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 Str