Treesavers
Files Appeal in Ficus Tree Case |
By Jorge Casuso
March 6 -- Treesavers asked a California Appeals Court
on Thursday to halt the removal of 54 ficus trees in Downtown Santa
Monica until it can take up a court decision last week to deny the
group a preliminary injunction.
If the court grants an emergency stay, which is highly unusual, Treesavers
will ask the court to rule on whether the group filed its case within 180 days
of the City Council’s decision to exempt the ficus trees along 2nd and
4th streets from environmental review, said Tom Nitti, Treesavers’ attorney.
The grassroots group, which has held rallies and hunger strikes, argued that
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has a special category that
explicitly states that trees should not be exempted from the environmental process.
“What the staff report says, CEQA doesn’t say at all,” Nitti
said. “City staff misinformed the City Council and the public.”
The City, Nitti argues, should not have defined the trees as small government
facilities similar to a parking lot booth or curb cut, which can be exempted
from CEQA review. In fact, CEQA has a special category that explicitly states
that trees should not be exempted from the environmental process, he said.
But Superior Court Judge Ann I. Jones ruled last Thursday that the arguments
were moot because Treesavers did not file its case within 180 days of the October
2005 City Council ruling to exempt trees from environmental review.
Nitti contends that the City did not post its determination with the County
after the council ruling and that the 180-day statute of limitations began when
the council voted last August on the contract for the $8.2 million streetscape
project, which includes removing the trees.
“The City has to file with the County their reasoning for making the
trees exempt,” Nitti said. “The City admits it did not post the
determination.
“When they don’t post it, the statute of limitations doesn’t
start until final approval of the project,” he said.
Assistant City Attorney Joe Lawrence said the City can choose whether to file
the council’s determination with the County. The fact it did not, he said,
gave Treesavers more time to file its case.
“ If you file it (with the County) anybody who wants to file a lawsuit
has 30 days,” Lawrence said. “If the City does not file, they have
six months, so they are better off.
“The filing doesn’t give them an advantage,” he said. “It’s
actually a legal thing that helps governments.”
Lawrence said he is not aware of any protocol the City follows in deciding
whether to file a CEQA determination.
“I don’t know if there is a rule we follow,” he said.
Nitti charges that the City purposely failed to file so the public would not
be alerted. But Lawrence disagrees, saying the public was well aware of the
decision.
Lawrence notes that Jerry Rubin, the leader of Treesavers, was at the October
2005 council meeting when the initial decision was made to exempt the trees
from CEQA.
Judge Jones, he added, “said Jerry Rubin was the poster child of how
much the public knows. To suggest that Rubin, or any other member of the public,
didn’t know has it completely upside down.”
Nitti, who has compiled more than 8,000 pages of documents fighting the City,
including 500 pages of briefs and exhibits, notes that being granted an appeals
hearing is a long shot.
“About 98 out of 100 stays are not granted,” he said. “I
expect we’ll have a decision from them in a couple of days.”
|