Attachment A - Community Forest Management Plan — San Jose City Council, February 8, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

COMMUNITY FOREST

MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared by:

Acknowledgments
City of San José
Funding Provided by
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection – Urban and Community Forestry Prepared By
Dudek – Urban Forestry and Fire Protection Planning

Table of
Contents
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | v
TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................v GLOSSARY................................................................................................viii VISION: .......................................................................................................... xi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.................................................................. 1 Community Forest Benefits and Management..................................... 2 Developing the San José Community Forest Management Plan .... 7 Analysis of Current Practices........................................................................ 7 Stakeholder Interviews................................................................................... 7 Community Engagement ............................................................................... 7 Community Forest Analysis .......................................................................... 9 Challenges of CFMP Development ............................................................. 9 Key Findings ......................................................................................................10 City Vision and Values ...................................................................................12 CFMP Structure................................................................................................12 Part 1: Analysis of the San José Community Forest Program.........12 Part 2: Strategic Workplan...........................................................................12 Part 3: Tree Policy and Best Management Practices Manual.........13 PART 1: ANALYSIS OF THE SAN JOSÉ
COMMUNITY FOREST PROGRAM...................................14 Governance Structure of the San José Community Forest .............15 Governance Structure Limitations...........................................................15 Department of Transportation..................................................................15 Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement ..........................................19 Arborist Review of Tree-Related Issues..................................................19 Planning Division.............................................................................................19 Code Enforcement..........................................................................................19 Design Review and Approval for Development Projects .................19 Building Division..............................................................................................19 Parks, Recreation & Neighborhood Services...................................21 Public Works Maintenance Division ........................................................22 Recommendations for Governance Structure.....................................24 San José Urban Forest Assessment..........................................................27 History and Land Use ....................................................................................27 The Value of Trees to the City of San José .............................................28 Threats to the Urban Forest .......................................................................29 Canopy Cover....................................................................................................30 Sustainability Indicators of City-Managed Trees ................................35 Species Diversity .............................................................................................38 Age Distribution of Trees in the City Inventory...................................42 Health Condition of Trees in the City Inventory..................................44 Recommendations for Community Forest Sustainability ...............52 Diversity, Inclusion, and Community Engagement............................54 Canopy Cover can Illuminate Equity Issues..........................................54 Community Engagement .............................................................................56 Public Meetings and Discussions..............................................................56 Social Media ......................................................................................................60 Online Survey ...................................................................................................61 Demographics of Survey Respondents...................................................61 Summary of Survey Results ........................................................................62 City-Managed Trees versus
Private Property Owner-Managed Street Trees..................................62 Private Property Tree Management........................................................62 City Practices ....................................................................................................63 Attitudes and Feelings About Trees.........................................................63 Recommendations for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion...................64 Table of Contents
vi | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Community Forest Program Funding..............................................................66 Current Funding.........................................................................................................66 Funding of Maintenance Practices....................................................................67 Health and Safety Condition of Trees..............................................................69 Staffing Levels.............................................................................................................70 Comparison of Funding with other Cities......................................................71 Funding the Community Forest..........................................................................73 Funding Opportunities ...........................................................................................75 Recommendations for Funding Community Forest Management....77 Street Tree Management Practices ..................................................................78 Tree Inventory ............................................................................................................78 Street Trees..................................................................................................................78 Property-Owner Maintained Trees versus City-Maintained Trees...80 Tree Planting and Establishment Care............................................................82 Pruning and Emergency Tree Work..................................................................84 Sidewalk Repair, Tree Removal, and Tree Replacement........................88 Urban wood Utilization and Waste Diversion..............................................90 Recommendations for Street Tree Management......................................92 Park Trees.....................................................................................................................94 Tree Planting and Establishment Care............................................................94 Collaborative Approach to Tree Planting and Establishment Care...96 Pruning, Tree Removal, and Emergency Tree Work.................................97 Tree Replacement.....................................................................................................98 Recommendations for Park Tree Management.........................................99 Planning, Building, Code Enforcement (Private Property).................. 100 Private Property Tree Removal Definitions............................................... 101 Protected Tree......................................................................................................... 101 Heritage Tree ..........................................................................................................102 Unsuitable Tree .....................................................................................................102 Hazardous Trees ...................................................................................................103 Dead Trees................................................................................................................104 Permit Process and Fees...................................................................................105 Replacement Tree Requirements................................................................108 Tree Protection During Construction ........................................................109 Recommendations for Private Property Tree Management........110 City Planning Documents.................................................................................112 Envision San José 2040 General Plan .........................................................112 Relationship to The CFMP................................................................................114 Climate Smart San José .....................................................................................120 Urban Village Plan................................................................................................122 Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan....................................................124 Relationship to The CFMP................................................................................124 Recommendations for City Planning Documents...............................126 Our City Forest.......................................................................................................128 Background..............................................................................................................128 OCF and City Partnership.................................................................................129 City Funding.............................................................................................................129 OCF Community Nursery & Training Center .........................................130 AmeriCorps ..............................................................................................................130 Grants..........................................................................................................................131 Recommendations for Our City Forest Partnership..........................134 Table of Contents
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | vii PART 2: STRATEGIC WORKPLAN....................................136 Strategic Workplan. .............................................................................................137 Streamline the Governance Structure......................................................138 Ensure Community Forest Sustainability................................................139 Support Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion..................................................140 Funding the Community Forest ...................................................................141 Efficient and Effective Tree Management ..............................................142 Standardize and Improve Planning and Development....................143 Recommendations ..............................................................................................144 Monitoring Plan.....................................................................................................158 PART 3: TREE POLICY & BEST MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES MANUAL................................................................164 Chapter 1 | Our City, Our Community Forest........................................... 165 Chapter 2 | Responsibility for the Care
and Maintenance of Trees.................................................................................. 169 Chapter 3 | Permits and the Law ................................................................... 171 Chapter 4 | Design Guidelines and Specifications ................................. 183 Chapter 5 | Tree Planting and Replacement............................................. 191 Chapter 6 | Tree Stewardship and Maintenance.................................... 197 Chapter 7 | Our City Forest............................................................................... 203 Chapter 8 | Riparian Corridor Policy............................................................. 208 APPENDIX A .............................................................................................................. 219 APPENDIX B .............................................................................................................. 220 APPENDIX C .............................................................................................................. 221 APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................. 222 APPENDIX E .............................................................................................................. 225 REFERENCES................................................................................................. 226 Table of Contents
Glossary
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | ix
Executive Summary
Abiotic – a non-living factor typically used to
describe a cause of a disorder in trees, such as
drought, flooding, limited growing space, and
others.

Asset value – as it applies to a community
forest, asset value refers to the amount the
community forest would be worth, if all of the
benefits it provides were sold today.

American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) –a private non-profit organization
that oversees the development of voluntary
consensus standards for products, services,
processes, systems, and personnel in the
United States.

Arborist – an individual who is trained in the
art and science of planting, caring for, and
maintaining individual trees.

Canopy cover – the area of land covered by
a tree’s leaves and branches when viewed
from above. Also referred to as urban forest
canopy cover.

Community forest – all the trees, both publicly managed by a city, and privately owned by residents and business owners, in an urban
environment. The City of San José chose to use
“Community Forest” throughout its Community
Forest Management Plan to be inclusive of all
the built environments in San José, including
urban, suburban, rural locations.

Community forest management plan
(CFMP) – a roadmap that creates a shared
vision for the future of a tree canopy in a
given area. The plan guides stakeholders to
effectively manage and provide for maximum,
long-term benefits of the urban forest to the
community.

Diameter at standard height (DSH) – a
measurement, usually in inches, of a tree’s diameter taken at 4.5 feet above the ground. This measurement is also commonly referred to as
diameter at breast height (DBH).

Hardscape – hard materials in the built
environment that are incorporated into the
landscape. Some examples include roads,
parking lots, driveways, sideways, and compressed soils.

International Society of Arboriculture
(ISA) – serves the tree care industry as a
membership association and a credentialing
organization that promotes the professional
practice of arboriculture. ISA also works to
educate the public about the benefits of trees
and the need for proper tree care.

Immature tree – any tree with a diameter at
standard height (DSH) between 0 inches and
6 inches.
i-Tree Canopy (application) – a computer-based program that estimates tree cover and tree benefits for a given area with a
random sampling process that allows the user
to easily identify ground cover types (trees,
shrub/grass, impervious surfaces, and bare
ground).
i-Tree Eco (application) – a computer-based
program that uses tree measurements and
other data to numerically estimate, both in economic and environmental terms, the quantity of ecosystem services and the associated value
that a given set of trees provide to a given area.

Impervious surface – typically a manmade structure such as roads, sidewalks, parking lots, and buildings that are covered
with a material that does not allow water to
penetrate it, such as concrete, asphalt, metal,
brick or stone. Highly compacted urban soils
can also serve as impervious surfaces. See
hardscape.

Glossary
x | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Mature tree – any tree with a diameter at
standard height (DSH) of 24 inches or more.

Middle-aged tree – any tree with a diameter
at standard height (DSH) between 19 inches
and 24 inches.

Pruning – the selective removal of certain
parts of a plant such as branches, buds, or
roots. Pruning typically involves removing
diseased, damaged, dead, non-productive,
structurally unsound, or unwanted tissue
from trees or other plants.

Pruning cycle – the time scheduled between
pruning events. In a municipal setting, this
cycle is typically between 5 to 7 years, and
depends on the species of tree.

Photosynthesis – process used by plants
and other organisms to convert light energy
into food for survival
Right tree, right place – an industry-accepted approach for making tree and landscaping selections to ensure that the vegetation planted is appropriate for a specific purpose
or location.

Senescent – the condition or process of
deterioration with age.

Stocking rate – the rate at which cities plant
trees based on the total number of vacant
and planted available space.

Tree – woody perennial usually having one
dominant trunk and a mature height greater
than 16 feet.

Tree canopy – the extent of the outer layer
of leaves of an individual tree or a group of
trees.

Tree inventory – the gathering of accurate
information on the health and diversity of
trees in a given area. Tree inventories can be
a sample, partial, or complete analysis of the
trees in a given area.

Tree protection ordinance – an ordinance
or policy that protects trees from removal
and/or damage. Also referred to as tree protection policy.

Tree staking – staking provides support to
newly planted or damaged trees by connecting the trunk to a nearby steel or wooden post.

Tree species diversity – the number of
different tree species that are represented in
a given area.

Urban Forest - all the trees, both publicly managed by a city, and privately owned by residents and business owners, in an urban environment.

Urban heat island – a metropolitan area
that is significantly warmer than the areas
surrounding it, due to human activities.

Young tree – any tree with a diameter at
standard height (DSH) of 7 inches to 18 inches.

Vision: The City of San José Community Forest is a testament to our history and honors our diversity while striving to cultivate the
equitable values we hold true towards building
a strong and resilient landscape
Glossary
VISION
The City of San José Community Forest is a testament
to our history and honors our diversity while
striving to cultivate the equitable values we hold true towards building a strong and resilient landscape and
community forest.

Executive
Summary
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 1
Once a small community of farms and
orchards, the City of San José (City)
has transformed from the “Valley of
Heart’s Delight” into the “Capitol of Silicon
Valley” and the 10th largest city in the country.

In the evolution of San José from a rural to an
urban community, trees remain a key element
of the City’s landscape. More than 1.6 million
trees line the streets, fill the parks, and frame
the City’s private properties (Xiao et al. 2013).

Collectively these trees make up San José’s
community forest.

San José’s community forest is a vital component of the City’s assets and infrastructure. Like the pipes that bring water to your faucet or the
utility lines that bring electricity to your outlets, trees support the function of the City and provide residents numerous benefits. A unique
distinction of trees is that their value increases
over time as they age and grow larger, whereas other City assets and infrastructure will depreciate (Figure 1). The San José community
forest generates ecosystem services along with
property value increases worth $239.3 million
annually (Xiao et al. 2013), with street trees
having a total asset value of approximately
$735 million. In California, every $1 invested in
a street tree returns $5.82 in benefits (McPherson, et al. 2016). Further increasing the City’s return on investment from the community
forest is dependent on proper maintenance
and long-term planning that will ensure every
resident lives in a neighborhood that is healthy
and safe. Achieving this vision, in part, depends
on the City’s trees and its ability to create and
maintain a resilient community forest. The
City’s adaptability is one of the biggest factors
in determining if the community forest will continue to thrive with new and changing environmental conditions and challenges, resulting in a more resilient City.

The City most recently demonstrated its commitment to the community forest by signing and adopting two initiatives: (1) in 2005, San
José became a signatory to the urban environmental accords, which commits the City to plant 50% of vacant street tree sites by 2020;
and (2) in 2007, the Green Vision was adopted,
which commits the City to plant 100,000 new
trees by 2022. While the City set ambitious
goals for expanding the community forest, the
resources to implement necessary management practices to reach the desired outcomes were not provided for a variety of reasons.

Consequently, approximately 15,000 to 20,000
Executive Summary
2 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Executive Summary
trees have been planted to date. Having
now completed this Community Forest
Management Plan (CFMP), the City will
make every effort to ensure that new
goals set for the community forest are
obtainable, supported by sound management practices, and based on the level of financial and human resources
it is able to commit to toward their
achievement. The CFMP offers a vision
and strategy to ensure San José is better situated to achieve future goals and initiatives, and creates an expanded,
healthy, and thriving community forest
for current and future residents to experience the numerous environmental, social, and economic benefits provided
by trees (Figure 2).

