After public outcry, PUSD Board votes to save some trees slated for removal

Pasadena residents fighting a school district plan to remove nearly 200 trees scored a win Thursday night.

Pasadena Unified School District officials had said 193 trees across 11 campuses need to be cut down to clean up soil contaminated by the Eaton Fire. But on Thursday, the district’s board voted unanimously to attempt to save up to 57 of those trees.

The adopted motion is no guarantee trees will be saved, but directs staff to evaluate other ways to remediate soil around certain mature, protected trees.

The vote came after major public outcry from local residents, including a Pasadena teen who spent more than eight hours in the branches of an oak tree slated for removal at the district’s headquarters.

Why is the district trying to remove trees?

Last May, the school district released the results of soil tests taken after the Eaton Fire, which found elevated levels of toxic metals, primarily lead and arsenic, at 13 campuses. (You can see the reports for each campus here).

Then, late last month, the district announced it planned to remove nearly 200 trees to excavate one to four feet of contaminated soil at the remaining 11 campuses it has to clean up. Officials said they need to get the work done before students return from summer break.

The plan angered many residents.

Chapman University soil scientist Christine Sierra O’Connell said removing contaminants is critical, but cutting down too many trees could swap out one problem for another.

“You could easily imagine taking down all these trees, and the next time there's a big heatwave before the end of the school year, these campuses are super hot,” she said.

She said areas like sports fields and open soil playgrounds make sense for excavation, but a variety of methods can be used to remediate soil near trees, including phytoremediation, in which plants are used to take up metals in the soils.

“In my opinion, PUSD should not be moving forward with a wholesale excavation strategy without circling back and deeply investigating whether or not alternative soil remediation strategies can be utilized around the root beds of these large, mature, important trees,” O’Connell said.

District has concerns about additional costs

The district’s facilities director, Michael Dunning, said at the Thursday board meeting that he and his staff will assess 57 mature, protected trees where it may be possible to use an “air excavation method” to clean the soil at their base.

“It does take longer periods of time,” Dunning said. “It does come with some risk. We could go through the cost of trying this method at each tree and still not come to a conclusion.”

If the district doesn’t clean up the soil to accepted levels, they’d have to enter into a “land use covenant” with the state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control. That would require certain areas to be permanently closed off, or possibly made impermeable with concrete, as well as additional training and staff for maintenance, which could cost the district $30,000 per year in perpetuity, Dunning estimated.

“I’m not certain that our budget could withstand such a thing,” said Boardmember Michelle R. Bailey.

The original full excavation plan is estimated to cost $6.6 million, though the district would be reimbursed by the state if the contamination is reduced to public health standards.

Benjamin Stanphill, Southern California division chief at the state Department of Toxic Substances Control, told board members that the agency is "somewhat agnostic” about the method of contaminant removal and that they’d consider approving a plan involving bioremediation or phytoremediation methods.

Meanwhile, the district said in a statement that staff and arborists “will continue refining site-specific approaches, site by site, tree by tree… with the goal of maintaining as many protected trees within the removal areas as possible.”