URBAN
FOREST
PLAN VOLUME 1
DRAFT JANUARY 21, 2025
CITY OF ALAMEDA
January 21, 2025
PUBLISHED ON:
The City of Alameda
PREPARED BY:
Exhibit 1
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 VISION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 SECTION 1 .0: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.1 Why Alameda Needs an Urban Forest Plan . . . . . . . 7
1.2 Purpose of the Urban Forest Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.3 Vision, Themes and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.4 Urban Forest Plan Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.5 Funding the Urban Forest Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.6 Structure of the Urban Forest Plan . . . . . . . . . . 16 SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.1 Historical and Environmental Context . . . . . . . . 16
2.2 Urban Forest Plan Development Process . . . . . . 18 SECTION 3: ALAMEDA’S URBAN FOREST . . . . . . . . 20
3.1 Citywide Canopy Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2 Canopy Cover by Land Use Type . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3 Assessment of the City-Managed Tree Inventory . . 24
3.3.1 Environmental Services and
Economic Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.3.2 Species Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3.3 Age Distribution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3.4 Health Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.3.5 Importance Value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
iv
3.4 Tree Equity and Vulnerability Assessment . . . . . . 40
3.4.1 Demographics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.4.2 Pollution Burden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.4.3 Urban Heat Islands. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.5 Threats and Risks to the Urban Forest . . . . . . . . 46
3.5.1 Species and Climate Preparedness . . . . . . . . . 47
3.5.2 Groundwater Rise and Water Usage . . . . . . . . 54
3.6 Neighborhood and Corridor Assessment . . . . . . 57
3.6.1 Gibbons Drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.6.2 Park Street and Webster Street . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.6.3 Central Avenue Corridor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.6.4 Bay Farm Island. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
3.6.5 Alameda Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 SECTION 4:
MANAGING ALAMEDA’S URBAN FOREST . . . . . . . . 63
4.1 Department Roles in Tree Management . . . . . . . 65
4.1.1 Public Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.1.2 Alameda Recreation and Parks Department . . . 65
4.1.3 Alameda Municipal Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.1.4 Planning, Building and Transportation . . . . . . 66
4.2 Protected Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.3 Current Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.4 Annual Service Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 SECTION 5:
PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
5.1 Priority Planting Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
5.2 Increasing Canopy Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
5.2.1 Vacant Site Planting Estimate . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.2.2 Increase Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.2.3 Tree Species Matrix. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.3 Funding and Staffing Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.3.1 Scenario One: Enhanced Business as Usual . . . . 74
5.3.2 Scenario Two: Increased Planting and
Maintenance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.3.3 Scenario Three: Urban Forester . . . . . . . . . . . 76
5.3.4 Staff Position Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 SECTION 6:
PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.1 Development of the Urban Forest Plan . . . . . . . . 78
6.2 Role of Interested Parties in Urban Forest Plan
Development and Implementation . . . . . . . . . . 79
6.3 Summary of Interested Parties Input . . . . . . . . . 80
6.3.1 Online Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
6.3.2 Public Outreach Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
6.3.3 Student Letter Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
6.3.4 Listening Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
6.3.5 Working Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
6.3.6 Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
6.4 Community Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
6.4.1 Input from Community-Based Organizations . . . 89
6.4.2 Partnerships with of Large Landowners . . . . . . 89
6.4.3 Recommendations for Community Partnerships 90
6.4.4 Case Studies of Engagement Programming. . . . 90
SECTION 7: REPORTING AND PLAN UPDATES . . . . . 92
7.1 Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
7.2 Plan Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
7.3 Plan Updates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
v
TABLES
Table 1-1. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Table 1.3 Funding and Implementation Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Table 3-1. Planted, Vacant, and Not Plantable Tree Sites in the City-Managed Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Table 3-2. Annual Environmental Services and Benefits Provided by City-Managed Tree Inventory . . . . . 26 Table 3-3. Financial Value of City-Managed Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Table 3-4. Soil Moisture Thresholds Developed Based on Tree Health Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 Table 4-2. 2024-2025 Total Municipality-Funded Tree Management Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Table 4-4. Annual Tree Care Service Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Table 4-5. Pruning Cycle Analysis of All City Managed Trees 68 Table 5-1. Estimated Canopy at Maturity from Plantable Vacant Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Table 5-2. Estimated Tree Planting Totals by Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Table 5-3. Scenario One Funding Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Table 5-4. Scenario Two Funding Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Table 5-5. Scenario Three Funding Scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Table 5-6. Staff Position Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 Table 6-1. Urban Forest Plan Survey Takeaways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Table 6-2. Listening Session – Idea-Generating Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Table 6-3. Alameda Urban Forest Plan Working Group Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Table 6-4. Major Themes of Working Group Meetings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Table 6-5. Staff Interview Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Table 6-6. Key takeaways from Staff Interviews: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Table 6-7: Survey responses from Community-based Organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1-1. Tree canopy cover by census tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Exhibit 1-2. Priority Planting Score by Census tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Exhibit 3-1. Tree canopy cover for analysis area of Alameda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Exhibit 3-2. Tree canopy cover by census tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Exhibit 3-3. Tree canopy cover by land use type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
TABLES & EXHIBITS
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
vi
Exhibit 3-4. Map of land use type classifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Exhibit 3-5. Top 10 genera in the City-managed street tree inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Exhibit 3-6. Top 10 species in the City-managed street tree inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Exhibit 3-7. Top 10 genera in the City-managed park tree inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Exhibit 3-8. Top 10 species in the City-managed park tree inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 Exhibit 3-9. DSH distribution of the City-managed street tree inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Exhibit 3-10. DSH distribution of the City-managed park tree inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Exhibit 3-11. Health composition ratings of the street tree inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Exhibit 3-12. Health composition ratings of the park tree inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Exhibit 3-13. Street trees – relative performance index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Exhibit 3-14. Park trees – relative performance index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Exhibit 3-15. Importance values of top ten tree species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Exhibit 3-16. Comparison of census tract’s tree canopy cover to racial/ethnic breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Exhibit 3-17. Comparison of census tract’s tree canopy cover to p ercentage of the population living at or below two times the Federal Poverty Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Exhibit 3-18. Comparison of census tract’s tree canopy cover to percentage of the population with Limited English Proficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Exhibit 3-19. Map of CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Exhibit 3-20. Comparison of census tract’s tree canopy cover by CalEnviroscreen range . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Exhibit 3-21. Comparing census tract’s canopy cover to heat island severity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 Exhibit 3-22. Water use rating distribution of the City’s street tree inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 Exhibit 3-23. Water use rating distribution of the City’s park tree inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Exhibit 3-24. Top 20 species in the street tree inventory predicted to be unsuitable for future climates . . . 50 Exhibit 3-25. Top 20 species in the park tree inventory predicted to be unsuitable for future climates . . . 52 Exhibit 3-26. Percentage of Healthy Trees relative to their Water Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 Exhibit 3-27. Distribution of Health Conditions by Groundwater Depth and Water Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 Exhibit 3-28. Sidewalk and tree conflicts on Gibbons Drive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 Exhibit 3-29. Map of Alameda Point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Exhibit 3-30. Map of Tidelands area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Exhibit 4-1. Governance structure of Urban Forest Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Exhibit 5-1. Priority Planting Score by census tract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 Exhibit 5-2. Estimated canopy cover increase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 Exhibit 7-1. Results from Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goalsetting tool . . . . . . . . . . . 93
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
1 ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL
Mayor Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
Vice Mayor Michele Pryor
Councilmember Tracy Jensen
Councilmember Greg Boller
Councilmember Tony Daysog
CITY OF ALAMEDA STAFF
Amy Wooldridge, Assistant City Manager
Allen Tai, Planning, Building and Transportation
Department Director
Erin Smith, Public Works Director
Justin Long, Alameda Recreation and Parks Director
Liz Acord, Public Works Coordinator
Jesus Barajas, Public Works Project Manager
Steven Buckley, Planning Services Manager
Danielle Mieler, Sustainability and Resilience Manager
Ma
tt Nowlen, Park Manager
PHOTOGRAPHY
Maurice Ramirez
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
WORKING GROUP MEMBERS
Ruth Abbe, Community Action for a
Sustainable Alameda (CASA)
Dr. Diana Bajrami, College of Alameda
Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural
Preservation Society
Susan Davis, Alameda Unified School District (AUSD)
Jonathan DeLong, REAP Climate Center
Birgitt Evans, Alameda Backyard Growers
Anthony Garza, University of California (UC) Berkeley
Botanical Garden and Alameda Resident
Drake Herbert, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD)
Dawn Jeager, Community of Harbor Bay Isle
Owners' Association, Inc.
Marla Koss, Alameda Backyard Growers
Joe Landaeta, Community of Harbor Bay Isle
Owners' Association, Inc.
Joyce Mercado, Rotary Club
Aundi Mevoli, SF Baykeeper
Tobey Theiding, Youth Climate Committee
Amos White, 100K Trees for Humanity
PREPARED BY:
Dudek
Ryan Allen, Practice Lead – Urban Forest Management Planning 605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Welcome to the
City of Alameda
Urban Forest Plan
Volume I
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
2 CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
3 Alameda’s urban
forest is a collection of
healthy, diverse, resilient
trees supported by
sustainable resources and
management practices
that enhance our quality
of life, provide habitat
for wildlife, and support
adaptation to climate
change for the benefit of
all community members
and generations to come.
THE
VISION
Alameda’s urban
forest is made up of
all the trees growing
within the City of
Alameda, including
trees lining streets,
in parks, growing
in our backyards,
around schools and
businesses, and in
open spaces.
Canopy cover by census
tract ranges from a low of
5.1% to high of 20.9%
The London Plane
sycamore is the most
common City tree
comprising 15.8% of
the inventory
Alameda’s urban forest
sequesters 447 tons of
carbon, avoids 4 million
gallons of stormwater
runoff and removes 8.8
tons of pollution from
the air each year.
The City’s current
stocking rate (number
of filled planting sites
compared to all viable
planting sites) for all
public trees is 86%, with
85% for street sites and
92% for park sites.
1 3
4 2
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
5 Alameda is an island
community in the San Francisco
Bay that was historically
characterized by its marshes
and the grove of native coast
live oaks that covered large
portions of the area when
the land was inhabited by the
Lisjan Ohlone people. The
name Alameda comes from
the Spanish word for “grove of
poplar trees” given to the town
by the early European settlers.
Today, the City of Alameda
manages 25,962 park and
street trees, consisting of 353
different species. Many more
trees are managed by private
residents, businesses and
other landowners. Citywide,
the urban forest canopy (the
layer of leaves, branches and
stems that cover the ground
when viewed from above)
covers 11.2% of land across
Alameda, ranging from 5.1%
to 20.9% by census tract,
with lower income census
tracts generally having fewer
trees. A robust tree canopy
that is equitably distributed
across neighborhoods helps
to create a healthier, more
resilient community, and the
environmental benefits and
services received from the urban
forest increase as tree canopy
increases (Clark et al. 1997).
KEY FACTS
CITY INVENTORY
Alameda’s urban forest is an important community
asset. Trees define the character of our neighborhoods
and parks and enhance the environment.
EXECUTIVE
SECTION 1.0
SUMMARY
The City inventory
is comprised of
25,962 trees and
353 unique species.
Trees enhance the mental and
physical health of city residents and
beautify and define neighborhood
characteristics. Trees enhance the
environment by removing pollution
and cleaning the air. Trees reduce
stormwater runoff, improve water
quality and support wildlife. As
temperatures increase due to
climate change, trees sequester
carbon, provide shade, and reduce
the surrounding air temperature
and building energy consumption.
Exhibit 2-1. displays how trees can
mitigate expected climate change
impacts in Alameda.
Trees provide many
benefits to Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
6 CITY-WIDE CANOPY
COVER IN ALAMEDA
11.2%
Trees absorb pollutants and
filter particulates out of the
air by trapping them on
their leaves and bark.
CLEANER AIR
Trees cool cities by up to 10° F
by shading homes, streets, and
other surfaces. Shaded surfaces
can even be 20-40° cooler than
the peak temperatures of
unshaded areas!
SHADE
Strategically placed shade trees
can help save up to 56% on annual
air-conditioning costs for homes
and businesses, which means
burning fewer fossil fuels for
generating electricity.
SAVING ENERGY
Trees provide food in the
form of fruits, nuts, leaves,
bark, and roots. Even dead
trees provide food for
many insects!
FRESH FOOD
Trees support the lives of
many wildlife species and
provide them with food,
shelter, and nesting sites.
WILDLIFE HABITAT
Trees add natural character
to city streets and residential
areas as they radiate with
colors, flowers, textures,
and shapes!
BEAUTY
Trees capture rainfall as water
flows down the trunk and into
the earth below and recharges
groundwater supplies. Trees
also help prevent stormwater
from carrying large amounts
of pollutants to the ocean.
RAINWATER CAPTURE
Trees improve mental health by
reducing depression and stress
levels in addition to improving
public health by decreasing the
risk of respiratory illnesses
and encouraging outdoor
recreation.
HEALTHIER COMMUNITIES
Trees as landmarks within a
neighborhood can encourage
civic pride while tree plantings
provide opportunities for
community involvement and
bring diverse groups of
people together.
CONNECTING
WITH NEIGHBORS
BENEFITS
TREESOF
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
7 CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
8 These challenges, brought
on by climate change, are
exacerbated by threats to the
City’s water supply, such as
increased demands for outdoor
water use, decreased snowpack,
and changes in timing of the
Mokelumne River spring runoff
which provides water supplies
for drinking and irrigation. Sea
level rise, groundwater rise,
storm surge, and inland flooding
are of particular concern to
Alameda as a low-lying island in
the San Francisco Bay. King tides
already result in flooding along
lower stretches of shoreline and
can cause higher groundwater
levels and damage to tree roots
and infrastructure. The City is
also vulnerable to flooding from
severe precipitation events,
which are likely to become more
frequent and severe in the future.
WHY DOES
ALAMEDA NEED
AN URBAN
FOREST PLAN?
1.1
The Urban Forest Plan must also prepare the City to
effectively respond to other threats to the urban forest which are both environmental and human caused.
A healthy and robust urban forest is
one method the City has identified
to mitigate the effects of climate
change and promote community
resilience. This is outlined in several
City planning documents including
the 2040 General Plan, Climate
Action and Resiliency Plan, and
Green Infrastructure Plan. A full
description of how these plans
intersect with the UFP can be
found in Appendix A. A successful
Urban Forest Plan will improve the
management of the urban forest
and expand the tree population
and canopy cover on both public
and private property. An increase
in trees over time will increase
the environmental services and
benefits to community members.
The Urban Forest Plan must also
prepare the City to effectively
respond to other threats to the
urban forest which are both
environmental and human caused.
Environmental threats include
invasive pests and diseases,
droughts, and increased heat.
Human caused threats include
excessive tree removals during
development, and poor tree
maintenance. The UFP gives
Alameda the opportunity to
prepare for these known threats
to the urban forest by developing
specific actions, policies, and
management practices to guide
management of the urban forest
for the next 10 years.
Alameda is vulnerable to
increasingly frequent and
severe droughts and heat
events, and rising sea and
groundwater levels.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
9 City of Alameda − Priority Planting Analysis
27100
27200
27300
27600
27700 27800
27900
28000
28100
28200
28301
2840028500
28600
28302
28700
Priority Planting Score
90 to 100
80 to 90
70 to 80
60 to 70
50 to 60
40 to 50
30 to 40
20 to 30
10 to 20
0 to 10
Analysis area
City of Alameda − Priority Planting Analysis
27100
27200
27300
27600
27700 27800
27900
28000
28100
28200
28301
2840028500
28600
28302
28700
Priority Planting Score
90 to 100
80 to 90
70 to 80
60 to 70
50 to 60
40 to 50
30 to 40
20 to 30
10 to 20
0 to 10
Analysis area
A healthy and robust urban forest requires long-term investment.
The Urban Forest Plan is an update and expansion of the 2010 Master Street Tree Plan that will guide the City's operations and activities to expand and maintain the tree canopy for the next 10 years. The plan is strategic in advancing social equity and contributing to an improved quality of life by ensuring the urban tree canopy benefits all community members. The plan will promote equity by focusing tree planting in neighborhoods that have lower than citywide average tree canopy and include higher proportions of vulnerable communities, using a priority planting score as shown in Exhibit 1-2. 1.2
EXHIBIT 1-2. PRIORITY PLANTING SCORE BY CENSUS TRACT
SOURCE: USDA 2018; CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0 (OEHHA 2021).
PURPOSE OF THE
URBAN FOREST PLAN
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
10 Protecting and enhancing our urban
forest will progress citywide goals
outlined in the City’s Climate Action
and Resiliency Plan (CARP) and
the Alameda 2040 General Plan,
Conservation and Climate Action
Policy CC-26 which directs the
City to, ‘Take actions to maintain
and expand the number of trees
in Alameda on public and private
property to improve public health,
reduce pollution, and reduce heat
island effects’ (Alameda General
Plan). The Urban Forest Plan is
directed towards achieving these
goals and other long-term goals for
the urban forest.
The Urban Forest Plan improves
management of the urban forest by
planting climate adapted species,
promoting greater species diversity,
improving tree care and maintenance,
and prioritizing equity of where
trees are planted. With additional
funding, the Urban Forest Plan seeks
to plant more trees and develop
stronger community partnerships to
steward and grow the urban forest.
Community members will play a
vital role in the success of this plan
by planting and caring for additional
trees on private property.
The Urban Forest Plan
is a living document.
The plan should be
reviewed and updated
to meet the emerging
priorities of the City
and the challenges
it faces like shifting
environmental or
economic conditions.
Every two years staff
will present progress
reports on the
implementation of the
plan to the City Council
and the plan should be
updated within 10 years.
The community
plays a vital role in
the preservation and
expansion of our
urban forest.
The Urban Forest
Plan seeks to plant
more trees and
develop stronger
community
partnerships to
steward and grow
the urban forest.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
11 1.3
01 02
03 04
EQUITY
Alameda’s tree canopy is not equitably distributed across neighborhoods and the benefits of the urban forest are not evenly shared. The urban forest plan promotes practices and policies that provide for the equitable distribution of canopy cover across the city and provide the benefits of the urban forest evenly to all residents.
ENGAGING COMMUNITIES
The community plays a vital role in the preservation and expansion of Alameda’s urban forest. The Urban Forest Plan seeks to increase awareness in the Alameda community of the benefits of trees and proper management and promote participation in urban forest management.
