From Wikipedia:
Summary judgment is a legal term which means that a court has made a determination (a judgment) without a full trial.
please click on photo for larger versionCBS/Channel 2 covers the story.
In the video below, check out Ms. Kate Vernez' statement at 0:59: "the cost to the taxpayers was $100,000, not including legal costs." Now, it is important to understand that the lawsuit against the city--and the delays that resulted from it--was filed because the city called the trees "facilities" in the Environmental Impact Report for this project, thus bypassing important legal requirements in the process. There would have been no lawsuit had the EIR been properly prepared and filed, and the trees identified correctly. The project may well have had a different shape, and many more trees saved, had the city identified the trees as trees, and not as "facilities" in the EIR. Note also that the Court did not exonerate the City in this matter, it simply said that it was too late for a lawsuit, due to the expiration of the Statute of Limitations.
We agree that the $100,000 loss--if true--is a terrible waste. Has the City Manager identified the staff members responsible for calling trees "facilities" in the EIR? Will Ms. Vernez explain to the public what steps the City Manager has taken to avoid future misrepresentations of this kind?
[click on image to see video]
Please click on announcement above to download the entire press release.
Oh, so THAT'S why they chopped the trees down--this week, at least:
But city planners said branches of 54 of the trees interfered with bus traffic while roots cracked sidewalks, costing the city thousands of dollars in upkeep, repairs and payouts from "trip-and-fall" lawsuits by pedestrians, Vernez said.I guess "design reasons" are out. Covering up merchants' signs--that's apparently not good enough any more. Diseased trees--did anyone say diseased? What--who, us? What about too much shade for shoppers? That's so, you know, 2007.
Bob Wolff, writing at 7:13am:
As Of 6:45 this morn, the city is cutting the trees down on 2nd street. It is blocked off from Wilshire to SM Blvd.There are 10,000 people in this town who have requested--in writing--that this not be done without further examination. The contradictory statements by the city's experts; the adversarial--and indeed deceptive approach by the city's agencies and employees; the hostile and superior response by many members of City Council against their own voters--all of these came together today in this one big act of public destruction.
COURT RULES AGAINST TREESAVERS
Press release:
Santa Monica, CA — Despite today’s Court ruling, environmental and community activists with Treesavers are pledging to increase their political and diplomatic efforts to save the threatened Ficus trees along Second and Fourth Streets in the Santa Monica Downtown District. The activists are insisting that the Santa Monica City Council and City Manager join with Treesavers and the community in seeking a business and environmentally-friendly win-win solution.Just to clarify one very important point: the court did not rule that the city committed no wrongdoing (by declaring trees to be "facilities" in the Environmental Impact Report, thus avoiding important environmental requirements). It only ruled that it was too late to catch the city.
A California Appeals Court ruled today in favor of the City of Santa Monica saying the plaintiffs – Treesavers and Jerry Rubin – did not meet the statute of limitations in filing their claim that the City violated CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) regulations. Out of the 154 mature Ficus trees along Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard, the City plans to destroy 23 Ficus trees they claim are unsafe, and plans to relocate 7 other healthy Ficus trees – down from the previous 31 Ficus trees originally planned for relocation.
Treesavers say no healthy trees should be relocated for design and aesthetic purposes, and that an independent certified arborist, mutually agreeable to the City and Treesavers, should evaluate the other 23 trees as to the degree of their structural damage.
Organizers with Treesavers say that regardless of the Court’s decision, Santa Monica has an obligation to respect the will of the community, which has been shown through over 8,000 petition signatures, community-group and business endorsements, and overwhelming resident and visitor support, that the tree aspect of the City’s broader 8.2 million-dollar street improvement plan should not move forward as planned.
For further information call Treesavers at (310) 399-1000.
URBAN FORESTS
Who speaks for us?
Trees in the city.
Crowded between sidewalks and street.
Smooth, rough, shedding, patterned
Big, small, straight, twisted, leaning
Man damaged trunks.
Weak, strong, tangled, reaching, broken branches.
Carrying a happy burden
Of leaves, needles, flowers, fruits, seeds, nuts, cones, fronds.
Urban forest , like all of us, living.
Young, old, healthy, sick
Needed, but needing man to care for us.
