Tree Protections Remain a Major Public Concern as New Whittier Council Settles Into Office

Wide screenshot of the Whittier City Council dais during a public comment speaker at the podium.  Image credit: City of Whittier / Channel 6 council meeting feed.

WHITTIER, Calif. — Tree protections remain one of the most active public concerns facing Whittier’s new City Council, even as the Council continues working through a crowded early-term agenda that has included budget issues, election reform, emergency response, and other major city business.

During the June 23 Whittier City Council meeting, public comment repeatedly returned to the city’s Tree Protection Ordinance, Parkway Tree Manual, tree removals, CIPA insurance concerns, and the future of Whittier’s urban forest.

The issue was not listed as a staff report or action item on the June 23 agenda, meaning the Council could not take formal action that night. But the number and intensity of comments showed that many residents still expect the new Council to revisit the issue.

Several speakers urged the Council to reinstate the Tree Protection Ordinance and Parkway Tree Manual, which were changed under the previous Council. Others questioned the city’s past reliance on insurance and liability concerns as part of the justification for changing tree policy.

The Whittier Conservancy and Save Our Trees Whittier have continued to argue that the city’s prior Tree Manual protected healthy public trees while still allowing immediate removal of hazardous trees. Written comments submitted before the meeting also claimed that other California Insurance Pool Authority member cities maintain tree-protection policies and appeals processes without facing the same alleged insurance threat Whittier cited.

Conny McCormack, founder of Save Our Trees Whittier, submitted written comments and also spoke during public comment, urging the new Council to reinstate tree protections and cancel contracts related to the previous Council’s tree-policy changes. She argued that remaining funds should instead be redirected toward replacing missing trees and filling empty tree wells.

Thomas Bihr, a landscape architect, submitted a detailed written comment arguing that Whittier has a major deficit in its urban forest. Bihr said Whittier was once described as having roughly 39,000 to 40,000 street trees, while the current city tree inventory has been estimated at about 23,000. He urged the city to consider an ambitious tree-planting effort of 2,000 trees per year for 10 years.

Other speakers raised concerns about specific areas, including Uptown Whittier, Greenleaf Avenue, Whittier Boulevard, Comstock Avenue, and neighborhoods with missing or uneven tree coverage.

One speaker said Whittier’s trees were a major election issue and argued that residents voted for the new Council expecting tree protections to be restored. Another speaker said the Council was elected in part because of promises to protect the city’s trees and asked why the issue had not yet been placed on an agenda.

At the same time, the new Council has been in office for less than three full months and has already had to deal with a heavy schedule of city business.

Since taking office, the Council has worked through budget-related issues, moved forward election reform and term-limit ballot measures, responded to public concerns after the Colima-area brush fire, addressed emergency communication questions, considered public meeting technology rules, and handled other city operations.

That context matters. The continued absence of a tree-policy vote does not necessarily show unwillingness by the new Council to address the issue. It may instead reflect the reality that the new members are still learning the structure of city government, working through staff processes, and handling immediate agenda items inherited from the prior Council and city administration.

Still, public patience appears limited.

Residents who spoke on June 23 made clear that they want the Tree Protection Ordinance and Parkway Tree Manual brought back for public discussion sooner rather than later. The issue remains emotionally charged because many residents view Whittier’s trees not only as landscaping, but as part of the city’s identity, shade canopy, historic character, business environment, and climate resilience.

The new Council now faces a balancing act: giving the issue the legal, financial, and staff review it requires while also responding to residents who believe tree protections should already have been restored.

For now, the message from public comment was clear. Whittier’s tree debate did not end with the April election, and residents are still watching to see when the new Council will formally take up the issue.