SR-021908-6ACity Council Meeting: February 19, 2008
Agenda Item: ~'
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen P. Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development
Subject: Appeals of Landmarks Commission Denial of Landmark Applications for
the Ficus Trees Located on the East and West Sides of Second and
Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends the City Council deny appeals 08APP-001 and O8APP-002 and
uphold the Landmarks Commission's decision to deny Landmark designation
applications 07LM-008 and 07LM-009 based on the findings set forth by the Landmarks
Commission in its action on January 14, 2008.
Executive Summary
This report supports the Landmarks Commission's denial of the two Landmark
designation applications filed for the 153 mature Ficus street trees on Second and
Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard. Separate Landmark
applications, and subsequently separate appeals, were filed for the group of trees on
Second Street and on Fourth Street. Since the nature of these improvements is similar,
as a matter of efficiency, one staff report addresses the analysis for both pending
appeals.
There are a total of 153 Ficus trees located in the public right-of-way on the east and
west sides of Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue to the south and
Wilshire Boulevard to the north. Each of the Ficus trees is planted in grade-level
openings in the sidewalk at the edge of the curb and has high rounded canopies that
shade the sidewalks. The planting of some Ficus trees on Fourth Street was initiated in
1961 through the efforts of a Chamber of Commerce beautification committee and
completed by the City in January 1965. The Ficus trees on Second Street were planted
by the City in February 1967. The subject trees are located within the City of Santa
Monica's downtown Central Business District area.
On January 14, 2008, a majority of the Landmarks Commission determined that the
Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets do not meet any of the six Landmark
designation criteria set forth in SMMC 9.36.100 and therefore denied the applications by
a vote of 6-1.
This report presents analysis of the Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets in light of
the six Landmark designation criteria set forth in the Landmarks Ordinance, highlights
1
the Landmarks Commission's action, and addresses the appeals filed by Jerry Rubin
and Treesavers that assert the Landmarks Commission erred in its denial of the two
Landmark applications because the subject trees "should have been designated as
Landmarks". The appellants' appeals filed on January 24, 2008 (Attachment A) do not
elaborate further on this statement.
In consideration of the full record to date, it is recommended that the Landmarks
Commission's denial of the two Landmark designation applications be upheld and the
appeals, therefore, be denied. The recommendation presented in this staff report does
not have any budgetary or fiscal impact.
Discussion
Background
Ficus microcarpa nitida'
The Indian Laurel Fig is an evergreen tree which is a native of Asia, common in the
central province of Ceylon, up to an elevation of 5,000 feet. It grows indigenously in the
peninsula of India and in China, but has been widely planted in the tropics and was
introduced into the United States for ornament in the early 1900s. The Laurel Fig has
been popular as a street tree in warm weather states such as California and Florida for
decades. The Indian laurel fig is taxonomically confusing in the horticulture industry
because its scientific name has been changed so many times in the last 30 years. The
Indian Laurel Fig, which has obtained the scientific name Ficus microcarpa 'nitida', is
also commonly referred to simply as Ficus trees.
According to the City's Community Forester, the Ficus microcarpa 'nitida' is a fast
growing, broad-headed, evergreen tree that can reach a mature height of sixty feet or
more with an equal spread of its canopy. It is a commonly grown tree found throughout
California due to its hardiness, and adaptability to urban conditions. With age, the Ficus
tree can develop a massive, spreading, dense canopy that will cast deep shade. The
trunk of Ficus trees are smooth and light grey in color and can grow to three feet in
diameter at the trunk flare supported by an extensive surface root system that does best
in a 20 foot wide parkway.
Research indicates that the combination of the Ficus tree's inherent canopy properties
and the subsequent hybridized resilient characteristics made Ficus microcarpa `nitida'
2
the primary choice in Southern California for postwar urban redevelopment
streetscapes.