Community Forest
Benefits and
Management
Urban forest is an arboriculture
term used to describe the collection
of trees and other vegetation found
within a built urban environment. San
José refers to its urban forest as the
community forest to be inclusive
Executive Summary

VALUE DEPRECIATES

VALUE APPRECIATES
TIME

ECONOMIC
VALUE
Value of Trees Compared to Other City Infrastructure
$$$$$
$$
Typical municipal infrastructure such as
transportation, utilities, and other equipment
has a high cost to purchase and maintain,
and depreciates over time.

Young planted trees are relatively
inexpensive to install and maintain,
and their economic value and
benefits increase over time as the
trees mature.

Figure 1. Value of Trees Compared to Other City Infrastructure CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 3
Executive Summary Executive Summary
TREES CLEANER AIR 100 trees remove 53
tons of carbon dioxide
and 430 pounds of other
air pollutants per year.

The Benefi ts of

COMBATS

CLIMATE CHANGE
By reducing energy demand
and absorbing carbon dioxide,
trees and vegetation decrease
the production and negative
eff ects of air pollution and
greenhouse gas emissions.

CAPTURES
RAINWATER 100 mature trees can
capture and store
about 139,000 gallons
of rainwater per year.

CLEANER
WATER A medium-sized tree
intercepts up to 2,300
gallons of stormwater
runoff per year.

INCREASES
BUSINESS Shoppers will spend 9%
to 12% more for goods
and services in business
districts with a high quality
tree canopy.

REDUCES

URBAN HEAT
ISLAND EFFECT Shaded surfaces may be
20–45°F cooler than the
peak temperatures of
unshaded areas.

IMPROVES PUBLIC HEALTH
People are less likely to be hospitalized for athsma
when they live in neighborhoods with many trees.

SAVES ENERGY
Strategically placed
shade trees can help
save up to 56% on
annual air-conditioning
costs for homes and
businesses.

IMPROVES MENTAL HEALTH
People living in neighborhoods with less than 10%
tree canopy are more likely to report symptoms of
depression, stress and anxiety.

GREEN

ECONOMY
In 2009, urban forestry
supported 60,067 jobs in
California resulting in $3.3
billion individual income.

CO2

REMOVED
equals

RESILIENT

COMMUNITIES
139K

RAINWATER
equals

HEALTHIER
PEOPLE
COOLER

SURFACE
equals

SUSTAINABLE
LIVING
$3.3

BILLION
equals

ECONOMIC
VALUE
Figure 2. The Benefits of Trees
4 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Executive Summary
of the diverse neighborhood landscape that
is not just urban, but suburban and rural. A
community forest recognizes a unique set of
opportunities and challenges to growing and
maintaining healthy trees reflective of land use
and neighborhood character. Across San José,
land use varies from the density of buildings
and housing, shifts between business and
commercial corridors to single-family home
neighborhoods, and includes historically
agrarian communities. A community forest also
recognizes the connected relationship between
people and trees, which are mutually dependent on each other to thrive.

One of the defining characteristics of the community forest is that the sustainability of trees requires ongoing human intervention (Clark et.
al 1997). Trees in a natural forest setting have
the necessary resources to grow and regenerate without supplemental intervention from people. The human-created community forest
was planted in a setting that is distinguished
by paved surfaces and compromised soils
that do not support the natural growth and
regeneration of trees. Trees in the community
forest must also be managed to safely interact with people, buildings, and infrastructure.

Since San José’s community forest is primarily
human created, it will require human intervention to maintain their health and safety in the built environment. The term community forest
also recognizes that the benefits provided by
trees are shared by everyone who lives and
works under their canopies, who in turn have
a shared responsibility to protect and preserve
trees. The concept of a community forest
allows us to think holistically about trees and
other vegetation found within the City, quantify their benefits, and manage these natural resources for the enjoyment of present and
future generations.

A community forest provides many environmental services to the City, which are correlated with mental and physical health, and economic benefits. Knowing the various types
of environmental services and associated
benefits helps us appreciate the value trees
bring to our everyday life. Understanding how
a tree performs these functions demonstrates
the importance of maintenance practices and
management decisions to support large and
healthy trees that are appropriate for their
planting locations. For example, it is commonly
understood that trees clean the air, but it’s perhaps less understood how they do it, and how tree care impacts residents’ benefits. There are
approximately 1.6 million trees that comprise
the entire San José community forest, which
annually remove 403 tons of air pollutants and
capture 100,181 tons of greenhouse gases
(Xiao et al. 2013). Trees use their full crowns of
leaves to grow and complete biological functions like photosynthesis as well as capturing air pollutants and converting greenhouse
gases to its own building blocks. The ability of a
tree to carry out biological functions is reduced
when trees lack leaves or are in poor health.

This environmental service relates directly to
how well trees are maintained. For example,
in a community forest, trees will need to be
regularly pruned for a variety of reasons that
are ultimately aimed at maintaining them in
a safe condition. When trees are aggressively
pruned by practices like “topping,” they are left
with little to no leaf cover and poor structure.

Conversely, properly pruned trees will maintain a healthy crown that promotes vigorous growth. As a result, the extent to which the City
and residents properly prune and maintain
trees will have a direct impact on the quality of
air breathed and underscores the connection
between people and trees in a community
forest.

In addition to the environmental services, trees
provide mental and emotional health benefits.
(Berman et al. 2012). In fact, recent research
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 5
Executive Summary
Our City Forest Tree Planting
PHOTO: OUR CITY FOREST
6 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Executive Summary
has shown that having nearby nature, including
trees, may be more important than trips to “big
nature” beyond the city for human health and
well-being (Kardan et al. 2015). Simply being able
to see trees, parks, and gardens while in a city
has been scientifically linked to reduced mental
and physical stress, better student performance
in school, and better attention to tasks while at
work (USFS 2018). Additionally, tree-lined streets
are more walkable, contribute to more active
and healthy lifestyles, and can reduce both
the number of traffic collisions and severity of
injury for car and pedestrian or cyclist crashes
(Ryan et al. 2018; Welle et al. 2015). In addition,
well-managed vegetation in neighborhoods may
reduce both personal and property crime (Donovan and Prestemon 2012; Kuo and Sullivan 2001a, 2001b; Troy et al. 2016).

A street that is tree-lined and provides mental and physical health benefits begins with planning decisions that determine how available
space can be utilized. As the housing demand
grows, the City is focusing efforts to create
dense urban cores that are easily accessible
to places of employment, transportation, and
shopping centers. Whether the future residents
of the City’s dense urban core can live on a treelined street and receive the health benefits of mature trees will be heavily reliant on planning
decisions being made now. Are streets designed
with narrow planting strips and building façades
directly abutting a sidewalk that leave little to
no room for trees? Are trees included from the
beginning of the planning process and afforded
the room to plant and grow them? These planning decisions will directly impact the mental and physical health of residents in the same
way the maintenance of trees directly impacts
the environmental services, such as cleaner air,
which are dependent on tree health and size.

Likewise, suburban sections of the City face
a unique set of challenges to having healthy
neighborhoods. Single-family and multifamily
residential lots account for 62% of City land
use and 70% of all trees (Xiao et al. 2013). The
ability of private property owners to properly
maintain, prune, and preserve trees on their
landscapes has a measurable impact on canopy
cover across the City. Increasing canopy cover
in suburban neighborhoods can be supported
by the City educating private property owners
on the value of trees as part of their landscape
and how to implement tree best management
practices. It is also supported by ordinances and
policies that govern trees on private property
and the conditions for when the City allows tree
removal. Each decision to allow mature tree
removal must be carefully weighed against the
years it will take to replace the loss of canopy
and associated environmental services.

Finally, the environmental services of trees
generate a quantifiable financial benefit to the
City and its residents. When considering trees
and economics, it is common to only consider
what is physically produced by a tree, such as
fruit, lumber, paper, and other forest products.

In contrast, trees in a community forest deliver
a higher return on their economic value the
longer they live and mature. All the environmental services, and mental and physical health benefits described above have an associated
monetary value. Xiao and collaborators (2013)
estimated that the San José community forest
provided homeowners with a $154.6 million
increase of property values and savings of $77
million in cooling costs each year. Further, the
City receives a $6.7 million reduction in stormwater management costs by intercepting 1.2 billion gallons of water from storm drains and
directing it into the soil to be stored in underground aquifers and used by trees and plants (Xiao et al. 2013). Continuing to realize this level
of financial benefit is dependent on preserving
and expanding the community forest, and is
dependent on implementing the long-term
strategy, goals, and objectives developed in the
San José CFMP.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 7
Executive Summary
Developing the San
José Community Forest
Management Plan
The San José Department of Transportation
(DOT) was awarded a grant from the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
(CAL FIRE) Urban and Community Forestry
Program to complete the CFMP. DOT is the
main City department responsible for the development of the CFMP, providing key insights into City practices, coordinating with internal
and external stakeholders, hosting community
engagement events, and providing inventory
and other data sets for analysis. The following
sections detail the analysis, community engagement activities, and processes to develop the CFMP. The results of each step of CFMP development are further outlined in detail throughout the CFMP.

ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PRACTICES
In the fall of 2019, DOT began the process of
developing the CFMP, which would include a
thorough analysis of City management practices, policies, ordinances, and funding, to understand the deficiencies and strengths of
its community forest management program.

The analysis of current practices was initially informed by reviewing City planning documents, including the Tree Policy Manual, Envision San
José 2040 General Plan, and Climate Smart San
José. It also included an analysis of City permit
practices, tree ordinances, standard details,
and annual service data and budget levels.

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Understanding the effectiveness of the community forest management program was further informed by interviews with City staff,
elected officials, and external stakeholders. The
interviews explored the role each stakeholder
had in influencing City tree management, clarified internal City procedures, and informed areas where the City could improve management of the community forest. The list of City staff,
offices of elected officials who were available,
and stakeholders who participated in the CFMP
interview process included the following:
• The Office of Councilmember Sergio Jimenez,
Council District 2
• The Office of Councilmember Lan Diep, Council District 4 • The Office of Councilmember Devora Davis,
Council District 6
• The Office of Councilmember Pam Foley,
Council District 9
• The Office of Councilmember Johnny Khamis,
Council District 10
• Department of Transportation
• Department of Parks, Recreation and Neighborhood Services • Department of Public Works
• Department of Planning, Building, and Code
Enforcement
• Office of the City Attorney
• Our City Forest

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
In addition to the department interviews,
extensive input from residents and stakeholders would help to inform the analysis of City management practices and the development
of guiding principles, goals, and objectives to
reflect the values and priorities of the City and
residents. Originally, the avenues for resident
and stakeholder engagement were designed
to occur both online and in-person. However, shortly before the beginning of in-person community meetings, the City and State of
California began to implement restrictions
on in-person gatherings in response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. The decision was made
to transfer in-person meetings to an online
meeting format. The City held four online
8 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Executive Summary
San José Rose Garden
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 9
Executive Summary
community meetings in July 2020 attended by
56 participants. The City provided American
Sign Language and Spanish translation services
at respective meetings. Vietnamese translation
was also made available, but the meeting was
subsequently cancelled due to lack of attendance. To reach a larger audience of residents unable to attend the online meetings, the City
implemented a social media campaign, online
survey, and a series of blog posts that summarized each draft of the Plan and associated documents. This community engagement
effort was successful in increasing the number
of participants, which resulted in:
• 188,210 impressions or views of social
media posts
• 2,021 completed online surveys
• 1,094 replies or comments to social
media posts

COMMUNITY FOREST ANALYSIS
Finally, the community forest was analyzed
to determine the canopy cover extent, and
the condition of trees against research-based
community forest sustainability metrics. The
City canopy cover and land use was derived
from LiDAR and other satellite spatial imagery by using an artificial intelligence learning model to classify what is a tree, shrub, grass,
building, and other infrastructure, and then
determine the differences in height between
each classification. The analysis resulted in
land use classifications of 13.54% tree canopy. The City tree inventory was analyzed against sustainability metrics to determine the
condition of trees and understand what management practices will need to be improved to have the most meaningful impact on tree
health and safety.

CHALLENGES OF CFMP DEVELOPMENT
The COVID-19 pandemic presented a challenge in development of the CFMP by limiting the ability to conduct in-person outreach
and community forums and shifting to online
platforms like email and social media. While
there was a high number of responses to
social media efforts, survey results could
benefit from further engagement with stakeholders, so participants reflect the diversity of the City. Specifically, there are few survey
responses from residents who rent, live in
apartments, speak a language other than
English at home, are younger than 40, and do
not have a bachelor’s or graduate degree.

The City desires to ensure stakeholders are
engaged in development of the CFMP and
have conducted additional outreach and
meetings with external stakeholders in refining the analysis of San José’s CFMP program, Strategic Plan, and Best Management Practices portions of the CFMP. The City recognizes that the CFMP is a living document and views this iteration as a first step in a process
that will require on-going engagement with
stakeholders and residents to meet the
needs and priorities of San José. The CFMP
and the refinement and implementation of
the work plan will continue to benefit from
additional engagement with local community-based organizations, community leaders, and other external stakeholders who engage
with residents and have a shared interest in
the San José community forest. The inclusion of these organizations and leaders will further support the City’s efforts to reach all
demographic and geographic segments of
the City by having a trusted community voice
directly communicating with their constituency. To that end, the strategic work plan calls for both an annual update to the Transportation and Environment Committee of the City Council, as well as the formation of a Community Forest Advisory Committee consisting of City staff and external stakeholders to guide
the implementation of the CFMP.
10 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Executive Summary
Key Findings
1 Immediate action must be taken
to reverse the trend of declining
canopy cover:

Citywide canopy cover has decreased
from 15.36% in 2012 to 13.54% in 2018.

The 1.82% reduction is equivalent to losing
1,728 acres or 2.7 square miles of tree
canopy cover. This trend will most likely
continue if funding and management of the
community forest continues as is. Many
factors contribute to this significant decline
including climate change, tree removal
for development, and few new trees
being planted. While losing canopy cover
happens as soon as a tree is removed,
replacing lost canopy takes 30–40 years.

