Loading...
SR 05-14-2019 6A City Council Report City Council Meeting: May 14, 2019 Agenda Item: 6.A 1 of 18 To: Mayor and City Council From: David Martin, Director, City Planning Subject: Appeal of Landmark Designation 17ENT -0211 for sycamore tree(s) located at 1122 California Avenue. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council grant Appeal 18ENT-140 and deny designation of the sycamore tree(s) at 1122 California Avenue as a City Landmark. Executive Summary On October 16, 2017, John C. Smith, on behalf of the Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont), filed application 17ENT-0211 to designate a western sycamore tree located at 1122 California as a City Landmark. The Landmarks Commission, after conducting two public hearings on the application, on December 11, 2017 and May 14, 2018, and, in consideration of all public testimony, reports and materials introduced into the public record designated the tree as a City Landmark by a 4-2 vote. The Commission found that the tree met two of the six criteria for designation as a City Landmark as set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Section 9.56.100(A), finding that the tree has aesthetic value, and is noteworthy, and that it is an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood. The December 11, 2017 and May 14, 2018 Landmarks Commission staff reports, meeting minutes, and Statement of Official Action (STOA), are provided as attachments to this report (Attachments E thru I). On May 24, 2018, the property owners, Iradj and Lesley Shahriary, filed a timely appeal (18ENT-0140) of the Landmarks Commission’s decision to designate the tree, which was subsequently updated in December 2018 (Attachment J). The appeal states that the subject tree does not meet any of the six criteria set forth in the Landmarks Ordinance for designation as a City Landmark. Specifically, the appeal statement includes the following primary points of appeal: 2 of 18 1. Trees are rarely designated as City Landmarks, and the subject sycamore tree is not rare, extraordinary or otherwise associated with historic personages or important events in the history of the City(criteria 2,3). 2. The tree does not meet the threshold to be a prominent visual feature, as it is mid-block on a typical street with many other mature and notable trees in the neighborhood (criterion 6). 3. The Commission’s past practice in designating Landmark trees is inconsistent with the designation of this tree. 4. As mentioned above, the appeal states that the designation of the subject tree does not satisfy any of the Landmarks Ordinance’s criteria for designation and includes an analysis of each finding. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.180, Council’s review of the Commission’s decision to designate the tree as a Landmark is de novo. Council may review and take action on all determinations, interpretations, decisions, judgments, or similar actions that were in the purview of the Landmarks Commission. The criteria established in the Landmarks Ordinance for designation of a City Landmark are designed to evaluate if a structure, improvement, natural feature or an object conveys the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural history. It is possible to properly apply the criteria based on evidence in the record with equally valid viewpoints that arrive at different conclusions. This report provides background information regarding the initial application and designation, and analysis of the stated grounds for appeal, representing two reasonable perspectives. City Council should consider the findings prepared by both the Landmarks Commission and staff when determining whether appropriate findings can be made to either grant or deny the appeal. Based on all this information, staff recommends the appeal be granted and the City Council deny the designation, based on the draft findings set forth in this report. In the alternative, if the City Council determines, based on evidence in the record, to deny the appeal and designate the tree as a City Landmark, staff recommends that the 3 of 18 Council further designate a Landmark Parcel and include maintenance requirements to ensure protection of the tree. Background On October 16, 2017, Wilmont, submitted an application to designate a Western Sycamore tree (Platanus racemosa) situated on the real property located at 1122 California Avenue as a City Landmark. The subject property comprises a 50’x100’ lot and is located on the south side of California Avenue, east of 11th street. The property is improved with a single-family residence constructed in approximately 1922. The application and supporting materials are attached to this report (Attachment A). The application includes information regarding the tree, its health, large canopy, and identifies a number of bird species seen in the tree. The application also included a report/letter of support by Cy Carlberg, a registered consulting arborist. The report from Carlberg Associates states that the tree is in good health, and that the tree was likely planted when the property was developed in 1922 with the single -family residence. The scope of the designation application encompasses the tree only and does not i nclude the residence. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.030, landscape features and plant life are eligible for designation as City Landmarks. In order to appropriately assess the information provided in the application and to provide an independent evaluation of the subject tree and whether it meets one or more of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark as set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.56.100(A), staff requested that Jan C. Scow, Registered Consulting Arborist, prepare a report assessing the tree (Attachment B). Tree Description and Condition The report prepared by the City’s consulting arborist (the “Scow report”) determined that the subject tree is not a single tree, but is in fact two trees of the native species western sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Tree 1 wraps Tree 2 at the base with encircling roots. 4 of 18 While this configuration is not common, it is also not abnormal for this species and the consultant has previously seen this configuration. The combined diameter of the two trunks is 62 inches, measured at one-foot above grade. This configuration is what gives the two trees their appearance of being a singular tree, and for ease of reference, the tree(s) will be referred to as a “tree” throughout this report. The two trees combined have an approximate height of 82 feet and an approximate canopy diameter of 72 feet. While there are some specific concerns brought about by previous pruning wounds and some decay, the tree appear s to be in good health. View of the Western Sycamore tree at 1122 California Avenue The tree appears to have been planted around the same time the property was developed in 1922. The Scow report found that the tree appears to have been well- maintained, although there has been some damage due to previous pruning as identified in the assessment. The report also stated that certain limbs need end weight- reduction pruning. This is not uncommon, as sycamore trees can remain healthy with proper pruning. In this particular location, the site and tree are bounded by overhead utility lines on the west and north sides and require pruning to maintain a certain distance from these utility lines. As no pruning of the tree has been undertaken throughout the nomination and designation process, and as shown in the pho to above, the tree appears to have encroached into the required clear area and are currently 5 of 18 intertwined with the utility lines. This will result in necessary pruning to maintain the required clear area. Western Sycamore Trees in Santa Monica Western sycamore trees are native to much of the California coast and coastal interiors, including Santa Monica, down to Baja California. They have been known to live for hundreds of years, making it possible that some of the oldest western sycamores in Santa Monica’s natural areas were living even when the earliest Western settlers arrived in the area. Artwork dating back to at least 1906 (if not earlier) illustrates a western sycamore in Santa Monica Canyon. Other photographs in the area show that western sycamore trees have grown in Santa Monica since at least the early 20th century. 1906, Dirt Road in SM Canyon 1914 Sycamores along Rustic Road, SM Canyon Context of the Tree at 1122 California Avenue While there is a wide parkway on both sides of this portion of California Avenue, the trees in the parkway on the same side as the subject tree have been recently planted, so the subject tree appears to stand out in this location. On the opposite side of the street there are several 6 of 18 mature Canary Island Pine trees in the widened parkway. Canary Island Pine Trees on north side of the street Subject tree The Scow report notes that there are several notable City-owned trees located on the same block as the subject tree(s) including the Canary Island Pine trees across the street. While there do not appear to be notable sycamore trees on the same block as the subject tree, western sycamore trees can be found throughout the City. 7 of 18 Parkway at 1112 11th Street 1100 block of Washington Avenue The City’s consulting arborist, Jan C. Scow, initially identified a two-block radius around the tree as the context of the tree to determine its potential historic significance. At the conclusion of its initial public hearing, the Landmarks Commission requested more information regarding the determination of the context for the tree and directed staff to study a larger area to determine if the tree met any criteria for designation as a Landmark. While the Wilmont area, where the subject tree is located, is identified as a 8 of 18 neighborhood, it is divided into smaller neighborhoods by north/south collector streets. After further study, and because there does not appear to be a clear industry standard or requirement in the Landmarks Ordinance to determine the context of a tree, the study area to determine context for the tree at 1122 California Avenue was expanded to include an area of forty city blocks bounded by Montana Avenue to the north, Wilshire Boulevard to the south 4th Street to the west and 14th Street to the east. For the purposes of this analysis, this is the area that is described as the neighborhood context in that each of these streets is a wide collector street that separates one neighborhood from the next. After the Landmarks Commission’s first designation hearing, the City’s consulting arborist performed a survey of the established context area (Attachment C). The survey identified “Mature and Notable Trees”, explained as “large enough and of sufficient stature that the “average person” might consider them to be noteworthy.” The survey found a total of 94 Mature and Notable trees on the Public Right of Way and 59 Mature and Notable trees on private/interior property (including Reed Park) within the survey 9 of 18 area. The survey also identified well-established trees native to the local region, including oaks, sycamores, walnuts and cottonwoods. The survey found 21 native sycamore trees and four other native trees noted within the survey area. In summary, the updated Scow report found that the tree is not as old or large as some of the giant sycamores in Santa Monica’s natural areas, although it is an outstanding specimen. Discussion Analytical Framework for Landmark Tree Designation Since tree nominations for Landmark designation are relatively uncommon, staff reviewed the assessments, staff reports, and Statements of Official Action for previously-designated trees as a means to provide an analytical framework for consideration of the subject tree and whether it meets one or more of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark. Since the inception of the Landmarks Ordinance, a total of five trees have been designated as City Landmarks: a Moreton Bay Fig Tree at 101 Wilshire Boulevard, a California Live Oak at 1443 10th Street which died and was removed, a Cedar Deodara tree at 518 5th Street, Eucalyptus Deanei tree at 522 24th Street which was removed due to poor health, and a Eucalyptus Cornuta tree at 1407 Hill Street. A review of the previous tree designations found that all are identified as trul y exceptional trees and/or are tied to the early history of the City of Santa Monica, whether planted by an individual important to the history of the City, or representative of the City’s early development. Although the Scow report determined that the tree is an excellent specimen, the subject tree does not appear to have any historical association, nor does it appear to be representative of the City’s early development. In addition, the Scow report observed that the tree has been extensively pruned over the years, so it is not in its natural state like other Landmark trees. Accordingly, as provided in the May 14, 2018 Landmarks Commission staff report, staff concluded that the subject tree does not appear to meet one or more of the criteria set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.56.100(A), and staff did not recommend designation as a City Landmark. The Landmarks Commission reviewed the application 10 of 18 and, based on evidence in the record, came to a different conclusion and voted to designate the tree. Landmarks Commission Action The Landmarks Commission reviewed the application on December 11, 2017 and May 14, 2018, and in a vote of 4 to 2, voted to designate the tree as a City Landmark, citing Landmarks Criterion (2) and (6), based on the following findings: (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. “The subject tree(s) which is almost 100 years in age is a combination of two native species western sycamore trees connected at the base with encircling roots with a combined trunk diameter of 62 inches, measured at one-foot above grade. This is not a common configuration for this tree species. The two trees combined have an approximate height of 82 feet and an approximate canopy diameter of 72 feet. The tree(s) is exceptional and have aesthetic value in part based on overall size and canopy coverage that is remarkable and uncommon. The tree(s) is also remarkable and rare given its age, its good health, and freedom from infestation. Because of the tree(s)' good biological health, it can live in good health for another 200 years. Additionally, the trees are of noteworthy interest as the largest and oldest of the 21 native sycamore trees in the neighborhood and based on the survey area of 40 blocks bound ed by Montana Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard, between 4th and 14th Streets, there are no comparable specimens. As such, the subject western sycamore trees have aesthetic value and are noteworthy based on the uncommon trunk configuration, age, overall size and combined canopy coverage, and health.” (6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or the City. “The subject tree(s) which are almost 100 years in a ge is a combination of two native species western sycamore trees connected at the base with encircling roots with a combined trunk diameter of 62 inches, measured at one-foot above grade. The subject tree(s) were likely planted around the time the property was developed in 1922 and are 11 of 18 exceptional for their good health and lack of infestation considering their age. The two trees combined have an approximate height of 82 feet and an approximate canopy diameter of 72 feet. The trees are exceptional for their overall size, shape, and canopy coverage that is remarkable and uncommon. The tree is the largest and oldest of the 21 native sycamore trees within the neighborhood context (based on the survey area of 40 blocks bounded by Montana Avenue and Wilshire Boule vard, between 4th and 14th Streets) and is a notable specimen of their species. Based on their size, longevity, and location, the subject western sycamore trees are an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood.” Appeal Summary The appellant filed a timely appeal on May 24, 2018 and submitted a revised statement on December 14, 2018 (Attachment J). The appeal states that the subject tree does not meet the Landmarks Ordinance criteria for designation. Specifically, the appeal statement includes the following primary points of appeal: 1. Trees are rarely designated as City Landmarks, and this tree is not rare, extraordinary or otherwise associated with historic personages or important events in the history of the City (criteria 2,3). 2. The tree does not meet the threshold to be a prominent visual feature, as it is mid-block on a typical street with many other mature and notable trees in the neighborhood (criterion 6). 3. The Commission’s past practice in designating Landmark trees is inconsistent with the designation of this tree. 4. As mentioned above, the appeal states that the designation of the subject tree(s) is not warranted under any of the Landmarks Ordinance’s criteria for designation, including an analysis of each finding. Appeal Analysis The appeal states that the subject tree does not meet the Landmarks Ordinance criteria for designation. Staff has reviewed the designation criteria and the issues raised by the appellant’s Statement of Appeal and provides the following analysis and responses: 12 of 18 1. Trees are rarely designated as City Landmarks, and this tree is not rare, extraordinary or otherwise associated with historic personages or important events in the history of the City (criteria 2,3). The appeal states that trees are rarely designated as City Landmarks, and the previous tree designations are identified as truly exceptional and/or are tied to the early history of the City. Further, the appeal states that The Landmarks Ordinance is not an appropriate vehicle for regulating large trees that are not truly extraordinary or otherwise associated with historic persons or events. The Landmarks Commission found that the tree met criteria 2 in the Landmarks Ordinance, and found the tree to be “…exceptional and have aesthetic value in part based on overall size and canopy coverage that is remarkable and uncommon…” However, staff maintains the opinion that the subject tree is not exceptional, is not associated with or representative of the City’s early development, is not rare, and is not remarkable within its neighborhood context. In summary, based on evaluation of the subject tree and the Landmark designation criteria, staff maintains that the tree does not meet any of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark. 2. The tree does not meet the threshold to be a prominent visual feature, as it is mid-block on a typical street with many other mature and notable trees in the neighborhood (criterion 6). The subject tree is mature and notable having been planted in or around 1922. As identified by the City’s consulting arborist, there are 153 mature and notable trees in the study area, including several Canary Island pine trees across the street from the subject tree. Further, the tree is constrained by power lines on the west and north sides and must be trimmed regularly to maintain a clear distance. Presently, the tree may appear more prominent in its mid-block location, as the trees in the parkway have been recently planted. 13 of 18 Once those trees become more mature, the subject tree will be even less visually prominent. Staff’s analysis indicates that the subject tree does not appear to be more visually prominent than many nearby trees and does not meet the threshold to be a prominent visual feature. 3. The Commission’s past practice in designating landmark trees is inconsistent with the designation of this tree. As noted above, staff has reviewed the previous five trees previously designated as City Landmarks. Staff found that each was truly exceptional and/or associated with historic persons or events. While mature and notable, the subject tree is not more noteworthy than many of the mature and notable trees in the study area. In considering the past practice of the Landmarks Commission as indicated by the five previous designations, the designation of the sycamore tree at 1122 California Avenue is not supported. 4. The appeal also states that the designation of the subject tree(s) is not warranted under any of the Landmarks Ordinance’s criteria for designation, including criteria (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value, and (6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or the City, as determined by the Landmarks Commission The appeal states that Criterion 2 and 6 are subjective and that the only designated landmark tree- that relies solely on these two criteria is the Eucalyptus Cornuta tree at 1407 Hill Street. The criteria are not “subjective” as the appeal states. The Landmarks Ordinance criteria are designed to allow for analysis of each designation application on a case-by- case basis. The City has developed a consistent record with the more than 125 City Landmarks that have been designated, including the five previously-designated trees 14 of 18 cited in the staff report, that provides a framework for review of the subject tree to determine whether it meets the criteria for designation. The Commission carefully reviewed the entire record and came to a conclusion that differs from the staff recommendation and appeal statement. Staff disagrees with the appeal statement that the Landmarks Commission made a decision that was “arbitrary, subjective and unfair”, however. The decision of the Commission was thoughtful, deliberative and based on evidence presented in the entirety of the record. Regarding Criterion 6, the appeal statement notes that there is a high threshold for Landmark designation intended by this criterion, and cites the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium, designated in 2002, as an example. The appeal statement notes the Civic Auditorium’s unique location, on a Boulevard, within the Civic Center and at the bend of Main Street. By contrast, the subject tree is located mid-block on California Avenue which is a “typical, unremarkable neighborhood street.” Additionally, the appeal asserts that the tree is not unique and uncommon in the neighborhood or on the block, noting that several of the Canary Island pine trees across the street are taller and more prominent. The Commission found that the tree meets Criterion 6 in that it is “exceptional for their overall size, shape, and canopy coverage that is remarkable and uncommon. The tree is the largest and oldest of the 21 native sycamore trees within the neighborhood context (based on the survey area of 40 blocks bounded by Montana Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard, between 4th and 14th Streets) and is a notable specimen of their species. Based on their size, longevity, and location, the subject western sycamore trees are an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood.” However, staff’s analysis of Criterion 6 continues to find that the tree is not uncommon, rare or prominent in the neighborhood or on that street. Further, if the subject tree was found to meet Criterion 6, many other comparable public and privately -owned trees on 15 of 18 California Avenue and in the neighborhood/study area could also be found to meet the same Criterion. The appeal statement also makes mention of the statewide housing crisis, as the subject tree is located on a property in a multi-family zone. While staff cannot dispute this statement, the designation of a structure or natural feature should be considered independently of other -policy issues and values to maintain the integrity of the preservation program in Santa Monica. The appeal statement also notes that a Landmarks designation of the subject tree “could pose a severe and unreasonable hardship on the family that owns this property.” This statement is not f urther explained and as such the appeal does not appear to provide any reasonable basis for this assertion. As stated in public testimony, the owner/appellant plans to maintain the tree and family members intend to live on the property. It is not clear what, if any, unreasonable hardship might be posed to the property owners. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council grant the appeal and the deny designation application for the sycamore tree at 1122 California Avenue as a City Landmark based on the following draft findings: (1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City. Research did not reveal information in support of this criterion. (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The subject tree is not one but two trees, with one wrapping the other , not an uncommon configuration for western sycamore trees It is a large mature tree which stands out on this portion of California Avenue, as other trees on this side of the street 16 of 18 appear to have been more recently planted. However, there are several notable trees on this block, 153 mature and notable trees and 21 native Sycamores within the neighborhood. While this tree may be prominent on its site and an excellent specimen, there are western sycamore trees throughout the City of Santa Monica . Many trees on the block and in the neighborhood are mature and notable, and this tree does not appear to be more notable than other trees on the block or in the neighborhood. As there is no particular noteworthy interest or value in the tree at 1122 California Avenue, it does not appear to meet this criterion. (3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. It is likely that Joseph C. Gilbert and his wife Bess planted the tree. The property is identified with the Gilberts and later, John Cornish and his wife Corinne. While both families appear to have had successf ul careers and were involved in local organizations, neither would be considered to be historic personages associated with the history of the City of Santa Monica. The tree does not appear to be identified with any other historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. Therefore, it does not appear to meet this 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 to such a study. This criterion is not applicable to the designation of a tree as a Landmark. (5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect. This criterion is not applicable to the designation of a tree as a Landmark. 17 of 18 (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. As the subject tree appears to have been planted around the time of the development of the site, 1922, the tree is almost 100 years old. While the subject tree may appear prominent, considering the size of existing younger and smaller nearby trees located on the south side of California Avenue, there are several notable trees on this street, across the street, and in the immediate neighborhood. The tree is located in the middle of the block, on a typical street and its location is not unique or exceptional. For these reasons, the tree does not appear to meet this criterion. Alternative Actions As an alternative to the staff recommendation, Council may choose, based on evidence in the record, to deny the appeal and uphold the designation based on the findings identified in the Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action (Attachment I). If the Council chooses to uphold the decision of the Landmarks Commission and designate the tree as a City Landmark, it is recommended the Council designate associated Landmark Parcel and maintenance requirements to protect the Landmark tree. After consulting with the City’s Urban Forest Administrator, staff recommends identifying a Landmark Parcel that extends 15 feet f rom the trunk(s), but that does not to extend over the eastern property line. Additionally, staff recommends initial pruning to provide end-weight reduction for the larger limbs, as identified in the Scow report. As the tree must be kept away from the above-grade utility lines, pruning on a three to five-year cycle, supervised by a registered consulting arborist, will be necessary. Annual inspections by the City’s Urban Forest Administrator is also recommended. Financial Impacts and Budget Actions There is no immediate financial impact or budget action required as a result of the recommended action. 18 of 18 Prepared By: Stephanie Reich, Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. Designation Application B. Consulting Arborists Report C. Consulting Arborists Neighborhood Survey D. Occupancy Research Memo 1122 California Av_ E. May 14 Landmarks Commission Staff Report F. May 14 2018 Landmarks Commission Minutes G. December 11 Landmarks Commission Staff Report H. December 11 2017 Landmarks Commission Minutes I. LC STOA 17ENT-0211 (1122 California Ave) J. Revised Appeal Attachment 2018.12.14 K. Correspondence for December 11 2017 Meeting L. Correspondence after 12-11-2017 F M. STOA 17ENT-0211 (1122 California Ave) N. Written Comments O. PowerPoint presentation I or-6 \ l z.. 2.. CAl\fOi,(AJIA. Av~. S'<c I\Mor-ut--F-vl0 ~· ~JAOSS sT~ ZoFb \ \ 2 2--('j>t{,,\ fofl.10\A . 6l/W\ SYC..AMOv\JL. ~ U \£.W l Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 1 of 7 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC Disease and Pest Diagnosis, Hazard Evaluation, Restorative Pruning Advice, Value Assessment 1744 Franklin Street Unit B Santa Monica, CA 90404 (818) 789-9127 Date: 11/27/17 To: Stephanie Reich, Planning & Community Development, City of Santa Monica From: Jan Scow Subject: Landmark Tree Assessment for Sycamore at 1122 California Avenue References: 1) Proposal and scope email, 11/16/17 at 4:07 PM (Yu) 2) Landmark Status Application, Santa Monica Planning Division, LC Case No 17ENT- 0211, 10/16/17 3) Carlberg Associates report, 10/15/17 We were asked to provide an independent and objective assessment of the tree located at 1122 California Avenue in the City of Santa Monica, and to produce a report to be submitted alongside the referenced Landmark Status application and Carlberg Associates report. The following report provides our observations regarding the tree’s size, health, and structure, and supplies historical and contextual information relating to the tree. DESCRIPTION AND SIZE The subject tree is located in the front yard of the property and is surrounded by lawn, a stone walkway, and a hedge. This tree is in fact not a single tree, but two trees of the native species known as western sycamore (Platanus racemosa). For purposes of this assessment, we will call the larger tree to the southwest Tree 1, and we will call the smaller tree to the northeast Tree 2. Tree 1 “embraces” Tree 2 at the base with encircling roots, lending the two trees their appearance of being a single tree. While this is not a common configuration for this tree species, it is not abnormal either and we have seen it before. Tree 1 has a diameter of 39 inches at four-and-a-half feet height, while Tree 2 has a diameter of 29 inches at the same height. The combined diameter of the two trunks measured at one-foot above grade is 62 inches. The two trees combined have an approximate height of 82 feet1 and an approximate canopy diameter of 72 feet. An observation worth mentioning about these trees, not relating to their size, health, or structure, is that we spotted a nest high up in the large diagonal limb to the northwest above the street. We are not wildlife biologists and therefore cannot be certain what kind 1 Measured by clinometer. Landmark Tree Assessment for Sycamore at 1122 California Avenue 11/27/17 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 2 of 7 of animal this nest belongs to2, but the type of nest should be confirmed prior to any work in or around the tree. HEALTH Overall, both trees appear in good health3. Tree 2 has less foliage than Tree 1, which could be the result of individual genetic variation in fall leaf drop times/rates, girdling of Tree 1 by Tree 2 where it is encircled at the base, or possibly root disease affecting just the one tree (unlikely). Both trees exhibit evidence of sycamore borer activity and minor foliar pest issues, neither of which is of concern for the health of these trees. What is most remarkable about the health of these two trees is the lack of evidence of shot hole borer (SHB, Euwallacea sp.)4 infestation as observed from the ground5. At a time when even minor SHB infestation might be enough to condemn a tree, this observation gives hope for the continued preservation and good health of these two trees. STRUCTURE Condition- These two trees exhibit excellent structure that could only have come from long-term, high-quality maintenance. Both trees have surface roots visible to a distance of zero to ten feet from their trunks. Both trees have well-formed crotch angles and good branching structure. Neither tree shows evidence of topping cuts or otherwise poor pruning work. Tree 1 has been pruned for clearance of high voltage and other utility lines to the south and southwest, but this work was well executed and has not excessively damaged the tree’s canopy or significantly altered its natural beauty. Maintenance- Both trees have a few minor maintenance items that should be addressed going forward: • Certain limbs on tree 1 need end weight reduction pruning. These limbs include the low diagonal limb to the southwest, the diagonal limb to the south toward the alleyway and touching the roof of the existing structure, and the large diagonal limb to the northwest over the street. • There is a decay column originating at an old pruning wound on the southwest side of Tree 2 at about ten-foot height and extending down the trunk at least four feet. Sycamores are tolerant of extensive heartwood decay, making this decay column only a minor concern. Nonetheless, this trunk should be tested for the extent of decay6, and the decay column should be monitored for rapid advancement to ensure the continued structural viability of the tree. • There is an old pruning wound on Tree 1, on the bottom side of a dogleg in the low diagonal limb to the southwest, with evidence of decay that is at this time 2 It could be a squirrel nest (unprotected), a raptor nest (protected all year), or another type of bird nest (protected certain times of the year). 3 Please note, these trees are deciduous and were evaluated in the fall when leaves are beginning to drop. A more accurate assessment of health could be provided in summertime when both trees have their full canopies. 4 SHB is an extremely invasive pest that was introduced in southern California in 2012. Though this pest has a wide target species range (200+), it favors western sycamore trees and has led to the removal of many western sycamores across southern California. 5 It is possible for there to be SHB infestation in the upper canopy that is not observable from the ground. An aerial inspection would be required to determine infestation of the upper canopy. 6 We recommend Resi (aka “Resistograph”) testing of this trunk. Landmark Tree Assessment for Sycamore at 1122 California Avenue 11/27/17 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 3 of 7 only very shallow. Again, this is only a minor concern but the decay should be monitored for rapid advancement. • If construction activities (including demolition or remodeling) are planned on this site, the trees would require certain steps to preserve their health during construction. Among other conditions (which would have to be based on a review of specific construction plans), the trees would need a root protection zone to be created around their trunks. Based on the size of the two trees and the property they are located on, an appropriate root protection zone for these trees would be the entire area around the two trunks within a 15-foot radius. This area should be secured behind a five-foot high chain-link fence anchored with steel posts driven into the ground. SYCAMORES IN SANTA MONICA – A BRIEF HISTORY Western sycamore trees are native to much of the California coast and coastal interiors, including Santa Monica, down to Baja California. They have been known to live for 100’s of years, making it possible that some of the oldest western sycamores in Santa Monica’s natural areas were living even when the earliest settlers arrived. These trees have since been respected, preserved, and documented by continuing generations. For example, artwork dating back to at least 1906 (if not earlier) illustrates a western sycamore alongside an idyllic Santa Monica Canyon path [1]. A photograph taken of Rustic Road in 1914 depicts western sycamore trees preserved alongside a picturesque dirt road, with curbs and sidewalks strategically placed to avoid the root crowns of these native trees [2]. Another photograph taken of Channel Road in the 1930’s illustrates a continued effort to maintain these trees even in a modernizing world [3]. The artwork and two photographs thus show that these trees have been esteemed and protected in Santa Monica for at least a century. SYCAMORE AT 1122 CALIFORNIA AVENUE – A CONTEXT In order to supply a contextual framework for the subject trees, we conducted a survey of City-owned and privately owned trees within the two-block radius surrounding 1122 California Avenue7. There are several notable City-owned trees located on the same block as the subject trees, including a red-flowering gum (Corymbia ficifolia) in front of 1107 11th Street, nine Canary Island palms (Phoenix canariensis) on 12th Street between Wilshire Blvd and California Avenue, and four Canary Island pines (Pinus canariensis) located on California Avenue directly across the street from the subject trees. Unfortunately, none of these notable City-owned trees are western sycamores, or native species of any kind, and therefore cannot compare to the subject trees in significance. Within the entire survey area, we found only 16 trees of native species (sycamores and oaks, not including the subject trees). However, none of these native trees were of significance (due to small size, poor condition, etc.) besides one coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) located in the rear yard at 1305 12th Street. Even this large coast live oak, though, does not compare in size, condition, or beauty to the subject western sycamores. The western sycamores at 1122 California Avenue, which were most likely planted around the time the property was developed in 1922, are thus the largest and oldest native trees for at least two blocks in any direction and make up a significant portion of the dwindling native tree canopy in the area. 7 The survey area is bounded by Santa Monica Blvd, Idaho Avenue, 9th Street, and 14th Street. Landmark Tree Assessment for Sycamore at 1122 California Avenue 11/27/17 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 4 of 7 CONCLUSION Though these trees are not as old or as large as some of the giant sycamores in Santa Monica’s natural areas, they are the largest and oldest in their local neighborhood. They are exceptional for their good health and freedom from SHB infestation, their canopy coverage and structure, and their preservation through good pruning practice over the decades. These two trees are outstanding specimens of their species, and their combined canopy is remarkable and uncommon. Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance or if you have any additional questions. Sincerely, Jan C. Scow ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #382 ISA Certified Arborist # WC1972 ATTACHED Photos (5) CITATIONS 1. “Dirt road in Santa Monica Canyon.” Palisades Historical Image Collection, 1906, https://calisphere.org/item/ee262d40b3138446d6164f7095d6de8c/. 2. “Sycamores along Rustic Road in Santa Monica Canyon, Calif.” Palisades Historical Image Collection, 1914, https://calisphere.org/item/55d0dbd900652fd61208688571806573/. 3. “Channel Road in Santa Monica Canyon, Calif.” Palisades Historical Image Collection, 1930’s, https://calisphere.org/item/9ea5d7967e26f805209dc28cf7d0aad0/. Landmark Tree Assessment for Sycamore at 1122 California Avenue 11/27/17 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 5 of 7 Whole western sycamore as seen from west of 1122 California Avenue Landmark Tree Assessment for Sycamore at 1122 California Avenue 11/27/17 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 6 of 7 Whole western sycamore seen from north of 1122 California Avenue (Left canopy is tree 2. Note obvious difference in two canopies) Roots of Tree 1 (right) “embracing” Tree 2 (left) Landmark Tree Assessment for Sycamore at 1122 California Avenue 11/27/17 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 7 of 7 Four-foot length tile probe inserted into decay column on Tree 2 Minor decay at old pruning wound on Tree 1 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 1 of 5 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC Disease and Pest Diagnosis, Hazard Evaluation, Restorative Pruning Advice, Value Assessment 1744 Franklin Street Unit B Santa Monica, CA 90404 (818) 789-9127 Date: 12/21/17 To: Stephanie Reich, Planning & Community Development, City of Santa Monica From: Jan Scow Subject: Neighborhood Survey (for Landmark Tree Assessment @1122 California Ave.) Reference: 1) Email dated 12/13/17 at 9:17 PM (Reich) 2) Email dated 12/14/17 at 8:49 AM (Scow) We agreed to identify the number of “mature and notable” trees, sycamore trees, and native trees on public and private land within an area bounded by Montana and Wilshire, between 4th and 14th streets. We completed a vehicle-based survey on 12/20/17 of those forty city blocks and arrived at the requested numbers. The attached map and survey sheets define the survey area and detail the count by city blocks. The survey was conducted by driving around each city block in a clockwise direction. The passenger observed and recorded data, identifying qualifying trees on private property, while the driver identified and reported qualifying public right-of-way trees. Our speed varied between 5-10 mph. While this survey was reasonably accurate, this is a subjective assessment. Mature and Notable Trees: What we considered “mature and notable” trees is based on our individual subjective opinions. For example, we included a few exceptionally large Canary Island date palms, but not those that we considered to be of “average” size. We included three or four very large Ficus trees in the public right-of-way, but as a rule, did not count Ficus trees. No Mexican fan palms were included. The fact that we considered trees to be “mature and notable” (M&N) does not imply that such trees were all of equivalent size and stature to the tree in question at 1122 California, but rather that they were large enough and of sufficient stature that the “average person” might consider them to be noteworthy. There were a total of 94 M&N trees noted on the public right-of- way and 59 on private/interior property (including Reed Park) within the survey area. Native trees: In considering “native trees”, we defined those as species native to the local region, including species such as native oaks and sycamores, walnuts, cottonwoods, etc. We did not include trees not native to this area, such as coast redwoods and California fan palms, nor did we include small recently-planted oaks along the public right-of-way. With that exception, all well-established native trees were included regardless of size or location. There were 21 native sycamore trees, and 4 other native trees noted within the survey area. 1122 California 12/21/17 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 2 of 5 Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance or if you have any additional questions. Our goal is to satisfy our clients and help them to better care for their trees in the most effective way possible. We look forward to working with you toward that goal! Sincerely, Jan C. Scow ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #382 ISA Certified Arborist # WC1972 Attached: Neighborhood Survey Map Neighborhood Survey Sheets (2) 1122 California 12/21/17 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 3 of 5 1122 California 12/21/17 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 4 of 5 Da t e : 1 2 / 2 0 / 1 7 1 1 2 2 C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e Ne i g h b o r h o o d S u r v e y Pu b l i c R i g h t - o f - W a y C o u n t Pr i v a t e P r o p e r t y C o u n t Sy c a m o r e C o u n t * Al l O t h e r N a t i v e s C o u n t * * 1 & 2 1 2 0 0 3 & 4 0 0 0 0 5 & 6 2 0 0 0 7 & 8 7 2 7 0 9 & 1 0 1 0 0 0 11 & 1 2 0 0 0 0 13 & 1 4 6 0 0 0 15 & 1 6 5 1 0 0 17 & 1 8 2 0 0 1 19 & 2 0 4 1 0 0 21 & 2 2 0 2 0 0 23 & 2 4 0 2 0 0 25 & 2 6 5 3 0 0 27 & 2 8 9 1 0 0 29 & 3 0 6 0 0 0 31 & 3 2 1 1 6 0 33 & 3 4 1 5 2 0 35 & 3 6 5 1 0 1 37 & 3 8 1 2 0 0 39 & 4 0 1 1 2 0 41 & 4 2 1 1 0 0 43 & 4 4 1 1 0 0 Bl o c k # Ma t u r e a n d N o t a b l e , N o n - N a t i v e T r e e s Na t i v e T r e e s 1122 California 12/21/17 Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists, LLC 5 of 5 Da t e : 1 2 / 2 0 / 1 7 1 1 2 2 C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e Ne i g h b o r h o o d S u r v e y Pu b l i c R i g h t - o f - W a y C o u n t Pr i v a t e P r o p e r t y C o u n t Sy c a m o r e C o u n t * Al l O t h e r N a t i v e s C o u n t * * Bl o c k # Ma t u r e a n d N o t a b l e , N o n - N a t i v e T r e e s Na t i v e T r e e s 45 & 4 6 3 4 0 0 47 & 4 8 1 0 3 0 49 & 5 0 1 0 0 0 51 & 5 2 0 1 0 0 53 & 5 4 5 0 0 0 55 & 5 6 5 0 0 0 57 & 5 8 1 1 0 1 59 & 6 0 1 1 0 1 61 & 6 2 2 0 0 0 63 & 6 4 1 3 0 0 65 & 6 6 4 1 0 0 67 ( P a r k ) 1 20 0 0 68 & 6 9 1 0 0 0 70 & 7 1 0 0 0 0 72 & 7 3 1 1 0 0 74 & 7 5 5 1 1 0 76 & 7 7 1 0 0 0 78 & 7 9 2 0 0 0 To t a l s : 94 59 21 4 *N o t i n c l u d i n g t h e s y c a m o r e t r e e l o c a t e d a t 1 1 2 2 C a l i f o r n i a A v e n u e . O n l y i n c l u d e s n a t i v e s y c a m o r e t r e e s ( N o t e : s u r v e y w a s c o m p l e t e d f r o m a c a r ; 1 0 0 % ac c u r a c y i s n o t g u a r a n t e e d i n a c a r s u r v e y ) . ** D o e s n o t i n c l u d e o a k t r e e s r e c e n t l y p l a n t e d b y t h e C i t y o f S a n t a M o n i c a t h a t a r e s t i l l s m a l l . P.O. Box 542 Long Beach, CA 562.500.9451 HISTORICS@AOL.COM 1 Ostashay & Associates consulting Memorandum To: Stephanie Reich, City of Santa Monica Date: 01/22/2018 From: Jan Ostashay, Principal OAC Re: OCCUPANCY/OWNERSHIP RESEARCH HISTORY: 1122 California Avenue Introduction At the request of the City of Santa Monica Planning Division, Ostashay & Associates Consulting (OAC) has researched the early occupancy and ownership history of the property located at 1122 California Avenue in the city of Santa Monica. As background history on the requested work scope, an application to designate a Western Sycamore tree situated on the above referenced property was submitted for City Landmark consideration in October 2017. Following discussion on the subject matter by the City’s Landmarks Commission on December 11, 2017, the Commission and staff asked for further information on the prior occupancy and ownership of the subject property. Such background research would assists in ascertaining potential associations of the property with any noted historic personages. This supplementary information memorandum presents a background narrative history on the previous occupants and owners of the 1122 California Avenue property up through the late 1960s. Site Occupancy/Ownership History The one-and-one-half story, single-family residence is located along the south side of California Avenue between 11th and 12th streets on lot Y, Block 89 of the Town of Santa Monica tract. According to an early permit on file with the City, the dwelling was relocated to this site from 1347 5th Street in 1922 by J.C. Gilbert, the owner of the 1122 California Avenue property. County Assessor records give the subject property a built date of 1922, which is when the house was moved on site. The parcel has an identification number of 4281-020-024. Previous Occupants/Ownership Santa Monica city directories were reviewed to obtain information on the early occupants and owners of the property. In addition, voter’s registration records, United States census records, assessor records, birth and death records, early permit history, and other relevant background archive materials were gathered and reviewed to assist in the identification of the property’s early occupants and ownership history. Ownership and occupancy history research after the 1960s was not conducted as any potential associations in later years are less than 50 years old (the time period in which a property is typically assessed for historical significance under the Santa Monica Municipal Code, SMMC 9.56, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places). 9-A Attachment D OCCUUPANCY/OWNERSHIP HISTORY RESEARCH: 1122 California Avenue 2 The first occupants and owners of the house were Joseph and Bess Gilbert. It was Joseph C. Gilbert who had the house relocated from 1347 5th Street to its current location in 1922. Prior to moving into the newly relocated residence, the Gilberts lived briefly at 1113 4th Street in Santa Monica (now demolished). They had moved to the 4th Street property in 1921, having relocated from Palms (Los Angeles). Joseph Clifford Gilbert (1889-1976), who went by J.C. Gilbert professionally, worked for the Southern Counties Gas Company of California (SCGC). He began working at the downtown Los Angeles office as an accountant just after he and his family relocated from Muncie, Indiana in the late 1910s. Only a few years later he was promoted to oversee the company’s Western Division office in Santa Monica. It was that promotion that prompted Gilbert to move to Santa Monica from Palms. The SCGC was founded in 1911 to provide natural gas to the communities of Southern California and had its headquarters in downtown Los Angeles. The organization operated under a board with a president (Ferdinand R. Bain) who also served as the general manager of the company; three vice presidents; a treasurer; and secretary. By 1922, the company and its region of service was comprised of five divisions: the East Division that included the Orange County District, the Whittier District, the Pomona District, and the Monrovia District; the Southern Division that included the Long Beach District; the Western Division that included the Santa Monica District and the Ventura District; and the Northern Division that included the Santa Barbara District. Overall, the five divisions were overseen by a Superintendent of Operations based out of the downtown Los Angeles headquarters office. Each district was managed by a district superintendent (the title was later changed to division manager in the late 1920s). There were eight district superintendents. In 1925, Pacific Lighting Company acquired control of the natural gas distribution systems of SCGS, though SCGC continued to operate as its own regional sales company with district offices throughout Southern California. SCGC was ultimately acquired by the Southern California Gas Company in 1970. The SCGC Santa Monica District, which J.C. Gilbert oversaw as district superintendent (later changed to division manager), serviced the communities of Santa Monica, Ocean Park, Venice, Sawtelle, Palms, and Culver City with natural gas. Santa Monica already had a SCGC office at 1354 3rd Street; however, with a growing business and an expanding city more space was needed. A new Santa Monica office was planned in early 1922. SCGC purchased a lot located at 1347 5th Street, next to the public library. To help clear the lot for construction the house that was already on the newly purchased parcel was moved by J.C. Gilbert to his newly purchased lot at 1122 California Avenue in the summer of 1922. The new SCGC office was completed and opened in December 1922, and the Gilberts moved into their newly acquired home around the same time. Once the 5th Street office in Santa Monica was completed it functioned as a local service office as well as the district bureau office where Gilbert was based and oversaw the day-to-day district operations of the business. As mentioned, Joseph Gilbert moved into his home at 1122 California Avenue with his wife Bess and son Edward near the closing of 1922. The Gilbert family resided at the California Avenue home for roughly 25 years. As was typical of the gas business and position, J.C. Gilbert became actively involved in various local community organizations. He was a member of the SCGC Efficiency Club just after accepting his management position and also became a member, even president, of the local Santa Monica Rotary Club. When SCGC president Ferdinand R. Bain died in 1945, Joseph C. Gilbert was elected to the company’s board of directors. Bess Pitcher Gilbert, born in Bowling Green, Ohio on October 8, 1890, passed away in 1946, just short of her 56th birthday. Joseph and his son Edward remained in the house a few years after her death and then sold the house and moved elsewhere. Joseph remarried in 1949, in Los Angeles. He and his OCCUUPANCY/OWNERSHIP HISTORY RESEARCH: 1122 California Avenue 3 second wife, Edith Herbert Gilbert, moved to their newly built home at Gale Place in Santa Monica once it was completed in the early 1950s. In 1957, J.C. Gilbert retired from the SCGC, but remained active in local organizations. Over the years Gilbert had been a member of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, active in the Pacific Coast Gas Association, and was appointed to the County Hospital Advisory Committee following his retirement. In 1976, he passed away in Santa Monica at the age of 86 years. A brief biography on J.C. Gilbert is written in Charles S. Warren’s History of the Santa Monica Region from 1934. By 1948, John and Corinne Cornish were the owners and occupants of the 1122 California Avenue property. John Cornish was noted in most of the city directories of the 1950s as a teacher at Santa Monica City College. Corinne was noted as a housewife. By 1960, he was listed as a teacher at Los Angeles City College, but still residing at the 1122 California Avenue property. From research conducted, John and Corinne Cornish remained the owners/occupants well into the late 1960s. The various occupants/owners of the subject property are listed in the following table: CITY DIRECTORY LISTING: 1122 California Avenue * YEAR ENTRY LISTING 1921 No listing 1922 No listing 1923 Joseph C. Gilbert (Bess), District Superintendent- SCGC, SM 1925 Joseph C. Gilbert (Bess), District Superintendent- SCGC, SM 1930 Joseph C. Gilbert (Bess), District Superintendent- SCGC, SM 1936 Joseph C. Gilbert (Bess), District Superintendent- SCGC, SM 1940 Joseph C. Gilbert (Bess), District Superintendent- SCGC, SM 1946 Joseph C. Gilbert (Bess), District Superintendent- SCGC, SM 1948 John P. Cornish (Corinne), teacher Santa Monica City College 1950 John P. Cornish (Corinne), teacher Santa Monica City College 1952 John P. Cornish (Corinne), teacher Santa Monica City College 1960 John P. Cornish (Corinne), teacher Los Angeles City College 1962 John P. Cornish (Corinne), teacher Los Angeles City College 1968 John P. Cornish (Corinne), no occupation listed *Note: Occupancy and ownership information derived from review of relevant city directories, census records, voter registration records, World War I and World War II draft registration records, permit history, death records, and other archival data. OCCUUPANCY/OWNERSHIP HISTORY RESEARCH: 1122 California Avenue 4 Sources American Gas Association Monthly, “Retirements Announced,” Arlington, Virginia: American Gas Association., volumes 39-40, 1957, p. 54. American Gas Journal, “Men at Work,” New York: American Gas Journal, Inc., volume 184, July 1, 1957, p. 52. Ancestry.com, accessed January 11, 2018; January 15, 2018, and January 19, 2018. Brown’s Directory of American Gas Companies and Gas Engineering and Appliance Catalogue. “Natural Gas Companies: Santa Monica.” New York: Robbins Publishing Co., 1922, p. 671. California Oil World. “Retirement News,” Los Angeles: Petroleum Publishers, Inc., volume 50, 1957, p. 18. City of Santa Monica Building and Safety Department, Building Permits. Gas Age Record. “Efficiency Clubs in California,” New York: Robbins Publishing Company, volume 49, 1921, p. 53. Gas Age Record. “Directory of the Gas Industry,” New York: Robbins Publishing Company, volume 49, 1922, p. 3. Gas Age Record. “Three Southern Counties Gas Men Head Rotarians,” New York: Robbins Publishing Company, volume 50, 1922, p. 153. Ingersoll, Luther A. Ingersoll’s Century History: Santa Monica Bay Cities, 1542 to 1908. Los Angeles: Luther A. Ingersoll, 1908. Los Angeles Public Library, On-line historical and image archives. Los Angeles Times. “Office Building for Utility Corporation,” Los Angeles: October 8, 1922, p. V14. Pacific Oil World. “Retirement News.” Los Angeles: Petroleum Publishers, volume 50, 1957, p. 18. Polk & Company. Polk’s Santa Monica City Directory. Los Angeles County (various years). ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times (1881-1988). Santa Monica Evening Outlook. “15,000 Cubic Feet of Gas to Bay Dist. From Redondo Plant.” Santa Monica: February 4, 1921, p 1. Santa Monica Evening Outlook. “Gas Service Is Much Improved.” Santa Monica: February 7, 1921, p 1. Santa Monica Evening Outlook. “Gas Co. to Put Up New Home on Fifth St.” Santa Monica: May 5, 1922, p 1. Santa Monica Evening Outlook. “Ad: Your Last Opportunity to Buy, Southern Counties Gas Company.” Santa Monica: July 29, 1922, p 6. Santa Monica Evening Outlook. “Wade Elected President P.C.G.A.” Santa Monica: October 11, 1922, p 10. Santa Monica Evening Outlook. “Ad: New Gas Office Open Monday, December 11.” Santa Monica: December 9, 1922, p 2. Santa Monica Evening Outlook. “New Office Opened for Business.” Santa Monica: December 11, 1922, p 2. OCCUUPANCY/OWNERSHIP HISTORY RESEARCH: 1122 California Avenue 5 Santa Monica Evening Outlook. “Ad: New Office Open.” Santa Monica: December 12, 1922, p 4. Santa Monica Evening Outlook. “Gas Office Model of its Kind.” Santa Monica: December 18, 1922, p 2. Santa Monica Evening Outlook. “New Gas Office Opened in Ocean Park.” Santa Monica: April 20, 1923, p 6. Santa Monica Evening Outlook. “Ad: Radiantfire, Southern Counties Gas Company.” Santa Monica: October 8, 1924, p 8. Santa Monica Evening Outlook. “Ad: Roper Gas Ranges, Southern Counties Gas Company.” Santa Monica: June 26, 1925, p 5. Santa Monica Public Library, Santa Monica Index. The Gas Record. “Bain Dines Employees,” Chicago: The Gas Publishing Co., volume 17, 1920, p.24. Warren, Charles S. ed. History of the Santa Monica Bay Region. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1934. Warren, Charles S. ed. Santa Monica Blue Book. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1941. Warren, Charles S. ed. Santa Monica Community Book. Santa Monica: Cawston, 1944. Whiffen, Marcus. American Architecture since 1780: A Guide to the Styles. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999. White, Col. Carl F. ed. Santa Monica Community Book (Fifth Edition). Santa Monica: Cawston, 1953. World Oil. “Retirements Announced.” Houston, Texas: Gulf Publishing Co., volume 119, 1945, p. 50 OCCUUPANCY/OWNERSHIP HISTORY RESEARCH: 1122 California Avenue 6 EXHIBITS © Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. 0.1 THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere Miles0.1 Notes 1122 California Avenue Santa Monica, CA Legend This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate, current, or otherwise reliable. 0.040 1:2,257 LOCATION MAP Parcels 9-A M E M O R A N D U M PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF SANTA MONICA PLANNING DIVISION DATE: May 14, 2018 TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: 1122 California Avenue, 17ENT-0211 Public Hearing to Consider a Landmark Designation Application For the Western Sycamore Tree (Platanus racemosa) at 1122 California Avenue APPLICANT: John C. Smith/ Wilmont Neighborhood Coalition PROPERTY OWNER: Lesly and Iradj Shahriary INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On October 16, 2017, John C. Smith, on behalf of the Wilmont Neighborhood Coalition, submitted an application to designate a Western Sycamore Tree (Platanus racemosa) situated on the real property located at 1122 California as a City Landmark. The application and supporting materials are attached to this report (Attachment A). The Landmarks Commission reviewed the application on December 11, 2017 and continued the item to enable staff to provide additional information. The Commission requested review of the context area that had been established for review and potentially review the tree in a larger context. The Commission also requested research be provided on people who may have been associated with the property and/or tree. The subject property comprises a 50’x100’ lot and is located on the south side of California Avenue, east of 11th street. Community concern over the future of the large Western Sycamore Tree (Platanus racemosa) on the property has prompted an application by the Wilmont Neighborhood Coalition for the Landmarks Commission to consider whether or not to designate the tree as a City Landmark. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100, the Commission may approve the landmark designation of a natural feature if it meets one or more of the designation criteria. The application includes information regarding the tree, its health, large canopy, and identifies a number of bird species seen in the tree. The application also included a report/ letter of support by Cy Carlberg, a registered consulting arborist. The report from Carlberg Associates states that the tree is in good health, and that the tree was likely planted when the property was developed in 1922. The application also includes information about the former resident, John Cornish, an artist. The applicant has confirmed, however, that the scope of the application encompasses the tree only. - 2 - PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this hearing was provided as required by Section 9.56.170(c) of the Landmarks Ordinance, with notice sent to all owners and occupants within a 300-foot radius and a newspaper notice published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least 10 days prior to the hearing (Attachment C). ANALYSIS As with any application for designation of an improvement as a City Landmark, the Landmarks Ordinance requires the Commission to review the tree’s eligibility as a landmark based on the criteria set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.56.100(a) and as discussed below. In order to appropriately assess the information provided in the application and to provide an independent evaluation of the subject tree, staff requested that Jan Scow, Registered Consulting Arborist, prepare a report assessing the tree (Attachment B). Tree Description and Condition The report determined that the subject tree is not a single tree, but is in fact two trees of the native species western sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Tree 1 wraps Tree 2 at the base with encircling roots. While this configuration is not common, it is also not abnormal for this species and the consultant has previously seen this configuration. The combined diameter of the two trunks is 62 inches, measured at one-foot above grade. This configuration is what gives the two trees their appearance of being a singular tree. The two trees combined have an approximate height of 82 feet and an approximate canopy diameter of 72 feet. While there are some specific concerns brought about by previous pruning wounds and some decay, the tree(s) appear to be in good health. View of the western sycamore tree(s) at 1122 California Avenue The tree(s) appear to have been planted around the same time the property was developed in 1922. The report found that the tree appears to have been well-maintained, although there has been some damage due to previous pruning as identified in the assessment. At present, certain limbs need end weight reduction pruning. Sycamore trees - 3 - can remain healthy with proper pruning, and often require pruning in urban settings. Western Sycamore Trees in Santa Monica Western sycamore trees are native to much of the California coast and coastal interiors, including Santa Monica, down to Baja California. They have been known to live for hundreds of years, making it possible that some of the oldest western sycamores in Santa Monica’s natural areas were living even when the earliest settlers arrived in the area. Artwork dating back to at least 1906 (if not earlier) illustrates a western sycamore in Santa Monica Canyon. Other photographs in the area show that western sycamore trees have grown in Santa Monica since at least the early 20th Century. 