HEALTH AND RESILIENCE
The Urban Forest Plan promotes a healthy and diverse
urban forest that is adapted to the adverse impacts of
climate change. Alameda’s urban forest is well managed
following best practices for tree care.
GROWING THE TREE CANOPY
The Urban Forest Plan encourages the preservation of
existing healthy trees and growing the tree canopy by
planting new trees.
VISION, THEMES
AND GOALS
Looking forward, the City of Alameda seeks to have an
Urban Forest Plan that responds to current and future
needs and benefits all residents of Alameda.
Key Themes of the Urban Forest Plan
The Urban Forest Plan guides the management of the
urban forest across four major themes that reflect the
values and priorities of the community to guide the
long-term stewardship and growth of the urban forest.
VISION
Alameda’s urban forest
is a collection of healthy,
diverse, resilient trees
that are supported by
sustainable resources and
management practices
that enhance our quality
of life, provide habitat
for wildlife, and support
adaptation to climate
change for the benefit of
all community members
and generations to come.
Goals City Commitment
GOAL 1:
Maintain and grow a healthy and
diverse urban forest to provide
increase in tree canopy cover in
each Census Tract and citywide by
2055.
The City of Alameda has a target to plant 350 trees a year which would increase canopy cover from 11.2% to 20% citywide across all neighborhoods over the next 30 years by planting more climate adapted trees to reduce heat impacts, capture rainwater, clean air, sequester carbon, provide habitat for wildlife, and increase biodiversity. The City desires to have an equal distribution of canopy cover and will prioritize tree planting and establishment care resources to communities that have higher social vulnerability, pollution burdens and low canopy.
GOAL 2:
Develop the financial and human
resources necessary to effectively
manage the urban forest and
implement the Urban Forest Plan.
The City of Alameda recognizes its role in ensuring funding and resources are available to support urban forest management activities as a key component to achieving the goals and actions of the Urban Forest Plan. GOAL 3:
Increase protection for public and
private trees.
The City of Alameda will continue to promote a healthy urban forest through plans, policies, and ordinances to ensure trees are appropriately maintained, preserved, and protected.
GOAL 4:
Partner with an engaged and
informed community to effectively
steward the urban forest.
The City of Alameda will continue to value and support all people who make a lasting impact on the growth and preservation of the urban forest. GOALS
TABLE 1-1. GOALS
Turning goals into action
requires additional funding
and new staffing resources.
Actions listed in the table below
with Urban Forester as the
Responsible Entity can only be
implemented once this new
staffing position is approved,
funded, and hired. Actions with
a department(s) listed as the
Responsible Entity can be at
least partially implemented
with existing staffing resources;
however additional funding may
be necessary to fully implement
the action. While the City will
take the lead in managing
and growing the urban forest,
the community also plays an
important role in this process.
The time frame for these actions
is as follows: short – 1-2 years,
medium- 3-6 years after plan
implementation, long- 6-10
years after plan implementation.
COSTS: $ Low (0–$25,000); $$
Medium ($25,000–$50,000); $$$
High ($50,000–$100,000) $$$$
Very High (>$100,000)
1.2 URBAN FOREST
PLAN ACTIONS
The plan’s goals identify the specific ways the plan’s vision will be achieved. Specific actions to implement each of the goals are provided in Section 1.4.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
12 Strategy 1.A: Grow the urban forest.
Action Responsible
Entity
Time
Frame
Cost, Ongoing
or One-time
1.A.1 Equitably increase citywide tree canopy cover on both City and privately-owned land, prioritizing neighborhoods with the highest tree priority planting index.
Urban
Forester,
ARPD, PBT
Long $$$$, ongoing
1.A.2 Develop partnerships with other large landowners in the City l ike East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD), schools, homeowners’ associations, and businesses to expand and maintain canopy cover on their properties.
Urban
Forester Medium $, ongoing
1.A.2 Identify sites owned by the City to target additional tree planting, including paved areas.
Urban
Forester Short $, one-time
1.A.3 Expand the tree canopy through strategies that support traffic calming, active transportation and vision zero goals, such as planting trees in the parking zone, roundabouts, landscape medians, and along Neighborhood Greenways.
Urban
Forester, PBT Medium $$$, ongoing
1.A.4 Develop tree planting guidelines for Green Infrastructure projects. Implement nature-based best practices such as suspended pavements, tree well systems, such as silva cells, and bioswales to reduce stormwater runoff and improve water quality.
Urban
Forester, PW Medium $$$, ongoing
Strategy 1.B: Maintain the health and diversity of the urban forest.
Action Responsible
Entity
Time
Frame Cost
1.B.1 Plant climate appropriate species with the goal of planting best species for each specified soil and groundwater zone, utilizing the City’s Tree Matrix.
PW and
ARPD Medium $, ongoing
1.B.2 Develop a long-term maintenance and monitoring plan to preserve the health of London Plane trees.
PW and
ARPD Short $, one-time
1.B.3 Complete an analysis of the tree inventory to calculate GHG emissions reductions from the city’s tree inventory in alignment with CARP updates every 5 years.
Urban
Forester Short $, ongoing
1.B.4 Expand reuse options for wood from removed trees. Find funding opportunities for wood reuse programs.
Urban
Forester Short $, one-time
GOAL 1:
Maintain and grow a healthy and diverse urban forest to provide increase in tree canopy cover in each Census Tract and citywide by 2055.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
13 CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
14 Strategy 1.C: Ensure existing and new trees are incorporated into new developments and City plans for both public and private property.
Action Responsible
Entity
Time
Frame Cost
1.C.1 Establish objective standards and streamlined procedures to review development plans for tree protection and planting, and mitigation measures/fees as necessary, to support a minimum of 20% canopy cover on developed areas.
Planning and
Development
Arborist
Short $, one-time
1.C.2 Review and amend as necessary the off-street parking ordinance / design standards to ensure the number of trees required per parking space on a surface lot, in combination with other shading measures, achieves climate and beautification goals.
Planning and
Development
Arborist
Long $$$,
ongoing
1.C.3 Identify opportunities to increase canopy cover at Alameda Point, including consulting with the Veterans Administration and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
BRED, Urban
Forester, ARPD
Long $$$,
ongoing
Strategy 2.A: Define responsibilities and maintain adequate staffing and budget to successfully maintain the health of the urban forest and implement the Urban Forest Plan.
Action Responsible
Entity
Time
Frame Cost
2.A.1 Create a job classification for and hire an Urban Forest Manager to coordinate with all City departments in implementation of the Urban Forest Plan, urban forestry programming, and community engagement efforts.
Human
Resources
Short $$$$,
ongoing
2.A.2 Increase the City’s capacity to perform tree maintenance and arborist review for planning and development by either increased staff or contracted labor.
PBT , PW, ARPD,
AMP
Medium $$$,
ongoing
2.A.3 Adequately fund the urban forest program over the next 10 years to achieve the plan goals.
City Council Long $$$$,
ongoing
2.A.4 Maintain an updated inventory to reflect plantings, removals, pruning, and other maintenance.
PW, ARPD Long $, ongoing
GOAL 2:
Develop the financial and human resources necessary to effectively manage the urban forest and implement the Urban Forest Plan
GOAL 1 CON'T:
Maintain and grow a healthy and diverse urban forest to provide increased tree canopy cover in each Census Tract and citywide by 2055.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
15 Strategy 3.A: Support improved protections for public and private trees.
Action Responsible
Entity
Time
Frame Cost
3.A.1 Adopt and enforce a tree canopy preservation and replacement ordinance to preserve healthy mature trees and require replacement or mitigation for tree removals.
Planning and
Development
Arborist
Short $, one-time
3.A.2 Coordinate with Alameda Municipal Power to protect and preserve trees in the public right of way when they conflict with infrastructure.
PW, AMP , and
Urban Forester
Long $, ongoing
3.A.4 Develop standard technical specifications to preserve and protect trees during construction administered by the City.
PW Short $, one-time
GOAL 3:
Increase protection for public and private trees.
GOAL 4:
Partner with an engaged and informed community to effectively steward the urban forest.
Strategy 4.A: Engage residents and community organizations in the urban forest.
Action Responsible
Entity
Time
frame Cost
4.A.1 Partner with community-based organizations to conduct community tree planting and care events. Support at least four community-led tree planting or care events a year.
Urban Forester Long $$,
ongoing
4.A.2 Continue to maintain Tree City USA status. PW Short $, one-time
4.A.3 Hire and train community members and provide green job training opportunities to plant, care for and water trees.
ARPD, BRED Medium $$,
ongoing
4.A.4 Create and disseminate educational materials on tree best management practices targeted to different private property owner audiences and landscape professionals.
Urban Forester Short $, one-time
4.A.5 Conduct discounted or tree giveaway programs for residents. Urban Forester Medium $, ongoing
4.A.6 Develop programs to aid residents in tree planting and maintenance.
Urban Forester Medium $$,
ongoing
4.B.1 Facilitate an urban forest coalition of community-based organizations and interested parties. The goal of the coalition would be to improve communication between the city and partners, coordinate outreach and education opportunities, and urban forest related events.
Urban Forester Medium $, one-time
4.B.2 Explore grant funding opportunities in collaboration with community organizations that would support tree planting, care, and outreach activities.
Urban Forester Long $, one-time
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
16 Funding the Urban Forest Plan
TABLE 1.3 FUNDING AND IMPLEMENTATION SCENARIOS
Scenario Description Cost Trees/Canopy
1. Enhanced
Business as Usual
• Maintain existing 5-year pruning cycle for street
trees and as needed for park trees
• Maintain current tree planting, establishment
care and tree removal services
• Utilize enhanced management practices and
updated tree species list laid out in this plan
• Focus annual tree planting program on Census
Tracts with high Priority Planting Score
• Continue to implement requirements for removal
of Protected Trees
No additional
funding except
increased
maintenance
cost as urban
forest increases
annually
• 135 net new park
and street trees
annually
• Results in 14-15%
canopy cover in 30
years
2. Increased
Planting and
Maintenance
• Increase tree planting and young tree care to
plant additional net 115 trees/year
• Provide additional maintenance assistance for
establishment and care of new trees
• Develop and enforce a Tree Canopy Protection
ordinance
$450,000 in
additional
funding
annually
• 250 net new park
and street trees
annually
• Additional tree
canopy protection
• Results in
approximately
18% canopy cover
in 30 years
3. Urban Forester
Hire an Urban Forest Manager position to
coordinate City tree program and partner with
residents, community organizations and large
landowners to coordinate planting 100 trees/year
on non-City owned land.
$250,000 in
additional
funding
annually
• 350 net new trees/
year
• Results in
approximately
20% canopy cover
in 30 years
The 2024/2025 Urban Forest
budget is $3,213,800. Existing
funding is provided from the City’s
Construction Improvement Tax,
Gas Tax and General Fund. The
Construction Improvement Tax is
subject to economic conditions and
to keep the existing program level
in years with less Construction
Improvement Tax, additional Gas
Tax, other transportation related
funds and/or General Funds is
required. The existing program
supports a safe and healthy urban
forest and is expected to reach a
citywide canopy cover of 14-15%
by 2055. Over the past 5 years, the
City has planted an average 324
street and park trees annually,
while an average 189 trees have
been removed due to storm and
wind damage, disease, were in a
poor health condition, or presented
a safety risk.
To effectively implement the
Urban Forest Plan and meet the
canopy growth goals of the plan,
additional funding and staffing
positions are needed. These are
detailed in the table below. Section
5.3 provides a range of funding
scenarios for Council to consider.
City Council may consider General
Funds for the additional program
costs and/or draw from the various
transportation related funding,
which currently are allocated to
transportation safety operations
and capital improvements.
I
II
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
17 Structure of the Urban Forest Plan
The Urban Forest Plan is structured into two main sections as described below:
Section 1.
Executive Summary provides a summary
of the Urban Forest Plan vision, themes
and goals and the strategies and actions to
achieve the plan’s goals.
Section 2.
Introduction and Purpose provides a history
of Alameda and its trees, the threats and risks
to Alameda’s urban forest and the purpose of
the urban forest plan.
Section 3:
Alameda’s Urban Forest includes the results of
a canopy cover analysis, analysis of Alameda’s
public tree inventory, tree equity and
vulnerability assessment, and the unique tree
issues in specific neighborhoods and corridors.
Section 4.
Managing Alameda’s Urban Forest provides a
description of the organizations, staffing and
budget for managing Alameda’s public trees.
Section 5.
Planning for the Future includes an analysis of
what tree resources are needed to meet City
canopy goals, and what areas of the City are
in most need of trees.
Section 6.
Plan Development Process and Community
Engagement describes the process and the
community engagement work involved in
development of the Urban Forest Plan and
feedback and results from engagement events
and the online survey.
Section 7.
Monitoring and Plan Updates is the approach
the City will take to ensure the priorities
reflected in the Urban Forest Plan are
consistent with the current and future needs
of the City.
VOLUME II, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES:
The Best Management Practices section contains the standards, details, guidelines, and policies of how the City will manage the tree inventory and urban forest. The section can be used by City staff, developers, and community members as reference guide to understand how to effectively work with trees in the City.
VOLUME I, URBAN FOREST PLAN:
This provides the context and background information for why the Urban Forest Plan is needed and how it relates to long-term goals. It provides the strategic vision, goals, objectives, and actions that will be used to guide the urban forest program over the next 10 years. The goals and objectives are supported with analysis of the current condition of the urban forest, management, city-managed trees and community perspectives.
URBAN FOREST
MANAGEMENT
Alameda’s urban forest is
well managed following best
practices for tree care.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
19 The City is made up of Alameda
and Bay Farm Islands and includes
10.61 square miles of land.
Alameda is a charter city founded
in 1854 and incorporated in 1872.
At the time of the arrival of the
Spanish, Alameda was a peninsula
of land covered by a dense forest
of coastal live oak and inhabited
by the Confederated Villages of
Lisjan, an Ohlone people who
spoke Chochenyo and sustained
themselves through hunting,
fishing and gathering.
INTRODUCTION
2.1
SECTION 2.0
The City of Alameda is an island city of approximately
80,000 people located seven miles east of San Francisco and just west of Oakland.
HISTORICAL AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
THE NAME
ALAMEDA IS
SPANISH FOR
“GROVE OF
POPLAR TREES”
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
20 People of European descent
began arriving in the mid- to late-
1700s, with the area eventually
being settled by Spanish settlers
in 1850. The area’s name given
by the Spanish arrivals, “The
Encinal,” was inspired by the
native coast live oak trees
(Alameda General Plan 11),
which was the dominant species
throughout the area. The name
was later changed by popular vote
to Alameda, the Spanish word for
“grove of poplar trees” (City of
Alameda 2022a). Logging of the
native oak trees began in 1850,
eventually reducing the forest
to “pockets” (Minor 2019). The
completion of the Tidal Canal in
1902 “severed” Alameda from
the mainland (Merlin 1977). Most
of Alameda’s mature trees today
were planted in the early 1900s,
which eventually led to Alameda
becoming known as a “city of
trees” (Master Street Tree Plan 17).
Ferry services to San Francisco,
railroad bridges and terminals,
and a municipal power plant all
contributed to the early growth of
Alameda. Originally a peninsula
that made up part of Rancho
San Antonio, the completion of
the Tidal Canal in 1902 shifted
the geography of the land and
separated the peninsula, turning it
into an island. After the completion
of the Tidal Canal, the waterfront
was dominated by shipbuilding,
steel fabrication, and lumber
milling (Editors of the Encyclopedia
Britannica 2023).
The beginning of World War II and
the founding of Alameda Naval Air
Station led to a population high
of 89,000 people, including an
increase in the black population
from 0.7% to 7.7%. Many black
residents lived in Navy housing
projects in West Alameda, and
they were denied mortgage
loans based on racialized zoning
practices. One of these practices
was “redlining,” where Caucasian
neighborhoods were deemed a
safe investment and could receive
loans, while neighborhoods of
color were considered “hazardous”
and denied loans, denying
people of color opportunities for
homeownership and subsequent
generational wealth.
Redlining and other discriminatory
housing practices continue to
disadvantage these historically
marginalized communities, which
still have lower tree canopy
coverage and higher pollution
levels. The community on the
west end of Alameda is considered
an environmental justice
community (“EJ Community”),
defined by CalEPA as an area
that is “disproportionately
affected by pollution and other
hazards that can lead to negative
health effects, exposure, or
environmental degradation,”
(Alameda Housing Element D-26).
The community on the north
side of Alameda also has higher
pollution levels than the East End.
The closure of the Alameda Naval
Air Station in 1997 left one-third
of Alameda’s land underutilized.
In 2013, 1,400 acres of this land,
now known as Alameda Point was
transferred to the City of Alameda.
It is now being developed with
mixed-use plans, including the
development of neighborhoods,
parks and businesses.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
21 Development of the Urban Forest Plan comprised analyzing data, reviewing existing programs, and community engagement to understand the current conditions of the urban forest, city management, and community values. The analysis was then used to develop the long-term goals and strategies presented in the urban forest actions. 2.2 URBAN FOREST PLAN
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
URBAN FOREST DATA
Urban Forest Data, analyzed trees both managed by the City and on private property.
CITY STAFF AND DOCUMENTS
City Staff and Documents, review of city planning documents and ordinance.
URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT
Urban Forest Management, included a series of City staff interviews to gather feedback and opinions on current
challenges, needs from a staff perspective, and goals and outcomes for the Urban Forest Plan. It also included an analysis of annual service data, budgets, and staffing.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Community Engagement, utilized a mix of in-person events, online survey, and a working group to understand the
values and perceptions interested parties have for trees, and tree management in Alameda. In total, almost 900
community members participated in engagement activities.
THE ANALYSIS AND REVIEW INCLUDED:
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
22 The City of Alameda
keeps a regularly
updated tree inventory
that includes all
publicly owned trees
and vacant planting
sites to be used as a
guide to prioritize tree
planting resources.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
23 The tree canopy cover analysis
includes all trees within the City,
planted on both private and public
property. The analysis uses aerial
imagery to determine the extent
of tree canopy. The City-managed
tree inventories only includes trees
planted on public property and is
comprised of more specific data
such as species, size, and health
condition. The City of Alameda
keeps a regularly updated tree
inventory that includes all publicly
owned trees and vacant planting
sites to be used as a guide to
prioritize tree planting resources.
This chapter includes analysis of the City’s current canopy cover and the City-managed street and park tree inventories.
