Pasadena Unified board approves remediation plan, directs staff to study tree-retention options after community outcry

The Pasadena Unified School District board voted unanimously to approve staff’s recommendation to continue implementation of soil remediation and restoration at affected campuses while adding two amendments requiring staff to voluntarily evaluate tree-retention alternatives and to except protected trees that would disrupt school operations or student life.

The decision followed more than two hours of public comment by residents, parents, teachers and youth activists who urged the district to stop plans to remove mature and native trees from school properties. At the meeting several speakers said the district’s work list includes about 193 trees; one speaker said 16 had already been cut. “Tenemos una orden temporal de alejamiento,” said Kursana Ochoa, a UCLA-affiliated resident who identified herself as representing a group she called Friends of POSD, and warned that the order “va a parar todo el proyecto” if removals proceed.

A district staff presentation described remediation options being considered, including targeted excavation using air-excavation techniques, site-by-site evaluations aimed at preserving individual trees when possible, and the potential need for institutional controls (land‑use agreements) when contaminated soil is left in place. The staff presentation said an initial inventory had identified roughly 55–57 trees that would be designated as protected under the current plan and noted costs and scheduling constraints tied to the school calendar.

Ben Standfel, identifying himself as chief of the Southern California remediation program at the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), told the board that DTSC reviews district proposals and can approve either full soil removal or institutional controls provided the protections, monitoring and restrictions are adequate. Standfel cited an example threshold for action, saying “80 miligramos por kilogramo” as a soil level DTSC uses in residential-area comparisons, and added that DTSC is "un poco agnóstico de los árboles," meaning the agency evaluates remediation proposals based on exposure and controls rather than aiming to preserve or remove trees as a policy preference.

In a technical question-and-answer period, staff confirmed tests had found lead and arsenic in some samples. Staff said leaving contaminated soil in place can require a long-term land-use agreement obligating monitoring and institutional controls; they gave an illustrative monitoring cost of about $30,000 per year for sites subject to such an agreement. Staff also said certain sites cannot be worked while occupied and that, where possible, each tree would be evaluated by an arborist to determine whether excavation could proceed without fatally damaging roots.

Multiple public commenters pushed alternatives. Speakers described bioremediation and plant-based remediation techniques, asked who prepared the district’s tree inventory and asserted the district’s public-notification process was insufficient. One public commenter who identified herself as an arborist and director of a local nonprofit said replanting does not replace decades of canopy growth: "tomaría 30 años" to reach a mature canopy level like the existing trees.

The motion the board approved — read into the record by a board member — authorized staff to continue remediation and restoration work and added two specific amendments: require the district to "voluntarily evaluate retention alternatives for protected trees" and exempt protected trees "that disrupt regular school operations or student life." Board members debated budget constraints and student safety before agreeing that preserving trees where practicable should be a priority, subject to DTSC guidance and funding limits.

The board did not provide a line-item cost estimate for full excavation at the meeting; members said funding would come from general and facilities funds and that the district would seek reimbursements where eligible. The meeting record shows the board intended to work with community members to prioritize trees within available budgets and to return with additional evaluations. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned.

What happens next: staff will pursue the remediation steps described, conduct site-by-site arborist evaluations, consult DTSC on any proposed institutional controls, and report back to the board with prioritized trees and cost estimates. The board’s action authorizes continued work while creating a formal requirement to study, where feasible, alternatives that could preserve protected trees.