Delay in taking action to reverse the trend
will begin to multiply the scale, cost, and
time it will take for the City to achieve an
adequate level of tree canopy cover for
all residents. The City will have to add
approximately 40,000 35-foot canopy
spread trees to recover 1% of lost canopy
cover, making the preservation of canopy
cover the most cost effective and efficient
way to increase canopy cover.
2 Limited financial and human
resources to manage the
community forest:

The City Community Forest Program average
budget for the last three years of $3.89 million
would need to be increased by an additional
$20-$24 million a year to manage all public
street and park trees at a sustainable level.

This would fund a tree planting campaign to
replace lost canopy, establishment care for
newly planted trees, and pruning trees on a
5- to 7-year cycle (Miller et al. 1981). Currently
this cost is largely passed on to private
property owners who are estimated to spend
approximately $912 every 5 years to maintain
the tree and sidewalk adjacent their property.
3 The City must complete an
inventory of all public space
street and park trees:

The City last completed a tree inventory
in 2014 and does not have current
information on the condition of trees in
the public space. The inventory provides
some useable data to inform management
decisions but lacks key information on the
health and safety condition of trees. That
information is vital to understand what
species are in decline and contributing to
the loss of Citywide canopy cover as well
as to inform the appropriate management
actions to preserve the health and safety
of trees in the public space.
4 Economically disadvantaged
communities have fewer trees
than higher income communities
The top ten most economically
disadvantaged census tracts have an
average tree canopy cover of 12.04%, with
70% having a canopy cover of 10% or less.

Conversely, the top ten most economically
advantaged census tracts in the City have
an average canopy cover of 16.87%, with
50% having a canopy cover of 18% or higher.

While canopy cover is low for almost all
census tracts, disadvantaged communities
experience the lowest totals of canopy
cover and highest pollution burdens when
compared to other areas of the City.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 11
Executive Summary
5 Current urban infill and
development practices limit
the space for trees:

San José has a need to increase available
housing throughout the City and especially
within dense urban cores. Current
development practices favor maximizing
the size of building footprints with minimal
consideration for street trees. Space that
could be made available to a street tree is
either unavailable or greatly reduced, resulting
in locations where trees are not planted
or planted with a small tree that has lower
community benefit. Without trees to shade and
cool sidewalks on hot days, the walkable nature
of these neighborhoods will be reduced.
6 The City and Our City Forest
need to strengthen their
partnership:

Our City Forest (OCF) is the main conduit for
the City to provide many community forest
program functions like community engagement
and education, tree planting, establishment
care, and volunteer training, while also building
financial support for these services through
state and federal grant funds. This long-standing
partnership has experienced success from
its inception, with OCF implementing many
new tree plantings throughout San José since
1994. A review of the agreements with OCF is
recommended to ensure that there are clearly
defined parameters and expected deliverables
that align with the goals of the CFMP. It would
be beneficial to include an outline of the
strategies and processes through which they
will collaborate toward the betterment of the
community forest. The process of realignment
will help the City and OCF leverage their
expertise and shared resources in a way that will
benefit both programs, the residents of San José,
and expansion of the community forest.
7 City Staff are reliant on DOT
Arborists for support:

DOT is the only department in the City with
arborists on staff qualified to make decisions
about the health and safety condition of a tree,
how development will impact tree health, and
whether tree removal is appropriate on both
public and private land. Frequently, Planning,
Building, Code Enforcement; Parks Recreation
and Neighborhood Services and Public Works
staff will seek consultation from DOT arborists
to support City functions that are outside the
scope of DOT. When DOT can support these
requests, it does so at the expense of their
main responsibilities and without receiving
additional funding for their staff time.
8 Parks are a valued community
space that receives minimal
funding for tree management:

City staff and the offices of elected officials
consistently expressed to the consultant team
in interviews that parks are one of the most
valued aspects of their communities. They
are a favorite location for elected officials to
host community volunteer events and other
activities. Despite the high value for City
parks, Parks, Recreation, and Neighborhood
Services (PRNS) receives no funding to plant or
maintain trees and only $150,000 to manage an
estimated 30,000 trees, which is entirely used
to respond to tree failure or emergency safety
issues. The lack of funding prohibits PRNS staff
from annual tree inspections and maintaining a
5- to 7-year pruning cycle (Miller et al. 1981) that
are critical to maintain the safety of park trees.
12 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Executive Summary
City Vision and Values
San José represents diverse values and
priorities that are unique to each resident,
community, business owner, and stakeholder
within the City. These values are reflected in the
vision statement and guiding principles presented
in the Strategic Plan. The vision statement
presented in this document establishes the ideal
state of the community forest over the 40-year
planning horizon of the document. The guiding
principles further refine the vision statement into
specific categories based on City and resident
values. Together, the vision and guiding principles
will prioritize how the City progresses towards
creating a sustainable community forest and
climate change-resilient community.

CFMP Structure
The San José CFMP is presented in three
sections that focus on the City’s goals in
developing the CFMP and progressing towards
a sustainable community forest.

PART 1: ANALYSIS OF THE SAN JOSÉ

COMMUNITY FOREST PROGRAM
The first section, titled “Analysis of the
San José Community Forest Program,” is a
detailed examination of the entire breadth
of the community forest management
program to understand the strengths and
weaknesses of current City practices and
determine the avenues by which the City
could improve management practices.

The analysis, while critical at times
of City practices, is not intended to
single out department(s) for praise
or criticism. All City staff and external
stakeholders who participated in the
CFMP process provided valuable insights
to the consultant team and make daily,
meaningful contributions to the wellbeing of San José residents. City practices are measured against urban forest
sustainability metrics, comparison with
other cities known to have exceptional
community forest management programs,
standards of the International Society
of Arboriculture (ISA) and American
National Standards Institute (ANSI),
and consultant team experience.

PART 2: STRATEGIC WORKPLAN
The second section of the CFMP is the longterm strategy to advance the City towards a sustainable urban forest. The CFMP is
guided by the vision statement expressed at
the beginning of this document: ”The City of
San José Community Forest is a testament
to our history and honors our diversity while
striving to cultivate the equitable values we
hold true towards building a strong and
resilient landscape and community forest.”
The vision statement is further segmented
into guiding principles that reflect the specific
tree values City staff and residents hold,
providing an equitable quality of life for all
San José residents and identifying the priority
areas towards which City resources should
be directed. The guiding principles provide
the reasoning for the steps outlined in the
goals and objectives. The goals represent the
intended CFMP outcomes. The objectives
are the specific actions it will take to reach
the goals. Figure 3 represents the design
of the CFMP long-term strategy and defines
each step. The CFMP is a living document
that will require regular review and updating
as the current environmental and economic
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 13
Executive Summary
conditions change over the 40-year CFMP
timeframe. To ensure the City can adapt to
the changing conditions, staff are assigned
responsibility for implementing objectives and
completing goals. They are further provided a
time frame during which they will complete the
goals and objectives so an expectation is set for
when they will be achieved.

PART 3: TREE POLICY & BEST MANAGEMENT

PRACTICES MANUAL
The final section of the CFMP is a
completed update of the City Tree
Policy and Best Practices Manual, which
includes all tree-related ordinances,
policies, maintenance practices, landscape
practices, and standard details. The intent
of this section is to provide clarity for
City staff and residents on the expected
standards for tree planting, watering, tree
staking, pruning, irrigation installation,
and other physical actions that impact
trees. It also provides clarity and updates
when needed to existing permit processes
and internal practices and makes
recommendations for updating ordinances.

Updated management practices that are
under the purview of DOT and other City
departments were made at their discretion.

Other practices such as modifying
ordinances and policies will require
additional consideration and approval of
the City Council before they are put into
effect and implemented.

Guiding Principles Goal
Equity, diversity,
and inclusion
The values of the community are reflected in City policies and management practices which annually receive the necessary resources for successful implementation.

Innovation
Emerging technology and current research inform the
development of City standards that lead to a sustainable Community Forest.

Regional Identity
The City will maintain the unique sense of place and
neighborhood character that comprises the identity of San José as it develops the urban landscape.

Resilient San José
The City will protect communities from the adverse impacts of climate change by maximizing the environmental, economic, social and health benefits of the Community Forest.

Figure 3. CFMP long-term strategy
14 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Executive Summary
Analysis
of the San José
Community
Forest Program
1 CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 15 Governance Structure
of the San José
Community Forest
There are a wide range of management
activities necessary to maintain a community
forest and many of these overlap between City
departments (Figure 4). The overlap is often
based on the location of a tree on publicly
managed land or on private property. In the
City of San José, trees on private property fall
under the Department of Planning, Building,
and Code Enforcement (PBCE), and trees in
the public space are collectively managed,
or supported by, DOT, PRNS, and the Public
Works Maintenance Division. The division
of tree management by land use type is an
extension of the defined department roles
and responsibilities. PBCE oversees private
property development, ordinance enforcement, and zoning, with trees on private property assigned to this department. Likewise, DOT and Public Works manage public space
infrastructure such as streets and sidewalks,
and street trees are organized within these
departments. While organizing tree management in this manner is a natural fit for the responsibilities of each department, it does
not necessarily coincide with the expertise
and skills of each department, nor does it
orchestrate a holistic management of the
community forest. As such, it is important to
review the current governance structure of
the San José community forest for its benefits and tree management limitations, and to explore if alternative management structures
may improve City efficiency and ultimately,
lead toward a safer and healthier community
forest.

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE LIMITATIONS
The following section outlines the limitations
of the governance structure based on interviews with City staff, feedback from community members during the online public forums held in July 2020, and the observations of the consultant team. It includes a review of
internal practices of the various departments
and stakeholders that influence tree management, as well as how tree management is distributed among City departments.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DOT is responsible for the direct management
Analysis of the San José Community Forest Program
16 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
Approves Budget
Our City
Forest
City of San José Departments
Reponsibilities/Activities
Recommendations
Public Works Parks, Recreation and
Neighborhood Services
Mayor/City Council
City Manager
Transportation
Community
Forest Advisory
Committee
Planning Code
Enforcement
Building Public Works
Tree planting and
establishment
Outreach and
education
Community
nursery
Trees maintenance in City
Hall, parks, community
centers, libraries and trails
Implementation of CFMP and
direction to reach goals and
objectives; Public forum
Street tree permitsplanting, pruning, removal
Special Districts tree
maintenance
Tree maintenance in the
public right-of-way
Emergency tree
response
Heritage tree list
Street tree inventory
maintenance
Street tree inventory
maintenance
Private tree
hazard
mitigations
Private tree
permitsremoval
Private property
development
(large)
Private
property
development
(small)
Private tree
development
review
Public tree
development review
Private tree
removal
violations
Sets Budget

PUBLIC TREES PRIVATE TREES
Tree maintenance
at fire stations and
corporation yards
Figure 4. San José Community Forest Management Program
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 17
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
of approximately 37,000 street trees within
the City of San José right-of-way, with private
property owners responsible for the remaining
233,000 street trees in the public right-ofway. The shared responsibility of street trees is clearly defined on the City’s website which
states, “Since 1951 the municipal code has
established that the property owner is responsible for the maintenance of the street tree(s) adjacent to their property. The city maintains
trees in median island and roadside landscapes, as well as, in some special landscape districts.” The placement of tree responsibilities
within DOT reflects that DOT manages projects and City infrastructure related to streets, including sewers and storm drains, streetlights,
and parking. DOT categorizes trees as landscaping, which also includes weed control.

While street trees are part of the City street
infrastructure, they have a set of management
needs and environmental benefits to the City
that are not fully represented by DOT’s work.

Because of this, the funding and staff resources needed to effectively manage the street tree population and meet environmental goals of
the City is not allocated to tree maintenance.

One way by which this is evident is that the
City annually allocates $300,000 in funding to
ensure tree roots are not blocking sewer lines,
but only $120,000 to provide maintenance for
Newly Planted Tree
PHOTO: OUR CITY FOREST
18 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
street trees. Maintaining working sewer lines is
an important City service, but street trees provide millions of dollars in services and benefit to the City that is not recognized in the level of
funding directed towards their maintenance.

Another structural issue of City tree management is that knowledge of arboriculture and urban forestry is centralized within DOT staff.

No other department has an arborist on staff
qualified to make technical decisions about how
construction plans will impact trees, health and
safety assessments of trees, or incorporating
trees into the design review process. These
decisions have long-lasting ramifications for the
preservation of canopy cover and how the City
will maintain trees as it expands the urban footprint. Most City staff recognize that they are not qualified to make decisions that impact trees
and will seek consultation from DOT arborists
to assist in managing permits, design review,
and assessments of trees on private property.

DOT arborists frequently provide their technical
expertise when requested by staff despite tasks
being beyond the scope of DOT responsibilities
and without receiving funding to cover staff
time. This is one of the main issues with the
current City community forest management and
is discussed further in the analysis of other City
departments that directly impact trees.

Notification for Tree Removal
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 19
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1

PLANNING, BUILDING, AND CODE

ENFORCEMENT
The primary limitation of the current governance structure is delineating the management of trees on private property to PBCE.

This structure de-prioritizes trees due to
the other competing planning responsibilities, such as the development of zoning and planning policies and amendments, plan
review, and enforcement of zoning codes.

Despite collecting fees related to tree removal
permits, PBCE does not have an arborist on
staff to make science-based decisions about
tree-related issues. Arboriculture knowledge
and experience is not typically associated with
the education and experience of PBCE planners and engineers. As noted in departmental interviews, several PBCE staff expressed this
same concern, recognizing arboriculture is
outside of their skill set and experience and
indicating their preference is to not make
decisions on tree-related issues. This scenario
provides a workable short-term solution for
including arborist review of Planning projects
that may be more controversial, but also
redirects limited DOT staff time and resources
from managing public space trees. Since this
short-term solution redirects DOT attention
from public space trees to private space trees,
it should not be considered a viable long-term
solution for the City to effectively manage
trees on private property.