Give us our trees say the birds.
Our homes, food, gathering spots.
Resting, refueling migratory travelers.
Give us our trees say the children.
Swinging, climbing,
Cool shade under which to play.
Give us our trees
Strollers, shoppers, walkers, lovers say.
Dappled sunlight, green against the sky.
Give us your trees the foresters say.
You'll get reports, studies, meaningless meetings
Empty spaces not beauty; sticks not canopies.
Give us your trees developers say.
Chain saws whine and bite.
Trees disappear, left is developers blight.
Give us your trees the politicians say.
Here yesterday, gone today.
Nothing gets in our way.
Give us our trees
The people say and say and say.
And only the trees hear us.
Peggy Clifford writes:
When residents learned that the City planned to remove 54 (the number changes almost daily) ficus trees from Second and Fourth Streets in downtown Santa Monica as part of what it called an “improvement” project, they tried to reason with the City. When the City refused, the newly formed Treesavers , who soon numbered over 5,000, went to court and secured a temporary restraining order, blocking the removal of the trees.Read the rest of this honest and scathing editorial [here].
Now, nearly eight months later, the restraining order is still in effect, the City still refuses to give an inch, much less respect residents’ wishes.
In the midst of this rising turmoil, the City chose to announce plans to remove 300 carob trees…on Earth Day, right before a Treesavers’ rally. It was an incredibly stupid move, an act of extraordinary hubris and a slap in the community’s face.
Arbor Talk, an on-line talk show on all things trees, interviews Jerry Rubin on the Treesavers' on-going efforts:
Segment 1: Jerry Rubin from Tree Savers of Santa Monica.Gee, sounds like a new Doo Wop Shoo Bop group! Listen to (or download) the program [here].
When the Santa Monica City Council decides to re-do the business district, they also decide to pull out the legendary trees that have beautified and adorned that district. Who's going to step in and stop this? Why, Jerry Rubin and Tree Savers.
From the Santa Monica Daily Press:
With the current ficus fiasco in Downtown Santa Monica and now a dispute over the removal of 300 carob trees, environmental activists are calling on the City Council to create a commission that would advise on urban forestry matters.Read the rest of the article [here].
The Santa Monica Treesavers last week requested the City Council initiate a process to establish a tree commission. Jerry Rubin, one of the leaders of the Treesavers, filed a written communications request to place a discussion item on a future council agenda.
Such commissions have been formed in municipalities across the state, including San Francisco’s Urban Forest Council and the Tree Commission in the city of Davis.
“We think it’s so important for the community to open up cooperative dialogue,” Rubin said in an interview on Tuesday. “We feel a Santa Monica urban forestry commission or tree commission would be a very appropriate thing and a long overdue needed advisory commission.”
The BBC reports on a Columbia University study:
Columbia University researchers found that asthma rates among children aged four and five fell by 25% for every extra 343 trees per square kilometre. They believe more trees may aid air quality or simply encourage children to play outside, although they say the true reason for the finding is unclear.See the rest of this fascinating article [here].
The study appears in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.
...The link between numbers of trees and asthma cases held true even after taking into account sources of pollution, levels of affluence and population density, the researchers said.
Richard Martini, in a letter to the Santa Monica Daily Press:
Editor:See the letter [here].
Who elected Mr. (Walt) Warriner the person to decide if a tree in Santa Monica lives or dies? I can’t believe the arrogance of this city employee, (the urban forester) who has declared, “A high risk tree is not acceptable to this city.” What’s his definition of high risk trees? The argument he uses — that the city lost a million dollars from a falling eucalyptus — is specious. Why not tear down all the eucalyptus trees in Santa Monica for fear of lawsuits? One carob tree falls, and 300 have to go. The same argument he’s made over the ficus trees (alternating between saying “every other ficus tree” is diseased, to “the canopy is bad for merchants,” to claiming that he can decide which trees are dangerous) is in full bloom when he declares the cities of “Glendale and Bellflower” don’t bother to consult their citizens when determining what to do about trees. Maybe I’m missing something. But it sounds much like the current Bush administration, telling the electorate to sit back while the “decider” tells us what’s best for us. Perhaps Mr. Warriner should get some tree sensitivity training. On the other hand, Mr. Warriner’s positions — it’s my way or the tree chipper — will certainly galvanize a sleeping electorate come election day.
