Redlands weighs whether to redesign Pioneer Avenue and remove aging Deodar trees

REDLANDS, Calif. — A long-standing conflict between traffic safety and tree preservation resurfaced Tuesday as Redlands City Council revisited the approved design for Pioneer Avenue, where a row of aging Deodar Cedars faces possible removal to make room for road widening.

Why it matters: The Deodars, once part of a historic corridor stretching toward the 210 freeway, now represent some of the last mature shade trees in a neighborhood residents say has long faced disproportionate heat, poorer air quality and fewer environmental investments than the city’s southern neighborhoods.

Staff say removing the trees would lower project costs and reduce right-of-way needs. Residents and environmental advocates argue that losing them would deepen an already stark “shade divide,” affecting public health, livability and trust with a community that was promised the trees would be preserved when the plan was adopted in 2015.

Details: City staff first brought Pioneer Avenue improvements forward after Citrus Valley High School opened in 2009 and traffic complaints surged along Texas Street and Pioneer. In 2015, the City Council approved a “Special Collector” street design that widened the corridor to four lanes while preserving the Deodars in a landscaped median.

That design required significantly more roadway — 38 feet instead of 14 — and has shaped how frontage improvements were built by developers in the years since. 

A recent arborist assessment, however, found that the trees are in mixed condition. Four trees between Texas and Castlegate are in poor to moderate health, with long-term drought damage, missing bark and vehicle impacts. One meets removal criteria. Three would need rehabilitation. Trees farther east are in better condition but still stressed.

Development Services Director Brian Desatnik noted that eliminating the median and removing the trees would simplify the project and lower cost. Staff also emphasized that major drought cycles and lack of irrigation have weakened the trees over the last decade.

Councilmember Eddie Tejeda, who requested Tuesday’s reconsideration, said the city “lost an opportunity” by requiring developers to build to the median-preserving design. If the preservation requirement had not been in place, he said, a current developer at Texas and Pioneer would likely have shouldered the cost of widening.

What they’re saying: Residents were vocal during Tuesday's meeting on whether the trees should stay.

Germaine Miles, who lives in the historic Southside, argued the issue reflects an unequal distribution of environmental benefits across the city.

“If this was on Brookside, or Olive, or Fern, or Cypress, or Highland, or Palm, you’d be doing everything you could to save those trees. But this is the Northside, which is already a barren desert and needs more trees,” Miles said. “Why, Mr. Tejeda, are you advocating to take out one of the key issues on the Northside, which is shade? … Because it’s on the Northside, we’re going to ignore them.”

Some speakers, including members of city committees, supported removal followed by replanting elsewhere.

Redlands Street Tree Committee member Andy Hoder said, “I think the right decision here is perhaps to take the trees out and plant other trees… perhaps on the grounds of the school, or elsewhere in that neighborhood. So you still have nice trees, you still have the shade, you still have the oxygen, but you also have better traffic flow”

Street Tree Committee staff liaison and longtime Northside resident Erik Reeves agreed that many trees are “in bad condition” and recommended removal with replacement.

“My professional recommendation would be to remove those trees … once the north side of that street is improved, replace them with new Deodars,” Reeves said.

North Redlands advocates disputed that approach. Jennifer Maravillas of the Northside Alliance presented survey data from nearly 100 residents showing shade as the top concern.

“There’s a very clear shade divide between south and north,” Maravillas said. “It is very, very important, specifically on the north side, because we don’t already have the shade that we need.”

Julia Lenhardt, a climate scientist at the University of Redlands, told the council removing the trees would undermine both environmental health and public trust

“The community already advocated for the protection of these trees 10 years ago, and it would be breaking a promise to your community to reconsider this plan,” Lenhardt said. “The north side is already disproportionately lacking trees and is also in a severe heat zone…These types of trees also help manage stormwater and raise property values. I think it’s very clear that we should be doing everything possible to prevent tree removal in our city.”

Councilmember Denise Davis noted the large volume of emails received on this topic. Davis specifically referenced a local pediatrician who wrote about elevated asthma rates on the Northside and the importance of tree canopy as a public-health tool.

Council members supported pausing any removal. 

“I’d say let’s try to rehab what’s there,” Mayor Pro Tem Marc Shaw said. “We have some time to make a decision.”

Mayor Mario Saucedo also requested a cost analysis comparing right-of-way needs and timeline impacts of all remaining options.

Moving forward: The council took no action Tuesday, as no formal recommendation was before them. If the council ultimately seeks to modify the approved design, the issue must return to the Planning Commission because the 2015 decision is embedded in the city’s General Plan.

For now, the roadway remains one lane in each direction, and the Deodars will stay in place while the city analyzes cost, safety and rehabilitation options.