HYSTERICAL LANDMARK STORIES (Part 1)
Revenge of The Tree Huggers

I usually write a rent board story that tells true tales of the unusually absurd and ridiculous things the Rent Board does to apartment owners. However, for the first two months of this year the Rent Board has appeared to be almost reasonable compared to our Landmarks Commission. The situation has gotten so bad that the owners of single family homes put a citizen initiative on the ballot known as Proposition A to keep their homes from becoming historic landmarks and thereby being subject to the jurisdiction of those wild and nutty people on the Landmarks Commission. Although that initiative sadly failed to pass, this story explains some of why the homeowners went to that trouble.

On October 14, 2002, the Landmarks Commission filed an application to declare that a tree located at 918 5th Street was a historical landmark. This was a strange action to take because there is nothing historic about that tree. It is not a native California species; it is a cedar tree imported from Asia that is now very common in this country. It is not the biggest cedar tree in the State, either. According to the Staff Report in this case, “The Champion State deodar cedar is 98 feet high with a 228' trunk circumference and a 59-foot average crown spread width. Using a point system for evaluation, the Champion tree was given 347 points. The Santa Monica tree is only 48 feet high with a 175" trunk and an average crown spread width of 59 feet. Therefore, although the Santa Monica tree is only half as tall and received only 238 points, the Landmarks Commission report states, “Although the [Santa Monica] tree does not measure up to the State Champion tree, it is nevertheless substantial and received a relatively high rating.”

Another criteria for designation as a landmark is if an object is “. . . identified with historic personages or important events in local, state or national history.” Although that is a good reason to declare a landmark, the Santa Monica tree wasn’t planted by anyone famous. Martin Luther never trimmed it with his ax. No famous personage was ever hung from it. Michael Jackson never sat in it or dangled a baby from it. The only reason that makes it unusual 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.

The reports in the files of this case also establish that the recently decreased owner planted the tree when she was a child, which would make the tree 80+ years old. That was apparently the most attention the tree received, because it grew wild until it took up the front half of the lot, while a single family home continued to occupy the rear of the lot. It only received attention when branches grew into the adjacent lot, which is described in the November 11, 2002 Staff Report as follows:

“However, recent pruning has been harsh, particularly the treatment of branches along the neighboring property line. Some lower branches have been truncated, with gaping wounds remaining. Nevertheless, despite the wounds, the tree is in good condition and its wounds are not life threatening. A proper pruning of this tree by a qualified arborist could strengthen it and ensure continued good health for many more years.”

The statement above is ironic because the tree became a landmark as a result of being permitted to grow wild, yet the City now orders it to be kept it as a landmark through 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.” (See Final Report at Condition 1. And when the Landmarks Commission had a difficult task meeting the “Historic Association” criteria required by the law, it got very creative in the Staff Report for the meeting of December 9, 2002 which states the following:

“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 above is one is the best examples of result-oriented decision making I have ever seen. First, it states that the State Forestry Station experimented with eucalyptus trees, but there is nothing to indicate that it planted or ever experimented with cedar trees. Then it mentions that Abbot Kinney liked trees too, there is no connection between him and the cedar tree at 918 5th Street? If it could be proven that Abbot Kinney’s dog peed on the trunk of that tree on his way to the 1934 Tree Huggers convention, it might have some historical significance. Finally, it states that a cedar tree was included on a list in of friendly trees 1934. This is really grasping at straws for all trees are “friendly” trees. If the subject tree had been a pine or apple tree, the Staff Report would have included stories of Paul Bunyan and Johnny Appleseed.

Unfortunately, despite the absence of any rational basis for finding that the Big Ugly Tree on 5th Street has any significant historical significance, all six Commissars voted for making it a landmark. Therefore, if misery loves company, Santa Monica Apartment owners can rejoice, for the other property owners are now discovering that the City now has a Commission that is even nuttier than our Rent Board. The best illustration of that is to quote the conditions stated in the report.

And if you don’t believe it, go to the City Hall and read Landmark Story LC-02-LM-006.