Richard Martini
Gillian Ware, steadfast tree supporter and talented British artist par excellence:
Thank you for the kind send-off you gave me last night, but more especially thank you for the warmth & friendship you have all shown me over the last six months. The trees may have stopped me getting as much of my own work done as I intended but this has made it well-worth it- apart from the fact that I wouldn't have been doing the work if the trees had not been there in the first place- this was/is pay-back time.We wish Gillian safe passage and a wonderful trip home, and hope to see her back as soon as possible. Gillian's excellent blog is [here].
And remember: as I said last night, I expect to see the trees still standing there when I return...
All my very good wishes and see you soon,
Jill
Chris Paine, director of "Who Killed the Electric Car?" speaking before the Santa Monica City Council last month in support of the ficus trees:
See more Treesaver videos [here].
Received from the City Manager's office.
[click on image for larger version]
Treesavers attorney Tom Nitti:
The order from the Court of Appeal says I have 7 days to respond to the City's brief. The City delivered its brief to me approximately 4:00 pm on Friday, March 21. I finished my brief and my assistant Tony attempted to deliver it to the City approximately 3:45 pm on Friday March 28. The City Attorney's office was closed. No one answered at the phone number of the City Attorney, even though the message on the phone machine says several City Attorneys are available on Friday. Tony attempted to deliver the brief to [the receptionist], who was sitting at the information desk in City Hall. She would not accept it, so Tony left it with her. [The receptionist] then made a big show of throwing the brief in the trash can outside of City Hall, while yelling "you're too late!"
...Although City Hall is mostly closed, what kind of City government refuses to accept court ordered packages on a business day, during business hours? Who authorizes [the receptionist] to throw out deliveries to the City? Does she throw out mail deliveries on Friday? Does [the receptionist] throw out Fedex deliveries on Friday?
Nitti's brief in the trash outside City Hall [click for larger image]
Jerry Rubin retrieving the brief from the trash can [click for larger image]Santa Monica Community Forester Walt Warriner has made hay of his claimed success at transplanting large urban trees. When questioned about the viability of removing 31 large healthy ficus trees from Second and Fourth streets and planting them elsewhere, Mr. Warriner says he's had a 95% success rate in transplanting such trees in the past.
Jump forward to the March 11th City Council meeting. During a discussion of the 20th and Cloverfield Streets streetscape improvement plan, Councilmember Shriver asks the outgoing head of Public Works, Craig Perkins, if larger trees could be planted instead of the thin young stalks shown in the plans. Here is Mr. Perkins' response [click below to play the movie]:
"a lot of times the element of shock that's gonna occur after the planting is gonna be exacerbated..."Interesting. According to the Community Forester, large, fully-established, 40-year-old trees entrapped in concrete sidewalks on Second and Fourth Streets could be forcibly ripped out of the ground, transported elsewhere and then replanted with a 95% chance of success. But large trees grown under (presumably) favorable conditions in a nursery, then installed in a new, open construction zone with properly-prepared earth, well-drained soils and adequate irrigation--those large trees would be subject to "the element of shock," according to the head of Public Works.
"a lot of times that's the least healthy way to establish a tree, and have it mature the way you want it to mature...it's often a false trade-off to start with a bigger tree because, just because it's a bigger tree doesn't mean that it's a necessarily healthier tree or that it's going to grow as quickly once you establish it; a lot of times the element of shock that's gonna occur after the planting is gonna be exacerbated, so there's a lot of issues in terms of, from the arborist's profession, that we should bring to you so that you can have that discussion, so that you can know what those tradeoffs might be in terms of cost and, ah, what's gonna happen to that tree once it's planted."The citizens of this city want to know: what are those tradeoffs, and what is going to happen to the ficus once they're yanked out and moved elsewhere? There appears to be some confusion among city officials as to the expected outcome, to put it charitably.
These are our fellow citizens and residents, spending their precious weekend hours struggling for a worthy cause. They are motivated not by greed, power, money or a vain quest for egotistic satisfaction–but by a sincere and selfless desire to protect our community, our environment and our quality of life. We view their efforts with humility and gratitude.
