Pasadena Unified School District Friday, Sept. 4, announced that it would not be moving forward with the planned removal of protected trees at Longfellow Elementary School.
In the space of five days the district went from announcing that alternative methods of remediating soil around the trees was not feasible, therefore requiring the removals, to saying it was pausing any removals until it could take “a fresh look at the available arborist, environmental, and remediation information before making any further decisions regarding the protected trees on campus.”
“Student health and safety remain our highest priority, but removal of mature and protected trees is an absolute last resort,” the statement went on to say. “The Board has been clear that every reasonable preservation option should be exhausted first, and the District has and will continue to follow this direction.”
Local tree advocates have been pushing back all summer against PUSD’s soil remediation plan, which called for the removal of nearly 200 trees due to soil found to be contaminated in the wake of the Eaton fire. More than 100 trees were removed before students returned to campus in August for the new school year.
On Monday night, Aug. 31, PUSD announced that after attempting to remediate soil around several Longfellow trees using air knifing, the trees would have to be removed. Longfellow is undergoing campus modernization work this school year, so its students will be located at the Allendale campus.
Protesters gathered outside the campus this week decrying the district’s decision to move forward with the removals. At Thursday’s Board of Education special meeting, three Longfellow parents attended and spoke out against the decision to remove trees.
Three California based arborists reviewed the district published tree risk assessment and arborist report for the Longfellow trees and published their own findings.
They found that significant questions remained about the adequacy of the documentation and methodology used to support the recommendations for tree removal.
“The primary concern is not simply whether the conclusions are correct or incorrect, butwhether the report provides sufficient documentation to independently substantiate thoseconclusions,” the arborists’ review read. “In particular, the report does not appear to provide adequate information to demonstrate how limited excavation observations were used to characterize root architecture, structural root development, tree stability, or the potential impacts of proposed soil removal throughout each tree’s Critical Root Zone (CRZ).
According to the district, it will provide more details and an updated assessment before any additional removal work.