> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # City’s tree removal plan can go forward - URL: https://www.smdp.com/citys-tree-removal-plan-can-go-forward/ - Published: 2008-05-15T15:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-24T19:36:38.000Z - Author: Melody Hanatani - Tags: Environment, Downtown, #archive-import *City Hall plans to proceed with ficus tree removal plan* DOWNTOWN L.A. The California Appellate Court on Wednesday denied a petition by the Santa Monica Treesavers on its challenge of a controversial tree removal plan, giving City Hall the green light to begin uprooting the specimens in question. The decision came just hours after City Hall rejected a settlement offer from the Treesavers who proposed dropping the seven-month-old lawsuit in exchange for abandoning the tree relocation portion of the plan, which at one point included removing 23 structurally unstable trees and transplanting 31 others. “I am pleased that the courts have upheld the city’s position and that we may now move forward to enhance these streets and protect public safety,” City Manager Lamont Ewell said. “The city intends to proceed with the removal of 23 trees that are structurally unstable, and implement the other improvements.” A timetable has not been set for the tree removal aspect of the project. The decision came as disappointing news for the grassroots organization which has championed preserving the ficus trees on Second and Fourth streets for nearly a year, staging protest rallies and threatening to chain themselves to the trees. The group has taken numerous measures to halt the tree removal plan, including nominating the trees for landmark status and filing a “We’re disappointed in the decision but we made a good faith settlement offer to the city last night and the city indicated that it would be willing to engage in some settlement negotiations regarding the trees,” Tom Nitti, the Treesavers attorney, said. “It is my understanding that Treesavers intend to pursue those settlement negotiations.” The City Manager’s Office received the two-page proposal earlier this week from the Treesavers, outlined within it a series of conditions that must be met by City Hall, including preserving 14 trees identified as having low-risk failure potential in a report by consulting arborist, Cy Carlberg. The Treesavers also asked that the medium risk failure trees be preserved through corrective pruning. Assistant City Attorney Joe Lawrence called the proposal disappointing considering the Treesavers approached city officials last week with a proposal that he said had “promise,” but could not elaborate on the specifics. “The letter does not reflect at all the proposal made last week and it is an unfortunate step backwards,” Lawrence said.“If the Treesavers wish to discuss other settlement proposals, the city may be interested.” The proposal originated in a conversation between the city manager and Nitti who said that the key to any resolution would be the preservation of the remaining seven trees slated for relocation.Nitti said he recalled mentioning in the conversation that any other terms would be discussed with the Treesavers and subsequently made in the official settlement offer. “The seven trees are a big concern,” Nitti said.“If we can get over that hump, then we’re well toward making a proposal we can all live with.” He pointed out that while the Treesavers were not victorious in court, many of the trees have been saved since the lawsuit was filed. City Hall originally proposed relocating 31 ficus trees but reduced that number recently after surveying underground utilities and concluding that seven would be needed for relocation to the proposed Palisades Garden Walk on the former Rand Corp. site. Nitti said he expects the next step for the Treesavers would be to meet with city officials to talk about the remaining trees and does not anticipate any new court filings at this time. The settlement offer also asked that a committee with at least three members from the general public be formed to choose the replacement trees. The plan currently calls for two ginkgo bilo-ba trees to replace each removed ficus. The Treesavers in March filed a challenge to an earlier decision by Superior Court Judge Ann Jones who ruled the group’s lawsuit claiming City Hall had violated state environmental laws actually came more than a year too late. The organization filed a lawsuit in October 2007 alleging that City Hall had failed to follow the California Environmental Quality Act when it didn’t file an impact report about the streetscape improvement project. Jones found the 180-day clock during which time a lawsuit could be filed began ticking in October 2005 when city officials determined the project was CEQA exempt. The Treesavers argued that city officials misled the public in stating the street trees were exempt, classifying them as facilities in the 2005 report, rather than as trees. In addition to removing the trees, the street beautification project, which is part of the Downtown Urban Design Plan, includes improving lighting, repairing sidewalks and extending curbs on Second and Fourth streets from Colorado Avenue to Wilshire Boulevard. The Downtown Urban Design Plan was first analyzed under CEQA and approved in 1997. But the court ruling that the lawsuit was not filed in time does not mean that the community’s concerns are not valid, Jerry Rubin, the plaintiff in the case, said. “Virtually every neighborhood organization said the seven trees should not be relocated,” Rubin said.“We tried numerous times to get a (winning) solution to settle this and we feel the city has an obligation to meet with us and I’m hoping they will.” *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on May 15, 2008.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/051508.pdf?ref=smdp.com)