(click photo for larger version)...San Francisco resident Louis Blumberg learned that under city law, he had to replace the uprooted concrete sidewalk in front of his house. Since he did not want to cut the trees in front of his home, Blumberg began researching rubber sidewalks, which were being used already in Santa Monica and Long Beach.Imagine that: this gentleman didn't want to cut the trees in front of his property--and he wasn't even a community forester! But then, he did have Santa Monica as inspiration.
The sidewalks, unlike concrete, do not need to be replaced when uplifted by tree roots and are made from recycled tires.Read the rest of this interesting short article [here].
Susan Hartley writes:
...our good friend, Joe Natoli passed away yesterday morning at 9:00 am at a hospital in SM from a massive heart attack. Joe always wore his black seaman's cap over his white/gray hair, always spoke at City Council meetings and the numerous city meetings he attended, and always supported the Ficus trees.More on Joe [here].
Joe had a lot of good insight into the workings/misworkings of SM. He was always vigilant and saw through City Hall sheenanigans. He didn't let the rudeness of city council, staff, and commissions stop him from voicing his concerns...We wondered why Joe wasn't at the council meeting this Tuesday. Little did we know he would be gone the next morning.
The residents of Santa Monica and our beloved trees are more vulnerable now with Joe and his insights and perceptions no longer with us. He always had his eyes on the City for us. He'll be sorely missed.
A brief recap of the last few days' events.
3.7.08: Treesavers attorney Tom Nitti obtains a temporary restraining order, preventing the City of Santa Monica from destroying or removing any trees pending a review of the original restraining order and responses by both the Treesavers and the City of Santa Monica. [click on image below to see entire document]
3.11.08: The Santa Monica City Attorney responds by sending Treesavers' attorney Nitti a letter announcing the imminent destruction of the 23 trees the City has deemed unsafe, and demanding confirmation that Nitti is in agreement with the City's view of these trees. The letter was faxed to Nitti's office at 1:42pm, and demanded a response by 5:00pm. [click on image below to see entire document]
3.11.08: Treesavers' attorney Nitti responds to the City Attorney's letter: removing the 23 trees would be a violation of the Court order.
The City's consulting arborist, Cy Carlberg, in her report to the City of January 5, 2008, identified only 3 trees as having a high failure potential. The majority of trees in her report were identified as having a low failure potential.
In light of the staff reports, the City's history regarding these trees (it strains credulity to believe they all suddenly become dangerous at once!), and the City's consulting arborist report, as well as contradictory statements by the City forester too lengthy to detail here (but a ripe subject for a cross examination), it is my clients' position that the removal of 23 trees as a so-called danger to the public would be a violation of the Court order.[click on image below to see entire document]
3.11.08: Treesavers issue a settlement proposal to the City of Santa Monica intended to "satisfy all parties, preserve the trees, and allow the City to proceed with the streetscape project." Treesavers will end all litigation in return for the City agreeing to protect the trees. [click on image below to see entire document]
The City Manager responds to the temporary stay order:
We are following this Court order and we expect to prevail. The facts have not changed and delay is costing the taxpayers. Twenty-three (23) structurally unstable trees must come down;What does the city's own arborist consultant say about these "unstable" trees? She examined each one in detail, analyzed its condition and rendered her findings in a chart, contained in a report to City Council entitled Summary of Health and Structure of Ficus Trees. Here's an excerpt from the report containing the chart (portions highlighted for clarity--please click on images to see larger versions):
Up to 31 trees will be relocated, some in the project area and others to parks.The cost of relocating these 31 perfectly healthy, mature, thriving leafy trees, and replacing them with small, essentially canopy-less Ginkgos is at least 600,000 taxpayer dollars by the city's own reckoning. This, for some reason, is not considered a cost to taxpayers--does this money grow on trees?
The facts have not changed and delay is costing the taxpayers.Yes, there is indeed a cost to taxpayers.
Let me get this straight:Read the rest of this great editorial [here].
At significant expense to taxpayers, these trees will be either uprooted and relocated or just plain chainsaw massacred into toothpicks, for what again?