1906, Dirt Road in SM Canyon 1914 Sycamores along Rustic Road, SM Canyon Context of the Tree at 1122 California Avenue While there is a wide parkway on both sides of this portion of California Avenue, the subject tree(s) appear to stand out in this location as the other trees in the parkway on this side of the street appear to have been recently planted. On the opposite side of the street however, there are several mature Canary Island Pine trees in the widened parkway. The report notes that there are several notable City-owned trees located on the same block as the subject tree(s) including the Canary Island Pine trees across the street. While there do not appear to be notable sycamore trees on the same block as the subject tree(s), western sycamore trees can be found throughout the city. On December 11, 2017, the Landmarks Commission reviewed the application and requested greater consideration be given to determining the context of the tree, and identifying other mature trees within that context. 1122 California Avenue is situated in the Wilmont Neighborhood. While this area is identified as a neighborhood, it is divided into smaller neighborhoods by north/south collector streets. After further study, it was determined that the context for the tree at 1122 California Avenue is the area bounded by Montana Avenue to the north, Wilshire Boulevard to the south 4th Street to the west and 14th Street to the east, and area of forty city blocks. This is the area that can be described as the neighborhood context in that each of these streets is a wide collector street that separates one neighborhood from the next. Jan C. Scow Consulting Arborists performed a survey of this revised context area (Attachment C). The survey identified Mature and Notable Trees, explained as “large - 4 - enough and of sufficient stature that the “average person” might consider them to be noteworthy.” The survey found a total of 94 Mature and Notable trees on the Public Right of Way and 59 Mature and Notable trees on private/interior property (including Reed Park) within the survey area. The survey also identified well-established trees native to the local region, including oaks, sycamores, walnuts and cottonwoods. The survey found 21 native sycamore trees and 4 other native trees noted within the survey area. In summary, the consultant report found that while the trees are not as old or large as some of the giant sycamores in Santa Monica’s natural areas, they are the largest and oldest in their neighborhood and are outstanding specimens for their species with a combined canopy that is remarkable and uncommon. The report concludes that they are exceptional for their good health and freedom from infestation, their canopy coverage and structure, and preservation through good pruning over the years. In coming to this conclusion, the consultant’s report also makes maintenance recommendations for the continued health of the trees including annual inspection by a certified arborist and pruning on a 3-5 year cycle. The report further recommends that if construction activities take place, there should be a root protection zone of an entire area around the two trunks within a 15-foot radius. Additionally, on December 11, 2018, the Commission requested information regarding people that may have been associated with the site and/or the tree. The City requested that Ostashay & Associates Consulting provide Occupancy/Ownership Research History of the property (Attachment D). The report finds that there were two families listed in association with the property. Joseph C. Gilbert and his wife Bess initially developed the property in 1922. The report presumes that the tree was planted under the Gilberts’ ownership. Joseph Gilbert worked for the Southern Counties Gas Company of California (SCGC), and was a member of various local community organizations. By 1948, John and Corinne Cornish were the owners and occupants. John Cornish taught at Santa Monica City College, and Los Angeles City College, among others, and was involved in local arts organizations. Until recently, property was in the possession of the Cornish family. While both Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Cornish appear to have had notable careers, and were active in local organizations, they do not appear to have been important figures in the history of Santa Monica. Analytical Framework for Landmark Tree Designation Since the inception of the Landmarks Ordinance, a total of 5 trees have been designated as City landmarks: a Moreton Bay Fig Tree at 101 Wilshire Boulevard, a California Live Oak at 1443 10th Street which died and was removed, a Cedar Deodara Tree at 518 5th Street, Eucalyptus Deanei Tree at 522 24th Street which was removed due to poor health, and a Eucalyptus Cornuta Tree at 1407 Hill Street. Since it is relatively uncommon for the Commission to consider nominations of trees for Landmark designation, staff reviewed the assessments, staff reports, and Statements of Official Action for previously designated trees as a means to provide an analytical framework for the Commission’s consideration of the subject tree. A review of the previous tree designations found that all are identified as truly exceptional trees and/or are tied to the early history of the City of Santa Monica, whether planted by an individual important to the history of the city, or representative of the city’s early development. Findings for prior - 5 - landmark trees designations have also remarked on the age and location of the trees as notable given that the trees existed before the development of the neighborhood and by being allowed to grow in their natural, un-pruned state, were established visual features of their neighborhood. None of the designated landmark trees were planted at the same time as the development on their respective properties except for one tree. In that one exception, the tree was allowed to grow in its natural state creating the only specimen of its kind in the entire city. The subject tree(s) does not appear to have any similar historical association, is not representative of the city’s early development, and based on the consulting arborist’s assessment, has been extensively pruned over the years. Accordingly, the subject tree does not appear to meet one or more of the criteria set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.56.100(a), and staff does not recommend designation as a City Landmark. RECOMMENDATION The western sycamore tree(s) at 1122 California Avenue is impressive in its size and structure and may have been planted when the property was developed in 1922. While findings can be made in favor of designation of a tree of such a size and apparent age, it does not appear to be a particularly exceptional specimen. Specifically, while it appears to be one of the largest native trees within the immediate area, there are many notable trees, even along the same block as the subject tree(s). There have been very few trees in the city designated as City Landmarks. The trees that have been designated are exceptional in some way and/or associated with the history of the city. Because of the context of the subject tree(s) and the apparent lack of a historic association as representative of the City’s early development, staff does not recommend the western sycamore tree(s) at 1122 California Avenue as a City Landmark. Landmarks Ordinance/Findings The Landmarks Ordinance (SMMC 9.56) requires the Commission to review the subject tree’s eligibility as a landmark based on the six criteria discussed below. The Commission shall designate a tree as a City Landmark if the Commission finds it meets one or more of these criteria. Staff does not recommend designation of the western sycamore tree(s) (Platanus racemosa) at 1122 California Avenue, based on the following draft findings: (1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City. Current research did not reveal information in support of this criterion. (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The subject tree is not one but two trees, with one wrapping the other. It is a large mature tree(s) which stands out on this portion of California Avenue, as other trees on - 6 - this side of the street appear to have been more recently planted. However, there are several notable trees on this block, 153 mature and notable trees and 21 native Sycamores within the neighborhood. While this tree may be prominent on its site, there are western sycamore trees throughout the City of Santa Monica, many as notable as the subject tree. As there is no particular noteworthy interest or value in the tree at 1122 California Avenue, it does not appear to meet this criterion. (3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. It is likely that Joseph C. Gilbert and his wife Bess planted the tree. The property is identified with the Gilberts and later, John Cornish and his wife Corinne. While both men appear to have had successful careers and were involved in local organizations, neither were important or notable in the history of the City of Santa Monica. The tree does not appear to be identified with any other historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. Therefore, it does not appear to meet this 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 to such a study. This criterion is not applicable to the designation of a tree as a landmark. (5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect. This criterion is not applicable to the designation of a tree as a landmark. (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. As the subject tree(s) appear to have been planted around the time of the development of the site, 1922, the tree(s) are almost 100 years old. The tree(s) is generally in good condition, and is a mature tree(s) with good branching structure. The subject tree appears prominent, considering the size of existing younger and smaller nearby trees located on the south side of California Avenue. However, there are several notable trees on this street, across the street, and in the immediate neighborhood, so this tree does not appear to meet this criterion. Pursuant to SMMC 9.56.180, the Landmarks Commission’s determination regarding this application may be appealed to the City Council if the appeal is filed with the City Planning Division within ten (10) consecutive days commencing from the date that the decision is made by the Landmarks Commission. - 7 - Attachments: A. Application with supporting materials B. Evaluation Report C. Neighborhood Survey D. Occupancy/Ownership Research History E. Public Notice F. Public Correspondence Received after December 11, 2017 G. Public Correspondence for December 11, 2017 meeting H. December 11, 2017 Minutes of the Landmarks Commission Item 9-C MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION Founded 1875 “Populus felix in urbe felici” Monday, May 14, 2018 7:00 PM City Council Chambers, Room 213 1685 Main Street, Santa Monica CALL TO ORDER OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION: Chairperson O’Neill called the meeting to order at 7:20 PM. 1. ROLL CALL: 2. PRESENT: Laura O’Neill, Chairperson Margaret Bach Amy Green Barry Rosenbaum Ruth Shari Dolores Sloan, Chair Pro Tempore ALSO PRESENT: Steve Mizokami, Commission Liaison Stephanie Reich, Design and Historic Preservation Planner Heidi von Tongeln, Deputy City Attorney Nichelle Cummings, Staff Assistant II ABSENT: Richard Brand 3. REPORT FROM STAFF: Information concerning future Landmarks Commission Agendas. Update on recent Architectural Review Board, Planning Commission, and City Council actions, including development projects, planning policy studies, ordinances, appeals and update of project status and related landmarks matters 7:21:43 PM 2 Steve Mizokami, Landmarks Liaison, provided a report on additional upcoming hearing items, including an item for Demolition Application request has been continued to the July 9 meeting. Staff noted that the HRI was anticipated for release in the summer. Staff also introduced Nichelle Cummings, who is assisting in the role of Landmarks Commission Secretary. 4. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS: 7:27:37 PM 7:28:12 PM Chair O’Neill left the dais 3-A. Presentation from the Commission Historian: Santa Monica’s first historian Luther A. Ingersoll. 7:28:27 PM Commissioner Bach provided a presentation on Ingersoll. Historian, entrepreneur, community activist, collector, and community benefactor. He authored and self- published Century History, Santa Monica Bay Cites, in 1908, which has proved to be an invaluable resource on the history of California, Los Angeles County, and Santa Monica and the bay cities. Chair O’Neill returned to the dais. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None 7:35:41 PM Commissioner Bach made a motion to limit public testimony to 2 minutes. Commissioner Shari seconded the motion. AYES: Bach, Green, Rosenbaum, Shari, Chair O’Neill NAYS: ABSENT: Brand, ABSTAIN: Chair Pro Tem Sloan 6. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: 7:37:29 PM 6-A. Certificate of Appropriateness 18ENT-0060, 302 Colorado Avenue, approval of site modifications to the former Sears Department Store property. The proposed scope of work consists of exterior site improvements including a new outdoor refuse enclosure within the surface parking lot of the subject property in conjunction with an adaptive reuse of the former Sears building, a designated City Landmark. 7:37:39 PM Commissioner Rosenbaum provided comments. Commissioner Bach made a motion to approve, Commissioner Shari seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Bach, Green, Rosenbaum, Shari, Chair Pro Tem Sloan, Chair O’Neill NAYS: 3 ABSENT: Brand ABSTAIN: 6-B. Landmark Designation 18ENT-0011, 435 Georgina Avenue, designating the two- story Craftsman residence (single-unit) as a City Landmark and the land on which it is sited as a Landmark Parcel. 7:39:01 PM The Commissioners provided comments. Chair O’Neill made a motion to continue, seconded by Commissioner Green. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Bach, Green, Rosenbaum, Shari, Chair Pro Tem Sloan, Chair O’Neill NAYS: ABSENT: Brand ABSTAIN: 6-C. Landmark Designation 18ENT-0024, 133 Wadsworth Avenue, designating the two-story Dutch Colonial Revival-style residence (single-unit) as a City Landmark and the land on which it is sited as a Landmark Parcel. 7:43:00 PM The Commissioners provided comments. Chair O’Neill made a motion to continue, seconded by Commissioner Bach. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Bach, Green, Rosenbaum, Shari, Chair O’Neill NAYS: ABSENT: Brand ABSTAIN: Chair Pro Tem Sloan 7. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission) 7:46:18 PM Sherrill Kushner announced a Salon at the Aeroplane Bungalow at 315 10th Street on June 10th as fundraiser for Santa Monica Conservancy. Ruthann Lehrer, resident, also spoke. 8. DEMOLITION PERMITS: 7:50:07 PM 7-A. Review of Demolition Permits and Consideration Whether to File an Application for Designation of a Structure as a City Landmark or Structure of Merit: Commissioners provided ex parte communications, and information on site visits. 1. Item Not in Use 2. 710 18th Street (18BLD-5553) R1–Single-Unit Residential Single Family Residence & Garage 4 Structure Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No Action 3. 1021 Grant Street (18BLD-5604) R1–Single-Unit Residential Single Family Residence & Converted Garage Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No Action 4. 1238 7th Street (18BLD-5605) NV–Neighborhood Village Commercial Buillding Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No Action 5. 1557 7th Street (18BLD-5606) TA–Transit Adjacent Commercial Building Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No Action 6. 1547 7th Street (18BLD-5607) TA–Transit Adjacent Commercial Building Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No Action 7. 1427 5th Street (18BLD-5608) TA–Transit Adjacent Commercial Building Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No Action 8. 1616 Hill Street (18BLD-5619) R1–Single-Unit Residential Single Family Residence Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No Action 9. 525 16th Street (18BLD-5625) R1–Single-Unit Residential Single Family Residence & Garage Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No Action 5 10. 1413 18th Street (18BLD-5630) GC-General Commercial Multi-Family Residence Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No Action 11. 558 15th Street (18BLD-5733) R1–Single-Unit Residential Single Family Residence & Garage Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory Continued- Additional Information Requested 9. CONSENT CALENDAR: None 10. OLD BUSINESS: 8:02:43 PM 9-A. Landmark Designation 17ENT-0211, 1122 California Avenue, to determine whether the sycamore tree within the front yard of the subject property should be designated as a City Landmark. The Landmarks Commission will consider the application based on whether the application, research, and public testimony presented demonstrates that the tree meets one or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A). The Landmarks Commission reviewed the proposed Landmark designation at the December 11, 2017 Landmarks Commission meeting and continued the item to allow for additional research related to the proposed designation. The item was continued from the February 12, 2018 Landmarks Commission meeting at the request of the property owner. Commissioners provided ex parte communications. 8:07:16 PM Stephanie Reich, Design and Historic Preservation Planner provided the staff report. 8:24:44 PM John C. Smith, applicant, spoke in support of designating the tree as a City Landmark, stated that the tree meets 4 out of the 6 criteria for designation. 8:33:37 PM Tyler Shariary, spoke on behalf of the property owner(s). He noted the condition the house was in when his family took possession of the house, and spoke in support of denial of the nomination. Thomas Nitti, attorney for the property owners, spoke regarding the desigation application of the ficus trees on 2nd and 4th streets that was denied by the Commission, and in support of denial of the designation. Marya Shariary, spoke for the property owner, and stated that there is currently no intention to remove the tree(s). 6 8:43:28 PM The following members of the public spoke: Jerry Rubin, representing Tree Hugging Friends; Sherrill Kushner, on behalf of the Santa Monica Conservancy; Ruthann Lehrer, on behalf of the Santa Monica Conservancy; Linda P. Avila; Cy Carlberg, arborist; Marianne Laguardia, member of the Parks and Recreation Commission; Marcia Hanscomb, representing the Sierra Club; Birute Keblinskas; Linda Piera-Avila; Kurt Outwater; Gary Newell; Brent Harrison; Kevin Williams; Shirin Miller; Rocco Shariary, property resident; Mindy Beardsley; Harris Gable; Hal Levin; Myla Reason; Ann Cheslaw; Elizabeth Lerer; Susan Suntree; Mary Efron; Anna Rogers; Mario Fonda-Bonardi; Robert Van Der Hook, botanist Chair Pro Tem Sloan left the dais at 8:54:20 PM, returned 8:58:48 PM Chair O’Neill left the dais at 9:01:43 PM returned 9:06:37 PM 9:43:27 PM Marya Shariary spoke on behalf on the owner(s), stating support for the staff recommendation. She showed photos of other Sycamore trees that are noted in the book Trees of Santa Monica by Hastings. She noted the property is smaller than the typical site in Santa Monica, and the root system extends throughout the property and under the house. She spoke regarding her concern regarding the consequences of designation of the tree. 9:52:32 PM The Commission discussed the issues regarding designating a tree, and whether or not this tree met the criteria to be designated a City Landmark. Some on the Commission noted their concern about designating this tree, and that there should be a different method of preserving the tree canopy in Santa Monica. There was also concern expressed about the impact of designation on the property. Ms. von Tongeln noted that the Commission would identify a tree protection zone at a later date. Commissioner Green stated that designating the tree would be a burden to the owners. She expressed concern that it is not appropriate to use the designation process to save the tree, and that she does not believe that the tree meets any of the six criteria. While she is interested in preserving the tree canopy in Santa Monica, designation is not the proper way to do it. Commissioners also noted that the consultant’s report identified the tree as unique and notable and that the tree appeared to be eligible for designation under Criterion 2 and 6. Commissioner Rosenbaum made a motion to designate the tree under Criterion 2 and 6, seconded by Chair Pro Tem Sloan. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Bach, Rosenbaum, Chair Pro Tem Sloan, Chair O’Neill 7 NAYS: Green, Shari ABSENT: Brand ABSTAIN: Commissioner Shari clarified that she voted no as she did not agree with both criteria. Chair O’Neill Called for a break at 10:43:54 PM Meeting resumed 10:55:30 PM Chair O’Neill made a motion to extend the meeting beyond 11:00pm approved by a voice vote. 9-B. Landmark Designation 17ENT-0285, 1413 Michigan Avenue, to determine whether the one-story Mid-Century Modern style building (Santa Monica Nikkei Hall), in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark. The Landmarks Commission will consider the application based on whether the application, research and public testimony presented demonstrates that the building meets one or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A). The item was continued from the February 12, 2018 Landmarks Commission meeting at the request of the property owner. 10:55:54 PM Commissioners provided ex parte communications. Mr. Mizokami provided the staff report, recommending designation of the property. Regarding the period of significance for the property, Mr. Mizokami clarified that initially, the City’s consultant had identified a period of significance that continued almost up to the present day, and that was revised to end in 1969. Kathryn Mcgee, historic preservation consultant, representing the applicant, reviewed highlights of the construction and use of the building, the period of significance, which, in her opinion, extends to 1979 which marks the decline of attendance. She explained that the building is most significant due to its association with the Nikkei community in the postwar period. She further explained that while membership continued, the period of significance is associated with the declining use and importance of the building in the life of the Nikkei community. She stated that while there may be some original plantings in the front garden, the front landscaping does not appear to be significant. Commissioner Bach noted the architect was a graduate of USC in 1935, worked for Welton Beckett, and built many buildings for the Japanese community. Ms. Mcgee noted that in her research, she didn’t find any buildings by the architect that were noteworthy on their own. The following members of the public spoke: Robert Van der Hoek, Roger Genser. 8 Ken Kutcher spoke on behalf of the owner in support of the designation, not including the apartment at the rear. He also suggested that the owner has concerns about the inclusion of the front landscaping. He noted that the owner has an interest in providing something commemorative as they consider developing the site around the existing building. 11:22:17 PM The Commisison discussed the period of s ignificance and agreed with Kathryn Mcgee who identified it as beginning with construction in 1957 to 1979 when membership started to decline. They discussed the character defining features as stated on page 9 of the HRG report, noting that in regard to the landscaping, it should be noted as “Japanese-style landscaping”. The Commission also discussed how the architect of the Nikkei Hall was important to the Japanese community and that information should be included in the Criterion, in particular, Criterion 1 and 5. Commissioner Bach commented that information about the architect, including his return to the community in 1956, graduation from USC in 1935, and his prolific career serving the Japanese community should be included. Commissioner Rosenbaum noted that the applicant’s consultant report includes a great deal of information regarding the life of the community that should be included in the findings. He noted that it is crucial to remember that a community that is so well accepted can then be easily ostrasized and deprived of its basic rights. The building is a symbol of the re silience of the community in returning to the area. Chair O’Neill made a motion to designate the property and the parcel, excluding the residences, including the social hall portion of the building, with the period of significance from 1957 to 1979, with character defining features included on page 9 of the HRG report, including information regarding the architect, and information about the life of the Nikkei community in relationship to the building with mention of events prior to construction that impacted the c ommunity and have influence on the community and its history in relationship to Nikkei hall. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Shari. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Bach, Green, Rosenbaum, Shari, Chair Pro Tem Sloan, Chair O’Neill NAYS: ABSENT: Brand ABSTAIN: 9 10. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10-A. Landmark Designation 18ENT-0049, 1314 7th Street, consideration to determine whether the six-story PWA Moderne style commercial building, in whole or in part, should be designated as a City Landmark. The Landmarks Commission will consider the application based on whether the application, research and public testimony presented demonstrates that the building meets one or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100(A). 11:43:55 PM Commissioners provided ex parte communications. Mr. Mizokami presented the staff report. Commissioner Bach requested inclusion of mention of the designer in criterion 4. She also suggested inclusion of the entry and lobby and interior aspects of the lobby as identified in the ARG report. Commissioner Bach made the motion to approve the designation with findings under criterion 1, 2, 4 with mention of the building designer, the parcel and the publicly accessible lobby. The motion was seconded by Chair O’Neill. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Bach, Green, Rosenbaum, Shari, Chair Pro Tem Sloan, Chair O’Neill NAYS: ABSENT: Brand ABSTAIN: 10-B. Certificate of Appropriateness 17ENT-0277, 1605-1609 Ocean Front Walk, consideration of design approval for the rehabilitation of the building’s exterior including modifications to the front and rear façades, doors, windows, exterior finish and color, and site paving, in conjunction with an adaptive reuse o f the existing building, a designated City Landmark. 11:57:36 PM Commissioners provided ex parte communications. Mr. Mizokami provided the staff report. William Brantley, project applicant, presented the project. Ken Kutcher, speaking on behalf of the property owner, identified a concern with the conditions. The conditions note items that will be reviewed by staff prior to issuance of a building permit. The Commission requested Condition 4 be revised to read: “Approval of a sign program will be required prior to installation of signage for the building.” 10 Commissioner Bach made the motion to approve the Certificate of Appropriatness for design approval with the stated revised conditions, seconded by Commissioner Green. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Bach, Green, Rosenbaum, Shari, Chair Pro Tem Sloan, Chair O’Neill NAYS: ABSENT: Brand ABSTAIN: 11. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 11-A. Discussion and potential formulation of comments regarding historic preservation issues in the Draft Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. Staff presented the memo drafted based on Commission comments in the March meeting. Ken Kutcher spoke, and referred to a letter provided to the Commission regarding view corridors and other concerns identified in the letter. Commissioner Rosenbaum made reference to the Planning Commission (PC) staff report, and questions that have been identified, and suggested to endorse the PC comments and provide additional comments. The Commission discussed whether there was agreement with the scenic corridors identified, and those suggested by the PC. Regarding cultural landscape protections, invasive species that are part of cultural landscapes and Landmarks (such as Palisades Park and City Hall) may be replaced in kind with non-invasive species to maintain the historic landscape, as recommended by the city’s Urban Forrester. Commissioner Rosenbaum noted the language for replacement and suggested that it may be in conflict with the regulatory framework. The Commission stated that the policy document should clearly refer to the Landmarks Ordinance and process. In relation to parking on the pier, the policies in the document (page 51, page 97) state that provisions do not preclude removal of parking on the pier. The Commissioners discussed the inclusion of Ocean Front Walk, South Beach Park and the Eplanade as scenic corridors. Commissioner Shari expressed interest in Ocean Front Walk being included as a scenic corridor. Commissioner Rosenbaum pointed out those scenic corridors were already included in the LUP or in comments from the Planning Commission and the draft memo. The Commission directed staff to provide the memo with additional comments to the LUP/LCP project team. 11 11-B. Update from the Landmarks Ordinance Update Subcommittee on recent activities related to recommendations for the proposed update to the Landmarks Ordinance, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.56, including but not limited to, discussions held, recommendations formulated, input received, and upcoming Subcommittee meetings. Commissioner Shari stated that there has been substantial work to provide comments on the Landmarks Ordinance (LMO). She stated that the Santa Monica Conservancy has provided substantial comments that should be vetted by the subcommittee. Commissioner Sloan noted that there were extensive comments by the Conservancy that had been included in consideration during the subcommittee discussion. Chair O’Neill noted that there are items put forward by the Conservancy that were not carried forward. Commissioner Bach noted that the LA Conservancy may be a resource for review of the LMO. The next steps will be to meet with staff to review comments. Ruthann Lehrer, resident, provided public comment. 11-C. Update from the Public Education and Media Outreach Subcommittee on recent activities related to enhancing the awareness of, and engagement and participation in, the City’s historic preservation programs and activities. Chair Pro Tem Sloan presented the report from the Subcommittee. Staff requested review of the materials before review by the Landmarks Commission, and noted staff concerns with Commissioners presenting to neighborhood groups. 11-D. Report from Landmarks Commission Liaison to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on recent ARB consideration and action taken on proposed projects involving additions to or modifications of potential historic resources. Nothing to report. 11-E. Report from Landmarks Commission representative to the Santa Monica Pier Corporation (SMPC) on recent SMPC activities and action taken on proposed projects involving the Landmark Santa Monica Pier. Commissioner Rosenbaum mentioned he attended his first meeting and that there was discussion by the SMPC on the City’s Capital Improvement Projects. 11-F. Update from Staff on notable activities affecting any designated Landmarks or Structures of Merit. Mr. Mizokami provided an update. 11-G. Planning Commission Case List (Information Only). 12 12. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Public and Commission discussion and comment is permitted.) 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (Requests from Commissioners to add items to upcoming agendas) Request for consideration of discussion on tree designations. 14. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Regular Meeting of the Landmarks Commission: 7:00 PM Monday, June 11, 2018; Council Chambers, City Hall, 1685 Main Street. 15. ADJOURNMENT: 1:11:36 AM APPROVED: August 13, 2018 - 1 - M E M O R A N D U M PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF SANTA MONICA PLANNING DIVISION DATE: December 11, 2017 TO: The Honorable Landmarks Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: 1122 California Avenue, 17ENT-0211 Public Hearing to Consider a Landmark Designation Application For the Western Sycamore Tree (Platanus racemosa) at 1122 California Avenue APPLICANT: John C. Smith/ Wilmont Neighborhood Coalition PROPERTY OWNER: Brett Cypress/ WS Investments INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND On October 16, 2017, John C. Smith, on behalf of the Wilmont Neighborhood Coalition, submitted an application to designate a Western Sycamore Tree (Platanus racemosa) situated on the real property located at 1122 California as a City Landmark. The application and supporting materials are attached to this report (Attachment A). The subject property comprises a 50’x100’ lot and is located on the south side of California Avenue, east of 11th street. Community concern over the future of the large Western Sycamore Tree (Platanus racemosa) on the property has prompted an application by the Wilmont Neighborhood Coalition for the Landmarks Commission to consider whether or not to designate the tree as a City Landmark. Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100, the Commission may approve the landmark designation of a natural feature if it meets one or more of the designation criteria. The application includes information regarding the tree, its health, large canopy, and identifies a number of bird species seen in the tree. The application also included a report/ letter of support by Cy Carlberg, a registered consulting arborist. The report from Carlberg Associates states that the tree is in good health, and that the tree was likely planted when the property was developed in 1922. The application also includes information about the former resident, John Cornish, an artist. The applicant has confirmed, however, that the scope of the application encompasses the tree only. 9-C - 2 - PUBLIC NOTICE Notice of this hearing was provided as required by Section 9.56.170(c) of the Landmarks Ordinance, with notice sent to all owners and occupants within a 300 -foot radius and a newspaper notice published in the Santa Monica Daily Press at least 10 days prior to the hearing (Attachment C). ANALYSIS As with any application for designation of an improvement as a City Landmark, t he Landmarks Ordinance requires the Commission to review the tree’s eligibility as a landmark based on the criteria set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Cod e Section 9.56.100(a) and as discussed below. In order to appropriately assess the information provided in the application and to provide an independent evaluation of the subject tree, staff requested that Jan Scow, Registered Consulting Arborist, prepare a report assessing the tree (Attachment B). Tree Description and Condition The report determined that the subject tree is not a single tree, but is in fact two trees of the native species western sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Tree 1 wraps Tree 2 at the base with encircling roots. While this configuration is not common, it is also not abnormal for this species and the consultant has previously seen this configuration. The combined diameter of the two trunks is 62 inches, measured at one-foot above grade. This configuration is what gives th e two trees their appearance of being a singular tree. The two trees combined have an approximate height of 82 feet and an approximate canopy diameter of 72 feet. While there are some specific concerns brought about by previous pruning wounds and some decay, the tree(s) appear to be in good health. View of the western sycamore tree(s) at 1122 California Avenue The tree(s) appear to have been planted around the same time the property was - 3 - developed in 1922. The report found that the tree appears to have been well-maintained, although there has been some damage due to previous pruning as identified in the assessment. At present, certain limbs need end weight reduction pruning. Sycamore trees can remain healthy with proper pruning, and often require pruning in urban settings. Western Sycamore Trees in Santa Monica Western sycamore trees are native to much of the California coast and coastal interiors, including Santa Monica, down to Baja California. They have been know n to live for hundreds of years, making it possible that some of the oldest western sycamores in Santa Monica’s natural areas were living even when the earliest settlers arrived in the area. Artwork dating back to at least 1906 (if not earlier) illustrates a western sycamore in Santa Monica Canyon. Other photographs in the area show that western sycamore trees have grown in Santa Monica since at least the early 20th Century. 1906, Dirt Road in SM Canyon 1914 Sycamores along Rustic Road, SM Canyon Context of the Tree at 1122 California Avenue While there is a wide parkway on both sides of this portion of California Avenue, the subject tree(s) appear to stand out in this location as the other trees in the parkway on this side of the street appear to have been recently planted. On the opposite side of the street however, there are several mature Canary Island Pine trees in the widened parkway. The report notes that there are several notable City-owned trees located on the same block as the subject tree(s) including the Canary Island Pine trees across the street. While there do not appear to be notable sycamore trees on the same block as the subject tree(s), western sycamore trees can be found throughout the city. The consultant report also notes 16 native trees (sycamores and oaks) within a two-block radius surrounding 1122 California Avenue. In general, the North of Wilshire neighborhood has a healthy tree canopy, particularly in relationship to other multi-family neighborhoods. In summary, the consultant report found that while the trees are not as old or large as some of the giant sycamores in Santa Monica’s natural areas, they are the largest and oldest in their neighborhood and are outstanding specimens for their species with a combined canopy that is remarkable and uncommon. The report concludes that they are exceptional for their good health and freedom from infestation, their canopy coverage and structure, and preservation through good pruning over the years. In coming to this conclusion, the consultant’s report also makes maintenance recommendations for the - 4 - continued health of the trees including annual inspection by a certified arborist and pruning on a 3-5 year cycle. The report further recommends that if construction activities take place, there should be a root protection zone of an entire area around the two trunks within a 15-foot radius. Analytical Framework for Landmark Tree Designation Since the inception of the Landmarks Ordinance, a total of 5 trees have been designated as City landmarks: a Moreton Bay Fig Tree at 101 Wilshire Boulevard, a California Live Oak at 1443 10th Street which died and was removed, a Cedar Deodara Tree at 518 5th Street, Eucalyptus Deanei Tree at 522 24th Street which was removed due to poor health, and a Eucalyptus Cornuta Tree at 1407 Hill Street. Since it is relatively uncommon for the Commission to consider nominations of trees for Landmark designation, staff reviewed the assessments, staff reports, and Statements of Official Action for previously designated trees as a means to provide an analytical framework for the Commission’s consideration of the subject tree. A review of the previous tree designations found that all are identified as truly exceptional trees and/or are tied to the early history of the City of Santa Monica, whether planted by an individual important to the history of the city, or representative of the city’s early development. Findings for prior landmark trees designations have also remarked on the age and locat ion of the trees as notable given that the trees existed before the development of the neighborhood and by being allowed to grow in their natural, un-pruned state, were established visual features of their neighborhood. None of the designated landmark trees were planted at the same time as the development on their respective properties except for one tree. In that one exception, the tree was allowed to grow in its natural state creating the only specimen of its kind in the entire city. The subject tree(s) does not appear to have any similar historical association, is not representative of the city’s early development , and based on the consulting arborist’s assessment, has been extensively pruned over the years. Accordingly, the subject tree does not appear to meet one or more of the criteria set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.56.100(a), and staff does not recommend designation as a City Landmark. RECOMMENDATION The western sycamore tree(s) at 1122 California Avenue is impressive in its s ize and structure and may have been planted when the property was developed in 1922 . While findings can be made in favor of designation of a tree of such a size and apparent age, it does not appear to be a particularly exceptional specimen. Specifically, while it appears to be one of the largest native trees within the immediate area, there are many notable trees, even along the same block as the subject tree(s). There have been very few trees in the city designated as City Landmarks. The trees that have been designated are exceptional in some way and/or associated with the history of the city. Because of the context of the subject tree(s) and the apparent lack of a historic association as representative of the City’s early development, staff does not recommend the western sycamore tree(s) at 1122 California Avenue as a City Landmark. - 5 - Landmarks Ordinance/Findings The Landmarks Ordinance (SMMC 9.56) requires the Commission to review the subject tree’s eligibility as a landmark based on the six criteria discussed below. The Commission shall designate a tree as a City Landmark if the Commission finds it meets one or more of these criteria. Staff does not recommend designation of the western s ycamore tree(s) (Platanus racemosa) at 1122 California Avenue, based on the following draft findings: (1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City. Current research did not reveal information in support of this criterion. (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The subject tree is not one but two trees, with one wrapping the other. It is a large mature tree(s) which stands out on this portion of California Avenue, as ot her trees on this side of the street appear to have been more recently planted. However, there are several notable trees on this block, and more than a dozen native trees within a two - block radius of the subject site. While this tree may be prominent on its site, there are western sycamore trees throughout the City of Santa Monica, many as notable as the subject tree. As there is no particular noteworthy interest or value in the tree at 1122 California Avenue, it does not appear to meet this criterion. (3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. The property is identified with a long-term owner and resident, John Cornish, an art professor and artist. It is unknown who planted the tree, bu t it is clear Mr. Cornish did not, as he arrived in California long after the tree was planted. The tree does not appear to be identified with any other historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. Therefore, it does not appear to meet this 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 archi tectural design, detail, or historical type to such a study. This criterion is not applicable to the designation of a tree as a landmark. (5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect. This criterion is not applicable to the designation of a tree as a landmark. (6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and - 6 - familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City. As the subject tree(s) appear to have been planted around the time of the development of the site, 1922, the tree(s) are almost 100 years old. The tree(s) is generally in good condition, and is a mature tree(s) with good branching structure. The subject tree appears prominent, considering the size of existing younger and smaller nearby trees located on the south side of California Avenue. However, there are several notable trees on this street, across the street, and in the immediate neighborhood, so this tree does not appear to meet this criterion. Pursuant to SMMC 9.56.180, the Landmarks Commission’s determination regarding this application may be appealed to the City Council if the appeal is filed with the City Planning Division within ten (10) consecutive days commencing from the date that the decision is made by the Landmarks Commission. Attachments: A. Application with supporting materials B. Evaluation Report C. Public Notice D. Public Correspondence Minutes Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission December 11, 2017 MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION Founded 1875 “Populus felix in urbe felici” Monday, December 11, 2017 7:00 PM Santa Monica Institute (SMI) Training Room (2nd Floor) 330 Olympic Drive, Santa Monica CALL TO ORDER OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION: Chair Pro Tempore Sloan called the meeting to order at 7:19 PM 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Dolores Sloan, Chair Pro Tempore Richard Brand Amy Green Barry Rosenbaum Ruth Shari Also Present: Heidi von Tongeln, Deputy City Attorney Stephanie Reich, Design and Historic Preservation Planner Steve Mizokami, Commission Liaison Wendy Radwan, Staff Assistant III Absent: Laura O’Neill, Chairperson Margaret Bach 2. REPORT FROM STAFF: 7:19 PM Mr. Mizokami reviewed administrative items including:  Upcoming Hearing Items 1. Certificate of Appropriateness 1659 Ocean Front Walk 2. Certificate of Appropriateness Palisades Park 3. Landmark Parcel Designation 1438 2nd Street 6-A Minutes Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission December 11, 2017 2  Upcoming Discussion Item 1. Potential 11th Street Historic District  Announcements 1. Staff wished Jerry Rubin a Happy 75th Birthday 2. Next Landmarks Commission meeting Monday, January 8, 2018, in Council Chambers Commissioners requested a recap discussion of the retreat. 3. COMMISSIONER ANNOUNCEMENTS: 3-A. Presentation from the Commission Historian: Rancho San Vicente y Santa Monica and the Rancho Boca de Santa Monica: history of the rancho lands that became Santa Monica. (continued) 7:22 PM Chair Pro Tempore Sloan made a motion to hear Item 9-C after Item 8. Commissioner Brand seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by a voice vote, with Commissioner Bach and Chairperson O’Neill absent. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None 5. APPROVAL OF STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: 5-A. Certificate of Appropriateness 17ENT-0218, 423-429 Ocean Avenue, approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for a three - and four-story, 12-unit condominium project with associated subterranean parking located at 423-429 Ocean Avenue. The scope of the project incorporates new construction on the parcel and rehabilitation and adaptive re-use of substantial portions of the City Landmark- designated Colonial Revival style garden apartment complex. 7:23 PM Commissioners offered corrections. Commissioner Shari made a motion to approve. Commissioner Brand seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Brand, Green, Rosenbaum, Shari, Chair Pro Tempore Sloan NAYS: ABSENT: Bach, Chairperson O’Neill ABSTAIN: Minutes Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission December 11, 2017 3 5-B. Landmark Designation 17ENT-0232, 305 Alta Avenue, approval of an amendment to Landmark Designation 15ENT-0261 to remove from the Designation the non- original wooden lattice hoods identified as a feature of the Mediterranean/Classical Revival style, in conjunction with approval of Certificate of Appropriateness (17ENT-0234) to remove the wooden lattice hoods and brackets from the Landmark building and the addition of a new trellis on the front building elevation. The single-unit residence is known as the Mel Ule House, a designated City Landmark. (May be discussed concurrently with Item 5-C.) 7:26 PM Chair Pro Tempore Sloan made a motion to approve. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Brand, Green, Rosenbaum, Shari, Chair Pro Tempore Sloan NAYS: ABSENT: Bach, Chairperson O’Neill ABSTAIN: 5-C. Certificate of Appropriateness 17ENT -0234, 305 Alta Avenue, approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for the removal of existing non -original wooden lattice hoods and brackets from the Landmark building, and the addition of a new steel trellis on the f ront building elevation as a part of a bifurcated approval, in conjunction with approval of an amendment (17ENT-0232) to Landmark Designation 15ENT-0261 to remove from the Designation the wooden lattice hoods identified as a feature of the Mediterranean/Classical Revival style. The single-unit residence is known as the Mel Ule House, a designated City Landmark. (May be discussed concurrently with Item 5-B.) 7:28 PM Commissioners offered corrections. Commission Rosenbaum made a motion to approve with corrections. Commissioner Shari seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Brand, Green, Rosenbaum, Shari, Chair Pro Tempore Sloan NAYS: ABSENT: Bach, Chairperson O’Neill ABSTAIN: 5-D. Certificate of Appropriateness 17ENT-0233, 445-449 San Vicente Boulevard, approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness for façade improvements including the repair of existing wood windows, repair/replacement of gutters and downspouts, in-kind replacement of roofing material, exterior stair replacement, roof deck resurface, and a repaint of the building’s exterior, light post, and railing to an Minutes Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission December 11, 2017 4 existing multi-unit residential apartment complex and Contributing building located in the San Vicente Boulevard Courtyard Apartment Historic District. 7:33 PM Commissioners offered corrections. Commissioner Rosenbaum made a motion to approve with corrections. Chair Pro Tempore Sloan seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Brand, Green, Rosenbaum, Shari, Chair Pro Tempore Sloan NAYS: ABSENT: Bach, Chairperson O’Neill ABSTAIN: 6. PUBLIC INPUT: (On items not on agenda and within the jurisdiction of the Commission) The following member of the public addressed the Commission: Carol Lem lein (Santa Monica Conservancy) suggested the Landmarks Commissioners urge the City Council to prioritize an update to the Landmarks Ordinance. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 7-A. Review of Demolition Permits and Consideration Whether to File an Application for Designation of a Structure as a City Landmark or Structure of Merit: 7:34 PM Commissioners provided ex parte disclosure communications. Chair Pro Tempore Sloan disclosed the memo she drafted with Deputy City Attorney von Tonglen regarding Item 7-A.2. Commissioners pulled Items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 11 for discussion. 1. 211 17th Street (17BLD-3435) R1 – Single-Unit Residential Single Family Residence & Garage Structure Identified in Historic Resources Inventory (continued from November 13, 2017) Commissioner Rosenbaum made a motion to file a Structure of Merit Application. Chair Pro Tempore Sloan seconded the motion. A roll call was held for the motion and failed by the following vote: AYES: Rosenbaum, Chair Pro Tempore Sloan NAYS: Brand, Green, Shari ABSENT: Bach, Chairperson O’Neill ABSTAIN: No Action Taken. Minutes Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission December 11, 2017 5 2. 1413 Michigan Avenue (17BLD-5082) NC – Neighborhood Commercial Single Family Residence Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory (continued from November 13, 2017) The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Carol Lemlein (Santa Monica Conservancy) suggested adding a “sites of interest” category to the Landmark Ordinance; and Mike Salazar (resident) spoke in support of a Landmark Designation. Commissioner Rosenbaum made a motion to file a Landmark Designation Application for 1413 Michigan Avenue. Chair Pro Tempore Sloan seconded the motion. A roll call vote was held and the motion was approved by the following vote: AYES: Green, Rosenbaum, Shari, Chair Pro Tempore Sloan, NAYS: Brand ABSENT: Bach, Chairperson O’Neill ABSTAIN: 3. 401 Montana Avenue (17BLD-5151) R3 – Medium Density Residential Multi-Family Residence & Garage Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory (continued from November 13, 2017) Discussion was held. No Action Taken. 4. 852 22nd Street (17BLD-5244) R1 – Single-Unit Residential Single Family Residence Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No Action Taken. 5. 440 17th Street (17BLD-5264) R1 – Single-Unit Residential Single Family Residence Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No Action Taken. Minutes Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission December 11, 2017 6 6. 2916 Kansas Avenue (17BLD-5266) R1 – Single-Unit Residential Single Family Residence & Garage Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No Action Taken. 7. 1823 Hill Street (17BLD-5267) R1 – Single-Unit Residential Single Family Residence & Garage Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No Action Taken. 8. 1649 Oak Street (17BLD-5281) R1 – Single-Unit Residential Single Family Residence Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No Action Taken. 9. 2222 16th Street (17BLD-5338) R2 – Low Density Residential Detached 2-Car Garage Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No Action Taken. 10. 1550 Euclid Street (17BLD-5453) MUBL – Mixed Use Boulevard Commercial Building Structure Not Identified in Historic Resources Inventory No Action Taken. 11. 2433 6th Street (17BLD-5515) OP2 – Ocean Park Low Density Residential Single Family Residence & Garage Structure Identified in Historic Resources Inventory The following member of the public addressed the Commission: Matthew Bahrami (applicant). Discussion Held. No Action Taken. Minutes Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission December 11, 2017 7 8. OLD BUSINESS: None 9. NEW BUSINESS/PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9-A. Certificate of Appropriateness 17ENT-0131, 2511 Beverley Avenue, consideration of design approval for the rehabilitation and an expansion of the existing Craftsman-style residence, including but not limited to additions to the first and second floors, expansion of the existing basement below the Landmark residence, a new garage and multi-purpose structure within the existing side yard, and landscape modifications at the subject property. Additionally, in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.56.120(f), the Landmarks Commission will be considering correcting the inadvertent omission of the Landmark Parcel at 2511 Beverley Avenue from the Statement of Official Action that was adopted by the Landmarks Commission in 2004 when it designated the Craftsman -style residence on the parcel as a City Landmark. 10:26 PM Commissioners provided ex parte disclosure communications. Commissioners granted the applicant team 10 minutes to present by a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Mizokami provided a staff report. Deputy City Attorney von Tonglen clarified that if the Commission were to make a finding of categorical CEQA exemption, the Commission would have to determine that the project would be completed in a manner consistent with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, and that consistency with the Standards is evaluated by the Commission when considering a finding for Certificate of Appropriateness approval. Commissioners asked questions regarding CEQA standards. The following members of the applicant team presented their proposed plans to the Commission: Mario Fonda-Bonardi (architect, Fonda-Bonardi & Hohman), and Ben Lunsky (principal, Sarlan Builders). Commissioner Shari made a motion to continue the meeting after 11:00 PM. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by a voice vote, with Commissioner Bach and Chairperson O’Neill absent. Minutes Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission December 11, 2017 8 Commissioners asked questions regarding: the material changes for differentiation, including the river rock element; basement size and dimensions; removal and relocation of windows; and daylight portion of the basement. The applicant stated that the size/height of the basement is driven by the size/dimensions of the carpentry shop and machinery. The following members of the public addressed the Commission : Sarah DeFlorio (daughter of property owners) spoke in support of the project, and Roger Genser (resident) spoke in support of the staff recommendation and noted additional concerns. Commissioners expressed appreciation of the design given the challenges of the site and commended the underground aspect of the project. Discussion was held regarding the stacking of the structure; view from the street elevation; alternative materials to the river rock; and the transparency of the screen. Commissioner Shari made a motion to continue the item to give the applicant the opportunity to work with staff to address the Commissioner’s suggestions. Commissioner Rosenbaum seconded the motion. The Commission agreed with staff’s recommendations including: consider alternatives to the extension of the dining room; consider modifying the exterior finish from river rock to wood shingles differentiated from the existing shingles; consider moving or reducing the daylight portion of the basement extension; and consider making the railing above the basement more transparent. The Commission also continued consideration of the parcel designation. Commissioner Shari amended the motion to continue the application and parcel designation for further study. Commissioner Rosenbaum seconded the amended motion. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Brand, Green, Rosenbaum, Shari, Chair Pro Tempore Sloan NAYS: ABSENT: Bach, O’Neill ABSTAIN: 9-B. Structure of Merit Designation 17ENT-0207, 2518 4th Street, to determine whether the existing Spanish Colonial Revival style apartment building should be designated as a Structure of Merit. The application is for the three -unit building at the front of the property. The Landmarks Commission will make a decision regarding designation based on whether the application, research, and public Minutes Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission December 11, 2017 9 testimony presented demonstrates that the structure meets one or more of the required criteria for Structure of Merit designation pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.080. 11:31 PM Commissioners provided ex parte disclosure communications. Mr. Mizokami provided a staff report in support of the application. Commissioners asked questions regarding historical property type. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: Berta Neguri (property owner representative) asked the Commission for a resolution so the owners can perform structural repairs; Roger Genser (resident), Carol Lemlein (Santa Monica Conservancy), Ruthann Lehrer (resident), Mike Salazar (resident), Bea Nemlaha (resident), Richard Johnson (resident), and Jeffery Sturgess (tenant) spoke in support of the application and the pursuit of a potential Historic District; and Grant Carpenter (owner’s representative) spoke against the application. Commissioners asked questions regarding the extent of structural maintenance and repairs required. Discussion was held regarding the permit review process, why the detached accessory unit with garage was not under Structure of Merit consideration, and possible direction to staff to study a potential district. Commissioner Rosenbaum made a motion to approve the Structure of Merit application with criteria provided in the staff recommendation. Commissioner Green seconded. A roll call was held for the motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Brand, Green, Rosenbaum, Shari, Chair Pro Tempore Sloan NAYS: ABSENT: Bach, Chairperson O’Neill ABSTAIN: 9-C. Landmark Designation 17ENT-0211, 1122 California Avenue, to determine whether the sycamore tree within the front yard of the subject property should be designated as a City Landmark. The Landmarks Commission will make a decision regarding designation based on whether the application, research, and public testimony presented demonstrates that the tree meets one or more of the required criteria for Landmark designation pursuant to SMMC Section 9.56.100. 