×
Dismiss this pinned window
all 110 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]BiceRankyman 67 points68 points  (0 children)

If we never plant another eucalyptus or palm I'll be happy. But unless you plan to plant four more nearby, don't touch my oaks.

[–]Remarkable_Insect421 61 points62 points  (5 children)

That crew is digging without any masks or PPE. If the soil is so contaminated that the trees have to be cut down, shouldn’t they also be providing proper PPE to their workers. So what is it? Is the soil dangerous or not?

[–]TheSwedishEagle -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

Of course it's not unless you eat copious amounts of it.

[–]Rose_selavie 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Breathing in the dust is the biggest hazard

[–]TheSwedishEagle -5 points-4 points  (1 child)

Breathing in any dust is a bad idea

[–]Rose_selavie 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes. And breathing in dust containing toxic heavy metals is obviously worse.

[–]invertedspheres 78 points79 points  (1 child)

When someone posted that PUSD was taking down trees I thought they meant non-native ones.. Really don't get how they can't work around the native Oaks..

[–]FugahzeePasadena 23 points24 points  (0 children)

This is bad for the kids too. Imagine how hot it would be with NO shade.

[–]bdd6911 74 points75 points  (0 children)

Good for them. And shame on city government. Trees are part of Pasadena culture. Especially oaks. Sacred here. Shame.

[–]sweatboxy 33 points34 points  (9 children)

That’s insane. By now, the trees and the rains have filtered the soil. Go, kids, go!

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 6 points7 points  (4 children)

Lead doesn’t get filtered out by rain. It binds tightly to soil particles and stays in the ground.

https://njaes.rutgers.edu/fs336/

https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/lead-levels-urban-soil-are-declining-hotspots-persist

https://grist.org/regulation/leaded-gasoline-lead-poisoning-united-nations/

https://www.epa.gov/lead/lead-soil

[–]sweatboxy 2 points3 points  (3 children)

Which then sinks deeper and deeper into the ground. Filtered may have been the wrong word.

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Which then sinks deeper and deeper into the ground. Filtered may have been the wrong word.

Can you point me to something on that? Everything I’ve read, and posted, says it stays near the surface.

[–]xqxcpa 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Heavy metals like lead do indeed sink into the soil, but very very slowly. Good soil bacteria can convert it to pyromorphite or galena, which is much less toxic. Trees help support good soil bacteria.

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s interesting but can you point me to something on that?

Even if soil bacteria can convert lead to a less toxic form, how long does that take when levels are well above the threshold across multiple sites and schools need to reopen by August?

[–]InterviewLeather810 1 point2 points  (2 children)

It is not just about lead if you look up what is in the soil, it is also arsenic, benzo and dibenzo. It will eventually kill the trees. I looked up Blair High School's report.

https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fdeliverable\_documents%2F5440327286%2F2026-02-10%20Draft%20Blair%20HS%20Fire-Related%20Campus%20Assessment%20Report.pdf

[–]xqxcpa -1 points0 points  (1 child)

It will eventually kill the trees.

That's not true. Any arborist will tell you those trees are just fine.

Look at the sample map at the end of that report and tell me that the detected contamination isn't obviously from the 110 and Marengo Ave. Why would airborne contamination from the fire land only in the areas right next to busy roads? Surely those trees actually protect against the ingress of those toxins further into the campus.

[–]InterviewLeather810 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Even after you take away the soil? It's not just about lead. Just look at benzo pyrene also in the soil. All these chemicals spread via air and water. Why areas nine miles away from the wildfires in the wind direction are also toxic.

And even it was just lead would you want to keep on exposing all life to high lead? Look how the younger generations are dying sooner. Could wildfires be a piece of that puzzle? It's also coming out Gen Z is less intelligent than previous generations. They have been exposed to more wildfire smoke as young children than other previous generations. We already know lead affects children with brain damage, learning disabilities, lower IQ, etc.

https://alluvialsoillab.com/blogs/soil-testing-misc/understanding-soil-health-and-soil-testing-after-wildfires?srsltid=AfmBOopJWnZrZlE-tAhxeP2t3IKOTEkf\_dw7tNySvOYdLyidJbhYVYV7

<image>

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 26 points27 points  (53 children)

I know this isn't going to be the popular comment in here. I actually like seeing kids out there standing up for something they care about... but

The Governor declared a State of Emergency after the Eaton Fire. The state classified the soil at these schools as “an imminent health and safety threat to children and workers.” That’s 8,000 cubic yards of contaminated soil across 11 school campuses.

https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2026030159

The lead in the soil at Blair High School is more than three times what the state says is safe for kids. Arsenic at San Rafael Elementary is nearly eight times the safe level. Schools are held to a stricter standard than parks or homes. California’s limit for lead in school soil is 80 mg/kg. Blair tested at 253. Lead in soil can affect children’s IQ, attention span, and growth.

https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/contaminated-soil-found-pasadena-unified-schools/3703245/> <https://laist.com/news/education/soil-samples-pasadena-unified-schools-lead-arsenic-chromium

Lead doesn’t wash away in the rain. It binds to soil particles and stays put. That’s why the state still calls this an imminent threat 17 months after the fire and why the soil has to be physically dug out.

