Save South Pasadena Trees

12/16/25 Mayor Pro Tem Rossi Confirms "moving away from parcel level canopy preservation"

This letter is Mayor Pro Tem Rossi's response to a resident's use of our form letter below. We've inserted our responses throughout.

Hi REMOVED,

Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns regarding the proposed amendments to the City’s Tree Ordinance. I appreciate the care and passion many residents bring to the issue of tree preservation. I want to clarify several points reflected in the adopted ordinance language.

1. The ordinance does not allow property owners to avoid tree replacement. Replacement trees (ranging up to 6:1) are required for all approved removals, with on-site planting as the default. Off-site planting is permitted only when on-site placement is infeasible, in accordance with state housing production laws. Replacement trees must meet minimum size standards, are subject to inspection, and must survive for a minimum period or be replaced, with deposits forfeited if requirements are not met. This amendment seeks to balance the need for city-wide canopy preservation with state housing production mandates. If a developer removes 15 trees on a lot to clear space for new housing, it's logical to assume they will not be able to plant 60-90 trees on that same lot.

Our response: Data demonstrates the number of trees removed in 2024 and shows the amount of deposits returned. This shows homeowners avoiding tree replacements on-site. And the ordinance allows this per section 34.7(b)(6) and 34.7(b)(7). Mayor Pro Tem Rossi’s words above, confirm this.

2. Tree removals are not driven by insurance companies. Approvals require documented evidence and are based on certified arborist evaluations, fire authority determinations, or documented insurance cancellation or denial. The City is not compelling any tree removals; the ordinance establishes clear, objective standards when removals are requested. What this amendment does is reduce the financial burden on property owners who find themselves suddenly in the position of being required to remove a tree. The city cannot force property owners to risk their insurance coverage and consequently bank financing to seek some unknown alternative.

Our response: As Mayor Pro Tem Rossi contradicts above, some tree removals are driven by insurance companies. Council Member Cacciotti mentioned this numerous times as well (in recorded city council meetings). We want homeowners to be protected from insurance denials too.

It is the phrase in 34.5(d)(3), “in its current condition” that jeopardizes trees.

34.5(d)(3) A property owner provides documented evidence, such as a letter of cancellation or denial of insurance coverage, that the Protected Tree or Significant Tree in its current condition prevents renewal or issuance of homeowner’s insurance.

We asked for the following in the amendment:

  • Find alternative insurance first
  • Attempt mitigation such as pruning, before removal

Include the above to protect homeowners and pause the rest of the amendment.

3. Public notice and comment remain in place for development-related tree removals, including notice to nearby properties. Appeal rights are preserved for applicants, while changes to third-party appeals are intended to prevent procedural abuse and delays in safety- or housing-related actions. The system has been abused and has led to complaints of trespassing and harassment. Recent escalations include men using binoculars to peer into the yards of families with little children at home.

Our response: This ordinance has been in effect for over 20 years. This is an issue for the police. This isn’t a reason to exclude everyone from the process.

4.The ordinance also strengthens accountability by requiring certified arborist review for City tree removals, inspections of replacement plantings, and enforceable survival requirements. In addition, the City has committed to developing an Urban Forestry Management Plan to guide long-term canopy goals and data tracking. This measure was taken to address the reality that we need to plan for a future that includes increased housing production and lot coverage, requiring us to move away from parcel level canopy preservation.

Our response: This is not what was presented to the public. It is misleading. We were told this amendment was supposed to streamline the ordinance while addressing hazardous trees and insurance denials. These amendments have sneaky details that made us uncomfortable. Mayor Pro Tem Rossi confirmed, with her own words, that our tree canopy will be diminished with their amendment. This directly conflicts with what she said above “the ordinance does not allow property owners to avoid tree replacement.” This is not what the city of South Pasadena deserves.

All the city council is doing is saying they are committed to developing an Urban Forestry Management Plan. It isn’t action; it is dismissive and will lead to nothing. Set a date for an Urban Forestry Plan and stop the amendment. This is reckless and will destroy our canopy. This is governance by guesswork. Get the data first. Stop the amendment and set an Urban Forestry Plan now. The “City of Trees” deserves better than this.

The goal of these amendments is to balance tree preservation with wildfire safety, housing requirements, and private property rights in a way that is both legally sound and environmentally responsible. Your feedback is part of that ongoing discussion, and I appreciate your engagement. Please feel free to email me with specific concerns you have related to the ordinance amendments.

Warm regards,
Sheila

12/3/25 What's Happening?

Our Trees Are Under Threat

The City Council is back to pushing through a destructive tree amendment that will accelerate the loss of our mature urban canopy. We fought this before and stopped it on October 1st (history of this movement) but they are back at it. They are voting this in on December 17th unless we stop it.

and attend in person or on zoom (link to meeting details)

On October 1st the Council told us they heard us and apologized for missing so many critical details. We asked for one main thing. Stop the amendment and get an Urban Forestry Plan first. We need to lead with science and develop a plan that addresses all issues around trees. The Council wants us to accept the loopholes and see how bad it can be. We can't afford to lose our mature trees to rushed decisions. The more concerning thing is that Councilmember Omari Fergurson spearheaded this amendment and is breaking the rules that he is trying to set. Shouldn't he recuse himself?

Our Vision

Pause the amendment and fast-track a process to address hazardous trees while maintaining strong protections. Adopt an urban forestry plan, enforce on-site replacements, require permits for Public Works, and restore community notifications. South Pasadena deserves higher standards of tree management.