8:15 PM Minutes Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission December 11, 2017 10 Commissioners provided ex parte disclosure communications. Ms. Reich provided a staff report recommending denial of the application. Commissioners asked questions regarding maintenance of the tree, if it were designated a Landmark. Staff indicated that the tree is located on private property, therefore the property owner would be responsible for the maintenance and care of the tree. The following members of the public addressed the Commission: John Smith (applicant/Wilmont Board member) spoke in support of the application; Ken Kutcher (owner’s representative) spoke in support of the staff recommendation; Neil Cohen (resident), Cy Carlberg (arborist/resident), Mindy Beardsley (resident), Ann Cheslow (resident), Claire Miller (resident), Bob Perkins (resident), Max Cornish (former occupant), Rodica Moody (resident), Betzi Richardson (resident), Patti Zortman (resident), Linda Immer (resident), Harris Gabel (resident), Dana Alvi (resident), Birute Keblinskas (resident), Gloria Garvin (resident), Myla Rison (resident), Mike Salazar (architect/resident), and Jerry Rubin (resident) spoke in support of the Landmark Designation Application; Marc and Anita Sabine (potential buyers) spoke in support of the staff recommendation. Commissioners asked questions regarding: the property owner’s intention with the tree; existence of easements on the property; regulatory implications triggered by the presence of nests; area surveyed by the consultant; building limitations in relationship to the tree; and parcel designation. Mr. Kutcher stated it was the property owner’s plan to remove the tree as part of a proposed multi- family residential project. Chair Pro Tempore Sloan made a motion to approve the Landmark Designation Application for the sycamore tree at 1122 California Avenue, citing Standard 2 and Standard 6. Commissioner Rosenbaum seconded the motion. Discussion was held regarding: prior trees designated by the Commission; the native species of the tree; testimony of residents; purpose of the Landmarks Ordinance to protect trees on private property; and the size and scope of the survey area. Commissioner Green made a substitute motion to continue the item. Commissioner Shari seconded the substitute motion. Commissioners gave direction that the consultant should confirm the survey area is sufficient to make findings and/or broaden the area if necessary, and conduct research regarding Minutes Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission December 11, 2017 11 connections with historic personages, the era of time the tree was planted, and potential cultural associations. A roll call was held for the substitute motion and approved by the following vote: AYES: Brand, Green, Rosenbaum, Shari, Chair Pro Tempore Sloan NAYS: ABSENT: Bach, Chairperson O’Neill ABSTAIN: 10. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 10-A. Discussion of and possible establishment of a Public Education and Media Outreach Subcommittee, including the possible appointment of Commissioners to serve on the subcommittee. 12:20 AM 11. Commissioner Shari made a motion to establish a Public Education and Media Outreach Subcommittee, with Commissioners Bach, Shari and Chair Pro Tempore Sloan to serve upon it. Commissioner Rosenbaum seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by a voice vote, with Commissioner Bach and Chairperson O’Neill absent. 10-B. Report from Landmarks Commission Liaison to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on recent ARB consideration and action taken on proposed projects involving additions to or modifications of potential historic resources. Nothing to report. 10-C. Report from Landmarks Commission representative to the Santa Monica Pier Corporation (SMPC) on recent SMPC activities and action taken on proposed projects involving the Landmark Santa Monica Pier. Nothing to report. 10-D. Update from Staff on notable activities affecting any designated Landmarks or Structures of Merit. 12:30 PM Mr. Mizokami reported a Certificate of Appropriateness had been approved at staff level for exterior painting and hardscape repaving at 130 San Vicente Boulevard a contributor to the San Vicente Courtyard Apartments Historic District and a designated City Landmark. Minutes Special Meeting of the Landmarks Commission December 11, 2017 12 10-E. Planning Commission Case List (Information Only). 12. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: (Public and Commission discussion and comment is permitted.) 13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: (Requests from Commissioners to add items to upcoming agendas)  Initiate the Study of a Potential Historic District as Discussed in Relation to the Structure of Merit Designation of 2518 4th Street  Retreat Discussion  Historic Resources Inventory Timeline Update 14. NEXT MEETING DATE AND COMMISSION AGENDA: Regular Meeting of the Landmarks Commission: 7:00 PM Monday, January 8, 2018; Council Chambers, City Hall, 1685 Main Street. 15. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Brand made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 12:54:20 AM on Monday, December 11, 2017. Commissioner Green seconded the motion. The motion was unanimously approved by a voice vote, with Commissioner Bach and Chairperson O’Neill absent. ATTEST: APPROVE: Wendy Radwan Dolores Sloan Commission Recording Secretary Chair Pro Tempore 1 Sycamore Tree Landmark Application No. 17ENT-0211 Address: 1122 California Avenue Appellants: Iradj and Lesley Shahriary Applicant: Wilmont Neighborhood Coalition ATTACHMENT TO APPEAL FORM INTRODUCTION The long-time Santa Monica family that owns this property is appealing the split 4-2 vote of the Landmarks Commission to designate this tree (actually two trees intertwined) as a City Landmark. The nomination was initiated and pursued by John C. Smith on behalf of Wilmont Neighborhood Association. The City Council should reverse the Landmark Commission’s decision to designate this tree as a City Landmark. Although large and more than 40 years old, this tree(s) is not unique, historic or culturally significant and therefore does not rise to the level of designation as a local landmark. In the 42 years since the Landmarks Ordinance was adopted, there have been only 5 trees designated as landmarks in the entire City. The subject tree(s) does not rise to the level warranting a landmark designation. This tree(s) does not even stand out on this particular block, let alone throughout the entire City. Designation of a landmark is not a popularity contest. Rather, it requires the dispassionate application of the six criteria set forth in the Ordinance. (See Landmarks Ordinance § 9.56.100(A)(1)-(6).) We agree with City Planning Staff that the subject tree should not be designated as a City Landmark. The Landmarks Commission itself was split over this designation and the criteria relied upon in support of the Commission’s action, with one of the Commissioners who eventually voted in favor of the designation even having stated during the deliberations before casting her vote that she did not believe the tree(s) merits designation: “I actually don’t feel that this particular tree meets Criterion 2 or 6 or the other criteria in the Ordinance.” She went on to say: “I do actually live in the area. I’m a Wilmont resident myself. I go up and down California all the time and I do not consider [the subject tree] to meet Criterion 6, and I live there.” Yet in the end, she voted for the designation with some remaining hesitation: “I’m going to go with yes.” After the vote to designate, 2 there was even a further discussion about reconsidering the vote, but that was not pursued primarily because most of the public had already left the hearing room. The Deputy City Attorney advised the Commission: “It’s difficult now [to reconsider] because everybody has left the room, but you could.” THIS APPEAL IS SUPPORTED BY THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION NOT TO DESIGNATE THIS TREE(S) In summarizing the five trees that have previously been designated as Landmarks, the Landmarks Commission Staff Report confirms that trees are rarely designated as City Landmarks in Santa Monica: [I]t is relatively uncommon for the [Landmarks] Commission to consider nomination of trees for Landmark designation . . . A review of the previous tree designations found that all are identified as truly exceptional trees and/or are tied to the early history of the City of Santa Monica, whether planted by an individual important to the history of the city, or representative of the city’s early development. (Landmarks Commission Staff Report (May 14, 2018), p. 4.) The Landmarks Ordinance is not an appropriate vehicle for regulating large trees that are not truly extraordinary or otherwise associated with historic persons or events. As to the subject tree(s), the Landmarks Commission Staff Report found: The subject tree(s) does not appear to have any similar historical association, is not representative of the city’s early development, and based on the consulting arborist’s assessment, has been extensively pruned over the years. (Id. at 5.) And, as the Landmarks Commission Staff Report further documents, this tree(s) is not especially remarkable in context, given the large number of mature and notable trees on the same block and in the same neighborhood: 3 [T]here are several notable trees on this street, across the street, and in the immediate neighborhood, so this tree does not appear to meet this [sixth] criterion. (Id. at 6.) [T]here are several notable trees on this block, 153 mature and notable trees and 21 native Sycamores within the neighborhood. (Id.) Furthermore, sycamore trees are not rare. There are many other western sycamore trees just as notable as the tree in question, found throughout the City: While this tree may be prominent on its site, there are western sycamore trees throughout the City of Santa Monica, many as notable as the subject tree. (Id.) Indeed, western sycamores are native to much of the California coast and coastal interiors, including Santa Monica, and all the way down to Baja California. (Id. at 3.) And there is no evidence that this tree(s) sprouted naturally in this location. Rather, it is believed that the tree(s) was probably planted at the time the home was built on this property. (Id. at 2.) And it was not planted by a historic person. This tree does not manifest any natural, historical or cultural significance. THE TREE(S)’S DESIGNATION IS NOT WARRANTED UNDER ANY OF THE LANDMARKS ORDINANCE’S CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION, INCLUDING CRITERIA 2 AND 6 The Landmarks Commission designated this tree(s) on the basis of Criteria 2 and 6, although they struggled with that. Criterion 2 reads: It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. Criterion 6 reads: It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City. 4 As former Chair O’Neill admitted: “Criteria 2 and 6 are incredibly subjective.” Of the six landmark designation criteria set forth in Landmarks Ordinance Section 9.56.100(A), Criteria 2 and 6 are the most general and subjective. There are over 120 designated City Landmarks, and only one other City landmark was designated by relying on Criteria 2 and 6 only. That other City Landmark is the Eucalyptus Cornuta tree located at 1407 Hill Street. The tree at 1407 Hill Street is a rare specimen and is the largest tree in the area and is clearly distinguishable from the tree at 1122 California Avenue. In describing why the Eucalyptus Cornuta tree at 1407 Hill Street qualifies under Criterion 2, the Landmarks Commission’s Findings state: A Eucalyptus cornuta tree with dual trunks with co- dominant leaders is a rare occurrence for this particular species. (LC-05-LM-008.) In contrast, the two intertwined Sycamore trees at 1122 California Avenue are not a rare occurrence. Jan Scow, the City’s consulting arborist, states the following about the two intertwined trees at 1122 California Avenue: While this is not a common configuration for this tree species, it is not abnormal either and we have seen it before. (Scow Report (11-27-2017) p. 1) In describing why the Eucalyptus Cornuta tree at 1407 Hill Street qualifies under Criteria 6, the Landmarks Commission’s Findings rely in part on the fact that it is the largest tree in the area: Furthermore the subject tree is located in an area of the City which is, in large part, devoid of mature, large canopy trees, thus making the subject tree the largest tree for blocks around. (Id.) In contrast, the Landmarks Commission Staff Report for the tree at 1122 California Avenue finds, “[T]here are several notable trees on this block, 153 mature and notable trees and 21 native Sycamores within the neighborhood.” 5 A. This landmark designation is not justified under Criterion 2. As to Criterion 2, the tree(s) was designated apparently because it is “noteworthy.” (See Landmark Designation Criterion 2.) Although Chair O’Neill ultimately voted for designation, her comments during deliberations largely supported denial of the landmark application. For example, Chair O’Neill (the Commission’s architectural historian) actually found little basis for supporting a landmark designation: “I’m trying to look for an actual fact or something to hang the weight of the application on it. I have trouble finding it, personally.” Even shortly before casting her vote in favor of the designation, Chair O’Neill complained about the subjectivity of making this finding: “To me the connection is still not crystal clear. It’s still subjective. It’s all opinions . . . This is a great example of why we need to work on our [Landmarks] Ordinance. It should not be this difficult to make determinations.” Chair O’Neill’s comment is correct. For the record, there are many other comparable trees found throughout the City (and region and State). This tree(s) is not equivalent to the Founder’s Tree at the Miramar, which itself was designated under Criterion 2. (LC-03-007.) There is no rational basis for targeting this particular tree as a landmark (while not designating or nominating numerous other privately owned trees throughout the City). Wilmont could have nominated many trees, but it isolated its attention on this one without any compelling basis for doing so. This selective singling out of this family’s tree demonstrates how arbitrary, subjective and unfair the proceedings were at the Landmarks Commission with respect to this particular tree(s). The volume of public speakers should not alter the rigors of the landmarking criteria codified by the Landmarks Ordinance. The Landmarks Ordinance should not be used in this way. If the City wishes to adopt a heritage tree ordinance to regulate private trees, it should do so. But Santa Monica does not have such an ordinance. Due to the absence of such a private tree regulation, designation of this tree as a City Landmark under Criteria 2 is a severe stretch of the Landmarks Ordinance. The Landmarks Ordinance should not be used to designate trees that we simply like. Commissioner Green, who voted against the designation, made a similar observation during deliberations, referring to this designation application as “a bit of a stretch for me.” 6 B. This landmark designation is not justified under Criterion 6 either. As to the proper application of Criterion 6, please refer to the Landmarks Commission Staff Report dated June 14, 2004, regarding the property at 125 Pacific Street. A copy of that Staff Report is attached. The Staff Report emphasizes the importance of a “prominent or unique location” with regard to Criterion 6. Similarly, the City Council Staff Report from July 26, 2005, regarding the appeal of that property used the example of the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium and referenced the “high threshold for landmark designation intended by this criterion”: For example, the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium meets this criterion [six] as it has a unique location within the Civic Center, at the bend of Main Street. Its grand scale, and unique design with futuristic pylons, commands attention as one travels south along Main Street. The Civic Auditorium is also a familiar and integral part of the Civic Center complex. The Civic Auditorium is, thus, an important visual monument in the City of Santa Monica, and is clearly an established and familiar visual feature of the City. In contrast, while the property at 125 Pacific Street is situated adjacent to Nielson Way, a busy street, the property does not have a location or singular physical characteristic that makes it unique. Simply by virtue of having occupied this property since 1921, the property cannot be found to meet the high threshold for landmark designation intended by this criterion. A printout of the July 26, 2005 City Council Staff Report is enclosed for your convenience. The subject property is located mid-block on California Avenue in a residential neighborhood. It is not located on a commercial boulevard. And it is not located on a corner intersection. Nor is it located at a bend in the road. Not all roadways are the same. California Avenue is a typical, unremarkable neighborhood street. California Avenue is classified as a “neighborhood street” in the LUCE. (LUCE Street Network Map, p. 4.0-17.) In terms of hierarchy, California Avenue is at the low end of the spectrum, less 7 significant than boulevards, special streets, commercial streets, and avenues (avenues themselves are classified as major, secondary, minor and industrial). (Id.) For purposes of comparison, the Civic Auditorium is located on a boulevard and is located within the Civic Center complex that also includes public facilities such as City Hall and the County Courthouse. As to Criterion 6, one Commissioner argued that the tree(s) is “a defining element of the neighborhood.” This appeal asserts that such a statement is an exaggeration of the tree’s prominence. The tree(s) is not even the defining element on the block. Several of the Canary Island Pine trees across the street are taller and stand out more from their parkway location. (Landmarks Commission Staff Report at p. 3.) 8 We agree with the observations of Chair O’Neill in this regard: I do actually live in the area. I'm a Wilmont resident myself. I go up and down California all the time, and I do not consider it to meet Criterion Six. And I live there, very, very close -- not within 500 feet or I’d recuse myself, but close. So I know the neighborhood. I know all the trees. I walk it all the time. CONCLUSION The appellants agree with the Staff recommendation that the application for designation of this tree(s) should have been denied. As summarized in the Staff Report, the City’s past practice in designating landmark trees does not support the designation of this tree(s). The Commissioners themselves could not agree upon the criteria for this designation, thereby evidencing the difficulty of making the findings for designation.1 Moreover, even if the tree(s) is found to meet any of the six criteria for designation as a landmark, the Landmarks Ordinance expressly provides that the Commission (or City Council on appeal) “may” (not must) designate a landmark if it meets the articulated criteria for designation. (See Landmarks Ordinance § 9.56.100(A) (“For purposes of this Chapter, the Landmarks Commission may approve the landmark designation of a structure, improvement, natural feature or an object if it finds that it meets one or more of the following criteria” [emphasis added]).) We suggest that this is not a good example of a circumstance warranting landmark designation. Among other things, this property is situated in a multi- family zoning district. There is a Statewide housing crisis. This landmark 1 It should also be noted that while the Landmarks Commission has an architectural historian, a local historian, a licensed realtor, a licensed architect and a conservator, the membership of the Landmarks Commission does not include a licensed arborist qualified to assist the Commission with assessing the historic or cultural importance of a tree. 9 designation will likely impede the production of additional needed housing as contemplated in the City’s Housing Element and LUCE Finally, depending on the eventual designation of a Landmark Parcel and any associated tree protection zone, this designation could pose a severe and unreasonable hardship on the family that owns this property. Unless the designation is overturned on appeal, the property owners reserve the right at a later date to file an application for a certificate of economic hardship (see Landmarks Ordinance § 9.56.160) or otherwise assert a claim for a regulatory taking of private property without just compensation. Although the economic and constitutional implications of this landmark designation need not be resolved in this appeal, they will need to be dealt with if the designation is not reversed. 1 Vernice Hankins From:Deb Estes <destes@specialtyfamilyfoundation.org> Sent:Sunday, May 5, 2019 5:54 AM To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox Subject:Landmarked tree, 1122 California Avenue, pro-appeal Importance:High Dear Mayor Davis and Councilmembers:  My name is Deborah A. Estes. I grew up in Santa Monica, am a graduate of Samohi, a long‐time resident (my  husband and I raised our 3 sons in Santa Monica) and am the chairperson of  Specialty Family Foundation  located here in Santa Monica. I saw the notice for the May 14th City Council hearing and feel compelled to  share my opinion and request your appeal approval on this landmark matter.  I also want to ask you, the final  decision‐makers, some questions that I hope will be addressed clearly and succinctly on May 14th.  My husband and I strongly support the Shahriary family’s appeal and hopefully anticipate you will vote to  grant it. I know the Shahriary family. They are longtime residents of Santa Monica, they are caring people, and  they represent everything good in our community.   As I understand the history of this matter, a community  member submitted an application to landmark the tree in question when the property was in the hands of a  previous owner. When the property was acquired by the Shahriary family, they were saddled with the ongoing  land‐marking process. The tree was granted landmark status, which, if I understand correctly, is in force today.  Not only is this manifestly unfair, it sets a worrying precedent in my opinion. The tree is among probably a  thousand similar trees in the city. This tree is beautiful, but it is not historically significant, and the process that  placed it in the City’s landmark inventory was inadequate. Moreover, the Landmarks Commission’s decision  may have widened the scope of the Commission’s discretion in unexpected and unsettling ways.   The tree’s true significance belongs to the family that owns it ‐‐ the memories they will make under its canopy,  watching it go through seasonal changes from their windows, the leaves they will rake in autumn, and the  responsibility of maintaining the tree’s structure in a manner consistent with best practices.  Now my questions to you, which I hope you will deem important in your deliberations:  1.Can the landmark designation be reversed down the line if the appellants’ effort is unsuccessful? 2.The tree is a living thing. What will happen when the natural process of aging and dying claim the tree? Must the Shahriarys, their children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren stand by, powerless to do anything, as they watch this process take its course? 3.Is the tree defined only by its above‐ground structures – its trunk and its branches – excluding the root system, which is probably extensive? Who defines this and how? 4.Is it really appropriate that a small group of activists with a shockingly weak case impose their will on innocent and well intentioned property owners, saddling the family for generations with unexpected and significant financial burdens? Will the City provide an estimate of these costs on May 14th so the public will understand what is involved in land‐marking vegetation on private property? I appreciate your careful consideration of my thoughts and questions; I am optimistically hopeful you will  grant the Shahriary family’s respectful and reasonable appeal.  Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 Sincerely,    Deborah A. Estes   233 Alta Avenue  Santa Monica   90402  310‐319‐9990          Deborah A. Estes  Chairperson  Specialty Family Foundation  310‐899‐9700  501 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 703  Santa Monica, CA 90401    Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Jennifer Rodes <jennifer@klicproductions.com> Sent:Monday, May 6, 2019 2:49 PM To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox Subject:Landmark tree hearing for the Shahriary family Dear Mayor Gleam, and the City Council:    My Name is Jennifer Rodes and I lived many years in apartments in Santa Monica and currently my wife and I own a 4  unit apartment building in the Ocean Park Neighborhood of Santa Monica.     I personally cannot wrap my head around why any city would set a precedent of landmarking a common, albeit  gorgeous and old, tree on private property, and how is that logical? Why would you do that to the trees? The first thing I  did when I heard about this problem was to discuss what trees we have on our property with my wife.  We love our  trees but we certainly could not afford to fight this sort of battle if a few agitated, bored or misinformed residents turn  on us!  I fear the precedent of landmarking a tree on private property might persuade Santa Monica property owners to  remove old trees on their lots before an expensive landmarking might effect their property.  You must do all you can  to save the trees on private property in this town and the ONLY way to do that is to protect them is to encourage good  stewardship under local law and keep them out of the arbitrary landmarking process. It is a drain on longtime Santa  Monicans’ resources and energy. Believe me, many residents are aware that this has cost the Shahriary family tens of  thousands of dollars to appeal the Landmarks Commission decision.     Let the neighborhood organizations like Wilmont and all the others know that this should be their one and only attempt  at landmarking a common tree on private property simply because they fear, apparently unreasonably so, that the tree  will be cut down.  I hope the tree will live out a long life at that property but the reality is that is none of my  business, and unless it’s of true historic significance, it shouldn’t be the City’s either.     Sincerely,     Jennifer Rodes    We urge you to deny this landmark request and grant the Shahriary's appeal    Item 6-A 05/14/19 3 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:francoise benoit <francoise_b@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, May 6, 2019 7:54 PM To:councilmtgitems Cc:Council Mailbox Subject:pro-appeal for Sycamore tree at 1122 California Ave Dear Santa Monica City Council,    This is ridiculous. That Sycamore tree at 1122 California is very nice but that does not make it a landmark.  It is not  famous, it is not that old, it is not rare, it is not associated with any story connected with our city.  Please end this  nonsense, leave that poor family alone and move on to more important city matters!    Francoise Benoit  Item 6-A 05/14/19 4 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 I t e m 6 - A 0 5 / 1 4 / 1 9 5 o f 3 0 0 I t e m 6 - A 0 5 / 1 4 / 1 9 I t e m 6 - A 0 5 / 1 4 / 1 9 6 o f 3 0 0 I t e m 6 - A 0 5 / 1 4 / 1 9 May 6, 2019 Mr. Kevin Kozal, Attorney at Law Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP 1250 6th Street, Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Regarding: Sycamore Tree 1122 California Ave. Santa Monica, CA Dear Mr. Kozal, At your request, I visited 1122 California Avenue, Santa Monica on January 16, 2019. I was asked to evaluate the overall condition of the existing Western Sycamore tree growing in front of the residence. I was also asked to provide information about the Western (aka California) Sycamore tree species in general and about the existence of other Western Sycamore trees in the Southern California area. In my opinion, the tree at 1122 California is no more noteworthy, and has no unique characteristics or defining features different, than hundreds of other Western Sycamore trees in the Southern California region. The tree does not have a unique physical characteristic that makes it stand out from other Western Sycamore trees of a similar age and size. A. Subject Tree At 1122 California The subject tree at 1122 California is identified as a California or Western Sycamore (Platanus racemosa). By all visual appearances the subject tree is actually two trees growing next to one another. The smaller easterly stem has a diameter of 29 inches measured at 4.5 feet above the ground, and the westerly stem has a diameter of 40 inches measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. The tree/s are approximately 50 to 60 feet in height1 with an average canopy spread of 75 feet. Because the tree has been trimmed this is not its natural canopy. My visual inspection was performed from ground level and did not involve any extensive or invasive diagnostics. The tree was in a dormant state during my inspection, with little foliage in the crown. 1 The arborist report dated December 11, 2017, prepared by Jan C. Scow for the City regarding the tree/s at 1122 California states at page 2: “The two trees combined have an approximate height of 82 feet…” It appears Mr. Scow added the height of the two trees together. My height estimate is for the taller of the two trees and therefore our reports are consistent. Item 6-A 05/14/19 7 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Western Sycamore Tree 1122 California Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90403 2 Generally, the tree appears to be in good health with no significant insect pest or disease problems beyond common non-threatening sycamore pests. I did not observe any signs of Polyphagous shot hole borer, a pest that has become a serious problem for sycamore trees over the past few years. Besides the larger trunk growing around the smaller trunk and one root wrapping around the base, the tree appears structurally normal for the species. I did not observe any major structural defects in the tree. It is not uncommon for Western Sycamores to have multiple trunks. I did notice a cavity in the trunk of the smaller east trunk had recently been filled with insulation foam. The cavity is located approximately 9 feet above the ground on the west side of the trunk. Bees were observed stuck to the outside of the foam filling, suggesting that the foam was applied to eradicate a beehive in the trunk of the tree. Sounding the area around the filled cavity using a plastic mallet gave an indication of considerable internal decay/cavity running vertically inside the trunk. This cavity may not pose a significant risk at this time but could become problematic in the future; future monitoring and advanced inspection should be considered to sufficiently assess risk. Depending upon the strength of the wood around the cavity and the size of the cavity, this could pose a structural failure risk. In the event of a strong wind, this trunk could fail and fall. Based upon my review of the City of Santa Monica Staff Report to the Landmarks Commission dated May 14, 2018, I understand City Staff believes the tree was possibly planted sometime around 1922 and is not a naturally occurring tree. I concur with this assessment. The tree at 1122 California is located in a dense urban environment. It is located on a lot with an existing structure and is surrounded by a side alley, the public street and sidewalk, and a driveway on an adjacent lot. Thus, the tree is surrounded on all four sides by structures and concrete. It is not located in a native or unimproved natural area. The roots of this tree are expected to continue growing well beyond the soil area of the property, and there is a high probability that they will eventually displace and damage nearby infrastructure. Although the tree appears to have been trained to bypass nearby power lines, a branch failure could threaten the utility lines. Future trimming by the power company is to be expected. B. Western Sycamore Tree Species (Platanus racemosa) The Western Sycamore tree species is a deciduous species native to California and Baja California where it naturally grows in riparian areas, canyons, floodplains, and along streams. It is a common species along the entire coastal region of California from San Diego to San Francisco and inland north of Sacramento. These trees are generally located below 4,000 feet in elevation. These trees are often found adjacent to habitats such as chaparral, valley grassland, mixed woodlands or evergreen forests. Item 6-A 05/14/19 8 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Western Sycamore Tree 1122 California Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90403 3 The species can grow to over 100 feet in height but is more commonly seen in the range of 60 to 80 feet in height at maturity. The Western Sycamore tree species is a hardy species and can grow about 3 feet a year with ample water. With ample water Western Sycamores are considered to have a fast growth rate. It is not unusual for trees in the 30 and 40 feet height range to grow to nearly 80 feet in height in a span of 15 additional years with enough watering. These trees can live up to 150 years but in the urban environment most live about 60 to 80 years. In moist areas where ground water is ample, roots will tend to grow deeper. In drier sites, sycamore trees can produce surface roots that can be damaging to nearby infrastructure. The Western Sycamore tree species is widely used as a landscape tree but is often planted in restricted growing space, which the species can easily outgrow causing problems to nearby infrastructure. This is because Western Sycamore trees grow large relatively quickly and need ample space. Western Sycamore trees are abundant in Santa Monica and throughout Southern California. They are prolific in the Los Angeles region because they are native, relatively tough, and grow fast. It is considered one of the most common native species in the State. Based upon the City of Santa Monica’s Tree Inventory there appear to be close to 400 Western Sycamore trees on public property in Santa Monica alone. Although these are mostly in the 40 foot and below height range, within 5 to 10 years with sufficient water they will likely grow to 50 to 60 feet or more in height (comparable to the subject tree at 1122 California). Several large stands can be observed in Santa Monica Canyon, and along other canyon roads such as Beverly Glen, Benedict Canyon, Laurel Canyon, Coldwater Canyon, Temescal Canyon and throughout Pacific Palisades. I am also aware of numerous large Western Sycamore trees in Orange County. C. Extraordinary and Notable Western Sycamore Trees 1. The Tree at 1122 California Is Not Extraordinary As an arborist, I appreciate trees and endeavor to encourage the planting, tending and preservation of trees. I appreciate unique and noteworthy tree specimens. The Western Sycamore Tree at 1122 California is good example of the Western Sycamore tree species. But it is by no means extraordinary and does not have any special or noteworthy characteristics. Attached as Exhibit A are several photographs of California Avenue in the 1100 block taken from different locations and angles. From many views the tree at 1122 California is not noticeable or visible. Along California Avenue, approximately 3 blocks east and west on either side of the site, there are more than 100 trees. The Western Sycamore tree at 1122 California is not the tallest or largest tree on the 1100 block of California Avenue. The four Canary Island Item 6-A 05/14/19 9 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Western Sycamore Tree 1122 California Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90403 4 pine trees across the street along California Avenue are taller and larger and more prominent. In my opinion, the tree at 1122 California does not standout and is not memorable in relation to other trees in the area. I would not consider it a familiar visual feature in the neighborhood. In my opinion it does not qualify as a landmark tree. In my opinion, the tree at 1122 California is no more noteworthy, and has no unique characteristics or defining features different, than hundreds of other Western Sycamore trees in the Southern California region. The tree does not have a unique physical characteristic that makes it stand out from other Western Sycamore trees of a similar age and size. 2. Notable Western Sycamore Trees in the Vicinity There are numerous examples of other Western Sycamore trees in the City of Santa Monica, including within the vicinity of 1122 California, that are generally comparable in size (both in trunk diameter and height). Attached as Exhibit B are photographs of over 25 Western Sycamore trees in the City of Santa Monica that are comparable to (and in some cases more noteworthy than) the tree at 1122 California. Further, there are other examples of Western Sycamore trees that are equal to or superior to the tree at 1122 California outside Santa Monica. These include the following:  Exhibit C shows multiple trees in the Santa Monica Canyon areas.  Exhibit D shows multiple trees in the Los Angeles region.  Exhibit E shows multiple trees Orange County. In taking the pictures for Exhibits B-E, I focused my attention on trees in the City of Santa Monica (Exhibit B) because the tree at 1122 California is in the City of Santa Monica. The pictures of trees in Exhibits C-E are just a sampling of a few of the Western Sycamore trees in these areas. I was not able to visually inspect all of Los Angeles and Orange Counties. That would have taken months of full-time work. But I believe that there are probably hundreds of Western Sycamore trees in these Counties that are comparable or superior to the tree at 1122 California. D. Truly Extraordinary Sycamore Trees There are two extraordinary Western Sycamore trees noted with the California Big Tree Registry that are vastly superior to the tree at 1122 California: The first tree is located in Old Town Goleta, Santa Barbara County, a picture of which is attached as Exhibit F. This is a National Champion. It is the largest known Western Sycamore tree in the country. It has the following dimensions: 94 feet tall, 96-foot canopy 626 inches in girth 744 Points Item 6-A 05/14/19 10 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Western Sycamore Tree 1122 California Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90403 5 The second tree is located in Oakdale, California, a picture of which is attached as Exhibit G. It has the following dimensions: 106 feet tall, 136-foot canopy 355 inches in girth 495 Points E. Conclusion The Western Sycamore tree species is very common and prolific throughout the coastal range in California and in particular in Southern California. It is a favored tree in landscaping because it is native, hearty and grows quickly. It is a common native tree in Southern California. The Western Sycamore tree at 1122 California is a good example of this common and prolific species of tree. However, it is not an extraordinary example. There are similar Western Sycamore trees throughout the region, including in the City of Santa Monica. And there are other examples of Western Sycamore trees in the region that are more noteworthy than the tree at 1122 California. If the City of Santa Monica determines that the Western Sycamore tree at 1122 California merits landmark designation solely as a good example of this tree species, then I estimate that there are at least 10 to 15 other Western Sycamore trees in the City that would similarly merit landmark designation. There are dozens of tree species in the City and if the City were to landmark good examples of each tree species there could be many hundreds of landmark trees in the City. It should be noted that the study of trees is not an exact science and arboriculture does not detect or predict with any certainty. The arborist therefore is not responsible for tree defects or soil conditions that cannot be identified by a prudent and reasonable inspection. If you have any questions or require other services, please contact me at the number listed below. Respectfully, Arbor Essence Kerry Norman ASCA, Registered Consulting Arborist #471 ISA Board-Certified Master Arborist #WE-3643B ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualification Item 6-A 05/14/19 11 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 121 W Lexington Dr., Suite 600-A Glendale, CA 91203. Phone 310-592-1104 Mr. Kerry Norman 121 W. Lexington Dr., Suite 600-A Glendale, CA 91203 310.592.1104 Mobile kerry@arboressence.net www.arboressence.net For over 25 years Kerry Norman has worked the field of ornamental horticulture. Having been employed by Valley Crest Tree Company for over 12 years with the last 6 as staff Arborist his experience and knowledge in working with trees is extensive. His position as head arborist and manager of the plant health care department was a six-year crash course in arboriculture, specializing in the relocation of specimen trees and palms. During his term at Valley Crest he defined and built their Plant Health Care department, trained and supervised personnel, budgeted jobs, prepared arborist reports, represented the company as a seminar speaker, and performed hundreds of tree and palm evaluations. Kerry is an ISA Board-Certified Master Arborist (1997), Registered Consulting Arborist with “American Society of Consulting Arborists” (ASCA), and holds an ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualification. He is a published writer with articles in “Tree Care Industry” and “Western Arborist” magazine, and continues to stay up to date and further his education by working closely with other arborist and attending educational conferences. It is with great pleasure that Kerry has served as Arborist on such projects as the Getty Museum, Disneyland, Bruckheimer residence, Bacara Resort-Santa Barbara, The Grove- Los Angeles, Coto De Caza, Talega, Shady Canyon, Irvine, UCLA, USC, Bel Air Presbyterian Church, Ladera Ranch and Pepperdine University to name a few. Services offered include tree surveys, tree and site evaluation, pest and disease diagnosis in trees and palms, tree preservation during construction, pruning recommendations, inspection of nursery stock, Arborist reports, plant appraisal, tree selection, planting and maintenance recommendations, expert witness testimony, tree monitoring and tree risk assessment. As stated, Kerry has a strong background working with the relocation of mature specimen trees and Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia). Arbor Essence strives to provide direct simple solutions to all your horticulture concerns. Respectfully, Arbor Essence ASCA, RCA #471 ISA, BCMA WE3643-B ISA, Tree Risk Assessor Qualification Item 6-A 05/14/19 12 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 EXHIBIT A Item 6-A 05/14/19 13 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Item 6-A 05/14/19 14 of 30 0 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Item 6-A 05/14/19 15 of 30 0 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Item 6-A 05/14/19 16 of 30 0 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Item 6-A 05/14/19 17 of 30 0 Item 6-A 05/14/19 EXHIBIT B Item 6-A 05/14/19 18 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1402 San Vicente, Santa Monica 24” trunk x 50’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 19 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1520 San Vicente, Santa Monica 40” trunk x 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 20 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1602 Georgina Avenue, Santa Monica (several large sycamores) 24” – 48” trunk x 60’ – 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 21 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1602 Georgina Avenue, Santa Monica (several large sycamores) 24” – 48” trunk x 60’ – 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 22 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1602 Georgina Avenue, Santa Monica (several large sycamores) 24” – 48” trunk x 60’ – 80’ height 1531 Georgina Avenue, Santa Monica 24” – 36” trunks x 60’ – 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 23 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 939 San Vicente, Santa Monica 80’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 24 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 451 San Vicente, Santa Monica (several large sycamores) 50’ – 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 25 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 451 San Vicente, Santa Monica (several large sycamores) 50’ – 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 26 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 451 San Vicente, Santa Monica (several large sycamores) 50’ – 80’ height 317 Georgina Avenue (three large sycamores) 25’ – 60’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 27 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 229 San Vicente, Santa Monica 20” – 36” trunks x 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 28 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 528 Marguerita Avenue, Santa Monica 40” trunk x 60’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 29 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 425 Marguerita Avenue, Santa Monica 40” +/- trunk x 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 30 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 123 Georgina Avenue, Santa Monica 24” trunk x 50’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 31 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 300 Georgina Avenue, Santa Monica 30” trunks x 60’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 32 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 329 14th Street, Santa Monica 12” – 18” trunks x 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 33 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 444 15th Street, Santa Monica 36” trunk x 50’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 34 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 470 20th Street, Santa Monica (three trunks) 30” trunks x 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 35 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 478 24th Street, Santa Monica 36” trunk x 50’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 36 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 345 25th Street, Santa Monica 36” trunk x 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 37 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 416 21st Place, Santa Monica 30” trunk x 70’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 38 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 445 21st Place, Santa Monica 26” – 30” trunks x 70’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 39 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 715 17th Street, Santa Monica 30” trunk x 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 40 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 320 15th Street, Santa Monica 20” – 24” trunks x 60’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 41 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 712 Copeland Court, Santa Monica 48” trunk x 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 42 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 701 Hill Street, Santa Monica 48” trunk x 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 43 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 211 Marguerita, Santa Monica Item 6-A 05/14/19 44 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1308 San Vicente, Santa Monica Item 6-A 05/14/19 45 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 326 14th Street, Santa Monica Item 6-A 05/14/19 46 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1430 Olympic Boulevard, Santa Monica Item 6-A 05/14/19 47 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 Airport Park, Santa Monica Item 6-A 05/14/19 48 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1012 17th Street, Santa Monica 36” trunk x 70’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 49 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 Park Drive, Santa Monica Item 6-A 05/14/19 50 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 EXHIBIT C Item 6-A 05/14/19 51 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1130 Coldwater Canyon, Santa Monica Canyons 40”+ trunks x 100’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 52 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1130 Coldwater Canyon, Santa Monica Canyons 40”+ trunks x 100’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 53 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 175 West Channel Road, Santa Monica Canyons 30” – 40” trunk x 60’ – 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 54 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 219 West Channel Road. Santa Monica Canyons 30”+ trunk x 50’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 55 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 217 West Channel Road, Santa Monica Canyons 40”+ trunk x 50’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 56 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 260 West Channel Road, Santa Monica Canyons (two sycamore trees) 40”+ trunks x 60’ height 725 Adelaide Place, Santa Monica Canyons (two sycamore trees) 18” – 30” trunks x 60’ – 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 57 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 308 Rustic Road, Santa Monica Canyons 30”+ trunk x 60’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 58 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 312 Entrada Drive, Santa Monica Canyons 40”+ trunk x 50’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 59 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 306 Entrada Drive, Santa Monica Canyons (two sycamores) 18” – 20” trunk x 40’ – 50’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 60 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 326 West Channel Road, Santa Monica Canyons 43” trunk x 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 61 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 416 Entrada Drive, Santa Monica Canyons 40”+ trunk x 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 62 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 619 Kingman Avenue, Santa Monica Canyons 30” trunk x 60’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 63 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 623 San Lorenzo, Santa Monica Canyons 40” trunk x 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 64 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 800 Alisal Lane, Santa Monica Canyons (multiple sycamore trees) 24” – 36” trunks x 60’ – 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 65 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 14166 Alisal Lane, Santa Monica Canyons 42” trunk x 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 66 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 744 San Lorenzo, Santa Monica Canyons 36” trunk x 70’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 67 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 751 San Lorenzo, Santa Monica Canyons (three sycamore trees) 30” – 36” trunks x 70’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 68 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 739 San Lorenzo, Santa Monica Canyons (two trunks) 36” – 45” trunks x 100’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 69 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 733 San Lorenzo, Santa Monica Canyons 36” trunk x 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 70 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 726 San Lorenzo, Santa Monica Canyons (three trunks) 15” – 36” trunks x 60’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 71 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 686 San Lorenzo, Santa Monica Canyons 30”+ trunk x 70’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 72 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 674 San Lorenzo, Santa Monica Canyons 40”+ trunk x 70’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 73 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 644 San Lorenzo, Santa Monica Canyons 40”+ trunk x 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 74 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 648 San Lorenzo, Santa Monica Canyons 40”+ trunk x 80’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 75 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 605 San Lorenzo, Santa Monica Canyons 36”+ trunk x 50’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 76 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 387 West Channel Road, Santa Monica Canyons 40”+ trunk x 60’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 77 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 363 West Channel Road, Santa Monica Canyons 36”+ trunk x 50’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 78 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 333 West Channel Road, Santa Monica Canyons (two trunks) 30” – 36” trunk x 50’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 79 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 305 Mesa Road, Santa Monica Canyons (two sycamore trees) 36” – 40” trunks x 60’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 80 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 308 Mesa Road, Santa Monica Canyons 36” trunk x 60’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 81 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 348 Sycamore Road, Santa Monica Canyons 40”+ trunk x 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 82 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 369 Sycamore Road, Santa Monica Canyons 40” trunk x 100’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 83 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 408 Sycamore Road, Santa Monica Canyons 60”+ trunk x 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 84 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 518 East Rustic Road, Santa Monica Canyons 60” trunk x 60’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 85 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 426 East Rustic Road, Santa Monica Canyons 26” trunk x 50’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 86 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 338 East Rustic Road, Santa Monica Canyons 40”+ trunk x 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 87 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 332 East Rustic Road, Santa Monica Canyons 40”+ trunk x 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 88 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 EXHIBIT D Item 6-A 05/14/19 89 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1614 Benedict Canyon, Beverly Hills 40” trunk x 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 90 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1652 Benedict Canyon, Beverly Hills (two sycamore trees) 60” trunks x 60’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 91 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1613 Garden Street, Glendale 60” trunk x 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 92 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 215 Cliffwood, Brentwood Item 6-A 05/14/19 93 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 124 South Carmelina, Brentwood 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 94 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1414 South Carmelina, Brentwood 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 95 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 156 South Carmelina, Brentwood 80’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 96 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 351 South Carmelina, Brentwood 48” trunk x 60’ height 2746 McDonnell Drive, Los Angeles (two sycamore trees) Item 6-A 05/14/19 97 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2746 McDonnell Drive, Los Angeles (two sycamore trees) Item 6-A 05/14/19 98 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2746 McDonnell Drive, Los Angeles (two sycamore trees) Item 6-A 05/14/19 99 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2754 McDonnell Drive, Los Angeles Item 6-A 05/14/19 100 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 10295 Kincardine, Los Angeles Item 6-A 05/14/19 101 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2942 Motor Avenue, Los Angeles Item 6-A 05/14/19 102 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 10345 Glenbarr Avenue, Los Angeles Item 6-A 05/14/19 103 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 10327 Glenbarr Avenue, Los Angeles Item 6-A 05/14/19 104 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 10352 Glenbarr Avenue, Los Angeles Item 6-A 05/14/19 105 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 10353 Glenbarr Avenue, Los Angeles Item 6-A 05/14/19 106 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 10363 Glenbarr Avenue, Los Angeles Item 6-A 05/14/19 107 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2857 Motor Avenue, Los Angeles Item 6-A 05/14/19 108 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Cheviot Hills Recreation Center 2551 Motor Avenue, Los Angeles Item 6-A 05/14/19 109 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Cheviot Hills Recreation Center 2551 Motor Avenue, Los Angeles Item 6-A 05/14/19 110 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2714 Motor Avenue, Los Angeles Item 6-A 05/14/19 111 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2845 McConnell Drive, Los Angeles Item 6-A 05/14/19 112 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2839 McConnell Drive, Los Angeles Item 6-A 05/14/19 113 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2884 McConnell Drive, Los Angeles Item 6-A 05/14/19 114 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 3000 Castle Heights Avenue, Los Angeles Item 6-A 05/14/19 115 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1700 Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles 20” – 36” trunks x 50’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 116 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2091 Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles (two sycamore trees) 24” trunks x 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 117 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2183 Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles (three trunks) 24” – 30” trunks x 80’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 118 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 3821 Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles 50”+ trunk x 100’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 119 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 3597 Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles 40”+ trunk x 100’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 120 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 3245 Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles 36”+ trunk x 100’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 121 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 3205 Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles 36” trunk x 60’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 122 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2975 Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles (two sycamore trees) 40”+ trunks x 80’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 123 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2431 Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles 40”+ trunk x 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 124 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2267 Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles (three trunks) 14” – 40” trunks x 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 125 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2259 Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles (seven trunks) 16” – 24” trunks x 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 126 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2161 Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles (multiple trunks) 30” – 40” trunks x 80’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 127 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 219 North Cliffwood Avenue, Los Angeles (two sycamore trees) 24” – 36” trunks x 60’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 128 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 219 North Cliffwood Avenue, Los Angeles (two sycamore trees) 24” – 36” trunks x 60’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 129 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 239 North Cliffwood Avenue, Los Angeles (three trunks) 24” – 36” trunks x 70’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 130 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 428 North Carmelina Avenue, Los Angeles 40”+ trunk x 100’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 131 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 188 North Carmelina Avenue, Los Angeles (several large sycamore trees) 24” – 36” trunks x 100’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 132 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 425 North Barrington Avenue, Los Angeles (three sycamore trees) 24” – 50” trunks x 60’ – 70’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 133 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 625 North Bundy Avenue, Los Angeles (two trunks) 36” – 40” trunks x 60’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 134 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 629 North Bundy Avenue, Los Angeles (three trunks) 24” – 40” trunks x 80’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 135 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 135 South Thurston Avenue, Los Angeles 50” trunk x 50’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 136 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 4278 Farmdale Avenue, Studio City 42” trunk x 80’+ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 137 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 EXHIBIT E Item 6-A 05/14/19 138 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Westminster Memorial Park Mortuary 14801 Beach Blvd, Westminster, Orange County Item 6-A 05/14/19 139 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Westminster Memorial Park Mortuary 14801 Beach Blvd, Westminster, Orange County Item 6-A 05/14/19 140 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Rancho Mission Viejo, South Orange County Item 6-A 05/14/19 141 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Rancho Mission Viejo, South Orange County Item 6-A 05/14/19 142 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 EXHIBIT F Item 6-A 05/14/19 143 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Sister Witness Tree, National Champion Old Town Goleta, Santa Barbara County 626” trunk x 94’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 144 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Sister Witness Tree, National Champion Old Town Goleta, Santa Barbara County 626” trunk x 94’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 145 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Sister Witness Tree, National Champion Old Town Goleta, Santa Barbara County 626” trunk x 94’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 146 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Sister Witness Tree, National Champion Old Town Goleta, Santa Barbara County 626” trunk x 94’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 147 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Sister Witness Tree, National Champion Old Town Goleta, Santa Barbara County 626” trunk x 94’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 148 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Sister Witness Tree, National Champion Old Town Goleta, Santa Barbara County 626” trunk x 94’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 149 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 EXHIBIT G Item 6-A 05/14/19 150 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 California Western Sycamore Platanus Racemosa Oakdale, California 355” trunk x 106’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 151 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 California Western Sycamore Platanus Racemosa Oakdale, California 355” trunk x 106’ height Item 6-A 05/14/19 152 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Memorandum DATE: May 6, 2019 TO: Kenneth L. Kutcher Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozel, LLP FROM: Jenna Snow RE: Sycamore Tree 1122 California Avenue, Santa Monica, CA The California Sycamore tree (“subject tree”)1 located at 1122 California Avenue (Assessor Parcel Number 4281-020-024) in Santa Monica, California (“subject property” or “property”) was designated a Landmark by the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission at their May 14, 2018 meeting. I understand an appeal of the Landmarks Commission decision has been submitted by the owner of the subject property to City Council. Following a background on the nomination and regulatory framework, this memorandum provides additional information on significant California sycamore trees, a comparison with other Landmark trees in Santa Monica, and evaluation of the subject tree under each of the six criteria of the Santa Monica Landmarks Ordinance. While the subject tree appears to have been planted around 1922, it does not appear to meet any of the six criteria of the Santa Monica Landmarks Ordinance. Qualifications I have worked in the field of historic preservation for nearly 20 years, throughout the United States as well as internationally. I have a strong and broad understanding of best historic preservation practice, including federal, state, and local regulations. In February 2015, I launched an independent historic preservation consulting practice, after over a dozen years with Chattel, Inc. Throughout my professional experience, I have worked on over 100 historic preservation projects. I have worked on a number of projects that involved evaluation of significant cultural landscapes, including West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Historic District, Rancho San Carlos in Montecito, Riverside Rancho (located at the intersection of the Cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Los Angeles), Metropolitan Water District (landscape no longer extant), and Sunset Reservoir in Pasadena. I am also quite familiar with Santa Monica historical resources, having worked on over 20 projects within the city. Background In October 2017, the Wilmont Neighborhood Coalition submitted a landmark nomination for the Western Sycamore located at 1122 California Avenue. The nomination did not include the single- family residence at the subject property. The nomination provided the following statement of significance: 1 The subject tree is actually two trees wrapped around each other, although for the purposes of this memorandum and ease of syntactical description, it will be described in the singular. Other documents use slightly different nomenclature, some referring to the subject tree in the plural, and others using both the singular and plural as “subject tree(s).” Item 6-A 05/14/19 153 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Mature trees provide significant environmental value. This tree has a large canopy of shade and is home to owls, some sort of Falcons (protected) as well as other native species. It is also one of the largest and oldest trees (sycamore) in the City…the Sycamore tree is likely 90-100 years old. Santa Monica is rapidly losing it’s [sic] stock of aged trees on private land due to development. The nomination also notes John Cornish, owner of the subject property from 1948 until before his death in 1996, as a person of historic importance at the local, state, and national level. John Cornish, a former member of the Santa Monica Municipal Art Gallery Advisory Board, lived in the home. Cornish was a well-known artist who also served as president of the Pacific Palisades Art Association. His drawings, paintings, and sculptures were exhibited at museums in NY [New York], LA [Los Angeles], Chicago, San Francisco & elsewhere. The nomination was heard by the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission on December 11, 2017; the Commission moved to continue the application to allow for additional information, specifically to reexamine and expand a survey area of comparable trees, as well as provide additional information about previous owners/occupants of the subject property. The subject tree was heard by the Landmarks Commission at their May 14, 2018 meeting. There was a considerable amount of community support and 30 requests to speak. Despite a staff report recommendation that the subject tree did not meet any of the six criteria in the Landmarks Ordinance, the Commission nevertheless moved to designate under criteria 2 and 6. Specific findings of the recommendation were not cited at the time of the Commission vote. However, the Statement of Official Action (STOA) details significance under criterion 2 as: overall size and canopy coverage that is remarkable and uncommon. The trees are of noteworthy interest as the largest and oldest of the 21 native sycamore trees in the neighborhood (based on the survey area bounded by Montana Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard, between 4th and 14th Streets). As such, the subject western sycamore trees have aesthetic value and are noteworthy based on the uncommon trunk configuration, age, and overall size and combined canopy coverage. The subject tree was also found significant under criterion 6 as per the following: “based on their size, longevity, and location, the subject western sycamore trees are an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood.”2 Regulatory Framework City of Santa Monica The City of Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic District Ordinance was adopted by City Council in 1974. The purpose of the Landmarks Ordinance is fivefold, with an emphasis on different aspects of the City’s history:3 A. Protect improvements and areas which represent elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history. 