The cleanup is not optional. Once the state finds contaminated soil at a school, the law requires it to be removed. The district estimates 613 truckloads and 13,390 tons of contaminated soil to haul out at a cost of $6.6 million. They looked into saving the trees and couldn’t make it work. The roots grow in the contaminated soil. You can’t dig out the soil without taking the tree. It doesn’t matter if the tree is somewhere students don’t go. If the soil around it is contaminated, it has to come out. Every tree removed gets replaced with a native tree.

https://pasadenanow.com/main/pasadena-unified-to-replace-fire-contaminated-soil-nearly-200-trees-at-11-campuses-and-sites-this-summer

The state’s Department of Toxic Substances Control and PUSD put out a joint statement today explaining the whole process. They went through more than 600 individual soil tests site by site before deciding removal was the only safe option. The cleanup plans, site maps, and answers to common questions are all public.

http://pusd.us/restoringourschools

This KCRW video includes none of this…

[–]Remarkable_Insect421 15 points16 points  (2 children)

The contamination is in the top soil. They didn’t show any evidence that there’s high levels of heavy metals that would cause imminent danger to the health of the trees.

No one is against removing toxic soil, but cutting down mature trees is a drastic measure that is not a requirement from the state.

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 7 points8 points  (0 children)

The contamination is in the top soil.

The district is removing contaminated soil at depths of 1 to 4 feet depending on the site.

https://pasadenanow.com/main/pasadena-unified-to-replace-fire-contaminated-soil-nearly-200-trees-at-11-campuses-and-sites-this-summer

They didn’t show any evidence that there’s high levels of heavy metals that would cause imminent danger to the health of the trees.

The heavy metals aren’t a danger to the trees. They’re a danger to the kids. Blair tested at more than three times the state’s safe level for lead.

The trees are coming out because their roots are in soil that has to be dug out. You can’t remove the soil and leave the tree standing in it.

https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2026030159

cutting down mature trees is a drastic measure that is not a requirement from the state.

The state approved the plan. Department of Toxic Substances Control and PUSD released a joint statement today confirming that DTSC reviewed more than 600 soil tests site by site and approved tree removal as the safe way to proceed. Also from the state filing

will require the removal and reasonable replacement of trees.

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1780068380/pusdus/ozmeklff2wrxbxpp4ozw/FAQSoilRemoval_Restoration052826.pdf

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye 10 points11 points  (33 children)

I work in this subfield and I appreciate your comment. Some nuance has definitely been lost that this remediation absolutely has to happen, both legally and, in my opinion, from a public health perspective. However, I am not convinced that ALL of these trees must be removed. Certainly the soil around the largest trees, that provide the most shade and other ecological benefits, could be subject to alternative remediation strategies. Eaton has introduced a massive climate-driven public health concern via lead and other contaminant distribution, but as a parent in the district, I am additionally extremely concerned about tree removal leading to high local temperatures on school campuses, which is also a public health concern that has shown to have impacts on educational outcomes. It feels really horrifying and frankly a bit tragic that a climate disaster is potentially leading to an additional climate impact (less shade, more heat) at PUSD schools. I have to imagine that there is a way to work around some of these largest, oldest and most climate-influential trees while still getting below soil threshold numbers.

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 4 points5 points  (18 children)

The district and DTSC went through more than 600 individual soil tests site by site before landing on the plan. It wasn’t a blanket call. They looked at whether trees could be preserved and couldn’t make it work. The only trees coming out are the ones rooted in soil that has to be excavated.

Every tree removed is being replaced with an appropriately sized native tree. The shade is temporary. Lead at high levels isn’t.

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1780068380/pusdus/ozmeklff2wrxbxpp4ozw/FAQSoilRemoval_Restoration052826.pdf

[–]Remarkable_Insect421 5 points6 points  (5 children)

The tree removal plan lacks transparency and was handled poorly.

I will use the documents from the elementary school closest to me (Longfellow) as an example: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report?global_id=60003993

The community update flyer from April 2026 did not make any mention of tree removal. This is the most plainly written document for the public and also where the deadlines for public comments are presented. It is highly disingenuous of DTSC and PUSD to leave out information about the mature tree removal.

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 4 points5 points  (3 children)

I might be missing something here, but even if tree removal had been in the April flyer and every resident had commented against it, the contamination levels don't change and the law still requires the soil to be removed.

[–]Remarkable_Insect421 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I think it would be have put the tree removal plan under higher scrutiny. There is nearly an entire block along Arroyo Seco Pkwy where all the trees will be removed. And this is based off of just 5 sampling spots (https://www.pusd.us/fire-relief/safety/removal-and-restoration).

Looking at the distribution of samples, can you justify removing so many trees? Why was sampling not more localized? Would that result in fewer trees being removed? I don't believe that every single tree was scrutinized, but given the maturity of these trees and their ecological importance, there needs to be more evidence before a blanket plan is made. And looking at the maps, there is definitely a "blanketness" to it.

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Totally agree. Some of these decisions feel like they just shrugged their shoulders and said “oh well, I guess every tree in that zone has to go.” I appreciate that post-Eaton everyone involved in these decisions and conversations is stretched very thin, and sometimes you just make a plan and move forward but like… cmon.

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think the only thing you’re missing is that, in my understanding, the law requires that contaminant concentrations get back below the tipping point threshold (as it should, it’s a huge equity issue), not the method by which that happens.

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I completely agree with you that this has been handled poorly and that PUSD especially has been much too cavalier when communicating about tree removal and replacement - there’s a reason people are kind of shocked.

