Our Allegations

If you are a lawyer willing to help, please reach us at wecare@pasadenaroots.org

I. CEQA Violations

California Environmental Quality Act — Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.

Tree removal constitutes a direct physical change to the environment and is a discretionary action subject to CEQA review. The specific violations alleged include:

A. Invalid Emergency Exemption (CEQA Guidelines §15269 / PRC §21080(b)(3)) PUSD filed a Notice of Exemption on March 4, 2026 claiming a "Declared Emergency" exemption tied to the Eaton Fire. The challenge is that no genuine emergency exists or existed that would justify tree removal - the emergency exemption is narrow, applies only to sudden unexpected occurrences demanding immediate action to prevent loss of life or severe property damage, and covers only the minimum necessary response. Cutting down trees to access soil does not qualify as emergency repair of facilities.

B. NOE Scope Overreach The NOE mentions trees only in a single vague sentence with no specifics - no number of trees, no species, no locations, no arborist methodology. Trees are an afterthought to soil remediation, not independently justified. Any tree removal beyond what soil access actually requires exceeds the NOE's stated scope, and those specific removals are arguably not covered by the filed exemption at all.

C. Trees Not Independently Justified as an Emergency The emergency rationale in the NOE is entirely about fire-contaminated soil and public health. These trees were not destroyed by the Eaton Fire - they are being removed to access soil. That's a legally meaningful distinction that undermines the emergency exemption as applied to tree removal specifically.

II. Public Participation Violations

California Health & Safety Code §§25358.7 and 25356.1(e)

DTSC's own policies mandate robust community engagement before taking significant and irreversible site actions, including a minimum 30-day public comment period, community notification, fact sheet distribution, and scheduling a public meeting when community interest warrants it. The alleged violations:

• Over 400 community contacts in a single day demonstrate the public was not meaningfully consulted before irreversible actions began
• No public meeting specifically addressing tree removal has been scheduled
• DTSC acknowledged emails but did not substantively respond - acknowledgment is not compliance
• The volume of opposition triggered DTSC's own internal threshold for mandatory community engagement, which was not honored
• Tree removal was proceeding while public comments remained unaddressed

III. Failure to Respond to Public Comments

DTSC is required to respond in writing to public comments received. No substantive responsiveness was provided to the hundreds of community members who formally objected. Continuing irreversible physical activity while written comments remain unaddressed compounds this violation.

IV. Pasadena Municipal Tree Protection Ordinance

PUSD removed trees while classifying the work as "environmental remediation" under Pasadena's Tree Protection Ordinance, potentially to avoid ordinary permit requirements. The alleged violation is that school districts do not have blanket immunity from municipal tree protection ordinances - particularly when those ordinances are characterized as general health and safety regulations rather than zoning restrictions. Removal of protected-size trees without proper permits is a separate, independent violation of city law.

V. DBH Measurement Manipulation - Potential Fraud / Misrepresentation in a Public Regulatory Process

An independent certified arborist documented irregularities in the DBH (diameter at breast height) measurements recorded on DTSC and PUSD's official removal list. DBH is the standard measurement used to determine whether a tree meets the threshold for protected status, required permits, and mitigation requirements. Deliberately manipulating those figures to place trees below a protection threshold - in order to justify removal that would not otherwise be authorized - constitutes misrepresentation in a public regulatory process. If confirmed, this could rise to the level of fraud and would be referred to the California Attorney General's Office, CalEPA, and any authorities with jurisdiction over fraudulent conduct in a public regulatory proceeding.

VI. Federal Wildlife Law - Active Bird Nest Destruction

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) - 16 U.S.C. §703 Federal law prohibiting the destruction of active nests of migratory birds. An active bird's nest was discovered in a tree in the process of being removed. This is not an administrative violation - it carries criminal penalties and falls under the independent enforcement authority of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, which operates on a separate enforcement track from DTSC or PUSD.

California Fish & Game Code §3503 State law prohibiting the destruction of active bird nests.

California Fish & Game Code §3503.5 Specifically protects birds of prey (raptors) - their nests, eggs, and young. If the nest is confirmed to belong to a hawk or other raptor, this is an additional independent state violation enforced by the California Department of Fish & Wildlife.

VII. Irreversible Environmental Harm

This is not a standalone statutory violation, but is a critical legal argument supporting injunctive relief. Unlike other remediation activities, tree removal cannot be undone. Courts weigh irreversible environmental harm heavily in favor of granting emergency injunctions, and every additional tree removed increases legal exposure and the case for halting the work immediately.

Summary by Enforcement Agency