2 “Findings and Determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica in the Matter of the Designation of a Landmark,” submitted June 11, 2018. 3 Landmark and Historic District Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Municipal Code, §9.56.020. Item 6-A 05/14/19 154 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 B. Safeguard the City’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as embodied and reflected in such improvements and areas. C. Foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past. D. Protect and enhance the City’s aesthetic and historic attractions to residents, tourists, visitors and others, thereby serving as a stimulus and support to business and industry. E. Promote the use of Landmarks, Structures of Merit and Historic Districts for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of this City. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) Section 9.56.100(A) allows the Landmarks Commission to designate City Landmarks that meet one or more of the following criteria:4 1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. 2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. 3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. 4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. 5. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect. 6. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City. In addition, the City of Santa Monica’s Urban Forest website provides additional direction to the Landmarks Commission for designation of private trees. As noted on the City’s Urban Forest website, “Within the Community Forest, there are trees that have special significance due to at least one or more of the following factors may qualify for Landmark Status:”5 • The tree’s age and association with a historic building or district gives the tree historical significance. • The tree represents a specimen that is particularly rare in the Los Angeles basin and is of considerable size and age. • The tree possesses unique characteristics or special horticultural significance. • The tree is of a significant size and/or makes a significant and outstanding aesthetic impact to its setting and is an exceptional specimen in good condition and health.6 4 City of Santa Monica Municipal Code, Section 9.56.100(A). 5 City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Urban Forest, “About the Urban Forest: Landmark Trees,” https://www.smgov.net/Portals/UrbanForest/content.aspx?id=53687091867. 6 City of Santa Monica Urban Forest Master Plan, page 98. Item 6-A 05/14/19 155 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Landmark Trees The City of Santa Monica has previously designated five trees. The following Landmark trees were designated due to their age, with several planted prior to 1900; rarity of species; as well for their association with historic personages: • Moreton Bay Fig Tree (101 Wilshire Boulevard, designated 1976) Located on the former estate of Santa Monica founder, Senator John P. Jones, the Moreton Bay Fig Tree was planted prior to 1900, at the direction of Mrs. Jones. The tree is reportedly the second largest of its species in California. • California Live Oak (1443 10th Street, designated 1980) Also planted prior to 1900, the California Live Oak was planted in the parkway and was found to be significant as it “symbolized elements of the cultural history of the City due to its venerable age.” In addition, the tree was also significant for its “aesthetics… large size, its age, and its rarity in the City.”7 The tree has since died and was removed. • Cedar Deodara Tree (918 5th Street, designated 2002) This Cedar Deodara tree was found to “symbolize a period of early Santa Monica history in which new species of grand trees intended to provide shade for many years were planted both on public and private property.” Specifically, its shape was the result of limited pruning reflected the cultural values of early twentieth century horticulturalists.8 The tree was planted circa the 1920s. • Eucalyptus Deanei Tree (522 24th Street, designated 2003) This Eucalypus Deanei tree was planted by local horticulturalist Hugh Evans in the 1920. The tree was found to “manifest the City of Santa Monica’s cultural development as a leader in horticultural innovation during the early years of the 20th Century.”9 The tree species, imported from Australia in the 1880s, was extremely rare in California. Prior to its removal due to poor health, this tree was the tallest and most massive of its kind in the country. 7 “Findings and Determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica in the Matter of the Designation of a Landmark,” Case Number LC-14-020, submitted January 15, 1980. 8 “Findings and Determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica in the Matter of the Designation of a Landmark,” Case Number LC-02-LM-006, submitted January 13, 2003. 9 “Findings and Determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica in the Matter of the Designation of a Landmark,” Case Number LC-03-LM-003, submitted August 11, 2003. Figure 1: Morton Bay Fig Tree at 101 Wilshire Blvd (Snow, 2019) Figure 2: Cedar Deodara tree at 918 5th Street (Snow, 2019 Item 6-A 05/14/19 156 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 • Eucalyptus Cornuta Tree (1407 Hill Street, designated 2006) Planted circa the 1910s, prior to the development of Sunset Park, this Eucalyptus Cornuta tree also predates construction of the house on the property. It would have been one of the most visible features on the landscape that was devoid of development. Figure 3: Eucalyptus Cornuta tree at 1407 Hill St. (Snow, 2019) Item 6-A 05/14/19 157 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Property Description and History The subject property is located mid-block on the south side of California Avenue between 11th and 12th streets, with 11th Court, an alley, directly to the west. The subject property is located in the Wilmont Neighborhood of Santa Monica, which is bounded by the Pacific Coast Highway, 21th Street, Wilshire Boulevard, and Montana Avenue. The block on California Avenue where the subject property is located contains a mix of single and multi-family residences constructed at various times. There is not a uniform street tree along the street, although four, mature Canary Island pine trees are located directly across the street from the subject property within the parkway. The subject property contains a one and a half-story, single family residence with a garage in the rear. A low fence lines the sidewalk and is backed by a hedge. The subject tree, a California Sycamore, also known as a western sycamore (Platanus racemose) is approximately centered in the front yard. As noted above, the subject tree is actually two trees wrapped around each other. One tree is 38 inches in diameter and the other is 30 inches in diameter, each measured 4.5 feet above the ground.10 The height of the tree has been approximated to be somewhere between 50 feet and 60 feet with a canopy diameter of about 75 feet.11 The health and condition of subject tree was assessed by four arborists, who all found the tree to be in generally good health. Some minor pest infiltration and a hollow trunk due to a pruning wound were identified.12 The single-family house was relocated to the subject property in 1922 by J.C. Gilbert, owner.13 It was estimated that the subject tree was planted around 1922, the same time the house was relocated to the subject property. As detailed in a memorandum prepared by Ostashay & Associates, Joseph Gilbert was district superintendent of the Southern California Gas Company Santa Monica District and was active in local organizations. The subject property transferred to John Cornish around 10 Jan C. Scow, Consulting Arborist, LLC, “Landmark Tree Assessment for Sycamore at 1122 California Avenue,” prepared for Stephanie Reich, Planning & Community Development, City of Santa Monica, November 27, 2017. 11 As noted in Jan Scow’s report, his estimate of approximately 82 feet is the combined heights of the two trees added together. 12 Jan C. Scow, Consulting Arborist, LLC, “Landmark Tree Assessment for Sycamore at 1122 California Avenue,” prepared for Stephanie Reich, Planning & Community Development, City of Santa Monica, November 27, 2017; Walter Warriner, “Tree Appraisal & Protection Plan,” prepared for Mr. Tyler Shahriary, March 19, 2018; Cy Carlberg, Carlberg Associates, “California sycamore located at 1122 California Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90403,” October 15, 2017; Kerry Norman, Arbor Essence, memorandum prepared for Kevin Kozal, Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP, April 2019. 13 Jan Ostashay, “Occupancy/Ownership Research History: 1122 California Avenue,” memorandum prepared for Stephanie Reich, City of Santa Monica, January 22, 2018. Figure 4: Subject property with subject tree, left: view southeast, center: view east along California Street, right: view north (Snow, 2019) Item 6-A 05/14/19 158 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1948,14 and the property remained in the Cornish family until recently.15 John Cornish was an artist who taught at Santa Monica City College as well as the Los Angeles State College. His work was wide-ranging and varied from watercolors, to a mural at the Los Angeles County Fair, to portrait commissions. Between 1946 and 1962, he exhibited drawings at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, Detroit Institute of Art, Chicago Art Institute, San Francisco Museum of Art, and Los Angeles County Art Institute. He was also involved in local art organizations.16 California Sycamores The subject tree is a “Platanus racemosa” or Western Sycamore, also called a California Plane Tree or a California Sycamore. The California Sycamore is native to the California coast, ranging from Baja California in the south to the Sacramento Valley in the north and grows at elevations below 4,500 feet. Typically, California Sycamores grow along streams, although they can grow in other locations where there is ample ground water. California Sycamores were commonly planted as a shade tree, as the tree grows relatively quickly and can reach 50-100-feet high. As a result, there are many examples of this tree throughout the region. The tree has very large leaves that can span up to 10-inches wide.17 It has distinctive bark, which are “thin, cracking and peeling off in flakes each year and revealing the softly tinted new bark beneath.”18 It is common for the trunk to split into two or more large trunks.19 The tree is propagated by seed or cutting and is known to transplant well. As described in Trees of Santa Monica, California Sycamores are a large tree of the canyons of southern California. Usually irregular in growth and with the large white patches on the bark very picturesque. The leaves are lobed to the middle or deeper and the ‘collars’ on the twigs where the leaves are attached remain even after the leaves have fallen.20 As a native southern California tree, California Sycamores were used by the Chumash, specifically for making wooden bowls. A medicinal preparation of the bark was also used to treat asthma.21 As a relatively large species, California Sycamore trees, called alisos by the Spanish, also served as boundary markers for early ranchos. One such tree, known as the Eagle Tree, is located in Compton and marked the northern boundary of Rancho San Pedro.22 The largest California Sycamore on record is 52-feet in diameter and 94-feet high and known as the Sister Witness Tree, located in Goleta. It was also recognized as a National Champion Tree, which is a national register of big trees.23 14 Jan Ostashay, “Occupancy/Ownership Research History: 1122 California Avenue,” memorandum prepared for Stephanie Reich, City of Santa Monica, January 22, 2018. 15 Planning Staff, “1122 California Avenue, 17ENT-0211,” Memorandum prepared for The Honorable Landmarks Commission, May 14, 2018. 16 “John Cornish,” The Emeritimes (Publication of the Emeriti Association California State University, Los Angeles), Volume XVIII, Number 2, Winter 1997, page 8. 17 Lee W. Lenz and John Dourley, California Native Trees & Shrubs; For Garden & Environmental Use In Southern Califonria and Adjacent Areas, (Claremont, CA: Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden), 140. 18 David Deardorff, “Plant Portraits: California Sycamore,” Garden , volume 1, issue 1, 1977, pages 5-6 19 California Native Plant Society, Calscape, “Western Sycamore, Platanus racemose,” https://calscape.org/Platanus-racemosa-(Western-Sycamore). 20 George T. Hastings, M.A., Trees of Santa Monica; Described and Located by Streets, (Santa Monica, CA, 1956), Page 129. 21 Stephen Bryne, “The Wind Sycamore: A Chumash Sacred Site Near Ventura,” Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, 2014, Vol. 28, p50-60 22 Nation Masters, “The Sycamores of Southern California: A Brief History,” KCET, June 20, 2013, https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/the-sycamores-of-southern-california-a-brief -history. 23 See American Forests, www.americanforests.org/get-involved/americas-biggest-trees/champion-trees- national- register/?submit_search=Search&search_val=&state=CA&search_area=adv_search&order_by=DESC&bt_page_id=3. Item 6-A 05/14/19 159 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Another Sycamore tree near Santa Paula is designated California Landmark 756. Per the inscription, “In 1846 General John C. Fremont passed this site of the sycamore tree on his way to sign a treaty with General Andres Pico to secure California for future annexation to the United States. It served the Padres as a resting place; the community as a polling place and a temporary post office; and a location for religious services.”24 Other Sycamore Trees in Santa Monica The book, Trees of Santa Monica, published in 1944, revised in 1956, and again in 1976, documents examples of trees in the city at the time of publication. In addition to the subject tree, Trees of Santa Monica, published in 1956, notes several examples of California Sycamores throughout Santa Monica, including one located at 425 Marguerita and one located at 470 20th Street, along with “many fine specimens in Santa Monica Canyon.”25 Interestingly, the 1944 edition of the book notes different examples and does not mention the subject property,26 nor does the 1976 edition mention the subject tree.27 While the book describes trees that grow in Santa Monica, it does not aspire to be a complete survey. Rather, an introduction to the description of trees states, “The trees described here do not form a complete list of those growing in the city, only of those along the street or easily seen from the street…For most of the trees a few locations are mentioned where fine examples can be seen, others, possibly just as fine, are not mentioned.”28 An arborist noted over 40, similarly-sized, California Sycamore trees in Santa Monica with more than 50 additional trees in Santa Monica Canyon. Some of the California Sycamore trees noted in Santa Monica Canyon topped 100-feet.29 Like the subject tree, the California Sycamore trees at 470 20th Street and 425 Marguerita Avenue are both planted in the front yards of their respective properties. Like the subject property, the single- family houses on the properties were also constructed in the 1920s, 470 20th Street in 1926 and 425 Marguerita Avenue in 1923. It is possible that the trees were also planted around the same time the houses were completed. 470 20th Street appears most comparable to the subject tree in that there are multiple (3) 30-inch trunks, how it is estimated to be 80--feet high. A similarly tall tree (70-feet high), the California Sycamore at 425 Marguerita Avenue has only one trunk (approximately 40-inches).30 24 The Historical Marker Database, “Sycamore Tree,” https://www.hmdb.org/Marker.asp?Marker=114949. 25 George T. Hastings, M.A., Trees of Santa Monica; Described and Located by Streets, (Santa Monica, CA, 1956), 130. 26 George T. Hastings, M.A., Trees of Santa Monica; Described and Located by Streets, (Santa Monica, CA, 1944), 91. 27 George T. Hastings, M.A., revised by Grace L. Heintz, Trees of Santa Monica; Described and Located by Streets, (Santa Monica, CA, 1976), 156. 28 George T. Hastings, M.A., Trees of Santa Monica; Described and Located by Streets, (Santa Monica, CA, 1956), 52. 29 Kerry Norman, Arbor Essence, memorandum prepared for Kevin Kozal, Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP, April 2019, exhibits B and C. 30 Kerry Norman, Arbor Essence, memorandum prepared for Kevin Kozal, Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP, April 2019, exhibit B. Left: 470 20th Street, Right: 425 Marguerita Avenue (Snow, 2019) Item 6-A 05/14/19 160 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Historic Context The following historic context for trees in Santa Monica is excerpted from the Santa Monica Urban Forest Master Plan, revised and adopted by City Council in 2017:31 By 1875 Colonel R. S. Baker and Nevada Senator John P. Jones owned the land that is now Santa Monica and laid out the City, numbering the north/south streets from the Pacific Ocean to 26th Street, and naming the east/west streets, from Colorado Avenue on the south to Montana Avenue on the north, after states of the Union. They sold residential lots, and by the time Santa Monica was incorporated into an 8.3 square mile city in 1886, trees were planted and the land that was once a bluff with few trees gave birth to what is now Santa Monica’s emerging urban forest. From 1893-1900 other areas of the City were developed. Smaller lots were allocated with the idea of making affordable neighborhoods near the beach. With the smaller lots, less space was allocated for street trees. The choices that early developers made regarding growspace for trees continue to affect today’s urban forest. During the 1880s, experimentation with trees originating in climates similar to Santa Monica was actively pursued. Abbot Kinney, known for his development of the Venice canals, had a profound impact on Santa Monica’s urban forest. He served as the Chairman of the State Forestry Board (1886-1888) and as roadmaster of Santa Monica. Abbot Kinney established the nation’s first forestry station in Rustic Canyon in 1887 where he conducted studies on close to 100 species of eucalyptus, a very popular species at the time. He knew the work of Ellwood Cooper (of Santa Barbara) who lectured in 1875 that the planting of eucalyptus forests could mitigate wind and increase rain, and that eucalyptus was “needed for the planet’s well-being”. Several eucalyptus species identified in Abbot Kinney’s book, Eucalyptus (1895), exist in Santa Monica today, including E. ficifolia, E. citriodora, E. globulous and E. leucoxylon. Local nurseries were established to take advantage of the temperate climate. In 1899, a fifteen acre site in south Santa Monica was developed as a growing ground for flowers and became one of the City’s best known industries. In 1923, nurseryman Hugh Evans established a garden in Santa Monica and began importing plants from the South Pacific, Australia and South Africa. One of the City’s beloved parks, Palisades Park, was donated to the City as a park forever in 1892 by Senator Jones and Arcadia Bandini de Baker. In 1908, Santa Monica’s Park Commissioner stipulated that his salary be spent on trees in the park. Palms are shown in a 1908 photo of the park, and in 1976 in the book Trees of Santa Monica, author Grace Heintz recognized that five species of palms and six species of eucalyptus dominated the park. While the subject property is not part of an identified tract, the house was moved to the property in 1922, during a period of enormous growth in Santa Monica. In the 1920s, Santa Monica experienced a population and corresponding construction boom. As noted in the City of Santa Monica HRI Update Historic Context Statement:32 31 City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Urban Forest Master Plan, Revised 2017. 32 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, “Historic Resources Inventory Update; Historic Context Statement,” prepared for the City of Santa Monica, March 2018, page 37. Item 6-A 05/14/19 161 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 By 1923, it was estimated that 1,500 people per month were moving to Santa Monica. Between 1921 and 1925, over 40,000 people moved to the city. Although previously known as a recreational destination, the subdivision of tracts away from the amusement zones were changing the city from a “summer cottage” environment to one where “[b]eautiful homes of foreign and domestic architecture give the community a decidedly residential atmosphere.” Boulevard and infrastructure improvements along Wilshire, Santa Monica, Pico, and Beverly (Sunset) supported these changes. By 1926, Santa Monica boasted 11,000 homes. Historic photographs of the period show newly constructed houses with new plantings in front, as well as in the public right-of-way. It was not uncommon for new homeowners to plant a shade tree or two in their front yards, similar to the subject property. Santa Monica Landmark Eligibility The following evaluation considers the subject tree under each of the six criteria, based on information provided above and in the nomination materials. 1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. The subject tree has not been shown to exemplify the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of Santa Monica. The subject tree was planted circa 1922 by the owner of the property when they moved in. As seen in historic photographs, it was quite common at the time for new home owners to plant a tree in the front yard. The subject tree was planted during a period of rapid growth in Santa Monica when numerous other trees of the same species were planted. As noted above, two other California Sycamore trees, along with “many fine specimens in Santa Monica Canyon,” were mentioned in Trees of Santa Monica. The two other trees appear very similar to the subject tree in terms of size, stature, and location in the front yard of houses, and appear to have been planted in the same time period as shade trees. In addition, several California Sycamore trees with a height of 100-feet were noted in Santa Monica Canyon. While California Sycamore trees are native to southern California and were used by Chumash, there is no evidence suggesting that the subject tree, planted during a period when Europeans had settled in Santa Monica, has any specific significance to any native community, nor was it the boundary of any early rancho. Left: 958 Euclid Street (no longer extant), view west (USC, 1925); Right: Georgina Avenue (Santa Monica Public Library, circa 1920) Item 6-A 05/14/19 162 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The STOA notes that the subject tree is significant under criterion 2 for its “noteworthy interest as the largest and oldest of the 21 native sycamore trees in the neighborhood (based on the survey area bounded by Montana Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard, between 4th and 14th Streets).” This survey area appears quite limited and arbitrary. While it may be true that the subject tree is the largest and oldest in this limited area of Santa Monica, it appears to be similar in size, age, and associated canopy coverage to many other California Sycamore trees throughout Santa Monica, and specifically in the neighborhoods north of Wilshire Boulevard (see Exhibit B of Kerry Norman’s memorandum). Furthermore, size and age are generally assessed under criterion 1. For example, if a house were the largest and oldest example of a particular architectural style, an evaluation would note that it exemplified economic and architectural history of the City. In addition, the evaluation would not restrict the comparison to a very limited area, but would rather provide city-wide comparison, as stated in the language of the criterion. In addition, the STOA identifies the subject tree as significant under criterion 2 for its uncommon trunk configuration. However, as noted by the California Native Plant Society, it is common for the trunk to split into two or more. Indeed, the California Sycamore tree at 470 20th Street also has split into multiple trunks. Therefore, the trunk configuration of the subject tree is not uncommon. As the subject tree is not particularly unique or uncommon for its size, age, and trunk configuration, it cannot be said that it is noteworthy for these qualities. Therefore, the subject tree is not eligible under criterion 2. A discussion of aesthetic value is included below. 3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. The subject tree is most closely associated with the family who planted the tree, Joseph and Bess Gilbert, who resided at the subject property until 1948. As detailed in a memorandum prepared by Ostashay & Associates, Joseph Gilbert was district superintendent of the Southern California Gas Company Santa Monica District. While Joseph Gilbert was active in local organizations, none of his professional or civic activities were associated with the subject tree, or even took place at the subject property. The Landmark nomination notes association with artist John Cornish. While he resided at the subject property for a lengthy period of time, it has not been shown that any of John Cornish’s artistic endeavors include the subject tree or were influenced by the subject tree. It is important to note that, during discussion of the subject tree at the Landmarks Commission meeting in May 2018, staff clarified that the intention of the nomination was for the tree itself and not for its associations with any historic personages. 4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. Criterion 4 is not applicable to the subject tree as it is not a work of architecture. 5. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect. Similarly, criterion 5 is not applicable to the subject tree as it is not the work of a builder, designer, or architecture. 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. Item 6-A 05/14/19 163 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 It is possible for a tree to have a unique location. Examples noted above that have unique locations are the Eagle Tree that marked the northern boundary of Rancho San Pedro and the California Sycamore in Santa Paula that was used as the site of an early polling place and a temporary post office and for religious services. However, the subject tree has not been shown to have any similar associations and never severed as a geographical marker of any kind. Rather, its location is unremarkable because it was planted as a front yard shade tree considered typical at the time of planting, during a period in which the city experienced rapid development of neighborhoods with single-family homes and corresponding tree planting. Criterion 6 has consistently been interpreted to include only visually dominant locations within the city. The example of a landmark that meets this criterion that is typically cited is the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. The STOA for denial of Landmark Designation of the Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard (LC-07-LM-009 and LC-07LM- 009) states, “Application of this criterion [criterion 6] does not indicate that the subject…trees are an established familiar visual feature in that application of this criterion has been consistently applied to important visual monuments in the City such as Santa Monica’s Civic Auditorium due to its grand scale and unique design and presence that commands attention as one travels south along Main Street.”33 Furthermore, the staff report for an appeal of a landmark designation application for the property located at 125 Pacific notes, “Simply by virtue of having occupied this property since 1924, the property cannot be found to meet the high threshold for landmark designation intended by this criterion.”34 The STOA for the subject tree finds it eligible under criterion 6 for the following reason: “Based on their size, longevity, and location, the subject western sycamore trees are an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood.” This finding contradicts precedent. The subject tree does not rise to the level of visual prominence as the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. Representing a typical historical pattern of front yard tree planting, it is located mid-block on a street with many other tall trees. In addition, as noted above, simply occupying the same location for a period of time does not meet the threshold required for this criterion. Conclusion The subject tree does not appear to meet any of the six Landmark criteria and it doesn’t appear to meet any of the four qualifying factors suggested by the City of Santa Monica’s Urban Forest Master Plan. There is no historic or cultural significance association with the subject tree. Planted as a typical front yard tree during a time in which such planting was common, the subject tree is not on par with any of the three other Landmark trees, which have proven significant historical associations. Designating the subject tree does not appear to be the appropriate way to recognize local trees located on private property. The City of Santa Monica has taken important steps to recognize the environmental benefits and intrinsic beauty of trees through their Urban Forest Master Plan. However, the Master Plan only includes trees in public parks and public rights-of-way, not on private property. Regarding trees located on private property, such as the subject tree, designation of one tree appears a short-sighted solution to protecting the urban forest and the many environmental benefits that trees afford, as pointed out by the many supporters of this designation. This tree, and many beautiful trees throughout Santa Monica, should be considered holistically in the context of a tree ordinance, not individually in the context of the Landmarks Ordinance. 33 Submitted February 11, 2008. 34 “Appeal 04APP-006 of Landmarks Commission Designation of the property at 125 Pacific Street (Christie Court) as a Landmark,” Memo from City Staff to Mayor and Councilmembers, July 26, 2005, 2. Item 6-A 05/14/19 164 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Resume    Jenna Snow   In January 2015, Jenna Snow launched an independent historic preservation consulting practice  offices in Los Angeles. With over fifteen years of professional experience, Ms. Snow has a  strong and broad understanding of best historic preservation practice, including federal, state,  and local regulations. She has worked on a wide range of projects on both the east and west  coasts, as well as internationally. Ms. Snow holds a M.S. in Historic Preservation from Columbia  University and a B.A. in Fine Arts focusing on architectural history from Brandeis University. She  meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architectural  History.     Throughout her career, Ms. Snow has authored, co‐authored, and/or served as project manager  for nearly 100 historic preservation projects, including a wide variety of historic resource  assessments, National Register nominations, and historic resources surveys. She regularly  contributes to environmental impact reports, historic preservation certification applications,  Section 106 reviews and other work associated with historic building rehabilitation and  preservation planning. Ms. Snow has prepared multiple National Register nominations,  including the Twohy Building in San José, CA; the Beverly Hills Women’s Club in Beverly Hills,  CA; the Sam and Alfreda Maloof Compound in Rancho Cucamonga, CA; the Boyle  Hotel/Cummings Block in Los Angeles, CA; the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Historic  District in Los Angeles, CA, and Temple Ohave Israel in Brownsville, PA. She has completed  historic resources surveys, including coauthoring historic context statements in Hollywood,  Whittier, CA, and South Los Angeles. Prior to her consulting work, Ms. Snow worked at for the  New York City Department of Design and Construction in New York, NY, the Freedom Trail  Foundation in Boston, MA, and the Neighborhood Preservation Center in New York, NY.  Item 6-A 05/14/19 165 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Annoushka Shojania <annoushkas@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 10:50 AM To:Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Ana Maria Jara; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Greg Morena; Ted Winterer; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:Letter against landmarking the sycamores at 1122 Calif. Ave To the Santa Monica City Council, I have followed this issue since early 2018. I was deeply disappointed and shocked that the landmark request was granted by the landmarks commission last year and I am writing to urge you to deny landmark status to these sycamore trees at 1122 California Ave. One bit of testimony that stood out to me from the last hearing, which I attended, that I want to make sure is considered here today is the idea that being a tourist attraction is a good thing for this family or for anyone! One speaker was a Santa Monica resident who spoke in favor of landmarking. She related that her tree was landmarked and that she loves it because bus loads of people drive by her house to see her tree. To me personally that sounds like a terrible invasion of privacy and I don't even have children. The family who lives there includes three young children and it is not fair that their privacy is invaded, who would want a bus full of people coming and staring into their living room window? I should think that everyone of you on the city council would do what you could to protect yourself from a bus of tourists constantly driving by and stopping in front of your home. And this tree is literally so ordinary that I am confident at least one of you has a tree in front of your house or on your private property that could become the next target for John Smith and his landmark-happy group. A Mexican fan palm, canary island pine, jacaranda, eucalyptus, moreton bay fig, a sycamore? This is a humble home on a purely residential street. This family has not asked for notoriety or to become a tourist attraction, a sub par one at that! Every tree is a unique and beautiful gift to our city, but these trees at 1122 California are in no way landmark-worthy. Protect the trees by NOT landmarking them, protect our neighbors privacy by NOT landmarking any old tree in the neighborhood! Save it for the really special really important structures and trees. The Moreton Bay Fig is a special part of our city. The carousel, the googie bowling sign, They are special to all of us! The 1122 California Ave Sycamores are a special part of this family's house and the lucky neighbors who get to enjoy its canopy. Nothing more. Please grant this appeal and avoid a ridiculous precedent. Thank you Annoushka Shojania Item 6-A 05/14/19 166 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Damian Akhavi <dakhavi@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 8, 2019 12:24 PM To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox Subject:In Favor of Appeal/Shahriary Family   Dear City Council:     My name is Damian Akhavi. I am writing in favor of the appeal.   Santa Monica is a city that takes pride in community involvement, which is known to for those of us who  conduct business here. We businesspeople have to toe many regulatory lines. But that’s fine. We love that Santa Monica  is not a “corporate”‐style city that put profits above people. And that is a great reputation to have.    Landmark designations are a very important part of a city which chooses to hold on to some character, to its  history and to its 'roots.' But holding onto buildings and places of the past to preserve our heritage and traditions should  be done under local regulations after careful consideration of each request.    In this particular case I hear that there were no community meetings, no workshops, no negotiations between  the parties – nothing that says “Santa Monica.”  I really wonder why. The landmarks designation is a serious bit of  regulatory business. What happened here?  It is my strong opinion that the Landmarks Commission conceded to the wishes of a small and persistent core  group.  I suspect John Smith and the Wilmont group don’t even represent the majority of people in their neighborhood,  or the city at large. Why do they insist on a questionable “landmark” when all they really want is a tree they love, kept in  their well‐heeled and beautiful neighborhood?   Let's not corrupt powerful and necessary tools to any well run city, to  satisfy the whims of a few.  Landmarking is a valid and necessary government tool, but is a power that should only be wielded after great  consideration of the facts and only when the merits demand such a government regulation, especially when private  property is involved. Careful consideration and fact‐based judgement are needed. I hope you will grant the appeal on  Tuesday night and bring this embarrassment to an end.     Sincerely,  Damian Akhavi               Item 6-A 05/14/19 167 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Cindy Lauren <cindy@dprintla.com> Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 12:59 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Sycamore Tree- Don't Let Them Kill ONE MORE TREE This email is to put on record my support for the Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California Ave in Santa Monica. I urge the City Council to NOT OVERTURN a Landmarks Commission decision that was debated and discussed thoroughly. I live nearby and know that it would be an irreplaceable loss to our community to kill this tree. I implore each and every one of the council members to protect this tree. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration on this matter. Kind Regards,      Cindy Lauren Director of Marketing 5364 Venice Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90019 Tel: 323-549-9444 ext. 255, Fax: 323-761-8750 www.dprintla.com #notmypresident To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Item 6-A 05/14/19 168 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Patti Zortman <pattizortman@me.com> Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 1:22 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Landmark status for Sycamore tree at 1122 California Ave I respectfully request that you deny the appeal of the Landmarks Commission decision to approve the Landmark  designation for our 90‐100 year old native Sycamore tree at 1122 California Ave.    Trees such as this Sycamore are extremely valuable to the aesthetics of our community, in addition to improving our air  quality and providing a habitat for nature.    Many communities have laws to protect certain trees, even on private property.  Unfortunately, since Santa Monica  does not, we lose many trees due to development. Upholding landmark status for this tree is the only way to protect it  from certain removal to make it easier for developers to build on the site.  It is possible to work around the tree and  build on the property as the tree is near the front of the property.    Please deny the appeal to remove landmark status for our beautiful neighborhood tree.    Thank you,  Patti Zortman  1426 California Ave  Santa Monica, CA 90403  310‐260‐2390  Item 6-A 05/14/19 169 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Neil Cohen 1111 California Avenue Santa Monica, California 90403 Dear Santa Monica City Council Members: I’m Neil Cohen, and I have been living, with my family, opposite the legendary California Sycamore on California Avenue since 1988 and I urge you to NOT OVERTURN the Landmarks Commission decision to save this tree now and for future generations. I was happy to offer public testimony celebrating this living landmark at the December 2017 Landmarks Commission meeting; I planned to testify with additional information at the property owner’s appeal when the tree was on the Council agenda – but at each meeting this agenda item was suddenly cancelled by the property owner; after last-minute cancel- lations by the owners for the past year now I am unfortunately out of town so please take a moment to read this note in support of preserving the lawful landmark status of this extraordinary living monument that adds so much to all of our lives. First off, I’d like to tell you about the community that surrounds this great tree. A voice in the opposition has challenged us with “what do you care about a tree when there are so many bigger problems – homelessness, politics – why are you making a fuss about a tree?” We’ve been accused of preservationist elitism and NIMBY’ism. The reality is that the neighborhood surrounding The California Sycamore on California Avenue is proudly among the most UN-NIMBY in the city; we are in fact proponents of IN OUR BACKYARD. Within the immediate area there are two pre-schools, plus Lincoln Middle School, St. Monica High School, subsidized senior housing, four churches, a subsidized apartment complex for seniors and (right across the alley from where we live) transitional housing for homeless families. When both the homeless housing and the subsidized senior residence were proposed, we SUPPORTED in public testimony their approval; both (one on 11th Street and one on 12fth Street) have been excellent neighbors. So, our efforts to save and preserve a legendary 100-year-old California Sycamore, a tree that is an anchor for all in our diverse community, is both inclusive and in character for this neighborhood and its neighbors. In my original testimony (attached below) I pointed out how in their original report, city staff misinformed The Landmarks Commission as to the health, history, unique quality and community support for this tree. City staff disseminated a report that cut, pasted, and changed the meaning of the city arborist’s glowing report on the magnificence of this native sycamore. Whereas the staff report said the city arborist “notes 16 native trees within a two block radius surrounding 1122 California Avenue," the staff report omits the rest of the arborist's sentence which stated about these 16 other trees that “However, none of these … were of significance due to small size, poor condition, etc … and do not compare in size, condition or beauty.” A quick visit to the corner of 11th Street and Washington will show the stunted comparable trees referenced (which are not California sycamores but Mexican sycamores), hardly a rationale for cutting down the 100-year-old California Sycamore on California Avenue. Item 6-A 05/14/19 170 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 The city arborist stated in HIS report that the tree we are considering is “thus the largest and oldest native tree … and makes up a significant portion of the dwindling native tree canopy in the area” with a summation that the sycamore is "exceptional for its good health," and an “outstanding specimen” with a canopy that is "remarkable and uncommon.” And yet somehow this turned into a city staff conclusion that this tree “does not appear to be a particularly exceptional specimen." Rather than simply present the facts, the city staff seemed determined to hide the truth from the Landmarks Commission. I’m not sure why, (STAFF AT THIS MEETING ALSO PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED, BIZARRELY AND UNTRUTHFULLY, THAT THE TREE IS A FIRE HAZARD AS ITS BRANCHES ARE “IN THE POWER LINES.” PLEASE NOTE THAT THE TREE’S BRANCHES TOUCH THE CABLE TV AND TELEPHONE LINES AS DO THE MORE THAN 50 CITY TREES THAT LINE CALIFORNIA AVE EAST-WEST; UTILITY LINES ARE MADE TO WEAVE THROUGH TREES. THE POWER LINES WHICH ARE FAR ATOP THE UTILITY POLES AND RUN NORTH SOUTH ARE NOT TOUCHED IN ANY WAY BY THE TREE), but I wish to dispel what seems to be the biggest challenge that city staff has floated since our initial 2017 Landmarks Commission meeting: “If this tree is landmarked it will open the floodgates of other petitions to landmark trees.” According to City of Santa Monica rules, for a site to achieve landmark status, ONE of the six designated landmarks criteria must exist and the legendary California Sycamore on California meets the criteria for Landmark Designation. With this in mind, I have studied the official directive and in my reading I have not been able to find even the hint of a sentence that states that all the work, process and opinion of the members of the Landmarks Commission must be tossed aside if a site might possibly ‘open the floodgates’ for other petitions. Yet the ‘this will open the floodgates” argument appears to be the main staff objection to landmarking this extraordinary tree. But, that said -- DESIGNATION OF ‘THE CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE ON CALIFORNIA AVENUE’ AS A CITY OF SANTA MONICA LANDMARK has NOT opened any floodgate but has had quite the opposite effect; in fact, maintaining the designation of this unique tree as a landmark closes the floodgate, digs a moat and raises the drawbridge against any frivolous arboreal petitions. Why? Because, the landmarking of this specific legendary California Sycamore has set a standard for any other tree on private (or even public) land seeking landmark status. To meet the standard of The California Sycamore on California Avenue, a tree would have to be a Southern California native, 100 years old (with potential to live 400 more years), 85-ft tall with a ‘wingspan’ of 85-ft, it would have to be a well-known visual icon, it would have to be a tree that has no negative impact on the adjacent sidewalk, a tree featuring two large raptor nests, towering over a popular bike path used by both residents and visitors on a well-traveled route between many schools and churches; it would have to be a tree supported by public testimony, cheerleading and private correspondence from many dozens of its neighbors (including adjacent property owners), be a natural feature of our community, and be a tree that has already saved/earned the current property owner hundreds of thousands of dollars (as explicated below); few if any trees can meet the Item 6-A 05/14/19 171 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 3 standard set by The California Sycamore on California Avenue and no “floodgates” were opened by the inclusion of this tree as one of our Tree City’s list of notable landmark sites; The California Sycamore on California Avenue is an established and familiar feature of our neighborhood and exemplifies, symbolizes, and manifests the spirit of Santa Monica. Please allow me to list the few objections that have popped up, and provide a response: 1). IT’S NOT A FIRE HAZARD. It has been falsely stated by a key city staffer that The California Sycamore on California Avenue is ‘a fire hazard’ because it’s tangled ‘in the power lines.’ City staff should know the difference between high voltage ‘power lines’ – which are the ones high atop the utility poles - and the much lower-slung ‘spongy’ cable TV lines which drape throughout our city directly through the crowns of hundreds of trees. Viewing the picture of the California Sycamore shown at the December 2017 meeting, the city staffer exclaimed: “Look – the tree is touching the power line! It’s dangerous, it must be trimmed – and that’s very expensive.” Please note: that photo is a foreshortened image that makes it SEEM like the tree’s leaves or branches are touching a utility line, but in reality it’s the small city tree in the foreground of the California Sycamore that is actually what the utility line touches. And this utility line is NOT a ‘power line’ – it’s the CableTV wires -- which are not a fire hazard and weave directly through the crowns of 55 city-owned trees along California Avenue on the east-west utility grid from 6th Street to 22nd Street – in fact, on that expanse, the only tree the utility line does NOT entangle is the California Sycamore on California Avenue! There IS a high-voltage “Power Line” – but this line runs north-south through the adjacent alley and does not touch any part of the legendary sycamore. I’ve discussed these wires with onsite cable technicians - and tech workers from the power company – they’ve attested that there is no fire hazard; the “Fire Hazard’ argument has no basis in fact. 2). LANDMARKING OF THE TREE WAS NOT COSTLY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. The property at 1122 California was purchased from a family trust by WS Investments Property LLC (of Paramount, California) in autumn 2017 with the intention, as stated for the public record by their lawyer, to knock down the house and to cut down the legendary tree as soon as possible. Days after that landmarks meeting, after WS Investments LLC learned that the community had rallied to save the tree, the property was ‘flipped’ for sale. The current owners then bought 1122 California Avenue – a property with an historic (built in 1882) single-family private house on a large private lot, one block from now-trendy Wilshire Boulevard, in perhaps the best school district in Southern California – for an under-market 1.8 million dollars. Any cursory check of current prices for a private house north of Wilshire Boulevard will show that this house and lot sold for +/- a quarter of a million dollars BELOW market value (it’s a private single-family house on a large lot that sold for the price of a condo). Why such a bargain price? I posit that because of the California Sycamore on California Avenue the large developers stayed out of the game. So, while there may be some future modest tree-pruning costs attached to the preservation of this venerable and very healthy tree, the fact that this tree was and is supported and championed as a landmark in the community dissuaded large developers from bidding and therefore SAVED the current Item 6-A 05/14/19 172 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 4 owners a quarter of a million dollars in purchase price. Can they still flip the property and can a new owner find enough square footage on the lot to position townhouses? Absolutely. And it’s because we expect a future sale that this legendary-in-our-community tree needs landmark protection. Please take into consideration that the current owner has already received – thanks to the California Sycamore on California Avenue – a quarter of a million dollars in benefit. If one goes to a Siegfried and Roy show they cannot claim to be surprised to see a tiger. The new owners were well aware that this tree was being considered for landmark status (it was listed as such in the real estate ad), and in a sellers’ market that consideration was a factor that affected the price in favor of the buyer. Therefore the argument that this tree has been a financial burden holds no water. ALSO: WE TOLD THE OWNER – privately and in public testimony - WE WOULD SUPPORT VARIANCES ON THE REST OF THE PROPERTY if they joined in saving the tree, and we would attend meetings such as this to help support variances they might need to build out that lot. They told us they wanted to maintain the property as a private house for their family – in which case there would be no issue; but in their petition they state they DO want to develop the entire property. So let us all be clear, when it comes to the ALREADY LANDMARKED TREE, there is no maybe, no "let's wait and see what happens," no gray area: a Council vote to rescind the legal and by-the-book landmarking of this 100-year-old gem is an assertive vote-decision-instruction TO cut down this tree. In summation, this extraordinary tree is deserving of its landmark status as it is a symbol of, a benefit for, and a celebration of the entire City of Santa Monica. It does not ‘open the floodgates’ of further requests for landmarking trees but sets a very high bar for any landmark request in the future. It has not been a financial burden, but a boon, for the landowner. It is not a fire hazard nor sidewalk obstruction, and our request for its landmarking was not an elitist request, but rather a continuation of bringing together our diverse community of renters, owners, landlords, visitors, young and old; The California Sycamore on California Avenue – whose fate has been chronicled in the local press, on public radio, and NBC News - is a beloved living monument celebrated by all long-term stakeholders in our mixed-use mixed-income neighborhood; it has been part of our city for a hundred years and will continue to provide shade, clean air, beauty, a sense of history and community for Santa Monica for hundreds of years moving forward. Thank you, Neil Cohen 310-245-6166 May 9, 2019 Item 6-A 05/14/19 173 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 5 Original testimony: Dear Commission Members, My name is Neil Cohen and, with my family, we have lived across the street from this glorious neighborhood landmark for 30 years; so it was painful to read the planning staff report on this legendary native tree as it throws very 'negative shade' on the entire Landmarks Commission process. Claiming to be based on your own arborist’s analysis, the staff report is instead filled with mis-statements and curious omissions as your staff lays out the bizarre argument that the giant sycamore at 1122 California Avenue is simultaneously a unique specimen, while also being nothing special. So I said to myself, who is this nutty arborist the city hired to make this kooky report? – so I dug into the city file, found the unedited arborist's report and was stunned to discover that the city arborist actually wrote a GLOWINGLY SUPPORTIVE report about this tree -- but that the city's planning staff cut, pasted, and rearranged the written narrative in order to HANG this tree. Whereas the staff report says that the arborist “notes 16 native trees within a two block radius surrounding 1122 California Avenue," the staff report omits the rest of the arborist's sentence which states about these 16 other native trees that, quote “However, none of these … were of significance due to small size, poor condition, etc … and do not compare in size, condition or beauty to the subject western sycamores.” Your arborist states that the tree we are considering is “thus the largest and oldest native tree for at least two blocks in any direction and makes up a significant portion of the dwindling native tree canopy in the area” with a summation that the sycamore is "exceptional for its good health," and is an “outstanding specimen” with a canopy that is "remarkable and uncommon.” And yet somehow this turns into a staff conclusion that this tree “does not appear to be a particularly exceptional specimen." Your own arborist notes the massive bird nests in the tree; we in the community have seen falcons in and around this tree year in and year out – and your own arborist states in his report that no action should be taken until these nests are studied by experts as raptors are a year-round protected species. That the tree at 1122 California may be a nesting site for falcons was left out of the report on which you (the Landmarks Commission) are asked to base your decisions. Item 6-A 05/14/19 174 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 6 Strangely, your staff report DOES highlight that the Sycamore has "pruning wounds” – not mentioning for those who might not know that so does every tree at the Hunting-ton Gardens, UCLA Botanical Garden and in every botanical garden on earth. Proper pruning scars only mean that a tree has been cared for and is thriving, and your own arborist states that the pruning of the giant sycamore has been first class at every level. But your staff uses this argument AGAINST the tree by making the false statement that all other landmarked trees in the city “were allowed to grow in their natural un-pruned state.” Not true - the landmarked non-native Australian fig tree in front of the Miramar Hotel is not a “wild un-pruned tree in a natural setting” and never was; that fig tree has at least 50 pruning scars that I counted today, it is pruned annually and has been for decades. Look, preserving this legendary California native tree can be a win-win; rarely have I seen community members from all political persuasions, renters, property owners, landlords, old and young, newcomers and old timers, NIMBYs and non-NIMBYs, left and right come together on an issue -- and we want to support whoever might be the new owners of that property if they will preserve this unique-in-our-neighborhood, beautiful giant tree; we will come to town board meetings and help the owners with variances and zoning issues to support their needs if this tree is saved. So, it is my respectful recommendation that - instead of allowing for the shredding of this “remarkable and uncommon” neighborhood landmark that clearly satisfies both articles #2 and #6 of the city's landmark designation criteria – please ask your staff to rewrite their report in a manner that accurately reflects what your own arborist reported about this native, fire-resistant, uniquely healthy giant California Sycamore on California Avenue: it is a true landmark in our neighborhood that can easily live another 2, 3, or 400 years. Thank you, Neil Cohen Post-hearing December 2017 comment: The representative of the property's new owner (WS Investments/Brett Cypress) stated at the hearing that the new owner of the property absolutely and definitively INTENDS TO CUT DOWN THE SYCAMORE AT THE SOONEST OPPORTUNITY; the owner's rep said the tree still stands only because the neighborhood association petitioned for landmarking. It is my recollection that the words of the owner's rep were: "We were ready to go ... we want to cut it down" and if not for the neighborhood association going to the landmarks commission ".. it would be gone already." So let us all be clear, THERE IS NO CHANGE WITH THE INTENT OF THE PRESENT PROPERTY OWNER; there is no maybe, no "let's wait and see what happens," no gray area: a vote to NOT landmark this 100-year-old tree is an assertive vote-decision-instruction TO cut it down immediately. Item 6-A 05/14/19 175 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Shirin Miller <shirinfaares@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 2:43 PM To:Ana Maria Jara; Terry O’Day; Gleam Davis; Ted Winterer; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Greg Morena; councilmtgitems Subject:Sycamore Landmark appeal 5/14/19 Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,    My name is Shirin Miller, I spoke at the landmark commission hearing regarding the request to landmark this sycamore  tree at 1122 California Ave on May 14, 2018.  