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Well, to be precise, they actually say they will “make every effort” to replace trees with new trees of the same size - pretty unlikely that’s going to end up happening in some of these cases, in my opinion.

Thanks for posting links. I work with DTSC as well, though I wasn’t in these meetings, and I know this isn’t a blanket plan. But I hadn’t seen this explainer yet; nice to be able to read through it.

Edit: u/InterviewLeather810 pointed me to the consultancy report for Blair, and their recommendation for replanting trees includes this line: "Verdantas recommends the replacement of any landscaped area with like kind material, with exception of mature, large trees which Verdantas recommends replacement with appropriately sized trees similar to what the District would plant for new construction and allowed under any local tree policies (i.e. 20-gallon trees and shrubs)." So they would explicitly NOT replace with an appropriately sized native tree, they are treating areas with formerly mature trees as areas of new construction. Given this, I think that my main comment to my reps is going to be regarding how they approach tree replacement.

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye -1 points0 points  (6 children)

I also am not yet convinced that enough credence was given to potential alternative remediation strategies in sub-quadrants of the contaminated areas. Excavation is not the only remediation method that could satisfy regulations.

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 2 points3 points  (5 children)

I don’t work in this field, just been reading the articles and FAQs on this. What alternatives do you think would work here?

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye 4 points5 points  (4 children)

I’m a soil scientist, not an arborist, so I’m not 100% certain what’s in the middle of the venn diagram that would allow for survival of trees with big root bases and metal contamination remediation. But I would want to know why they declined to pursue the following: soil capping (I am guessing this would eventually kill these big trees anyways, though I’m not sure, and maybe this won’t pass muster on school grounds in CA?), contaminant stabilization and then subsequent removal of less soil (think: adding tons of e.g., biochar, some phosphate compounds work for this, or other amendments, letting whatever you add lock up lead, then not needing to remove/replace as much, since the lower portions of the profile has lead that’s now less bioaccessible - I’m guessing probably rejected for being too slow, also this isn’t as effective in all soil pHs, so maybe wouldn’t work in these soils?), bioremediation (I’m guessing also rejected for being too slow, also less certainty around efficacy), and there are a bunch of super technical strategies that I imagine got rejected for being too expensive and impractical (think of the stuff that has to happen at like super fund sites). I dunno, maybe I’m being too optimistic, but I feel it’s a real shame that so many very large, very old trees are slated for removal. My understanding is that DTSC doesn’t dictate the method by which contamination levels get below thresholds, just that they have to. And if there’s no budget, there’s no budget, but large tree removal is also very expensive, and has a ton of knock-on consequences.

It’s a tough situation from a technical and logistical point of view. I’ve been a huge advocate for widespread soil remediation across Altadena and northern Pasadena, and remediating the “legacy lead” that you alluded to above is certainly a bonus, but the dose makes the poison, and leaving some areas with B+ soil remediation (getting to, say, right below the 80 ppm threshold instead of brand new soil) in order to preserve a large tree doesn’t feel too egregious to me, since the overall “lead load” on a given campus would still be massively reduced. But, of course, there are regulations and policies, and maybe removing these trees just has to happen. But I am hoping that in the cases of some of the really big ones, it doesn’t.

Finally, I am certainly in agreement with PUSD that the shrubs and smaller trees slated for removal make total sense to take out. They’ll grow back quickly, it’s a shame, but in my opinion get that garbage soil outta there in an expedited and straightforward way. It’s really only the hundred year old oaks on the list where I’d love to see alternatives considered.

[–]InterviewLeather810 1 point2 points  (1 child)

So that's how they would normally get rid of arsenic, benzo and dibenz in the soil around these trees like at Blair High School for an example?

https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fdeliverable\_documents%2F5440327286%2F2026-02-10%20Draft%20Blair%20HS%20Fire-Related%20Campus%20Assessment%20Report.pdf

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Soil excavation is usually considered the "go to" best practice, yes. And it's what I personally advocated for; I am in complete agreement with you that being blunt about the many contaminants present on these sites is important and that it's a massive equity and public health issue not to address their presence on school campuses (which, again, PUSD legally has to do, and rightly so).

[–]Remarkable_Insect421 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Yes! Fully agree with your take! No one is sitting in to save the shrubs, but we're talking about the hundred year old oaks that are priceless. The regulations and policies are based on sampling data, and I'm not sure they've taken enough data on the large trees. Even if they have to send someone out there to take samples on each individual mature oak, it would be worth it to make sure that it really has to come down.

[–]craycrayppl -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Yeah, state agencies are never wrong, have never made a mistake or bad judgement call. The ultimate source of best info!

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Yeah, state agencies are never wrong, have never made a mistake or bad judgement call. The ultimate source of best info!

What source would you trust on this then? I’d be happy to look at them.

[–]craycrayppl 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Local arborists, CAPLA to start. Word is 1-4ft of soil to be removed. Why that much? Can a small test area, away from trees be dug at one ft then tested? Then, another foot dug then tested?

Point is they should be digging the least amount needed to test clean. IF clean, then maybe, trees can stay as 1-2 ft might not damage roots.

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Arborists tell you if a tree is healthy. This isn’t a tree health problem. It’s a soil contamination problem. The right experts for that are soil scientists and toxicologists.

