkgo to the right. The Ginkgo takes 15 to 20 years to attain shade-casting maturity.

[please click on image to see larger version]

TV Coverage

Channel 2 News covers our efforts [click the image to see film; takes a few seconds to load and play]:

[press release]

TIMELY AND CRUCIAL “TREESAVERS” MEETING TO BE HELD SEPTEMBER 19 AT MAGICOPOLIS IN SANTA MONICA

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Santa Monica, CA – A timely and crucial “Treesavers” meeting to continue building the effort to save the threatened trees in Santa Monica’s Downtown District will take place Wednesday, September 19, 2007 beginning 7:00 PM at Magicopolis located at 1418 Fourth Street in Santa Monica, just south of Santa Monica Boulevard.

To read full article, see archived text [here].

Next Meeting of Treesavers at Magicopolis!

Wednesday, September 19th, 7pm.

1418 4th St., Santa Monica, CA (just south of Santa Monica Boulevard).

Map and directions, here:


View Larger Map

Thank you to Magicopolis for this "magic" location. All treehuggers welcome!

Second and Fourth Street Trees

The Santa Monica Treesavers, headed and inspired by Jerry Rubin, got together last night at Santa Monica Place for a kickoff meeting to discuss saving the ficus on Second and Fourth streets. Councilman Kevin McKeown attended the meeting, along with members of the local media. Chris Paine, writer and director of the film Who Killed the Electric Car? made a particularly impassioned presentation. Discussions about saving the ficus trees on Second and Fourth street were energetic and enthusiastic, and were followed by a walk up Fourth street to observe and visit trees, and thank local businesses for their support. Below are a few photos by Martin Rubin [click on photos to see larger versions].