Ficus Trees in Santa Monica
Following World War II, a series of efforts were undertaken by the City to document
existing street trees and plan for new plantings Citywide. Many of the City's existing
street trees were part of the postwar redevelopment of Santa Monica. The 1956 City of
Santa Monica Master Plan included afive-year tree planting program that sought to infill
trees on those streets that were not planted. The program was continued with the 1962
Public Works Master Plan that mapped existing rows of street trees and made
recommendations for a planting schedule to add trees to the few remaining treeless
streets.
Data from the City's Public Landscape Division indicate that nearly all of the Ficus street
trees in Santa Monica were planted during the 1950s and 1960s. Maps prepared from
the City's planting records show that Ficus street trees were not planted in one specific
type of area or adjacent to certain building types; rather, the Ficus were planted in both
residential and commercial areas, and were planted in great numbers on numerous
streets throughout the City. According to the 2000 City of Santa Monica Community
Forest Management Plan there were 3,184 Ficus trees in Santa Monica based on actual
field surveys conducted for this document. Based on this data, the Ficus tree is the
second most prevalent tree in Santa Monica, second in number only to the Mexican fan
palm (3,887 identified).
3
Perspective view of Ficus Trees on Fourth Street
Perspective View ofFicus Trees on Second Street
.~
Map of Ficus Trees in Santa Monica, City of Santa Monica Public Landscape Division (2004)
v,
Vi~!'6 {
X
Trees Planted in Sanfa Monica by Decade, Cify of Santa Monica Public Landscape Division (2006)
Historic Resources Inventory Status
The Central Business District was originally identified as a potential historic district in
1983 during Phase I of the City's Historic Resources Inventory survey. At that time, the
boundaries of the potential Central Business District were identified as including
buildings in the 100 - 700 blocks of Broadway, Colorado, Santa Monica, Wilshire, and
the 1200-1500 blocks of Second, Fourth, and a small section of Fifth Street. In addition,
contributors to the potential historic district were identified as those buildings
constructed from 1875 to 1944.
During Phase III of the Citywide Historic Resources Inventory conducted between 1990
and 1993, additional properties were identified as contributing to the potential Central
Business District. The potential historic district was surveyed again in 1994 following the
1994 Northridge earthquake, and again in -1998 as part of the Central Business
District/Third Street Promenade Inventory update.
The subject Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets have not been identified during
any of the previous surveys of the potential Central Business District as either
individually eligible for designation or as a contributor to the district. In addition, the
subject Ficus trees have not been previously identified during Inventory survey efforts
as a potentially significant example of street trees or as a contributor to an historical
landscape or streetscape.
Landmarks Commission Action
At the request of the applicants, the Landmarks Commission continued the initial public
hearings scheduled for November 12, 2007 and December 10, 2007 in order to provide
the applicants additional time to prepare information to present to the Landmarks
Commission regarding the potential significance of the subject rows of Ficus trees on
Second and Fourth Streets in downtown Santa Monica. Based on testimony provided by
the applicants at the December 10th hearing, the Landmarks Commission also
requested that staff provide additional information regarding potential cultural contexts
6
identified during the course of the applicants' testimony related to Environmentalism in
Santa Monica and Feminism and the Women's Liberation Movement in Santa Monica
The Landmarks Commission held a public hearing for the two Landmark designation
applications on January 14, 2008. The Commission heard extensive public testimony in
support of the Landmark applications, and also heard additional information presented
by the applicants that provided a narrative regarding the planting of nearly 60 trees in
the broader downtown area as a result volunteer efforts initiated in 1961 from a
Chamber of Commerce beautification committee led by local resident Mrs. Jacqueline
Girion.
Following public testimony and Commission discussion, a majority of the Commission
determined that the subject Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets in the downtown
area do not meet any of the six Landmark designation criteria and denied both
applications by a vote of 6-1. This majority of the Landmarks Commission concurred
with the staff recommendation and based its denial of both Landmark applications, in
part, on the following factors:
• While the Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets contribute to the streetscape
and help to define the character of the downtown area, they are not individually
significant and do not, as features of the streetscape, embody the history of the
City's Central Business District in way that warrants City Landmark designation.