Arborist Review of
Tree-Related Issues

PLANNING DIVISION
The PBCE Planning Division is responsible for
tree issues on private property when it relates
to the implementation of tree ordinances and
tree removal permits. Each of these responsibilities requires the knowledge of an experienced arborist to ensure that arboricultural and best
management standards, as defined by ISA, are
correctly applied. When deciding whether a
private property tree removal permit should be
approved, Planning Division staff must assess
whether the tree is alive or dead, whether it
poses a risk to people and property, and if there
are alternatives to preserve the tree.

CODE ENFORCEMENT
Staff within Code Enforcement (CE) also face a
similar issue as they are responsible for investigating tree removals that are completed on private property without the proper permit. Code Enforcement does not have an arborist on
staff or the technical experience or training to
identify species, or determine size or condition
(dead) of the trees they are investigating. To
alleviate their concerns, in some cases CE staff
will consult with DOT arborists to reach a final
determination on enforcement issues. While
DOT is able to support most of these requests,
it is outside of the purview of their department
and done without additional funds.

Design Review and Approval
for Development Projects

BUILDING DIVISION
San José, like most cities in California, has a
shortage of housing and a desire to increase
density in the urban core around transit centers.

As expressed in departmental interviews, a perception exists that development and trees are in competition to use limited space to increase
housing density, while maintaining or expanding
canopy cover. The situation is stated as having
only two resolutions; the City can have large
trees and a smaller building footprint, or a larger
building footprint and smaller trees.

Trees are being considered towards the end
of the design review process when it becomes
cost prohibitive to make changes to site plans to
accommodate trees. DOT arborists are included
20 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
in the preliminary review of plans that include
street trees, green stormwater infrastructure
(GSI), traffic studies, and safety. In the preliminary review, the assigned DOT arborist provides comments and recommendations that are
forwarded to Public Works, who in turn write up
a memo providing direction to the applicant. It
is then at Public Works’ discretion to share the
arborist’s recommendations with the applicant.

While this practice has improved development
review, instances still occur where the arborist’s
recommendations are not relayed to the applicant.. As the project progresses, the applicant is then redirected to the City arborist to address
tree issues for site development.

In some cases, developers apply for and receive building permits for residential properties without prior approval for private or street tree
removal permits. This structure creates a situation where significant funds have been spent on the design and permitting process, almost
obligating the City to remove the trees. This
situation can be avoided by correctly following
the review process and providing DOT arborist’s comments directly to the applicant when they are given at the beginning of the project.

It may not always be feasible to accommodate
a building and tree in the same space, but a Downtown San José Trees CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 21
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
more accurate assessment can be made when
trees are included in the beginning of the design
and review process, while site plans are being
further refined and developed. This order allows
infrastructure like sewer lines and streetlights
to be moved the appropriate distance needed
to create growing space for trees underground
and overhead. It also allows for the implementation of new design practices, like suspended pavements or structural soils, that create growing space for trees underneath hardscape.

For development projects, the Building Division
can accept an arborist report provided by the
applicant, with no requirement of having a City
arborist peer review the report to ensure the
information meets arboriculture standards. As a
result, Building Division staff must make assumptions as to whether trees can be removed and how mitigation standards may apply. These
decisions should only be made by a qualified
arborist, who has experience in understanding
the health and risk factors associated with trees
near construction sites, and the standards to
protect and preserve trees during construction.

In the absence of an arborist’s review, the City
cannot be confident that it is correctly assessing
tree health and risk, or if a tree can be preserved during construction.

PARKS, RECREATION & NEIGHBORHOOD

SERVICES
PRNS is responsible for all tree-related activities
that occur in City parks and community centers,
including planting, establishment care, pruning,
and responding to emergency situations. Like all
other City departments outside of DOT, PRNS
does not have an arborist on staff and consults with DOT on an as-needed basis for tree maintenance concerns. PRNS manages up to an
estimated 30,000 trees located in City parks and
on City library and City Hall grounds. The total
number of trees and frequency of park users
necessitates trees being maintained at an optimal level for the safety of park users. Without a professionally trained and certified arborist on
staff, PRNS is unable to ensure park trees are in
a safe condition and actively address potential
hazards before an emergency occurs.

As stated in the discussion about the needs
for park tree maintenance, City staff observed
the tree population to be aging and declining in
population, with many trees experiencing limb
or whole tree failure. PRNS has an internal policy to replace all park trees with three trees for every one removed, and to plant replacement
trees in the park where the tree was removed.

However, challenges with space, staffing, and
available irrigation sometimes prohibit that
from occurring. The intent of the policy is to
ensure a continuity of the existing tree canopy
and to further expand canopy cover in parks.

The policy is effective in replacing removed
canopy in a park but falls short in the efforts to
expand canopy cover throughout the park system. As stated by PRNS staff, tree removal can occur in a park that is approaching a maximum
level of canopy cover leaving limited space for
the crowns of newly planted trees to grow. In
these instances, the crowns of newly planted
trees may grow into the crown of an existing
tree, which limits the ability of newly planted
trees to expand canopy cover.

Another challenge of tree planting in City
parks is a lack of coordination on tree placement and species selection during new facility planning and construction. The design and
installation of new park facilities is managed
outside of PRNS by Public Works. The process does not require consultation with PRNS maintenance staff or the City arborist about
how the design will impact existing trees or to
make decisions as to what tree species are appropriate for the location. It was stated during interviews with PRNS staff that this level of
coordination happens on an ad hoc basis, and
in some instances, PRNS staff are not made
22 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
aware of the pending development project.

On some occasions, the lack of coordination
resulted in existing trees being removed that
could have otherwise been preserved, and
inappropriate species being planted at the
site. However, these issues are largely avoided
when PRNS or the City arborist are involved
in the development process from the beginning of the project. As such, the development process should be updated to include mandatory review by PRNS maintenance staff and professional arborists within PRNS or other
departments at project initiation and before
plans are finalized.

The planting of new trees in parks also
presents the challenge of how establishment
care will occur, and who will be responsible
for the tree watering. City parks are a favorite location for tree planting events for City Council offices and corporate groups, many
of which are coordinated with the assistance
of OCF. Parks provide a setting to effectively
manage volunteers and create a good volunteer experience. PRNS staff welcome the opportunity to have volunteer groups plant
trees in parks, but do not have the capacity
to provide establishment care and watering.

Often the care is cost prohibitive to provide
automated irrigation to the newly planted
trees, and funds are not available to contract
out watering. As a result, the group who
planted the trees are responsible for tree
watering. A newly planted tree in San José
will require up to 3 years (sometimes longer
depending on weather) of regular watering to
remain healthy and establish its root system.

This long-term commitment is usually difficult for a community or corporate group to fund or provide, and eventually the care will
drop off. If community members, corporate
groups, and elected officials desire to continue to plant trees in City parks for community engagement and volunteer activities, there
must be an established watering and maintenance plan before the planting project moves forward. Without a maintenance plan in
place, PRNS cannot guarantee trees planted
by volunteers will survive through the establishment period.

PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE DIVISION
The main responsibility of the Public Works
Maintenance Division is to maintain the safety of City buildings and facilities, including the maintenance of fewer than 500 trees located
on corporation yards and City of San José
Fire Department stations. Tree maintenance
does not fall within the typical responsibilities of the Maintenance Division, which does not have an on-staff arborist or tree expert.

In addition, the Maintenance Division is not
able to create an active tree maintenance
plan, but rather reacts to situations as they
arise. Given the small number of trees, it is
not reasonable to add an additional staff
member with experience in trees to manage
ongoing maintenance. For this reason, the
responsibility for tree maintenance for those
located on Public Works maintained facilities
may be better suited placed under the care
of DOT or PRNS along with the sufficient
funding for both proactive and reactive care.

Martial Cottle Park Planting
PHOTO: OUR CITY FOREST
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 23
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Kelley Park
24 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
Section Recommendation Discussion
Department of
Transportation
Consolidate tree
responsibilities to one
division or create a new
division.

Tree responsibilities are dispersed across multiple City departments which contributes to inefficiencies in management. One possibility to streamline tree management is to create a new division or department that encompasses all tree management activities within the City. If all tree-related management activities, permitting, enforcement, and planning decisions were coalesced into one department, it would be clear where to go for answers to tree-related questions, and it would ensure qualified staff are always reviewing tree issues for the City. While tree responsibilities have fallen under the purview of DOT, their funding allocation does not reflect their management needs.

Planning Division Include trees in the
beginning of the design
and planning process
In development (public, commercial, and private and both new and remodel/redesign) projects managed by both Planning and PRNS, or Public Works, trees are often not included in the initial design and planning phase, when critical decisions are made that impact the City’s ability to plant and preserve trees. In the case of Planning development projects, the City plan check and internal review processes should be updated to include an initial review of projects by either a City arborist or a contracted third-party consulting arborist. For PRNS development projects, a PRNS representative and certified arborist should review site plans. The initial review of all projects should determine if site plans consider how construction will impact existing on-site trees and what available measures can be taken to ensure the long-term preservation/ survival of trees before recommending removal. Consideration should also be given to whether the design or location of the project can be modified to accommodate the retention of existing mature trees. It should also include a review of the planting specifications to ensure site-appropriate tree species are selected, and that each newly planted tree has sufficient soil volume and grow space to reach a full canopy size at maturity.

Planning Division Provide an arborist
review of all Planning
Division tree responsibilities
Currently, the Planning Division does not have a staff arborist dedicated to the review of private property tree-related issues. This position is needed to implement policies and tree management decisions that support the City’s goals of a healthy and safe urban forest. Another option that would reduce the City’s financial commitment is to have a City-approved, independent third-party on-call arborist in lieu of an additional full-time employee. This model is often used by municipalities as it provides an unbiased expert opinion on tree issues and demonstrates to residents the extra step in due diligence the City is willing to take when deciding issues concerning their private property.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 25
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Section Recommendation Discussion
Public Works
Maintenance
Division
Consolidate Maintenance of Public
Works-Maintained City
Facility Trees to a new
department
The Public Works Maintenance Division does not have the staff capacity or training/experience to manage the approximately 500 trees on City-owned properties. The management of these trees should be consolidated within the department or division that will be responsible for management of the community forest program.

Parks
Recreation and
Neighborhood
Services
Provide funding for
establishment care as a
condition to plant trees
on PRNS sites
PRNS is not able to adequately water newly planted trees due to a lack of funding for contract watering or the availability of in-house maintenance crews, but values the efforts from community planting events held in parks that are supported by nonprofit organizations, corporate groups, and City-elected officials.

As such, groups interested in a community tree planting event in a City park should provide funds to PRNS that support the watering and establishment care of the newly planted trees for a period of up to 3 years.

Groups unable to provide maintenance funds should be encouraged to hold community events that provide maintenance and care for newly planted trees in lieu of planting new trees, which would contribute to the health of park trees and are achievable without placing an additional burden on PRNS maintenance staff.
26 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
Aerial of San José in the 1930s
PHOTO: SAN JOSÉ HISTORICAL
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 27
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
San José Urban Forest
Assessment
The City of San José recognizes that trees
provide numerous environmental services and
economic benefits and are a unique component of City infrastructure that improves living conditions for residents. While it is commonly
understood that trees reduce air pollution, and
their shade cools streets and homes, research
continues to demonstrate that the value of
trees in an urban environment is real and
quantifiable. In 2013, Xiao and collaborators
conducted the first analysis of San José’s environmental and economic value of all the trees in the community forest. Approximately 1.6
million trees comprise the San José community
forest and produce ecosystem services and
property value increases valued at $239.3 million annually (Xiao et al. 2013). These ecosystem services include $77 million savings in cooling
costs, $6.7 million in reduced City stormwater
management costs, and an economic benefit of
$154.6 million in increased property value.

Research is also providing more evidence of
the mental and physical health improvements
one experiences when living in a green area
comprised of trees. Approximately 80% of the
U.S. population lives in an urban area (U.S.

Census Bureau 2018), emphasizing the need
to develop cities that contribute to the health
and well-being of residents. Trees and green
space have been shown to improve mood and
other cognitive benefits in people dealing with
depression (Berman et al. 2012); to increase
physical activity (Frank and others 2005); and
to reduce crime (Donovan and Prestemon
2012; Kuo and Sullivan 2001a, 2001b; Troy et
al. 2016). These findings help support the real
and quantifiable ways trees are improving the
quality of life for San José residents.

The following sections provide an analysis
of how trees in the public space (City- and
private property owner-managed) are contributing to the sustainability of San José, with quantifiable data where available. The
discussion describes the condition of trees in
the inventory against sustainability indicators
that will provide an understanding of what
management practices the City will need to
address to continue to progress towards a
sustainable urban forest.

HISTORY AND LAND USE
Members of the Ohlone or Costanoan Native
American language group were the first
inhabitants of San José and the Santa Clara
Valley, with the Tamyen or Tamien group
settling along the Gaudalupe River and Coyote Creek. The native peoples settled along dependable water sources and were able
to sustain life with the abundant resources
of the open grasslands and oak woodlands.

Spanish exploration and settlements would
end inhabitation of the Santa Clara Valley by
the original peoples (www.sanjosehistory.org).

San José was founded on November 29, 1777,
as the first town in what was at that time
the Spanish colony of Nueva California and
is the oldest civilian settlement in California.