Though, PUSD is already working with West Coast Arborists on the tree work. They have over 50 years of experience, 127 certified arborists, and work with over 350 public agencies including school districts. So, arborists are already part of this.

https://www.wcainc.com https://www.coloradoboulevard.net/pusd-dtsc-advance-eaton-fire-cleanup-with-targeted-tree-removals/

It’s not “word is” 1 to 4 feet. That’s in the PUSD FAQ, the CEQA filing, and multiple news articles. I’ve answered the depth question with sources multiple times in this post. DTSC looked at over 600 soil samples site by site. The depth at each site comes from that work, not someone picking a number.

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1780068380/pusdus/ozmeklff2wrxbxpp4ozw/FAQSoilRemoval_Restoration052826.pdf

I asked what source you’d trust and you said arborists and CAPLA but didn’t link to anything. I’ve linked and sourced everything. You seem so convinced and seem to be pulling information from somewhere. Can you point me to anything at all or should I just take your word for it? lol

Edit: I went ahead and searched for CAPLA cause I hadn’t heard of it. Is it CAP.LA you are referring to? Community Action Project Los Angeles? Cause looking at them they do residential soil testing for homeowners after the fires. Not seeing any school campuses. What would CAP.LA have done or found different that would have changed anything about the soil remediation?

[–]Remarkable_Insect421 1 point2 points  (5 children)

I appreciate your professional opinion. In looking at the sampling maps in more detail, I'm surprised at some of the data I'm seeing. They use one data point to determine whether ALL the trees in a large area should be removed. The sampling data and justification for removing each mature tree should be indisputable. The data seems far too sparse to justify removing so many trees.

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye -1 points0 points  (4 children)

I completely agree, though I have no idea what kind of budget issues they ran into. The gold standard version of this testing is pricey. There is a much cheaper test for lead that is used as a screening method (that’s what’s being used by the free soil lead testing services post-Eaton), but I don’t think that method holds water for DTSC (though I’m not sure). That same cheap screening test works for arsenic sort of (it’s not reliable at low levels) and for PAHs there’s nothing cheap, at least that I am familiar with.

I know the school near us pretty much just roped off the entire zone around their “bad” tests with police tape, and I don’t think they went back and conducted additional sampling within those “bad” zones.

Edit: I commented below that u/InterviewLeather810 pointed me to the consultancy report for Blair that does indeed detail a bunch of follow up testing (including the cheaper screening method I mentioned above - XRF field testing). To my knowledge those follow up data aren't in the publicly released datasets but my read on the consultancy report is that there is perhaps much more data that is being used internally. I'm thinking here of what is being described as "step down and step out" follow up testing around the locations of the original flagged samples.

[–]InterviewLeather810 -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Though it isn't just lead. It is arsenic, dibenz and benzo just looking at Blair High School.

https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fdeliverable\_documents%2F5440327286%2F2026-02-10%20Draft%20Blair%20HS%20Fire-Related%20Campus%20Assessment%20Report.pdf

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think I also responded to you above, but, yes, absolutely. I did mention arsenic and PAHs in my comment here, but not every potential contaminant of concern.

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You know, interestingly, I'm digging into the consultancy report that you linked (thank you!), and it looks like on follow up they DID do a bunch of additional soil testing that doesn't seem, to my knowledge, to be a part of the publicly-available PUSD soil results - the part in this PDF about the "step down and step out" soil testing is, I think, new testing on top of the smaller number of data points on the map that people usually point to. So perhaps I am wrong and there is a pretty strong sense that the soils around each and every one of these trees has to go.

[–]InterviewLeather810 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Our town has lost quite a few trees since the fire. Though not sure how many it was just stress and our current drought. We had two trees die except for the roots just from heat and maybe the smoke. Only green next spring was from the roots.

It took nine months to clean our lot for various reasons including not knowing how to clean out retaining walls. That ended up being two years because only wall builders were allowed to clean it. City was worried the wall would fall down. Turned out there was much retaining wall still in the soil than was realized. And why it never failed.

City had thrown all plans for the neighborhood when they went digital so the wall plans were gone. They didn't even know where our sewer was connected. We only did because part of it was replaced three years prior.

[–]swagsterPCC -1 points0 points  (7 children)

Hey if the schools are full of lead soil - does this mean our yards are?

[–]InterviewLeather810 1 point2 points  (0 children)

And arsenic, dibenz and benzo.

Our urban wildfire 12 inches was removed in cleanup if you used private versus FEMA. FEMA tested the sites they cleaned and cleaned until the lot passed the tests. Many did not pass the first time because they start out cleaning two to three inches.

Then our arsenic fill wood retaining wall it was 12 feet to 18 feet depending on height of wall. Though that was because clay is not a good soil for a cement retaining wall. City originally asked just a few inches.

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye -1 points0 points  (5 children)

Yes, unfortunately about 30-40% of residential yards in the Altadena and north Pasadena area that have been tested since Eaton are testing above California’s recommended residential soil lead levels. You can test your soils for free via programs run by the County and/or USC (I’ll link below, I think links are allowed in this sub?).