• Within the context of the approximately 3,100 Ficus trees in the City, neither
grouping of Ficus street trees or their associated linear canopies on Second and
Fourth Streets possess characteristics of noteworthy or aesthetic interest or value
sufficient to warrant City Landmark designation based on factors such as historic
association, age, size, condition, or rarity that have been consistently applied in
previous Landmark tree evaluations.
• The volunteer work of Mrs. Jacqueline Girion and the efforts Chamber of
Commerce's beautification committee during the 1960s redevelopment of the
downtown area is important and also an example of a wide variety of volunteer
efforts that are part of the larger tradition of activism that contributes to Santa
Monica's character. However, with respect to application of the Landmark
designation criteria, the subject Ficus trees are not associated with a historic
personage or correlated with important events in local, state, or national history in a
way that distinguishes these trees from the over 3,100 other examples of Ficus in
7
the City or from the other numerous street trees that were planted during the
postwar years throughout the City.
• There are superior examples of Ficus trees that were planted in more appropriate
grow spaces and have not been impacted by extensive root and canopy pruning in
other parts of the City, specifically on Second Street north of Wilshire Boulevard and
on Pearl Street between Fourteenth and Sixteenth Streets. In contrast to these
better examples, the subject Ficus trees do not possess sufficient integrity to qualify
as individual City Landmarks due to impacts resulting from extensive root and
canopy pruning.
The full texf of the Landmarks Commission's Statement of Official Action is presented
as Attachment B. The November 12, 2007 and January 14, 2008 staff reports and
January 14, 2008 meeting minutes and are presented as Attachments C and D,
respectively.
Appeal Summary
The appellants state that the Landmarks Commission erred in its decision to deny the
Landmark designation applications. However, the appeal statement submitted by the
appellants offered no evidence to suggest why the Landmarks Commission's
determination was inappropriate. The full text of the appeal is contained in Attachment
A. Discussion and analysis of the applicants' statement of significance contained in the
Landmark Designation applications is presented in the Landmarks Commission staff
reports contained in Attachment C.
The City Council, in its review of this appeal, must determine whether an improvement
satisfies one or more of the following criteria set forth in SMMC Section 9.36.100 in
order to be designated as a Landmark:
(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social,
economic, political or architectural history of the City.
(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest
or value.
(3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local,
state or national history.
8
{4) It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a
study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous
materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an
architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.
(5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a
notable builder, designer or architect.
(6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an
established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or
the City.
Appeal Analysis
Based on the full record to date, including testimony and documentary evidence
presented at Landmarks Commission public hearings, there is ample support for the
Commission's decision to deny both Landmark designation applications. Therefore, staff
continues to recommend denial of these applications as detailed more fully in the staff
reports provided for the Landmark Commission hearings (Attachment D). The following
discussion presents summary analysis of the subject Ficus trees in light of the six
Landmark designation criteria contained in SMMC 9.36.100 and summarizes the basis
for staff's determination.
Analysis of Designation Criteria
Criterion #1: It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural,
social, economic, political or architectural history of the City
The subject Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets are typical examples of the
numerous street trees planted within the larger context of Santa Monica's ongoing
citywide tree planting program initiated in 1953 with the aforementioned Master Street
Tree Planting Program. The rows of Ficus trees along Second and Fourth Streets were
also planted in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Central Business District
during the 1960s, which included a tree planting effort initiated in 1961 by Mrs.
Jacqueline Girion and a Chamber of Commerce beautification committee and
completed by the City in 1964-1967. In 1961-1962, Mrs. Girion was involved in
obtaining the support of the City Council and local merchants for the planting of nearly
9
60 Ficus trees in the broader Central Business District.
The Chamber of Commerce beautification committee's program to plant trees should be
understood within the larger context of the business community and Chamber of
Commerce's efforts to economically revitalize the downtown area and make it more
attractive to shoppers and visitors. The trees were planted as streetscape
improvements in an area that had already attained its significance as the City's oldest
shopping destination and business district. Furthermore, the planting of street trees was
only one component of a broader revitalization program that included other streetscape
improvements as well as extensive remodeling and new construction of commercial
buildings. As such, the subject Ficus trees do not individually exemplify, symbolize or
manifest the history of the redevelopment of the Central Business District, which is
primarily embodied in the redeveloped 3rd Street Mall and is also represented by other
1950s-1960s commercial redevelopment and infrastructure improvements in the
broader downtown area.