ALAMEDA'S
SECTION 3.0
URBAN FOREST
The tree canopy cover
analysis includes all
public and private trees
within the City.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
24 Canopy cover refers to the layer of leaves, branches, and stems that provide coverage of the ground when viewed from above. The urban tree canopy provides multiple environmental benefits and economic value to the surrounding community. 3.1
Trees contribute to cleaner, healthier air in urban
environments through direct pollution removal
(e.g., uptake via leaf stomata or intercepting
airborne particles), air temperature reductions
(e.g., transpiration), and reduction of urban
heat islands, building energy consumption and
consequent energy emissions (e.g., temperature
reductions provided by tree shade). Likewise,
low canopy cover can result in increased
vulnerability to pollution, extreme heat, and
associated health issues (Wolf 2020).
Tree Canopy over
Central Avenue
A robust tree canopy that is equitably distributed helps to create a healthier, more resilient community, and the environmental benefits and services received from the urban forest increase as tree canopy increases (Clark et al. 1997).
CITY OF ALAMEDA
CANOPY COVER
City of Alameda − Census Tracts
City−wide Canopy Cover: 11.2%
12.8%
7.1%
12.9%
9.3%
9.9% 20.1%
20.9%
12.1%
16.5%
10.8%
11.0%
8.7%8.9%
11.4%
17.2%
5.1%
Tree Canopy Cover %
20% to 25%
15% to 20%
10% to 15%
5% to 10%
Analysis area
City of Alameda − Census Tracts
City−wide Canopy Cover: 11.2%
12.8%
7.1%
12.9%
9.3%
9.9% 20.1%
20.9%
12.1%
16.5%
10.8%
11.0%
8.7%8.9%
11.4%
17.2%
5.1%
Tree Canopy Cover %
20% to 25%
15% to 20%
10% to 15%
5% to 10%
Analysis area
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
25 A City-wide canopy cover
(public and private land)
assessment was conducted
for Alameda using freely
available U.S. Forest Service
canopy data from 2018, the
latest data available. Alameda
has a canopy cover of 11.2%,
which varies between census
tracts as shown in Exhibit 3-2
Tree Canopy Cover by Census
Tract. The canopy cover
analysis is not included for
areas of Alameda Point west
of Monarch Street because
the area does not currently
contain trees and is prohibited
from future tree planting by
a Biological Opinion issued
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) in 2012.
The City-wide canopy cover
assessment was broken down
by 16 census tract that are all
or partially within the analysis
area. Exhibit 3-2 shows the
canopy cover for each census
tract, ranging from a low of
5.1% to a high of 20.9%.
EXHIBIT 3-1.
CANOPY COVER ANALYSIS
Source: USDA 2018
EXHIBIT 3-2.
CENSUS TRACTS CITY-WIDE
CONOPY COVER: 11.2%
Source: USDA 2018
CANOPY COVER
Alameda's citywide
tree canopy cover
is 11.2%
An analysis of canopy cover
in public spaces such as
parks, schools, bus stops
and bike routes was also
conducted and is provided
in Appendix T. Focusing on
canopy cover in these areas
can be a way to increase
canopy equity, as these
spaces tend to be highly
used by under-served
community members.
Analyzing canopy cover by land use type will help assess the most efficient ways to preserve and increase canopy cover within the City.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
26 Additionally, programs and policies
to preserve and plant trees will vary
by land use type. Analyzing canopy
cover by land use type will help
assess the most efficient ways to
preserve and increase canopy cover
within the City. Exhibit 3-3 shows
the tree canopy cover for each land
use type classifications and Exhibit
3-4 shows the spatial distribution
of the 12 classifications. Four land
use types are above the city-wide
canopy cover of 11.2%, commercial
recreation (15.4%), medium-density
residential (12.8%), low-density
residential (12.7%), and business
and employment (11.8%).
While medium- and low-density
residential areas have some of
the highest canopy cover of any
land use type, they should still
be considered for additional tree
planting efforts as residential
yards tend to have the highest
potential space for new trees. Of
the land use type classifications
that fall below the city-wide
average, public institution (8.1%)
and mixed use (3.8%) areas may be
good candidates for prioritization
of canopy cover increase efforts.
Increasing canopy in public
institution areas, especially those
that are currently low-canopied,
will support efforts to increase the
equitable distribution of canopy
as these land use types are spread
throughout the City and publicly
accessible. Additionally, these are
areas where the City or other public
entities have decision-making
power when it comes to additional
tree planting opportunities. Within
the City, mixed use areas display
significantly less canopy cover
compared to other land use types,
except for commercial maritime,
wildlife habitats, and general/
maritime industries. Mixed use
areas represent large blocks of
land on the western and northern
parts of the City. Targeting tree
planting in these areas would have
a significant impact on the overall
canopy in these parts of the City.
3.2 CANOPY COVER BY
LAND USE TYPE
LAND USE TYPES HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE AVAILABLE SPACE
FOR TREES WITHIN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
27 EXHIBIT 3-4.
CITY OF ALAMEDA LAND USE
Source: USDA 2018
EXHIBIT 3-4. CITY OF ALAMEDA LAND USE: TREE CANOPY COVER BY LAND USE TYPE Source: USDA 2018
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
28 TABLE 3-1. PLANTED, VACANT, AND NOT PLANTABLE TREE
SITES IN THE CITY-MANAGED INVENTORY
The City’s most recent inventory of City-
managed (public) tree sites was initially
collected in 2012, with subsequent updates as
work is performed on City trees and includes
street and park trees as well as identified
plantable and not plantable vacant sites.
The inventory includes 25,962 trees and
4,234 plantable vacant sites as potential tree
planting locations (see Table 3-1). Vacant sites
were considered plantable if they are labeled
as a vacant site or stump and are in a planting
area at least 2 feet wide.
The inventory has been continuously updated
since 2012 with newly planted or removed
trees. This means vacant sites where a tree has
been planted have been updated, but sites still
listed as vacant in the inventory data have not
been verified by the City. This also means that
changes to a site that would render it no longer
a viable vacant site (such as added cement or
pavers) are not captured within this inventory.
The inventory is not an exhaustive list of all
viable vacant sites within the City. Potential
planting sites that would require concrete
removal in order to create a new planting site or
potential planting sites within open spaces and
parks are not included. As assessment could be
completed to identify these potential locations.
Type of Site Total Sites
Planted Sites
City-managed street tree inventory 22,620
City-managed park tree inventory 3,342
Total 25,962
Plantable Vacant Sites (planting area wider than 2 ft)
Street vacant site 3,922
Park vacant site 269
Stump (street sites) 43
Total 4,234
Not Plantable Sites
Asphalted well 1524
Unsuitable site 261
Street vacant site (planting area less than
2 ft) 238
Stump (planting area less than 2 ft) 34
Poor planting site 15
Park vacant site (planting area less than 2
ft) 4
Driveway within 6 ft 2
Brush 1
Resident refusal 1
Total 2,084
ASSESSMENT OF THE
CITY-MANAGED TREE
INVENTORY
3.3
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
29 3 .3 .1 Environmental Services and Economic Benefits Service
Annual
Environmental
Service Quantity
Annual Environmental Impact
Annual
Economic
Benefit Value
Carbon Sequestration
(carbon dioxide removed
from air by trees)
447 tons The carbon removed from the City’s air by
the urban forest is equivalent to the carbon
emissions made by 300 cars in a year.
$76,200
Avoided Stormwater
Runoff
4 million gallons This benefit is equivalent to the average annual water usage of 36 American homes.
$35,700
Air Pollution Removal
(ozone, sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen dioxide, carbon
monoxide, particulate
matter < 2.5 µm)
8.8 tons The pollution removed by the City’s tree
inventory is equivalent to the carbon dioxide
emissions of 9,880 tons of burned coal.
$159,000
I-Tree Eco (USFS 2020) was used to analyze tree
inventory records to determine the value of the
environmental services the City’s street and park trees provide. I-Tree Eco uses data such as tree species,
diameter at standard height (DSH), health condition,
and height to determine the environmental benefits,
both in terms of quantity and economic value. The
City’s inventory includes 25,962 total trees (City of
Alameda 2012), with 25,936 data points containing all
data needed for inclusion in the i-Tree model. Carbon
sequestration is the amount of carbon annually
removed from the air by the City’s trees. Avoided
runoff represents the annual quantity of rainwater
that is diverted from the stormwater management
system by the trees, and air pollution removal
includes the amount of annual removal of ozone,
sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide,
and particulate matter < 2.5 micrometers (µm) from
the air. In addition to these environmental services,
Alameda’s tree inventory increases property values;
provides shade, food and habitat for wildlife; reduces
the urban heat island; and improves public health.
These services contribute directly to community
members’ quality of life, and discussing their merits
is one method to encourage residents and business
owners to participate in urban forest programs.
Table 3-2 details the annual amount of carbon
sequestered, stormwater diverted, and air pollution
removed, and the estimated annual economic
benefit values.
TABLE 3-2. ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND BENEFITS PROVIDED BY CITY-MANAGED TREE INVENTORY Sources: City of Alameda Tree Inventory (City of Alameda 2012) and i-Tree Analysis (USFS 2020).
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
30 The financial value of Alameda’s tree inventory is presented in Table 3-3. Each tree in Alameda’s inventory has an average City asset value of $3,971. The functional value represents the annual value of the environmental services that the trees provide ($10.44/year) and each tree delivers approximately $78.29 in ecosystem services based on the inventory’s combined functional and carbon storage. The City's current urban forest budget is $2,895,522, approximately $111.53 per tree. The City can expect that, with proper maintenance and care of its inventory, the environmental benefits will continue to increase as the trees mature.
Value Description Asset Amount Per-Tree Value
Carbon storage (10,330 tons) Amount of carbon held in trees $1,760,000 $67.85 Functional Value based on the services trees perform $270,900 $10.44 Structural The costs associated with replacing all trees with a tree of a similar age and size. $103,000,000 $3,971 TABLE 3-3. FINANCIAL VALUE OF CITY-MANAGED TREES
Sources: City of Alameda Tree Inventory (City of Alameda 2012) and i-Tree Analysis (USFS 2020).
The community
plays a vital role in
the preservation and
expansion of our
urban forest.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
31 3 .3 .2 Spe cies Diversity
The genus and species diversity of a tree inventory is an indicator of overall resilience to threats.
Because biological diversity is often regarded as the basis for ecological stability (Tilman and Downing 1994), urban forests with uniform tree species are more likely to suffer from catastrophic loss when invasive pests and pathogens enter a landscape or when significant weather events impact a community.
The City-managed street tree
inventory contains 22,620 individual
trees, comprised of 124 genera
and 353 species. Exhibits 3-5 and
3-6 show the top 10 genera and
species for the City-managed street
tree inventory. The top 10 genera
make up 49% of the total street
tree inventory, with nine genera
within the 10% recommendation.
Platanus exceed the recommended
distribution percentage,
representing 15% of the street tree
inventory. The top 10 species make
up 42% of the City-managed street
tree inventory and the top two
species (Platanus ×hispanica and
Pyrus calleryana) exceed the 5%
recommendation.
The City-managed park tree
inventory contains 3,342 individual
trees, comprised of 90 genera
and 169 species. Exhibits 3-7 and
3-8 show the top 10 genera and
species for the City-managed park
tree inventory. The top 10 genera
make up 51% of the total park
tree inventory, with nine genera
within the 10% recommendation.
The top 10 species make up 41%
of the park tree inventory and
the top three species (Sequoia
sempervirens, Quercus agrifolia, and
Platanus ×hispanica) exceed the 5%
recommendation.
As the City continues to plan for
street and park tree removals
and replacements, it should
prioritize tree species outside
of the genera and species that
are overrepresented in the City-
managed street and park tree
inventories. Section 3.3.4, Climate
Preparedness, provides more
information for the City to consider
when selecting species.
Historical best practices for
species diversity standards
in public tree inventories
include a representation
of no more than 10% of
any one species, 20% of
any one genus, or 30% of
any one family (Santamour
1990; Miller and Miller
1991; Richards 1993). With
anticipated increased
threats from invasive pests
and pathogens, using a
more stringent metric
is critical in planning for
a more resilient urban
forest. For this analysis,
limitations of 10% of
any one genus and 5% of
any one species are used
to provide additional
protection of the tree
inventory (Ball et al. 2007).
Trees in Chochenyo
Park, Alameda
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
32 EXHIBIT 3-6. TOP 10 SPECIES IN THE CITY-MANAGED STREET TREE INVENTORY FIGURE 3-5. TOP 10 GENUS IN THE CITY-MANAGED STREET TREE INVENTORY Source: City of Alameda Tree Inventory (West Coast Arborist 2022).
City of Alameda Street Tree Inventory – Genus Diversity Sustainability goal: No Genus represents more than 10% of the inventory Sustainability goal: No Species represents more than 5% of the inventory
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
33 EXHIBIT 3-8. TOP 10 SPECIES IN THE CITY-MANAGED PARK TREE INVENTORY City of Alameda Park Tree Inventory – Genus Diversity
Sustainability goal: No Genus represents more than 10% of the inventory FIGURE 3-7. TOP 10 GENUS IN THE CITY-MANAGED STREET TREE INVENTORY Source: City of Alameda Tree Inventory (West Coast Arborist 2022).
Sustainability goal: No Species represents more than 5% of the inventory
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
34 3 .3 .3 Age Distribution
The most common and least
invasive method to approximate
the age of a living tree is to
measure the DSH (trunk diameter
at standard height, or 4.5 feet
above the ground). Because
trees vary in maximum stature
and growth patterns, using DSH
to determine age can only be
considered an estimate. General
age recommendations suggest
that inventories have a distribution
of 40% immature trees to replace
failing or aging ones, 30% young
and 20% middle-aged trees to
provide the bulk of economic and
environmental benefits, and 10%
mature trees that have most of
their life behind them but still
provide significant environmental
benefits (Morgenroth et al. 2020;
Richards 1993).
Exhibit 3-9 shows the DSH
distribution for the City-managed
street tree inventory. The City’s
street tree population of immature
(30%) and middle-aged (8%) trees
are below the recommendation,
while the young population
(52%) is significantly above the
recommendation. The mature
tree population meets the
recommendation. Exhibit 3-10
shows the DSH distribution for the
City-managed park tree inventory.
The City’s park tree population of
immature (44%) and young (37%)
trees exceed the recommendation,
while the middle-age population
(8%) is below the recommendation.
The population of mature trees
nearly meets the recommendation.
Age trends reflect
recent tree planting
efforts in the last
20–30 years. If these
age trends continue,
and trees continue to
be planted at or higher
than existing rates, the
City can expect the tree’s
environmental services
and maintenance needs
will increase as the
population ages.
Tree Canopy over
Central Avenue
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
35 EXHIBIT 3-10. DSH DISTRIBUTION OF THE CITY-MANAGED PARK TREE INVENTORY Source: City of Alameda Street Tree Inventory (West Coast Arborist 2022).
Sustainability
Goal
AGE CLASSIFICATION:
PERCENT OF INVENTORY
Immature: less than 6" DSH, Young: 6" - 18" DSH, Middle-aged: 18" - 24" DSH, Mature: greater than 24" DS Percentages less than 1% are unlabeled
IMMATURE YOUNG MIDDLE-AGED
40% 30% 20% 10%
30% 52% 7% 10%City
Inventory
MATURE
/zero.c% /two.c/five.c% /five.c/zero.c% /seven.c/five.c% /one.c/zero.c/zero.c% Sustainability
Goal
AGE CLASSIFICATION:
PERCENT OF INVENTORY
Immature: less than 6" DSH, Young: 6" - 18" DSH, Middle-aged: 18" - 24" DSH, Mature: greater than 24" DS Percentages less than 1% are unlabeled
IMMATURE YOUNG MIDDLE-AGED
40% 30% 20% 10%
44% 37% 8% 11%City
Inventory
MATURE
/zero.c% /two.c/five.c% /five.c/zero.c% /seven.c/five.c% /one.c/zero.c/zero.c%
IMMATURE TREE
(
UNDER 6” DBH)
YOUNG TREE (6-18”)
MATURE TREE (>24”)
EXHIBIT 3-9. DSH DISTRIBUTIO N OF THE CITY-MANAGED STREET TREE INVENTORY Source: City of Alameda Street Tree Inventory (West Coast Arborist 2022).
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
36 3 .3 .4
Health Composition
Trees that are healthy with
good trunk and branch
structure generally have
a lower risk of failure and
contribute to a safer City.
To determine tree condition,
arborists conducting the City’s tree
inventory rated trees with respect
to five distinct tree components:
roots, trunk, scaffold branches,
small branches, and foliage. Each
component of a tree is assessed
for health factors such as pest or
pathogen damage; mechanical
damage; presence of decay;
presence of wilted or dead leaves;
and wound closure. Components
were graded as good, fair, poor,
and dead. “Good” represents no
apparent problems, and “dead”
represents a dead tree. Tree
conditions of the City’s street tree
inventory varied, with 36% rated
as good, and 43% as fair. Four
percent of the trees were rated
poor, and 16% of trees did not have
a condition rating (Exhibit 3-11).
Tree conditions of the City’s park
tree inventory varied, with 36%
rated as good, and 54% as fair. Four
percent of the trees were rated
poor, and 16% of trees did not have
a condition rating (Exhibit 3-12).
Good: 36% Poor: 4%
NA: 16%
Fair: 43%
CONDITION:
16.5% of trees in the street inventory have no condition recorded.
Percentages less than 2% are unlabeled.
GOOD FAIR POOR NADEAD
Fair: 54% Poor: 7%
Good: 36%
CONDITION: GOOD FAIR POOR NADEAD
NA: 2%
Percentages leess than 2% are unlabeled
EXHIBIT 3-12. DSH DISTRIBUTION O F THE CITY-MANAGED
PARK TREE INVENTORY
Source: City of Alameda Street Tree Inventory (West Coast Arborist 2022).
EXHIBIT 3-11. HEALTH COMPOSITION RATINGS OF THE STREET
TREE INVENTORY
Source: City of Alameda Street Tree Inventory (West Coast Arborist 2022).