Here is a map of results from the USC program (this represents thousands of samples, so a pretty solid sample size):

https://public-exchange.org/usc/project/soil-testing/soil-results/

Here is how you can submit a soil sample for free to various programs:

USC CLEAN Project https://public-exchange.org/usc/project/soil-testing/clean-submit-your-sample/

LA County Soil Testing http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/wildfire-soil-testing/

And here is a link to the County’s dashboard where you can see results from various studies that might apply to you (this includes water sampling, etc.):

https://ph-lacounty.hub.arcgis.com/pages/post-fire-assessment-home

Edit: Though I neglected to mention this absolutely depends on where you live in Pasadena! Closer to the burn zone and more in the downwind path of the ash, more likely to have high lead levels or presence of other post-fire contaminants. Some of these high levels at Pasadena schools far from Eaton may be due to their proximity to highways and a legacy from when there was widespread use of leaded gasoline.

[–]xqxcpa 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Surely there's no reason to bother with removing trees from schools if kids will be exposed to the same toxins everywhere else they go. Or do you think that if we remove mature trees from 30-40% of the land in Pasadena and Altadena that in 5 years we'll have less toxic soil and healthier kids?

This is very obviously a case of a logical policy (scrape topsoil from schools) being applied in a way that doesn't make sense. Of course you can leave mature trees and existing buildings in place while ensuring risk of chronic lead exposure is much lower than 1%. Could you slightly further reduce the risk by removing mature trees? Sure, but the increase in melanoma alone will outweigh the lead reduction benefits, not to mention the increase in asthma and everything else that mature trees protect against. It would be an incredibly myopic thing to do.

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye -1 points0 points  (1 child)

I agree with your nuance in my personal life. For instance, in our home (North Pasadena, soils above the CA threshold for residences), we're remediating our backyard soil but not removing any mature trees (we are removing some plants [and later replanting, hopefully] in areas where our soils are the most garbage). We are primarily focusing on soil where our kids play, doing a janky capping with compost that we'll repeat every few years for the spots near big trees, and then hoping for the best while getting our kids and dog lead and arsenic blood tests once a year (so far so good, fingers crossed!). We think the tradeoff with keeping trees for shade, air filtration, etc. is more than worth it. We also don't have the budget to completely redo our yard and insurance didn't cover anything outdoors in our claim.

However, schools are held to a different standard, as so many children spend so many hours of their week there. And I appreciate that the judgement call based on my own risk aversion (pretty risk averse, in this case) isn't something that you can, like, poll every family in the school on - the point of these regulations is to just say, well, this is the threshold and we have to do something if we're above that. Which I think is great because you could easily imagine, for instance, some school districts doing nothing and potentially harming their students if left to their own devices.

I am really, really upset about the removal of so many mature trees. But I'm also really, really upset that a climate disaster spread contaminants through Altadena and Pasadena. I'm not an expert on how to pull off this remediation and I don't know if there is a better middle ground here. I guess I just want to believe that we don't have to pull down these biggest, oldest, most protective trees and that there is a way we can retain more of the urban canopy on these campuses.

[–]xqxcpa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This article quotes experts explaining how they typically work around mature trees in this context:

https://localnewspasadena.com/2026/pusd-tree-removal-plan-sparks-outcry-over-transparency-and-environmental-impact/

[–]InterviewLeather810 0 points1 point  (1 child)

But, it is not just lead, it is arsenic, dibenz and benzo at Blair High School for an example.

https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fdeliverable\_documents%2F5440327286%2F2026-02-10%20Draft%20Blair%20HS%20Fire-Related%20Campus%20Assessment%20Report.pdf

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Absolutely. But unfortunately there aren’t easily available free tests for citizens for those contaminants.

[–]InterviewLeather810 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Also Blair High School has arsenic, dibenz and benzo in the soil. All will kill the trees over time.

We are at 4 and a half years post fire and some trees that survived are now dead and dying and our urban wildfire did not burn for days, just hours.

https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fdeliverable\_documents%2F5440327286%2F2026-02-10%20Draft%20Blair%20HS%20Fire-Related%20Campus%20Assessment%20Report.pdf

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 1 point2 points  (1 child)

lol I’m in here a lot you might want to look at usernames. Like I said in another comment most if not all my links bring up other carcinogens/contaminants. I’m having a hard enough time getting anywhere with just lead.

[–]InterviewLeather810 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am not. This one just popped up on my feed because I commented early on more about insurance, recovery, etc given my own personal experiences with our urban wildfire.

We have had houses finally acknowledged over three years later of cleaning that the dioxins and furans could not be remediated so the houses were torn down and rebuilt. Have a feeling LA County will have the same issue for hundreds versus less than a dozen in our smaller shorter length of time fire.

[–]eyeseeewe81 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Do you know if PUSD gets reimbursed or qualifies for grants?

Any idea what the baseline levels were pre-fire? Gotta believe some soil at some schools was contaminated to some point pre-fire.

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 7 points8 points  (2 children)

On reimbursement, from the Pasadena Now article:

The district said it is pursuing available fire recovery funding and reimbursement.

Total cost is $6.6 million.

On baseline levels, there is pre fire data. Naturally occurring background level of arsenic in Altadena and Pasadena ranges from 4 to 10 mg/kg according to a 2019 U.S. Geological Survey study.

San Rafael Elementary tested at 92.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-05-16/nearly-half-of-pasadena-unified-schools-have-contaminated-soil-district-finds

Either way, Blair is at 253 mg/kg against a state limit of 80. It doesn’t matter whether the lead got there from the fire or was already in the ground. It’s above the threshold at a school now.

[–]InterviewLeather810 1 point2 points  (1 child)

And that school also has benzo and dibenz.

