The Pasadena Unified School District’s plan to remove toxic soil from 11 sites has come under scrutiny from local community advocates over the proposed removal of about 200 trees.
The plan came in response to results from soil testing done last year in the wake of the Eaton fire. The presence of contaminants like lead, arsenic, chromium, Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and dioxins/furans district led to the district cordoning off areas where contaminated soil was found.
Late last month, the district unveiled its plan, which leaned heavily on consultation with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control. For local tree advocates in the Pasadena and Altadena, one number stood out among the rest. About 200 trees at district sites where contaminated soil had been identified would be removed.
Jessica Richards began her advocacy for local trees by fighting to preserve one tree in McDonald Park.
Richards said a DTSC and PUSD public hearing held in April made no mention of removing about 200 trees. The first time the public heard about the tree removals, Richards said, was when the district announced its plan in a May 29 release.
“That is highly problematic because there wasn’t adequate public noticing on the entire details of the project,” Richards said.
Community tree advocates were once again caught by surprise when tree removal work began at San Rafael Elementary School on Wednesday, June 10.
District officials said a public notice was sent that put the work period between June 8 and Aug. 14 and that the school community was notified about when the work would take place.
“Removing mature trees will increase energy consumption at the PUSD schools because the schools will be hotter without that shade cover,” Richards said. “The trees also sequester carbon and … heavy metals. They stabilize soil and they overall reduce that heat island effect.”
During a virtual press conference last month, Superintendent Elizabeth Blanco said DTSC gave PUSD a “mandate” to remove trees where toxic soil was found.
“DTSC needs to step up and clarify what they intended,” Richards said. “There has been inconsistent and unclear communication about exactly they approved and what exactly they required.”
DTSC said in a written statement to the Southern California News Group that there was no “mandate” the district remove trees, but added that “tree removal can be an appropriate step to clean up contaminated soil and protect the health of students and others who use the campus. Specifically, trees located in contaminated soil may need to be removed to complete the removal of contaminated soil.”
After the Eaton fire, DTSC and the school district entered into a voluntary cleanup agreement, later revised in January 2026, under which DTSC would oversee PUSD’s clean-up of contaminated soil at 15 schools in the district, according to the DTSC.
Under the agreement, PUSD conducts the investigation and cleanup and DTSC verifies the cleanup removes the full extent of contaminated soil.
The statement noted that DTSC is overseeing the investigation and cleanup of contaminated soil at three schools – Franklin, Longfellow and San Rafael – according to publicly vetted Removal Action Workplans (RAWs). DTSC is also providing technical assistance for PUSD’s cleanup work at the other 12 schools.
In February 2026, PUSD submitted a draft removal plan to DTSC for Franklin, Longfellow, and San Rafael, after which DTSC held a 30-day public comment period for the plans from April 3 to May 4. A public meeting to review the cleanup plans was held on April 16, 2026, at John Muir High School.
Blanco said “pre work” was to begin June 8 with removals starting the week of Monday, June 15. DTSC did not respond as of Thursday afternoon about whether the district’s characterization of DTSC’s directive on trees was accurate.
Local tree advocates pointed to Altadena losing about 70% of its tree canopy through the Eaton fire and subsequent debris removal efforts and that PUSD’s plan would be doing more damage to the region’s devastated canopy.
PUSD’s plan calls for the replacement of removed trees, but Richards said the impact will still be felt because it takes decades for a replacement tree to have the benefits of the removed tree.
“I’m here to tell that one-to-one replacement is a myth,” Richards said. “When you remove a tree that’s 25-30 feet tall or more with a canopy spread of 20, 30, 40 feet, with a 24-inch box tree. Those have about a one inch diameter trunk and are maybe between 6 and 8 feet tall, the canopy is rather small. That is not one-to-one replacement.”
Jennifer O’Kain’s family lost their home and school in the Eaton fire. She said the district’s handling of soil removal is another example along the fire recovery journey of systems being unprepared to deal with the disaster.
She felt PUSD’s explanation about its soil removal plan was “conflated and confusing” and questioned why more recent soil testing was not done. In addition, she felt there should be more clarity on how much of the soil toxins could be attributed to the fire and how much predated the fire.
“The Eaton fire, in a way, is being used as cover so PUSD can work around environmental mandates and get a site specific plan done quickly,” O’Kain said.
In its announcement PUSD said it consulted with the city of Pasadena, which has a tree protection ordinance.
City officials on Thursday said the district provided the city with plans for soil removal and replacement of contaminated soils, which would require the removal of about 200 trees, according to a city statement from spokesperson Lisa Derderian.
City officials said the city reviewed the plans with a goal of determining whether the city’s ordinances apply to this project.
The city “determined that DTSC is the appropriate authority to approve school site soil removal plans, which we understand involves removal of affected trees.
“PUSD projects that involve trees on school district property do not come to the City’s Urban Forestry Advisory Committee (UFAC), which only reviews trees on City property and within the public right of way.
“While the City does not have approval authority over PUSD’s soil removal plans, we note that the Tree Protection Ordinance allows tree removal when removal has a public health, safety, or welfare benefit, or where there would be a substantial hardship to a property owner’s use of real property if the removal is not permitted.”