A Tree Case for Prop A

March, 14, 2003

Dear Editor,

I do not own a single family home in Santa Monica, but I understand why the single family homeowners are so determined NOT to be subject to the authority of the Landmarks Commission.

The problem is NOT the law, but the absurd and unreasonable way the law is applied. This is demonstrated by the attached photo of a tree which the Landmarks Commission declared to be a historical landmark at its meeting of January 13, 2003, in case LC-02-LM-006. It was also the Landmarks Commission which filed the application to make it a landmark in the first place.

Although the Landmarks Ordinance has six reasonable criteria for determining if a structure, improvement, natural feature or other object has historical significance, the case cited above shows that these terms are applied in such a liberal manner as to make them meaningless.

The tree at issue is not a native California species; it is a cedar tree imported from Asia and those types of trees are very common throughout in this state. It is not among the largest cedar trees either -- according to the Staff Report issued by the Commission, the "State Champion" cedar tree is nearly twice as tall. It might be the biggest cedar tree planted on a single lot in Santa Monica, but that only makes it the "biggest pig in the parlor."

The tree was not planted by anyone famous. Martin Luther never trimmed it with his ax, for if he had done so, it would look a lot better now. The attached photo should establish that it has no serious "aesthetic or artistic interest or value." No famous person was ever hung from it. Michael Jackson never climbed it, sat in it or dangled a baby from it. The only thing "historic" about it is that it demonstrates what happens when a tree is permitted to grow wild in a city for about 80 years without proper trimming or pruning.

Although the Landmarks Commission had no rational basis for declaring the tree (and more than half the lot) to be dedicated to public use as a "landmark" the Commission justified this designation in the Staff Report for the meeting of December 9, 2002, with the following vague justification:

"At the turn of the century, a State Forestry Station was located in Santa Monica. This station was involved in experimenting with planting various species of trees from around the world in Santa Monica and the surrounding area. For example, the station experimented with several species of eucalyptus tree, which were thought at the time to be good prospects for producing large quantities of lumber in a short amount of time.

"Abbot Kinney, among others, was very active in exploring horticultural possibilities in the coastal area. At the 1934 First Western Shade tree conference (predecessor to the International
Society of Arboriculture) held at the Miles Memorial Playhouse, a paper was presented that mentioned the cedar as being among 'the grand old trees that live, not for decades but for centuries; the tree than are the friend of man in the benificences they bestow.'

"It is not known if this local interest in planting new varieties of trees influenced the planting of the subject tree, but clearly the tree was planted during as time in which Santa Monicans were avidly researching and experimenting with the adaptation of new species of trees
to the southern California coastal zone." (Emphasis added.)

The paragraph quoted is an excellent example of the result-oriented decision making that takes place at the Landmarks Commission. First, it says that the State Forestry Station experimented with eucalyptus trees, but there is nothing to indicate that it planted or ever experimented with cedar trees.

Next, it mentions that Abbot Kinney liked trees too, but there is no connection between him and the cedar tree at 918 5th Street. Finally, it states that a cedar tree it was included on a list in of friendly trees 1934. That reasoning is really "grasping at straws" because all trees are "friendly" to the tree huggers sitting on the Commission. If the subject had been an apple tree, the Staff Report certainly would have made reference to Johnny Appleseed.

Unfortunately, despite the lack of any rational basis for finding that the big ugly tree on 5th Street had any significant historical significance, all six Commissars voted in favor of making it a landmark. Then to add insult to injury to the new owner who bought the lot, the Commission issued a decision which requires proper pruning ". . .on a regular basis, with a 3 -5 years pruning cycle . . .by or under the direct supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist with verifiable experience in maintaining mature, specimen quality cedar trees." (Quote from Final Report, Condition 1).

As I said at the beginning of this letter, I do not own a single family home in Santa Monica, but I can sympathize with those who do and have voted "Yes" on Proposition A. Let freedom ring.