<image>

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, the LA Times article I linked covers those too. Hard enough getting anywhere with just lead lol. Thanks!

[–]InterviewLeather810 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe the arsenic, but probably not the benzo and dibenz.

[–]riffic 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Lead in soil can affect children’s IQ

What is the ingestion mechanism? I'm not sure I follow your argument's structure. It's soil, not an airborne risk.

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Kids play in dirt. It gets on their hands. Their hands go in their mouths. Soil also becomes dust when it’s disturbed, and dust is inhaled.

The 11 contaminated schools include elementary schools and a children’s center. At Blair, the lead was found in the soil right next to the tennis courts.

From LA Times article

Lead, when inhaled through dust or ingested from dirt-covered hands, can cause permanent brain and nerve damage in children, resulting in slowed development and behavioral issues.

https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-05-16/nearly-half-of-pasadena-unified-schools-have-contaminated-soil-district-finds

[–]InterviewLeather810 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is more than lead. It is arsenic, benzo and dibenz. Cities are finding out now because the EPA refused to test lots that there are a lot more dangerous chemicals in the soil from the fire than they were lead to believe.

Blair High results.

https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fdeliverable\_documents%2F5440327286%2F2026-02-10%20Draft%20Blair%20HS%20Fire-Related%20Campus%20Assessment%20Report.pdf

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is unfortunately very well understood - people imagine children eating handfuls of soil, but ingestion is actually primarily via small dust particles that aren’t visible but that remain electrostatically on hands after touching anything outside that has soil dust on it (or anything that soil dust tracked inside by shoes got onto). Those small particles get into your mouth or nose if you, say, then eat a sandwich or wipe your face. This is why one of the main interventions being recommended after Eaton to reduce lead exposure is for folks to wash hands more often, mop their homes more often, and to switch their households to shoes-off households.

[–]swagsterPCC -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Hey if the schools are full of lead soil - does this mean our yards are??

[–]InterviewLeather810 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Isn't just lead, it is arsenic, benzo and dibenz too. This was Blair High School's results for an example.

Other article is over a year old. This is from 2026.

https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/getfile?filename=/public%2Fdeliverable\_documents%2F5440327286%2F2026-02-10%20Draft%20Blair%20HS%20Fire-Related%20Campus%20Assessment%20Report.pdf

[–]SisterMary-Elephant 10 points11 points  (1 child)

Why is it that city leaders always have such a massive hard-on for removing trees? Remember what happened along Colorado Blvd near Lake? What happened along Baldwin in Arcadia recently?--always a covert mission in the middle of the night! Disgusting!

[–]TheSwedishEagle 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Trees cost money and cities think it's a cheap way to cut costs.

[–]craycrayppl 5 points6 points  (8 children)

Much of altadena received a 6in scrape plus/minus from.Army Corps during debris clean up. For many (not all) lots, that was OK when subjected to soil testing months later.

Certainly not expert, but couldn't some trees be OK during a 6in (or a foot) soil scrape?

PUSD either cant catch a break &/or makes questionable decisions over past few decades...

[–]Remarkable_Insect421 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Very good point about Altadena. Why was this not proposed to be done in phases? Cutting down mature trees should not be the first move

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 2 points3 points  (6 children)

Schools are held to a stricter safety standard than residential properties. Franklin Elementary, one of the 11 sites being remediated, is also in Altadena. Still needs 1 to 4 feet of soil removed.

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1780068380/pusdus/ozmeklff2wrxbxpp4ozw/FAQSoilRemoval_Restoration052826.pdf

[–]Reasonable_Wish_8953Pasadena 1 point2 points  (5 children)

You are a remarkably patient person. I found your careful, evidence based comments here so useful—indeed, KCRW should have provided some of this context in their reporting!

[–]Remarkable_Insect421 0 points1 point  (4 children)

I think it's very easy to take the city's word for their effort and accept that this has to happen. But cutting down large trees is devastating and one has to really ask if it's necessary. There is no legal requirement to cut down the trees, but there are budgetary constraints to the work. Was this the cheapest, quickest way to do the remediation?

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I think it’s very easy to take the city’s word for their effort and accept that this has to happen.

This isn’t the city making the call. It’s the state. The Department of Toxic Substances Control is a state agency operating under a Governor declared State of Emergency.

https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2026030159

There is no legal requirement to cut down the trees

What do you mean?

but there are budgetary constraints to the work. Was this the cheapest, quickest way to do the remediation?

The district is spending $6.6 million. Capping keeps the lead in the ground under a barrier that has to be monitored on a campus where kids are every day. Stabilization and bioremediation take years. These campuses need to reopen by August.

https://pasadenanow.com/main/pasadena-unified-to-replace-fire-contaminated-soil-nearly-200-trees-at-11-campuses-and-sites-this-summer

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

That's all true, and remediation is very important. But I also think it's ok that people are really, really sad that this is functionally yet another post-Eaton consequence that is remaking a part of our community.

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But I also think it's ok that people are really, really sad that this is functionally yet another post-Eaton consequence that is remaking a part of our community.

100% agree.

