Commission
Denies Downtown Trees Landmark Status |
By Jorge Casuso
January 15 -- Setting the stage for a court battle, the
Landmarks Commission on Monday voted not to designate two stretches
of ficus trees Downtown as landmarks, despite efforts by supporters
to tie them to a long-forgotten pre-feminist.
Jacqueline Girion and the beautification committee’s efforts to plant
the trees were not sufficient reason to designate them as landmarks that can
be tied to a “historic personage,” the commission found.
“I don’t think the trees are representative or tell the story
of Mrs. Girion” or other women related to the effort, said Nina Fresco,
who chairs the commission. “The trees are not the story of Downtown.”
The commission, Fresco said, has not landmarked the homes of activists, although
“we save all kinds of things.”
The commission already had downscaled the plan proposed by City staff to remove
most of the ficus trees that line 2nd and 4th streets as part of a $8.2 million
Pedestrian and Streetscape Improvement Project, said Commissioner Roger Genser.
The trees “do define the character of the street, but I can’t make
the leap to landmark status,” Genser said. “They are not historic,
as the criteria require.”
Commissioner John Berley also saw the trees as character defining but did not
see them as a group as comprising a landmark.
If the commission landmarks these trees, Berley said, “Where does it
stop? Do we landmark trees everywhere?”
The commission’s 6 to 1 vote -- only Sue Ann Leherer dissented -- will
be appealed to the City Council, said Jerry Rubin, a local activist who is spearheading
the effort to save the trees.
“They need to hear what the public opposition is,” Rubin said after
the meeting. “They should be listening to people who have strongly spoken
out.”
If appealed, the council is expected to uphold Monday’s decision, which
paves the way for the City’s plans to compost or relocate 75 mature ficus
trees and replace them with ginkos that don’t tear up sidewalks.
If the council upholds the appeal as expected, the battle would be taken up
in court, where Rubin and Treesavers plan to revive their lawsuit to halt the
axe, which they stayed pending the Landmarks Commission’s action.
Although the court hearing is set for February 22, ten days after
the issue is scheduled to go before the council, the City his vowed
not to “touch the trees” before the judge renders a
decision, Rubin said.
The effort to save the trees along 2nd and 4th streets -- which were planted
during the redevelopment of Downtown in the 1960s -- has blossomed into a controversy
that has seen activists take to the streets and head to the courts.
On Monday, 31 supporters, including Rubin and members of the fledgling Treesavers
organization, pleaded with the commission to designate the trees as landmarks
and halt the axe.
This time they dug up evidence they said suggested the trees may have be directly
linked to the story of tree planting and the history of feminism and environmentalism
in Santa Monica.
The trees “are a testament to the environmental vision of Jacqueline
Girion,” said Michele Modglin, a member of Treesavers.
Two of Girion’s sons, Sherwood and Shephard, testified at Monday’s
commission meeting, recalling how their mother lobbied business owners to plant
trees along the Downtown streets.
“Not one of those trees represent a historic site,” said Shephard
Girion. “As a collection, they represent Santa Monica.”
But the commission followed staff’s lead and countered that the 54 ficus
trees slated to be chopped down or relocated are no different than the 3,100
other ficus trees in the city.
“Based on this review, staff continues to find that the trees do not
possess “characteristics of noteworthy or aesthetic interest or value
sufficient to warrant City landmark designation.”
The trees, according to staff, did not meet such factors as “historic
association, age, size, condition, or rarity” that are usually applied
in evaluating landmark status for trees.
In addition, staff found that the trees couldn’t be tied to “historic
personages” or a “specific aspect of city history.”
|