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
37 3.3.4.1 RELATIVE PERFORMANCE INDEX
Tree condition ratings in the City inventory show how individual trees are performing, but do not aggregate performance by species. The relative performance index (RPI) is used to better understand how individual species are performing and species that may need further analysis to determine appropriate management actions to maintain vigor. Species RPI is
calculated by taking the percentage of trees in a single species that are assessed in good or better condition and dividing it by the percentage of all trees in the inventory that are assessed as being in a good or better condition. Tree species with an RPI of 1.0 or higher are performing as well or better than the tree inventory average, and tree species with an RPI less than 1.0 are performing below the tree inventory average. A sustainability goal for the City is to have its top 6 species with RPIs greater than 1.0 (Vibrant Cities Lab n.d.a). RPIs for the top six street tree species are presented in Exhibit 3-13 and RPIs for the top six park tree species are presented in Exhibit 3-14.
EXHIBIT 3-13. STREET TREES – RELATIVE PERFORMANCE INDEX Source: City of Alameda Street Tree Inventory (West Coast Arborist 2022); i-Tree (USFS 2020).
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
38 Five of Alameda’s top six street tree
species have an RPI of greater than
1, indicating that the condition
of those trees are performing
better than the average City tree.
Most notably the London plane is
performing below the average of
all City managed street trees and
is the dominant tree species for
the Central Avenue corridor and in
the Bay Island Farm community.
Further analysis should be
conducted on the London plane
trees in these areas to assess
if management practices can
improve the health condition of
the trees. If not, the City should
develop a long-term removal and
replacement plan that will maintain
a consistent level of canopy cover
throughout the process.
Three of the top six park tree
species have an RPI above 1, with
the London plane and Canary-
Island pine well below the overall
average for park trees. Like the
street trees, it will be important to
gather more information on the
conditions of these tree species
and if they present an elevated
level of risk in the park setting.
For example, if declining trees
are adjacent park facilities like
playgrounds, benches/picnic tables,
or parking lots that have targets
with a higher occupancy rate, then
options to mitigate the risk should
be explored. This could include
pruning, moving the targets if
feasible (benches/picnic tables),
restricting access underneath
the tree, or finally removal if the
risk cannot be mitigated to an
acceptable level for the City.
EXHIBIT 3-14. PARK TREES – RELATIVE PERFORMANCE INDEX
Source: City of Alameda Street Tree Inventory (West Coast Arborist 2022); i-Tree (USFS 2020).
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
39 3 .3 .5 Importance Value
The importance value of trees is calculated in i-Tree Eco by combining the percentage of the species in in the inventory and its corresponding percentage of leaf area. These two percentages are added together to determine the importance value (Exhibit 3-15). This metric is another way to measure a species’ total value to the City’s urban forest. The London plane is the most common tree in the inventory and as a large stature tree it would be expected to have a high importance value. As discussed above, London plane trees are not performing well in the City and an importance value that is almost 4 times the next tree species underscores the need for additional assessment of the species. The results also reinforce that large stature trees provide a higher value on a per tree basis than medium or small stature trees. For example, the large-stature ash tree species are 0.3% of the inventory and have a 5.9% importance value. Conversely, medium-stature New Zealand Christmas trees are 2.2% of the inventory and have a 4% importance value.
EXHIBIT 3-15. IMPORTANCE VALUES OF TOP TEN TREE SPECIES
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
40 TREE EQUITY AND
VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT3.4
The Alameda General Plan’s equity goal is to “promote equity, environmental justice, and a high quality of life for everyone irrespective of income, race, gender, sexual orientation, cultural background or ability by recognizing and changing local policies, programs, ordinances, and practices that serve to perpetuate injustices suffered by under-served and underrepresented populations and proactively engaging these populations in all City decision making.” Trees contribute significantly to quality of life by providing significant environmental, health, and aesthetic benefits. Therefore, planting and maintaining more trees in historically disadvantaged communities is crucial for promoting equity between different neighborhoods. The following sections present an analysis of the existing canopy cover against demographic indicators, pollution burden and urban heat island. 3 .4 .1 Demographics
This section presents analysis of the demographic breakdown of the City by canopy cover ranges. Based on this analysis it is important that all urban forestry policies and programs focus on increasing canopy cover for low- canopied census tracts and mitigates pollution vulnerabilities without adding economic burdens.
3.4.1.1 RACIAL/ETHNIC BREAKDOWN
Exhibit 3-16 displays the racial/ethnic breakdown of census tracts based on their tree canopy range. Census tracts with canopy cover between 5% and 9.9% have much higher rates of Black residents (12%), slightly higher rates of Hispanic/Latinx residents (15%), and slightly lower rates of White residents (37%) as compared to the full City population (7% Black, 13% Hispanic/Latinx, and 43% White).
EXHIBIT 3-16. COMPARISON OF CENSUS TRACT’S TREE CANOPY COVER TO RACIAL/ETHNIC BREAKDOWN Source: USDA 2018; CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (OEHHA 2021).
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
41 3.4.1.2 POVERTY LEVEL
The federal poverty level is an income metric used by
the government to determine an individual or family’s
eligibility for certain government assistance programs.
Poverty census data can be coupled with urban
forestry metrics to develop a social understanding
of the correlations between income and urban forest
resources. Exhibit 3-17 shows the percent of the
population living at or below two times the Federal
Poverty Level (FPL) within census tracts based on tree
canopy range. Almost a quarter of residents living in
census tracts with canopy cover under 10% live at
or below two times the FPL, which is higher than the
percent of the City-wide population living at or below
two times the FPL (17.3%).
3.4.1.3 LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
In California, over 40% of the population speaks a
language other than English at home and roughly 20%
of the population has a Limited English Proficiency
(LEP) level. Community members who primarily
speak languages other than English may have trouble
engaging in government programs. Exhibit 3-18
shows the percent of the population with a LEP level
within census tracts based on tree canopy range.
Census tracts with more than 20% canopy cover have
a much lower percent of the population with a LEP
level (2.9%) as compared to City-wide (5.8%).
EXHIBIT 3-17. COMPARISON
OF CENSUS TRACT’S
TREE CANOPY COVER
TO PERCENTAGE OF THE
POPULATION LIVING AT
OR BELOW TWO TIMES THE
FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL
Source: USDA 2018; CalEnviroScreen
4.0 (OEHHA 2021).
EXHIBIT 3-18. COMPARISON
OF CENSUS TRACT’S
TREE CANOPY COVER
TO PERCENTAGE OF THE
POPULATION WITH LIMITED
ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
Source: USDA 2018; CalEnviroScreen
4.0 (OEHHA 2021).
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
42 3 .4 .2 Pollution Burden
EXHIBIT 3-20. COMPARISON OF CENSUS TRACT’S TREE CANOPY
COVER BY CALENVIROSCREEN RANGE
Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (OEHHA 2021).
EXHIBIT 3-19. MAP OF CALENVIROSCREEN 4.0 SCORES
Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (OEHHA 2021).
The California Environmental
Protection Agency’s (CalEPA)
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (CES) online tool
identifies California communities
that are disproportionately burdened
by pollution and have a higher
vulnerability to the health effects of
pollution (OEHHA 2018). The tool uses
indicators of exposure, environmental
effects, sensitive population, and
socioeconomic factors to assess the
cumulative impact of pollution burden,
health conditions, and socioeconomic
stressors on California communities.
CES is a relative comparison of
California pollution burden and
vulnerability, with CES scores in the
1st–10th deciles indicating the least
burdened and vulnerable communities
and CES scores in the 90th–100th
decile indicate the most vulnerable
and burdened communities (OEHHA
2021). The City’s census tracts range
from a low CES of 15 to a high CES of 78
(Exhibit 3-19). Exhibit 3-20 displays
the tree canopy cover of census tracts
that fall into different CES ranges.
Canopy cover is not a metric included
in the CES tool, however census
tracts in the City with higher pollution
burden and vulnerability tend to also
have low tree canopy cover. A focus
on efforts to increase tree canopy in
census tracts with low CES scores can
help to lower air pollution impacts
in these communities currently
experiencing higher rates of pollution
burden and vulnerability (see Section
5.1, Priority Equity Index, regarding
further prioritizing tree planting by
census tract).
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
43 3 .4 .3 Urban Heat Islands
EXHIBIT 3-21. COMPARING CENSUS TRACT’S CANOPY COVER TO HEAT ISLAND SEVERITY Source: USDA 2018; Trust for Public Lands 2019.
Heat from the sun is absorbed and
re-emitted by buildings, roads, and
other hardscape and infrastructure
in the urban landscape, causing
temperatures in the urbanized
area to increase. This occurrence,
known as the “urban heat island
effect,” results in urbanized areas
experiencing higher temperatures
relative to surrounding natural or
rural areas (Armson et al. 2012).
Elevated temperatures in urban
areas contribute to compromised
human health and comfort, which
can result in heat-related illness
and heat-related deaths (EPA 2020).
Currently, extreme heat causes more
deaths than any other weather-
related hazard, with particularly
vulnerable groups consisting of
the elderly, unhoused populations,
and those with preexisting health
conditions (Sherman 2020).
Climate projections anticipate
more extreme heat days, which
will be accompanied by increased
health risks, and an additional 9,300
heat-related deaths are expected
nationwide by 2036 (Sherman
2020). Temperatures have already
increased in the City by 1.7°F from
1950 to 2005 (Alameda CARP ,
2019). On a sunny day, hardscape
surfaces, such as asphalt, concrete,
or roofs, can reach temperatures
that are 50°F to 90°F hotter than
the surrounding air temperature
(EPA 2021). Tree canopies reduce
the urban heat island effect
by lowering surface and air
temperatures through shade and
evapotranspiration (Loughner et al.
2012). Surface temperatures may be
20°F to 45°F cooler under the shade
of a tree compared to areas with
no tree cover (EPA 2019). A recent
study (Alonzo et. Al. 2021) revealed
even individual street trees provide
a cooling benefit; areas with a
distributed tree canopy had lower
predawn temperatures compared
to areas with few or no trees.
Evening temperatures were 2.2° F
cooler in areas with 50% canopy
cover compared to areas with few
to no trees, and perceptibly cooler
temperatures were found even with
20% canopy cover.
Exhibit 3-21 shows the tree
canopy cover for each census tract
compared to the percent of area
that falls into five different severity
levels for heat islands (Trust for
Public Lands 2019). The City’s
census tracts with lower canopy
cover tend to be more impacted by
heat islands and with more severity.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
44 Climate change will impact the health of the urban forest. Risks to the urban forest as a result of climate change include increasing periods of drought, increasing heat, rising groundwater, sea level rise, and increased risk of pests and disease.
THREATS AND RISKS TO
THE URBAN FOREST3.5
3 .5 .1 Species and Climate Preparedness
There are many considerations when looking at
the climate appropriateness of urban tree species.
This analysis considers tree species’ water needs
using Water Use Classification of Landscape Species
(WUCOLS) and future climate suitability based on
research conducted by McBride and Lacan (2018).
WUCOLS classifies plants as very low, low, moderate,
or high-water users. WUCOLS water ratings are often
part of the guidelines for selecting trees species
palettes throughout California. Species that are rated
as high or moderate water users will require more
water resources than lower-rated species. This may be
good for those trees in areas of high groundwater, but
challenging for trees during drought conditions.
Exhibit 3-22 shows the WUCOLS ratings of the street
tree inventory and Exhibit 3-23 shows the ratings of
the park tree inventory. Of the street trees, 2% are
high water users, 64% are moderate water users, 24%
are low water users, and 4% are very low water users.
Approximately 7% of trees do not have a WUCOLS
water use rating. Of the park trees, 14% of trees are
high water users, 36% are moderate water users, 27%
are low water users, and 17% are very low water users.
Approximately 5% of trees do not have a WUCOLS
water use rating.
In 2018, a climate suitability study was conducted for
street trees in California. This research picked one
California city to represent each of the 16 hardiness
zones present in California. Common tree species
in these representative cities were then compared
to common tree species in cities with current
temperatures equal to the predicted temperatures of
the representative cities in 2099. A list of species that will be unsuitable for future climates was created based on their absence from warmer cities, professional
opinions, and WUCOLS ratings of unsuitable or high.
Using results from McBride and Lacan’s research
to compare to the Alameda street and park tree
inventories, there are 34 (street) and 35 (Parks) tree
species in the inventories that are predicted to be
heat and water sensitive in Alameda’s future climate.
These species make up 11,427 trees and 43% of the
street tree inventory, and 1,365 and 37.8% of the park
tree inventory.
According to the USDA, rising temperatures will affect insect populations and the incidence of pathogens. Tree species that may be suitable for Alameda’s current climate may become unsuitable in the future due to the changing climate.
For example, tree species that are suitable for drought conditions may do poorly if subjected to flood conditions.
Over the past century, average maximum temperatures in California have increased between 1.6°F to 2.5°F, and these temperatures are expected to continue to rise over the coming years (WRCC 2018). Alameda can expect longer, more intense periods of drought and more variable periods of precipitation with increased flooding (Swain et al. 2018), which may require adjustments to the frequency and duration newly planted trees receive supplemental irrigation. Groundwater rise is specific threat to trees in the Alameda urban forest as discussed in section 3.5.2.
Understanding the impact of this threat will be monitored over the coming years through mapping and data analysis.
The City can prepare for these expected changes by selecting and planting species that are predicted to perform well in future climate conditions, which will be further discussed in 3.5.1 Species & Climate Preparedness.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
45 EXHIBIT 3-23. WATER USE RATING DISTRIBUTION OF THE CITY’S PARK TREE INVENTORY Source: City of Alameda Street Tree Inventory (West Coast Arborist 2022); Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (2014).
EXHIBIT 3-22. WATER USE RATING DISTRIBUTION OF THE CITY’S STREET TREE INVENTORY Source: City of Alameda Street Tree Inventory (West Coast Arborist 2022); Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (2014).
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
46 Exhibits 3-24 and 3-25 present the
top 20 most commonly occurring
of these species; notably, many of
these species repeat between the
two inventories. These lists indicate
the potential for a gradual decline
of tree canopy cover over time.
Based on these lists of species,
the City will need to determine
which species should remain on its
palette and prioritize species that
are drought tolerant and able to
withstand hotter weather. Trees in
areas with high groundwater may
be able to better withstand drought
conditions, but this is a new area
of research that is not yet well
understood.
EXHIBIT 3-24.
TOP 20 SPECIES IN THE STREET TREE INVENTORY PREDICTED TO BE UNSUITABLE FOR FUTURE CLIMATES Reference: McBride and Lacan, 2018. The impact of climate-change induced temperature increases on the suitability of street tree species in California (USA) cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 34 (2018) 348–356.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
47 EXHIBIT 3-25.
TOP 20 SPECIES IN THE PARK TREE INVENTORY PREDICTED TO BE UNSUITABLE FOR FUTURE CLIMATES Reference: McBride and Lacan, 2018. The impact of climate-change induced temperature increases on the suitability of street tree species in California (USA) cities. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 34 (2018) 348–356.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
48 3 .5 .2 Groundwater Rise and Water Usage
EXHIBIT 3-26. PERCENTAGE OF HEALTHY TREES RELATIVE TO THEIR WATER USAGE Source: City of Alameda Tree Inventory (West Coast Arborist 2022); Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (2014).
One expected and growing threat
is rising groundwater. Sea level has
risen over 8 inches in the past 100
years (Thorne et al. 2008). By 2050,
California is likely to observe 9 to 12
inches of sea level rise. By 2100, if
current trends continue, up to 4 feet
of sea level rise is possible (Sweet
et al. 2022). As sea levels rise,
groundwater in low-lying coastal
communities will also rise (Plane
et al. 2019; Befus et al. 2020; May et
al. 2023). The Shallow Groundwater
Layer and Contaminants to Sea
Level Rise report developed from
Alameda in 2020 (May et al. 2020)
shows that the City’s groundwater
table is already within two feet of
the surface in some locations and
is projected to be above the ground
surface in some locations during
certain times with sea level rise.
Groundwater level plays a vital role
in determining tree survival and
success. During drought conditions,
when the groundwater table is low,
trees may struggle to access the
water necessary for their survival.
In such cases, supplemental
irrigation may be required for tree
survival. Conversely, high water
tables, caused by prolonged rainfall
or rising sea levels, may lead to tree
site saturation. Tree site saturation
occurs when all the pore spaces
between soil particles, typically
occupied by a combination of air
and water in unsaturated soil,
become filled with water molecules.
Prolonged soil saturation
can impede a tree's ability to
effectively exchange gases with the
atmosphere through its roots.
Different tree species respond
differently to water levels (Nuss
2023). Alameda’s native coast live
oaks (Quercus agrifolia) are more
susceptible to hydrophilic pathogens
such as armillaria root rot and
sudden oak death (Phytophthora
ramorum) in areas with higher
moisture levels. Other trees, such as
the California Black Walnut (Juglans
Californica) and the Western
sycamore (Platanus racemosa) are
generally healthier in consistently
damp soils (Calscape n.d).
Exhibit 3-26. reflects the top 20
species in the City’s tree inventory
and their health condition relative
to their WUCOLS water ratings,
which evaluates the water
needs of plant species. Exhibit
3-24 shows a slight correlation
between trees with medium
and high WUCOLS ratings (less
drought resistant) performing
better than trees with very low
and low WUCOLS ratings (more
drought resistant). This data set
represents 56% of the Alameda
city-managed tree inventory.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
49 Groundwater modeling data in Appendix B
Groundwater Map (SFEI 2018) is used to map areas
susceptible to rising groundwater levels associated
with several possible sea level rise scenarios
(Groundwater Modeling Data). This data was used to
compare tree health conditions by WUCOLS water
ratings in the various groundwater levels presented
in Exhibit 3-27 above.
This analysis shows almost no direct correlation
between groundwater depth and tree health by
a species’ WUCOLS water use rating, with again,
only a slight correlation between high water use
trees performing better in higher groundwater
areas. Comparative analysis indicates that current
groundwater levels have no discernible impact on
tree health as the data presents no evident direct
correlation between groundwater depth and tree
health at this time. The City should continue to
monitor these trends over time.
EXHIBIT 3-27. DISTRIBUTION OF HEALTH CONDITIONS BY GROUNDWATER DEPTH AND WATER USE Source: City of Alameda Tree Inventory (West Coast Arborist 2022); Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (2014).
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
50 Other factors should be considered to determine groundwater impacts on tree health without a discernible correlation between groundwater level and tree health conditions. First is the variability of the arborists who conducted the original tree inventory and their determination of a tree’s health condition. It is recommended to update the tree inventory by a third party who does not conduct contracted tree work with the city may result in different tree health condition assessments. Second, other factors are most likely contributing to trees health condition outside of groundwater levels. This may include soil volume for growing space, the species reaction to soil conditions, salt-spray and other factors found within Alameda.
