Uptown Trees Vs. City of Whittier

On February 20, a Los Angeles County judge will hear a lawsuit that could decide the future of Whittier’s tree-lined Uptown. The case was filed by the Whittier Conservancy and challenges the City of Whittier’s plan to remove roughly 180 mature ficus trees along Greenleaf Avenue and nearby streets. The conservancy argues that the city violated the California Environmental Quality Act, known as CEQA, by approving the removals without proper environmental review.

What started as a streetscape improvement project has grown into a larger conflict. At stake are environmental protections, historic preservation, public input, and how decisions are made at City Hall. With city council and mayoral elections set for April 14, the issue has also become political. Residents, business owners, and community groups now see the trees as more than landscaping. For many, they are part of the city’s identity and a part of the environmental infrastructure.

The background goes back to 2008, when Whittier adopted the Uptown Whittier Specific Plan. That plan was meant to guide growth while protecting the area’s historic character. It identified the tree shade along Greenleaf Avenue as a major asset and called for a gradual tree removal process rather than a mass one. A later document, the Uptown Whittier Streetscape Beautification Plan adopted in 2019, followed that same approach. It proposed phased changes and limited tree replacement.

According to the Whittier Conservancy’s lawsuit, the city shifted course in December 2023. City staff presented a revised plan known as the Greenleaf Promenade Amendment. This version called for removing all of the trees at once and expanded the project beyond its original footprint. The city approved the change using an add-on to a prior negative declaration, stating that no new environmental impacts needed to be studied. The conservancy argues that the project had changed too much for that determination to hold under CEQA.

A key issue in the lawsuit is whether the city properly evaluated new environmental impacts. During study sessions in early 2024, the city acknowledged that removing the mature trees would result in a loss of carbon sequestration lasting about 24 years. City materials also showed that removing the shade would increase heat along Greenleaf Avenue. To address this, officials added shade cloth structures and larger replacement trees to the plan. Those changes were approved without environmental review of their own impacts.

The conservancy argues that this sequence matters. Under CEQA, agencies are required to study not only a project’s impacts, but also whether proposed relief actually works and whether it causes new problems. The lawsuit claims the city skipped that step entirely.

Infrastructure is another central part of the dispute. City officials say replacing a nearly 100-year-old water main and upgrading storm drains requires removing all of the trees at the same time. The conservancy counters that the city improperly separated this work from the rest of the project. CEQA does not allow agencies to split projects apart to avoid reviewing their full impact.

Documents cited in the lawsuit show that the project’s estimated cost rose sharply as infrastructure work was added. What was once estimated at around $3.5 million later jumped to at least $20 million. The conservancy argues this reflects a fundamentally different project than the one originally approved, and one that should have gone through full environmental review.

The city has also framed the tree removal as a public safety issue. Officials have pointed to damaged sidewalks and trip-and-fall risks linked to tree roots. State law allows cities to remove hazardous trees more quickly. Opponents respond that sidewalk deterioration is widespread in Uptown and reflects years of deferred maintenance rather than an emergency.

During interviews and walks through Uptown, cracked pavement and uneven sidewalks were visible across the district, not only near ficus trees. Cindy McCormick, a member of the environmental group Save Our Trees, said many residents felt caught off guard. “People didn’t know this was happening until after the vote,” she said. “That’s not how decisions about shared public space should be made.”

The lawsuit reflects that concern. It argues that major changes were approved without clear notice to the public and without a transparent decision-making process.

Business groups have largely supported the city’s plan. The Uptown Whittier Business Association has argued that removing the trees will modernize the area and make it more functional for outdoor dining and events. City officials have said they will support businesses after construction. Opponents say the trees already serve businesses by providing shade, encouraging foot traffic, and making the area walkable.

McCormick said her group is not against change. She said she personally would support phased replacement with similar, drought-tolerant trees that still provide shade. She also shared a personal belief, which she emphasized was her own interpretation of the situation. “I think they want businesses to go out of business and leases to end so they can bulldoze it and put housing,” she said. The city has not announced plans to redevelop Uptown into housing, but her comment reflects broader concerns among residents about displacement and long-term land use changes.

Beyond aesthetics, the lawsuit frames the issue as one of environmental equity. Mature street trees lower temperatures, improve air quality, and make public space usable for people who walk rather than drive. Data presented to the city showed that sidewalks under the existing shade were significantly cooler than nearby unshaded areas. Removing the trees, even temporarily, would change how people use the space and who feels comfortable there.

The February 20 hearing will not be the final word. The judge could pause the project, require further environmental review, or allow it to move forward. Whatever the outcome, the case shows how environmental law shapes local decision-making. In Whittier, a fight over trees has become a test of transparency, accountability, and how cities balance development with the everyday environment people live in.