- For being reckless enough to hang a branch in the way of an "oversized" Escalade trying to squeeze into a spot made for a normal car in front of Circuit City?
- For inconsiderately blocking the view at certain angles of a merchant’s sign that says "Bubar’s Jewelry," or "Bank of America," or "Dance Doctor"?
- For sadly possessing no historical significance or "characteristics of noteworthy or aesthetic interest or value…" as decreed by the Landmarks Commission?
- For conspiring to "all die at the same time" in a nightmarish scenario where all at once the streets of Santa Monica go barren, as envisioned by Cy Carlberg, the council’s independently contracted arborist?
After a near-superhuman effort, legal hero Tom Nitti has won another reprieve in court for the downtown Santa Monica trees. A three-judge panel has agreed to keep in place the October 5th restraining order temporarily protecting the trees. The city has until March 21st to respond, and Tom will then have until March 28th to reply. At that time the court will either conduct a hearing, or rule outright on the merits of the case.
Please join us in humble thankfulness for the selfless, altruistic efforts of this dedicated attorney; a true environmental defender and civil libertarian.
Tom Nitti and Jerry Rubin announcing the original court injunction last October Oscar-nominated actor Bruce Dern on the Santa Monica ficus fight:
Thank you JenHeidiR.
A brief quote from tonight's demonstration at City Hall. Former mayor Richard Bloom, to the assembled crowd of Santa Monica residents:
You won't change my mind.Trivial Pursuit fans take note: Mr. Bloom is an elected representative of the citizens of Santa Monica.
Tom Nitti, attorney for the Treesavers, is a true, skilled, selfless hero.
In spite of his best efforts, however, the judge in the case decided in favor of the City of Santa Monica that the statute of limitations was, in fact exceeded; too late to put a stop to the destruction. The city did not deny that it improperly called the trees "facilities" in the Environmental Impact Report and thus avoided the special requirements relating to trees (requirements that might have voided this portion of the streetscape project). No, the city only claimed that it was too late to catch them. The city's attorneys must feel very, very proud. And how does the City Manager's office feel about this?
“We’re very pleased with the ruling,” said Kate Vernez, a senior management analyst for the City Manager.Pleased they didn't get caught in time. A true public servant, working on behalf of the people. The City Manager must feel very, very proud.
TREESAVERS TO HOLD MARCH 5 PUBLIC SIT-IN AT SANTA MONICA CITY HALL IMPLORING CITY TO SAVE THE DOWNTOWN FICUS TREES
“TREE DIALOGUE NOT TREE DESTRUCTION” TO BE THEME OF PEACEFUL LEGAL SIT-IN
Santa Monica, CA — Treesavers will hold a peaceful and legal Public Sit-In in the lobby of Santa Monica City Hall beginning 4:00 PM on Wednesday March 5, 2008 to implore the City to listen to its residents, merchants, visitors and community organizations who overwhelmingly oppose the planned destruction and unnecessary relocation of more than 50 mature ficus trees along Second and Fourth Streets between Colorado Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard in the Santa Monica Downtown District.
Treesavers say the six month struggle to save the threatened trees should, and still can, end in a business and an environmentally friendly win-win solution, but the City needs to do more to initiate a fairer process and demonstrate more accountability. Treesavers say the City should agree to reconsider the tree aspects of the 8 million dollar street improvement plan and agree to hold an all-inclusive and long overdue town hall workshop on the Downtown District tree issue.
What the City needs, Treesavers say, is tree dialogue not tree destruction.
Gillian Ware:
February 19th was not a good day for Santa Monica's Ficus trees: Treesavers appealed to the City Council for the Landmarks Commission's ruling to be overturned (see post Ficus Trees not Landmarked, January 22nd)- this was denied.Read the rest of this wonderful blog entry [here].
Journalist and commentator Peggy Clifford:
Santa Monica residents have rarely been in better form than they were at last night's City Council meeting when they spoke on behalf of the 50-plus ficus trees the City wants to remove from downtown streets.
Unfortunately, the Council has rarely been in worse form.
There were dozens of residents, they ranged from students to older people, and they were uniformly passionate about the beauty and utility of the trees, and the multiple roles they play in downtown Santa Monica – softening the hardedged streets, providing shade, cleaning the air and generally elevating the prospect.