It will be important to continue to monitor tree health conditions as groundwater levels continue to rise from changes caused by sea level rise. Subsequent changes in the water table can impact the suitability of certain species for specific sites. Appendix C: Alameda Tree Species Selection Matrix, includes a selection of species that are adapted to the consistently damp soils associated with rising water levels. This information can help guide the City in selecting species under future groundwater level conditions. Such species can be found by locating species with a check mark in the “Adapted to poor drainage” column.
Table 3-4 includes four potential soil moisture thresholds based on the groundwater map shown in Appendix B:
Groundwater Map and the following assumptions:
• The majority of a tree’s roots exist in the top 2 feet of soil (Gilman 2015; Elmendorf et al. 2005). • Long-term soil saturation will have a detrimental effect on most trees (Lily 2010), the degree of which depends on the tree species (Nuss 2023).
• A tree is saturated when groundwater is within 2 feet of soil depth. • Seasonal rainfall patterns have historically affected Alameda's groundwater level with a 2- to 4-foot annual fluctuation (May et al. 2020). Therefore, areas with a groundwater table between 2 and 6 feet deep may encounter prolonged periods of soil saturation in the first 2 feet of soil depth.
Threshold Name Groundwater Depth (Feet)
1 Flooded <0
2 Saturated 0–2
3 Potential for seasonal saturation 2– 6
4 Not saturated >6
TABLE 3-4. SOIL MOISTURE THRESHOLDS DEVELOPED BASED ON TREE HEALTH IMPLICATIONS
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
51 Certain neighborhoods and corridors have been identified as having unique needs related to the urban forest. One of the main challenges is existing infrastructure (such as sidewalks, driveways, utility lines, and building foundations) that would conflict with the planting of trees, especially as the trees reach maturity.
NEIGHBORHOOD AND
CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT3.6
Sidewalks and other hardscapes
can preclude healthy tree growth
and canopy development by
limiting available soil volume, while
tree roots often cause damage to
sidewalks resulting in uplift and
trip and fall hazards that can be
costly to repair. This can lead to the
removal of trees to mitigate these
potential costs, or the decision to
avoid planting trees altogether.
Mitigation efforts for infrastructure
conflict include root pruning,
flexible root-controlling materials,
and design modification of
infrastructure. Tree removal is
considered a last resort after
determining other mitigation efforts
are insufficient for the particular
tree or site. As trees mature in the
urban landscape, infrastructure
conflicts must be preemptively
addressed to maintain community
safety and preserve urban forest
benefits. Another major challenge
is current species performance.
London plane (Platanus acerifolia)
is the dominant species in certain
areas, and it is performing well
below the average of all City
managed street trees. If these
trees’ health continues to decline,
it will pose a long-term threat to
the city’s canopy as trees will have
to be removed. Locations where
London plane trees are heavily
present may require more in-depth
management practices, or removal
and replacement.
3 .6 .1 Gibbons Drive
Gibbons Drive is a representative example of tree and
infrastructure conflicts experienced in the City of Alameda.
Trees planted as young trees have matured beyond the
designated planting spaces. There are areas where the
sidewalk or even roadway is damaged by tree roots. Past infrastructure conflict mitigation, such as root pruning for street or sidewalk repair, is evident here. Should additional infrastructure repair be necessary, and a combination of historical mitigation and necessary mitigation are beyond the industry best management practices in Section 8, Tree Preservation, trees shall be assessed for removal.
All mitigation efforts shall be considered prior to evaluating a tree for removal. Historical management practices, mitigation efforts, and current tree health are all factors to be considered if a tree will survive additional mitigation without an intolerable level of risk. There is a need for a corridor specific plan for trees on Gibbons Drive, as the sidewalk conflicts cause safety and ADA compliance issues (Exhibit 3-28).
EXHIBIT 3-28. SIDEWALK AND TREE CONFLICTS
ON GIBBONS DRIVE
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
52 3 .6 .2 Park Street and Webster Street
Park Street and Webster Street are both commercial corridors. The average canopy cover in mixed-use areas such as these corridors is only 5.6%. These streets have similar challenges due to the prevalence of hardscaping and dense development. It will be necessary to find viable places to plant trees where they will not cause damage to existing infrastructure. This may require alternative site designs for the streetscape such as curb bulbs, bridging, or suspended pavement systems.
In 2011, 31 mature street trees were cut down on Park Street as part of the streetscape plan with the intention to plant 60 new trees of varying species and size. The trees were replaced to allow space for new, better lighting, and because many of the existing trees were not in good health. Due to this replacement, many of the street trees along Park Street are still young and don’t provide much canopy compared to mature trees. There are some areas of sidewalk that have been raised by tree roots, causing tripping hazards. This will also need mitigation. 3 .6 .3 Central Avenue Corridor
The London plane species constitute the majority
of trees on the Central Avenue corridor. Declining
health of these trees will lead to a loss of canopy
cover over time as they will likely need to be removed
and replaced. Maintaining a consistent canopy cover
despite tree removal will need to be a priority, as well as analyzing why these trees are not performing well. When longstanding trees are removed, they are replaced with
trees with a much smaller canopy size. This will lead to a loss of canopy cover that will need to be mitigated.
Trees on Webster St.
Commercial Corridor
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
53 3 .6 .4 Bay Farm Island
Bay Farm Island is a district of the City of Alameda
that is separated by an estuary of San Leandro Bay.
The area is mainly composed of Chuck Corica Golf
Course, Harbor Bay Business Park, the Harbor Bay Isle
residential planned community, and the original Bay
Farm Island residential neighborhood. Bay Farm has a
higher-than-average tree canopy cover.
The Community of Harbor Bay Isle Owners’
Association, Inc. (CHBIOA), which is the homeowners’
association for residents of Bay Farm Island, has its
own urban forestry management plan adopted in 2013
for trees within the HOA that it manages separately
from the City. Over 3,000 trees are maintained by
this HOA. A digital tree inventory is used to track
tree health, safety, and maintenance performed.
Architectural applications are required to remove
trees within the homeowners’ association, and the
current regulations do not require a one-to-one
replacement of any removed trees.
London plane trees are the dominant species in Bay
Farm Island and are generally in poor condition.
According to the CHBIOA urban forestry management
plan, other declining or problematic species include:
Monterey pine, Lombardy poplar, sweetgum, Italian
stone pine, white alder, beech, Monterey cypress,
Babylonian willow, hybrid elm, and shore pine.
The CHBIOA plan recommends planting species such
as Columbia and Liberty London plane, Chinese
pistache, October glory maple, Victorian box, marina
madrone, columnar red cedar, pindo palm, arroyo and
red willow, Torrey pine, and coffeeberry.
The City will need to collaborate with the Community
of Harbor Bay Isle Owners’ Association to manage
these trees long-term, maintain an inventory of
the trees and their conditions, and provide species
recommendations that align with the city’s goals.
3 .6 .5 Alameda Point
Alameda Point is a 1,560-acre area on the west
end of Alameda at the site of the former Naval
Air Station. 624 acres of Alameda Point are Veterans
Administration (VA) property, which the City does not
control. The VA preserved 511 acres of this property
as open space for the protection of the endangered
California Least Terns and other wildlife. In the summer breeding and hatching season, the Least Terns often
have over 300 nests on Alameda Point thanks to
continued efforts to protect and improve its habitat.
The remaining area of the VA property is planned for a
Veteran’s columbarium and health clinic. North of the
VA property is a 147-acre site (Northwest Territories)
that will be operated by East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) for a new regional shoreline park. There are
currently no trees on the VA or EBRPD properties.
A Biological Opinion issued by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) in 2012 prohibits the
planting of trees on the Nature Preserve, Veterans
Health Clinic and Columbarium, and Northwest
Territories shown on the map below It also prohibits
trees behind the airline hangars on Monarch St
(Spirits Alley). The City should consult with the VA
and USFWS to identify opportunities to plant trees on
at least some of these areas that will not impact the
Least Tern Colony.
Much of the remaining area of Alameda Point is
currently undergoing reuse and redevelopment by
the City of Alameda, including multi-family housing,
commercial, parks, and open space. Street trees and
park trees are planned as part of the developments
east of Monarch Street. The Alameda Point Conceptual
Planning Guide (2013) recommends that “tree-lined
streets that provide shade, sidewalks, and links to the community and greater Alameda are an important
part of the overall open space system.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
54 Street trees will be planted in strips and/or tree wells so that a dominant street tree environment is established which knits the proposed and existing Alameda neighborhoods together.” The Alameda Point Zoning Ordinance requires street trees on all streets at Alameda Point and the City’s off-street parking ordinance requires one tree for every four parking spaces across the City. Exhibit 3 29 shows a land use map of Alameda Point.
Alameda Point also contains 1,139 acres of tidelands public land trust. Much of this land is submerged and the dry land area is a significantly smaller area. Tidelands are designated with specific land uses for commerce, harbor- related uses, hospitality uses, and ecological uses such as wetlands, wildlife preserves, parks, and open spaces.
There are no restrictions on planting trees within the tidelands and streets within the tidelands can have trees.
The City should identify opportunities to plant trees within the dry tidelands areas. Exhibit 3-30 shows a map of the tidelands areas.
EXHIBIT 3-29. MAP OF ALAMEDA POINT
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
55 Alameda Point also includes the Naval Air Station Historic District. The historical elements are generally located within the Adaptive Reuse, Waterfront Town Center and Main Street Neighborhood Sub-Districts (see Exhibit 3-30). The majority of the existing structures within the Adaptive Reuse Sub-District and the Big White houses within the Main Street Neighborhood Sub-District are currently anticipated to be preserved. The landscape areas within these areas, including street trees within the residential neighborhoods must also be preserved. The need to preserve and rehabilitate historical features of the Naval Air Station may affect where new trees can be planted and how dead and dying trees are replaced.
EXHIBIT 3-30. MAP OF TIDELANDS AREA.
Source: City of Alameda Tree Inventory (West Coast Arborist 2022); Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (2014).
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
56 TREE CARE
Alameda’s urban forest is
well managed following
best practices for
tree care.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
57 Urban forest management occurs
across multiple departments that
have different responsibilities that
relate to management of trees in
the Alameda urban forest.
Exhibit 4-1 reflects the various
departments in the City that interact with
trees in a direct way, like Public Works,
Recreation and Parks and Alameda
Municipal Power. Regardless of the level
of interaction, all departments play a role
in urban forest management and need to
be aligned towards common goals.
MANAGING
ALAMEDA'S
URBAN
FOREST
SECTION 4.0
PUBLIC TREES
PRIVATE TREES
ALAMEDA MUNICIPAL
POWER (AMP)
ALAMEDA
MUNICIPAL POWER
(AMP)
RECREATION
AND PARKS
PLANNING,
BUILDINGS AND
TRANSPORTATION
PUBLIC WORKS
(PW)
TREE MAINTENANCE
CONTRACTOR
Inspect trees as part
of field inspections
Inspect trees as part
of field inspections
Responsible for
implementing
Urban Forest Plan
for park trees
Code enforcement
and certificate of
Approval for removal
of protected trees
Oversee urban forest
operations and
contracted work
Contracted tree
work includes:
Planting
Establishment care
Pruning
Removals
Emergency response
Perform routine
line clearance
tree trimming
maintenance from
contractor
Contract directly
for emergency
tree maintenance
and line clearance
trimming
Manage volunteer
park tree planting
efforts
Review new
development plans
Responsible for
implementing
Urban Forest Plan
for street trees
Contract directly
with contractor for
emergency tree
maintenance
Oversee and conduct
root pruning and
tree removals,
as necessary, for
sidewalk repairs
Review utility plans
EXHIBIT 4-1.
GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OF
URBAN FOREST PROGRAM.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
58 4 .1 .1 Public Works
4.1 DEPARTMENT ROLES IN
TREE MANAGEMENT
Alameda Municipal Code Section 23-3 gives the Public Works Director responsibility for the supervision, control and management of street trees.
Best Management Practices Volume II of this document contains the standards, details, guidelines, and policies of how the City will manage the tree inventory and urban forest. The section can be used by City staff, developers, and community members as reference guide to understand how to effectively work with trees in the City.
Public Works is the lead responsible department for implementing the City’s Urban Forest Program and ensuring the Urban Forest Plan is up to date. Some responsibility for performance of work under the Urban Forest program is managed by other City Departments with oversight from Public Works and is described below.
The portion of work related to the urban forest
managed by Public Works is done by contractors
with coordination by Public Works Project Manager.
Public Works contracts with a city tree maintenance
contractor to carry out the planting, establishment
care, pruning and removal of public street trees. For
street tree pruning, the city is divided into five zones and trims one zone per year. Zones have between
3,340 and 4,200 trees each. Trimming keeps the
trees healthy, protects the public right of way, and
decreases the conflict between trees, streets, and
sidewalks. In addition, the Urban Forest Program
includes maintenance of 60 acres of landscaped areas
and medians in the public right of way (PROW). Public
Works reviews utility and landscape plans in the PROW;
working collaboratively with Planning Department
and Public Works Engineering Division for both land
development and City capital projects
Public Works manages the realities of competing for
contractor labor when emergencies come up. This
can result in resources from other City programs like
the Streets and Sidewalks division or project manager
during a storm event or emergency. Currently, these
costs are being absorbed into existing program budgets.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
59 4 .1 .2 Alameda Recreation and
Parks Department
Alameda Recreation and Parks Department (ARPD)
is responsible for maintaining 3,000 trees in City
parks. ARPD also participates in the Public Works held
contract with the city tree maintenance vendor to carry the planting, establishment care, pruning and removal
of park trees. Park tree trimming happens through a
zone system. The Parks Manager is responsible for daily maintenance of parks, trimming, pruning, organizing
volunteer projects, interfacing with the public
regarding trees and coordination with Public Works
staff overseeing city tree maintenance contract.
4 .1 .3 Alameda Municipal Power
Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) partners with Public
Works on tree trimming. Public Works is responsible
for city trees, and AMP shares responsibility for trees that are under/adjacent to AMP’s powerlines. AMP's
priority is safety, so trimming thresholds are stricter on trees that are in direct path with lines. AMP adheres to federal and state standards and relies on joint
arborist coordination to ensure the health and beauty
of the trees. The trees under joint care are trimmed
on a 5-year cycle. In late 2024, AMP began trimming
select trees more aggressively to obtain the proper
clearance from the lines. AMP anticipates in each of the next two this accelerated tree trimming will continue
while it transitions all AMP tree trimming for powerline clearance to a 2.5-year cycle. It is expected this will lead to less intrusive tree trimming. In delivery of the powerline clearance trimming, AMP follows the same
overall performance expectations and urban forestry
standards outlined in the Public Works contract and
Urban Forest Plan. AMP follows industry standards to
balance safety, reliability, and tree health for trimming public tree and private trees that interfere with power lines, under Public Utilities Code Section 4292. Refer
to AMP’s Tree Trimming Guidelines document for
regulations and power grid safety best practices.
4 .1 .4 Planning, Building and
Transportation
The Planning, Building and Transportation department
is responsible for approval and enforcement of
landscape plans for new developments. The Planning
Division issues Certificates of Approval for the removal of protected trees and the Code Enforcement Division
enforces the removal of protected trees as defined by
the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
60 Certain trees are protected in Alameda. Protected trees include: the palms in the public right of way on Burbank Street and Portola Avenue; any street tree on Thompson and Central Avenues; and any coastal live oak (Quercus agrifolia) with a ten inch or greater diameter measured 4.5 feet above the ground.
No protected tree within the Public Right of Way may be removed without a certificate of approval from the Historical Advisory Board. Applicants must submit an arborist’s report in a case where the health of the tree is the reason for the requested removal of the tree, or a contractor’s report in a case where damage to foundation or other structure is the reason for the requested removal. Any protected street tree shall be replaced, at the applicant’s expense, except those shown to be unhealthy or causing damage to private structures, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. Any Oak tree shall be replaced with a minimum of two Oak trees at sites in accordance with Urban Forest Plan spacing criteria, 15 gallons or larger and to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director. (Alameda Municipal Code Sections 13 - 21.7). 4.2 PROTECTED
TREES
PERMIT
Completed a Planning Permit Application form.
FEES
Application fees
ARBORIST REPORT
A report prepared by an ISA Certified Arborist where the health of the tree is the reason for removal, OR
DRAWING
Plot plan drawing identifying the location of the tree with respect to buildings and property lines.
CONTRACTOR REPORT
A report prepared by a Licensed Contractor where damage to foundation or structures is the reason for removal.
To remove protected trees on private or public property, a Planning Permit Application and a five-step application procedure must be followed to obtain a Certificate of Approval as follows:
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
61 If a tree removal is considered an emergency (where there is clear evidence demanding immediate action to prevent loss of life, health, or property), the City Building Official may grant immediate approval of the tree removal. Even if the Building Official approves of an emergency removal, the applicant is still required to submit an application for a Certificate of Approval and satisfy tree replacement requirements.
Section 13-21 of the AMC states the replacement requirements:
• Any oak tree shall be replaced with a minimum of two oak trees of 10-gallon size or larger to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Director.
• Any street tree shall be replaced, at the applicant's expense, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
AMC Section 13-21 requires a certificate of approval from the HAB for the removal of any protected tree. It also establishes certain application materials, including an arborist's report in a case where the health of the tree is the reason for the requested removal of the tree, and a contractor's report in a case where damage to foundation or other structures is the reason for the requested removal of the tree. • Per HAB Resolution 12-21, the HAB delegated decisions on the removal of protected trees to the HAB Secretary, which is a Planning Division staff member.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
62 Table 4-2 depicts the allocation of the fiscal year 2024-2025 budget for tree management used to carry out the annual services of tree planting, establishment care, pruning, and removal mentioned in Section 4.2 It also includes the staff costs to manage street trees.
4.3 CURRENT
BUDGET
Budget Item Financial Year 2024-2025
Contracted Services $2,667,910
Public Works Staff $335,890
AMP Staff $108,000
Parks and Recreation Staff $102,000
Total $3,213,800
TABLE 4-2. 2024-2025 TOTAL MUNICIPALITY-FUNDED TREE MANAGEMENT BUDGET Funding for the Urban Forest is currently from the City’s Construction Improvement Tax, Gas Tax and General Fund. Alameda Municipal Power uses rate revenue to support their operational costs related to the urban forest.