It is also important to note that the group of 60 Ficus trees planted by the City in
conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce's beautification committee was only one
component of a much larger scale municipal tree planting effort underway throughout
Santa Monica which commenced in 1953 and continues to this day. Research indicates
that during the 1961-1962 fiscal year alone, in addition to the 60 Ficus planted
downtown, the City also planted over 640 street trees in residential parkways in
conjunction with the aforementioned Master Street Tree Planting Program.
Criterion #2: It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy
interest or value.
To date, there have been five individual trees designated as City Landmarks. In order to
provide some context about this relatively uncommon type of Landmark designation, the
following is a brief description of some of the key characteristics that made each of
these five trees significant as a Landmark landscape element:
10
1) Miramar Moreton Bay Fig Tree (101 Wilshire Boulevard)
• Planted in 1889 on the grounds of the estate of one of the founders of Santa
Monica, Senator John P. Jones. Documented as fine botanical example of its
species.
2) California Live Oak Tree (1443 Tenth Street)
• At the time of its designation in 1979, it was approximately 150 years old and
was recognized as a large and rare example of its species in the City.
3) Eucalyptus Deanei Tree (522 24th Street)
• Documented as a rare species in California; determined to be the tallest
Eucalyptus deanei in the United States, according to both Hastings & Heintz'
Trees of Santa Monica (1976) and Hodel's Exceptional Trees of Los Angeles
(1988); over 80 years old at the time of designation; planted by influential
horticulturist Hugh Evans; associated with Santa Monica's early horticultural
history.
4) Deodar Cedar Tree (918 Fifth Street)
• Documented as over 100 years old at the time of designation; determined to be a
large tree that has developed naturally therefore making it a unique and rare
example of its species.
5) Eucalyptus Cornuta Tree (1407 Hill Street)
• Determined to be unique as a rare example of its species with co-dominant
trunks measuring over 33 feet in circumference and over 50 feet in height;
estimated to be over 90 years old and planted prior to the development of the
City's Sunset Park neighborhood in which it is located.
In contrast to the type of qualities attributed to the City's five designated Landmark trees
described above, an evaluation of the subject Ficus gees prepared by the City's
Community Forester and concurred with by the staff arborist at PCR Services
Corporation indicates that these trees are not an excellent representation of their
species and do not possess unique or noteworthy characteristics on an individual basis
or as groups with their existing linear canopies. This is due in part to having undergone
extensive root and canopy pruning over the years, a maintenance method required in
part because of their placement in a confined grow space which has limited their ability
to optimally develop.
Although there are examples of Ficus trees in good, moderate, and poor conditions on
Second and Fourth Streets, none of the subject trees are an excellent example of their
11
type or possess sufficient artistic or aesthetic interest in a manner that is similar to other
Landmark designated trees described above.
In contrast, there are better examples of Ficus trees in the City that have been planted
in groupings that have thrived in more appropriate grow spaces and consequently have
not been subjected to the same type of pruning practices employed on the Second and
Fourth Street Ficus trees. Excellent examples of such Ficus can be found on Second
Street north of Wilshire Boulevard and on Pearl Street between Fourteenth and
Sixteenth Streets.
Criterion #3: Identified with historic personages or with important events in local,
state or national history
With respect to the Landmark Criterion #3, staff concurs with the majority of the
Landmarks Commission that found that Ms. Girion and the other beautification
committee members' community contributions through volunteerism were important and
a representative example of the activities and contributions made by women of that
generation. However, for the purposes of evaluating improvements for significance
against the City's Landmark designation criterion, the subject trees are not associated
with an historic personage or with important events in local, state or national history.