San José was also the State’s first capitol and
host of the first two sessions of the California
State Legislature, serving in that role in 1850
and 1851. (Envision 2040)
San José’s urban history began with an agricultural economy based on the fruit canning industry, and over the past 60 years transitioned into the world’s largest concentration of technology-based companies. The historic
agricultural land use of San José is reflected
in many neighborhoods as other parts are a
dense urban environment. San José annually
averages 300 days of sunshine which supports
an outdoor lifestyle, including active use of the
City’s parklands, more than 54 miles of trails in
27 trail systems, pedestrian and bicycle activity,
and the development of traditional outdoor
28 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
urban spaces such as plazas and cafes (Envision
2040). San José is surrounded by hillsides, open
space, preserved parklands and natural habitat,
which provide a visual reminder of the nearby
natural environment (Envision 2040). The north
and west portions of San José are an urban
environment adjacent to large open spaces and
natural settings, including the Baylands, redwood forests, the Pacific Ocean, the Santa Cruz mountains, and the Monterey Bay area (Envision
2040).

THE VALUE OF TREES TO THE CITY OF SAN JOSÉ
The available tree data provided in the 2014
City inventory was analyzed using the i-Tree
Eco online tool to determine the environmental and economic value of trees in the public space. I-Tree is a peer-reviewed software suite
developed by the U.S. Forest Service that
provides urban and rural forestry analysis and
benefits assessments that can help strengthen forest management and advocacy efforts (https://www.itreetools.org/about). Specifically,
the i-Tree Eco online tool results reflect the total services and benefits received from all trees in the City inventory based on individual tree
data including species, diameter at standard
height (DSH), and health condition.

The structural value of $735 million presented in Table 1 represents the total cost to replace every tree in the City inventory
with a tree that is the same species, size and
condition. The structural value can also be
viewed as the value of the trees as City infrastructure, in a similar manner that it would calculate the value of streetlights, sanitary
sewer, and stop signs. Just as the condition
and age of a sanitary sewer would be considered to appraise its value, the structural value of a tree considers both health and
maturity of the community forest trees. The
average structural value of a tree in the San
José community forest is currently valued at
$3,003. However, with the funding of regular
maintenance and the maturing of trees in
the community forest, the average structural
value of trees will increase, as opposed to
depreciating in value over time.

Beyond structural value, the community forest
also holds value in the carbon stored in trees.

As represented in Table 2, carbon storage
in the San José community forest is valued at
$15,490,000 Trees also provide other functional services, including carbon sequestration, avoided runoff, and air pollution removal, valued at $878,600. In total, the value of San José’s community forest is just over $750 million
dollars. It should be noted that the total value
is most likely under represented as the i-Tree
valuation does not include the environmental
and economic impact from energy savings as
data is not available in the City inventory to
calculate these totals.

Table 1. Economic Value of Tree Inventory
Value Description Amount Per Tree Value
Structural Value Tree replacement cost $735,000,000 $3,003 Carbon Storage Value of the carbon stored in the trees $15,490,000 $63.29 Functional Value Value based on the functions (services) trees perform $878,600 $3.59
Source: i-Tree Eco Analysis conducted by Dudek.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 29
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
In addition to the dollar value of trees, there are
also qualitative values inherent in the community
forest. Trees have also been linked with fewer
emergency asthma cases in highly polluted urban areas (Alckock et al. 2017). Further, the World Health Organization attributes ambient air pollution to deaths related to stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic respiratory diseases
(WHO 2016). This impact underscores the value
trees can have on our health and well-being by
improving air quality. The quantitative and qualitative value of trees supports the prioritization of this component of the City’s infrastructure.

THREATS TO THE URBAN FOREST
The threats to the San José community forest
will continue to emerge and evolve over time
alongside changing environmental conditions
and land use needs of the City. It is important
to understand the nature and origin of threats
to make decisions on the appropriate management actions to either mitigate against, or prepare for, expected impacts. Threats to the City’s community forest include both environmental
threats (e.g., plant diseases) and human threats
(e.g., urban development).

Environmental threats include more traditionally understood issues like invasive pest infestations and diseases, but also includes climate change issues, such as prolonged heatwaves
and drought. It is well documented that the
climate in California is changing and temperatures are increasing across the state (EPA 2016).

Increasing temperatures impact snowpack,
water availability, and human health, while also
resulting in more severe wildfires, sea level rise,
and a transformation of California’s agriculture
(EPA 2016). One of the worst droughts in state
history spanned 5 years (2012 to 2016), and
the expectation is that droughts will worsen
as climate scientists forecast hotter and drier
conditions (The Climate Reality Project 2018).

Human-generated threats include urban development and illegal removals and pruning. As discussed throughout this report, large healthy
trees are essential for a thriving community
forest. Large healthy trees (greater than 30
inches in diameter) remove approximately 70
times more air pollution annually (1.4 kilograms
per year [kg/yr]) than small healthy trees (less
than 3 inches in diameter [0.02 kg/yr)]) (Nowak
2002). Without consideration for how trees will
be incorporated into the City’s new development, the opportunities to expand the community forest can become limited and lose value.

Table 2. Environmental Services and Economic Value of Tree Inventory Service Environmental
Benefit Economic Value Benefit to City
Carbon Sequestration
(carbon removed
from air)

2.63 thousand tons/
year $449,000
Emissions captured
from 515 cars driven
for 1 year
Avoided Runoff 936.5 thousand cubic
feet/year $62,600
7,055,064 gallons of
water filtered into underground aquifers
Air Pollution Removal 50.22 tons/year $367,000
Equivalent to removing
pollution for 127,600
gallons of gasoline
consumed.

Source: iTree Eco Analysis conducted by Dudek.
30 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
Similarly, the illegal removal or pruning of trees
can reduce the size and number of mature
trees, which hold the greatest value in the community forest.

Understanding the difference between human and environmental threats is important for determining the type of management
actions available to reduce impacts. For
environmental threats, management actions
include long-term planning, such as this
CFMP and Climate Smart San José. Human
threats, however, require ordinances to
reduce impacts. For example, the City could
establish an ordinance that would require
new developments to make considerations
for trees, which could include the number,
size, placement, and/or type. These measures
would ensure trees are a foundational element of a development project, rather than being considered at the end of the process. It
is important to highlight California as a leader
of progress on climate and sustainability,
working toward a target of 80% reduction
(compared to 1990s levels) in carbon dioxide
emissions by 2050 (California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006; see CARB 2021).

San José has responded in-kind, through the
San José Green Vision (Green Vision), Bike
Plan, and other policies to implement energy,
transport, and water sustainability on a local
scale. As part of Climate Smart San José, the
City will effectively employ sustainable-use
practices for local water and green infrastructure to achieve a 30% reduction in residential water consumption to 42 gallons per day per
capita by 2030. Further, Climate Smart San
José identifies a need to embrace the California climate and plant species that are particularly suited for low-water climates. These are some of the current actions the City has
taken to address impacts of climate change,
which can be supported by similar actions to
protect the community forest.

CANOPY COVER
Canopy cover is defined as the area of land
covered by a tree’s leaves and branches when
viewed from above and indicates the level
of environmental services one experiences
from trees. San José was developed on land
that was once open grassland and chaparral communities with trees largely existing along available water sources. The trees along
streets and backyards were planted as the
City was built, as opposed to the City being
built into an already forested area and impact
the potential for canopy cover across the City.

While cities that develop into a forested area
may experience 35%–40% canopy cover, 20%
is considered a realistic baseline for San José
(Leahy 2017).

The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) completed a
spatial imagery analysis of canopy cover for
all cities in California for the years of 2012 and
2018, which determined California’s urban
tree canopy cover to be 19% (USFS n.d.). The
consultant team analyzed the 2012 and 2018
USFS data sets to determine San José had a
canopy cover of 13.54% in 2018. The San José
canopy cover can be considered low based on
a comparison to the state average and other
major cities in California (Table 3).

Table 3. Comparison of Canopy Cover with
Other California Cities
City Canopy Cover
Los Angeles 25%
Oakland 24.8%
Sacramento 19.1%
San Francisco 13.7%
San José 13.54%
San Diego 13%
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 31
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
101
101
101
680
880
280
280
17 85
82 MILE
0 1 2 3

SAN JOSE
3 2
City of San Jose’s
Tree Canopy Cover by
Council District
(2018 data)
10 4
5 8
9 6 1
1 7
10-12%
Less Canopy Cover
12-14% 14-16% 16-18% 18-20% >20%
More Canopy Cover
= Council District Indicator
Figure 5. San José Canopy Cover by Council District
32 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program

COUNCIL DISTRICT
1 Percentage of Canopy Cover Loss

COUNCIL DISTRICT
2 COUNCIL DISTRICT
3 COUNCIL DISTRICT
4 COUNCIL DISTRICT
5 COUNCIL DISTRICT
6 COUNCIL DISTRICT
7 COUNCIL DISTRICT
8 COUNCIL DISTRICT
9 COUNCIL DISTRICT
10 20
15 10
25 5
0 -2
-3
-4
-5
-1
San José Canopy Cover
Per Council District
and Percent of Loss
From 2012-2018
Loss
2018 Canopy Cover
2012 Canopy Cover
Area
2012
Canopy
Cover
2018
Canopy
Cover
Change
San José 15.36% 13.54% -1.82%
Council
District
1 18.75% 15.50% -3.26%
2 13.61% 12.39% -1.22%
3 13.25% 12.27% -0.98%
4 12.19% 10.62% -1.58%
5 15.81% 12.64% -3.17%
6 21.36% 19.46% -1.90%
7 12.06% 11.02% -1.04%
8 12.86% 12.67% -0.19%
9 16.92% 14.18% -2.74%
10 20.43% 17.14% -3.30%
Table 4. San José Canopy Cover by Council District
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 33
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program
1 The canopy cover data was further analyzed to
understand the degree to which canopy cover
increased or decreased from 2012 to 2018 and
then further broken down by Council Districts,
as indicated in Table 4.

All council districts have experienced a
decline in canopy cover from 2012 to 2018
with Council Districts 1, 5,6,9, and 10 losing
more than the City average. The 1.82% loss
represents 11.8% of total canopy cover and
is equivalent to losing 1,728 acres of trees.

Table 5 indicates what San José canopy cover
would be over a 30-year period if it continues
to lose 1,728 acres of canopy cover.

Table 5. Potential Canopy Cover Loss Over 30 Years
Year Canopy
Cover
Canopy
Cover
(Acres)
2012 15.36% 14,617
2018 13.54% 12,889
2024 11.73% 11,161
2030 9.91% 9,433
2036 8.09% 7,705
2042 6.28% 5,977
High Canopy Cover Street
PHOTO: OUR CITY FOREST
34 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
The decline of canopy cover is most likely
attributed to multiple factors instead of one
or two main causes. One issue that will need
to be better understood is the rate of tree
removal and whether the removal process
can be slowed down. The City cannot control
environmental factors like longer periods of
drought and increased annual temperatures
that contribute to tree decline and removal.

The City can control other factors like allowing the removal of protected trees on private property, preserving trees during development, and updating development standards to reduce tree and infrastructure conflicts.

Tree canopy is also impacted by maintenance
and whether trees are pruned properly
to have a full crown. Whatever the cause,
slowing down the rate of tree removal is an
important step to gaining lost canopy and
expanding the community forest as it takes
30 to 40 years for trees to mature (Figure 6).

Long-Term Goal CFMP Goal 2012 2030 2042
25%
Achievable with
20% 15% 10% 6%
ongoing, sustainable
community forest
management
Realistic citywide
canopy cover goal to
reach over 40 years
Baseline citywide
canopy cover
Potential reduction in
citywide canopy cover
under current conditions
Worst case scenario
How much shade are we losing?
How much canopy cover would be lost if the San José area continues to lose 1,728 acres of canopy cover over the next 20 years? San José is here Sustainable investment Current investment Figure 6. Potential Canopy Cover Loss Over 30 Years
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 35
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Expanding canopy cover will take a significant investment from the City to plant and maintain new trees. Tables 6 and 7 provide
estimates of how many new trees will need
to be added to increase canopy cover. If the
City wishes to achieve a 20% canopy cover,
it will need to add approximately 136,412
trees with a 50-foot-wide canopy spread. It
will take the City planting 4,547 trees with a
50-foot-wide canopy spread every year for
30 years to reach that goal. The tables do
not account for the time it will take for trees
to grow and mature, meaning it could take
closer to 50 years for the City to realize a
20% canopy cover. Every tree that is removed will extend that timeline to increase canopy cover and the total number of trees
that are needed to do so. The City contains
approximately 2.1 million potential tree
planting sites, with 94% of these on private
or institutional lands (McPherson 2013). This
indicates that there is ample space to increase tree canopy cover in the City but it is heavily reliant on participation from private
property owners.

SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS

OF CITY-MANAGED TREES
To establish a foundation to measure the
sustainability of an urban forest, Clark and
Table 6. Total Number of Trees Needed to Increase Canopy Cover by Percent Total Canopy
Total Number of Trees by Canopy Spread

22.75 ft
Diameter
35 ft
Diameter
50 ft
Diameter
75 ft
Diameter
14% 46,813 19,757 9,682 4,302
16% 251,058 105,956 51,925 23,071
18% 455,303 192,155 94,169 41,841
20% 659,548 278,354 136,412 60,610
25% 1,170,160 493,851 242,020 107,534
30% 1,680,773 709,349 347,628 154,458
Table 7.Total Number of Trees Needed to Plant per Year for 30 Years to Increase Canopy Cover by Percent Total Canopy
Total Number of Trees by Canopy Spread

22.75 ft
Diameter
35 ft
Diameter
50 ft
Diameter
75 ft
Diameter
14% 1,560 659 323 143
16% 8,369 3,532 1,731 769
18% 15,177 6,405 3,139 1,395
20% 21,985 9,278 4,547 2,020
25% 39,005 16,462 8,067 3,584
30% 56,026 23,645 11,588 5,149
36 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
Downey Ave.