The City Construction Improvement Tax is subject to economic conditions. To keep the existing level of service in years with less Construction Improvement Tax, additional Gas Tax, other transportation-related funds and/or General Funds are required. Reduction in existing revenue sources like the Construction Improvement Tax may result in the Urban Forest Plan competing with other (transportation) projects for funding.
Staffing costs include specific positions funded by the Urban Forest Plan in Public Works, Alameda Municipal Power and Parks and Recreation, as well as portions of other positions throughout the organization. Cost allocation is included in staffing costs as determined annually by the City’s Cost Allocation Plan, these numbers are updated annually/subject to change in accordance with the plan and changes in labor costs.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
63 Table 4-4 reflects annual service data for trees planted and removed from years 2019 – 2023. On average the City is adding a net of 135 trees to the City managed inventory for both street and park locations. This is below the goal of 350 net trees outlined in the Urban Forest Plan that are needed to progress towards the canopy cover goal. This indicates that additional funding, either through the City or external grants, will be needed to achieve planting targets. Planting additional trees will also require an increase in the funds allocated to watering and establishment care.
TABLE 4-4. ANNUAL TREE CARE SERVICE DATA
Year
Planted Removed Annual Increase
Streets Parks Total Streets Parks Total Net Trees Cumulative Goal 2019 243 18 261 −212 0 −212 49 49 350
2020 227 175 402 −225 0 −225 177 226 700
2021 130 187 317 −122 −12 −134 183 409 1,050
2022 303 56 359 −183 −5 −188 171 580 1,400
2023 188 95 283 −163 −23 −186 97 677 1,750
Average 218 106 324 −163 −8 −189 135
Years Total Average Per
Year
Trees in
Inventory
Pruning Cycle
(Years)
Goal
(Years)
2019–2021 7,550 3,775 24,878 6.6 5 – 7
2021–2023 7,359 3,680 24,878 6.76 5 – 7
Four-Year Average 7,455 3,727 24,878 6.7 5 – 7
4.2 ANNUAL
SERVICE DATA
Table 4-5 displays the total number of trees pruned over the same four-year period broken into two-year contracted labor periods. The pruning cycle is based on the total number of trees in the inventory divided by the number of trees pruned on average per year. Mature trees are pruned in the City of Alameda to ensure that branches grow in a safe and stable manner.
Street trees and park trees in the City are managed separately in Alameda and pruned by the tree maintenance contractor. Street trees are on a 5-year pruning cycle. When park trees are added to the pruning cycle calculation, the overall pruning cycle increases to 6.5 years. This distinction is made to emphasize that Public Works is able to meet its stated goal of pruning street trees on a 5-year cycle. It also highlights that pruning for park trees does not occur on an established pruning and inspection cycle, as pruning typically occurs on an emergency or as-needed basis. It is generally accepted that a 5 -7-year pruning cycle maximizes urban forest benefits and tree safety while minimizing municipal city funding and resources (Miller et. al 1981).
TABLE 4-5. PRUNING CYCLE ANALYSIS OF ALL CITY MANAGED TREES
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
64 The City has a
target to plant
350 trees a year
which would
achieve a canopy
cover of 20%
citywide by 2055
350
TREES
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
65 PLANNING FOR
THE FUTURE
SECTION 5.0
As set forth in the CARP , the City has a target to
plant 350 trees a year which would achieve a canopy
cover of 20% citywide and will provide numerous
environmental, economic, and health benefits.
Expanding the urban forest will impact all residents, and implementation efforts will require support from both public and private sectors including landowners and community
organizations. Alameda will prioritize planting trees in the areas that need it the most. Some potential planting sites, in addition to park and street trees, will include residential land, public, institutional, and school areas, and mixed-use land. Below we will describe our goals and strategies needed to get there.
City Council will set a canopy goal for Alameda by providing direction on the funding scenarios presented in this draft UFP . The canopy goal (and associated funding scenario) will be formally adopted in the final UFP .
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
66 The Priority Planting Score (PPS), presented in Exhibit 5-1, indicates where the City should focus tree planting efforts by census tract for a more equitably distributed canopy cover.
The study area for developing the PPS was limited to the canopy analysis study area. A higher PPS indicates a higher priority for focused tree planting efforts. PPS considers current canopy cover, distribution of land use type, total recorded City-managed vacant planting sites, pollution burden and equity, and relative population and acreage. 5.1 PRIORITY
PLANTING SCORE
The PPS multiplies a canopy gap index
by a priority equity index for each census
tract to calculate the relative tree planting
needs within the study area. A canopy
goal is calculated for each census tract
based on the current canopy cover as
well as distribution of land use types and
vacant planting sites relative to other
census tracts. The canopy gap index is then
calculated based on the difference between
the current canopy and the goal for each
census tract. The canopy gap index is a
number between 0 and 100, with a higher
number indicating a greater gap between
the current canopy cover and the goal. A
priority equity index is calculated for each
census tract based on CalEnviroScreen,
an equity-focused metric of pollution
vulnerability and burden, and relative
population and acreage sizes. The priority
equity index is a number between 0 and 1,
with a higher number indicating a higher
need for trees based on equity metrics.
EXHIBIT 5-1. PRIORITY PLANTING SCORE BY CENSUS TRACT
Source: USDA 2018; CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (OEHHA 2021).
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
67 As set forth in the CARP , the City has a target to plant 350 trees a year which would achieve a canopy cover of 20% citywide across all neighborhoods by 2055.
Once 20% canopy cover is achieved, the City can determine the feasibility and actions needed to achieve a higher canopy cover goal across the City to further expand the benefits community members receive from trees. The analysis in Appendix D, Canopy Increase Analysis Methodology explores total and annual tree planting needed to meet the canopy cover goal and estimated canopy increase from existing canopy growth, planting vacant inventory sites, and planting on residential, park, public space, and retail and commercial spaces. Using private land use as a method to expand canopy, while necessary to meet our goals, is challenging as the City cannot control or monitor the health and success of those trees. 5 .2 .1 Vacant Site Planting Estimate
The City-managed tree inventory was used to estimated additional canopy cover from planting trees in all plantable vacant sites. Vacant sites were considered plantable if they were labeled as a vacant site or stump and were in a planting area at least 2 feet wide. Table 5-1 details the calculations used to estimate canopy at maturity from inventoried plantable vacant sites.
5.2 INCREASING
CANOPY COVER
Parkway Size (ft) Total Trees Estimated Mature Canopy
Width per Tree (ft)
Estimated Cumulative
Canopy (acre)
2–5 3,459 30 56.1
5.1–7 240 45 8.8
7.1–10 112 60 7.3
10.1+ 423 75 42.9
Total 4,234 210 115.1
TABLE 5-1. ESTIMATED CANOPY AT MATURITY FROM PLANTABLE VACANT SITES
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
68 5 .2 .2 Increase Analysis
Full implementation of the Urban Forest plan would achieve 20% canopy cover citywide and within each Census tract by 2055. Reaching this goal will require adding approximately 9,600 trees to the City’s urban forest over 30 years by planting roughly 350 trees annually, replacing any trees that are removed, and preserving existing canopy cover on both public and private property. This aligns with the City’s Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP) goal to plant an annual net of 350 trees. Exhibit 5-2 reflects how the City can accomplish this goal through growth of the City managed tree inventory and planting new trees in various City managed and non-City managed locations. It is important to note that this does not include canopy decrease over time from tree removals.
EXHIBIT 5-2. ESTIMATED CANOPY COVER INCREASE
Location Total Trees % Canopy Added
City Managed Vacant Site Planting 4,200 2.0%
Public Parks & Open Space 2,600 2.0%
Residential Private Property 1,700 1.3%
Public Institutions (Schools) 700 .5%
Commercial/Retail Property 400 .3%
Total 9,600 6.1%
Table 5-2 provides an estimate of how many trees will need to be added within each location over 30 years to increase canopy cover to 20%. 2.8% canopy growth will be achieved by growth of existing public trees over the next 30 years. Approximately 4.0% of additional canopy cover can be added by planting trees on City managed street, park, and open space locations. Achieving the remaining 2.1% will require partnerships with community members, schools, and other private property and large landowners in the City.
TABLE 5-2. ESTIMATED TREE PLANTING TOTALS BY LOCATION
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
69 As set forth in the CARP , the City has a target to plant 350 trees a year which would achieve a canopy cover of 20%
citywide (78% total increase) across all neighborhoods by 2055. The following is a summary of the data points and analysis used to determine the canopy cover goal.
• Increasing canopy cover to 20% will require adding
approximately 9,600 new trees based on the size of tree planted.
• The City inventory reflects 4,234 vacant tree planting sites. It may be possible to add additional planting sites by cutting new tree wells, removing asphalt, and other
depaving practices.
• An estimated 5,170 residential parcels have no tree
cover and may be suitable candidates for new trees.
• Canopy growth of the existing city managed trees may
only account for an additional 2.8% canopy increase.
• The city averages approximately 189 tree removals per year. While these trees will be replaced when they are
removed, it will likely take the 30-year timeframe of the Urban Forest Plan to recover the lost canopy.
5 .2 .3 Alame da Tree Species Selection Matrix
The City updated its preferred tree species list to further assist in the long-term effort to increase canopy cover city-wide. The Alameda Tree Species Selection Matrix (Matrix) presented in Appendix C is a comprehensive table of tree species that are appropriate for the current and anticipated future climate of Alameda. The tree species list is also available to view online at SelecTree https://selectree.calpoly.edu/list/108. Development of the Matrix included consultation with City staff, local City arborists, and other local experts to understand how current species are performing in the landscape, maintenance challenges, and whether the tree species provides a desirable aesthetic. The list was also vetted through various research papers and studies to understand what species are predicted to be suitable for changing environmental conditions. A specific focus was placed on understanding how raising groundwater would impact tree health and what species would be best adapted to a higher groundwater table and salinity.
The next step after the tree species were selected was to provide detailed information on each individual species to assist the City in selecting the right tree for the right place. This includes information on species characteristics like height and width at maturity, type of fruit or flowers, or evergreen or deciduous. Additional information is provided to help determine what locations the species should be planted like minimum planting space, best for street or park, and tolerance to site conditions like sun exposure, preferred soil type, and water use.
Finally, an important consideration for each species is whether they are appropriate to be planted under utility lines to ensure that trees can reach a mature size without coming into conflict with overhead wires. Tree species with a maximum potential height of 25 feet are considered appropriate to plant under utility lines. Planting trees appropriate for these locations will also help to reduce long-term maintenance costs associated with frequently pruning trees to maintain clearance from electric lines.
The spacing limitations within
the city make 20% canopy cover a
realistic goal to achieve over the
next 30 years with sufficient funding.
The City can reassess if a higher canopy
goal is achievable if the original goal
is achieved on a faster timeline. The
Plan will prioritize tree planting in
priority census tracts utilizing a priority
planting score developed for the Plan
that combines Census tracts with low
canopy cover and an equity focused
metric of pollution vulnerability and
burden using CalEnviroScreen 4.0, a
screening tool that can be used to help
identify California communities that
are disproportionately burdened by
multiple sources of pollution.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
70 Current City funding allows the City to meet some current performance metrics of the urban forest program including planting two trees for each one removed, watering newly planted trees for three years, young tree pruning, removing trees on a timely basis, and maintaining a 5-year street tree pruning cycle. As the urban forest grows, additional staffing resources will be necessary to maintain the current level of service with more trees. This goal could be achieved by either adding capacity through additional maintenance staff or by increasing the level of contracted services.
Based on current funding, Staff identified three scenarios that Alameda can take to manage the urban forest moving forward. Each scenario in this analysis projects Alameda’s tree inventory 30 years into the future based on different management actions, starting with “enhanced business as usual” and ending with reaching the goal of achieve 20% tree canopy cover. The purpose of these recommended scenarios is to provide options where sufficient funding and staffing can be achieved. Those two key factors (funding and staff/contractors) are paramount to achieving a proactive urban forest management program, which will reduce the amount of reactive management occurs (emergencies, incidents, or inquiries from tree failures). Without staff/contractors coordinating tree planting and management efforts, urban forestry goals identified in this Urban Forest Plan cannot be fully implemented or achieved. Providing sufficient staffing and funding for the possible pathways allows the City to foster a more resilient, more sustainable, and more equitable urban forest. 5 .3 .1 Sc enario One: Enhanced Business as Usual
5.3 FUNDING AND
STAFFING OPTIONS
Scenario One
30 Yr Canopy 14-15% Staff, Cost Allocation Contractual Totals Public Works $ 335,890 $ 2,112,910 $ 2,448,800
Recreation and Parks $ 102,000 $ 100,000 $ 202,000
Alameda Municipal Power $ 108,000 $ 455,000 $ 563,000 Totals $ 545,890 $ 2,667,910 $ 3,213,800
TABLE 5-3. SCENARIO ONE ANNUAL FUNDING SCENARIO
DESCRIPTION
• Maintain existing 5-year pruning cycle for street
trees and as needed for park trees
• Maintain current tree planting, establishment care
and tree removal services
• Utilize enhanced management practices and
updated tree species list laid out in this plan
• Focus annual tree planting program on Census
Tracts with high Priority Planting Score
• Continue to implement requirements for removal
of Protected Trees
STAFFING AND COST
• No new staff or contract positions
• No additional funding
TREES AND CANOPY COVER
• 135 net new park and street trees annually
• Results in 14-15% canopy cover in 30 years
Funding Assumption Notes: In FY 2024-25, AMP has
budgeted an additional investment of $600,000 to
address deferred wire clearance trimming. All costs are subject to annual increases as part of routine budget
approvals by City Council.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
71 5 .3 .2 Scenario Two: Increased Planting and Maintenance Scenario Two
30 Yr Canopy 18% Staff, Cost Allocation Contractual Totals Public Works $ 585,890 $ 2,112,910 $ 2,698,800 Recreation and Parks $ 102,000 $ 100,000 $ 202,000 Alameda Municipal Power $ 108,000 $ 455,000 $ 563,000 Planning, Building and Transportation $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Totals $ 995,890 $ 2,667,910 $ 3,663,800
DESCRIPTION
• Same as Scenario 1 with additional funds to:
» Increase tree planting and young tree care to plant an additional net 115 trees/year » Provide additional maintenance assistance for establishment and care of new trees » Develop and enforce a Tree Canopy Protection ordinance
STAFFING AND COST
• Additional maintenance staff for increased tree planting and care (staff) ($250,000) • Enforce tree canopy protection ordinance (staff or contractual) (up to $200,000 per year, depending on scope) • $450,000 in additional funding annually
• Trees and Canopy Cover
• 250 net new park and street trees annually
• Additional tree canopy protection
• Approximately 18% canopy cover in 30 years
TABLE 5-4. SCENARIO TWO ANNUAL FUNDING SCENARIO
Funding Assumption Notes: In FY 2024-25, AMP has budgeted an additional investment of $600,000 to address deferred wire clearance trimming. All costs are subject to annual increases as part of routine budget approvals by City Council. Addition of staff positions may result in one-time provisioning costs (e.g. vehicles/equipment) which would be included in any annual budget proposals for the program.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
72 5 .3 .3 Scenario Three: Urban Forester
Scenario Three
30 Yr Canopy 20% Staff, Cost Allocation Contractual Totals Public Works $ 835,890 $ 2,112,910 $ 2,948,800 Recreation and Parks $ 102,000 $ 100,000 $ 202,000 Alameda Municipal Power $ 108,000 $ 455,000 $ 563,000 Planning, Building and Transportation $ 200,000 $ 200,000 Totals $ 1,245,890 $ 2,667,910 $ 3,913,800 5 .3 .4 Staff Position Descriptions
Additional staff will be needed to fully implement the Urban Forest plan. The staffing goals could be achieved by hiring staff or by outside contractors or consultants. Hiring outside contractors and consultants reduces the overhead costs of having full-time staff members and can potentially save funds if the contracting needs of the city are lower than what was originally budgeted. Alternatively, full-time employees could be hired to meet the management needs. This has the benefit of ensuring staff are dedicated to a task and can see it through to completion. Full-time employees require annual budgets to dedicate funds to maintain the positions which could limit the spending flexibility of the City.
One challenge with the current urban forest governance structure is the lack of a centralized staff member to coordinate and align all departments around implementation of the Urban Forest Plan. The creation of an Urban Forest Manager position will ensure progress towards the vision and goals of the Urban Forest Plan, including increased public engagement, seeking grants and other funding, and developing ongoing partnerships with stakeholders like non-profit organizations, school districts, and large landowners for larger urban forest efforts.
This position should be placed in Public Works, which currently manages the Urban Forest operating budget, tree maintenance contract and the project manager responsible for street trees.
Table 5-6 describes the staffing resources identified as necessary to implement the urban forest plan and the estimated cost for the function provided.
DESCRIPTION
• In addition to Scenario 2, Hire an
Urban Forest Manager position to
coordinate city tree program and
partner with residents, community
organizations and large landowners
to coordinate planting 100 trees/
year on non-City owned land.
STAFFING AND COST
• $250,000 in additional funding annually for
Urban Forest Manager
• Trees and Canopy
• 350 net new trees annually
• Tree protection ordinance
• 20% canopy cover in 30 years
TABLE 5-5. SCENARIO THREE ANNUAL FUNDING SCENARIO
Funding Assumption Notes: In FY 2024-25, AMP has budgeted an additional investment of $600,000 to address deferred wire clearance trimming. All costs are subject to annual increases as part of routine budget approvals by City Council. Addition of staff positions may result in one-time provisioning costs (e.g. vehicles/equipment) which would be included in any annual budget proposals for the program.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
73 Staff Position Description of Position Estimated
Cost (2024)
1.0 FTE Urban
Forest Manager
The Urban Forest Manager is an arborist who will coordinate with all City departments to implement the Urban Forest Plan, urban forestry program, and community engagement efforts.
The Urban Forest Manager will:
• ensure progress towards the vision and goals of the Urban Forest Plan, • be responsible for internal City coordination and external engagement with the community on tree management activities,
• increase public engagement in the urban forest,
• seek grant and other funding,
• develop partnerships with non-profit organizations, the school district, and large landowners to support tree planting efforts on non-City owned properties.
This position should ideally be placed in Public Works, which currently manages the Urban Forest operating budget, tree maintenance contract, and the project manager responsible for street trees.