[–]Reasonable_Wish_8953Pasadena -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

As theTailor indicates very elegantly, this is a legal requirement, which seems both logical and indeed necessary

[–]56killa 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hell yeah

[–]corner 2 points3 points  (0 children)

How to DoorDash them food or gofundme

[–]Sumbelina 2 points3 points  (7 children)

This is so similar to COVID that it's shocking. Suddenly, everyone is a scientist. I'm a 42 year old woman and I DISTINCTLY remember tons of news coverage throughout my childhood with regard to LEAD POISONING and how it effects children. This was a topic of several TV show and movies plots in the 80s and 90s because it was such an issue. Many, MANY lawsuits were filed against schools, toy manufacturers (see reasons famous branded metal toys stopped being produced), paint manufacturers, contractors, etc. We have known for DECADES that lead is HORRIFIC for children at even the lowest exposure levels that are otherwise unimportant for a healthy adult.

Fast forward to 2026 and here we are with a bunch of Karens and Chads (one can only assume) complaining that the city they live in is FINALLY, after over a year, doing the thing they should have done immediately after schools were contaminated with lead. I think some parents whose children ended up with developmental disabilities in the 70s to 90s due to lead exposure who then had to fight for compensation to pay for their extended care would LOVE to slap some of these Pasadena parents for wanting more shade for their kids but being ok with lead in the soil for the sake of not uprooting some trees. 🤦🏾‍♀️🤦🏾‍♀️🤦🏾‍♀️

And for those who truly are dense enough not to understand how dust works, let me introduce you to the city of Libby, Montana. A living lab for what happens when harmful chemicals are in the dirt at the schools kids attend. Go read up on that or watch the heartbreaking documentary about the town which is STILL classified as one of the worst environmental disasters of the modern age.

Signed,

A childless woman who is thankful that my taxes are actually paying for something useful that I expect them to be paying for. 🫶🏾🌻

[–]CheapWestern2461 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Seriously - trained professionals, who have spent their whole career becoming an expert in their field, come out with a determination. But nah what do they know, we should just all vibe/crowdsource a solution, I'm sure the wisdom of the crowd is better. smh

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I'm glad to read your comment, and I agree wholeheartedly that aggressive remediation of this entire region after Eaton is very necessary. But I also think that it's emotional for people to see such a visual sign of yet more "post-Eaton" consequences. I think your comparison to COVID is apt - it's very tempting to want the "bad stuff" to go away after a hard 1.5 years.

I also do think that it's important to consider the subsequent consequences of getting rid of portions of the urban canopy. It's not only "Pasadena parents for wanting more shade for their kids," at least not for me - reducing the urban canopy has demonstrated public health impacts. Do I think removing toxins is more important? Yes. But I would also like to see a better plan for how we can get these campuses to be as resilient to future climate shocks (like high heat events) as possible - such as by having lots of canopy.

My primary feeling about all of this is that we're witnessing the consequences of climate change in both fast motion (Eaton itself) and slow motion (these downstream effects 1.5 years later). It's a tragedy that, to be candid, keeps me up at night.

[–]Sumbelina 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I agree with everything you’ve said. But I also think we need to do more to work on planting native plant species and generally redesigning things. It well never happen, sadly, because everything is about helping some billionaire profit instead of making things better for everyone.

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know, I was thinking about this last night - if there was a plan for redesigning these campuses so it's not just "scraped soil with some newly planted small saplings that need 50 years to grow" I would be really enthusiastic to shout about the sophisticated climate resilience to any and all voters. The fact of the matter is that we are low key f'd and we need to speed up getting things in place for a hotter Pasadena while also scrambling to fix the climate problems we're already seeing.

It well never happen, sadly, because everything is about helping some billionaire profit instead of making things better for everyone.

+1 but while making this face :((((((((((

[–]xqxcpa -1 points0 points  (2 children)

I can assure you that it's possible to both reduce lead contamination and preserve mature trees. Properties all over Altadena and Pasadena, including private schools, have been performing that type of remediation ever since the fire was put out.

It's not unreasonable to expect your schools to both protect your kids from lead exposure and to preserve mature trees. If you've predetermined that only one is possible, then I suggest you look around town and reconsider the situation critically.

[–]Sumbelina 1 point2 points  (1 child)

I think the parents of children affected by lead poisoning would prefer “remove all” to “reduce” any day. If parents wish to start rolling the dice on one more life threatening item when they send their kids to school, so be it.

[–]xqxcpa -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Of course, and some of the parents of kids who died from RSV would prefer everyone always wear masks, and the parents whose kids drowned would prefer we get rid of residential swimming pools, etc. Yet we ride in cars and on bikes and talk to each other without masks most of the time and have mature trees and swimming pools. All those things are life threatening risks that could easily be completely eliminated, but obviously the impact to the average quality of life wouldn't be worth it.

[–]Remarkable_Insect421 1 point2 points  (5 children)

I highly recommend that everyone check out the sampling data and the tree removal plan. We all want our kids to be safe from contaminated soil, but just because the city is "taking action" or even following the law, does not mean that they are solving a problem. They are doing the bare minimum for this plan, when they should be looking to do the minimum damage while achieving their goals. There is one sample at the Education Center being used as enough data to remove 8 mature trees (corner of Oak Knoll and Del Mar).