The Santa Monica City Council has rejected the Treesavers' appeal of the Landmarks Commission denial of landmark status for the downtown trees.
In addition, the City Council also turned down a motion by council member McKeown to reconsider the tree portion of the streetscape project and reopen it for discussion. In the face of a packed, standing-room-only council chamber full of tree supporters, the City Council majority flatly refused to reopen the issue for reconsideration.
More on this later. In the meantime, Treesavers are holding a "Protect the Downtown Ficus Trees" Town Hall Meeting on February 28 to discuss the next, more serious steps to be taken in defense of the trees.
Everyone is invited.
At the beginning of this year, this blog published an overview of the city-caused difficulties facing the surviving ficus trees on Second and Fourth Streets. We are repeating this blog entry--with minor editing changes--to help explain recent--and upcoming--events.
please click on photo for larger image
What the city is doing
Just a quick reminder of the basic issue here. On 2d and 4th Streets in downtown Santa Monica, the city wants to yank out perfectly healthy trees similar to "A" in the photo above, and replace them with juvenile, shadeless saplings similar to "B." (Photos taken on 32d Street, where similar replacements took place.)
Why the city is destroying or removing trees in downtown Santa Monica
The city claims many of the trees it wants to remove are damaged beyond repair, though an independent arborist's review claims otherwise--and even the city's own outside arborist (hired by the city to bolster its case) says that only a minority of those "damaged" trees actually have a "high failure potential" (3 out of the 23 trees slated for immediate destruction).
please click on photo for larger image
Tonight's City Council meeting agenda includes a request from two council members for a revision of the city's urban forest policy. Following is an exerpt from a letter to the City Council:
It's simply not necessary--in any plausible scenario-- to rip out perfectly healthy trees.Read the rest of the letter [here].
The staff report's call for a long-term urban forest policy in Santa Monica is an extremely laudable goal. The problem is that the current Community Forest Management Plan--the present urban forest policy-- is not being followed either in substance or spirit. So if staff is now proposing a new plan, or a new policy, why should we assume this one will in fact be followed?
A fellow blogger from Okinawa writes:
These dense and large-canopy ficus trees are their important resources. I really wander after losing the trees, what else they have in order to attract shoppers.Read the rest of his blog entry [here].
This weird logic is not only the city of Santa Monica but also everywhere. this kind of decision is usually not represented the people of the community but bureaucrats interest.
Too small to be landmarked. Too large to survive.Other trees were identified for removal in order to meet the lighting requirements of the overall design, while some trees were identified for removal because they are too large to relocate.See the Fact Sheet [here].
Dr. Alden Kelley, (PhD, Plant Morphology, Purdue) is the independent arborist whose report supports the efforts to save the Second and Fourth Street ficus trees. A recent article describes him this way:
But who is Alden Kelley, ficus tree hero? He is a consulting arborist and the author of kids' books "A Tree is a Home" and "It Started As A Seed."Read the rest of the article [here]. And another one [here].
Alden Kelley conducts professional and volunteer activities on behalf of trees, to promote understanding of their values, benefits and essentiality to human well-being, and to learn and teach how to care for trees in ways to foster optimum tree health, safeness and longevity.Another listing describes his expert witness specialties:
Specialties: Tree value (damage or destruction); tree roots (structural damage, trip & fall); tree/branch failure; landscape misdesign; tree structure, morphology, anatomy, physiology, disease, insects.From Dr. Kelley's web site:
Alden Kelley has been a consulting arborist for more than 24 years. He has served as an expert witness for 22 years. He has been a certified arborist ( I.S.A #267) since 1985.
Formal training includes a B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. in various plant sciences. Practical experience in tree pruning, planting, maintenance, and trouble-shooting has spanned 40 years of part-time or full-time activity.
Dr. Kelley’s primary goals are to promote the well-being of trees, and to maximize their benefits to people.
His functions are to diagnose problems that trees have (or cause); to prescribe appropriate ways to correct the problems; and to teach his cients what trees need, what values and benefits the trees have, and how to increase those values and benefits.
As an expert witness, he provides objective, accurate, detailed analyses, reports, and testimony.