$250,000 per
year
2.0 FTE
Maintenance
assistance for
street and park
trees (staff or
contractual)
Tree maintenance staff or contractor will:
• supplement contract services,
• respond to tree emergencies,
• plant trees,
• perform establishment care activities like weeding, mulching, and young tree pruning,
• assist with other maintenance tasks not performed by the maintenance contractor, and
• provide supplemental watering during extreme heat events. $250,000 per
year
Up to 1.0 FTE
Permit and
Planning
Review
Arborist (staff
or contractual)
With the adoption of a Tree Canopy Preservation Ordinance, the City will have a need for additional capacity to review permit applications and enforce the ordinance. The staffing need will depend on the scope of the ordinance that is adopted, and the process required to remove private trees.
A planning and development arborist will:
• assist with planning and permitting actions that relate to trees • reviewing development and landscaping plans and permits • ensure that projects align with the City’s urban forest goals, including canopy cover growth and tree protection during construction.
• Conduct a hearing process for the public to protest the removal of a heritage tree on private property
This new position could work on both public and private space development reviews allowing Public Works staff to focus on management of street trees.
Up to
$125,000
per year
depending
on scope of
ordinance
Up to 0.5
FTE Code
Enforcement
Depending on the scope of the tree canopy preservation ordinance, additional code enforcement staff will be needed to enforce the ordinance.
Code enforcement will:
• Respond to calls for unpermitted tree removals
• Investigate tree removals and issue citations
Up to
$75,000
per year
depending
on scope of
ordinance
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
74 TREE CARE
Alameda’s urban forest is
well managed following
best practices for
tree care.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
75 SECTION 6.0
DEVELOPMENT
PROCESS &
COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT
The consultant team analyzed the City of
Alameda’s current urban forest program utilizing
the following areas to develop a comprehensive
Urban Forest Plan that addresses the existing
urban forest and City policies, emerging threats
to trees in Alameda, and community feedback.
6.1 DEVELOPMENT OF THE
URBAN FOREST PLAN
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
76 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT:
Urban Forest Plan development included a series of City staff interviews to gather feedback and opinions on current challenges, needs from a staff perspective, and goals and outcomes for the Urban Forest Plan. A total of nine interviews were conducted with staff representatives from Public Works, Recreation and Parks, Planning, Alameda Municipal Power, City Attorney’s office, and the City tree maintenance contractor. These interviews helped to inform an understanding of current management practices, funding and staffing levels, and the priority needs of staff to better manage trees.
URBAN FOREST DATA:
The City’s tree inventory was analyzed against sustainability metrics like species and age diversity, health condition, and adaptability to future climate conditions. This baseline data was critical in shaping an updated tree species palette, identifying species likely to decline, and appropriate management recommendations to maintain tree health. A canopy cover analysis was completed using United States Forest Service data to determine the extent of canopy cover, priority areas to increase canopy, and tree planting targets to meet canopy goals. The urban forest data was used to develop realistic and feasible goals for the 10-year timeframe of the Urban Forest Plan.
COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVES:
Community engagement efforts including pop up events and surveys, staff interviews, and Working Group meetings were held to understand various perceptions of the urban forest from several different backgrounds. Pop up events coincided with other well-attended community events to obtain feedback from residents regarding what they enjoy about the urban forest and areas of improvement. Residents were also encouraged to leave feedback through an online survey which was distributed through the City’s social media, newsletters, flyers, and other channels.
A Working Group was established to have deeper, exploratory conversations with interested parties about the priorities, values, needs, and opportunities for the urban forest. During the project, four Working Group meetings were held, in which City staff, individuals from the environmental field, and community advocates were brought together to each bring perspectives from their unique background.
The resulting Urban Forest Plan addresses a comprehensive and extensive set of challenges, priorities, and goals for the City of Alameda’s urban forest.
CITY STAFF AND DOCUMENTS:
Various city planning documents including the Alameda Climate Action and Resiliency Plan (CARP), Alameda General Plan 2040, Alameda Green Infrastructure Plan, and the Alameda Groundwater Report were reviewed for their relationship to the urban forest and shared goals with the Urban Forest Plan. The Historic Preservation Ordinance was also reviewed to understand its effectiveness, whether additional species should be considered for protection, and if a sufficient structure exists to enforce penalties to deter violation.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
77 ROLE OF INTERESTED PARTIES IN URBAN FOREST
PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION6.2
URBAN FOREST SUMMIT FLYER, STUDENT EARTH DAY LETTERS
Meaningful community engagement is essential in developing a Urban Forest Plan that fosters community buy-in by reflecting the goals, needs, and priorities of Alameda’s residents, business owners, and community members.
During the Urban Forest Plan development process, the City and the consultant team conducted engagement activities to better understand community perceptions of trees in Alameda and how these views impact the priorities for the City’s urban forest. The City of Alameda’s Urban Forest Plan community engagement process entailed multiple methods of engaging interested parties and community members. The engagement strategy included the following activities:
• Student Earth Day letter writing activity to encourage urban forest advocacy in children and teenagers. • Public tree survey that was circulated online and in-person (839 responses). • Three (3) public outreach events aimed at gauging community opinions of the current state of the urban forest. • A Listening Session with approximately 40 attendees to survey community members on where they think more trees should be planted within the City, brainstorming how to improve the urban forest, and discussing how to overcome threats to the urban forest.
• Four (4) Working Group meetings consisting of 17 engaged community leaders to understand interested parties’ priorities and concerns about the urban forest.
• City staff interviews to discuss current challenges, needs from a staff perspective, and goals and outcomes for the Urban Forest Plan.
Dear Mayor Ashcraft and Alameda City Councilmembers,
Urban trees are very important for Alameda because they provide shade when it is hot outside, trees help clean the air and release oxygen, and they supply protection, food, and homes for wildlife. We should plant more trees in our City because trees can reduce climate change by decreasing urban heat island and greenhouse gases, they protect the soil and can even improve mental health. I noticed that some parks and streets could have some more trees planted. This would greatly benefit Alameda and make it more enjoyable to be outside for the people who live here. I also included some art of my favorite tree in Alameda. Thank you for taking the time out of your day to read this letter.
Sincerely,
Kyra Deskin.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
78 6 .3 .1 Online Survey
An online survey was created and administered to identify the public’s perception and understanding of the City’s urban forest, and to solicit public feedback as the City develops the Urban Forest Plan. The 21-question survey was open during March 2023, and was distributed through the City’s Instagram, flyers, and communications through associations such as Alameda Point Collaborative, Food Bank, Alameda Housing Authority, Alameda Backyard Growers, CASA, Alameda Renter’s Coalition, environmental clubs at Alameda High, and Boards & Commissions. Major themes of the survey questions included the following:
Outreach was specifically targeted to increase response rates from ‘hard to reach’ and minority populations.
These efforts increased response rates at Alameda Point, West End, and Southshore, increased renter response from 16% to 22%, increased under 18-year-old response from 1% to 5%, and increased responses from lower income categories and non-white ethnicities by two and seven percent respectively. In total, 839 survey responses were recorded. Continuing to reach out to interested parties during the implementation phase of the Urban Forest Plan will encourage diverse perspectives to be heard.
6.3.1.1 ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
SUMMARY OF INTERESTED
PARTIES INPUT6.3
Attitudes and feelings
respondents have towards
trees as a valued city asset.
Willingness of respondents
in supporting the City’s
tree planting efforts and
policies to protect trees.
Opportunities for
respondents to express
interest in planting and
maintaining private trees.
01 02 03
Table 6-1 summarizes the top community priorities
and inputs regarding the urban forest and its future.
Mental health benefits, aesthetics and beauty of
trees, and the environmental services provided by
trees to the community were noted as the top benefits
and priorities to maintain from survey respondents.
Nearly 90% of residents rate the health of the trees in their neighborhood as good or fair, with the appearance of trees in commercial areas and schools receiving the
highest proportion of “poor” or “very poor” scores.
Increasing the number of trees planted, removing
dangerous or dead trees, and ensuring trees will
continue to survive in inclement conditions such as
droughts, rising groundwater, etc., are the top three
goals respondents would like the City to prioritize in
the next 10 years
Respondents are interested in more trees being planted
in parks, biking/walking paths, commercial areas, and
schools. 56% of respondents felt that the current tree
protection measures should be updated to include other
species. 57% of respondents would support including
the urban forest in a ballot revenue measure compared
to 9% who would not support the measure.
Sidewalks and streets were the most cited
infrastructure damaged by trees in Alameda
neighborhoods, identifying a challenge with current
urban forest management practices and unforeseen
consequences of prior planting. Drought, conflicts
with city infrastructure, and pests and disease were
identified as the top threats facing trees in Alameda
according to respondents.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
79 Theme Survey Input
Current
Urban
Forest
Top three benefits of Alameda’s urban forest: mental health benefits, aesthetics and beauty of trees, and environmental services provided.
Nearly 90% of residents rate the health of the trees in their neighborhood as “good” or “fair” .
Trees in commercial areas and schools received the highest proportion of “poor” or “very poor” scores.
Future
Urban
Forest Goals
Top 3 public tree priorities in the next 10 years: increase number of trees planted, remove dangerous or dead trees, ensure trees will continue to survive in droughts, rising groundwater, etc.
Top areas seen as needing trees: parks, biking/walking paths, commercial areas, and schools. 56% of respondents believe an updated protected tree list to include other species is necessary. 57% of respondents support including the urban forest in a ballot revenue measure compared to 9% who would not support the measure.
Challenges Sidewalks and streets were the most cited infrastructure damaged by trees in neighborhoods.
Top threats facing trees in Alameda according to respondents: drought, conflicts with city infrastructure, and pests and disease.
Community
Engagement
Top ways respondents are interested in supporting the urban forest: volunteering at a tree planting event, planting and maintaining a tree on the sidewalk in front of their house, and by attending educational workshops about trees.
Preferred future communication method: email and social media; least preferred: calls and text messages
Private
Trees in
Alameda
How to increase canopy cover on private property: Assistance with tree maintenance and discounted/ free tree programs; Least common answer: expanded tree ordinance protection Nearly 40% of respondents did not have concerns about planting trees on their property.
Most selected concerns: cost of maintenance and damage to property.
When asked how the City can best help care for trees on private property, about two-thirds of respondents listed physical and financial support.
Residents of Alameda showed the most support for
volunteering at tree planting events, planting and
maintaining a tree on the sidewalk in front of their
house, and by attending educational workshops about
trees. Email and social media were cited as the best
ways to reach respondents about future updates about
the Urban Forest Plan, whereas phone calls and text
message were the least preferred methods.
Assistance with tree maintenance and discounted or
free tree programs were the most common methods
community members were open to when discussing
the potential to plant trees on private property.
Physical support and financial support were both
listed by about two-thirds of respondents on how the
City can best help care for trees on private property.
Meanwhile, expanded tree ordinance protection
for public and private trees was the least common
answer. Approximately 40% of respondents were
open to planting a tree on their private property and
did not express any concerns. Respondents who
had reservations about planting a tree on private
property, listed cost of tree maintenance and damage
to property as main concerns. Partnership with private
property owners will aid in increasing Alameda’s
overall geographic canopy cover when public land is
saturated with trees.
TABLE 6-1. URBAN FOREST PLAN SURVEY TAKEAWAYS
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
80 6 .3 .2 Public Outreach Events
The City of Alameda conducted a series of Pop-Up events throughout the development of the Urban Forest Plan. Community members learned about urban forest benefits, maintenance, and opportunities for community involvement, and shared their perspectives on current urban forest management practices and areas for improvement.
POP-UP EVENT: BOHOL CIRCLE IMMIGRATION PARK OPENING
On January 21, 2023, from 2 PM to 4 PM, the City of Alameda Urban Forest team and the consulting team hosted a Pop-Up event at the Bohol Circle Immigration Park Opening.
Community members utilized workshop comment cards and brainstormed how to improve the urban forest. Planting appropriate tree species for their locations, more infrastructure such as community gardens and walking/biking paths, greater tree planting efforts, and a stronger tree protection ordinance were listed as ideas. Graphic boards with various categories acted as a voting system for where more trees are needed and what benefits of trees are the most valued. Biking and walking paths, sidewalks, schools, and parks were voted as the locations with the highest demand for trees. Shade, cleaner air, and wildlife habitat were the most valued benefits. Additionally, 24 email sign ups were recorded on January 23, 2023.
POP-UP EVENT: SPRING SHINDIG
On April 15, 2023 the City of Alameda Urban Forest team and the consulting team conducted a Pop-up workshop at the Spring Shindig. The pop-up workshop consisted of a table with educational handouts about the Urban Forest Plan, a sign-up sheet for project updates, giveaways, comment cards, and flyers promoting the City of Alameda’s survey. The table also had large boards prompting participants to provide their feedback on several questions:
What do you love most about trees? and, Where do we need more trees? The booth was shared with the Alameda Rotary Club who gave away over 100 saplings (young trees) to community members who wished to plant them on their property. Approximately 85 community members participated in the pop-up workshop.
POP-UP EVENT: STORYTELLING AND DRUMMING FESTIVAL
On February 4, 2023, from 1 PM to 4 PM, the City of Alameda Urban Forest team and the consulting team hosted a Pop-Up workshop at the Storytelling and Drumming Festival.
Community members were given comment cards and colored dot stickers to vote on questions about trees. Wildlife habitat, shade, and cleaner air were once again voted as the most valued tree benefits. Furthermore, members had similar sentiments to those at the first event, in that more trees are most needed in parks, schools, and streets. The similar results across both events indicate the priorities of the residents in their perceptions of tree benefits and priority planting locations. One comment card was submitted in which a member suggested more trees should be planted for climbing and fruit.
JANUARY 12, 2003FEBRUARY 4, 2003APRIL 15, 2003
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
81 6 .3 .3 Student Letter Writing
Staff partnered with CASA to develop a student Earth
Day letter writing activity. Students and teachers
from Alameda schools were invited to show their
appreciation for their local trees and all the benefits they bring by writing a letter to the Alameda Mayor
and City Council about their favorite tree and creating an art piece as a way to hear from local youth on the
importance of community trees and help imagine how
more trees in the future will help improve the quality
of life for Alameda residents. Students were provided
grade specific letter templates and potential topic
areas. Educational resources and activity ideas were
also provided to teachers to help them educate their
students about trees. 135 letters we received and shared with the City Council and Mayor. The Mayor wrote a
thank you letter which was delivered to each of the
teachers whose class participated. Some of the letters
and drawings are displayed throughout this plan.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
82 6 .3 .4 Listening Session
A Listening Session was held on May 20, 2023, from 9 AM to 11:30 AM with approximately 40 attendees at the Upper Washington Recreation Center and engaged participants in two activities. “Where do we need more trees?” was a map of Alameda with pushpins on where community members think that more trees should be planted.
Comments from this engagement exercise include the following:
• Plant more climate adaptable tree species City wide
• Lawn areas around “Big Whites.” Street side in industrial zones • Disadvantaged communities: give away trees for yards; ask them what kind of tree they would like • Woodstock homes need more trees
• Front of Centre Court: Sycamore trees removed and have not been replaced • Back of Centre Court: bare circle left from removing 4 pines 8 years ago and 1 dying poplar last October The second engagement exercise was an “Idea-Generating Activity.” This activity involved brainstorming answers to questions that were organized by different principles for urban forest management:
What other opportunities to improve the urban forest can you identify? What challenges face/threaten the urban forest?
Participants documented ideas on a post-it and added them to a poster board. The feedback received from the idea-generating activity was incorporated during the development of the UFMP . The results received are shown in Table 6-2.
Opportunities to Improve the Urban Forest
Work with Peralta Community College District and community organizations in East Bay (Oakland groups, Urban Recreation Center) to create a tree team; commit City resources to help Peralta CC maintain trees.
Plans need to address succession-plant new trees proactively to replace aging trees before they die and so all don’t need replacing at the same time, spreads costs so not all is spent at once.
Require tree replacement for development (Ex: Harbor Bay Master Association).
Tree planting and tree maintenance volunteer days; contracts/perks to local organizations and incentives to volunteers.
Hire and train young people to care and water trees to a green job career.
Replace London plane with Western Sycamore as standard street tree to enhance ecological function and habitat value.
Arborist employed by AMP to assist with homeowner/AMP tree conflicts.
Rip up concrete at schools to build learning and cooling forests.
Case study highlighting what Alameda has been doing well (ex: bioswales at Target parking lots).
Mandate a certain number of trees per street, work with private government owned land to require a minimum canopy % (i.e. shopping areas and schools).
Accountability to City population that City is taking advantage of State and Federal Funds.
Continue to use all media outlets in Alameda to bring public attention and comments.
TABLE 6-2. LISTENING SESSION – IDEA-GENERATING ACTIVITY
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
83 TABLE 6-2. LISTENING SESSION – IDEA-GENERATING ACTIVITY Opportunities to Improve the Urban Forest
Work with local native plant nurseries to grow native urban tree stock and to increase wildlife habitat. “Mt. Trashmore” (former bayside landfill) should have more trees.
Post i-tree ROI data on urban trees to inspire pedestrians.
Plant trees at the dog park near the Ferry and hospital.
Plant larger trees that will live longer and provide full sidewalk shade and help with dust.
Provide educational lectures about how trees benefit communities and public health.
Planting large trees (redwoods, oaks) wherever possible, more heritage oak trees, restore presence of coast Live oaks.
Free trees for residents and easier access to info about best tree choices.
Need pocket parks with heritage trees and ground cover.
Strategic tree plantings, prioritize planting in schools.
Incorporate tree plan into General Plan.
Partner with AUSD, College of Alameda.
Climate change, small planting spaces, sidewalks lifting, pruning practice ignorance, high voltage powerlines, rising sea levels, leaf litter, bird droppings.
Loss of mature trees due to extreme weather.
Developers should contribute to urban forest plantings.
Homeowners are responsible for watering and maintaining their trees.
Neighbor put in several street trees and the City team planted unexpected varieties.
People being disappointed/uninspired by the choices of street trees the City offers.
Selecting and maintaining trees that are well-suited for future climate conditions.
New buildings on Alameda Navel area do not have enough trees.
Perception that trees are dangerous.
Smaller property sizes- currently smaller or no trees on private property.
Soil structure and stability.
Ability of City to maintain trees.
Utilities cutting down trees.
