A city notice taped to a stone pine at 13120 Warren Avenue in late August announced a permit request to remove the tree for “general improvement,” inviting residents to sign up for a public hearing. The posting, issued by StreetsLA’s Urban Forestry Division, signals that multiple trees are slated for removal and that the case is headed to the Board of Public Works for a decision after required public notice. City policy calls for online postings and public hearings when three or more street trees are proposed for removal and allows residents to request hearing notifications through the Tree Removal Notification System.
Neighborhood emails reviewed by Mar Vista Voice show residents urging Councilmember Traci Park’s office and city staff to pursue tree-preserving street repairs instead of cutting the pines. Several residents say Park’s staff did not respond, while Public Works commissioners at least acknowledged receipt of concerns. One speaker at a recent advocacy meeting described prior periods when the same stretch of Warren was resurfaced without losing mature trees and questioned why removals are now preferred. The silence from Park’s office has reinforced the perception that she is moving ahead with removals regardless of the community’s objections.
In their messages to City officials, residents pointed out that “trees keep our neighborhoods cool, clean our air, provide beauty to our streets, habitats for birds and other wildlife, reduce the cost of cooling our homes, and greatly increase the value of our properties.” Photos of the street show freshly cut stumps alongside intact sidewalks, with one neighbor writing, “Some of them didn’t do any damage and I don’t know why they have been removed.” For many, the removals reflect not only a disregard for the ecological value of mature trees but also an unwillingness by their elected representative to engage in dialogue with constituents who offered solutions.
Under Los Angeles procedures, street trees in the public right of way fall under the Urban Forestry Division. Removal permits are evaluated by city arborists, and projects removing three or more trees must be publicly posted and brought to a Board of Public Works hearing before approval. If removals are authorized, the City’s Sidewalk Repair and Street Tree policy generally requires replacement planting, and the Sidewalk Repair Program’s environmental framework increases ratios over time, starting at two for one in the first ten years and rising to three for one in years eleven through twenty.
City policy also outlines tree-saving design options including sidewalk ramping or bridging over roots, narrowing or meandering the sidewalk to maintain accessibility clearance, and other root-friendly designs to maximize mature tree preservation during repairs. A 2023 court ruling that halted a plan tied to sidewalk work underscored the need to consider such alternatives, finding the City’s environmental review flawed for failing to evaluate tree-preserving approaches.
In Los Angeles, the urban forest stores about 1.3 million tons of carbon and removes nearly 2,000 tons of air pollution annually, with millions of dollars in energy and health benefits. Urban-heat studies show trees can lower neighborhood air temperatures by as much as nine degrees through shade and evapotranspiration, benefits that are especially valuable on residential streets like Warren Avenue. Despite City and nonprofit planting efforts, Los Angeles lost about eleven percent of overall tree canopy from 2000 to 2021, with losses often concentrated along streets due to infrastructure conflicts. Replacing mature trees with small saplings does not quickly restore shade or climate benefits.
Several other council offices have emphasized canopy preservation as a policy goal. Councilmember Nithya Raman highlighted protecting shade trees when the Council reformed automatic street widening policies, explicitly to improve pedestrian spaces and protect trees. Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky has directed resources for urban forest maintenance in CD5 and publicly framed median tree plantings as a strategy to preserve and grow the urban canopy and mitigate heat and air quality impacts. In contrast, Park has aligned herself with an approach that treats removals as easier than repairs, undermining both the city’s climate goals and her constituents’ repeated calls for alternatives.
For Warren Avenue, the notice indicates a pending Board of Public Works hearing. Residents may sign up for notifications and provide testimony before any approval to remove multiple street trees. If removals proceed, City rules call for replacement planting, but residents point to earlier removals on Warren where replacements never materialized or have yet to reach meaningful size.
Editor’s Note – Clarification
After publication of this story, Councilmember Traci Park’s office pointed to a September 4 community meeting about the Warren Avenue trees. According to the Bureau of Street Services, three stone pines are slated for removal following an arborist’s assessment that their roots have created dangerous road conditions. City officials cite a past injury lawsuit tied to road damage, as well as liability concerns if aging trees were destabilized by root pruning. By law, the city will plant two new trees for each one removed, with neighbors offered input on the list of replacement species.
Mar Vista residents concerned about the trees’ removal emphasized that they had written to Park’s office and multiple city officials ahead of the September 4 meeting, but say they never received replies. Several told Mar Vista Voice they were not aware of the September 4 gathering and were not invited, despite their repeated efforts to raise concerns. One resident noted they first learned of the meeting only after seeing notices on trees, while another said they wrote to more than ten city officials, including Park’s office, but were not informed about the meeting. These community members stressed that decisions about street tree removal affect far more than the immediately adjacent homeowners, since mature trees are a shared community asset. They believe the council office engaged only a narrow subset of residents, leaving many concerned neighbors excluded from the process.