Loading...
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.