Residents and advocates urged the Bakersfield City Council on Wednesday evening to reconsider a proposed $1.5 million allocation for tree-trimming and removal contracts. Opponents of this proposal argue that the increase in spending would further reduce the City’s tree canopy at a time of worsening air pollution and rising temperatures.
During the public comment portion of the meeting, several speakers spoke up against the proposed increase, noting that previous contract levels between fiscal years 2021-22 and 2024-25 did not exceed $1 million.
Eddy Laine of the Sierra Club called on the city to pause the proposed contracts and redirect efforts toward increasing Bakersfield’s tree canopy.
“Something’s amiss,” Laine said. “No contract level was more than $1 million. Now the proposal is to take what was $1 million for years and make it into $1.5 million for questionable tree trimming and removal. And supposedly the city is in a difficult financial situation, so that’s not understandable.”
Laine went on to comment that the city needs greater transparency and oversight regarding tree maintenance practices, calling for monthly public reports detailing trees trimmed, removed, purchased, and planted, along with associated costs. He also called for longer trimming cycles and stronger standards for contractors.
“We need a five-to-seven-year plan schedule for tree trimming to avoid over-trimming,” Laine said. “We need the national ANSI standards and Arbor Day Foundation guidance put into the contracts. They’re not there now. And as we’ve said before, trees are being trimmed at the inappropriate time of the year.”
Laine also criticized the city’s Tree Advisory Committee, stating that organizations including the Sierra Club, Audubon of Kern, Building Healthy Communities, the California Native Plant Society, and Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability do not have formal representation on the committee.
“The issue isn’t more city funding, it’s how city funding is spent,” Laine said. “Please direct staff to redirect energies to increase our tree canopy.”
The concerns raised during public comment echoed recommendations outlined in a recent policy brief written by Dr. Anthony Pallitto, director of the Public Service Institute at California State University, Bakersfield. In the report, Pallitto argued that Bakersfield’s approach to urban forestry has resulted in a “significant loss of trees” throughout parks and along city streets and said the city should begin treating trees as “vital public health and climate resilience resources” rather than landscaping amenities.
The report also cites research linking increased tree canopy to lower air temperatures, improved air quality, and reduced pollution-related health risks. According to the brief, a 2025 urban sustainability study found that increasing tree canopy coverage from 10% to 30% can reduce air temperatures between 0.8 and 1.5 degrees Celsius in urban areas experiencing extreme heat conditions similar to Bakersfield.
Other speakers emphasized the importance of Bakersfield’s urban tree canopy for public health and environmental sustainability.
Rob Parsons, a longtime Bakersfield resident, reflected on growing up around mature trees in the city and expressed support for efforts to better maintain and preserve them.
“I was brought to Bakersfield as a five-year-old by my parents in 1948,” Parsons said. “My father built a pine and redwood house on Oleander Avenue that still exists, along with the sycamore trees that I had to rake leaves under and some conifers in the neighborhood that I enjoyed climbing. I thoroughly appreciate the trees in Bakersfield and hope that they’re maintained.”
Valentina Gutierrez, a ninth-grade student, connected the discussion to Bakersfield’s ongoing air quality challenges. She referenced the American Lung Association’s recent ranking, which named Bakersfield as the nation’s most polluted city for particle pollution for the second consecutive year.
“This is extremely concerning to me because there are around 123,000 kids in this city, including me, whose lungs are still growing while consistently being exposed to harmful pollution,” Gutierrez said. “Particularly kids who live in East Bakersfield, which faces poor health outcomes due to high pollution in their neighborhoods.”
Gutierrez said trees are among the city’s most effective tools for improving environmental conditions and warned against continued tree removal.
“Trees are one of the most powerful and affordable tools we have to combat rising temperatures and poor air quality,” she said. “Removing them would be a serious mistake that we cannot take back, an issue that my generation will be left to deal with. When you cut down a mature tree and replace it with saplings, it could take 30 or 50 years to restore that tree canopy. That’s my entire adult life waiting for the shade that existed before I was born.”
Pallitto’s policy brief also noted that Bakersfield experiences some of the highest chronic disease burdens among California’s urban areas, including elevated rates of asthma, diabetes, heart disease and obesity. The report argues that expanding urban tree canopy should be viewed as a preventative public health strategy, particularly in neighborhoods with low canopy coverage and extreme summer heat.
Dr. Gitika Commuri, a political science professor at CSUB, also spoke during public comment, arguing that the city’s Parks and Recreation Department has adopted an overly “risk-averse” approach to tree management that prioritizes trimming and removal over long-term environmental goals.
“I think the way the department operates is in a way where it is risk-averse,” Commuri said. “That is why almost the entirety of its budget is spent on trimming and removal. We have gone over data, made public requests, and looked at invoices, and I can assure you that 95% of that budget is towards trimming and removal.”
Commuri said the city should reconsider its broader philosophy regarding environmental sustainability and urban planning.
“I think there’s a philosophy that we want to be risk-averse rather than a philosophy that we want to be a green city,” she said. “I think there is a structural problem in the way the department operates. We need to reopen and reinvestigate what we are trying to do and whether we are trying to actually create a greener community.”
Advocates recommend that Bakersfield adopt a Fresno or Sacramento-style urban forest management plan that includes canopy goals, equity-focused planting priorities, replacement ratios for removed trees, and stronger integration between urban forestry, public health, and climate resilience planning.