I have a brand new baby so unfortunately I cannot attend this City Council  hearing so I am writing to you because I want to be heard on this issue.  I lived in Santa Monica for years and my family  owns property in Santa Monica, where my mom still lives. I was really disappointed when the landmark commissioners  voted to landmark the Shahriary's tree. I have known the Shahriary family for a very long time and anyone who knows  them knows they are the type of people that would always try to save any and all trees possible. They have lived in  Santa Monica for a very long time and have themselves contributed many plants and many trees to the city's green‐ scape.  They bought this old house, fixed it up and they live in it. What more could you ask for from a family? If one day  they want to remodel their old house or put a new house in I am sure they are the types that would build a house  around a tree just to save it! Anyway this is not a rare or famous tree and it's not fair for them to have to go through this  landmark fight, when this is not a true landmark issue. That the city has let this go on sends a message to other people  that only certain people are welcome here and that is not the message this city should be sending out.   Thank you for your time.  Shirin Faares Miller  Item 6-A 05/14/19 176 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:J Edward Tipre <jedwardtipre@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 3:42 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Shahriary appeal: 1122 California Ave. nb: copied to individual council members To the Santa Monica City Council and Mayor Davis, I am writing in support of the Shahriary's appeal of the landmark decision for the sycamore trees on their property at 1122 California Ave. I am writing to you as a 50 year resident of Santa Monica in the Wilshire-Montana Ave, as a retired teacher in St. Monica's High School, Windward School, and as a former Wilmont member. I count myself as a friend and neighbor of the Shahriary Family. They live three buildings down from me on Euclid. My wife and I have always enjoyed a friendly and neighborly relationship with the Shahriary family. I have known them since their children were babies. A few years back they bought another friend and neighbor's small building on 14th Street which is directly across the alley from my building. This event relieved me. I had known the Bambrick family which had owned the property for decades. I had taught two of the daughters whose uncle, John Bambrick, had served as mayor of Santa Monica. The fact that a family and not some rueful development concern purchased the buidling ensured stability. I saw what had occurred with the property to the West on 14th Street when Mr. Anthonty Nitti, two of whose children were my students/athletes, sold it to the current owner who has “transformed” some of the cottages for use as a VRBO or some such enterprise. Now, routinely, we may experience total strangers coming and going in the alley between Euclid and 14th St. Students and older folks used to have homes in those five cottages. I'm told an older woman still inhabits one of them. In any event, the Shahriaries carefully remodeled and restored the building, which had been vacant for for a few years, to a beautiful home for four families with garden space! Gardens precious. I don't believe that there would have been any other buyer who would have purchased this building and put all the work and all the money necessary to restore it gloriously. In our time, most concerns who express interest in such properties see them as “tear-downs” to make room for multi-million dollar condominiums x-ing out those with merely “average” prospects, those who bear similar characteristics and qualities to the pioneers who built this city. In sum: The Shahriary's are a local family, with deep roots in the city. They have invested in this city, they have bought property here, and they live on the property they own. Stability. Familial. Desirable. We need stability in Santa Monica. Our neighborhood, and I assume others is marked by a constant transiting of neighbors who seldom become neighborly. In the early days we kept neighbors for 10 or 15 years. Many began families in apartments and saw them as homes. These days, Santa Monica seems to have become a transit stop in a post millenial theme park, the “Santa Monica Stop.” We have lost with a few exceptions neighborhood stability. Why this extended anecdote? We are fortunate to have neighbors like the Shahriarys who have raised their children and their grandchildren here and we need people to establish traditions and to remain to ensure an enriched neighborhood culture which contributes to the larger community. I offer my microcosmic view—the macro sort of blurs “quotidien life” in the neighborhoods. Item 6-A 05/14/19 177 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 All that being said, the reality is those beautiful old Sycamores are beautiful and old, but age and beauty alone cannot make them into landmarks. The motivation behind John Smith's request as I unerstand it is clear, he wanted to save the trees and to stop development. In this regard it appears he has succeeded. His application for landmark status should be denied on the merits and we should all be glad that the Shahriary's are the owners of 1122 California Ave and those Sycamores- the trees are in good hands now with their new owners. Post Script: On the corner of Euclid and Idaho a world famous athlete was raised by name of Parry O'Brien. My wife and I knew his late wife Terry O'Brien as had the Shahriaries. Parry attended SAMOHI, USC, and went on to world acclaim as a world class shot putter. He won Olympic gold in Helsinki 1952, gold in Rome 1960, an Olympic silver in Melbourne, and placed 4th in Tokyo as an “old” man. That habitation deserves credit as a landmark. Yours sincerely, John E. Tipre 817 Euclid St. Apt. E Santa Monica, CA 90403 310-850-0532 Item 6-A 05/14/19 178 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:RIKA van DAM <rikavandam@msn.com> Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 3:54 PM To:councilmtgitems; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; anamariajara@smgov.net; Greg Morena; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer Subject:Sycamore Landmark Hearing - City Council Dear City Councilmembers, I am writing as a friend of the Sycamore tree that stands at 1122 California Avenue, Santa Monica, and urge the Council to uphold the landmark status of this magnificent tree. This beautiful Sycamore has been a part of the Santa Monica community for almost 100 years, and has a rich history within the neighborhood, providing shade and beauty, while also being a natural habitat for native birds and animals. The tree previously met landmark criteria due in part to its uniqueness in being a healthy, native tree that stands almost 85 feet high; It is an incredible example of nature’s perseverance in the face of urban growth around it. Increasingly, cities are paying attention to preserving trees for all that they bring to our environment. This incredible Sycamore brings not just what an “ordinary” tree brings, but it is also a landmark for the neighbors and visitors of California Avenue. To deny the landmark status of this tree now so that the Sycamore can be destroyed to permit the building of three units of housing would be a travesty, and telegraph a wrong-headed message about the values of the City of Santa Monica. I urge the Council to uphold the landmark status of this very valuable tree. Rika van Dam   Item 6-A 05/14/19 179 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Eric Meltesen <ericmeltesen@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 7:40 PM To:Greg Morena; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Ana Maria Jara; Sue Himmelrich; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; councilmtgitems Subject:Item 6A pro appeal City Council Members,    We all know famous trees. We all know truly unique trees, and we all know real landmarks. That is not what I see. I see a  bunch of old school locals who don't want any change. And I can appreciate that.... I often don't want change either.  But  I don't get to landmark everything I want to keep the same. If I could do that I'd landmark my son as a 2 year old!  This family obviously does not want to cut their tree down but whether they do or not the bottom line is it's their tree  on their private property and no matter how much it would break someone's heart to see that beautiful old tree cut  down you can't solve it by making it into a fake city landmark. The tree is gonna grow and change, the city is gonna grow  and change and there is no way to stop it, no way to control it.  I can't stop my baby from growing up and you can't stop  the city from growing either, nor should we.  Everyone in this town knows it would be a fake landmark "the sycamore  that stopped development" would be it's only claim to fame. This is really about a group of private citizens trying to  control one private citizen and the government must intervene to prevent that type of unfair control and taking of  private property and private opportunity.     I'm a local myself, a renter here in the Wilshire‐Montana Neighborhood. I live just a few blocks from that tree and I'm  asking you to act judiciously and reasonably and grant this appeal and deny these trees a landmark designation.    Eric Meltesen  Santa Monica, CA 90403  Item 6-A 05/14/19 180 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Sarah Kaehn <sarahkaehn@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, May 9, 2019 9:52 PM To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:1122 California Sycamore- pro-appeal, anti landmark Dear Mayor Gleam and City Council,    My name is Sarah Kaehn and I rent an apartment on 14th street, in Wilmont. My landlords are Lesley and Iradj Shahriary. I've lived here for about 3 years. Lesley and Iradj are honorable and honest people that really care about their tenants and our quality of living. They live just down the block from me. Their house is green and lush and very landscape-heavy. Where I live I look out the window to a huge, beautiful tree and tons of plants. They have added draught tolerant grass and many succulents to the landscaping - they are constantly improving the property by adding more. People are always commenting on the beautiful "living wall" their son built and planted last year. I'm often surprised and impressed at how much energy they spend beautifying our property, having been a renter in many places I know this isn't common; this is by far the most well maintained and improved property I've lived at. It's such a shame (also so ironic) that this is the family that has been singled out to bear the burden of proving why an ordinary sycamore on private property should be the precedent setter for landmarks in Santa Monica. This shouldn't be fought out on their dime. They are a nice local family who takes care of their property and their tenants, they have never even raised my (very reasonable) rent. They care about the environment, they have a compost bin for our building and they asked that as part of our lease we agree to not use any laundry detergents with chemicals or fragrances.     I am compelled to write to you both because I think it is unfair what the landmarks commission and Wilmont have imposed on this kind and local and environment-loving family but also because it makes absolutely no sense to me why you would landmark that sycamore on their property. I have spent most of my life living in beautiful places like Santa Barbara and traveling all over the world and I have chosen Santa Monica to live in, in part because it is so green and so beautiful. But the idea that in this city this battle is being fought -- with all the problems we face and things that need to be improved -- makes absolutely no sense to me. I cannot imagine any other community, near or far, that would have such an absurd battle before it's city council. It's a little embarrassing actually. Please do the right thing here and deny this landmark request and grant the Shahriary's appeal.     Although I live just a few blocks from it, I have never once seen this tree or heard mention of it until my landlord's son mentioned this landmark petition. I drove by once I learned of it and saw how beautiful it is, but beauty does not make a landmark out of a tree! And a tree cannot be landmarked because the request to landmark it made it 'famous' in the city!    My boyfriend and I are currently looking to buy property and if this is what Santa Monica is going to do to property owners and their rights we are going to have to re-think this. Not just because they might landmark any tree on our property but more than that, what other time consuming, money-draining, baseless conflict will our neighbors drag us into if this sort of absurd problem is allowed be pursued. This is not the kind of city I want to grow roots in!    Sincerely,     Sarah Kaehn  Item 6-A 05/14/19 181 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Andrea Fenninger <afenninger@me.com> Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 7:14 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Landmark Tree 1122 California Ave Dear City Council,      I support Landmark Status of the California Sycamore at 1122 California Avenue.  I feel the tree meets Landmark criteria  and urge you to deny the appeal to overturn landmark status.      Thank you,    Andrea Fenninger  707 Idaho Ave.  310.999.1133      Item 6-A 05/14/19 182 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Debra Narvaez <debnar77@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 11:43 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:California Sycamore @1122 California Hello to all Council members, This e‐mail is to put on record that I strongly support the landmark status of the native  California Sycamore at 1122 California ave in Santa Monica. I live nearby and know it would be an irreplaceable loss.  Please do not over turn the landmarks Commission decisions that has been thoroughly debated and discussed. I implore  each and every council member  to please PROTECT the beautiful tree! Thank you all in advance for your time and  consideration.  Debra Narvaez     Sent from my iPhone  Item 6-A 05/14/19 183 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Lisa Ellison <lisa.ellison85@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 12:35 PM To:Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Ana Maria Jara; Greg Morena; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; councilmtgitems Subject:Save the Sycamore, 1122 California Ave Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged To Whom It May Concern,     I urge the Council to uphold the Landmarks Commission decision to grant landmark status and save the  Sycamore for future generations.  The address of the tree is 1122 California Ave, Santa Monica, CA.    Thank you,  Lisa Ellison  Item 6-A 05/14/19 184 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Ren Rey <renrey2010@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 2:10 PM To:Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Ana Maria Jara; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Greg Morena; Ted Winterer; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:Those two sycamores are not landmarks! Dear Santa Monica City Council, I am sorry to hear of the tough time this group is putting the Shahriary family through -- what a terrible misuse of a well-meaning law! I am grateful for landmark laws to preserve the history of our city and grateful for cool-headed council members who can detect a desperate attempt to halt development and save a tree wrapped up in a landmark designation request packet when they get one! We all know what you must do here, and thank god the trees are saved regardless of how you decide today. Take development and tree saving out of the equation and all you are left with is a paper thin argument trying to fit a regular old tree into a rare unique historical box, it doesn't fit! Renée Reynolds Item 6-A 05/14/19 185 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Ben Hellwarth <ben.hellwarth@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 2:55 PM To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox Cc:Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Ana Maria Jara; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Greg Morena; Ted Winterer Subject:Don't landmark that tree(s)! Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Dear Mayor and Santa Monica City Council Members:  As a journalist and author familiar with both city governments and the importance of preserving history, I felt I should offer the Santa Monica City Council my perspective on the designation of the sycamore tree(s) on California Avenue as a landmark.  I am highly sympathetic to the need to preserve the historical record, having written a nonfiction book about the U.S. Navy’s nearly forgotten Sealab program of the 1960s. As it happens, several significant chapters of the game-changing Sealab story took place along the Southern California coast, as seen in the recent PBS documentary based on my book. Before I got involved in researching and writing a comprehensive history like this one, I had worked for about 15 years for newspapers in several California cities with some demographic and vibrational parallels to Santa Monica, my childhood stomping grounds, where I returned to live about six years ago, in part because my parents are still here, my dad still lamenting the demise of the Sweet 16 diner.  Throughout the years that I lived and worked as a full-time journalist in Berkeley, in Sacramento, and then in Santa Barbara, I spent countless hours observing and writing about civic proceedings just like the one in which you’re now engaged, officially known as “Appeal of Landmark Designation 17ENT-0211 for sycamore tree(s) located at 1122 California Avenue.”  I developed a great deal of respect for the work of such representative bodies as county boards of supervisors, city councils, planning commissions, school boards, and the rest. I also learned that, every now and then, despite the efforts and caring of well-meaning people, the proceedings could sometimes take a turn that sounded more like a spoof from the satirical pages of The Onion than an article from a standard newspaper like the ones I once worked for. This particular Santa Monica landmarking process has unfortunately turned into one of those questionable proceedings, but now the City Council can vote to get this story right.  The sycamore tree(s) in question, as your staff soberly and correctly points out in its report, simply does not meet the established standards of a Santa Monica landmark – and indeed to designate it as such would water down the very significance of a bona fide city landmark and set a dubious precedent that, among other unwelcome headaches, could turn the landmarking of trees into a hapless cottage industry, as indicated on p. 14 of your staff’s report. This would of course divert more time, energy, and money – both the city’s and city residents’ – from more productive initiatives like, say, planting and maintaining trees.  As for the suggestion that the tree’s landmark status is somehow rooted (sorry!) in its association with the late artist John Cornish, or possibly the presumptive tree planter Joseph Gilbert, this is truly Onion-worthy stuff. For anyone genuinely concerned with preserving the modest Cornish legacy, I would strongly suggest they put their efforts into creating an appropriate niche for him in a public library or a museum, or perhaps find a suitable biographer or documentarian.  Full disclosure: I was first introduced to the Shahriary family in the late 1980s and have gotten to know many of the family members well enough to know that this is a generous, loving, hard-working, longtime Santa Monica family with – dare I say it? – deep roots in the community. I would call them environmentalists, too, adding another unfortunate layer of Item 6-A 05/14/19 186 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 irony to this proceeding. The sycamore on their property is one lucky tree(s), and the neighbors and any passers-by can relax and continue to enjoy it. It's not going anywhere. To burden the city and the Shahriary family with the pending landmark designation is both unwise and unnecessary.  Sincerely,  Ben Hellwarth 2323 26th St. Santa Monica, CA 90405 310-310-8333 benhellwarth.com  Item 6-A 05/14/19 187 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Carole Lerner <carolerner@verizon.net> Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 3:41 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Tree Please save the historic tree on California Avenue near 11th Street! c/ Item 6-A 05/14/19 188 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:David Borookhim <dborookhim@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 4:15 PM To:councilmtgitems Cc:Ana Maria Jara; Ted Winterer; Greg Morena; Sue Himmelrich; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Terry O’Day; Gleam Davis Subject:6A I support the appeal of the sycamore trees I am born and raised in the city of Santa Monica. I attended Roosevelt for Elementary School, Lincoln Middle School and Samohi. I love Santa Monica and I believe it is the most beautiful part of Los Angeles. There must be a more effective and less invasive way to protect trees in the city. Our city initiatives are great but using landmarks in this way is not how I want to see resources being used. Furthermore this is a local family for 30 some years here in Santa Monica who purchased a home. We are have a housing demand, so what even if they do want to tear it down‐ that’s their right. They didn’t though‐ they fixed it up and moved in their family. Please see through reversing this landmark designation. I support the appeal of the sycamore trees. Regards, David Borookhim   Item 6-A 05/14/19 189 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Abby Hellwarth <ahellwarth@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, May 10, 2019 5:10 PM To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox Cc:Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Ana Maria Jara; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Greg Morena; Ted Winterer Subject:Reject landmark tree status Dear council members,    I have known Lesley Shahriary for more than twenty‐five years. There is no bigger tree‐hugger.  I even watched her daughter get married under a giant sycamore in Temescal Gateway Park.    The Wilmont neighbors are fortunate to have a local family fix up property that was an eyesore and then live in it  themselves, rather than allow it to languish or be razed by speculators. There are many things in this city which need  attention. Pondering the landmark status of the Shahriary's tree is not one of them. As you have been informed by your  staff, there are thousands of similar sycamore trees in Santa Monica, including a very big one in my back yard.    If the Shahriary tree were to be landmarked, it would unfairly create burdensome layers of  bureaucracy before any work could be done on the house or property, and do nothing for the tree.    As a 37‐year resident of Santa Monica myself, I urge you to REJECT giving this tree landmark status.    Very truly yours,    Abby Hellwarth  2323 26th St.  Santa Monica, CA 90405  310‐452‐9691      Item 6-A 05/14/19 190 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Hal Levin <halevin49@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 11, 2019 8:26 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Comments on the Appeal of Landmark Designation 17ENT-0211 for sycamore tree(s) located at 1122 California Avenue Members of the Santa Monica City Council: I am a volunteer and docent at the Theodore Payne Foundation, an organization that promotes the use and dissemination of California native plants that sustain the ecosystems by which they, and we, live and thrive. Perhaps it is only fitting that this hearing about the California native sycamore tree (on California Street, no less!) is taking place within a week of the release of a United Nations report on biodiversity. In summary, as Bill McKibben, environmental author and founder of 350.org, writes: “the report says that humans have destroyed many of the habitats on which the rest of nature depends; as a result, ‘around 1 million species already face extinction, many within decades, unless action is taken.’ The report serves as a kind of pre‐obituary for all of the creatures now on the way out. One would think that would be reason enough for us to act. The idea that a million chains of being could be snapped in our short time on Earth should, perhaps, hit us with at least the emotional force of the fire in the eaves of Norte Dame. But the researchers who produced the U.N. report are (sensibly) unwilling to stake the fight on our morality; they appeal primarily to the self‐interest of the one species in control, providing reminders that a diverse natural world makes our lives possible. From the pollinators and the organic matter in soil that helps crops grow to the mangrove swamps that shield us from storms, ‘nature’s contributions to people are vital for human existence,’ the authors write, and these resources are being depleted.” How does this relate to one tree in Santa Monica. Your staff report states that “The survey found a total of 94 Mature and Notable trees on the Public Right of Way and 59 Mature and Notable trees on private/interior property (including Reed Park) within the survey area. The survey also identified well‐ established trees native to the local region, including oaks, sycamores, walnuts and cottonwoods. The survey found 21 native sycamore trees and four other native trees noted within the survey area.” That means that less than 25% of the trees in the area are native to California. Think about that… less than 200 years ago, 100% of the trees were native. How can we be proud of that decline? Biologists have determined that approximately 90% of leaf‐eating insects (the kind that sustain birds and other animals) can only eat native plants. In essence, that means we are only supporting 22% of those insects. During the Cultural Revolution in China, sparrows charged with public health treason and widespread irritation. Residents killed about 1 billion birds. The result: without the birds, there was no check on the insects that ravaged agricultural crops and 30‐45 million starved to death. Some 800 years ago, invaders to Iceland cut down all the trees for shelter and firewood. Even sustained efforts today to reforest Iceland show that in the next 150 years, less than 5% of the forest will be reclaimed. The result: severe erosion on land that is not suitable for farming. The small steps we take can have real consequences. Item 6-A 05/14/19 191 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 By following the logical (and perhaps legal) underpinnings of the Landmark guidelines, the staff came to their conclusion to overturn the Landmark Commission’s decision. How different would our country be if Rosa Parks has followed the law and not sat at the front of the bus? Would India be the vibrant country it is if Gandi had not led his peaceful, non‐violent revolution? There are more examples to cite, but the point remains the same: sometimes, the logical and legal need to be overturned. Such is the case here. That is why I urge you to uphold the Landmark Commission's ruling to landmark the sycamore tree on California Avenue. Sincerely, Hal Levin Item 6-A 05/14/19 192 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Neema Samari-Kermani <neemasamari@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 11, 2019 10:03 AM To:Gleam Davis Cc:Terry O’Day; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; councilmtgitems; Sue Himmelrich; Greg Morena; Ana Maria Jara; Ted Winterer Subject:6.A. APPEAL THE LANDMARK AT 1122 California Ave. Mayor Davis and Councilmembers I am from Santa Monica, born and raised in the wilmont neighborhood, my family has lived in this city since 1980. My mom was a teacher at SAMOHI until she recently retired and I am very proud of being a true Santa Monica local. I am pro appeal and pro trees. Using landmarks in this manner is a bad mechanism for protecting our trees, because if we let this continue people will view the potential of their tress being landmarked as a risk to their property rights and cut down all trees on property due to that fear. Where does this end? If the starting point is a common California sycamore tree on private property, what is next? Please don't look in my yard, you will find trees! Second concern, the likelihood of pitting neighbor vs. neighbor. There have already been online groups created on facebook and nextdoor about this property where wilmont members trash talk about a family they have not met, AND never tried to meet, one that has in fact, lived in Santa Monica for three generations. These actions do not sound very civic. This decision degrades all Santa Monica landmarks and must be overturned. Regards, Neema Samari Item 6-A 05/14/19 193 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Bonnie Johnstone <bonniejohnstone789@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 11, 2019 10:34 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Wilmont trees To the point:    Please support landmark status to the century old sycamore trees.  Thank you!   Bonnie Johnstone  Item 6-A 05/14/19 194 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Ellen Hannan <elhasm@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 11, 2019 11:22 AM To:councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox Subject:May 14,2019 Agenda Item 6A Save the Tree Dear Council Members and Staff:    I support saving the neighborhood tree.  If we are to encourage people to walk in our neighborhoods we need to respect  their rights to have a neighborhood that makes it possible.  This tree and home have attracted my attention every time I walk by it.  Please do not approve the appeal.  The tree in this neighborhood is as important as the Fig Tree in a commercial  neighborhood.  Sincerely,  Ellen Hannan  1218 9th St #6  Santa Monica CA 90401  Item 6-A 05/14/19 195 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Marcia Zimmer <zimmermarcia2@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 11, 2019 1:23 PM To:Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Ana Maria Jara; Greg Morena; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; councilmtgitems Subject:SYCAMORE TREE at 1122 California Avenue Honorable Council Members:    I am writing to urge you to deny the Appeal of the Landmark Designation of the sycamore tree at 1122 California  Avenue.      This tree(s) is almost 100 years old and could last another 200 years, according to reports by the City’s arborists.  The 82  foot tree is healthy and supports several bird species which have been seen in its boughs.      The Landmarks Commission designated it a landmark, finding the tree remarkable and rare, given its age and good  health, and found it an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood.  Although this is a de novo hearing, I  would strongly encourage the council to rely on the expertise of the Landmarks Commission in upholding their  designation.    The property owners and this magnificent tree can peacefully co‐exist. Please deny the appeal.    As Joyce Kilmer said ... well, you know.  Please vote for the tree.      Sent from my iPad  Item 6-A 05/14/19 196 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Marcia Zimmer <zimmermarcia2@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 11, 2019 1:23 PM To:Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Ana Maria Jara; Greg Morena; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; councilmtgitems Subject:SYCAMORE TREE at 1122 California Avenue Honorable Council Members:    I am writing to urge you to deny the Appeal of the Landmark Designation of the sycamore tree at 1122 California  Avenue.      This tree is almost 100 years old and could last another 200 years, according to reports by one of the City’s arborists.   The 82 foot tree is healthy and supports several bird species which have been seen in its boughs.      The Landmarks Commission designated it a landmark, finding the tree remarkable and rare, given its age and good  health and found it an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood.  Although this is a de novo hearing, I  would strongly encourage the council to rely on the expertise of the Landmarks Commission in upholding their  designation.    The property owners and this magnificent tree can peacefully co‐exist.  Please deny the appeal.    As Joyce Kilmer said ... well, you know.  Please vote for the tree.      Sent from my iPad  Item 6-A 05/14/19 197 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Marcia Zimmer <zimmermarcia2@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 11, 2019 1:39 PM To:Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Sue Himmelrich; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Greg Morena; Gleam Davis; councilmtgitems; Ana Maria Jara Subject:: SYCAMORE TREE at 1122 California Avenue   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: Marcia Zimmer <zimmermarcia2@gmail.com>  Date: May 11, 2019 at 1:23:20 PM PDT  To: gleam.davis@smgov.net, terry.o'day@smgov.net, anamaria.jara@smgov.net,  greg.morena@smgov.net, kevin.mckeown@smgov.net, sue.himmelrich@smgov.net,  ted.winterer@smgov.net, councilmtgitems@smgov.net  Subject: SYCAMORE TREE at 1122 California Avenue  Honorable Council Members:    I am writing to urge you to deny the Appeal of the Landmark Designation of the sycamore tree at 1122  California Avenue.      This tree is almost 100 years old and could last another 200 years, according to reports by one of the  City’s arborists.  The 82 foot tree is healthy and supports several bird species which have been seen in its  boughs.      The Landmarks Commission designated it a landmark, finding the tree remarkable and rare, given its age  and good health and found it an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood.  Although  this is a de novo hearing, I would strongly encourage the council to rely on the expertise of the  Landmarks Commission in upholding their designation.    The property owners and this magnificent tree can peacefully co‐exist.  Please deny the appeal.    As Joyce Kilmer said ... well, you know.  Please vote for the tree.  Marcia Zimmer      Sent from my iPad  Item 6-A 05/14/19 198 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Nan Whitfield <dfenz@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, May 11, 2019 7:09 PM To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox Subject:Not a landmark...just a Sycamore tree Dear City Council—    I have lived in the city of Santa Monica since 1990. Starting with the rental of a one bedroom apartment on Pacific, then  to a townhouse on Highland to now renting a house in the Pico area. I am a dedicated parishioner at St. Monica’s  Catholic Church. My daughter was born, raised and baptized here.    This is my city. This is my home. It is adorned by beautiful trees all around.    I have been a Deputy Public Defender for 31 years with Los Angeles County and was once upon a time assigned to and  worked out of the Santa Monica courthouse.    In that capacity I have represented thousands of indigent accused against the might and weight of the government. By  this letter, I am seeking to do just that. Fight against the claiming of right by the city of an ordinary Sycamore tree that is  growing upon the land of private citizens.    The Moreton Fig that graces the entrance of the Miramar is a tree worthy of distinction. It is a tree that is distinguishable  from the trees that line my block and EVERY other street in the city of Santa Monica. Everyone in this room would be  able to pick it out of a tree line up. The same does not hold true for the Sycamore that is located at 1122 California  Avenue.    Balancing the interests of the actual people who would be grievously harmed by your actions against the needless  landmarking of a common and ordinary tree can only lead to one resolution: DON’T DO IT.    Sincerely,    Nan Whitfield      Sent from my iPhone  Item 6-A 05/14/19 199 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Joseph Gillard <josephgillard@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 8:15 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Can't you protect trees here without landmarking them? Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Completed Dear City Council,     I rented an apartment in the Wilshire‐Montana neighborhood for years. Never once noticed that tree. I also have many  friends in Santa Monica.  It has come to our attention after the front page story yesterday that you will be hearing an  appeal about whether or not a sycamore tree on California Ave should be landmarked.  I'm writing in today to weigh‐in,  and to share my opinion, one that I think is representative of most Santa Monicans. We believe strongly that this tree  should not be landmarked.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the culture of our city AND none of us have ever heard  of it or seen it.  I like trees and landmarks too, but if you are landmarking a tree, or a building for that matter, it should  legitimately and honestly be something that matters to most of us, or something that matters to our history. This tree is  not a landmark. It actually sounds like a joke that the landmarks commission landmarked this tree, I don't mean that  disrespectfully, it's just that's how strange it sounds to some of us out here. A friend of mine mentioned that he had  heard that one of the landmark commissioners even said he lives in the area and had never noticed that tree.  Can you  understand why this sounds like a joke to many of us?    Grant the appeal, don't landmark the anonymous trees and stop the madness.    Joseph Gillard    818‐679‐4260    Sent from Mail for Windows 10    Item 6-A 05/14/19 200 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Lucas Johnson-Yahraus <ljohnsonyahraus@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 8:28 AM To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Terry O’Day; Greg Morena; Councilmember Kevin McKeown Subject:Pro Appeal Item 6A To whom it may concern,    I have read about this landmark issue for the tree at 1122 California Ave.  Initially I was very supportive of the neighbors  who tried to save that tree any which way they could.  I love trees and myself didn't mind the idea that they were  manipulating a law to save a tree.  But now, after sober minds have prevailed, I see it as an arbitrary and unfair decision  which leaves open the possibility that anyone, including my landlord who I care deeply about, is next. I was born and  raised in Santa Monica and I love this city. I live in an apartment in the Ocean Park neighborhood with my daughter, we  live right next door to where I lived as a child. I love that people care this much about trees, but when this issue is really  considered you see how unfair it is to the individuals who live at 1122 California Ave. They won't be able to do anything  with their landscaping, or probably even their house without involving experts and arborists and requesting permission  from the landmarks commission. Isn't life complicated enough without the city government intervening to save a tree  which isn't in danger? That is patently unfair and we should not let this happen in Santa Monica.  If the tree were truly a  landmark, if it were THE Moreton Bay Fig at the Miramar and not just "Morty" the heritage tree, if it were the Eucalyptus  Deanei that is the tallest and most massive specimen of it's kind in the country, or if it were the cedrus deodara on 5th  street that has never once been pruned, this would be such a different situation. But this beautiful old tree is in fact one  of 400 other Western Sycamores on public property (and who knows how many hundreds are on private property?) in  Santa Monica and not a stand‐out tree in anyway. If this tree were rare and unique like the trees that have been  landmarked in Santa Monica then I might be able to get behind John Smith and his crusade to save a tree that has  already been saved.  But this time he got it wrong, 4 members of the landmark commission got it wrong and it's time for  you to get it right.    I'm asking you to follow your conscience, follow the will of the vast majority of Santa Monicans like me and grant the  Shahriary's appeal of the landmark decision.    Lucas Johnson‐Yahraus  Item 6-A 05/14/19 201 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Grace Phillips <gracesadye@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 12:08 PM To:councilmtgitems Cc:MINDY BEARDSLEY Subject:1122 California Ave. Sycamore Dear Council,   I hope you will allow the landmarking of this sycamore to proceed, as it is in keeping with the arboricultural value of the  other trees that have been landmarked.     Importantly, our city is sorely lacking in basic tree protections. We don’t meet even the somewhat lax standards of LA  City and LA County in terms of protecting native species over a certain size.     Needless to say, preservation of the urban canopy  is not and never had been a concern championed by the City’s own  Planning Department. They are entirely behind the times and lack vision and leadership on this critical urban health  metric. Their inability to include urban forestry best practices in the new zoning code — in spite of energetic outreach  and education by people like myself — speaks for itself. I find their opinions on anything related to urban canopy almost  laughably old‐fashioned.     I hope that you will:  A) allow the landmarking of this tree to proceed, as it is the only blunt instrument for tree preservation currently  available in our City and;  B) consider the letter you will be getting soon from the Urban Forest Task Force asking Council to follow the example of  numerous other (and less environmentally progressive) cities in protecting the urban canopy, regardless of ownership.  Our efforts on the UFTF to push Council to examine language for basic private tree protections have gotten the support  of several neighborhood groups and city bodies.     We look forward to working with Council to make sure that our Sustainable City future includes a healthy and resilient  urban forest. In the face of inexorable climate change and our own city’s apathy, we simply must do better.     Best,    Grace Phillips  Item 6-A 05/14/19 202 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Eran Haroni / Secret Charm <eran@secretcharm.com> Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 3:55 PM To:councilmtgitems; Ana Maria Jara; Ted Winterer; Greg Morena; Sue Himmelrich; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Terry O’Day; Gleam Davis Subject:Overturn the landmark at 1122 California ave Councilmembers, Trees are important to our community but I support the appeal of this decision. And the city staff report does NOT recommend designating this tree as such. This is a precarious methodology of protecting trees. One landmark and tree at a time? This is a disservice. I have family and a home in santa monica right off 12th and montana. Permitting this neighborhood association to file fee free applications and bully neighbors is a terrible look on this great city. I will look at all mature trees differently should this stand. Eran Haroni   Item 6-A 05/14/19 203 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Mindy Beardsley <mindy.beardsley@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 6:21 PM To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox Subject:DENY APPEAL TO OVERTURN LANDMARK STATUS FOR NATIVE SYCAMORE AT 1122 CALIFORNIA AVENUE Attachments:CC American Home 1939.pdf; CC Hastings Heintz Plaque SM Park.pdf; CC Home Value Landmark Purchase Lot Size comparisons.pdf Dear Santa Monica City Council,  Thank you for taking the time to read this email requesting you to please uphold the Landmark Status on the Native Sycamore at 1122 California Avenue.   I respectfully disagree with the staff report recommending City Council approve the appeal to remove Landmark Status. Please deny the appeal.  The staff report is bias:    The staff report is not objective and has quoted excerpts taken (out of context) from the city’s consulting arborist. In doing so this reflects staff narrative rather than the facts. This was also the situation at the 5/14/18 Landmark Commission meeting. At the urging of the public, the commissioners reviewed the consulting arborist report and came to the same conclusion – the tree is “remarkable and uncommon” and “a familiar visual”, thus meets Landmark Criteria #2 and #6.   Criteria #2 & #6: From Jan Scow – Consulting Arborist for the city:   SYCAMORE AT 1122 CALIFORNIA AVENUE – A CONTEXT In order to supply a contextual framework for the  subject trees, we conducted a survey of City‐owned and privately‐owned trees within the two‐block radius  surrounding 1122 California Avenue. There are several notable City‐owned trees located on the same block as  the subject trees, including a red‐flowering gum (Corymbia ficifolia) in front of 1107 11th Street, nine Canary  Island palms (Phoenix canariensis) on 12th Street between Wilshire Blvd and California Avenue, and four Canary  Island pines (Pinus canariensis) located on California Avenue directly across the street from the subject trees.  Unfortunately, none of these notable City-owned trees are western sycamores, or native species of any kind, and therefore cannot compare to the subject trees in significance. Within the entire survey area, we found only 16 trees of native species (sycamores and oaks, not including the subject trees). However, none of these native trees were of significance (due to small size, poor condition, etc.) besides one coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) located in the rear yard at 1305 12th Street. Even this large coast live oak, though, does not compare in size, condition, or beauty to the subject western sycamores. The western sycamores at 1122 California Avenue, which were most likely planted around the time the property was developed in 1922, are thus the largest and oldest native trees for at least two blocks in any direction and make up a significant portion of the dwindling native tree canopy in the area.   CONCLUSION Though these trees are not as old or as large as some of the giant sycamores in Santa Monica’s  natural areas, they are the largest and oldest in their local neighborhood. They are exceptional for their good health and freedom from SHB infestation, their canopy coverage and structure, and their preservation through good pruning practice over the decades. These two trees are outstanding specimens of their species, and their combined canopy is remarkable and uncommon.” (Confirms #2 and #6 of landmark criteria)  Criteria #2:   Item 6-A 05/14/19 204 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2  This tree IS an “established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City.” This Landmark Native Sycamore is 82’ tall and can be seen from blocks away. The staff report will state there are other “notable/mature” trees, however; none of these are NATIVE and the Landmark Native Sycamore is taller and more significant than the canary pines on the opposite side of the street. The Landmark Sycamore is, and will continue to be, a familiar visual feature even when the street trees reach their full maturity (Camphors are approx.. 40 ft at maturity, Landmark Sycamore is currently 82 ft.) Applies to #2 of landmark criteria.   The Landmark Commission legally designated this native Sycamore based on requirements set forth in the Landmarks Ordinance 9.56.100, stating the tree must meet 1 or more of the 4 criteria that apply to “a natural feature or an object”  Based on the information below, it is clear this tree also meets #3 of the Landmark Criteria.  #3 Historical:   The City of Santa Monica honored George T. Hastings and Grace L. Heintz with not only a plaque, but a garden in Palisades Park. As part of Santa Monica history, they were honored for their dedication and knowledge of trees…and appreciation of our living heritage (see attached). The 1122 Landmark (native) Sycamore is acknowledged in their books:    “Trees of Santa Monica” George T. Hastings 1956   “Trees of Santa Monica” Hasting & Heintz, 1976   “Trees of Santa Monica, A Supplement” Grace L. Heintz   The Preface states, “of the nearly 300 species of native trees found in the area about Santa Monica few are natives of the state.” The introduction echoes “comparatively few of [the trees in Santa Monica] are native of our own state, so that we seem to neglect these in favor of ones introduced from foreign lands.”   Other historic references:  · March 1939 “American Home” magazine featured the home built in 1886 moved to this location 1922 – Sycamore clearly seen in front yard (see attached).  · John Cornish – owner/artist/mural at State Fair representing historical Feather River and Delta Diversion Project- aqueduct to provide water to Southern California  o http://www.calstatela.edu/sites/default/files/groups/Emeriti%20Association/Emeritimes19 95-1999/emeritimesw97.pdf  o http://www.mwdh2o.com/2018%20Background%20Materials/DWR%20Bulletin%20No.%2 078.pdfhttp://calscape.org/loc-Glendale,CA/cat-Trees/ord-popular/vw-list?view_style=list    It is clear the owners have filed this appeal as they want to remove the Landmark Sycamore tree and develop the entire parcel. They are also claiming a hardship. This is NOT a hardship – they purchased the home well under market value at $1.8M and current value is $2.45M. They were completely aware prior to their purchase that the home had a landmark application on the tree (see attached). The community is not against the development of this property by the owners and this has been stated numerous times. There is a win/win in keeping the tree and developing the back portion of this substantial size lot (see attached).  The Landmark Commission legally designated Landmark Status based on the tree meeting 1 or more of the 4 criteria that apply to “a natural feature or an object”, as set forth in the Landmarks Ordinance 9.56.100.  Please show respect and support for the law and the Landmark Commissioners in their well thought out, qualified and legal decision on designating this tree as a Landmark. The magnificent Landmark Sycamore tree at 1122 California Avenue is part of our community and our history. It is almost 100 years old and can live another 300 years! I hope you see the historical value of this tree – our past and our future - and save this as a legacy for our future generations. We need to be good stewards of our environment as we move forward with economical development.  Item 6-A 05/14/19 205 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 3 A vote to overturn this Landmark Designation is a vote to kill this Landmark (Native) Sycamore.  Thank you,    Mindy Beardsley    Resident on 1100 block of California Avenue             Item 6-A 05/14/19 206 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:art is the answer <shineshuge@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, May 13, 2019 8:52 PM To:councilmtgitems; Rick Cole; Matthew Wells Subject:Item 6A Landmarking the Sycamore Please do it- we are losing too much of everything that makes us so unique- don't let this beautiful important tree be sacrificed for yet another human need to live too large.. save the tree spare the rest of it Thank you Danielle Charney Resident Since 1981               Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it. -Flannery O'Connor, writer (25 Mar 1925-1964    Item 6-A 05/14/19 207 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Esterlina Lugo Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 7:57 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Postpone the vote     From: Stephanie Reich   Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 11:20 PM  To: Vernice Hankins <Vernice.Hankins@SMGOV.NET>; Esterlina Lugo <Esterlina.Lugo@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: FW: Postpone the vote  Correspondence for Item 6.A    Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP  Design and Historic Preservation Planner  Planning & Community Development  City of Santa Monica  1685 Main Street #212  Santa Monica, CA 90401  310.458.8341    From: Steve Mizokami   Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 11:17 PM  To: Stephanie Reich <Stephanie.Reich@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: FW: Postpone the vote      Steve Mizokami | Senior Planner | Landmarks Commission Liaison Planning & Community Development | City of Santa Monica 310.458.8341 | steve.mizokami@smgov.net | smgov.net/pcd   From: Ken Robin [mailto:maestro90403@gmail.com]   Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 8:27 PM  To: Steve Mizokami <Steve.Mizokami@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: Postpone the vote  Hello, Is it true that the tree at 1122 California has been landmarked? That it is currently protected by that distinction. Is it also true, that if there were a vote to postpone the landmark appeal, it would not disrupt that status? To quote the Arborist: Cy Carlberg; When i asked the question; if we had a tree ordinance would we need to landmark the property? Item 6-A 05/14/19 208 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 "Nope, the ordinance would do it. We need that private property ordinance in Santa Monica, but the City has been unwilling to even take on the concept. Grace Phillips (Urban Forestry Commission chair, I’m sure you know her) has been paving the way for this for many years. Watch for more discussion this year." Please postpone the appeal vote, protecting both the tree and the private property owner's rights. At the same time, please consider the city staff's recommendation to put the tree ordinance on the agenda as soon as possible. Thank you Ken Robin Item 6-A 05/14/19 209 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Eugena Yasnogorodsky <eyasnogo@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:05 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Appeal 18ENT-0140 of the Landmarks Commission Approval of Landmark Designation 17ENT-0211; 1122 California Avenue; Appelant/Property Owners: Leslie and Iradj Shahriary; Applicant: Wilmont Neighborhood Coalition City Clerk Re: 1122 California Avenue 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 councilmtgitems@smgov.net   Dear Members of the City Council,   I am the owner of the property at 1128 California Ave., the house next door to the subject property, and I am opposed to the Landmark Designation of the tree at 1122 California Ave (the “Tree”) as both unnecessary and unduly onerous.   Following the last Commission meeting on this topic, which I did not attend, I was informally told the decision to Landmark the Tree may restrict/impact use of my property.  This news was a complete surprise to me, and demonstrates one of the differences between Landmarking trees vs. buildings (neighboring buildings is not likely  to be inadvertently swept up in the process without notice).  In the event the decision to afford Landmark status to the Tree is maintained, my expectation and request is that there would then be a separate process to determine whether this status would impact my property, as this has not been a topic formally reviewed to date and I have not had opportunity to formally address this topic as an actual party in interest.  Other neighboring  owners may also wish to request separate hearings and processes.   In respect of the current process, I leave to others the analysis of whether the Tree is a sufficiently rare and significant specimen.  I can only confirm the Tree is beautiful and I would not want to see it taken down.  This  was a large and lovely tree when I first purchased the neighboring property, and despite decades of complete neglect, it remains beautiful (although now significantly/dangerously overgrown and in need of being cut back). The appearance of the Tree is enhanced by the relative proportions of the small house at 1122, sitting on a small (five thousand square foot) property.  However, the same factors that make the Tree remarkable looking, also make it impractical to apply to this Tree the enhanced protections that are afforded to Landmarks.  I do not  believe any of the very few other Landmarked trees sits on a private lot of such small size, has a canopy that c o v e r s  r o u g h l y  h a l f  o f  t h e  p r o p e r t y  ( a s  w e l l  a s  s i g n i f i c a n t  p o rtions  of  neighboring  properties),  and  was Landmarked over the objections of affected property owners. The house and tree at 1122 have been through decades of neglect.  While the house was in critically poor condition as a result (and required an extraordinary salvage effort on the part of the current owners), the Tree  was not adversely impacted by years of neglect.  The Tree needs no special care or special forbearance, which is how it has survived and flourished in a such a tight space though all these years.   Even if the Tree required careful care, these needs would have to be balanced against all of the various and overlapping interests of users of property in the immediate vicinity such as:  Item 6-A 05/14/19 210 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 1. the needs of the property owner (including utilizing and landscaping their front yard (which is full of tripping hazards no reasonable owner would choose to tolerate), fencing the property, maintaining the old house located on the property (including cutting the tree back from overhanging the roof of the house and various wires – all of which can be damaged at any time by falling branches); 2. my needs as owner of the equally small property next door (including landscaping my property (for example, re‐ leveling for optimal drainage which is critical for an old house on a raised foundation), repairing and maintaining my old house, fencing my property, and repairing or replacing my sewer line (which runs from my property across the entire front of 1122 (between the sidewalk and the front fence) and has to withstand interference from the very substantial root system of the Tree);   3. the needs of neighbors on the other side of my house (the multi‐unit building on the corner of California and 12th,  which also uses a sewer line that runs the entire width of the property at 1122);   4. the needs of pedestrians (as well as anyone standing under any portion of the tree canopy) to stand and walk without danger of being hit by a falling branch from the Tree, which is so overgrown it routinely losses branches in windy conditions; and  5. the needs of all those who have to occasionally excavate in the alley that borders 1122.  In fact, it is very difficult to specifically identify all those who would be impacted by the Landmark designation because it is not clear what restrictions would go along with this designation or the area to which restrictions  would apply given the Tree will necessarily change over time (again, totally unlike a building).  Nor is it clear  what Landmarking would cost in terms of delay and added expenses for maintaining our properties, including maintenance of the Tree itself.  What actually happens next time I need to trench all the way across 1122 to the alley so as to repair/replace the sewer line that needs to work in order for my house to remain habitable?  While  I am a big admirer of the Tree, my sewer line is more important.  (Incidentally, no one has attempted to try to tally added costs of property ownership related to Landmarking the Tree, much less the diminution in value of the affected properties, as though these topics are not at all a factor.)   What is clear is that no restrictions are needed to protect or preserve the Tree and it is clear that this process in and of itself has deprived my neighbors, who have done more than their share to improve the neighborhood by investing substantial resources into rehabilitating a house that was almost unsalvageable, of the ability to enjoy their small property or the right to implement usual improvements on their small property (such as a side fence between their hazardously uneven front yard and the alley).  It makes zero sense to commit me or my neighbors to open‐ended costs and restrictions that are neither necessary nor quantifiable so as to afford protections to a tree that does not require protections.  Landmarking is not an appropriate solution to this non‐problem. Finally, Landmarking beautiful trees is precedent that can easily backfire, as property owners all over the city may react by pre‐emptively cutting any trees that may qualify (or may grow into something that may qualify) for a status that is vague, arbitrarily applied, and dramatically limits the rights of property owners, thereby reducing their property values.  