Grants/funding for testing rain gardens in residential yards.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
84 During the Working Group meetings, members voiced individual values, priorities, and concerns to ensure the Urban Forest Plan addresses and incorporates a variety of perspectives. Individual objectives for each meeting included creating a vision statement for the Urban Forest Plan, identifying priority concerns related to trees, developing guiding principles, developing priority needs to address through public education, developing a strategy for public education, and reviewing the 80% complete version of the final Urban Forest Plan. By including Working Group members of different backgrounds, the Urban Forest Plan addresses a variety of perspectives, challenges, and priorities of community members who are already engaged in the urban forest and can be counted on to provide advocacy throughout the project’s implementation. Major themes and details of the Working Group meetings are presented in Table 6-4.
6 .3 .5 Working Group
The City’s Urban Forest Plan Working Group was formed to bring together City staff, stakeholder organizations, individuals from the environmental field, and community organizations and advocates to create a comprehensive Urban Forest Plan that addresses unique priorities, issues, and goals of the community members of Alameda. A list of the Working Group’s members is included in Table 6-3. Four working group meetings were held between August 2022 and October 2023.
Name Affiliation
Ruth Abbe Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA) Dr. Diana Bajrami College of Alameda
Christopher Buckley Alameda Architectural Preservation Society Susan Davis AUSD
Jonathan DeLong REAP Climate Center
Birgitt Evans Alameda Backyard Growers
Anthony Garza University of California (UC) Berkeley Botanical Garden and Alameda Resident Drake Herbert East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD)
Dawn Jeager Community of Harbor Bay Isle Owners' Association, Inc.
Marla Koss Alameda Backyard Growers
Joe Landaeta Community of Harbor Bay Isle Owners' Association, Inc.
Alan Leventhal Muwekma Ohlone Tribe of the SF Bay Area, Community Member Joyce Mercado Rotary Club
Aundi Mevoli SF Baykeeper
Tobey Theiding Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) Youth Climate Committee Igor Tregub Community Member
Amos White 100K Trees for Humanity
TABLE 6-3. ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN WORKING GROUP MEMBERS
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
85 Theme Working Group Resources
Ideal Urban
Forest
• Safe and well-maintained with no falling trees.
• Noticeable and inspirational.
• Foster a connection to nature and engage communities. • Include as many mature trees and large tree wells as possible. • Biodiverse and able to provide wildlife habitat. Oaks should be prioritized. • Adapted to the local climate, environmental factors, and pests/pathogens. • Should contribute to climate resilience and carbon sequestration and provide ecosystem services such as cooling, shade, and water capture.
• Accessible to all communities regardless of income, race, gender, sexual orientation, cultural background, or ability.
• Right tree, right place. The appropriate species and size trees should be planted for their respective locations.
• Appropriately funded.
• Good maintenance practices should be used to promote tree health and growth. Trees should be healthy, diverse, and well-pruned. Risks should be managed appropriately. • Protected from development.
• Contribute to Alameda’s unique sense of identity.
Important
Benefits
• Trees improve the surrounding air quality, lower urban heat island effect, sequester carbon, capture and manage stormwater, contribute to green stormwater infrastructure, and provide biodiversity and wildlife habitat.
• Reduce stress, improve mental and physical health, and inspire a connection to nature. • Trees increase property values and provide shade, screening, views, windbreaks, and noise insulation.
• Trees beautify spaces, provide views, contribute to a sense of community identity.
Important
Traits of
Alameda
• The Bay Area has a significant number of opportunities and access to public transportation. • The small-town identity encourages community pride, human connections, a sense of community, and more easy-going attitudes.
• Alameda has beautiful scenery, surrounded by water and providing many recreational opportunities. The urban forest is higher quality than neighboring communities. • Historical architecture provides an attractive urban design landscape. • There are diverse groups of people of different ethnicities, ages, incomes, etc. • The urban wildlife interface is good for activities such as birdwatching. • Gardeners frequently share their crops.
• Alameda is at the forefront of innovative climate adaptation.
Aspects of
Alameda’s
Character
to Preserve/
Enhance
• Root guards in small spaces.
• Trees that grow well in sandy soils.
• Connected canopy.
• Large trees that can provide food and shelter for wildlife. • Equitable tree coverage.
• Cohesive yet diverse tree palette that compliments existing urban landscape. • Alameda needs to improve the quality of current tree maintenance and pruning. • Leadership in climate change adaptation and mitigation. • Sense of peace and beauty.
• Strong community leaders in organizations.
TABLE 6-4. MAJOR THEMES OF WORKING GROUP MEETINGS
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
86 Theme Working Group Resources
Players and
Resources
Needed to
Achieve
Guiding
Principles
• Homeowners and tenants should share responsibilities with the City for street tree maintenance in a “curb strip partnership. ” This includes irrigation, identification, and pruning of hazard trees.
Property owners should be encouraged to plant private trees. • CASA.
• Environmental commission.
• Public Works
• Students.
Specific
Steps
Toward
Goal
• Find potential new planting sites. Identify sites that are paved over and develop a program for creating tree well space.
• Development of a mobile application to empower the community. • Provide a single call to action.
• Provide tree resources to community members. Potentially send flyers along with utility bills.
Publicize the resident tree planting program more. Introduce a coupon program for people to get trees to their property.
• Develop education materials.
• Adjust water fees as an incentive for tree plantings. • Provide free trees for private landowners.
• Maintain existing trees.
• Target school campuses.
• Coordinate with 811.
Which Steps
to Prioritize
• Inventory, goals, then engagement.
• Outreach through the incorporation of flyers in AMP bills, tree giveaway programs, and working with local CBOs for free/discounted trees.
• Increasing tree planting on non-City property.
• Concrete removal.
• Improving existing tree maintenance.
• The City needs to prioritize that it wants trees, then act to remove barriers.
How to
Encourage
More Tree
Plantings
on Non-
City-Owned
Property
• Engage community members.
• Assist property owners.
• Update tree ordinance to be stricter with new development.
A fourth and fifth Working Group meeting will be scheduled through the remainder of the Urban Forest Plan project and major themes will be gathered in a table.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
87 6 .3 .6 Interviews
Through the information gathering phase of Urban Forest Plan development, City staff who take part in tree management were interviewed to discuss current challenges, needs from a staff perspective, and goals and outcomes for the Urban Forest Plan. Participants in these interviews are presented in Table 6-5, and a summary of interview takeaways are presented in Table 6-6.
Interviewee Position
Liz Accord Public Works Coordinator
Jesse Barajas Public Works Program Manager, Arborist
Andre Basler Assistant General Manager of Engineering and Operations, Alameda Municipal Power Steve Gee Electrical Superintendent, Alameda Municipal Power Elizabeth Mackenzie Deputy City Attorney (no longer with City of Alameda) Matt Nowlen Park Manager
Mike Nunes Supervisor, West Coast Arborists
Pat Papalagi Maintenance Supervisor
Erin Smith Public Works Director
Allen Tai Planning Building and Transportation Director John Tallitsch Construction Inspection Supervisor
Amy Wooldridge Assistant City Manager, former Recreation and Parks Director Management
Practices
• Most city tree management is done in coordination with tree work contractors. • When emergencies arise, Public works is competing with contractors’ other clients for contractor labor. • Contractor is unable to meet the level of service desired from the Parks Department. A city urban • Forest crew can help reduce reliance on contractors for tree work. • Tree risk assessment guidelines should be consistent with Public Works tree assessments. • Tree species list should be updated to include a wide variety of species. This tree list should include a selection of trees that are appropriate for community members to plant below overhead utilities. • Alameda Municipal Power has many competing priorities that make it difficult to adhere to a 3-year cycle. • The city has very narrow sidewalks and planting strips. Sidewalks do not meet the current standards to allow trees to be planted in areas near mature trees.
• City is having difficulties dealing with mature, overgrown trees with invasive tree roots • An ongoing removal and replacement plan may be necessary to address the overgrown trees in the City.
Staffing and
Resources
• A city forester position would be helpful to manage street and park trees and implement the recommendations made in the Urban Forest Plan.
• Staffing and budget for the urban forest should align with recommendations from the Climate Action Plan. • City would benefit from having a staff member or contractor identify all hazardous overgrown trees throughout the city and implement a replacement plan.
Policy • General fund could further support the Urban Forest. • Code enforcement does engage in any tree-related enforcement. • Nesting bird protections should be put in place.
Community
Outreach
• Community would benefit from tree-planting workshops. • More volunteer training and management is needed for community tree planting events. • Residents have a mixed response to tree removals related to infrastructure conflicts.
TABLE 6-6. KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM STAFF INTERVIEWS:
TABLE 6-5. STAFF INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
88 Alameda benefits from multiple community-based organizations that are dedicated to improving environmental justice, sustainability, and community engagement.
These organizations have played a significant role in developing the Urban Forest Plan, engaging community members, and will be key partners to implement the Urban Forest Plan strategic plan. The following section outlines potential avenues for organizations to partner with Alameda towards meeting Urban Forest Plan goals. 6 .4 .1 Input from Community-Based Organizations
Several local organizations participated in the Working Group that helped develop the Urban Forest Plan.
Working Group members were given an online survey to provide feedback on the opportunities they see for partnership with the City, potential resources that are needed to implement programs, and the focus areas of their organizations. The main themes of the survey responses are presented in Table 6-7:
TABLE 6-7: SURVEY RESPONSES FROM COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS Several community-based organizations in Alameda are focused on environmental justice, sustainability, and urban forestry including organizations such as Alameda Backyard Growers, Community Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA), REAP Climate Center, 100K Trees for Humanity, Alameda Point Collaborative Ploughshares Nursery, Sierra Club, and Audubon Society. By building partnerships with organizations like these and others, the City can expand its community outreach and engagement efforts beyond its current capacity, as these organizations have existing relationships with community members, programs, and can work in areas (like private property) where the City typically cannot. Partnership opportunities could include education and training programs, tree giveaways, community tree planting and care events, and adopt-a-tree programs. 6 .4 .2 Partnerships with of Large Landowners
Acknowledging that the goals of the Urban Forest Plan cannot be met on City property alone, large non-city landowners in the City offer another strong opportunity for partnerships to meet goals of the plan. Some of these include schools such as Alameda Unified School District, College of Alameda, as well as East Bay Regional Parks, homeowners’ associations, and businesses. Several of these organizations have participated in the development of the plan through the working group.
COMMUNITY
PARTNERSHIPS6.4
Focus areas of
organizations
Community organizing, community outreach, environmental justice, education and advocacy.
Organization programs
and expertise
Outreach events, educational workshops, tree donations and giveaways, tree planting, volunteer events and volunteer management
Partnership
opportunities with City
Co-hosting volunteer events that include tree planting and educational workshops. Tree giveaway programs directed towards private property owners. Collaborative outreach and engagement efforts into the community. Developing projects that can lead to grant funding for CBOs and the City.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
89 6 .4 .3 Recommendations for Community Partnerships
The following represents potential avenues for the City to increase engage with local nonprofit and community-based organizations towards the advancement of Urban Forest Plan goals. This list is based on input received during the community engagement process, working group survey, and provided case studies. 01 02
03 04
05 06
07 FACILITATE
Facilitate an urban forest coalition of community-based organizations (CBO’s) and interested parties. The goal of the coalition would be to improve communication between the city and partners, coordinate outreach and education opportunities, and urban forest related events.
DEVELOPMENT
Develop a tree planting coalition based on the City Plants model as described below where organizations could be become official tree planting partners with the City. This would require education and training of CBO’s on the tree planting permit process, knowledge of tree species, and site selection. Vacant sites would be verified by city staff, permit the planting, and select the tree species to be planted. The tree can be planted by the CBO or through volunteer tree planting events hosted by the community-based organization. Follow-up establishment care would be determined by city.
COORDINATE
Coordinate with the community organizations in developing a tree giveaway and education program. Free trees can be distributed to interested parties to take home and plant on their private property. Volunteers from the Alameda Backyard Growers or others can educate the interested parties on how to plant and care for the trees. These events could be organized in conjunction with other existing city events, or as part of a community tree planting event in a city park or tree giveaways
PRESERVATION
The Urban Forest Plan encourages the preservation of existing healthy trees and growing the tree canopy by planting new trees.
COLLABORATE
Collaborate with community organizations on developing and distributing outreach and education materials targeted towards private property homeowners.
EXPLORE
Explore the possibility of funding a free tree giveaway program for private properties as a method to cool homes and reduce energy use.
DEVELOP
Develop a database to record trees planted on private property to track progress towards tree planting targets.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
90 6 .4 .4 Case Studies of Engagement Programming
The following section provides a discussion of three different non-profit organizations working in California and programs they provide. These case studies are intended to help guide Alameda in creating its own unique programs in partnership with local nonprofit and community-based organizations.
6.4.4.1 SACRAMENTO TREE FOUNDATION
The Sacramento Tree Foundation is a non-profit organization founded in 1982 that has engaged with community members to plant over 1.5 million trees in the Sacramento region to date (Sacramento Tree Foundation 2021).
Planting efforts are focused in under-canopied and under-served communities to prioritize urban forest equity.
The Sacramento Tree Foundation is involved in the local urban forest’s entire life cycle, from acorn propagation to salvaging fallen trees from landfills to use as lumber.
Part of the Sacramento Tree Foundation includes the Sacramento Shade initiative, funded by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). The Sacramento Shade program provides free private property landscape assessments for homes and businesses, and up to ten free shade trees to be delivered to the property along with stakes, ties, and helpful planting and maintenance guidelines. All SMUD customers are eligible to receive these free assessments and trees. Over 600,000 trees have been planted through this program.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
91 6.4.4.2 OUR CITY FOREST
Our City Forest is a non-profit organization founded in 1994 in San José that focuses on urban forestry efforts and community education throughout the Silicon Valley (Our City Forest, 2023). Their Cool & Green communities initiative provides free trees to residents in eligible parts of Alviso, Central & East San José. Our City Forest also provides resources for other residents to determine if they qualify for a free tree through the City of San José Street Tree Rebate Program.
A unique aspect of Our City Forest that allows it to ensure quality of tree and shrubs while best following the concept of “right tree, right place” is their Community Nursery & Training Center. Our City Forest’s nursery is home to thousands of native and non-native tree, shrub, and grass species. The nursery provides drought-tolerant and disease-resistant trees to urban foresters, City arborists, restoration agencies, and other landscape professionals while providing a sustainable sourcing option for local urban forestry efforts.
6.4.4.3 CITY PLANTS
City Plants is a Los Angeles-based non-profit organization that helps to plant and distribute 20,000 street and yard trees annually throughout the City (City Plants 2023). City Plants runs a public-private partnership program between the City of Los Angeles and seven other non-profit organizations to coordinate tree planting and care throughout Los Angeles. In this model, City Plants is the lead organization to provide funding and coordination amongst the tree planting partners. Funding is provided by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to reduce energy use and energy generation. Working as a collaborative partnership allows the partnering organizations to focus tree planting efforts in the communities and neighborhoods that they serve. It also helps to support collaborative grant funding opportunities where both City Plants and non-profit organizations can leverage their resources.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
92 CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
93 The City will conduct an internal review of the strategic plan with City staff and present a progress report for public review every two years.
This review will examine which actions are completed, in progress and not yet started. The biannual review will include reporting on the following key performance metrics where feasible. Some performance metrics require data or analysis that cannot be conducted by staff. Those metrics will be provided when data is available.
REPORTING & PLAN UPDATES
SECTION 7.0
7.1 PERFORMANCE
METRICS
• Number of trees planted and removed annually on
city-owned land and right of way.
» Goal: Plant 250 trees annually in addition to any
removals.
» Source: Public Works and ARPD
• Number of trees planted and removed annually
on private and non-city owned land. Note: tree
removals may not be possible to track for non-city
owned trees.
» Goal: Plant 100 trees annually in addition to any
removals.
» Source: Urban Forest Manager position would be
responsible for implementing a procedure to track
tree plantings on private property.
• Percent canopy cover.
» Goal: 20% overall and in each Census Tract by 2055.
Canopy cover numbers will be updated each time
new USFS data is released.
» Source: U.S. Forest Service. Canopy cover numbers
will be updated each time new USFS data is released.
• Relative Performance Index (RPI) of the top 10
most common species in tree inventory.
» Goal: all species in top 10 achieve RPI of 1 or greater. » City of Alameda Street Tree Inventory; i-Tree (USFS). • Achieve urban forest sustainability indicators of
age, distribution, health condition, and relative
performance index (RPI).
» Goal: Age – 40% immature, 30% young, 20% middle-
aged, 10% mature.
» Source: City of Alameda Street Tree Inventory; i-Tree (USFS).
• Tons of carbon dioxide removed from air by trees in
the City of Alameda inventory.
» Goal: No goal identified.
» Source: City of Alameda Street Tree Inventory; i-Tree (USFS).
The biannual annual review with public input will provide accountability for the City to effectively implement the Urban Forest Plan and provide transparency to interested parties.
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
94 Every two years, staff will also retake the Community Assessment and Goal-Setting tool developed by the Vibrant Cities Lab every two years. The initial evaluation (Exhibit 7-1) was completed by City staff and the consultant team in March 2023. The assessment tool includes 28 questions related to various aspects of urban forest sustainability and asks the user to select the current state and goal state. The current and goal state each have a numerical value and the difference between them is referred to as the ‘Gap’ to sustainability. This tool gives the City a quantifiable method to track progress and reflect improvements in urban forest program efforts.
An Urban Forest Plan is intended to be a living document, that is continually reviewed and updated to meet the emerging priorities of the City and challenges it faces like shifting environmental or economic conditions.
Revisions to the strategies and priorities may be conducted as part of the biannual reporting, however a comprehensive plan update should be undertaken within 10 years. 7.2
7.3
PLAN
MONITORING
PLAN
UPDATES
EXHIBIT 7-1. RESULTS FROM VIBRANT CITIES LAB COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT AND GOALSETTING TOOL
FINAL SCORECARD
COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT
AND GOAL SETTING
TOTAL TOTAL SCORE
CURRENT
20 GOAL
107
GAP
87 Section Current Goal
Measure Your Current Tree Canopy and Set Goals 1 4
Urban Forest Inventory and Assesment 4 8
Know What's Happening to Trees in Your Community 3 12
Urban Forest Characteristics 3 6
Engaging Peers and Residents in Process 5 16
Creating Essential, Effective Public/Private Partnerships -3 11 Resource Management: Planning -1 12
Resource Management: Implementation 4 24
Resource Management: Monitoring and Maintenance 4 14
CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
95 CITY OF ALAMEDA URBAN FOREST PLAN
96 URBAN
FOREST
PLANVOLUME 1