Five Key Issues

1) Large mature trees are going to be removed

New reasons for removal of healthy trees include:

Public Works will no longer be required to notify residents of street tree removals. Sidewalk repairs are being touted as a top priority and the ability to protest removals and ask for alternative sidewalk designs will be gone forever.

Public Works allows owners to pay a fee to avoid planting a replacement tree on their land. This means more bare lots and heat.

The 50% on-site requirement is meaningless when property owners can simply buy their way out of environmental responsibility.

See the actual amendment 
34.7(b)(6) When the replacement tree or tree(s) is or are planted, the applicant shall contact the Public Works Department for an inspection of the work. The City will refund the applicant(s) its deposit for each replacement tree planted. If the applicant has not planted the replacement tree prior to the expiration of the Tree Removal Permit, the applicant forfeits his, her or its deposit to the City. The City shall place the forfeited deposit in a separate City fund to be used for the planting of trees or other tree related uses at the discretion of the City.


34.7(b)(7) If a the replacement tree does not survive for a period of two years, the applicant or current owner or lessee of the property where the replacement tree is located, shall be required to replace it with another replacement tree that complies with the provisions of this Section 34.7 or pay the City the full cost of replacing the tree at a location to be determined by the City.
How trees fight heat

2) Accountability

Public Works removed the 100' radius notification process. The city complained about the time and money needed to acquire the 100' radius maps. We've developed a free online tool that's instantaneous.

See our free radius map

Residents have the right to know what's happening in their city and not discover it after the fact. The public has a right to appeal.

3) Transparency

Public Works doesn't track what tree is being removed and what is being planted. Our trees are disappearing because Public Works and the City Council allows it. Show us the numbers—full transparency is non-negotiable.

Require visible signage for all permitted tree work—no exceptions.

Our ideas for transparency:

Public removals should be brightly marked with green safety tape and a posted removal notice.
Left Side, Removal
Right Side, Trimming

Signs are provided by the city and loaned to contractors to posts permits. Residents immediately know the job is legitimate. No phone calls, no confusion, no wasted city resources.

For removals, the permit must display the replacement plan. This is real transparency. This is free, effortless enforcement that puts accountability where it belongs—in public sight.

4) Rushed decisions destroy 50+year investments

The city sees our trees as a liability. They need to treat them as an asset. They talk about their charm and promote their benefits but they are too quick to remove them. So let's truly protect them. Set an urban forestry management plan first.

5) Set an Urban Forestry Plan

The city council is forcing policy changes without Zone Zero regulations, without funding for an Urban Forestry Management Plan, without foundational data. This is governance by guesswork. Get the data first. Policy second.

Pines and palms provide documented ecological benefits, but without a proper Urban Forestry Plan, decisions are being made in a vacuum.

Take Action!

Step 1

Email council and demand they put a stop to this

Here are their emails:

oferguson@southpasadenaca.gov, srossi@southpasadenaca.gov, jprimuth@southpasadenaca.gov, mcacciotti@southpasadenaca.gov, jbraun@southpasadenaca.gov, ccpubliccomment@southpasadenaca.gov

And if you have writer’s block, use this form email:

Subject
I oppose the Tree Amendment
Body
Dear Council Members,

I urge you to reject the proposed Tree Amendment that prioritizes developer convenience over environmental protection and community transparency.

This fails our city:
1. Pay-to-pollute scheme: Allowing property owners to pay a fee instead of planting replacement trees creates more bare lots and urban heat. The 50% on-site requirement is meaningless when environmental responsibility can simply be bought off.  Close this loop hole.

2. Insurance Companies aren't arborists: We want homeowners to be protected from insurance denials too.  Include the following in the amendment:
-Attempt to find alternative insurance first
-Mitigation efforts such as pruning and trimming before removal
Include the above to protect homeowners and pause the rest of the amendment.

3. Zero accountability: Removing the 100' radius notification process silences residents. There is a free online tool that solves the "time and money" excuse—there is no reason to strip away public notice and the right to appeal.

4. No transparency: Public Works doesn't track what's being removed or what's actually replanted. Our mature canopy is disappearing because no one is watching. Require visible signage for all tree work—residents deserve to know what's happening in their own neighborhoods before it's done.

5. Reckless speed: You're pushing policy changes without Zone Zero regulations, without funding for an Urban Forestry Management Plan, without foundational data. This is governance by guesswork. Get the data first. Set an Urban Forestry plan now. Policy second.

Mature trees are 50+ year investments that fight heat, improve air quality, and define our city's character. You can't replace a 50-year-old oak tree with a crape myrtle sapling and call it progress. Stop this amendment. Develop an Urban Forestry Plan. Give residents transparency and a voice.

Sincerely,

Step 2

Attend the City Council Meeting on Dec 17th

Show up in person at Council Chambers, located at 1424 Mission Street

Arrive at 6:50pm to fill out a public comment card (small white basket located by the left speaker podium)

Or Join the Council meeting on Zoom: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/82599992830
Webinar ID: 825 9999 2830. No passcode required.

Please don’t be afraid to make a comment. It doesn’t matter your age or if you're even prepared.

If you don’t like this... just say it. Just one sentence is all we need.

Read the official city documents here:

Current Ordinance

Amended Tree Ordinance (Dec 3, 2025)

See our original call to action

Have a comment to make this stronger? Want to help? Contact us: savesouthpasadenatrees@gmail.com