The city may consider a program that rewards owners that choose to maintain large trees on their property, just as there are programs that reward owners that choose to preserve vintage houses.  This sort of program would promote the right incentives, as compared to the current proposal.   Respectfully, Eugena Yasnogorodsky Item 6-A 05/14/19 211 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Clerk Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:32 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Item 6A. APPLICANT'S Letter and Materials regarding Appeal of Landmark Designation of Landmark tree at 1122 California Avenue. Attachments:TREE1122 SHOPPED1.jpg; tree 1122 save sign.JPG; trees of santa monica cover of book 1956.PNG; tree 1122 leaf in book.PNG; tree hastings plaque.JPEG; tree and home in 1939 american home magazine.png; tree american home magazine cover.PNG; TREE SIX CRITERIA.PNG; TREE ZESTIMATE MAY 5 2019.PNG; TREE1122 SHOPPED1.jpg     From: John Cyrus Smith <johncysmith@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 3:55 AM  To: Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin  McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis  <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ana Maria Jara <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>;  Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole  <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>; Lane Dilg <Lane.Dilg@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: Item 6A. APPLICANT'S Letter and Materials regarding Appeal of Landmark Designation of Landmark tree at 1122  California Avenue.    Dear Mayor, Council Members, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, I kindly ask that the city clerk have the ATTACHED 10 ITEMS ready for me to display during my comments to Council. Thank you. TONIGHT, Tuesday, May 14th will mark the FIRST ANNIVERSARY of Santa Monica's newest Landmark Tree, the California Sycamore at 1122 - California Avenue. Exactly one year ago tonight, after extensive research and studies, exhaustive debate and analysis, and then careful and objective, deliberation, the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission voted by the book, by the criteria and by the law to designate the Sycamore as the city's 4th living Landmark Tree. It was a milestone moment made possible by the dedicated efforts of the many Wilmont residents who live near the tree and essentially saved it from being cut down by a previous owner of the property just days before the chain saws were to be deployed. They got lucky. There were already Temporary No Parking signs along the street in front of the home. But residents contacted the Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood Coalition. Thursday. On Friday, Wilmont voted to file the application. And on Monday I filed the application on behalf of Wilmont. You're going to hear a lot about the tree tonight. Please keep the following facts in mind.... --The Landmarks Commission made the correct decision based on the facts, the criteria and the laws of Santa Monica. --They did the job they are tasked to do and followed the law in doing so. --There are six criteria for landmark designation, yet only four apply to trees. Item 6-A 05/14/19 212 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 --A landmark need only meet ONE to earn landmark status. --The 1122 California Sycamore met the same two criteria as other landmark trees. --Any and all of the current owner's claims of hardship are unfounded and easily dismissed by facts.. --The owner knew BEFORE buying the property the tree might be designated a landmark. --There is an easy win-win here if only City Staff would simply meet with the owner and agree to it. --City Staff has not acted as objectively as they should have regarding this issue on more than one occasion. --There is plenty of room on the property to preserve the tree and allow the owner to develop it if he chooses. --In fact, a similar situation exists with the landmark cedar on 5th Avenue. --It is the only native landmark tree in the city and that fact adds to it's significance --You will SEE AND HEAR NEW EVIDENCE tonight that bolsters the tree's case and proves it meets ALL FOUR criteria. I'll save the rest for tonight, but I've included links to several articles and items of evidence below. I've included them knowing you appreciate having the most relevant and important info available and plan to discuss their significance tonight. Thank you, John C. Smith, Wilshire-Montana Neighborhood Coalition Board Member 310 869 7593 Links to media coverage: https://smmirror.com/2018/05/opinion-a-treemendous-victory/ https://www.smdp.com/wilmont-sycamore-trees-become-santa-monica-landmark/166202 https://www.truthdig.com/articles/band-amateur-activists-rally-around-legendary-tree/ https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2017/December- 2017/12_14_2017_Nearly_Century_Old_Sycamore_Trees_in_Santa_Monica_Win_Potential_Repriev e_from_Demolition.html https://abc7.com/realestate/santa-monica-gives-landmark-status-to-sycamores/3488108/ SAVE OUR SYCAMORE FACEBOOK PAGE https://www.facebook.com/SaveOurSycamore/ I've also attached several photos and items of evidence used to successfully determine the tree's Landmark Designation. They include: --Picture of Tree --Pic of first poster urging tree be saved --"1956 "Santa Monica Trees" --Page from above book mentioning "1122 California Sycamore" --Plaque in Palisades Park Honoring author --Cover of 1939 "American Home" Magazine featuring article about home where tree is. --Photo from above article showing young tree outside home --Slide showing criteria landmarks must meet to qualify --"Zestimate" showing how much property has appreciated since owner bought it. JohnCySmith@gmail.com Item 6-A 05/14/19 213 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:38 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: “What in Earth are you telling me now? This is just a simple Sycamore tree” item 6a     From: Rachel Georgiou [mailto:h.rachelann@gmail.com]   Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 4:45 PM  To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ana Maria Jara  <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich  <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer  <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: “What in Earth are you telling me now? This is just a simple Sycamore tree” item 6a  I'm a close neighbor to, but can't say I've ever met or appreciated, even once, my sycamore neighbors at 1122 California Ave. I have noticed many of my other sycamore neighbors in Santa Monica, but I can't tell you when I saw them either, or where they grow or how tall they are.....I can hear the applicants crying out, "What on earth are you telling me now?This is just a simple sycamore tree?" It seems that to some people who really love this Sycamore it can't be just a Sycamore tree, it must be a landmark.... Important on a civic level it's so beautiful and so special. And I think those same people, they'd rather see a tree landmarked than the house of so-and-so or the statute by so-and-so or the diner on the corner's sign from way back when this city was small and slow, much more important even than the building you will hear this conflict in, who cares why and when it was built.... trees must be more beautiful than anything ever made by a human being, "But only God can make a tree," they say. But to those of us accustomed to seeing through the self-important human lens we know that although each tree, each stately sycamore is a snowflake, we will only find a scarce few trees so unique, so tied to an important human or human event, so extra-ordinary as to make us stop our human superiority complex in its tracks and think "that tree is different, I'll remember it, I'll notice it for a while at a time, I'll name it and I'll show it to my friends when they come to visit me!" And we know, most of us humans, that this tree does not so stop us in our tracks as to give it a higher status than any number of it's 50,000 friends in its neighborhood. Please don't take offense 1122 California AveSycamores, we all love you dearly, you are as dear to us as every tree on this earth, even to those of us asking the City Council grant this appeal and let you carry on namelessly and obscurely as you have peacefully for 100 years. Rachel Georgiou Santa Monica 90403 Item 6-A 05/14/19 214 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:38 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: “What in Earth are you telling me now? This is just a simple Sycamore tree” item 6a     From: Rachel Georgiou [mailto:h.rachelann@gmail.com]   Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 4:45 PM  To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ana Maria Jara  <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich  <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer  <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: “What in Earth are you telling me now? This is just a simple Sycamore tree” item 6a  I'm a close neighbor to, but can't say I've ever met or appreciated, even once, my sycamore neighbors at 1122 California Ave. I have noticed many of my other sycamore neighbors in Santa Monica, but I can't tell you when I saw them either, or where they grow or how tall they are.....I can hear the applicants crying out, "What on earth are you telling me now?This is just a simple sycamore tree?" It seems that to some people who really love this Sycamore it can't be just a Sycamore tree, it must be a landmark.... Important on a civic level it's so beautiful and so special. And I think those same people, they'd rather see a tree landmarked than the house of so-and-so or the statute by so-and-so or the diner on the corner's sign from way back when this city was small and slow, much more important even than the building you will hear this conflict in, who cares why and when it was built.... trees must be more beautiful than anything ever made by a human being, "But only God can make a tree," they say. But to those of us accustomed to seeing through the self-important human lens we know that although each tree, each stately sycamore is a snowflake, we will only find a scarce few trees so unique, so tied to an important human or human event, so extra-ordinary as to make us stop our human superiority complex in its tracks and think "that tree is different, I'll remember it, I'll notice it for a while at a time, I'll name it and I'll show it to my friends when they come to visit me!" And we know, most of us humans, that this tree does not so stop us in our tracks as to give it a higher status than any number of it's 50,000 friends in its neighborhood. Please don't take offense 1122 California AveSycamores, we all love you dearly, you are as dear to us as every tree on this earth, even to those of us asking the City Council grant this appeal and let you carry on namelessly and obscurely as you have peacefully for 100 years. Rachel Georgiou Santa Monica 90403 Item 6-A 05/14/19 215 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:39 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Pro-appeal, anti landmark item 6A     From: Duncan Mackay [mailto:woetothedownpressers@gmail.com]   Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 9:58 PM  To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ana Maria Jara  <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich  <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer  <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: Pro‐appeal, anti landmark item 6A  Dear City Council Members: If you deny this appeal and this tree is landmarked our city has an entire second legal battle on its hands... these sycamores at 1122 California did not contain their roots to one human-divided piece of property...so the neighbors at 1128 California Ave are hosts to these so-called landmarked sycamores as well. Two trees, two parcels, two families, two landmark requests, two hearings, two appeals. John Smith has made it very clear that he cares so deeply about this tree, if he wins here we know he will immediately turn around and file a landmark designation request for the parcel next door at 1128 California Ave because he has to protect these sycamores form developers. Who knows what that family plans to do with their land tomorrow, or next year or next decade or even next century. As he has said a tree that isn't landmarked isn't protected. And so this whole thing starts all over again for 1128 California Ave and that family and our city. And once the issue comes before the landmarks commission they will certainly grant the request and designate 1128 a landmarked parcel, of course, it's no different than 1122 California Ave in their eyes. And depending on how you decide today once 1128 California Ave appeals their designation you would be obligated by precedent to decide the same way for them as you decide for 1122 California Ave today. If John Smith does not file or he does but the landmark commission does not grant his request then it is clear this whole thing was a sham. But if John Smith is actually genuine in his concern for these trees and if the landmarks commission honestly believes two native sycamores unceremoniously and anonymously growing on private property are landmark worthy and they do designate 1128 California a landmark parcel then there will be a whole new and significant legal problem on your hands. As anyone who has paid any attention to this case would know, that family at 1128 California Ave did not get any notice before their parcel was designated a de facto landmark last May. This is all a lose-lose-lose situation. AND, on a much larger scale, if this is the precedent you are going to allow in Santa Monica.... that being neighbors banding together and filing free requests to designate old trees on private properties as landmarks and the city agreeing, well you can imagine this multiple parcel landmark problem is going to come up again and again and again. Item 6-A 05/14/19 216 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 There are 1,000s of trees on private property in Santa Monica. 7 neighborhood organizations with 501(c)(3) status who can file the landmark designation request for free. SM population is 90,000. How many pieces of private property are there in Santa Monica? This problem is much bigger than 1122 and 1128 California Ave. Thanks for your consideration. Duncan Mackay Item 6-A 05/14/19 217 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:39 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: The end does not justify the means     From: Amir Faress [mailto:amirfaress@gmail.com]   Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 9:03 PM  To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ana Maria Jara  <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich  <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer  <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: The end does not justify the means  Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council, I am a great advocate of the environment, and I support neighbors who want to save trees. I am one of them. I fully support using all existing applicable laws to prevent uncaring neighbors from damaging the great landscape of the city of Santa Monica. Here the neighbors turned to an existing law, the landmark law, but it is not applicable. No tree deserves the “landmark” designation by virtue of being old. It is my understanding that the tree in question is one of hundreds, maybe thousands of its kind in Santa Monica alone. To single out one tree and burden one home owner would be a discriminatory and unfair application of the law. I also believe it sets a bad precedent. Instead of introducing much needed clear and straightforward benchmarks for similar cases in the future, granting the neighbors’ request – if anything - equivocates the existing law and trivializes environmental measures, as well as genuine city landmarks. Though I disagree with the specific decision made by the landmarks commission last May, I feel honored to live in a city whose neighbors consider it their civic duty to protect each and every tree. It speaks volumes about the residents of Santa Monica. It is my hope that this debate before the Council will serve to bring clarity to our landmark law and maybe some environmental laws and regulations as well, so that residents of Santa Monica could move forward together in our efforts to preserve the beauties of our great city, one tree at a time. I am also confident that granting the appeal in this case and denying landmark status to this tree will serve to benefit neighbor relations in this case and avoid similar misuses of the landmark law in future cases. Kind regards Amir Faress -- *** Confidentiality Note *** This message and attachments are intended only for the addressee(s) and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of the message is not the intended recipient or an authorized representative of the intended recipient, I did not intend to waive and do not waive any privileges or the confidentiality of the messages and attachments, and you are hereby notified that any dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this communication in error, please notify me immediately Item 6-A 05/14/19 218 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 by e-mail or by telephone and delete the message and attachments from your computer and network. Thank you for your professional courtesy and cooperation. Item 6-A 05/14/19 219 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:41 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: 1122 California Ave - Sycamore landmark appeal     From: Edward Deering [mailto:eddiedeering@verizon.net]   Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 6:29 PM  To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ana Maria Jara  <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich  <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer  <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: Re: 1122 California Ave ‐ Sycamore landmark appeal  Dear Mayor and City Council Members:     I am writing to express my concern regarding the recent decision to landmark the sycamore tree at 1122 California Ave  and to voice my support to granting the appeal the Shahriary Family has filed. I am a long‐time resident of Santa Monica,  as I am a third generation "Santa Monican". My grandmother and father were both born and raised here. I grew up in  the Wilshire‐Montana neighborhood and I have lived for 21 years in an apartment 1 block from the tree some are  claiming should be given landmark status.     Please take into consideration the following facts and observations as you work to solve this stalemate:      I love my green, leafy neighborhood, but have never once noticed that tree in particular. I have walked past and  ridden my bike past the tree in question almost daily and never paid any real attention to it,  any more than I  have noticed any of the other thousands of beautiful trees around us here in Santa Monica.   I have never once heard a single neighbor or anyone else even mention the tree in question.   I have never once seen anyone gather under that tree or celebrate it (frankly, there’s barely any level ground for  anyone to stand on, and the roots would discourage any kind of event).   I have never once seen anyone take pictures under that tree. It’s not an “Instagram opportunity.” There are so  many, beautiful and meaningful landmarks in the city that warrant selfies.     Until this landmark issue came up if you tried to tell people about that tree at 1122 California almost no one in Wilshire‐ Montana, or anywhere else in Santa Monica would have known what you were talking about. As I said previously, no  one I know, that's for sure.      Any one individual, especially in leadership of the local neighborhood group who convinces friends and his organization  members that this tree has a significance as a cultural reference or neighborhood meeting point has been misguided. I  live within 1100 feet of the tree in question, and the ripples of its fame don’t even carry a block and a half past the 1122  California property line.     Although I respect the work of our Landmarks Commission and the work they do to preserve our heritage, I think they  got this one wrong. I hope you’ll reverse their decision by approving the appeal on Tuesday night.     Eddie Deering  Item 6-A 05/14/19 220 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 May 12, 2019 Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main St. Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Mayor Gleam Davis, Mayor Pro Tempore Terry O'Day and Councilmembers Kevin McKeown, Sue Himmelrich, Ana Maria Jara, Ted Winterer & Greg Morena, We are writing to you on behalf of the Landmark Status 100-year-old Sycamore tree located at 1125 California Avenue in Santa Monica. The Santa Monica City Council has taken exemplary steps in protecting the tree canopy in Santa Monica. We applaud the Santa Monica City Council for setting the standard for neighboring jurisdictions, including the City of Los Angeles. We greatly appreciate the City Council taking a strong stance in incorporating environmental protection as a vital component of the City’s infrastructure. We thank you for putting a stop to the systematic destruction of trees, protecting trees located on public thoroughfares and for protecting trees located on private property, as well. This Sycamore tree, which has survived for a century, is now being threatened by a developer. The fact that that this tree has been designated with Landmark Status should clearly supersede the developer’s rationale that they are entitled to fully develop their property and, thus, destroy this tree. We encourage Santa Monica City Council Members to set an example with this ruling, such that development will only be allowed to proceed should developers incorporate and protect existing habitat in planning their projects. We encourage the Santa Monica City Council to protect heritage trees such as this century-old sycamore and to not be swayed by developers, otherwise. We ask you to re-affirm the Landmark status of this historic Sycamore tree, protect its existence for perpetuity, and make a precedent-setting decision in refusing to approve this developer’s appeal. Sincerely, West LA Group of the Sierra Club https://sierrawest.us/ Item 6-A 05/14/19 221 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:50 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Save Our Sycamore Council‐    Please see below regarding the landmark tree appeal.    Thank you,    Stephanie       From: bpserota@aol.com [mailto:bpserota@aol.com]   Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 6:40 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: Save Our Sycamore  Dear City Council members, Please keep the landmark status of the sycamore tree at 1122 California Ave in Santa Monica. I respectfully urge you NOT TO OVERTURN a Landmarks Commission decision that was debated and discussed thoroughly. I am a neighbor who has loved that tree for over 35 years and have watched it grow and shed leaves and bud every spring. There are so many birds that live there and sing the dawn awake each morning. It would be so missed if not protected from developers who want to cut it down to build yet another apartment building. That house should be landmarked as one of the last houses of that era still standing as a reminder of what life was like in the last century. We in the neighborhood have come out often in support of that tree, so please don't let us down, Birute Keblinskas Max and Anna Serota 1114 12th St. #302 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Item 6-A 05/14/19 222 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:50 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: 5-14-19 City Council Meeting - Item 6.A. - Landmark Designation Council‐    Please see below regarding the landmark tree appeal.    Thank you,    Stephanie       From: Selwyn Dubin [mailto:selwynd@webtv.net]   Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 11:31 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: 5‐14‐19 City Council Meeting ‐ Item 6.A. ‐ Landmark Designation  Took a mile walk to see this controversial tree ‐ and wow ‐ it was magnificent ‐ what a treasure in Santa  Monica's urban forest.  It definitely should be landmarked.    S & F Dubin  Santa Monica Residents  Item 6-A 05/14/19 223 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:51 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: 1122 California Ave - Native California Sycamore Tree Council‐    Please see below regarding the landmark tree appeal.    Thank you,    Stephanie       From: Ruta Habnek [mailto:ruta1@verizon.net]   Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 1:32 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: 1122 California Ave ‐ Native California Sycamore Tree  Dear Council Member: This email is to put on record my support for the Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California Ave in Santa Monica. I urge the City Council to NOT OVERTURN a Landmarks Commission decision that was debated and discussed thoroughly. I have lived nearby for 30 years and know that it would be an irreplaceable loss to our community to kill this tree. It is truly already a neighborhood landmark. I ask each and every one of the council members to support and protect it. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration on this matter. Kind Regards, Ruta Habanek Item 6-A 05/14/19 224 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:51 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: item 6a, protect trees, landmark buildings     ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Nicole Sabourian [mailto:nicolesabourian@gmail.com]   Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 1:30 PM  To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ana Maria Jara  <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich  <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer  <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: item 6a, protect trees, landmark buildings    City Council:    I saw the article in the paper about landmarking the sycamores on California Ave. Please protect our trees using a tree  law and not a landmark law.  This sounds like a total mess and a total waste of time. Meanwhile the other thousands of  trees in our city are left unprotected.  In the last year did these people who applied for the landmark try to push for a  tree protection law? If so please support it.  If not, I question their motives.    Nicole Sabourian  Santa Monica Resident  North of Montana  Item 6-A 05/14/19 225 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:51 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: pro-appeal, anti landmark of sycamore tree(s) item 6a     From: Kimberly Mills [mailto:kimmy920@gmail.com]   Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 1:09 PM  To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ana Maria Jara  <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich  <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer  <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: pro‐appeal, anti landmark of sycamore tree(s) item 6a  City Council and Mayor Davis, I'm a Santa Monica resident, I rent a place in the Ocean Park neighborhood, recently moved here from the Sunset Park neighborhood with my family. We love our city! That being said, I'm writing because, very honestly, I want to know what is going on in my city?  It's super strange our city is considering landmarking a common tree on private property.  It's strange that no one can determine if it's one tree or two.  It's strange that this issue has become “are the property owners good, tree-loving, local people” or are they “not good, not tree-loving not local but evil developers” …? I’m going to call this. It's not a landmark. (It's also not two landmarks!) Why are we even talking about this? Let’s focus on the real issues. We are not dealing with any kind of landmark here. It’s a big shade tree. And the landmark applicant just wasted a whole lot of time and resources. If I could choose any topic for Council to spend 2 hours on – or even 24 hours – I'd choose one of these:  Mandating composting  Mandating recycling  Banning all disposable plastics from business use: styrofoam, thin plastic bags, thick plastic bags, plastic drink bottles, plastic lids, plastic coffee stoppers  Creating housing for homeless people Item 6-A 05/14/19 226 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2  Upgrade the screens on storm drains to stop trash from reaching our bay I could go on and on with my wish list, but I still would not reach "Are those two trees or is that one tree? Is it a landmark or not?” Those questions are way out at the end of the universe. Protect all the trees. Manage development. But I couldn’t care less about landmarking trees on private property when they’re not landmark-worthy! Kimberly Mills Item 6-A 05/14/19 227 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:52 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Council‐    Please see below regarding the landmark tree appeal.    Thank you,    Stephanie       From: Corandin Drake [mailto:mscc_drake@yahoo.com]   Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 11:24 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject:   Hello council members, I am writing to let you know that I am against the sycamore tree on 1122 California Ave becoming a landmarked tree. This is not a special or unusual tree. It's just a big tree and it's a sham to call it landmark! If the neighbors want to call it landmark tree, then they should pay all the expenses this family has to bear and they should spend time getting all the permits necessary if the family wants to fix anything. It's not fair for this family to bear the burden of the landmark requirements and have the animosity of the neighborhood directed towards them. Please, consider reversing the landmark tree decision. Thank you. Corandin Drake Item 6-A 05/14/19 228 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:52 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Can't you protect trees here without landmarking them?     From: Ziba Shahriary [mailto:ziba.shahriary@gmail.com]   Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 11:01 AM  To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ana Maria Jara  <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich  <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer  <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: Can't you protect trees here without landmarking them?  Dear City Council, I want to share with you about what my cousin and his wife, who is one of my best friends, have been through recently. I am very close with my family and I spend a lot of time at their new house and I know what they are going through here. I have also seen on social media that people speculate they are only fighting this landmark because they want to cut that tree down. Couldn't be farther from the truth. And I think everyone needs to hear one example of why this is such a burden. Their tree, and so basically their whole house, was officially landmarked right before they moved in. At the hearing some of the commissioners said this family won't know what they can do, if it’s landmarked they can't put a swing in the tree, then another said, it's a hearty tree they can put a swing in it and basically there was no other discussion of what they could or could not do. This entire year my cousin's family has basically done nothing to their garden, or their fence, or the space where a walkway should be for safety and nothing to the house. They don't know what they can do. Well after many people tripped on the trees roots and bumped their head on the trees trunk while trying to get to their front door they decided they really had to do something. My Uncle and his wife are not so steady on their feet after 75 years and the delivery people are often rushing and the kids playing. Those roots make the ground completely uneven and they do so right below a big tree trunk so it's often a 2-for-1 trip, head bump. So to avoid any serious injury or liability they decided they had to do something. Since they feel they can't do anything they decided to put some dirt down. Dirt on the ground around a tree. They went and bought quality soil and my other cousin and his friend did all the heavy lifting and got the yard level, it's at a slope towards the alley after years of erosion, and some dirt to smooth out the ground where the roots make it uneven. Within days of doing that somehow the city was alerted to the problem and my cousin got a series of emails and had a series of phone calls and meetings. My cousin was told to remove dirt, he did. Then the city came back and wanted to do more. So the city hired an arborist and landscapers to remove the dirt then they noticed a bee hive which they killed by filling the tree with foam. After all of that, which took weeks, they were left with the same exact tripping hazard, the same dilapidated fence, the same jagged falling apart stairs and stoop and no direction. They were told that they could get an arborist and an architect to prepare plans and a report of where and how they would construct a walkway and then take it to the city to see if they would approve. That one incident that happened during a year where they were avoiding doing anything to the house or tree is enough of Item 6-A 05/14/19 229 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 a reason why no one would want their own tree landmarked. Who needs an extra headache when you live in Los Angeles, you both work full time jobs, and you have three kids? Beau and Natasha and their whole family, my family, want nothing to do with all these problems. Two big things are both true here: they do not want their tree landmarked and they are not cutting down their tree. Just as stressful or maybe worse is the fact that they have 100 sets of eyes set on their front door, all along the side of their house, their back yard and garage watching every move they make, all people watching who feel entitled to weigh in on what they do in their yard. And all those neighbors have a great view because my cousin's house is right on the street, right up against the alley and they are surrounded by multi-story huge apartment building complexes. I know there is not one of us in this city who wants a hundred neighbors entitled to an opinion on what we do in our own yard. I wish I could ask these people why they think it is okay to impose an extra level of burden and tons of extra expenses and stress on my cousin's family? Please grant my Aunt and Uncle's appeal. It's not a a real landmark and the tree is not in any danger. Ziba Shahriary Item 6-A 05/14/19 230 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:53 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: 6A I support the appeal of the sycamore trees     From: Lindsay C [mailto:lindsaycoheninla@gmail.com]   Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 8:28 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Ana Maria Jara <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer  <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich  <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day  <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: 6A I support the appeal of the sycamore trees  Dear City Council, Is there a problem in Santa Monica that I do not know about? Are we losing significant numbers of trees? I feel like not only is this not an issue at 1122 California Ave nor is it an issue city-wide. These neighbors of ours would have anyone who reads their social media posts believe that our urban canopy here is at risk, and this family who owns the home is putting our city at risk. We have so many trees here! This sycamore tree is beautiful. And still not landmark worthy. We all know a landmark when we see one, and we all know a beautiful grand tree when we see one because every single tree is special. We certainly should not be pretending this tree is a landmark when it isn't one and when this isn't even a city- wide problem. I love the Sycamore trees in Santa Monica. All 2,000+, but I would hate to think that if a gang of unemployed bullies doesn't like you or your family based on nothing but your name, that they are able to Landmark something not rare on your property to mess with you. The family said they aren't cutting it down. They like the tree! If I have the wrong last name, will they come after my trees next without any actual basis for Landmarking? This is becoming ridiculous. No one wants to cut down that tree including the current owners. They just want to be able to put topsoil over the roots so their front yard is level and SAFE for their kids/nieces/guest to walk on the lawn, but because of the landmark, they cannot. Please do not allow neighborhood bullies to use City Hall and Landmarking as a tool for them to mess with people they don't like. Thank you Regards, Lindsay Cohen - Santa Monica Resident Item 6-A 05/14/19 231 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:53 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Can't you protect trees here without landmarking them?     From: Joseph Gillard [mailto:josephgillard@hotmail.com]   Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 8:18 AM  To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ana Maria Jara  <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich  <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer  <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>;  Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: Can't you protect trees here without landmarking them?    Dear City Council,     I rented an apartment in the Wilshire‐Montana neighborhood for years. Never once noticed that tree. I also have many  friends in Santa Monica.  It has come to our attention after the front page story yesterday that you will be hearing an  appeal about whether or not a sycamore tree on California Ave should be landmarked.  I'm writing in today to weigh‐in,  and to share my opinion, one that I think is representative of most Santa Monicans. We believe strongly that this tree  should not be landmarked.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the culture of our city AND none of us have ever heard  of it or seen it.  I like trees and landmarks too, but if you are landmarking a tree, or a building for that matter, it should  legitimately and honestly be something that matters to most of us, or something that matters to our history. This tree is  not a landmark. It actually sounds like a joke that the landmarks commission landmarked this tree, I don't mean that  disrespectfully, it's just that's how strange it sounds to some of us out here. A friend of mine mentioned that he had  heard that one of the landmark commissioners even said he lives in the area and had never noticed that tree.  Can you  understand why this sounds like a joke to many of us?    Grant the appeal, don't landmark the anonymous trees and stop the madness.    Joseph Gillard    818‐679‐4260    Sent from Mail for Windows 10    Item 6-A 05/14/19 232 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:53 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Item 6A: pro-appeal, anti landmarking of old, but ordinary trees Attachments:The Eight Most Essential Trees in Los Angeles _ L.A. Weekly.pdf Council‐    Please see below regarding the landmark tree appeal.    Thank you,    Stephanie       From: Joel Farkas [mailto:jsf@licitlaw.com]   Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2019 10:44 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmtgitem@smgov.net  Subject: Item 6A: pro‐appeal, anti landmarking of old, but ordinary trees  Dear Council Members and Mayor Davis, My name is Joel Farkas. When I moved to Santa Monica for my first job as a lawyer out of law school, I rented an apartment from the Shahriarys in the Wilshire-Montana neighborhood of Santa Monica. They are good people, exquisite party hosts, and excellent landlords, and their property is gorgeous! It's an old but well-maintained small apartment complex with gigantic trees and beautiful plants and flowers and fruit trees all around the property. When I first heard about their tree problem, I was interested in learning more -- not only because I care about them but because the whole situation just sounded absurd. I had seen the trees and while they certainly are fine old sycamores, I could not fathom why they would be landmarked. As I recalled and later confirmed, there are more than a dozen similar trees in the neighborhood around them. I found this great article online The Eight Most Essential Living Trees in Los Angeles (and one dead one) and, not surprisingly, the Sycamores at 1122 California Avenue did not make the list. I believe this article can actually serve as a cheat sheet on how to tell if a certain tree is in fact a landmark tree or just a tree (not that there's anything wrong with it!). Here is a non-exhaustive list of questions to contemplate when considering whether a certain tree is deserving of landmark designation: Q: Does the tree have a name that lots of people know? Q: Does it have a name that anyone knows? Is it referred to in anyway aside from a street address nearby? Q: Does the tree have an instagram account? Is it a selfie spot? Q: Is the tree in its natural unpruned state? Item 6-A 05/14/19 233 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 Q: Did it stand for years at the entrance to oldest house of worship, school, government building, freeway, park, home, Rancho, prison, university....) in the City? Q: Do tens of thousands of people turn out each year to watch its Christmas lights being turned on? Q: Do people hike to it on a regular basis and leave messages for this tree? Q: Does it have a legend that includes a near-death experience and revival from the ashes? Q: Is the tree the second largest of its kind in the state and was it planted by one of the founders of your city? Q: Is it more than 1000 years old and does it also have a name? Q: Was it planted in 1850 and written about in the LA Times in 1888 and labeled "among the oldest landmarks of Los Angeles?" Q: Has it been moved twice because it is so special, and is it also 175 years old, over 100 feet tall and has it greeted many thousands of newcomers to Los Angeles? Q: Are marriage proposals made under the tree, wedding photo shoots, and have tourists shown it off to visitors for years? Q: Has a short documentary been made about the tree? Q: Is the tree so easily recognizable because it is so odd, was it featured in a 3 hour cult movie, and does it also have a name as a result of all that? Q: Is the tree the only one of its kind, the tallest of its kind, the oldest of its kind, the most unusual of its kind in Los Angeles, or for that matter, in Santa Monica? The answer to every one of those questions is: No. We have nothing remotely similar to a landmark here. This sycamore is a misfit amongst legends, a square peg they are trying to fit in a round hole. And we all know when we try to fit a square peg in a round hole it never fits, because it wasn't meant to. These originally well- intentioned activists tried to turn their desire to save a tree into a landmark battle. Don't be part of the problem and ignore the truth about the origin and purpose of their landmark designation request, which they have shared far and wide. Grant the Shahriarys appeal today because it is the only legally permissible thing to do and because it is the right thing to do. Joel Farkas Item 6-A 05/14/19 234 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:54 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: item 6a- pro appeal, anti landmark     From: Ninaz Saffari [mailto:ninazsf@yahoo.com]   Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2019 12:17 PM  To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ana Maria Jara  <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich  <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer  <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: item 6a‐ pro appeal, anti landmark  Hon. Mayor and Councilmembers, I’m writing to express my support for the Shahriary family’s appeal of the Landmarks Commission landmark designation of the sycamore tree at 1122 California Avenue. I could certainly use this email to serve as a “character witness” for the family and express my positive impressions of them. I’m sure you will hear a lot of “favorables” on Tuesday evening. They’re an engaged, environmentally-responsible and socially involved family. For that reason, they’re very busy people and they might not have the time or inclination to get wired into the dominant political structures of their neighborhood. For that reason, they may have been excluded – accidentally or otherwise – from the discussion of the process of landmarking their own tree. But that’s speculation. There is a fact involved in this matter that should help shape the discussion of what happened, or didn’t happen, in the past and what decision ought to be made for the future. I read the transcript of the May 14, 2018 Landmarks Commission hearing. There are 17 occurrences of the word “community” in the 60-page document. Not once did that word refer to community meetings, community workshops, community sit-across-the-table coffees, conversations or any other cordial engagement that should have been initiated by the applicant for the landmark designation. Item 6-A 05/14/19 235 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 With all due respect to the Landmarks Commission, I have to wonder why they did not ask about the vital process of community dialog around a matter of such deep personal and financial importance for the Shahriary family, and a matter with major implications for the way the 1100 block of California Avenue may evolve with the addition of a landmark. Has Santa Monica’s ethos of community process failed in this case? It would seem that way. Before you vote on the appeal on Tuesday night, please take this into consideration. I hope you will grant the appeal based on the merits, but I also ask you to consider the process, or lack thereof. Sincerely, Ninaz Saffari Item 6-A 05/14/19 236 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:54 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Pro appeal of landmark trees on California Ave.     From: Michael Hakim [mailto:michaelhakim19@gmail.com]   Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2019 10:11 AM  To: Ana Maria Jara <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis  <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown  <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer  <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>  Subject: Pro appeal of landmark trees on California Ave.  Councilmembers, Good morning. This house is not being torn down, and that was Wilmont’s main reasons for asking to have this tree landmarked. I grew up in Santa Monica and specifically in the Wilmont. This neighborhood group’s reach into other people's private properties is alarming. Should my family and friends worry about what tree this neighborhood coalition selects next? If this tree is not in danger, then this is a misuse of a landmark altogether. Why is this neighborhood group allowed to file free applications and put this family through this ordeal? The tree does not represent Santa Monica history. And this discredits all our landmarks. Especially the Fig tree! Thanks for your consideration, Michael Hakim Item 6-A 05/14/19 237 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:54 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Sycamore Tree Council‐    Please see below regarding the landmark tree appeal.    Thank you,    Stephanie    ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: caroline jacobs [mailto:caroline90403@yahoo.com]   Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2019 6:49 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: Sycamore Tree    Please Save The TREE on 11th Street!!!!  We love it!!!!  Thank You.  Caroline Jacobs  Santa Monica Old‐Timer  Item 6-A 05/14/19 238 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:54 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: 6A - Pro appeal of 1122 California ave     From: Maggie Burtoft [mailto:mburtoft@gmail.com]   Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 4:23 PM  Cc: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Ana Maria Jara <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer  <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich  <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day  <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: 6A ‐ Pro appeal of 1122 California ave  Dear Mayor Davis and SM City Council I am writing in support of the appeal at 1122 California ave. Using landmarks as an improvised solution to protect one tree at a time will not help the overall Santa Monica canopy but it certainly has already caused a neighbor vs. neighbor scenario. There are groups on Facebook and Nextdoor, where members post pictures and updates of the family and things happening at the 1122 home, and they circulate false and at times harmful information about people they do not know. Don’t stand for this, overturn this landmark designation. Best, Maggie Burtoft Item 6-A 05/14/19 239 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:55 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Shahriary Tree Hearing, Tuesday May 14th 2019 Council‐    Please see below regarding the landmark tree appeal.    Thank you,    Stephanie       From: Maxine Hockley [mailto:maxhockley@att.net]   Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 4:20 PM  To: Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; councilmtgivens@smgov.net; Council Mailbox  <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: Shahriary Tree Hearing, Tuesday May 14th 2019  Dear Mayor Davis and City Council, My name is Max Hockley I own a small apartment building in Santa Monica and I spend a lot of time there as I do most all of our maintenance, landscaping and minor repairs myself. Santa Monica is a beautiful city with literally thousands and thousands and thousands of trees. Thank god for that! That’s why I’m upset that a small group of neighborhood activists waste this much of your time and our resources trying to designate a common Sycamore on private property as a city landmark. Especially here where we have SO many Sycamores and so many other native and non-indigenous plants thriving in our city. How many Santa Monica residents knew anything at all about this tree before John Smith and some others organized around this issue? How many decision-makers realize that John Smith, with some Wilmont support, has succeeded in making a case where none existed? And really, why did Wilmont focus on THIS tree? I have to wonder. There are so many Sycamores in the neighborhood, are they next? What about the Jacarandas? The Pines? The Palm Trees? Item 6-A 05/14/19 240 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 Please do the right thing here and put this issue to rest for this family at 1122 California Ave, for my family and our small building, and for all property owners and renters in Santa Monica. As well as for yourselves. As a city, we’re facing many environmental challenges, and if the land marking of a single, ordinary tree (which is loved and cared for) is taking up the City’s time and resources, we’re in deep trouble. Sincerely, Maxine Hockley   Virus-free. www.avast.com Item 6-A 05/14/19 241 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:55 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: 6A. – Undo the landmark at 1122 California Ave     From: Brad Willis [mailto:brad.willis1@gmail.com]   Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 4:05 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Ana Maria Jara <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer  <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich  <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day  <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: 6A. – Undo the landmark at 1122 California Ave  Mayor Davis and Councilmembers, I grew up in SAMO and this is not how I thought we work with our neighbors. I strongly support the appeal of the trees at 1122 California Avenue. Why should the owners of this home incur costs and permitting red tape just to maintain their property. It is an undue burden for an unjust cause. There are trees that need protection but this is not one of them. It is not known by anyone plus there is a tree program called the Heritage but it services public property trees. Something closer to that program would better address city needs more than landmarking. And this is nothing like the Fig tree. Brad Willis, SAMO alumni 2001 -- Brad Willis Exclusive Realty DRE #02036882 310.463.6526 Item 6-A 05/14/19 242 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:55 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: The Beautiful Sycamore Tree on 1122 California St. in Santa Monica Council‐    Please see below regarding the landmark tree appeal.    Thank you,    Stephanie    ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Brenda Noyes [mailto:brendanoyes@mac.com]   Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 1:31 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Cc: Ann Cheslaw <cheslawann3@gmail.com>  Subject: The Beautiful Sycamore Tree on 1122 California St. in Santa Monica    Dear Council Members    Pease do not change your original vote that gave the beautiful Sycamore its  landmark designation.  I understand that  present developers want it removed and we hope you stay the course.  I believe this tree is one hundred years old and it  should be honored by your commitment to live a hundred more.    Thanks,    Brenda    Item 6-A 05/14/19 243 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:00 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Shahriary appeal: 1122 California Ave. Council‐    Please see below regarding the landmark tree appeal.    Thank you,    Stephanie       From: J Edward Tipre [mailto:jedwardtipre@yahoo.com]   Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 3:40 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: Shahriary appeal: 1122 California Ave.  nb: copied to individual council members To the Santa Monica City Council and Mayor Davis, I am writing in support of the Shahriary's appeal of the landmark decision for the sycamore trees on their property at 1122 California Ave. I am writing to you as a 50 year resident of Santa Monica in the Wilshire-Montana Ave, as a retired teacher in St. Monica's High School, Windward School, and as a former Wilmont member. I count myself as a friend and neighbor of the Shahriary Family. They live three buildings down from me on Euclid. My wife and I have always enjoyed a friendly and neighborly relationship with the Shahriary family. I have known them since their children were babies. A few years back they bought another friend and neighbor's small building on 14th Street which is directly across the alley from my building. This event relieved me. I had known the Bambrick family which had owned the property for decades. I had taught two of the daughters whose uncle, John Bambrick, had served as mayor of Santa Monica. The fact that a family and not some rueful development concern purchased the buidling ensured stability. I saw what had occurred with the property to the West on 14th Street when Mr. Anthonty Nitti, two of whose children were my students/athletes, sold it to the current owner who has “transformed” some of the cottages for use as a VRBO or some such enterprise. Now, routinely, we may experience total strangers coming and going in the alley between Euclid and 14th St. Students and older folks used to have homes in those five cottages. I'm told an older woman still inhabits one of them. In any event, the Shahriaries carefully remodeled and restored the building, which had been vacant for for a few years, to a beautiful home for four families with garden space! Gardens precious. I don't believe that there would have been any other buyer who would have purchased this building and put all the work and all the money necessary to restore it gloriously. In our time, most concerns who express interest in such properties see them as “tear-downs” to make room for multi-million dollar condominiums x-ing out those with merely “average” prospects, those who bear similar characteristics and qualities to the pioneers who built this city. Item 6-A 05/14/19 244 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 In sum: The Shahriary's are a local family, with deep roots in the city. They have invested in this city, they have bought property here, and they live on the property they own. Stability. Familial. Desirable. We need stability in Santa Monica. Our neighborhood, and I assume others is marked by a constant transiting of neighbors who seldom become neighborly. In the early days we kept neighbors for 10 or 15 years. Many began families in apartments and saw them as homes. These days, Santa Monica seems to have become a transit stop in a post millenial theme park, the “Santa Monica Stop.” We have lost with a few exceptions neighborhood stability. Why this extended anecdote? We are fortunate to have neighbors like the Shahriarys who have raised their children and their grandchildren here and we need people to establish traditions and to remain to ensure an enriched neighborhood culture which contributes to the larger community. I offer my microcosmic view—the macro sort of blurs “quotidien life” in the neighborhoods. All that being said, the reality is those beautiful old Sycamores are beautiful and old, but age and beauty alone cannot make them into landmarks. The motivation behind John Smith's request as I unerstand it is clear, he wanted to save the trees and to stop development. In this regard it appears he has succeeded. His application for landmark status should be denied on the merits and we should all be glad that the Shahriary's are the owners of 1122 California Ave and those Sycamores- the trees are in good hands now with their new owners. Post Script: On the corner of Euclid and Idaho a world famous athlete was raised by name of Parry O'Brien. My wife and I knew his late wife Terry O'Brien as had the Shahriaries. Parry attended SAMOHI, USC, and went on to world acclaim as a world class shot putter. He won Olympic gold in Helsinki 1952, gold in Rome 1960, an Olympic silver in Melbourne, and placed 4th in Tokyo as an “old” man. That habitation deserves credit as a landmark. Yours sincerely, John E. Tipre 817 Euclid St. Apt. E Santa Monica, CA 90403 310-850-0532  To the Santa Monica City Council and Mayor Davis, Item 6-A 05/14/19 245 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 3 I am writing in support of the Shahriary's appeal of the landmark decision for the sycamore trees on their property at 1122 California Avenue. I am writing to you as a 50-year resident of Santa Monica in the Wilshire-Montana neighborhood, as a retired teacher at Saint Monica's, as a former Wilmont member and as a friend and neighbor of the Shahriary Family. The Shahriarys live three buildings down from me on Euclid. My wife and I have always enjoyed a friendly and neighborly relationship with their family. I have known them since their children were babies, and now their grandchildren are teenagers! A few years back they bought another friend and neighbor’s small building, which is directly across from my building, and I was so glad they did. They carefully remodeled and restored that building, which had been vacant for years, to a beautiful home for 4 families with a beautiful garden. I don't believe that there would have been any other buyer out there who would have bought this building and put a lot of work and all that money into rehabbing it - anyone else would have torn it down and built million dollar condos instead. The Shahriarys are a local family, with deep roots in the city. They have invested in this city and they have bought property here and they live on the property they own .... what more could you ask for from a neighbor? What more could you ask for in a Santa Monican? All that being said, the reality is those beautiful old Sycamores are beautiful and old, but age and beauty alone cannot make them into landmarks. The motivation behind John Smith's request is clear, he wanted to save the trees and, let’s face it, stop the creation of new housing in our neighborhood. Well, in that regard he has succeeded! His application for landmark status should be denied on the merits and we should all be glad that the Shahriarys are the owners of the home at 1122 California Avenue and the sycamores trees in their front yard. The trees are in good hands now with the Shahriarys. John E. Tipre Item 6-A 05/14/19 246 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:00 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: 5/14/19 Item 6a Pro-Appeal Council‐    Please see below regarding the landmark tree appeal.    Thank you,    Stephanie    ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Lyle Hall [mailto:lylehall2@yahoo.com]   Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 3:37 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; councilmtgitem@smgov.net  Subject: 5/14/19 Item 6a Pro‐Appeal    Dear City Council,      If you want to help the citizens of Santa Monica protect trees and keep old trees around, then let’s do it the right way.  Whatever that way is. Do not let neighbors bootstrap this tree to the only law they can think of. Wanting to protect the  tree is noble and righteous, but that 'want' does not make this tree a landmark.      I am all for trees. I am all for following the law. I am also all for individual property rights except when the facts are so  strong as to justify taking away a person’s liberty for the greater good of the neighborhood. We clearly do not have that  here. That the tree is in any danger is pure speculation. The applicant has cost this family and this city a great deal of  money and should be told in very clear terms that we will not landmark trees or anything else to stop development or to  save a tree. We will landmark landmarks in this city. Real simple, real straight forward. Let's keep things clean in our city  government.     