> ## 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.

# Treesavers pulling out all the stops
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/treesavers-pulling-out-all-the-stops/
- Published: 2007-10-05T15:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-25T01:04:47.000Z
- Author: Melody Hanatani
- Tags: Environment, Downtown, #archive-import

*Local advocates hire legal help in their fight against City Hall*

A local attorney secured by environmental activists plans to file an injunction today against Santa Monica City Hall to halt the removal and relocation of more than 50 trees from commercial corridors.

The move is just the latest chapter in the threatened tree saga, an environmental showdown that could come to a climax Monday, when city crews plan to begin uprooting more than 50 mature ficus and palm trees as part of a downtown beautification project.

Thomas Nitti, the attorney representing the Santa Monica Treesavers, gave City Hall notice on Thursday that he was going to the Los Angeles Superior Court in Downtown Los Angeles this morning to request a restraining order to prevent the removal and transplantation of the trees from Second and Fourth streets.

The Treesavers do not believe City Hall followed proper procedures and did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, failing to conduct an environmental impact report, Nitti said.

City Attorney Marsha Moutrie and Craig Perkins, the director of environmental and public works, did not return requests seeking comment on Thursday.

Whether or not this latest action will have an impact on the project — expected to commence on Monday at 7:30 a.m. — remains to be seen.

“The city has decided that the trees are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and we disagree,” Nitti said.

The trees are a small, but controversial, part of an $8.2 million streetscape improvement project that covers Second and Fourth streets from Colorado Avenue to Wilshire Boulevard. The project calls for sidewalk improvements and lighting enhancements, as well as a host of other beautification elements. The project also includes a $600,000 line item to remove 23 ficus trees that have been identified for structural deficiencies and transplant 31 ficus trees to other parts of the city, including within the project zone and the Santa Monica Airport.

Each empty ficus plot will be filled with two ginkgo biloba trees.

Local environmental activists have come out in protest against the project, believing the targeted trees can be fixed with corrective pruning. The self-dubbed Treesavers have also blasted the proposal to transplant the trees, calling it a waste of money.

The public outpouring has continued to gain momentum, even with the city’s axes at the ready.

On Wednesday night, more than three dozen residents spoke on behalf of sparing the trees at the Planning Commission meeting in City Hall, prompting the commissioners to vote to recommend that the City Council delay its downtown streetscape project.

The City Council would have to call an emergency meeting before Monday’s work commences in order to stall the project.

Nitti contends that City Hall did not give appropriate public input for the project, while city officials have stated in the past that they did provide multiple opportunities for public opinion before the project was finalized last month by City Council.

Jerry Rubin, who has been among the most vocal critics of the city’s plan, also intends to file a landmark nomination application today in City Hall, asking the Landmarks Commission to consider preserving all the downtown ficus trees through landmark designation.

“I think it’s good to get all of these ficus trees landmarked as part of the Second and Fourth street historic downtown district,” Rubin said Wednesday. “The trees have been there for (more than) 40 years and it fits the (landmark) criteria.”

Jump hedline: Attorney to file injunction halting tree removal

Suggested pullquote: “The city has decided that the trees are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and we disagree.”

Thomas Nitti

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on October 5, 2007.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/100507.pdf?ref=smdp.com)