Here is the sample data: https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1747260691/pusdus/hltd5vmmcydq0lw7hxwd/35210_F03-EducationCenter_2025-05-14.pdf

Here is the tree removal plan:

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1779906949/pusdus/gln5mbiskhzln9hcdydi/TreeMapListALLSITES.pdf

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 0 points1 point  (4 children)

The Education Center soil map you linked shows 13 sample points, not one. Five of them came back above the state’s 80 threshold for lead, with the highest at 195

https://resources.finalsite.net/images/v1747260691/pusdus/hltd5vmmcydq0lw7hxwd/35210_F03-EducationCenter_2025-05-14.pdf

[–]Remarkable_Insect421 1 point2 points  (3 children)

There is only one sample point used to justify cutting down 8 trees at the corner of Oak Knoll and Del Mar. Other maps have even sparser sampling to justify cutting down large swaths of trees. such as San Rafael Elementary.

I'm not arguing that remediation isn't necessary. I fully support the soil remediation. But the tree removal is not supported with good evidence and it is a tragic measure that has long term implications for the schools. Some of these trees must be 60-70 years old. It will be generations before the trees they plant provide the same benefits. There should be considerable data showing that this drastic measure is needed, and I don't think it's there.

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor 0 points1 point  (2 children)

There is only one sample point used to justify cutting down 8 trees at the corner of Oak Knoll and Del Mar.

The Ed Center map shows 5 samples above the 80 ppm threshold, not one. Eight of the 13 came back clean. Five didn’t. They’re only removing trees in the areas that failed. If this were a blanket plan they’d be removing everything regardless of the results.

Other maps have even sparser sampling to justify cutting down large swaths of trees. such as San Rafael Elementary.

San Rafael has over a dozen sample points. So does Blair, across multiple map sections. The Department of Toxic Substances Control reviewed more than 600 tests across all 11 sites and approved the plan.

the tree removal is not supported with good evidence and I don’t think it’s there.

The evidence is lead at 253 ppm at Blair, five above threshold samples at the Ed Center, over a dozen sample points each at San Rafael and Blair, estimated 613 truckloads of contaminated soil, a Governor declared State of Emergency, and DTSC approval after site by site review. If that’s not enough evidence…

In this post a lot of the top comments are mad and I can understand that but one of the top comments is

That's insane. By now, the trees and the rains have filtered the soil. Go, kids, go!

and twice posted is

who really cares about soil toxicity anyways. are any of you all licking / eating things that fall on the ground?

Having to remove these tree’s isn’t great. But the people who have kids going to these schools care about the soil toxicity. Lead in the ground at these levels doesn’t just go away on its own and there’s no safe level of lead exposure.

Who knows, maybe the kids in this video will be the ones who figure out a better way to do it. Good night.

[–]Remarkable_Insect421 0 points1 point  (1 child)

It’s obvious that you’re comfortable with the plan given the data that was shown. We keep repeating the same references to each other. Others think there could be alternatives and want more information from the city before they make this irreversible action.

[–]TheTailorOfTerokNor -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Lead exposure in kids causes permanent irreversible brain damage. There are high levels of other chemicals and carcinogens too. Trees grow back.

I’m not on a side here. All I’ve done is post information with sources from experts and researchers in this field. If you or someone wants to show me information that says different I’ll read it, and if there’s something to it I’d probably change my mind. I’m not dead set on anything.

I’m just reading what the researchers and agencies and experts have put out and what they are recommending with the information and timeline they have.

Edit: lol downvote away. Still waiting for any source ¯\(ツ)/¯

[–]johntwoods 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you're ripping out trees, you're Saruman. You're the bad guy.

[–]IgnorantGenius 1 point2 points  (2 children)

If they are going to spend money on getting the tree out, why not plant it in Altadena to replace some of the trees that burned down?

I don't see how removing the trees will solve the soil problem. Dig the soil out and replace it. Eventually, season over season the soil overgrows and the trees are apart of that.

Here is a study on oak tree absorption of lead over time-

https://dokumen.pub/lead-and-cadmium-in-oak-tree-rings-quercus-robur-l.html

[–]InterviewLeather810 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Problem is over time. In the meantime we could end with a high rate of cancer from lead, arsenic, benzo and dibenz in the soil from the fires.

[–]kadotafig 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think you can transplant an oak tree that old

[–]eyeseeewe81 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry, havent read newest comments. Anyone know if Angel City Lumber has been contacted to grab some of the future wood?

[–]sweatboxy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The oaks saved my house. After the fire, the ground under the oaks was littered with dead firebrands that the oaks had caught and killed. Sweep up those and let the oaks continue to protect us.

[–]AgencySuspicious5490 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought Pasadena was poor and had to close schools? Where is all the money for this coming from?? Leave the trees and work on keeping schools open 🙄

[–]riffic -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

who really cares about soil toxicity anyways. are any of you all licking / eating things that fall on the ground?

[–]EnidColeslawSideEye 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I weighed in above, but the primary mechanism for ingestion isn’t the big pieces of soil you’re thinking of. Also, for what it’s worth, I think many children are indeed licking and eating things that fell on the ground. 😂

My comment above:

“This is unfortunately very well understood - people imagine children eating handfuls of soil, but ingestion is actually primarily via small dust particles that aren’t visible but that remain electrostatically on hands after touching anything outside that has soils dust on it (or anything that soil dust tracked inside by shoes got onto). Those small particles get into your mouth or nose if you, say, then eat a sandwich or wipe your face. This is why one of the main interventions being recommended after Eaton to reduce lead exposure is for folks to wash hands more often, mop their homes more often, and to switch their households to shoes-off households.”