Best regards,      Lyle Hall    Item 6-A 05/14/19 247 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:00 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: 6A pro appeal - 1122 Sycamore landmark     From: Benjamin Hutchinson [mailto:blhproductions@gmail.com]   Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 3:25 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Cc: Ana Maria Jara <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena  <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown  <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: 6A pro appeal ‐ 1122 Sycamore landmark  Dear Santa Monica City Council, Trees and our Santa Monica canopy are important but we can't go around landmarking ordinary trees on private property. I grew up in Santa Monica and we all know the "Fig" tree. This sycamore is nothing like the Moreton Bay Fig and more importantly this will set a precedent. Urban Forestry department has listed more than 500 sycamores on just public property. Will they all be land marked too? I believe this decision will inflict an undue burden on this family. They are not a business like the Fairmont Miramar. Please consider their appeal. Sincerely, Benjamin Hutchinson Santa Monica Resident Item 6-A 05/14/19 248 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:00 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I Support the Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California Ave in Santa Monica. Do Not Overturn tree status Council‐    Please see below regarding the landmark tree appeal.    Thank you,    Stephanie       From: Nicole Nassar [mailto:nicole6565@icloud.com]   Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 12:42 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: I Support the Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California Ave in Santa Monica. Do Not  Overturn tree status  To Each and All City Council Members, This email is to put on record my support for the Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California Ave in Santa Monica. I urge the City Council to NOT OVERTURN a Landmarks Commission decision that was debated and discussed thoroughly. I live nearby and know that it would be an irreplaceable loss to our community to kill this tree. I implore each and every one of the council members to protect this tree. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration on this matter. Sent from my iPhone Item 6-A 05/14/19 249 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:00 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: MAY 14 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Sycamore Landmark Designation - PLEASE UPHOLD     From: Ann Cheslaw [mailto:cheslawann3@gmail.com]   Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 11:55 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day  <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ana Maria Jara <AnaMaria.Jara@SMGOV.NET>; Greg Morena <Greg.Morena@SMGOV.NET>;  Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>;  Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: MAY 14 CITY COUNCIL MEETING: Sycamore Landmark Designation ‐ PLEASE UPHOLD  Dear City Council Members: I moved to Santa Monica 20 years ago and daily, walk by the majestic Sycamore at 1122 California Avenue. Like most of us in the neighborhood, I  appreciate the quality of life we have here. Part of my gratitude comes from the sheer beauty of our community. Much comes from a deep  recognition that I live in a town where the leadership of this City is committed to protecting, preserving, and sustaining our environment. All of you,  the City’s elected officials and your respective staff members, do so by balancing the intersection between environmental and economic factors.  It’s not an uncomplicated charter.  In the autumn of 2017, when the  property was put up for sale, neighbors met near the magnificent Sycamore with a clearly stated objective:  to ensure the protection of this  Sycamore known by the kids in the ‘hood as the "To Kill A Mockingbird tree.” We agreed then, and stated this at  two Landmarks Commission hearings, that we were not an anti‐development group. None of us wanted to thwart modification to the existing  house or construction on the land: we simply wanted to safeguard the tree.  True to our mission, we provided ample evidence that this almost 100  year old native California sycamore — whose visual impact added to the value of the neighborhood — should be protected.  We were thrilled by  the Commission's decision designating this iconic Sycamore tree worthy of landmark status because it is an “outstanding, uncommon and  remarkable specimen.”  So what’s at the root of this issue now, and why have the owners appealed the decision after assuring the Commission at two separate hearings  that that their intention was to protect the tree? (You’ll note that even the owner’s youngest son who spoke at the May hearing, asked that he and  his friends be allowed to swing on the tree and have a playhouse erected in its branches.) Specifically, the current owners want the property to be unburdened by the tree’s Landmark designation so that nothing, including this Sycamore,  will impede any kind of construction on the property, now or in the future.   The real consideration our City Council should be addressing is NOT whether or not to reverse the landmarking decision. That decision should stand  based on the City’s legally established criteria and the Commissioners’ votes.   The only valid reason reason we should all be at this upcoming May 14, 2019 meeting is to hear the City Council task the Landmarks Commission to  quickly provide clear care guidelines for the protection of this landmarked Sycamore. Then, and only then, can the property owner — whoever it  may be — provide adequately for the Sycamore's needs, today and throughout its lifespan.  Surely, the City’s leadership and resources can help in  this regard. I ask that you uphold the City’s designation of Landmark status for this flourishing Sycamore which we all in the neighborhood, want to retain as a  legacy for our children.  In doing so, you will reaffirm the values that Santa Monica’s City government inspires us all to support. Respectfully,  Item 6-A 05/14/19 250 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2 Ann Cheslaw, 15th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90403 Item 6-A 05/14/19 251 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:01 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I Support the Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California Ave in Santa Monica Importance:High Council‐    Please see below regarding the landmark tree appeal.    Thank you,    Stephanie       From: Ted Myers [mailto:emiltonmyers@verizon.net]   Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2019 10:37 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: I Support the Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California Ave in Santa Monica  Importance: High    To Each and All City Council Members,     This email is to put on record my support for the Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California  Ave in Santa Monica.     I urge the City Council to NOT OVERTURN a Landmarks Commission decision that was debated and discussed thoroughly.  I live nearby and know that it would be an irreplaceable loss to our community to kill this tree. I implore each and every  one of the council members to protect this tree.     Thank you in advance for your time and consideration on this matter.     Kind Regards,  Ted Myers  1610 California Ave  Santa Monica 90403    Item 6-A 05/14/19 252 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:01 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I Support the Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California Ave in Santa Monica. Council‐    Please see below regarding the landmark tree appeal.    Thank you,    Stephanie    ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Candace [mailto:narvaezcandace@gmail.com]   Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 10:43 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: I Support the Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California Ave in Santa Monica.    To Each and All City Council Members,    This email is to put on record my support for the Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California  Ave in Santa Monica.      I urge the City Council to NOT OVERTURN a Landmarks Commission decision that was debated and discussed thoroughly.    I live near the Sycamore and know that it would be an irreplaceable loss to our community to kill this tree.     I implore each and every one of the council members to protect this tree.     Thank you in advance for your time and consideration on this matter.     Best,  Candace Narvaez     Item 6-A 05/14/19 253 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:01 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Please Deny Appeal to Overturn Sycamore Landmark Status Council‐    Please see below regarding the landmark tree appeal.    Thank you,    Stephanie       From: Kelli Mutchler [mailto:k.a.mutchler@googlemail.com]   Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 8:34 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: Please Deny Appeal to Overturn Sycamore Landmark Status  Hello Councilmembers, I'm writing to respectfully ask you to deny the upcoming appeal to overturn landmark status for the giant sycamore tree at 1122 California Ave. If you have not yet seen this tree, I suggest you visit - I walk past it every day on the way to my daughter's school, and we both recognize that this is something worth protecting. Not only does your decision to deny the appeal demonstrate an appreciation for our native flora and the sustainability they ensure in our neighborhoods (versus the iconic but nonsustainble palm trees that line most other boulevards in the city); your decision also supports the opinion of the local community, who believe that saving this tree is more important than appeasing a private landowner or realtor. Thank you for the time you have previously spent debating and discussing this issue. I trust that you will continue to make decisions to the best of your voter-represented abilities. Kind regards, Kelli Mutchler (Santa Monica mother and resident) Item 6-A 05/14/19 254 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:01 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I Support the Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California Ave in Santa Monica. Council‐    Please see below regarding the landmark tree appeal.    Thank you,    Stephanie       From: Hannah Narvaez [mailto:hannah.narvaez@gmail.com]   Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 8:48 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: I Support the Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California Ave in Santa Monica.   To Each and All City Council Members, This email is to put on record my support for the Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California Ave in Santa Monica. I urge the City Council to NOT OVERTURN a Landmarks Commission decision that was debated and discussed thoroughly. I live nearby and know that it would be an irreplaceable loss to our community to kill this tree. I implore each and every one of the council members to protect this tree. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration on this matter. Kind Regards, Hannah Narvaez Item 6-A 05/14/19 255 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 9:02 AM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I Support Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California Ave in Santa Monica Council‐    Please see below regarding the landmark tree appeal.    Thank you,    Stephanie       From: peter@steenolsen.com [mailto:peter@steenolsen.com]   Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2019 7:43 PM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: I Support Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California Ave in Santa Monica  To Each and All City Council Members, This email is to put on record my support for the Landmark Status of the Native California Sycamore at 1122 California Ave in Santa Monica. I urge the City Council to NOT OVERTURN a Landmarks Commission decision that was debated and discussed thoroughly. I live at 1044 11th Street and can see this majestic tree from my home. It would be an irreplaceable loss to our community to kill this tree. I implore each and every one of the council members to protect this tree. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration on this matter. Kind Regards, Peter SteenOlsen Item 6-A 05/14/19 256 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 (310) 451-3669 May 10, 2019 VIA E-MAIL Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: Landmark Tree Appeal Agenda Item 6.A Property Address: 1122 California Avenue Appeal No. 18ENT-0140 Landmark Application No. 17ENT-0211 Applicant: John C. Smith/Wilmont Neighborhood Coalition Appellants (our clients): Iradj and Lesley Shahriary Our File No. 22463.001 Dear Councilmembers: This letter is submitted on behalf of Iradj and Lesley Shahriary and their family. They own the property at 1122 California Avenue and are the appellants in the above- referenced landmark proceeding. The site is a residential property with a large shade tree in the front yard. The tree has no known history. The tree was probably planted by the first owners of the house that sits on the property. It is a common tree, is located mid-block, and is surrounded by a number of other large trees in the area. The tree’s roots and branches extend beyond the property lines. The Santa Monica Landmark Ordinance was adopted in 1976. Over the past 42 years, the City has designated only 5 trees as Landmarks, while there are approximately 132 designated City Landmarks, most of which are buildings. If this tree1 remains designated as a Landmark then there are hundreds of large trees (both private and public) that would similarly qualify as landmarks, and the Landmarks Ordinance will essentially become a tree preservation ordinance. The City Council should be concerned that such an expansive view of designating trees as landmarks is likely to 1 The tree appears to be two trees intertwined, which is not unique for sycamore trees. kutcher@hlkklaw.com Item 6-A 05/14/19 257 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Santa Monica City Council May 10, 2019 Page 2 open the door to a host of neighbor versus neighbor contests that the City will be forced to resolve.2 The Staff Report recommends that you uphold the appeal and reverse the Landmarks Commission’s 4-2 split vote to designate the sycamore tree at this property as a Landmark. As the Staff Report explains, the subject tree does not rise to the exceptional level by which the City has evaluated--and should evaluate--trees as potential landmarks. Designation of individual trees as landmarks should be reserved for rare or unique examples that will stand the test of time. A large front yard tree-- without more that distinguishes this large tree from many other similar trees--should not become the standard by which landmark trees are measured. Accordingly, this letter urges the City Council to adopt the Staff recommendation as your decision. This letter also provides the City Council with supplemental information and analysis that further supports Staff’s recommendation. I. BACKGROUND A. Legal Context: The Landmark’s Ordinance’s Purpose. The primary purpose of the Landmarks Ordinance is to “protect . . . the City’s cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history.” (SMMC § 9.56.020(A).) The Landmarks Ordinance is further intended to: “Foster civic pride in . . . accomplishments of the past.” (SMMC § 9.56.020(C).) The Landmarks Ordinance is not a heritage tree ordinance. The City does not have a heritage tree ordinance for privately-owned trees, although that has been discussed from time to time. (See Urban Forest Master Plan (rev. 2017), p. 99.) The City does have an Urban Forest Master Plan. https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Portals/UrbanForest/REVISED_UFMP_CH1_CH2 _rotated.pdf And the City has an Urban Forest Task Force. https://www.smgov.net/Departments/Clerk/Boards_and_Commissions/Urban_Forest_T ask_Force.aspx 2 The City Council Staff Report cautions: “If the subject tree was found to meet Criterion 6, many other comparable public and privately-owned trees on California Avenue and in the neighborhood/study area could also be found to meet the same [Landmark] Criterion.” (City Council Staff Report., pp. 14-15.) Item 6-A 05/14/19 258 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Santa Monica City Council May 10, 2019 Page 3 The City also has a Tree Code. (SMMC ch. 7.40.) The purpose of the Tree Code is to protect trees on public property within the City. (SMMC § 7.40.011.) There is also an administrative heritage tree program for public trees. https://www.smgov.net/Portals/UrbanForest/content.aspx?id=53687092939 The City also has a practice of protecting existing public and private trees in the project review process. A recent example is the ARB appeal hearing concerning 826 Second Street (17ARB-0320), where the Planning Commission took care to protect the existing trees on the property and allowed the removal (but mandated replacement) of one single tree that was damaging the building. So the City has not neglected the importance of trees to our environmental health. This appeal hearing is not about how to protect an existing tree, nor is it about the urban forest. Instead, this appeal hearing is about whether to designate a particular front yard tree as an official City Landmark, with all of the obligations (and any benefits)3 that accompany such an official designation, where the tree itself is of no historical importance. This is a quasi-judicial matter, not a popularity contest. As a first level of evaluation, the City Council must determine whether the subject tree(s) meets any of the six criteria for designation under the Landmarks Ordinance. Then, even if the subject tree does meet any of the six criteria, the City Council still must exercise its discretion to decide whether the tree should be designated: “For purposes of this [Landmarks Ordinance], the Landmarks Commission [or City Council on appeal] may approve the landmark designation of a structure, improvement, natural feature or an object if it finds that it meets one or more of the [six] criteria.” (SMMC § 9.56.100(A); emphasis added.) The operative word is “may,” not “must.” And such discretion should be guided by the purpose of the Landmarks Ordinance, which is to protect the history of the City. This tree is not in any way historic or cultural, nor is it an “accomplishment of the past,” nor does it “serv[e] as a stimulus and support to business and industry.” (See SMMC § 9.56.020.) We all like the tree, but that is not a sufficient reason to vote to designate it as a City Landmark. 3 It appears unlikely the Mills Act is available for a landmark tree. (Gov’t Code §§ 50280, et seq.) Nor would the State Historical Building Code be applicable. (Health & Safety Code §§ 18950, et seq.) It is not clear that permit fee waivers will be available. (Landmarks Ordinance § 9.56.270(B).) Item 6-A 05/14/19 259 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Santa Monica City Council May 10, 2019 Page 4 B. City Staff’s Evaluation. The Staff Report provides an analytic framework that informs Staff’s recommendation for addressing landmark applications for trees in light of previous tree designations. As the Staff Report explains, the City’s administrative practice has been to utilize a high bar in evaluating applications to designate trees as landmarks: Since tree nominations for Landmark designation are relatively uncommon, staff reviewed the assessments, staff reports, and Statements of Official Action for previously- designated trees as a means to provide an analytical framework for consideration of the subject tree and whether it meets one or more of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark. Since the inception of the Landmarks Ordinance, a total of five trees have been designated as City Landmarks: a Moreton Bay Fig Tree at 101 Wilshire Boulevard, a California Live Oak at 1443 10th Street which died and was removed, a Cedar Deodara tree at 518 5th Street, Eucalyptus Deanei tree at 522 24th Street which was removed due to poor health, and a Eucalyptus Cornuta tree at 1407 Hill Street. A review of the previous tree designations found that all are identified as truly exceptional trees and/or are tied to the early history of the City of Santa Monica, whether planted by an individual important to the history of the City, or representative of the City’s early development . . . [T]he subject tree does not appear to have any historical association, nor does it appear to be representative of the City’s early development. In addition, the [City’s consulting arborist] observed that the tree has been extensively pruned over the years, so it is not in its natural state like other Landmark trees. (City Council Staff Report, p. 9.) Consistent with the City’s past administrative practice in evaluating landmark applications for trees, City Staff recommends against designating the sycamore tree at 1122 California Avenue as a City Landmark. In making this recommendation, City Staff considered the tree at 1122 California Avenue utilizing the six criteria set forth in the Landmarks Ordinance and concluded that the tree does not sufficiently satisfy any of these criteria: Item 6-A 05/14/19 260 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Santa Monica City Council May 10, 2019 Page 5 In summary, based on evaluation of the subject tree and the Landmark designation criteria, staff maintains that the tree does not meet any of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark. (Staff Report at p. 12.) Designating improvements that are not sufficiently significant will have the undesirable effect of watering down the credibility and standing of an official landmark designation. Presumably that could also lead to questioning or elevated scrutiny of Santa Monica landmarks when historic benefits are administered, such as the State Historical Building Code (Health & Safety Code §§ 18950, et seq.) and the Mills Act (Gov’t Code §§ 50280, et seq.). C. The Landmarks Commission’s Deliberation and Vote. Contrary to Staff’s recommendation, the Landmarks Commission designated the tree as a City Landmark. The Commission found that the designation was warranted based on two of the six criteria, Criteria 2 and 6: (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. (6) It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or the City. Significantly, the Landmarks Commission hearing transcript reveals that this was a close decision. Two Commissioners voted against the designation. A third was absent. The designation was supported by a bare majority of four Commissioners. Early during discussion, one of the Commissioners who eventually cast her vote in favor of designation expressed doubt about such a designation: O’Neill: I actually don't feel that this particular tree meets criterion two or six or the other criteria in the [Landmarks] Ordinance . . . I don't agree that the number of people showing up to a meeting is indicative that something meets the criterion. That would be an argument that the loudest voice in any room we should listen to, and I just think that's a dangerous argument to make. So, I'm trying to look for an actual fact or something to hang the weight of the application on it. I have trouble finding it, personally. Item 6-A 05/14/19 261 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Santa Monica City Council May 10, 2019 Page 6 Chair O’Neill was commenting in part in response to a comment made earlier in the hearing by Commissioner Sloan: Sloan: I think [Criterion] number six stands on its own. If you just look at the number of people here, those people are here because that tree has a unique location, it has many physical characteristics such as its size, its presence, it's very presence and it is definitely an established and familiar visual feature. So that to me, is the term that was used here before, no brainer. And . . . numbers count and I think there again, I would weigh on that one. (Emphasis added.) The Appellants agree with the observations of Commissioner Green: Green: I do think it would burdensome to the owners to landmark the tree without their approval. I don’t see how they would avoid coming before us if they want to do anything to or around the tree. That means hanging a swing, putting up a bird house, or anything else that you might do with a tree on your property. I am very pro-tree; I want to make that very clear. I would like to save all of the trees in Santa Monica. But I don’t think this is the way to do it. I know that the City does not presently have an ordinance that addresses this. I think that is a problem, and I think rather than going tree by tree-- I’m sorry to hear that you don’t want to landmark more trees. I would save more trees. I would like to save all of the trees. I do not believe landmarking them or trying to fit them into a historic context is the right way to go about this. The hearing transcript also reflects that the Commissioners voting in favor of the designation disagreed about the strength of the two criteria relied upon, with Commissioner Bach feeling “fairly strongly about [Criterion] Two” and Chair O’Neill echoing that. There was even discussion about a possible vote for reconsideration, but no reconsideration motion was formally initiated. In ruling on this appeal, the City Council is charged with undertaking a de novo review. (Landmarks Ordinance § 9.56.180(B).) It is important for the City Council to be Item 6-A 05/14/19 262 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Santa Monica City Council May 10, 2019 Page 7 aware that the Landmarks Commission did not have the benefit of Ms. Snow’s Historic Resource Assessment, nor Mr. Norman’s arborist report, nor the abundant photographic evidence now contained in the administrative record of other comparable and superior sycamore trees. Furthermore, as to the Commission’s findings for designation under Criteria 2 and 6, please note that the characterization of the tree(s)’ height is grossly misstated. In this regard, the Commission’s Findings and Determination for Criteria 2 and 6 both misleadingly state: “The two trees combined have an approximately height of 82 feet.” (Emphasis added.) In fact, the maximum height of the subject tree is somewhere between 50 and 60 feet--nowhere near 82 feet. The number 82 feet appears to be the addition of the “two” trees’ heights together to get a cumulative number that has no meaning in the real world. The applicant’s arborist estimates the tree(s)’ height as 50 feet. (Carlberg Report.) The appellant’s arborist agrees, with an estimate of 50 to 60 feet. (Norman Report.) D. Jenna Snow Report. Enclosed with this letter is a historic resource assessment report prepared by historic preservation consultant Jenna Snow, who was retained to assess the tree under the City’s Landmarks Ordinance. Ms. Snow is a well-qualified expert with nearly 20 years of experience working on historic preservation matters. She believes passionately about the importance of history, cultural experiences and architecture. She is very familiar with best practices for historic preservation. She meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architectural History. Her experience with over 100 historic preservation projects includes working on over 20 properties with historic resources in Santa Monica. Ms. Snow has appeared before the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission on multiple occasions. Ms. Snow’s report evaluates the tree utilizing the Landmarks Ordinance’s six criteria. (Landmarks Ordinance § 9.56.100(A).) Like City Staff, Ms. Snow concludes that the tree does not sufficiently warrant designation under any of them. The subject tree does not appear to meet any of the six Landmark criteria. There is no historic or cultural significance association with the subject tree. Planted as a typical front yard tree during a time in which such planting was common, the subject tree is not on par with any of the three other extant Landmark trees, which have proven significant historical associations. Item 6-A 05/14/19 263 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Santa Monica City Council May 10, 2019 Page 8 Designating the subject tree does not appear to be the appropriate way to recognize local trees located on private property . . . Regarding trees located on private property, such as the subject tree, designation of one tree appears a short-sighted solution to protecting the urban forest and the many environmental benefits that trees afford, as pointed out by the many supporters of this designation. This tree, and many beautiful trees throughout Santa Monica, should be considered holistically in the context of a tree ordinance, not individually in the context of the Landmarks Ordinance. (Snow Report, p. 12.) In support of this conclusion, Ms. Snow specifically finds that the tree does not meet either of the two criteria relied upon by the four votes for designation by the Landmarks Commission. Criterion 2: It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. Ms. Snow’s report explains why the tree at 1122 California Avenue does not satisfy this criterion. In particular, Ms. Snow notes:  The tree survey that purportedly supports this designation studied an area (4th Street to 14th Street and Wilshire to Montana) that “appears quite limited and arbitrary.” Ms. Snow further notes: “[W]hile it may be true that the subject tree is the largest and oldest in this limited area of Santa Monica, it appears to be similar in size, age, and associated canopy coverage to many other California Sycamore trees throughout Santa Monica, and specifically in the neighborhoods north of Wilshire Boulevard.” (Snow Report at p.11.)  Ms. Snow further states: “[A]s noted by the California Native Plant Society, it is common for the trunk to split into two or more. Indeed, the California Sycamore tree at 470 20th Street also has split into multiple trunks. Therefore, the trunk configuration of the subject tree is not uncommon.” (Id.) Item 6-A 05/14/19 264 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Santa Monica City Council May 10, 2019 Page 9 Criterion 6: It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City. While it is possible that a tree could have a particularly “unique location” that draws special attention (thus satisfying Criterion 6), Ms. Snow explains why the tree in question does not satisfy this criterion. Ms. Snow’s report explains: [T]he subject tree has not been shown to have any similar [historical] associations and never served as a geographical marker of any kind. Rather, its location is unremarkable because it was planted as a front yard shade tree considered typical at the time of planting, during a period in which the city experienced rapid development of neighborhoods with single-family homes and corresponding tree planting. Criterion 6 has consistently been interpreted to include only visually dominant locations within the city. The example of a landmark that meets this criterion that is typically cited is the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. The STOA for denial of Landmark Designation of the Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard (LC-07-LM-009 and LC-07/LM-009) states, “Application of this criterion [criterion 6] does not indicate that the subject … [ficus] trees [on 2nd and 4th Streets] are an established familiar visual feature in that application of this criterion has been consistently applied to important visual monuments in the City such as Santa Monica’s Civic Auditorium due to its grand scale and unique design and presence that commands attention as one travels south along Main Street.” Furthermore, the staff report for an appeal of a landmark designation application for the property located at 125 Pacific notes, “Simply by virtue of having occupied this property since 1924, the property cannot be found to meet the high threshold for landmark designation intended by this criterion.” … The subject tree does not rise to the level of visual prominence as the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. Representing a typical historical pattern of front yard tree planting, it is located mid-block on a street with many other Item 6-A 05/14/19 265 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Santa Monica City Council May 10, 2019 Page 10 tall trees. In addition, as noted above, simply occupying the same location for a period of time does not meet the threshold required for this criterion. (Snow Report at p. 12.) E. Arborist Kerry Norman’s More Extensive Tree Survey. The City’s arborist performed a limited neighborhood tree survey. We have obtained a much more thorough tree survey from Kerry Norman, an ISA Board-Certified Master Arborist (1997)4 and Registered Consulting Arborist with the American Society of Consulting Arborists (“ASCA”). He is a published author, including articles in Tree Care Industry and Western Arborist publications. Attached to this letter is Mr. Norman’s report evaluating the tree(s) at 1122 California and putting that tree in context. His extensive exhibits documenting comparable and more exceptional sycamore trees may be accessed here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ibzl9grzr946azh/Norman%20Report%20Exhibits.pdf?dl=0. This tree report provides further support for the conclusions reached by City Staff and Ms. Snow. Based on his extensive knowledge and background, Mr. Norman has concluded that the tree at 1122 California is not especially remarkable: As an arborist, I appreciate trees and endeavor to encourage the planting, tending and preservation of trees. I appreciate unique and noteworthy tree specimens. The Western Sycamore Tree at 1122 California is [a] good example of the Western Sycamore tree species. But it is by no means extraordinary and does not have any special or noteworthy characteristics. (Norman Report, p. 3.) * * * 4 The ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® credential is the highest level of certification offered by the International Society of Arboriculture (“ISA”). This credential recognizes ISA Certified Arborists “who have reached the pinnacle of their profession.” In addition to passing an extensive scenario-based exam, candidates must abide by a Code of Ethics, which ensures quality of work. Fewer than two percent of all ISA Certified Arborists currently hold this certification. https://www.isa- arbor.com/Credentials/Types-of-Credentials/ISA-Board-Certified-Master-Arborist Item 6-A 05/14/19 266 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Santa Monica City Council May 10, 2019 Page 11 The Western Sycamore tree at 1122 California is a good example of this common and prolific species of tree. However, it is not an extraordinary example. There are similar Western Sycamore trees throughout the region, including in the City of Santa Monica. And there are other examples of Western Sycamore trees in the region that are more noteworthy than the tree at 1122 California. (Id. at p. 5.) II. THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD UPHOLD THE APPEAL AND REVERSE THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION’S NARROW VOTE TO DESIGNATE THE SYCAMORE TREE AT 1122 CALIFORNIA AVENUE AS A CITY LANDMARK A. The Staff Report Professionally and Dispassionately Evaluates the Sycamore Tree at 1122 California Avenue Under the City’s Landmarks Ordinance and Past Administrative Practice and Rightly Concludes that the Sycamore Tree Does Not Sufficiently Meet the Governing Criteria for Landmark Designation. The Staff Report concludes that, when measured against the City’s administrative practice with respect to whether a tree merits landmarks designation and the Landmarks Ordinance’s six criteria for such designation, the sycamore tree at 1122 California is not worthy of such designation. Staff’s recommendation to grant the appeal and deny the challenged application is based upon the following:  “There have been very few trees in the city designated as City Landmarks.” (Landmarks Commission Staff Report (Dec. 11, 2017) at p. 4.)  “In considering the past practice of the Landmarks Commission as indicated by the five previous designations, the designation of the sycamore tree at 1122 California Avenue is not supported.” (City Council Staff Report at p. 13.)  “[W]estern sycamore trees can be found throughout the City.” (Id. at 6.)  The subject tree “is not a particularly exceptional specimen.” (Landmarks Commission Staff Report (Dec. 11, 2017) at p. 4.)  “[T]here are western sycamore trees throughout the City of Santa Monica, many as notable as the subject tree.” (Id. at p. 5.) Item 6-A 05/14/19 267 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Santa Monica City Council May 10, 2019 Page 12  “[T]he tree is not as old or large as some of the giant sycamores in Santa Monica’s natural areas.” (City Council Staff Report, p. 9.)  “Many trees on the block and in the neighborhood are mature and notable, and this tree does not appear to be more notable than other trees on the block or in the neighborhood.” (Id. at 16.)  “[T]he subject tree is not exceptional, is not associated with or representative of the City’s early development, is not rare, and is not remarkable within its neighborhood context.” (Id. at 12.)  “[T]he subject tree does not appear to be more visually prominent than many nearby trees and does not meet the threshold to be a prominent visual feature.” (Id. at 13.)  “The tree is located in the middle of the block, on a typical street and its location is not unique or exceptional.” (Id. at 17.)  “The tree does not appear to be identified with any other historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history.” (Id. at 16.) Historic resource consultant Jenna Snow concurs with City Staff in that the tree does not merit landmarks designation, concluding: The subject tree does not appear to meet any of the six Landmark criteria. There is no historic or cultural significance association with the subject tree. Planted as a typical front yard tree during a time in which such planting was common, the subject tree is not on par with any of the the other extant Landmark trees, which have proven significant historical associations. (Snow Report, p. 12.) Master Arborist Kerry Norman also agrees: In my opinion, the tree at 1122 California is no more noteworthy, and has no unique characteristics or defining features different, than hundreds of other Western Sycamore trees in the Southern California region. The tree does not have a unique physical characteristic that makes it stand out from other Western Sycamore trees of a similar age and size. (Norman Report, p. 1.) Item 6-A 05/14/19 268 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Santa Monica City Council May 10, 2019 Page 13 B. In Considering this Appeal, the City Council Should Carefully Consider the Implications of its Decision. The City Council should carefully consider the implications (i.e., unintended consequences) of your decision when deciding this appeal. The City Council currently has about 132 officially-designated landmarks in the City https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Programs/Historic- Preservation/Designated-Landmarks-Chronological.pdf, with only five of these landmarks consisting of trees.5 To date, the “bar” for landmarking trees has been high-- to be designated a landmark, a tree must be “truly exceptional” and/or “tied to the early history in the City of Santa Monica, whether planted by an individual important to the history of the City, or representative of the City’s early development.” (City Council Staff Report, p. 9.) The tree at 1122 California Avenue does not meet this standard. To landmark the sycamore tree at 1122 California Avenue, the City Council would be dramatically lowering the bar for landmarks designations of trees--opening the door to an “order of magnitude” expansion in the number of landmark trees (assuming the City administers its Landmarks Ordinance consistently in the future with respect to trees). Landmarking every tree in Santa Monica of comparable significance to the tree at 1122 California Avenue would essentially transform the Landmarks Ordinance into a tree preservation ordinance, with many more trees protected than buildings. This would not be consistent with the Landmarks Ordinance’s purpose and intent. The Historic Preservation Element references the importance of preserving historic buildings: “The preservation of historic buildings enhances the quality of life in Santa Monica.” (Preservation Element, p. 3; emphasis added.) The Historic Preservation Element contains an entire chapter on “historic development.” The first sentence of the Goals and Objectives chapter of the Historic Preservation Element reads: “To preserve the historic built environment of Santa Monica for future generations requires putting commitments into action.” (Id. at p. 29.) That is not to say that trees cannot rise to the level of a City Landmark, the Miramar Moreton Bay Fig tree being the shining example. But most trees, even if they are large, should not be designated without some additional significance associated with their planting, location, origination, rarity, etc. When the City prepares its Historic Resources Inventory, it does not assess trees. https://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Historic-Resources-Inventory/ Would that need to change if large trees are going to be considered? Mr. Norman has 5 One of the designated landmark trees died a number of years ago, and another was ordered cut down due to the danger of falling limbs. Item 6-A 05/14/19 269 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Santa Monica City Council May 10, 2019 Page 14 identified over 25 Western Sycamore trees in the City of Santa Monica that are comparable to (and in some cases more noteworthy than) the tree at 1122 California Avenue. (Norman Report, p. 4.) Will neighbors be incentivized to nominate trees on others’ properties? How many similarly large trees exist on public property? Based on the City’s Tree Inventory, there appear to be close to 400 Western Sycamore trees on public property in Santa Monica alone. https://data.smgov.net/Public-Assets/Trees- Inventory/w8ue-6cnd Our arborist predicts that within the next 5 to 10 years many of those Sycamores on City property will grow to the 50 to 60 foot range. (Norman Report, p. 3.) As the Staff Report notes, “If the Council chooses to uphold the decision of the Landmarks Commission and designate the tree as a City Landmark, it is recommended the Council designate associated Landmark Parcel and maintenance requirements to protect the Landmark tree.” (City Council Staff Report, p.17.) Because the tree’s branches and root system extend well beyond the parcel lines, how would a Landmark Parcel be identified? (See Landmarks Ordinance § 9.56.030(K).) How will public utility companies be notified and regulated when tree limbs are at risk of interfering or endangering overhead lines? What protections will be in place as to public sidewalk and alleyway improvements undertaken by Public Works? In short, the City Council should proceed with great care and caution before designating trees as landmarks. The tree at 1122 California is not exceptional; indeed, it falls far short of the bar previously set by the City in considering landmark designations of trees. Accordingly, the City Council should follow Staff’s recommendation to grant the appeal and deny the landmark designation application. C. The City Should Continue to Explore Other Ways to Address Trees on Private Property as an Alternative to Landmarking, Which Should Continue to Be Reserved for Exceptional Trees Only. An alternative exists to landmarking dozens if not hundreds of trees. The City has, it seems, been considering a heritage tree ordinance addressing private trees for many years. Such an ordinance, tailored for trees, is an option that would be more appropriate for regulating large trees or certain tree species on private property. Ms. Snow addresses such an alternative in her report, noting: Designating the subject tree does not appear to be the appropriate way to recognize local trees located on private property. The City of Santa Monica has taken important steps to recognize the environmental benefits and intrinsic beauty of trees through their Urban Forest Master Plan. Item 6-A 05/14/19 270 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Santa Monica City Council May 10, 2019 Page 15 However, the Master Plan only includes trees in public parks and public rights-of-way, not on private property. Regarding trees located on private property, such as the subject tree, designation of one tree appears a short-sighted solution to protecting the urban forest and the many environmental benefits that trees afford, as pointed out by the many supporters of this designation. This tree, and many beautiful trees throughout Santa Monica, should be considered holistically in the context of a tree ordinance, not individually in the context of the Landmarks Ordinance. (Snow Report, p. 12.) III. CONCLUSION The sycamore tree at 1122 California Avenue does not meet the Landmarks Ordinance’s criteria as the City has administered them with respect to tree applications. The City Council should follow the City’s past administrative practice as to landmark tree applications and deny this application. See Van Wagner Communications v. City of Los Angeles, 84 Cal. App. 4th 499, 509 (2000). The City should reserve landmarking for truly exceptional trees only, and the tree at 1122 California Avenue does not meet this standard. Sincerely, Kenneth L. Kutcher Enclosures cc: Rick Cole (w/ encls.) David Martin (w/ encls.) Lane Dilg (w/ encls.) Heidi von Tongeln (w/ encls.) Stephanie Reich (w/ encls.) Steve Mizokami (w/ encls.) Denise Anderson-Warren (w/ encls.) Iradj and Lesley Shahriary (w/ encls.) Jenna Snow (w/ encls.) Kerry Norman (w/ encls.) F:\WPDATA\22463\Cor\CC.1001a.KLK.docx Item 6-A 05/14/19 271 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 May 6, 2019 Mr. Kevin Kozal, Attorney at Law Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP 1250 6th Street, Suite 200 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Regarding: Sycamore Tree 1122 California Ave. Santa Monica, CA Dear Mr. Kozal, At your request, I visited 1122 California Avenue, Santa Monica on January 16, 2019. I was asked to evaluate the overall condition of the existing Western Sycamore tree growing in front of the residence. I was also asked to provide information about the Western (aka California) Sycamore tree species in general and about the existence of other Western Sycamore trees in the Southern California area. In my opinion, the tree at 1122 California is no more noteworthy, and has no unique characteristics or defining features different, than hundreds of other Western Sycamore trees in the Southern California region. The tree does not have a unique physical characteristic that makes it stand out from other Western Sycamore trees of a similar age and size. A. Subject Tree At 1122 California The subject tree at 1122 California is identified as a California or Western Sycamore (Platanus racemosa). By all visual appearances the subject tree is actually two trees growing next to one another. The smaller easterly stem has a diameter of 29 inches measured at 4.5 feet above the ground, and the westerly stem has a diameter of 40 inches measured at 4.5 feet above the ground. The tree/s are approximately 50 to 60 feet in height1 with an average canopy spread of 75 feet. Because the tree has been trimmed this is not its natural canopy. My visual inspection was performed from ground level and did not involve any extensive or invasive diagnostics. The tree was in a dormant state during my inspection, with little foliage in the crown. 1 The arborist report dated December 11, 2017, prepared by Jan C. Scow for the City regarding the tree/s at 1122 California states at page 2: “The two trees combined have an approximate height of 82 feet…” It appears Mr. Scow added the height of the two trees together. My height estimate is for the taller of the two trees and therefore our reports are consistent. Item 6-A 05/14/19 272 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Western Sycamore Tree 1122 California Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90403 2 Generally, the tree appears to be in good health with no significant insect pest or disease problems beyond common non-threatening sycamore pests. I did not observe any signs of Polyphagous shot hole borer, a pest that has become a serious problem for sycamore trees over the past few years. Besides the larger trunk growing around the smaller trunk and one root wrapping around the base, the tree appears structurally normal for the species. I did not observe any major structural defects in the tree. It is not uncommon for Western Sycamores to have multiple trunks. I did notice a cavity in the trunk of the smaller east trunk had recently been filled with insulation foam. The cavity is located approximately 9 feet above the ground on the west side of the trunk. Bees were observed stuck to the outside of the foam filling, suggesting that the foam was applied to eradicate a beehive in the trunk of the tree. Sounding the area around the filled cavity using a plastic mallet gave an indication of considerable internal decay/cavity running vertically inside the trunk. This cavity may not pose a significant risk at this time but could become problematic in the future; future monitoring and advanced inspection should be considered to sufficiently assess risk. Depending upon the strength of the wood around the cavity and the size of the cavity, this could pose a structural failure risk. In the event of a strong wind, this trunk could fail and fall. Based upon my review of the City of Santa Monica Staff Report to the Landmarks Commission dated May 14, 2018, I understand City Staff believes the tree was possibly planted sometime around 1922 and is not a naturally occurring tree. I concur with this assessment. The tree at 1122 California is located in a dense urban environment. It is located on a lot with an existing structure and is surrounded by a side alley, the public street and sidewalk, and a driveway on an adjacent lot. Thus, the tree is surrounded on all four sides by structures and concrete. It is not located in a native or unimproved natural area. The roots of this tree are expected to continue growing well beyond the soil area of the property, and there is a high probability that they will eventually displace and damage nearby infrastructure. Although the tree appears to have been trained to bypass nearby power lines, a branch failure could threaten the utility lines. Future trimming by the power company is to be expected. B. Western Sycamore Tree Species (Platanus racemosa) The Western Sycamore tree species is a deciduous species native to California and Baja California where it naturally grows in riparian areas, canyons, floodplains, and along streams. It is a common species along the entire coastal region of California from San Diego to San Francisco and inland north of Sacramento. These trees are generally located below 4,000 feet in elevation. These trees are often found adjacent to habitats such as chaparral, valley grassland, mixed woodlands or evergreen forests. Item 6-A 05/14/19 273 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Western Sycamore Tree 1122 California Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90403 3 The species can grow to over 100 feet in height but is more commonly seen in the range of 60 to 80 feet in height at maturity. The Western Sycamore tree species is a hardy species and can grow about 3 feet a year with ample water. With ample water Western Sycamores are considered to have a fast growth rate. It is not unusual for trees in the 30 and 40 feet height range to grow to nearly 80 feet in height in a span of 15 additional years with enough watering. These trees can live up to 150 years but in the urban environment most live about 60 to 80 years. In moist areas where ground water is ample, roots will tend to grow deeper. In drier sites, sycamore trees can produce surface roots that can be damaging to nearby infrastructure. The Western Sycamore tree species is widely used as a landscape tree but is often planted in restricted growing space, which the species can easily outgrow causing problems to nearby infrastructure. This is because Western Sycamore trees grow large relatively quickly and need ample space. Western Sycamore trees are abundant in Santa Monica and throughout Southern California. They are prolific in the Los Angeles region because they are native, relatively tough, and grow fast. It is considered one of the most common native species in the State. Based upon the City of Santa Monica’s Tree Inventory there appear to be close to 400 Western Sycamore trees on public property in Santa Monica alone. Although these are mostly in the 40 foot and below height range, within 5 to 10 years with sufficient water they will likely grow to 50 to 60 feet or more in height (comparable to the subject tree at 1122 California). Several large stands can be observed in Santa Monica Canyon, and along other canyon roads such as Beverly Glen, Benedict Canyon, Laurel Canyon, Coldwater Canyon, Temescal Canyon and throughout Pacific Palisades. I am also aware of numerous large Western Sycamore trees in Orange County. C. Extraordinary and Notable Western Sycamore Trees 1. The Tree at 1122 California Is Not Extraordinary As an arborist, I appreciate trees and endeavor to encourage the planting, tending and preservation of trees. I appreciate unique and noteworthy tree specimens. The Western Sycamore Tree at 1122 California is good example of the Western Sycamore tree species. But it is by no means extraordinary and does not have any special or noteworthy characteristics. Attached as Exhibit A are several photographs of California Avenue in the 1100 block taken from different locations and angles. From many views the tree at 1122 California is not noticeable or visible. Along California Avenue, approximately 3 blocks east and west on either side of the site, there are more than 100 trees. The Western Sycamore tree at 1122 California is not the tallest or largest tree on the 1100 block of California Avenue. The four Canary Island Item 6-A 05/14/19 274 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Western Sycamore Tree 1122 California Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90403 4 pine trees across the street along California Avenue are taller and larger and more prominent. In my opinion, the tree at 1122 California does not standout and is not memorable in relation to other trees in the area. I would not consider it a familiar visual feature in the neighborhood. In my opinion it does not qualify as a landmark tree. In my opinion, the tree at 1122 California is no more noteworthy, and has no unique characteristics or defining features different, than hundreds of other Western Sycamore trees in the Southern California region. The tree does not have a unique physical characteristic that makes it stand out from other Western Sycamore trees of a similar age and size. 2. Notable Western Sycamore Trees in the Vicinity There are numerous examples of other Western Sycamore trees in the City of Santa Monica, including within the vicinity of 1122 California, that are generally comparable in size (both in trunk diameter and height). Attached as Exhibit B are photographs of over 25 Western Sycamore trees in the City of Santa Monica that are comparable to (and in some cases more noteworthy than) the tree at 1122 California. Further, there are other examples of Western Sycamore trees that are equal to or superior to the tree at 1122 California outside Santa Monica. These include the following:  Exhibit C shows multiple trees in the Santa Monica Canyon areas.  Exhibit D shows multiple trees in the Los Angeles region.  Exhibit E shows multiple trees Orange County. In taking the pictures for Exhibits B-E, I focused my attention on trees in the City of Santa Monica (Exhibit B) because the tree at 1122 California is in the City of Santa Monica. The pictures of trees in Exhibits C-E are just a sampling of a few of the Western Sycamore trees in these areas. I was not able to visually inspect all of Los Angeles and Orange Counties. That would have taken months of full-time work. But I believe that there are probably hundreds of Western Sycamore trees in these Counties that are comparable or superior to the tree at 1122 California. D. Truly Extraordinary Sycamore Trees There are two extraordinary Western Sycamore trees noted with the California Big Tree Registry that are vastly superior to the tree at 1122 California: The first tree is located in Old Town Goleta, Santa Barbara County, a picture of which is attached as Exhibit F. This is a National Champion. It is the largest known Western Sycamore tree in the country. It has the following dimensions: 94 feet tall, 96-foot canopy 626 inches in girth 744 Points Item 6-A 05/14/19 275 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Western Sycamore Tree 1122 California Avenue Santa Monica, CA 90403 5 The second tree is located in Oakdale, California, a picture of which is attached as Exhibit G. It has the following dimensions: 106 feet tall, 136-foot canopy 355 inches in girth 495 Points E. Conclusion The Western Sycamore tree species is very common and prolific throughout the coastal range in California and in particular in Southern California. It is a favored tree in landscaping because it is native, hearty and grows quickly. It is a common native tree in Southern California. The Western Sycamore tree at 1122 California is a good example of this common and prolific species of tree. However, it is not an extraordinary example. There are similar Western Sycamore trees throughout the region, including in the City of Santa Monica. And there are other examples of Western Sycamore trees in the region that are more noteworthy than the tree at 1122 California. If the City of Santa Monica determines that the Western Sycamore tree at 1122 California merits landmark designation solely as a good example of this tree species, then I estimate that there are at least 10 to 15 other Western Sycamore trees in the City that would similarly merit landmark designation. There are dozens of tree species in the City and if the City were to landmark good examples of each tree species there could be many hundreds of landmark trees in the City. It should be noted that the study of trees is not an exact science and arboriculture does not detect or predict with any certainty. The arborist therefore is not responsible for tree defects or soil conditions that cannot be identified by a prudent and reasonable inspection. If you have any questions or require other services, please contact me at the number listed below. Respectfully, Arbor Essence Kerry Norman ASCA, Registered Consulting Arborist #471 ISA Board-Certified Master Arborist #WE-3643B ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualification Item 6-A 05/14/19 276 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 121 W Lexington Dr., Suite 600-A Glendale, CA 91203. Phone 310-592-1104 Mr. Kerry Norman 121 W. Lexington Dr., Suite 600-A Glendale, CA 91203 310.592.1104 Mobile kerry@arboressence.net www.arboressence.net For over 25 years Kerry Norman has worked the field of ornamental horticulture. Having been employed by Valley Crest Tree Company for over 12 years with the last 6 as staff Arborist his experience and knowledge in working with trees is extensive. His position as head arborist and manager of the plant health care department was a six-year crash course in arboriculture, specializing in the relocation of specimen trees and palms. During his term at Valley Crest he defined and built their Plant Health Care department, trained and supervised personnel, budgeted jobs, prepared arborist reports, represented the company as a seminar speaker, and performed hundreds of tree and palm evaluations. Kerry is an ISA Board-Certified Master Arborist (1997), Registered Consulting Arborist with “American Society of Consulting Arborists” (ASCA), and holds an ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualification. He is a published writer with articles in “Tree Care Industry” and “Western Arborist” magazine, and continues to stay up to date and further his education by working closely with other arborist and attending educational conferences. It is with great pleasure that Kerry has served as Arborist on such projects as the Getty Museum, Disneyland, Bruckheimer residence, Bacara Resort-Santa Barbara, The Grove- Los Angeles, Coto De Caza, Talega, Shady Canyon, Irvine, UCLA, USC, Bel Air Presbyterian Church, Ladera Ranch and Pepperdine University to name a few. Services offered include tree surveys, tree and site evaluation, pest and disease diagnosis in trees and palms, tree preservation during construction, pruning recommendations, inspection of nursery stock, Arborist reports, plant appraisal, tree selection, planting and maintenance recommendations, expert witness testimony, tree monitoring and tree risk assessment. As stated, Kerry has a strong background working with the relocation of mature specimen trees and Coast Live Oaks (Quercus agrifolia). Arbor Essence strives to provide direct simple solutions to all your horticulture concerns. Respectfully, Arbor Essence ASCA, RCA #471 ISA, BCMA WE3643-B ISA, Tree Risk Assessor Qualification Item 6-A 05/14/19 277 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Memorandum DATE: TO: FROM: RE: May 6, 2019 Kenneth L. Kutcher Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP Jenna Snow Sycamore Tree 1122 California Avenue, Santa Monica, CA The California Sycamore tree (“subject tree”)1 located at 1122 California Avenue (Assessor Parcel Number 4281-020-024) in Santa Monica, California (“subject property” or “property”) was designated a Landmark by the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission at their May 14, 2018 meeting. I understand an appeal of the Landmarks Commission decision has been submitted by the owner of the subject property to City Council. Following a background on the nomination and regulatory framework, this memorandum provides additional information on significant California sycamore trees, a comparison with other Landmark trees in Santa Monica, and evaluation of the subject tree under each of the six criteria of the Santa Monica Landmarks Ordinance. While the subject tree appears to have been planted around 1922, it does not appear to meet any of the six criteria of the Santa Monica Landmarks Ordinance. Qualifications I have worked in the field of historic preservation for nearly 20 years, throughout the United States as well as internationally. I have a strong and broad understanding of best historic preservation practice, including federal, state, and local regulations. In February 2015, I launched an independent historic preservation consulting practice, after over a dozen years with Chattel, Inc. Throughout my professional experience, I have worked on over 100 historic preservation projects. I have worked on a number of projects that involved evaluation of significant cultural landscapes, including West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Historic District, Rancho San Carlos in Montecito, Riverside Rancho (located at the intersection of the Cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Los Angeles), Metropolitan Water District (landscape no longer extant), and Sunset Reservoir in Pasadena. I am also quite familiar with Santa Monica historical resources, having worked on over 20 projects within the city. Background In October 2017, the Wilmont Neighborhood Coalition submitted a landmark nomination for the Western Sycamore located at 1122 California Avenue. The nomination did not include the single- family residence at the subject property. The nomination provided the following statement of significance: 1 The subject tree is actually two trees wrapped around each other, although for the purposes of this memorandum and ease of syntactical description, it will be described in the singular. Other documents use slightly different nomenclature, some referring to the subject tree in the plural, and others using both the singular and plural as “subject tree(s).” Item 6-A 05/14/19 278 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Mature trees provide significant environmental value. This tree has a large canopy of shade and is home to owls, some sort of Falcons (protected) as well as other native species. It is also one of the largest and oldest trees (sycamore) in the City…the Sycamore tree is likely 90-100 years old. Santa Monica is rapidly losing it’s [sic] stock of aged trees on private land due to development. The nomination also notes John Cornish, owner of the subject property from 1948 until before his death in 1996, as a person of historic importance at the local, state, and national level. John Cornish, a former member of the Santa Monica Municipal Art Gallery Advisory Board, lived in the home. Cornish was a well-known artist who also served as president of the Pacific Palisades Art Association. His drawings, paintings, and sculptures were exhibited at museums in NY [New York], LA [Los Angeles], Chicago, San Francisco & elsewhere. The nomination was heard by the Santa Monica Landmarks Commission on December 11, 2017; the Commission moved to continue the application to allow for additional information, specifically to reexamine and expand a survey area of comparable trees, as well as provide additional information about previous owners/occupants of the subject property. The subject tree was heard by the Landmarks Commission at their May 14, 2018 meeting. There was a considerable amount of community support and 30 requests to speak. Despite a staff report recommendation that the subject tree did not meet any of the six criteria in the Landmarks Ordinance, the Commission nevertheless moved to designate under criteria 2 and 6. Specific findings of the recommendation were not cited at the time of the Commission vote. However, the Statement of Official Action (STOA) details significance under criterion 2 as: overall size and canopy coverage that is remarkable and uncommon. The trees are of noteworthy interest as the largest and oldest of the 21 native sycamore trees in the neighborhood (based on the survey area bounded by Montana Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard, between 4th and 14th Streets). As such, the subject western sycamore trees have aesthetic value and are noteworthy based on the uncommon trunk configuration, age, and overall size and combined canopy coverage. The subject tree was also found significant under criterion 6 as per the following: “based on their size, longevity, and location, the subject western sycamore trees are an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood.”2 Regulatory Framework City of Santa Monica The City of Santa Monica Landmarks and Historic District Ordinance was adopted by City Council in 1974. The purpose of the Landmarks Ordinance is fivefold, with an emphasis on different aspects of the City’s history:3 A. Protect improvements and areas which represent elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history. 