Downey Ave.

Greenery and the urban heat island effect:
1 2 3 4
Fewer Trees
Solar energy is
emitted by the sun
Heat is absorbed and
retained by dark, urban
surfaces
Heat is slowly emitted throughout
the day and evening, increasing
temperatures
Increased temperatures discourage
pedestrian traffic, negatively impacting
local economy
E. Santa Clara St.

Large amounts of greenhouse
gas emissions are released into
the atmosphere due to little
absorption from small number
of trees
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 37
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Downey Ave.

Downey Ave.

Large amounts of greenhouse
gas emissions are released into
the atmosphere due to little
absorption from small number
of trees
38 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
collaborators published a report that remains
widely cited by urban foresters and arborists
(Clark et al. 1997). The model for urban forest
sustainability is based on three components,
one of which is the vegetation resource, or the
engine that drives urban forests (Clark et al.
1997). The condition of “the engine” is based
on the diversity of species, health, age distribution, and other indicators that directly relate to the environmental services it produces.

When those conditions align with sustainability indicators, the community forest engine is functioning at an optimal level and providing
an equivalent level of services such as reduced
urban heat islands, cooler homes, captured
stormwater, and habitat for wildlife. When the
community forest engine is underperforming,
so are the environmental services.

The sustainability indicators discussed in the
following sections are used to further understand if the community forest is functioning at an optimal level and provide a baseline by
which the City can measure progress towards
achieving a sustainable community forest.

These analyses will further inform the management practices and long-term planning strategies the City will need to implement to
progress towards this goal.

It is important to note that the following
analysis is based on an inventory completed in 2014 and does not reflect the current condition of City managed trees. The impact on analysis and recommendations
varies on the type of dataset. Because the
City has planted a limited number of trees
in relation to the entire inventory population, it is expected that datasets like the total number of trees and tree species
diversity should have remained relatively
consistent. Additionally, trees take years
to grow and mature, so the age distribution data will most likely not experience a drastic shift over a 7-year period. The
overall health condition of inventoried
trees and that of individual species can
change within a few months, and the analysis of the health condition of City trees should be considered as a baseline of
2014 conditions. The specific recommendations related to the health condition of City managed trees should be updated
after the completion of a new inventory.

The benefits of updating the inventory
and recommendations for maintaining a
current inventory are provided in the Tree
Management Practices chapter.

SPECIES DIVERSITY
One criterion to measure community forest
sustainability of the vegetation resource is
the extent of species diversity within the
tree population (Clark et al. 1997). Species
diversity is a method by which a community
forest can be made more resilient to impacts of climate change, such as extended periods of drought or extreme heat events.

Threats to the community forest, such
as the emergence of pests and diseases,
cannot be completely prevented, but can be
mitigated against with a diverse tree population. The goal of the species diversity criteria is to ensure that no one threat can drastically impact that entire tree population, and therefore reduce canopy cover and the
environmental services provided by trees.

Community forest research has not established
a set ratio for species diversity within a tree
population. One recommendation suggests
that a genus should represent no more than
20% of the trees in a community, whereas no
single species should exceed 10% of the tree
population (Moll 1989; Clark et. al 1997) Developing an appropriate baseline for San José will need to consider how species diversity is
reflected on a Citywide and local level.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 39
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1

1. Pistacia chinensis
(C. STUBLER AND M. RITTER)

2. Lagerstroemia indica
(C. STUBLER AND M. RITTER)

3. Platanus acerifolia
(M. RITTER AND W. MARK)

4. Liquidambar styraciflua
(M. RITTER, W. MARK, J REIMER)

5. Pyrus calleryana
(W. MARK AND J REIMER)

6. Cupressus sempervirens
(C. STUBLER AND M. RITTER)

7. Magnolia grandiflora
(M. RITTER, J. YOST, W. MARK)

8. Prunus cerasifera
( W. MARK, J REIMER)

9. Fraxinus angustifolia ‘Raywood’
(J. REIMER AND M. RITTER)

10. Quercus agrifolia
(K. KESSEN, M. RITTER, W. MARK, AND J. REIMER)
SAN JOSÉ'S TOP 10 TREE SPECIES
40 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
Species diversity on a Citywide level is
provided in Table 8, which lists the top ten
species by population in the City street tree
inventory, and Table 9, which lists the top ten
genera by population in the City street tree
inventory. At the time of this analysis, park
tree inventory data was not available. The
actual totals would most likely change with
the inclusion of park trees.

The City street tree population consists of
548 unique tree species, with the top ten
species totaling 47% of the total inventory,
Table 8. Top Ten Species by Population in the City Inventory Goal: Species is < 10% of Inventory Rank Botanical name Common name Total % of inventory
1 Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache 24,390 9.6%
2 Lagerstroemia indica Crape myrtle 20,912 8.3%
3 Platanus acerifolia London plane 19,145 7.6%
4 Liquidambar styraciflua American sweetgum 14,577 5.8% 5 Pyrus calleryana Flowering pear 7,954 3.1%
6 Cupressus sempervirens Italian cypress 7,190 2.8%
7 Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia 7,024 2.8%
8 Prunus cerasifera Purple leaf plum 6,644 2.6%
9 Fraxinus angustifolia ‘Raywood’ Raywood ash 5,632 2.2% 10 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak 5,496 2.2%
Source: City of San José 2020a.

Table 9. Top Ten Genera by Population in the City Inventory Goal: Genus is < 20% of Inventory Rank Genus Total % of Inventory
1 Platanus 27,241 10.8%
2 Pistacia 24,429 9.7%
3 Lagerstroemia 21,668 8.6%
4 Quercus 17,976 7.1%
5 Liquidambar 14,662 5.8%
6 Prunus 13,253 5.2%
7 Fraxinus 12,972 5.1%
8 Pyrus 11,556 4.6%
9 Acer 8,694 3.4%
10 Cupressus 7,330 2.9%
Source: City of San José 2020a.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 41
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1

1. Platanus
(M. RITTER, W. MARK, AND J. REIMER)

2. Pistacia
(C. STUBLER, M. RITTER, W. MARK, AND J. REIMER)

3. Lagerstroemia 4. Quercus 5. Liquidambar

6. Prunus 7. Fraxinus
(J. REIMER AND M. RITTER)

8. Pyrus
(M. RITTER, W. MARK, J. REIMER)

9. Acer
(C. STUBLER, M. RITTER, W. MARK, J. REIMER)

10. Cupressus
(VAN DEN BERK NURSERIES)
SAN JOSÉ'S TOP 10 TREE GENERA
42 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
and the remaining 538 tree species totaling
53% of the inventory. No species individually comprise more than 10% of the tree population, and no genus is above the 20%
threshold. These results indicate the street
tree population on a Citywide scale may be
at a level of diversity that would be resilient against a threat causing significant loss of canopy cover, but does not necessarily
correlate to impacts experienced on a street
or community scale. To understand these
impacts, we must consider the area of land
over which the trees are distributed.

The street tree population is dispersed
throughout the 181-square-mile land area
of the City, indicating the overall canopy cover total of the City is relatively resilient from threats. However, the loss of one species
could have a devastating impact to neighborhoods that are dominated by one species.

One example of this is the Downtown neighborhood streets, which are largely dominated by the London plane tree. While the London
plane tree creates a unique sense of place and
character to this neighborhood, its overuse in
the landscape makes the area vulnerable to
threats. If the London plane tree was to experience a pest or disease that caused a rapid decline and subsequent removal of trees, the
Downtown neighborhood could be left largely
void of canopy. Residents and visitors would
be left to walk streets with little shade on hot
days, waiting years to recover the lost canopy.

AGE DISTRIBUTION OF TREES IN THE CITY

INVENTORY
Another important criterion for providing a consistent level of canopy cover and environmental services provided by trees is an appropriate mix
of young and mature trees (Clark et al. 1997).

Maintaining a sustainable community forest
includes mature trees providing a high level of
benefit with new trees growing to replace them
when they decline. A community forest that is
skewed too young is not providing a high level
of environmental services, and a community
forest skewed heavily towards maturity risks a
sudden decrease in environmental services as
trees decline and are removed. Understanding
the age distribution of the community forest
also provides an understanding of how to prioritize community forest funding towards management actions that will achieve a continuum of environmental services. This could include
a need to prioritize funding towards removing
and replacing senescent mature trees to begin
to establish new canopy cover or pruning and
establishment care to support the growth of
young and middle-aged trees as they progress
towards maturity.

Table 10 reflects the age distribution of City
street trees based on a tree’s DSH or diameter
at standard height—the trunk diameter measured 4.5 feet above ground. For most trees, a year’s worth of growth is reflected as a ring on
the tree’s trunk, except for tropical climate trees
Table 10. Age Distribution of 2014 Street Tree Inventory by DSH DSH Range
(inches) Total
% of
inventory
Recommended
% of inventory Age Classification
0–6 89,319 37% 40% Immature
7–18 113,047 47% 30% Young
19–24 20,425 9% 20% Middle-aged
24–30+ 17,235 7% 10% Mature
Note: DSH = diameter at standard height.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 43
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
that continue to grow year-round. As such, when
a tree is removed, one can count the growth
rings on the trunk to accurately determine the
age of a tree. In the absence of damaging a tree
to count annual growth rings, arborists will approximate a tree’s age by measuring the size of the DSH. Since trees vary in size and growth patterns, the age can only be considered an estimate. Faster growing trees may develop a larger DSH in a shorter time frame than slower growing trees, and mature trees with slower annual growth may be older than the DSH reflects.

The proposed recommended ideal DSH range
distribution is based on research conducted
on the Syracuse, New York, urban forest and
has since become a standard guideline for the
desired optimal age range for an urban forest
(Richards 1993). Based on this analysis, the City
street inventory can be classified with having a
majority of young and immature trees and few
middle-aged and mature trees. It is important to note the age distribution classification only pertains to street trees within the San
José tree inventory and does not include trees
on private property (Figure 7). Further information about the age and health condition of trees on private property would provide valuable insight about the overall sustainability of the community forest and would help identify
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Distribution Reccomended Distribution All Trees
Recommended
Urban Forest Composition
San Jose
Forest Composition
Legend: Average DSH ranges as trees mature
0-6 inches
(Immature)
7-18 inches
(Young)
24-30+ inches
(Mature)
19-24 inches
(Middle-aged)
0 20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
40% 37%
30% 47%
20%
9%
10% 7%
Figure 7. Age Distribution of 2014 Street Tree Inventory by DSH Age Distribution of 2014 Street Tree Inventory by DSH
44 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
about what areas of tree maintenance private
property owners need to be educated of.

The age distribution of street trees suggests
that the City is not yet maximizing the return
on environmental services and economic benefit it could receive from its trees. It is difficult to determine the cause of the age distribution
beyond new trees being planted faster than
trees reach a mature age range. It may also be
related to City service data from fiscal years
2014–2015 through 2018–2019 that show the
City completing 6,894 tree removal permits.

City records do not indicate the size of trees
removed, but the total removal permits as individual trees would represent the removal of approximately 25% of mature City street trees.

HEALTH CONDITION OF TREES IN THE CITY

INVENTORY
The health of trees is directly linked to their
ability to provide environmental services
that contribute to a reduction in the urban
heat island effect, lowering energy costs, and
reducing stormwater runoff. These services
increase or decrease depending on the
density of a tree’s crown and ability to carry
out biological functions that promote vigorous growth. Trees in good health present a lower level of associated risk to the people
and things surrounding them by having fewer
structural issues in the roots, trunk, and
crown that could result in branch or whole
tree failures. Finally, trees in good health
contribute to the look and feel of a street or
community as they are more aesthetically
appealing and appear cared for.

Understanding the health condition of trees
within the City inventory is another tool to
determine the sustainability of the community forest and inform management practices for specific trees and the total tree population. Table 11 reflects the health condition of the City 2014 inventory data as recoded by
the arborists who completed the inventory
based on the CAL FIRE grant requirements
for categorizing health conditions. The health
Table 11. Health Condition of Trees in the City Inventory Health Total Percent
Excellent 643 0%
Very Good 2,978 2%
Good 72,007 45%
Fair 71,792 45%
Poor 6,037 4%
Very Poor 15 0%
Critical 34 0%
Dead 5,210 3%
Grand Total* 158,716 100%
Note: * The grand total is less than the total amount of trees in the inventory as some trees were not assigned a health condition.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 45
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
ratings in general can be described in the
following ways:
• Excellent to Very Good: Exhibits above
normal health, no maladies, high vigor.
• Good: Exhibits normal health and vigor.
• Fair: Exhibits minor deficiencies in health
and vigor.
• Poor to Critical: Exhibits significant deficiencies in health and vigor. • Dead: No longer a viable tree and should
be removed.

Of the trees assigned a health condition in
2014, 92% are categorized as fair or better, with
47% categorized as good to excellent. These
results indicate that, in general, the City street
trees have minor maladies in health and canopy structure. It is not known if the health condition of trees categorized as fair are improving or declining in vigor. Trees in fair condition declining in vigor would have a significant impact on the overall health and safety condition of
City street trees as 45% of the tree population
is rated as fair. The inventory also reflects 5,210
dead trees at the time of the inventory that
should be removed and replaced to continue
to expand canopy cover. The health condition
of the City inventory does not indicate how
individual tree species are performing and
which species may need further analysis to
determine appropriate management actions to
maintain vigor. Calculating the relative performance index (RPI) for individual tree species is one analysis tool to determine which trees are
performing better in the entire population.

