Whittier commission recommends removal of 13 Aleppo pines on Palm Avenue, denies appeals

The Whittier Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission voted April 16 to recommend that the City Council deny ten appeals and allow the removal of 13 Aleppo pine trees along Palm Avenue between Beverly Boulevard and Whittier Boulevard.

Interim Director David Montgomery-Scott, representing the City as applicant, told the Commission the Palm Avenue Improvement Project—authorized by City Council in March 2023 and begun in June—includes new water and sewer mains, asphalt paving, curb and ramp reconstruction, cross gutters, speed humps and sidewalk repairs. Montgomery-Scott said construction is paused in areas where trees intersect the work and that two independent arborist assessments (V&E Tree Service and the City arborist) identified 14 Aleppo pines with "moderate to high" risk of failure because of dieback, root girdling, fungal growth, decay and significant trunk lean; one tree had already been removed for imminent failure and 13 remain on the project's removal list.

"Safety, infrastructure needs, and public access sometimes necessitate removals," Montgomery-Scott said, noting the city manages an urban forest of more than 23,000 trees but that these 13 trees do not safely fit within the rebuilt street where roots and hardscape conflict.

Appellants and preservation advocates challenged the arborist conclusions and the City's approach. James Becerra, co-appellant and chair of the Historic Resources Commission who practiced as a landscape architect, disputed several risk claims, questioned the depth of the arborists' hazard metrics, and said some trees labeled at-risk showed no decline in the packet. He urged site-by-site mitigation and cited local examples where root management preserved mature trees. Co-appellant Connie McCormick of Save Our Trees Whittier called parkway trees "public assets" and argued a non-ADA five-foot sidewalk segment at 6307 Palm Avenue did not justify removing a mature tree.

Members of the public and professionals added detail and pressure. Tom Bihr, a licensed landscape architect, criticized the project's long timeline and late arborist evaluation and urged clearer transparency and case-by-case assessments. Former Council member Helen Rader said the City’s Tree Manual requires mitigation before removal and recommended Commissioners walk the site before deciding. Resident Javier Garcia, who also spoke earlier about separate deteriorating trees on Greenleaf Avenue, urged preservation and warned against trusting the Mayor’s chosen arborist; he told the panel, "We can repair driveways, remove hazardous trees, but keep the rest."

Commissioners asked when tree evaluations were conducted, whether roots caused uneven road surfaces, and whether alternatives such as root shaving, curb adjustments, or meandering curbs were feasible in the narrow street. City Engineer Phil Wang and City Arborist Wayne McBurney said the trees were flagged when the contractor began concrete work and that some alternatives were constrained by the 30-foot street width and by flow-line and driveway alignment requirements. Staff said an October 2024 arborist assessment by V&E Tree Service was validated by the City's follow-up inspection.

After discussion, Commissioner Elizabeth Apodaca moved and Commissioner Tiffany Givens seconded a motion to recommend to City Council that the ten appeals be denied and staff's recommendation to remove the Pine trees be upheld. The motion carried on a roll-call vote, 5–0; Vice Chair Victoria Pacheco was recorded as absent for the vote.

The Commission's action is a recommendation to City Council; it does not itself authorize removal. Montgomery-Scott said remaining construction near the marked trees is paused pending resolution of the appeals and any City Council decisions. The record presented at the hearing notes the trees are approximately 70–85 years old, some exceed 80 feet in height, and that the Palm Avenue project involves about a one-mile stretch with more than 150 parkway trees overall.

The hearing highlighted a community split between homeowners and preservation advocates: property owners cited safety, property damage and nuisance problems, while preservation advocates urged mitigation, case-by-case assessment, and protective measures to retain mature canopy trees. The Commission closed the public hearing after the vote; the matter will move to City Council for a final decision.