2 “Findings and Determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica in the Matter of the Designation of a Landmark,” submitted June 11, 2018. 3 Landmark and Historic District Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Municipal Code, §9.56.020. Item 6-A 05/14/19 279 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 B. Safeguard the City’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage as embodied and reflected in such improvements and areas. C. Foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past. D. Protect and enhance the City’s aesthetic and historic attractions to residents, tourists, visitors and others, thereby serving as a stimulus and support to business and industry. E. Promote the use of Landmarks, Structures of Merit and Historic Districts for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of this City. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) Section 9.56.100(A) allows the Landmarks Commission to designate City Landmarks that meet one or more of the following criteria:4 1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. 2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. 3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. 4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. 5. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect. 6. It has a unique location, a singular physical characteristic, or is an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood, community or the City. In addition, the City of Santa Monica’s Urban Forest website provides additional direction to the Landmarks Commission for designation of private trees. As noted on the City’s Urban Forest website, “Within the Community Forest, there are trees that have special significance due to at least one or more of the following factors may qualify for Landmark Status:”5 • The tree’s age and association with a historic building or district gives the tree historical significance. • The tree represents a specimen that is particularly rare in the Los Angeles basin and is of considerable size and age. • The tree possesses unique characteristics or special horticultural significance. • The tree is of a significant size and/or makes a significant and outstanding aesthetic impact to its setting and is an exceptional specimen in good condition and health.6 4 City of Santa Monica Municipal Code, Section 9.56.100(A). 5 City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Urban Forest, “About the Urban Forest: Landmark Trees,” https://www.smgov.net/Portals/UrbanForest/content.aspx?id=53687091867. 6 City of Santa Monica Urban Forest Master Plan, page 98. Item 6-A 05/14/19 280 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Landmark Trees The City of Santa Monica has previously designated five trees. The following Landmark trees were designated due to their age, with several planted prior to 1900; rarity of species; as well for their association with historic personages: • Moreton Bay Fig Tree (101 Wilshire Boulevard, designated 1976) Located on the former estate of Santa Monica founder, Senator John P. Jones, the Moreton Bay Fig Tree was planted prior to 1900, at the direction of Mrs. Jones. The tree is reportedly the second largest of its species in California. • California Live Oak (1443 10th Street, designated 1980) Also planted prior to 1900, the California Live Oak was planted in the parkway and was found to be significant as it “symbolized elements of the cultural history of the City due to its venerable age.” In addition, the tree was also significant for its “aesthetics… large size, its age, and its rarity in the City.”7 The tree has since died and was removed. • Cedar Deodara Tree (918 5th Street, designated 2002) This Cedar Deodara tree was found to “symbolize a period of early Santa Monica history in which new species of grand trees intended to provide shade for many years were planted both on public and private property.” Specifically, its shape was the result of limited pruning reflected the cultural values of early twentieth century horticulturalists.8 The tree was planted circa the 1920s. • Eucalyptus Deanei Tree (522 24th Street, designated 2003) This Eucalypus Deanei tree was planted by local horticulturalist Hugh Evans in the 1920. The tree was found to “manifest the City of Santa Monica’s cultural development as a leader in horticultural innovation during the early years of the 20th Century.”9 The tree species, imported from Australia in the 1880s, was extremely rare in California. Prior to its removal due to poor health, this tree was the tallest and most massive of its kind in the country. 7 “Findings and Determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica in the Matter of the Designation of a Landmark,” Case Number LC-14-020, submitted January 15, 1980. 8 “Findings and Determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica in the Matter of the Designation of a Landmark,” Case Number LC-02-LM-006, submitted January 13, 2003. 9 “Findings and Determination of the Landmarks Commission of the City of Santa Monica in the Matter of the Designation of a Landmark,” Case Number LC-03-LM-003, submitted August 11, 2003. Figure 1: Morton Bay Fig Tree at 101 Wilshire Blvd (Snow, 2019) Figure 2: Cedar Deodara tree at 918 5th Street (Snow, 2019 Item 6-A 05/14/19 281 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 • Eucalyptus Cornuta Tree (1407 Hill Street, designated 2006) Planted circa the 1910s, prior to the development of Sunset Park, this Eucalyptus Cornuta tree also predates construction of the house on the property. It would have been one of the most visible features on the landscape that was devoid of development. Figure 3: Eucalyptus Cornuta tree at 1407 Hill St. (Snow, 2019) Item 6-A 05/14/19 282 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Property Description and History The subject property is located mid-block on the south side of California Avenue between 11th and 12th streets, with 11th Court, an alley, directly to the west. The subject property is located in the Wilmont Neighborhood of Santa Monica, which is bounded by the Pacific Coast Highway, 21th Street, Wilshire Boulevard, and Montana Avenue. The block on California Avenue where the subject property is located contains a mix of single and multi-family residences constructed at various times. There is not a uniform street tree along the street, although four, mature Canary Island pine trees are located directly across the street from the subject property within the parkway. The subject property contains a one and a half-story, single family residence with a garage in the rear. A low fence lines the sidewalk and is backed by a hedge. The subject tree, a California Sycamore, also known as a western sycamore (Platanus racemose) is approximately centered in the front yard. As noted above, the subject tree is actually two trees wrapped around each other. One tree is 38 inches in diameter and the other is 30 inches in diameter, each measured 4.5 feet above the ground.10 The height of the tree has been approximated to be somewhere between 50 feet and 60 feet with a canopy diameter of about 75 feet.11 The health and condition of subject tree was assessed by four arborists, who all found the tree to be in generally good health. Some minor pest infiltration and a hollow trunk due to a pruning wound were identified.12 The single-family house was relocated to the subject property in 1922 by J.C. Gilbert, owner.13 It was estimated that the subject tree was planted around 1922, the same time the house was relocated to the subject property. As detailed in a memorandum prepared by Ostashay & Associates, Joseph Gilbert was district superintendent of the Southern California Gas Company Santa Monica District and was active in local organizations. The subject property transferred to John Cornish around 10 Jan C. Scow, Consulting Arborist, LLC, “Landmark Tree Assessment for Sycamore at 1122 California Avenue,” prepared for Stephanie Reich, Planning & Community Development, City of Santa Monica, November 27, 2017. 11 As noted in Jan Scow’s report, his estimate of approximately 82 feet is the combined heights of the two trees added together. 12 Jan C. Scow, Consulting Arborist, LLC, “Landmark Tree Assessment for Sycamore at 1122 California Avenue,” prepared for Stephanie Reich, Planning & Community Development, City of Santa Monica, November 27, 2017; Walter Warriner, “Tree Appraisal & Protection Plan,” prepared for Mr. Tyler Shahriary, March 19, 2018; Cy Carlberg, Carlberg Associates, “California sycamore located at 1122 California Avenue, Santa Monica, California 90403,” October 15, 2017; Kerry Norman, Arbor Essence, memorandum prepared for Kevin Kozal, Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP, April 2019. 13 Jan Ostashay, “Occupancy/Ownership Research History: 1122 California Avenue,” memorandum prepared for Stephanie Reich, City of Santa Monica, January 22, 2018. Figure 4: Subject property with subject tree, left: view southeast, center: view east along California Street, right: view north (Snow, 2019) Item 6-A 05/14/19 283 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1948,14 and the property remained in the Cornish family until recently.15 John Cornish was an artist who taught at Santa Monica City College as well as the Los Angeles State College. His work was wide-ranging and varied from watercolors, to a mural at the Los Angeles County Fair, to portrait commissions. Between 1946 and 1962, he exhibited drawings at the Museum of Modern Art in New York, Detroit Institute of Art, Chicago Art Institute, San Francisco Museum of Art, and Los Angeles County Art Institute. He was also involved in local art organizations.16 California Sycamores The subject tree is a “Platanus racemosa” or Western Sycamore, also called a California Plane Tree or a California Sycamore. The California Sycamore is native to the California coast, ranging from Baja California in the south to the Sacramento Valley in the north and grows at elevations below 4,500 feet. Typically, California Sycamores grow along streams, although they can grow in other locations where there is ample ground water. California Sycamores were commonly planted as a shade tree, as the tree grows relatively quickly and can reach 50-100-feet high. As a result, there are many examples of this tree throughout the region. The tree has very large leaves that can span up to 10-inches wide.17 It has distinctive bark, which are “thin, cracking and peeling off in flakes each year and revealing the softly tinted new bark beneath.”18 It is common for the trunk to split into two or more large trunks.19 The tree is propagated by seed or cutting and is known to transplant well. As described in Trees of Santa Monica, California Sycamores are a large tree of the canyons of southern California. Usually irregular in growth and with the large white patches on the bark very picturesque. The leaves are lobed to the middle or deeper and the ‘collars’ on the twigs where the leaves are attached remain even after the leaves have fallen.20 As a native southern California tree, California Sycamores were used by the Chumash, specifically for making wooden bowls. A medicinal preparation of the bark was also used to treat asthma.21 As a relatively large species, California Sycamore trees, called alisos by the Spanish, also served as boundary markers for early ranchos. One such tree, known as the Eagle Tree, is located in Compton and marked the northern boundary of Rancho San Pedro.22 The largest California Sycamore on record is 52-feet in diameter and 94-feet high and known as the Sister Witness Tree, located in Goleta. It was also recognized as a National Champion Tree, which is a national register of big trees.23 14 Jan Ostashay, “Occupancy/Ownership Research History: 1122 California Avenue,” memorandum prepared for Stephanie Reich, City of Santa Monica, January 22, 2018. 15 Planning Staff, “1122 California Avenue, 17ENT-0211,” Memorandum prepared for The Honorable Landmarks Commission, May 14, 2018. 16 “John Cornish,” The Emeritimes (Publication of the Emeriti Association California State University, Los Angeles), Volume XVIII, Number 2, Winter 1997, page 8. 17 Lee W. Lenz and John Dourley, California Native Trees & Shrubs; For Garden & Environmental Use In Southern Califonria and Adjacent Areas, (Claremont, CA: Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden), 140. 18 David Deardorff, “Plant Portraits: California Sycamore,” Garden, volume 1, issue 1, 1977, pages 5-6 19 California Native Plant Society, Calscape, “Western Sycamore, Platanus racemose,” https://calscape.org/Platanus-racemosa-(Western-Sycamore). 20 George T. Hastings, M.A., Trees of Santa Monica; Described and Located by Streets, (Santa Monica, CA, 1956), Page 129. 21 Stephen Bryne, “The Wind Sycamore: A Chumash Sacred Site Near Ventura,” Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology, 2014, Vol. 28, p50-60 22 Nation Masters, “The Sycamores of Southern California: A Brief History,” KCET, June 20, 2013, https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/the-sycamores-of-southern-california-a-brief-history. 23 See American Forests, www.americanforests.org/get-involved/americas-biggest-trees/champion-trees- national- register/?submit_search=Search&search_val=&state=CA&search_area=adv_search&order_by=DESC&bt_page_id=3. Item 6-A 05/14/19 284 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Another Sycamore tree near Santa Paula is designated California Landmark 756. Per the inscription, “In 1846 General John C. Fremont passed this site of the sycamore tree on his way to sign a treaty with General Andres Pico to secure California for future annexation to the United States. It served the Padres as a resting place; the community as a polling place and a temporary post office; and a location for religious services.”24 Other Sycamore Trees in Santa Monica The book, Trees of Santa Monica, published in 1944, revised in 1956, and again in 1976, documents examples of trees in the city at the time of publication. In addition to the subject tree, Trees of Santa Monica, published in 1956, notes several examples of California Sycamores throughout Santa Monica, including one located at 425 Marguerita and one located at 470 20th Street, along with “many fine specimens in Santa Monica Canyon.”25 Interestingly, the 1944 edition of the book notes different examples and does not mention the subject property,26 nor does the 1976 edition mention the subject tree.27 While the book describes trees that grow in Santa Monica, it does not aspire to be a complete survey. Rather, an introduction to the description of trees states, “The trees described here do not form a complete list of those growing in the city, only of those along the street or easily seen from the street…For most of the trees a few locations are mentioned where fine examples can be seen, others, possibly just as fine, are not mentioned.”28 An arborist noted over 40, similarly-sized, California Sycamore trees in Santa Monica with more than 50 additional trees in Santa Monica Canyon. Some of the California Sycamore trees noted in Santa Monica Canyon topped 100-feet.29 Like the subject tree, the California Sycamore trees at 470 20th Street and 425 Marguerita Avenue are both planted in the front yards of their respective properties. Like the subject property, the single- family houses on the properties were also constructed in the 1920s, 470 20th Street in 1926 and 425 Marguerita Avenue in 1923. It is possible that the trees were also planted around the same time the houses were completed. 470 20th Street appears most comparable to the subject tree in that there are multiple (3) 30-inch trunks, how it is estimated to be 80--feet high. A similarly tall tree (70-feet high), the California Sycamore at 425 Marguerita Avenue has only one trunk (approximately 40-inches).30 24 The Historical Marker Database, “Sycamore Tree,” https://www.hmdb.org/Marker.asp?Marker=114949. 25 George T. Hastings, M.A., Trees of Santa Monica; Described and Located by Streets, (Santa Monica, CA, 1956), 130. 26 George T. Hastings, M.A., Trees of Santa Monica; Described and Located by Streets, (Santa Monica, CA, 1944), 91. 27 George T. Hastings, M.A., revised by Grace L. Heintz, Trees of Santa Monica; Described and Located by Streets, (Santa Monica, CA, 1976), 156. 28 George T. Hastings, M.A., Trees of Santa Monica; Described and Located by Streets, (Santa Monica, CA, 1956), 52. 29 Kerry Norman, Arbor Essence, memorandum prepared for Kevin Kozal, Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP, April 2019, exhibits B and C. 30 Kerry Norman, Arbor Essence, memorandum prepared for Kevin Kozal, Harding Larmore Kutcher & Kozal, LLP, April 2019, exhibit B. Left: 470 20th Street, Right: 425 Marguerita Avenue (Snow, 2019) Item 6-A 05/14/19 285 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Historic Context The following historic context for trees in Santa Monica is excerpted from the Santa Monica Urban Forest Master Plan, revised and adopted by City Council in 2017:31 By 1875 Colonel R. S. Baker and Nevada Senator John P. Jones owned the land that is now Santa Monica and laid out the City, numbering the north/south streets from the Pacific Ocean to 26th Street, and naming the east/west streets, from Colorado Avenue on the south to Montana Avenue on the north, after states of the Union. They sold residential lots, and by the time Santa Monica was incorporated into an 8.3 square mile city in 1886, trees were planted and the land that was once a bluff with few trees gave birth to what is now Santa Monica’s emerging urban forest. From 1893-1900 other areas of the City were developed. Smaller lots were allocated with the idea of making affordable neighborhoods near the beach. With the smaller lots, less space was allocated for street trees. The choices that early developers made regarding growspace for trees continue to affect today’s urban forest. During the 1880s, experimentation with trees originating in climates similar to Santa Monica was actively pursued. Abbot Kinney, known for his development of the Venice canals, had a profound impact on Santa Monica’s urban forest. He served as the Chairman of the State Forestry Board (1886-1888) and as roadmaster of Santa Monica. Abbot Kinney established the nation’s first forestry station in Rustic Canyon in 1887 where he conducted studies on close to 100 species of eucalyptus, a very popular species at the time. He knew the work of Ellwood Cooper (of Santa Barbara) who lectured in 1875 that the planting of eucalyptus forests could mitigate wind and increase rain, and that eucalyptus was “needed for the planet’s well-being”. Several eucalyptus species identified in Abbot Kinney’s book, Eucalyptus (1895), exist in Santa Monica today, including E. ficifolia, E. citriodora, E. globulous and E. leucoxylon. Local nurseries were established to take advantage of the temperate climate. In 1899, a fifteen acre site in south Santa Monica was developed as a growing ground for flowers and became one of the City’s best known industries. In 1923, nurseryman Hugh Evans established a garden in Santa Monica and began importing plants from the South Pacific, Australia and South Africa. One of the City’s beloved parks, Palisades Park, was donated to the City as a park forever in 1892 by Senator Jones and Arcadia Bandini de Baker. In 1908, Santa Monica’s Park Commissioner stipulated that his salary be spent on trees in the park. Palms are shown in a 1908 photo of the park, and in 1976 in the book Trees of Santa Monica, author Grace Heintz recognized that five species of palms and six species of eucalyptus dominated the park. While the subject property is not part of an identified tract, the house was moved to the property in 1922, during a period of enormous growth in Santa Monica. In the 1920s, Santa Monica experienced a population and corresponding construction boom. As noted in the City of Santa Monica HRI Update Historic Context Statement:32 31 City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica Urban Forest Master Plan, Revised 2017. 32 Architectural Resources Group and Historic Resources Group, “Historic Resources Inventory Update; Historic Context Statement,” prepared for the City of Santa Monica, March 2018, page 37. Item 6-A 05/14/19 286 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 By 1923, it was estimated that 1,500 people per month were moving to Santa Monica. Between 1921 and 1925, over 40,000 people moved to the city. Although previously known as a recreational destination, the subdivision of tracts away from the amusement zones were changing the city from a “summer cottage” environment to one where “[b]eautiful homes of foreign and domestic architecture give the community a decidedly residential atmosphere.” Boulevard and infrastructure improvements along Wilshire, Santa Monica, Pico, and Beverly (Sunset) supported these changes. By 1926, Santa Monica boasted 11,000 homes. Historic photographs of the period show newly constructed houses with new plantings in front, as well as in the public right-of-way. It was not uncommon for new homeowners to plant a shade tree or two in their front yards, similar to the subject property. Santa Monica Landmark Eligibility The following evaluation considers the subject tree under each of the six criteria, based on information provided above and in the nomination materials. 1. It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political or architectural history of the City. The subject tree has not been shown to exemplify the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of Santa Monica. The subject tree was planted circa 1922 by the owner of the property when they moved in. As seen in historic photographs, it was quite common at the time for new home owners to plant a tree in the front yard. The subject tree was planted during a period of rapid growth in Santa Monica when numerous other trees of the same species were planted. As noted above, two other California Sycamore trees, along with “many fine specimens in Santa Monica Canyon,” were mentioned in Trees of Santa Monica. The two other trees appear very similar to the subject tree in terms of size, stature, and location in the front yard of houses, and appear to have been planted in the same time period as shade trees. In addition, several California Sycamore trees with a height of 100-feet were noted in Santa Monica Canyon. While California Sycamore trees are native to southern California and were used by Chumash, there is no evidence suggesting that the subject tree, planted during a period when Europeans had settled in Santa Monica, has any specific significance to any native community, nor was it the boundary of any early rancho. Left: 958 Euclid Street (no longer extant), view west (USC, 1925); Right: Georgina Avenue (Santa Monica Public Library, circa 1920) Item 6-A 05/14/19 287 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 2. It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The STOA notes that the subject tree is significant under criterion 2 for its “noteworthy interest as the largest and oldest of the 21 native sycamore trees in the neighborhood (based on the survey area bounded by Montana Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard, between 4th and 14th Streets).” This survey area appears quite limited and arbitrary. While it may be true that the subject tree is the largest and oldest in this limited area of Santa Monica, it appears to be similar in size, age, and associated canopy coverage to many other California Sycamore trees throughout Santa Monica, and specifically in the neighborhoods north of Wilshire Boulevard (see Exhibit B of Kerry Norman’s memorandum). Furthermore, size and age are generally assessed under criterion 1. For example, if a house were the largest and oldest example of a particular architectural style, an evaluation would note that it exemplified economic and architectural history of the City. In addition, the evaluation would not restrict the comparison to a very limited area, but would rather provide city-wide comparison, as stated in the language of the criterion. In addition, the STOA identifies the subject tree as significant under criterion 2 for its uncommon trunk configuration. However, as noted by the California Native Plant Society, it is common for the trunk to split into two or more. Indeed, the California Sycamore tree at 470 20th Street also has split into multiple trunks. Therefore, the trunk configuration of the subject tree is not uncommon. As the subject tree is not particularly unique or uncommon for its size, age, and trunk configuration, it cannot be said that it is noteworthy for these qualities. Therefore, the subject tree is not eligible under criterion 2. A discussion of aesthetic value is included below. 3. It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. The subject tree is most closely associated with the family who planted the tree, Joseph and Bess Gilbert, who resided at the subject property until 1948. As detailed in a memorandum prepared by Ostashay & Associates, Joseph Gilbert was district superintendent of the Southern California Gas Company Santa Monica District. While Joseph Gilbert was active in local organizations, none of his professional or civic activities were associated with the subject tree, or even took place at the subject property. The Landmark nomination notes association with artist John Cornish. While he resided at the subject property for a lengthy period of time, it has not been shown that any of John Cornish’s artistic endeavors include the subject tree or were influenced by the subject tree. It is important to note that, during discussion of the subject tree at the Landmarks Commission meeting in May 2018, staff clarified that the intention of the nomination was for the tree itself and not for its associations with any historic personages. 4. It embodies distinguishing architectural characteristics valuable to a study of a period, style, method of construction, or the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship, or is a unique or rare example of an architectural design, detail or historical type valuable to such a study. Criterion 4 is not applicable to the subject tree as it is not a work of architecture. 5. It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer or architect. Similarly, criterion 5 is not applicable to the subject tree as it is not the work of a builder, designer, or architecture. 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. Item 6-A 05/14/19 288 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 It is possible for a tree to have a unique location. Examples noted above that have unique locations are the Eagle Tree that marked the northern boundary of Rancho San Pedro and the California Sycamore in Santa Paula that was used as the site of an early polling place and a temporary post office and for religious services. However, the subject tree has not been shown to have any similar associations and never severed as a geographical marker of any kind. Rather, its location is unremarkable because it was planted as a front yard shade tree considered typical at the time of planting, during a period in which the city experienced rapid development of neighborhoods with single-family homes and corresponding tree planting. Criterion 6 has consistently been interpreted to include only visually dominant locations within the city. The example of a landmark that meets this criterion that is typically cited is the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. The STOA for denial of Landmark Designation of the Ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard (LC-07-LM-009 and LC-07LM- 009) states, “Application of this criterion [criterion 6] does not indicate that the subject…trees are an established familiar visual feature in that application of this criterion has been consistently applied to important visual monuments in the City such as Santa Monica’s Civic Auditorium due to its grand scale and unique design and presence that commands attention as one travels south along Main Street.”33 Furthermore, the staff report for an appeal of a landmark designation application for the property located at 125 Pacific notes, “Simply by virtue of having occupied this property since 1924, the property cannot be found to meet the high threshold for landmark designation intended by this criterion.”34 The STOA for the subject tree finds it eligible under criterion 6 for the following reason: “Based on their size, longevity, and location, the subject western sycamore trees are an established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood.” This finding contradicts precedent. The subject tree does not rise to the level of visual prominence as the Santa Monica Civic Auditorium. Representing a typical historical pattern of front yard tree planting, it is located mid-block on a street with many other tall trees. In addition, as noted above, simply occupying the same location for a period of time does not meet the threshold required for this criterion. Conclusion The subject tree does not appear to meet any of the six Landmark criteria. There is no historic or cultural significance association with the subject tree. Planted as a typical front yard tree during a time in which such planting was common, the subject tree is not on par with any of the three other extant Landmark trees, which have proven significant historical associations. Designating the subject tree does not appear to be the appropriate way to recognize local trees located on private property. The City of Santa Monica has taken important steps to recognize the environmental benefits and intrinsic beauty of trees through their Urban Forest Master Plan. However, the Master Plan only includes trees in public parks and public rights-of-way, not on private property. Regarding trees located on private property, such as the subject tree, designation of one tree appears a short-sighted solution to protecting the urban forest and the many environmental benefits that trees afford, as pointed out by the many supporters of this designation. This tree, and many beautiful trees throughout Santa Monica, should be considered holistically in the context of a tree ordinance, not individually in the context of the Landmarks Ordinance. 33 Submitted February 11, 2008. 34 “Appeal 04APP-006 of Landmarks Commission Designation of the property at 125 Pacific Street (Christie Court) as a Landmark,” Memo from City Staff to Mayor and Councilmembers, July 26, 2005, 2. Item 6-A 05/14/19 289 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Resume    Jenna Snow   In January 2015, Jenna Snow launched an independent historic preservation consulting practice  offices in Los Angeles. With over fifteen years of professional experience, Ms. Snow has a  strong and broad understanding of best historic preservation practice, including federal, state,  and local regulations. She has worked on a wide range of projects on both the east and west  coasts, as well as internationally. Ms. Snow holds a M.S. in Historic Preservation from Columbia  University and a B.A. in Fine Arts focusing on architectural history from Brandeis University. She  meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Architectural  History.     Throughout her career, Ms. Snow has authored, co‐authored, and/or served as project manager  for nearly 100 historic preservation projects, including a wide variety of historic resource  assessments, National Register nominations, and historic resources surveys. She regularly  contributes to environmental impact reports, historic preservation certification applications,  Section 106 reviews and other work associated with historic building rehabilitation and  preservation planning. Ms. Snow has prepared multiple National Register nominations,  including the Twohy Building in San José, CA; the Beverly Hills Women’s Club in Beverly Hills,  CA; the Sam and Alfreda Maloof Compound in Rancho Cucamonga, CA; the Boyle  Hotel/Cummings Block in Los Angeles, CA; the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Historic  District in Los Angeles, CA, and Temple Ohave Israel in Brownsville, PA. She has completed  historic resources surveys, including coauthoring historic context statements in Hollywood,  Whittier, CA, and South Los Angeles. Prior to her consulting work, Ms. Snow worked at for the  New York City Department of Design and Construction in New York, NY, the Freedom Trail  Foundation in Boston, MA, and the Neighborhood Preservation Center in New York, NY.  Item 6-A 05/14/19 290 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Hanna Levinson <hannaisinla@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 10:44 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:SYCAMORE at 1122 California Please save this historic and beautiful, magnificent sycamore tree! I cannot make it to the meeting tonight come on but I  live on 11th Street between California and Washington and that tree is a blessing to the neighborhood and the City.  Please save the tree.    Hanna Levinson  1033 11th St., Apt C  Santa Monica 90403  Cell: 310 562 1778  Item 6-A 05/14/19 291 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 May 13, 2019 Subject: City Council May 14, 2017, Item 6A. Landmark Appeal for Trees I like trees. I like landmarks. I’m bothered very much by this landmarking of this pair of trees. Nearly everything on the list of City landmarks is an artifact with architectural and/or historical significance. The list includes five trees. (I’m not including this pair of trees whose inclusion is in dispute. I’m using information from the Wikipedia listing of Santa Monica landmarks as it’s easy to find and contains all of the landmarked trees. I’m also using information from Landmarks Commission documents and other public sources where available. Description Designated Notes Miramar Moreton Bay Fig Tree 8/17/1976 Landmarks documentation unavailable on line. Commercial owner happy with designation. Appears to meet all criteria applicable to trees California Live Oak Tree 1/15/1980 Landmarks documentation unavailable on line. Tree is noted as “dead & removed” Deodar Cedar Tree 12/9/2002 After property owner’s death, former resident requested landmark application. Staff report found all criteria applicable to trees were met. The applicant stated that the property owner loved the tree and wanted it to be protected, although she had taken no explicit steps to ensure its preservation. Eucalyptus deanei tree 7/14/2003 Private property owner requested landmarking. Staff report found all criteria applicable to trees were met Eucalyptus Cornuta Tree 3/22/2006 Private property owner requested landmarking. Staff report found two criteria applicable to trees were met, not including historic significance In the case of this pair of sycamores, the staff reports have found that no criteria for landmarking trees are met. They particularly noted that as the street trees mature, the sycamores will not stand out because of size. The resident property owner opposes the landmarking. Several years ago, the City adopted an excellent Urban Forest Master Plan. Since that plan was adopted, no trees had been landmarked before this application. The Plan includes a Heritage program, which allows designation of up to 5 additional trees each year. The trees must be on public land. Nominated trees are subject to a competitive evaluation for the designation. Item 6-A 05/14/19 292 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 There is no similar program for trees on private land. Perhaps there should be. Care and feeding of landmarks requires a special commitment from the property owners and residents, particularly when the landmark truly is alive. If a program to memorialize trees on private property is desired, there should be public input and coordination between the Urban Forest Task Force and the Landmarks Commission. There should also be explicit consideration of property ownership, particularly when the applicant is not the property owner. This pair of trees does not appear to in imminent danger of “being turned into firewood.” This appeal should be upheld, and the landmarking of trees should be examined. Otherwise, landmarking of trees on other people’s property can be turned into a cudgel when there are property or other disputes. Valerie Griffin Item 6-A 05/14/19 293 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 11:10 AM To:Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Sue Himmelrich; Greg Morena; Ana Maria Jara; Terry O’Day Cc:councilmtgitems; Dolores Sloan; Rick Cole; David Martin; John C Smith; Clerk Mailbox Subject:City Cnl. Meeting - 5/14/2019 - Item 6A - DENY appeal of Landmark Designation 17-ENT-0211, Sycamore Tree Mayor Davis and Council Members,     The Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Board  initiated the request for landmark consideration for the  Native California Sycamore tree at 1122 California Avenue in the heart of our neighborhood.  The Landmarks  Commission carefully reviewed the application and determined the tree met the landmark criteria as established by  law.  The Wilmont neighborhood supports the landmarking of the tree.    The Wilmont Board urges City Council to NOT OVERTURN a Landmarks Commission decision that was debated and  discussed thoroughly.  The removal of this tree would be an irreplaceable loss to the neighborhood and just continues to  accelerate the loss of our tree canopy in our community.    Thank‐you for your ongoing support of residents and neighborhoods!    Best regards,  Elizabeth Van Denburgh  Wilmont Chair  Item 6-A 05/14/19 294 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 11:10 AM To:Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Sue Himmelrich; Greg Morena; Ana Maria Jara; Terry O’Day Cc:councilmtgitems; Dolores Sloan; Rick Cole; David Martin; John C Smith; Clerk Mailbox Subject:City Cnl. Meeting - 5/14/2019 - Item 6A - DENY appeal of Landmark Designation 17-ENT-0211, Sycamore Tree Mayor Davis and Council Members,     The Wilshire Montana Neighborhood Coalition (Wilmont) Board  initiated the request for landmark consideration for the  Native California Sycamore tree at 1122 California Avenue in the heart of our neighborhood.  The Landmarks  Commission carefully reviewed the application and determined the tree met the landmark criteria as established by  law.  The Wilmont neighborhood supports the landmarking of the tree.    The Wilmont Board urges City Council to NOT OVERTURN a Landmarks Commission decision that was debated and  discussed thoroughly.  The removal of this tree would be an irreplaceable loss to the neighborhood and just continues to  accelerate the loss of our tree canopy in our community.    Thank‐you for your ongoing support of residents and neighborhoods!    Best regards,  Elizabeth Van Denburgh  Wilmont Chair  Item 6-A 05/14/19 295 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Tom <tommarinello@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 11:23 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:1122 California Ave Sycamore Tree   To the Council members    The sycamore tree and old house at 1122 California Avenue lend a charm and warmth to the neighborhood  that is unmatched.  In other cities they would welcome such beauty and history rather than destroy both.  The  house was built in the 1800s and the tree is one and not two.  This has been verified contrary to other  opinions.  It would be an regrettable sight to see an apartment building, built to the street with little charm or  appeal.  It is probably one of the last remaining few structures in the city that speak of our city history.  I do  not believe that there is really a sincere concern about the "housing stock" in the city about this situation.  If  there is a pending concern about something being landmarked it should not even be considered for purchase  by any prospective property owner.  Laws and respect for the neighborhood should not be overruled merely  for the sake of making a profit.  There are other properties that can and should be purchased and  redeveloped.  The owner could sell the property at this point and still make a profit and go elsewhere to  develop property.  It would not be welcome here.         Please give this your impartial consideration and vote to landmark this tree and house.        Most sincerely,  Kristie Marinello      I will not be able to attend this meeting tonight but will be there in spirit.       Outlook  Item 6-A 05/14/19 296 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 P.O. BOX 653 SANTA MONICA, CA 904 06 310-496 -3146 www.smconservancy.org May 14, 2019 Re Item 6A: Appeal of Landmark Designation for Sycamore Tree(s) Located at 1122 California Avenue. Mayor Davis, Mayor Pro-Tem O’Day, Council Members and Staff, The Santa Monica Conservancy urges your support of the Landmarks Commission decision to designate this tree as a Santa Monica Landmark. While the subject tree is a common species in the region, this is an unusual and magnificent specimen which stands out as a distinctive and defining element of its neighborhood. There are other mature and notable trees in the neighborhood, but they are no t western sycamores, they are not this old, and do not have the distinguishing features of this particular tree: ▪ Its age: it is nearly 100 years old ▪ Its size: the trunk, consisting of twin trees, has a diameter of 62 inches and its huge canopy is 82 feet high and 72 feet wide. It is an outstanding visual feature of its neighborhood, as evidenced by the large numbers of local residents who came to the public hearings of the Landmarks Commission and spoke with great feeling of the value that this tree gives to their neighborhood. While trees are rarely given landmark status, the facts about this tree are consistent with other designated trees, which are mid-block but have a commanding visual presence on their street. In those cases, it was the age and the huge scale of the trees, and their visual impact on the neighborhood, more than the species, that determined a decision to landmark. The significance of a resource is always relative to its context, and in this evaluation, the original 2-block context was enlarged to cover 40 square blocks. The larger context found a number of “mature and notable” trees, but that survey failed to discover any comparable sycamores in this neighborhood. Comparables were found only in Santa Monica’s natural areas, not in the cityscape. The Landmarks Commission deliberated its decision about this landmark nomination very carefully over a long period of time – several months. They debated at great length to ensure that there was a factual basis for their decision, and that a designation would be consistent with other tree designations in the past. The siting of this tree in the corner of its parcel allows the owners to demolish and rebuild their house if they wish, or to remodel, without removing the tree. While there is a stewardship responsibility for landmarks, the owners’ hardship claim is somewhat suspect. We recommend upholding the decision of the Landmarks Commission and denying the appeal. Sincerely, Carol Lemlein, President Santa Monica Conservancy Board of Directors Item 6-A 05/14/19 297 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 SANTA MONICA ALLIANCE FOR THE FUTURE www.futuresantamonica.com May 14, 2019 Santa Monica City Council City Hall, Room 213 1685 Main St., Santa Monica, CA 90401 RE: Agenda Item No. 6-A (Appeal of Landmark Designation 17ENT-0211 for sycamore tree(s) located at 1122 California Avenue) Dear Mayor Davis and Honorable Councilmembers: I am writing to you on behalf of the Santa Monica Alliance for the Future and in my individual capacity as a member of the Santa Monica Urban Forest Task Force. I am also an environmental and land use attorney, and I am the author of The Definitive Guide to Tree Disputes in California, 21 Hastings W.-N.W. J. Envtl. L. & Pol'y 113 (2015) and Urban Forests as Weapons Against Climate Change: Lessons From California’s Global Warming Solutions Act, 47 Urb. Law. 387 (2015). Tonight’s appeal highlight’s the need to expand our city’s tree code to protect trees located on private property. Recent expert studies have found that Santa Monica lost approx. 15-19 percent of its green cover between the years 2000 and 2009. On a region-wide basis, as much as 55 percent of the urban forest has been lost in neighborhoods that primarily consist of single-family homes. This phenomenon has significant negative environmental consequences, including habitat loss, decreased groundwater retention, decreased urban habitat, and aesthetic impacts. It also makes Santa Monica less resilient to climate change. Right now, the City’s tree code only protects trees on public property (i.e. streets, sidewalks, and parks). However, the vast majority of out urban canopy loss occurs on on private property. Many other cities across the state (and across the country) have adopted local laws tha t protect against unnecessary harm to trees during the development process (or laws that require appropriate mitigation for cutting down trees). We hope to bring Santa Monica’s tree code up to date by incorporating similar protections. Item 6-A 05/14/19 298 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 Santa Monica Planning Commission May 13, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Thank you very much for your consideration. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at ellis.raskin@futuresantamonica.org. Sincerely, Ellis Raskin, Esq. Santa Monica Alliance for the Future Item 6-A 05/14/19 299 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Stephanie Reich Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 12:20 PM To:Vernice Hankins; Esterlina Lugo Subject:FW: Postpone the tree appeal vote please Correspondence received    Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP  Design and Historic Preservation Planner  Planning & Community Development  City of Santa Monica  1685 Main Street #212  Santa Monica, CA 90401  310.458.8341    From: Planning   Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 8:45 AM  To: Steve Mizokami <Steve.Mizokami@SMGOV.NET>; Stephanie Reich <Stephanie.Reich@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: FW: Postpone the tree appeal vote please      From: Ken Robin [mailto:maestro90403@gmail.com]   Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 7:53 PM  To: Planning <Planning@SMGOV.NET>; Planning Dept <planning.bldg@smgov.net>  Subject: Postpone the tree appeal vote please  Hello, Is it true that the tree at 1122 California has been landmarked? That it is currently protected by that distinction. Is it also true, that if there were a vote to postpone the landmark appeal, it would not disrupt that status? To quote the Arborist: Cy Carlberg; When i asked the question; if we had a tree ordinance would we need to landmark the property? "Nope, the ordinance would do it. We need that private property ordinance in Santa Monica, but the City has been unwilling to even take on the concept. Grace Phillips (Urban Forestry Commission chair, I’m sure you know her) has been paving the way for this for many years. Watch for more discussion this year." Please postpone the appeal vote, protecting both the tree and the private property owner's rights. At the same time, please consider the city staff's recommendation to put the tree ordinance on the agenda as soon as possible. Thank you Ken Robin Item 6-A 05/14/19 300 of 300 Item 6-A 05/14/19 1 Vernice Hankins From:Barbara Stamis <barbstamis@mac.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 2:47 PM To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox Subject:Landmarked Tree Hearing Esteemed Members of the Santa Monica City Council:  I am a renter in Santa Monica. It has come to my attention that a request was made in my name, as a Wilmont area  resident, that this particular sycamore tree should receive landmark status. I never made such a request, but since I am  now somewhat involved and in view of the fact that the sycamore tree resides on private property, I submit  wholeheartedly that I DO NOT believe that it should be protected as a landmark.  As far as I know, there was no vote on this issue and had there been, I certainly would not have put my name forward as  supporting landmark status for this tree.  There is nothing about this particular tree that contributes to the greater good of the community as a whole. The tree is  not famous, it is not endangered, and it is not a cultural symbol.  My philosophy is one of a nature lover. I am environmentally conscientious. Even so, I am aware of being overly  protective of a non‐endangered species when a misguided effort to be so tramples the rights of a private property  owner.   Please grant the appeal in this case to deny landmark status to this particular sycamore tree.  Sincerely,  Barbara Stamis    1 Vernice Hankins From:Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 2:56 PM To:City Council Distribution Group Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Save the Sycamore¡!!!!!!!!     From: caroline jacobs [mailto:caroline90403@yahoo.com]   Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2019 11:44 AM  To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>  Subject: Save the Sycamore¡!!!!!!!!      1 Vernice Hankins From:Emily Forscher <emilyforscher@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 3:11 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Please protect landmark sycamore trees on Arizona Avenue I’m writing to express my support for the Arizona Avenue sycamore trees’ continued landmark designation. I understand  that the owners’ appeal may be heard tonight during the City Council meeting.     These trees are nearly a century old and fundamentally unlike any trees in the neighborhood (I am a resident). They are  among the oldest sycamore trees in the city and are the only extant landmark trees native to California. I disagree with  the owners contention that the trees appear unremarkable.  They are not only remarkable, they are irreplaceable. As  the city’s consulting arborist noted, these trees are extraordinary specimens.    I appreciate that the owners have a right to contest the trees’ landmark status. I wish the property owners recognized  the value of these trees.     Please uphold the trees’ landmark status.     Thank you,  Emily Forscher     1 Vernice Hankins From:oodfay48@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, May 14, 2019 4:08 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Item 6a Sycamores Appeal  Dear City Council members..Due to heath reasons I am unable to attend tonight’s CC meeting.  I do want my voice to  heard albeit via technology.  Also be a voice for the Sycamores who also cannot be here tonight.    The appeal to slaughter two Western  Sycamore that have been designated to be preserved should not even be brought  up for discussion.  The saving and recognizing of the Sycamores went through a lengthy process by caring citizens to  have them remain a part of our city’s heritage.  Changing the status of landmark trees to suit people’s fancy whether it be to make more money off the property or to  build to  an even “bigger” space to live in is setting an extremely bad precedent.    Because these owners have a lot of money do  seek selfishly get what “they” want at the expense of losing beneficial,   aesthetically pleasing and long term leafy denizens of Santa Monica?  Shame on those who want to destroy even more of Santa Monica and it’s natural habitats.      Please do not give your consent for these special Sycamores to be killed for rich peoples whims.      Thank you.  Louise  Steiner                    City Council May 14, 2019 Item 6.A 1122 California Ave 1122 California Avenue (Appeal Of Landmark Designation18ENT-140 §We stern Sycamore Tr ee (Platanus Racemosa) Native to Santa Monica and California Coast §R2 District: 50’x 100’Parcel §Potentially Planted in 1922 when Property was Developed §Tr ee Status: Good Health §Tw o Combined Trees with Encircling Roots §Approximate Height: 82 Feet §Combined Tr ee Diameter: 62 Inches §Canopy Diameter: 72 Feet City Council May 14, 2019 Item 6.A 1122 California AveContext of the Tree: §Several notable trees on the same block §Sycamore trees found throughout the City §Healthy tree canopy in this neighborhood City Council May 14, 2019 Item 6.A 1122 California Ave Context of the Tree: Survey area between 4th and 14th, Wilshire and Montana §94 mature and notable trees in the PROW §59 on private property §21 native sycamores, 4 other native trees City Council May 14, 2019 Item 6.A 1122 California Ave Analytical Framework for the Tree: §To tal of 5 trees designated as City Landmarks: §Moreton Bay Fig Tree at 101 Wilshire Boulevard, §California Live Oak at 1443 10th Street (removed) §Cedar Deodara Tree at 518 5th Street §Eucalyptus Deanei Tree at 522 24th Street (removed) §Eucalyptus Cornuta Tree at 1407 Hill Street §All previously designated trees are tied to the early history of the city or truly exceptional trees City Council May 14, 2019 Item 6.A 1122 California Ave Landmark Commission Action The Landmarks Commission reviewed the application on December 11, 2017 and May 14, 2018, and in a vote of 4 to 2, voted to designate the tree as a City Landmark, citing Landmarks Criterion (2) and (6). The following is a summary of the Commission’s findings: (2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. §“The subject tree(s) are two trees encircling each other, not a common configuration for this tree species. §The tree(s) is also remarkable and rare given its age, its good health, …. Additionally, the trees are of noteworthy interest as the largest and oldest of the 21 native sycamore trees in the neighborhood and based on the survey area” City Council May 14, 2019 Item 6.A 1122 California Ave Landmark Commission Action The Landmarks Commission reviewed the application on December 11, 2017 and May 14, 2018, and in a vote of 4 to 2, voted to designate the tree as a City Landmark, citing Landmarks Criterion (2) and (6). The following is a summary of the Commission’s findings: (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. §The trees are exceptional for their overall size, shape, and canopy coverage that is remarkable and uncommon. §The tree is the largest and oldest of the 21 native sycamore trees within the neighborhood context…and is a notable specimen of their species. City Council May 14, 2019 Item 6.A 1122 California Ave Landmark Designation Criterion-staff’s recommended findings: Staff did not recommend designation of the western sycamore tree(s) at 1122 California Avenue, to the Landmarks Commission based on the following draft findings: §(1) It exemplifies, symbolizes, or manifests elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, or architectural history of the City. Current research did not reveal information in support of this criterion. §(2) It has aesthetic or artistic interest or value, or other noteworthy interest or value. The subject tree is not one but two trees, with one wrapping the other. While this tree may be prominent on its site, there are western sycamore trees throughout the City of Santa Monica, many as notable as the subject tree. As there is no particular noteworthy interest or value in the tree at 1122 California Avenue, it does not appear to meet this criterion. City Council May 14, 2019 Item 6.A 1122 California Ave Landmark Designation Criterion-staff’s recommended findings: §(3) It is identified with historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. The tree does not appear to be identified with any notable historic personages or with important events in local, state or national history. Therefore, it does not appear to meet this 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 to such a study. This criterion is not applicable to the designation of a tree as a landmark. City Council May 14, 2019 Item 6.A 1122 California AveLandmark Designation Criterion-staff’s recommended findings: §(5) It is a significant or a representative example of the work or product of a notable builder, designer, or architect. This criterion is not applicable to the designation of a tree as a landmark. §(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. The subject tree appears prominent, considering the size of existing younger and smaller nearby trees located on the south side of California Avenue. However, there are several notable trees on this street, and in the immediate neighborhood, so this tree does not appear to meet this criterion. City Council May 14, 2019 Item 6.A 1122 California Ave Appeal Summary The subject tree does not meet the Landmarks Ordinance criteria for designation. 1.Tr ees are rarely designated as City Landmarks, and this tree is not ra re, extraordinary or otherwise associated (criteria 2,3). 2.The tree does not meet the threshold to be a prominent visual feature (criterion 6). 3.The Commission’s past practice in designating Landmark trees is inconsistent with the designation of this tree. 4.Designation of the subject tree(s) is not warranted under any of the Landmarks Ordinance’s criteria for designation City Council May 14, 2019 Item 6.A 1122 California Ave Appeal Analysis 1. Tr ees are ra rely designated as City Landmarks, and this tree is not ra re, extraordinary or otherwise associated (criteria 2,3). In summary, based on evaluation of the subject tree and the Landmark designation criteria, staff maintains that the tree does not meet any of the criteria for designation as a City Landmark. Subject Tree City Council May 14, 2019 Item 6.A 1122 California Ave Appeal Analysis 2. The tree does not meet the threshold to be a prominent visual feature, as it is mid-block on a typical street with many other mature and notable trees in the neighborhood (criterion 6). Staff ’s analysis indicates that the subject tree does not appear to be more visually prominent than many nearby trees and does not meet the threshold to be a prominent visual feature. City Council May 14, 2019 Item 6.A 1122 California Ave Appeal Analysis 3. The Commission’s past practice in designating Landmark trees is inconsistent with the designation of this tree. While mature and notable, the subject tree is not more noteworthy than many of the mature and notable trees in the study area. In considering the past practice of the Landmarks Commission the designation of the sycamore tree at 1122 California Avenue is not supported. City Council May 14, 2019 Item 6.A 1122 California Ave Appeal Analysis 4. The appeal states that the designation of the subject tree(s) is not warranted under any of the Landmarks Ordinance’s criteria for designation. Staff ’s analysis of Criterion 6 continues to find that the tree is not uncommon or rare. If the subject tree was found to meet Criterion 6, many other comparable public and privately-owned trees in the neighborhood could also be found to meet the same Criterion. City Council May 14, 2019 Item 6.A 1122 California Ave Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council grant the appeal and the deny designation application for the sycamore tree at 1122 California Avenue as a City Landmark based on the findings included in the staff report. Alternative Action As an alternative to the staff recommendation, Council may choose, based on evidence in the record, to deny the appeal and uphold the designation based on the findings identified in the Landmarks Commission Statement of Official Action.