Relative performance index (RPI) is calculated
by dividing the percentage of trees in a single
species in a good condition by the percentage
of trees of all species in a good condition. Trees
with an RPI of 1 or higher are performing as
well or better than the entire population. Trees
with an RPI less than 1 are performing below
the entire population. Below is an example:
• Chinese pistache (56% good or better) ÷ All
species (48% good or better) = 1.17 RPI
In this example, the Chinese pistache tree has
an RPI of 1.17, meaning that species has more Fruit tree with fire blight Chinese pistache
46 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
trees rated in a good condition or better than
the entire inventory.

This baseline was applied to the City inventory
with RPI calculated for the top 10 species in
the City inventory to further understand the
performance of tree species and is reflected
in Table 12 below.

The RPI analysis of the City inventory indicates
three of the six most common species have an
RPI below 1 and below the sustainability metric. The Chinese pistache, crape myrtle, coast redwood, and magnolia trees have an RPI of 1
or higher, indicating these trees are performing well throughout the City. London plane, coast live oak, and purple leaf plum trees have
RPIs from 0.80 to 0.97, indicating they are minimally underperforming and may not warrant immediate prioritization for additional analysis and management actions. The Raywood ash, flowering pear, and American sweetgum
species have RPIs from 0.56 to 0.62, well below
the baseline measurement, and should be prioritized for further analysis to determine the factors that are impacting their health.

Whether factors are biotic or abiotic—will
help determine if management actions can
improve the health condition, or if the factor
cannot be mitigated by management actions.

One example of a biotic disorder that can be
managed is fire blight (Erwinia amylovora), a
bacterial disease that is commonly found on
flowering pear trees and impacts tree health
and appearance. Fire blight can be controlled
with an intensive treatment program, and over
time, the infected species can retain its health
and vigor. An example of an abiotic disorder
that cannot be controlled is an extended period of drought brought on by climate change.

Species like the coast redwood are rated as
high-water use trees by the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) and would be expected to decline in health during
extended periods of drought. While it is possiTable 12. Relative Performance Index of Top 10 Most Common Trees in City Inventory Rank Botanical Name Common Name
Total Good
or Better
% Good
or Better RPI
City Inventory Baseline 75,628 48% 1
1 Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache 8,752 56% 1.17
2 Lagerstroemia indica Crape myrtle 9,025 67% 1.39
3 Platanus acerifolia London plane 6,044 46% 0.97
4 Liquidambar styraciflua American sweetgum 1,825 27% 0.56 5 Pyrus calleryana Flowering pear 1,559 28% 0.58
6 Cupressus sempervirens Italian cypress 3,464 83% 1.72 7 Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia 2,397 53% 1.10
8 Prunus cerasifera Purple leaf plum 1,477 38% 0.80
9 Fraxinus angustifolia ‘Raywood’ Raywood ash 1,221 30% 0.62 10 Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak 1,587 44% 0.92
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 47
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Topped Tree Low tree canopy area limited by existing hardscape 48 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
ble to provide supplemental irrigation to some
high-value coast redwood trees, it is not practical to supply all of them with the amount of water needed to sustain them during a drought that lasts several years. In this case, it would
be more prudent to develop a strategy for a
planned removal and replacement of these
trees as they decline.

The health condition and RPI of trees in the inventory as combined datasets help to inform if the City is receiving a high level of environmental services from the tree population and determine which trees may require immediate
analysis and implemented management activities. Another component to help prioritize management actions towards specific tree
species is understanding the impact on the total community forest if one species would decline across the City. This impact is assigned by species and called the importance value.

The importance value of tree species in the City
inventory is presented in Table 13 and is calculated by adding the percentage one species comprises of the total inventory with the percent leaf area the species comprises of the City inventory. Percent leaf area is assessed by i-Tree
using measurements of crown dimensions and
percentage of crown canopy missing. However, the City’s inventory did not provide crown dimensions, so i-Tree defers to its estimated
Table 13. Importance Value of City Managed Trees
Rank Botanical name Common name % of Inventory % Leaf Area Importance Value
Size Classification
at Maturity
1 Platanus acerifolia London plane 7.6 19.3 26.9 Medium to Large 2 Liquidambar styraciflua American sweetgum 5.8 9.5 15.3 Large 3 Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache 9.6 1.6 11.2 Small 4 Lagerstroemia indica Crape myrtle 8.3 1.6 9.9 Small
5 Magnolia grandiflora Magnolia 2.8 2.8 5.6 Medium
6 Fraxinus angustifolia
‘Raywood’
Raywood ash 2.2 3.3 5.5 Medium
7 Quercus ilex Holly oak 2.0 3.1 5.1 Medium
8 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor 1.9 3 4.9 Medium to Large 9 Prunus calleryana Flowering pear 3.1 1.7 4.8 Small
10 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak 2.2 2.2 4.4 Large
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 49
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
growth models for individual species. As such,
the percent leaf area should be considered an
estimate that does not reflect actual totals.

The ranking of a species does not mean it
should or should not continue to be planted;
rather it provides a framework for understanding which trees dominate the community forest landscape. The London plane tree is
ranked as the most important tree in the City
inventory as it the third most common tree
and is a medium to large size tree at maturity.

In contrast, the Chinese pistache and crape
myrtle are ranked as the third and fourth
most important trees despite being the most
common and second most common species
in the inventory because they are small trees
at maturity.

This result reflects two basic aspects of species selection and planning for the community forest. First, a smaller total of large trees can
provide more canopy cover and subsequent
environmental services to the City than a
higher total of small trees. This is evident as
the combined population of 45,302 Chinese
pistache and crape myrtle trees has an importance value of 21.1, whereas the 19,145 London plane trees has an importance value of 26.9.

Second, the limited space within a streetscape San José City Trees 50 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program

LARGE TREES
VS. SMALL TREES

THE BENEFITS OF
OXYGEN
CARBON

REALEASED INTO

ATMOSPHERE
OXYGEN

RELEASED INTO

THE ENVIRONMENT
CARBON

CAPTURED BY
TREES
We analyzed the top 10 species in San José and
categorized them by large, medium, and small stature
trees. We sampled from 100 of each species and then
determined how their environmental benefi ts compare:

5.5X MORE

STRUCTURAL
VALUE
4XMORE
CARBON
SEQUESTERED 4X GREATER

ENVIRONMENTAL
BENEFIT VALUE 5XMORE

STORMWATER
AVOIDANCE 6XMORE
SHADE
PROVIDED 7X MORE
CARBON

STORAGE
Large trees provide more benefi ts than small trees:

Figure 8. The Benifits of Large Trees
We analyzed the top 10 species in San José and
categorized them by large, medium, and small stature
trees. We sampled from 100 of each species and then
determined how their environmental benefits compare:

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 51
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
for trees and other pieces of City infrastructure
to coexist often necessitates planting small and
medium size trees. Most of the trees with the
highest importance value can be classified as
small or medium, which would suggest they are
planted in locations that can only accommodate a species of that size.

Figure 9 provides further evidence that City
trees are small to medium in size and produce
lower level of environmental services to the
City. Based on the City inventory, 90% of street
trees are less than 45 feet in height, with
69% of trees less than 30 feet. The percent of
smaller stature trees represents the current
height of trees and correlates with 84% of
trees having a DSH of less than 18 inches, but
does not reflect how the height distribution
will change as trees grow and mature. However, given that the majority of the top ten most common species are small and medium-sized
trees at maturity, it would not be expected to
see a significant increase of trees measured
at 46 feet and larger. The data presented in
Figure 9 further supports the need to increase the size of planting spaces so they can accommodate larger stature trees in order
Height Distribution
Larger trees provide more environmental services and economic benefit. 69% of the inventory consists of small stature trees (e.g., Western redbud/crape myrtle), 21% medium stature (e.g., Chinese pistache) and 10% large stature (e.g., oak) 0-15 ft.
31-45 ft.
16-30 ft.
46-60 ft.
67,414 104,576 53,755
27%
MEDIUM
21%
TREES
LARGE
10%
TREES

HEIGHT RANGE
NUMBER

OF TREES
42% 21% 7% 3%

PERCENT OF

INVENTORY

SMALL TREES
69%
17,815 6,595
60 ft.

Figure 9. Height Distribution of 2014 Street Tree Inventory by DSH 52 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMMUNITY FOREST SUSTAINABILITY
Section Recommendation Discussion
Species Diversity Based on these factors, it
is important for the City to
have both Citywide and local species diversity goals,
which could form into a
three-tiered approach.
• Tier 1. Citywide Species Diversity Goal: The City should adopt a goal of having no one species comprise more than 10% of the City tree population and no one genus comprise 20%. This goal will help to ensure that the overall inventory is resilient to threats as it is dispersed over the 181 square miles of the City. The established goal can then be used to further inform a more nuanced plan for individual neighborhoods or geographic areas of the City. • Tier 2. Implement Goal on Neighborhood Scale: The City should determine smaller geographic segments of the City and apply the species diversity goal to those areas. Boundaries could be formed from existing defined neighborhoods, Council Districts, or other set boundaries within the City. This strategy would help to identify what species dominate a specific area and plan for the introduction of new species to provide an additional layer of species diversity and protection from threats. This approach would also necessitate specific planting palettes for each area that factor in the current neighborhood-level species diversity percentages into what species are planted.
• Tier 3. Street Level Diversity: The City should incorporate species diversity on a street or street block level. At this scale, species diversity decisions would include determining whether a street is planted with two or three alternating species, and the extent to which monoculture street plantings would be allowed.

The planting palette for individual streets would be formed by decisions made in Tier 2 of the planning process. This tier would not include maintaining the Citywide species diversity goal as continuity and aesthetics are important considerations for developing neighborhood character and would be difficult to achieve with 10 or more species planted on a street.

Species Diversity Revise the City recommended tree species list to:• Ensure the total number of species recommended by the City can meet species diversity goals. • Prioritize planting trees rated by Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) as very low and low water users.
• Identify trees that are not expected to adapt to changing climate conditions and replace them with new suitable species.
• Increase the quantity of small and medium-sized species trees in the planting palette to provide more species options in locations that have limited soil volume.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 53
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Section Recommendation Discussion
Age Diversity Protect and preserve
mature trees
It will be difficult to increase the total number of mature trees without the enforcement of City ordinances and policies that protect and preserve trees in the public space. This will be especially important with the City’s emphasis on increased urban infill development that seeks to maximize lot space for buildings and not allow room for street trees. It may also require adopting new and innovative approaches to managing tree and sidewalk conflicts, which is a common reason for street tree removal. This could occur through the updated design guidelines or other mechanisms that provide guidance for developers to incorporate trees into the built environment.

Age Diversity Structural pruning program Large structural issues within a tree’s crown begin developing at an early age. Structural issues such as co-dominant stems or conflicts with adjacent infrastructure are typical of mature trees and can often be avoided by selectively pruning branches when trees are still young and forming their structure. By investing in the structural pruning of young trees, the City can actively mitigate against future structural issues in mature trees that typically have a higher associated cost and may require tree removal if the issue cannot be resolved through pruning.

Age Diversity Continue to plant and
establish trees
Although the current age distribution is skewed towards young and immature trees, the City must continue to plant new trees and ensure they successfully establish. A reduction in planting totals may bring the age distribution range into a more sustainable range in the short term, but would create a shortfall of trees across the entire age spectrum as they progress from immature, to young, and eventually mature. 54 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
for the City to increase canopy cover and the
environmental services of trees, and become
more resilient to climate change.

Diversity, Inclusion, and
Community Engagement
As the third most populous city in California, San José is also one of the most diverse cities in the country (U.S. Census Bureau
2019). The City’s residents are identified per
the census as 26% White, 35% Asian, 32%
Hispanic or Latino, and 3% Black or African
American, and over 57% of San José residents speak a language other than English (U.S. Census Bureau 2019). In an effort to
realize greater racial equity and improved
outcomes for all San José residents, and
in particular Black, Indigenous, and other
community members of color, the Office of
Racial Equity was formed in 2020 (City of San
José n.d.a). The Office of Racial Equity racial
equity practice that will examine and improve San José's internal policies, programs, and decision-making so that, ultimately, the
City improves outcomes for communities
of color. Through training on a racial equity
framework, building the skills to effectively
conduct analysis, resourcing equitable community engagement, and developing an efficient data infrastructure and accountability mechanism the City will be better equipped
to advance racial equity work.

Authentic community engagement is a cornerstone to developing a CFMP that reflects the goals, needs, and priorities of the City’s
residents. Trees, and the canopy cover they
create throughout communities, are deeply
linked to racial disparities in health outcomes.

CANOPY COVER CAN ILLUMINATE EQUITY
ISSUES
Canopy cover in underserved communities
is often lower than other parts of a City, and
this discrepancy is due to identifiable systemic injustices that are related to race and other socioeconomic factors. Perhaps one
of the most crucial environmental services
provided by trees is the ability to sequester
and store carbon and contribute to cleaner,
Table 14. Canopy Cover by Census Tracts with Best CalEnviroScreen Scores Census Tract CalEnviroScreen Score Poverty Level Canopy Cover 6085511910 1%–5% 4.4 18.92%
6085511913 1%–5% 2.5 16.04%
6085511912 1%–5% 4.6 18.42%
6085511907 1%–5% 5.8 16.39%
6085506604 1%–5% 10 13.33%
6085502907 1%–5% 10.1 15.35%
6085502202 1%–5% 15.3 19.77%
6085506802 5%–10% 11.4 19.27%
6085503334 5%–10% 5.8 11.83%
6085507906 5%–10% 7.8 19.36%
Average Canopy Cover 16.87%
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 55
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
healthier air. One significant negative impact
of a low canopy cover is that residents have an
increased vulnerability to pollution, extreme
heat, and potential health issues. To this end,
the Environmental Protection Agency created CalEnviroScreen, an online mapping tool that identifies California communities that are
disproportionately burdened by pollution and
vulnerable to the health effects of pollution
(OEHHA 2018). The tool uses environmental,
health, and socioeconomic information from
the U.S. Census to identify the inequities associated with pollution throughout the state.

