Neighbors urge pause after Goleta crews remove trees on Berkeley Road; staff says some removals were for safety

Dozens of Kellogg‑neighborhood residents urged the City Council to stop or slow tree removals on Berkeley Road, saying the trees define the neighborhood and some appeared healthy. Public Works staff told the council they had previously contracted an arborist, that eight or nine trees remained under review, and that further design changes could preserve some of those trees.

At a public‑comment block during the Aug. 19 Goleta City Council meeting, speakers including residents and members of the newly formed group SaveGoletaTrees described long‑standing neighborhood canopy, hired independent arborists to review several trees and asked the city to seek additional risk assessments before removing more mature trees. “These trees define our neighborhood. They give it character. They boost our property values,” said Jeff Kuiper, a Kellogg resident who said he had helped organize the community group Save Goleta Trees.

Professional arborist and Public Tree Advisory Commission participant Ken Knight urged the city to stop removals and commission a Level‑3 tree‑risk assessment — “the highest level analysis” — so a risk‑qualified arborist could advise how pavement and sidewalk work might be adjusted to preserve trees. Several residents said they had inspected trees themselves and that the contractors’ work had already disturbed root zones, reducing options for preservation.

Public Works presented the city’s timeline and risk findings. The department said the pavement project initially planned to preserve trees, but that as construction exposed roots and structural issues the city’s contract arborist reported health and safety concerns and the city posted some trees for removal. Public Works Director (presenting) said 16 trees had been identified originally, seven removed, and nine remained under review. After an internal follow‑up, staff reported that “with certain exceptions” three of the remaining nine could be retained with design modifications and construction monitoring; that would reduce the final number slated for removal to roughly five or six. The director said the contractor had not removed roots intentionally but had cut curb and gutter and asphalt to examine root systems; staff said further work had refined potential design changes and a four‑year monitoring plan would be implemented for preserved trees.

Council members pressed staff about impartiality and process. Council Member Reyes Martin asked whether the city should bring in an independent arborist because “if the community has lost trust or credibility with that person, it’s really difficult to come back from that.” Public Works said an additional arborist (a risk‑assessment‑qualified professional) was brought in, and that staff had re‑evaluated each tree individually. The city noted the firm that provided the second arborist was the same consultant firm but that the assessor had a different qualification track (tree‑risk assessment qualified) and had performed detailed follow‑up checks.

Residents pressed for a replanting plan and for replacement trees that are substantial (24‑inch box or larger rather than small saplings). Several speakers, including Kalia Rourke and Janice Graybill, also urged more public notice and participation in replacement planning; one speaker said prior correspondence had suggested neighbors were expected to purchase replacement trees themselves, a reply she said was inappropriate. Several speakers also highlighted sewer lateral and infrastructure concerns, arguing that root intrusion into older sewer lines is usually fixed by pipe replacement rather than tree removal.

Public Works said staff is preparing a replanting plan that will follow the city’s Urban Forest Management Plan. The department also said it would continue evaluating design modifications to preserve trees, include construction monitoring for preserved trees, and that a staged approach to removals and replanting was under consideration. Staff advised that unless directed otherwise the remaining removals were slated to begin the day after the meeting, with the three trees identified in the most recent review exempted from immediate removal.

The city did not take a council vote on policy at the meeting. Council members asked staff to consider a broader replacement‑policy discussion for a future meeting; Council Member Reyes Martin said she hopes the council will “come back with some kind of a program that we look at when we take out a tree, we replace the tree and different programs on how we could do that and have neighborhood involvement.”

The public‑comment period and staff update made the meeting an early forum for the neighborhood’s effort to preserve mature trees. City staff said they will continue additional arborist review, refine the replanting plan and report back to council with next steps and possible program options for tree replacement and community engagement.