Specifically, collaboration between the City's government and citizen committees,
Chamber of Commerce committees, and fundraising organizations has consistently
been, and continues to be, part of this community's tradition of civic engagement.
Moreover, there were other committees and individuals involved in the 1960s era
redevelopment programs for the Central Business District and for other redevelopment
areas in the City such as Ocean Park.
Criterion #4: It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a
study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous
materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural
design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study.
12
Criterion #4 addresses the characteristics or attributes of a building and its architectural
design. Therefore, this criterion is not applicable to the evaluation of plant material or
elements of a landscape such as street trees.
Criterion #5: It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product
of a notable builder, designer or architect
With respect to Criterion #5, the plan for the 1960s era redevelopment of the Central
Business District was produced by Victor Gruen, and the design of the 3rd Street mall
was created by Charles Luckman. Both Victor Gruen and Charles Luckman were
prominent master architects. However, based on current research, the individual rows
of Ficus trees along Second and Fourth Streets are not related to the work or products
of Gruen or Luckman.
Criterion #6: Unique location, singular physical characteristic, or established and
familiar visual feature
The single rows of regularly spaced Ficus trees planted along Second and Fourth
Streets are not readily distinguishable from other Ficus trees in the City that are
presently abundant and ubiquitous in Santa Monica. Based on field surveys done for
the 2000 City of Santa Monica Community Forest Management Plan, the entire
grouping of Ficus on Second and Fourth Streets represent less than 5% of the total
number of approximately 3,100 Ficus trees in the City. Furthermore, the subject Ficus
trees are not planted in a unique location or configuration; they are rows of trees similar
to those on numerous other streets in Santa Monica. Further, the subject trees do not
possess singular physical characteristics of their type as there are better examples of
Ficus street trees existing in the City. Finally, the subject Ficus street trees are not an
established familiar visual feature in that application of this criterion has been
consistently applied to important visual monuments in the City such as Santa Monica's
Civic Auditorium due to its grand scale and unique design and presence that commands
attention as one travels south along Main Street.
13
Conclusion
In summary, within the context of the thousands of Ficus trees in the City, neither
grouping of Ficus trees or their associated linear canopies on Second and Fourth
Streets possess characteristics of noteworthy or aesthetic interest or value sufficient to
warrant City Landmark designation based on factors such as historic association, age,
size, condition, or rarity that have been consistently applied in previous Landmark tree
evaluations. Furthermore, while the subject Ficus trees contribute to the pedestrian
environment on Second and Fourth Streets as streetscape features, they do not
individually embody or manifest the history of the 1960s downtown redevelopment
efforts, are not associated with a historic personage, and are not correlated with a
specific aspect of the City's history in a way that distinguishes these Ficus trees from
the over 3,100 other examples in the City.
Based on the whole of the record regarding the mature Ficus trees located on the east
and west sides of Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire
Boulevard, staff recommends that the City Council deny the two appeals because
neither grouping of trees, in whole or in part, or their associated linear canopies meet
the designation criteria established in SMMC 9.36.100 and are therefore not eligible for
City Landmark designation.
Alternatives
As an alternative to the staff recommendation, the Council may consider the following
with respect to the pending appeals if supported by the full evidentiary record:
1. Uphold the appeals and reverse the Landmarks Commission's decision to deny
the two Landmark designation applications, thereby designating the Ficus trees
on Second and Fourth Streets as City Landmarks based on revised findings.
Environmental Analysis
The project is statutorily exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 of the State Guidelines in that CEQA
does not apply to projects that are disapproved.
14
Public Outreach
The public notice for this hearing was published in the Santa Monica Daily Press and
mailed to all property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budgetary or fiscal
impact.
Prepared by:
Roxanne Tanemori, AICP, Associate Planner
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
Development
Attachments
A. Appellants' Appeal Statements
B. Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action, January 14, 2008
C. Landmarks Commission Staff Reports and Hearing Submittals, November 12,
2007, December 10, 2007, and January 14, 2008
D. Landmarks CommissiorrMinutes, January 14, 2008
15
Additional
attachments
available for review
at City Clerk's
Office.