Each census tract is assigned a score to reflect
its vulnerability. CalEnviroScreen’s scale for
vulnerability is presented in percentage ranges, with 1%–10% being least vulnerable and 91%–100% being most vulnerable.

Table 14 shows the census tracts of the City
with the lowest CalEnviroScreen Scores, while
Table 15 shows the City’s highest scores. There
is nearly a 5% gap in canopy cover between
the area with the lowest and highest CalEnviroScreen Scores. On average, the lowest scores have a canopy cover that is 3.33% higher than
the City average, while the highest scores are

1.5% lower. The three highest canopy cover
percentages on either table contain large parks
or greenbelts. By comparing the City’s CalEnviroScreen Scores, the City can pinpoint the exact areas that can be immediately prioritized
Table 15.. Canopy Cover by Census Tracts with the Worst CalEnviroScreen Scores Census Tract CalEnviroScreen Score Poverty Level Canopy Cover 6085503105 90%–95% 49.5 19.05%
6085500100 85%–90% 40.2 8.91%
6085504318 85%–90% 46.7 8.61%
6085503601 85%–90% 53.2 7.97%
6085503122 85%–90% 59.8 9.54%
6085501600 80%–85% 52.6 22.22%
6085503110 80%–85% 71.7 10.15%
6085503214 80%–85% 52.9 7.94%
6085501102 80%–85% 33.1 17.26%
6085503602 80%–85% 52.8 8.79%
Average Canopy Cover 12.04% Our City Forest Street Tree Planting PHOTO: OUR CITY FOREST
56 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
for increasing canopy cover. The large discrepancy in canopy cover is an area that the departments in charge of tree management can collaborate with the Office of Racial Equity on
strategizing the best path forward.

Community Engagement
During multiple stages of the CFMP’s development, the project team employed a range of online and media engagement actions that
informed residents about the project and allowed for meaningful dialogue for an exchange of ideas between residents, stakeholders, and
facilitators. Direct conversations occurred
through a series of community meetings to
help guide the direction of the CFMP and further refine project goals to reflect residents’ values. The online and media engagement included a project webpage, online survey, educational video, social media posts, and print flyers. Through these actions, City staff were
able to receive input that informed the goals
and objectives outlined in this CFMP.

PUBLIC MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
In an effort to capture the diverse voices within the City, multiple in-person public meetings in locations throughout San José’s communities were planned to encourage participation and obtain representative feedback. However,
as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated public health restrictions by the State of California, the City transitioned to virtual
community meetings.

The first round of virtual community meetings
was scheduled in July 2020 and offered translations services to promote diversity and accessibility. The first and second meetings were English language meetings, which occurred
on July 9 and July 14. The third meeting on July
16, also in English, provided an American Sign
Language interpreter. The fourth meeting on
July 22 provided Spanish language translation.

The fifth and final meeting, which was scheduled for July 28, offered Vietnamese language translation; however, it was cancelled due to
the lack of registrants. A total of 56 participants attended the four meetings. All of the meetings covered the following topic areas:
• Overview of the Community Forest
Management Plan process
• Forest Management Policies and Activities
• Outreach and Engagement
• Value of Trees
Throughout the course of each meeting, participants were asked to engage in several poll questions, to help guide conversation within
each topic. Responses to the poll questions
during the first meeting indicated that trees
are a valuable component of public spaces,
and the CFMP should focus on maintaining
existing trees, protecting and preserving large
and mature trees, and increasing canopy cover. During subsequent meetings, when asked who should be responsible for the protection,
planting, and maintenance of street trees, a
majority of respondents indicated the responsibility should be shared between property owners and the City, which deviates from the
current policy that requires property owners to maintain street trees adjacent to their property. Further, when participants were
asked if they would support a ballot measure
that required the City to take full responsibility
for the planting, maintenance, pruning, and removal of street trees if it also meant a special tax or assessment on individual property owners to fund the program, most respondents indicated some level of favorable support.

These results indicate on a smaller scale what
was reflected in the online survey (discussed
in more detail below), that residents would
prefer a different approach to maintaining
street trees than what is currently in place.

Another poll question conducted during the
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 57
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
virtual community meetings was regarding
the best way for the City to engage with
residents about the CFMP. The responses to
this question were highly varied and included preferences for town halls, social media engagement, mailers, through council district
representatives, and a CFMP website. These
responses confirm that effective community
engagement requires a variety of methods to
reach the broadest audience. Throughout the
community engagement process, the City has
used all of these methods except for mailers.

In addition to the polls conducted during each
virtual community meeting, participants were
encouraged to ask questions throughout the
presentation. Questions and comments were
submitted on a range of topics, including tree
selection, maintenance responsibilities, illegal
tree removal, tree removal permits, social
justice, social media as a tool for engagement, youth programs, funding for OCF, and engaging leaders from each council district.

Almost all participants in the virtual community meetings expressed appreciation for the content, dialogue, and responsiveness of City
staff in addressing comments, questions, and
concerns throughout the presentation. Crape myrtle
58 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program

ST JAMES NORTH
1 Trees and landscaping in city parks
offer many benefits to people and wildlife
alike. There are nearly 30,000 trees in San José
city parks with space to grow large canopies that
contribute to vital green space for recreation and
cooling centers in the community.
2 Native trees such as the coast live oak,
black walnut, and California sycamore
support local wildlife and encourage biodiversity
throughout the City and are a cornerstone of
natural ecosystems along riparian corridors and
wildland open space areas.
3 Street trees, median planters, and
backups in the public right-of-way are key
elements in creating a resilient San José. Street
trees with full crowns and more leafy foliage
provide numerous benefits like cooling the City,
reducing stormwater runoff, and capturing
greenhouse gas emissions.
4 Most trees in the city are on private
property and offer opportunities to plant
new trees and increase canopy cover. Trees on
private property shade homes reducing energy
use and costs, while increasing property values
and contributing to healthy neighborhoods.

TREES OF
SAN JOSÉ
Trees and
landscaping
in city parks
1 Native trees
2 CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 59 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Street trees,
median planters, and backups
3 Most trees in
the city are on
private property
4 60 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program

SOCIAL MEDIA
The City and consultant team implemented
various social media, print, and email communication strategies to notify residents of community meetings, the ability to participate
in the online survey, and the opportunity to
provide feedback. Initially, a project webpage
was created with the goal to inform residents
about the CFMP process and to educate them
about the benefits and services of trees. To
help reach these goals, the webpage includes
a video explaining the CFMP process and benefits for trees, a link to the survey, interactive components on tree benefits, information on
upcoming meetings, and the opportunity to
provide comments directly to the City.

To further engage residents, five social media
posts were created by the consultant team
and included on the City’s Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter accounts, as well as on Nextdoor. The social media posts each highlighted one specific question from the online survey
to help generate interest and discussion on
topics that the City decided were key components in creating goals and objectives of the CFMP. The questions are listed below:

1. Who should be responsible for the
protection, planting, and maintenance
of street trees?

2. What do you like most about trees in the
City?

3. How much effort should be made
to preserve trees in conflict with
development?

4. What should be the main focus of the
City in managing trees?

5. Would you support a special tax or
assessment to fund the City to take
full responsibility for the maintenance,
pruning, and removal of street trees?
The social media efforts resulted in 188,210
impressions and 1,094 comments, indicating a
high level of engagement.

Table 16. Survey Responses by Zip Code
Zip
Code Responses Zip Code Responses Zip Code Responses Zip Code Responses 92115 1 94536 1 94560 1 95002 1
95008 14 95032 1 95070 2 95110 35
95111 36 95112 125 95113 3 95116 26
95117 40 95118 97 95119 13 95120 178
95121 22 95122 18 95123 152 95124 141
95125 159 95126 73 95127 50 95128 70
95129 73 95130 42 95131 29 95132 81
95133 17 95134 12 95135 37 95136 144
95137 1 95138 26 95139 14 95142 1
95418 34 95150 1 95177 1 95184 1
95192 1 95239 1 96120 1 96132 1
96139 1 97127 No Zip Code Provided
89 Not San José Resident
63 CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 61 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1

ONLINE SURVEY
A public survey was posted online from April
through October 2020 with a dual goal of
(1) acquiring valuable public input and (2)
providing educational outreach. Like the
virtual community meetings, the survey was
valuable for informing CFMP elements and
establishing a framework for future community forest/tree public education and support outreach. The 19-question survey was conducted to learn more about the following:
• The attitudes and feelings respondents
have towards trees
• How much respondents understand
trees and how to maintain them
• How willing respondents would be to
support policies that protect trees on
private property
• How willing respondents would be to
support policies that would change
current tree management practices
• The attitudes and feelings respondents
have toward various funding
mechanisms
1 The survey results had a margin of error of ±3% and a 99% confidence level that the true percentage of San José’s population who would pick an answer lies within the margin of error (Checkmarket 2019).
2 Responding to demographic questions was voluntary and not necessarily completed by all respondents.

Demographics of Survey
Respondents
The survey was made available in English,
Spanish, and Vietnamese, and was disseminated
through various City social media outlets, local
newspapers, the project webpage, and communications by the project team and City Council Offices. In large part due to a successful social
media campaign, a total of 2,021 survey responses were recorded.1 The full survey questions and results can be found in Appendix A. Table 16
shows the zip codes of the survey respondents,
and Table 17 shows their demographics.2
Table 17 Demographics of Survey Respondents
Category Survey Respondent Demographics
Place of residence San José 96.6%
Housing type Single-family home 88.5%
Housing status Homeowner 90.4%
Primary Language
Spoken in the Home
English 91%
East Asian Languages (Vietnamese,
Mandarin, Cantonese, Tagalog) 2.8%
Spanish 1.5%
Hindi 0.9%
Other 3.6%
Age Over 40 84%
20–39 15%
Education Associate degree or higher 84.7%
62 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
Summary of Survey Results

CITY-MANAGED TREES VERSUS PRIVATE

PROPERTY OWNER-MANAGED STREET TREES
Several questions of the survey were directed
towards understanding how residents view the
current condition of street trees, their priorities
for trees, and costs they incur to manage adjacent street trees. When asked who should be responsible for the street tree protection, planting, and maintenance, 60.28% of respondents identified the City; 35.36% indicated the City and
private property owners should share responsibility; and 4.36% said the private property owner should have full responsibility. The specific actions of what respondents would want the City to manage are further clarified in survey results.

The survey asked respondents to identify what
they feel should be the top two goals of the
CFMP. The results of this question indicate that
the two main goals of the CFMP should be (1)
maintenance and (2) removing dead, dying, and
hazardous trees. Since residents are responsible for the street tree(s) adjacent their property and observe the tree(s) on a daily basis, it is reasonable to expect residents to prioritize issues that relate directly to their safety, thereby reducing individual liability and costs. These results indicate that respondents are in favor of the City
assuming responsibility of all street trees with a
priority on tree maintenance and removals. The
City does not currently dedicate enough funds
to accept full responsibility of all street tree management actions and may consider options to incrementally increase tree management. Residents could potentially support a hybrid City/ private property owner management model if
major street tree maintenance and removals
became the responsibility of the City. This model would allow the City to direct limited general funds to actions that are the priority of residents, while supplementing the needed funding for tree planting and establishment care with
local, regional, state, and federal grants or other
outside funding sources
An important element of this discussion is that
current funding does not support additional
management actions, like actively maintaining
all City trees. If the City were to take on additional management of street trees, one possible avenue to increase funding could come through a special assessment fee or tax paid
for by residents. To that end, the survey asked
if respondents would support a special tax or
assessment on individual property owners, if it
meant that the City would take full responsibility
of street tree management. The results indicate
a small measure of support for this approach
(21.4% supporting and 37.48% maybe in support with more information), with more respondents (35.7%) expecting the City to fully pay for the program from existing general funds. The
low level of support to paying a fee or tax is also
reflected in that 43% of respondents stating
that they are not willing to pay any new taxes,
and 31.38% indicating they would be willing to
pay $1 to $49.

PRIVATE PROPERTY TREE MANAGEMENT
As presented in the section on City canopy cover,
private property trees account for a significant
portion of the total tree canopy cover across the
City and play a significant role in preserving and
expanding the community forest. A core issue to
preserving and growing the tree canopy cover in
the City is how willing single-family homeowners
will be to protect and plant trees on their property. Several survey questions were directed toward better understanding this topic. Respondents favored (61.84% somewhat agree, agree, strongly agree) an ordinance that would establish minimum tree canopy cover standards for individual properties. Additionally, most respondents agreed that the City should protect and preserve trees when they are in conflict with development (73.59%); however, of these respons- CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 63
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
es, a subset (26.41%) expressed preservation
and protection should not inhibit development.

These results indicate that while tree preservation on private property is important for residents, supporting balanced development that provides needed services to communities and
additional dwelling units to meet housing demands is also important for some residents.

Another aspect of understanding private property tree management was to determine what costs residents incur from trees. As part of the
survey, residents were asked to identify the
main issue with trees on their property. The
majority of respondents selected damage to
underground pipes, buildings, and sidewalk and
pruning and maintenance costs as their most
pressing issues. In addition to this question, respondents were asked how much they’ve spent on maintenance and repairs from tree or tree
root damage in the last 5 years. Approximately
60% of respondents reported they have spent
$500 or more, and 42.25% reported having
spent more than $1,000.

CITY PRACTICES
Respondents were asked what they considered
a reasonable fee for a permit to prune or remove a City tree. Of respondents, 74% reported they would prune the tree without a permit, and 44.67% reported they would remove a tree
without a permit. Respondents indicated they’d
like to be notified about tree removal applications that have been submitted for trees in their neighborhood or Council District, and overall
agreed that the current fines were adequate for
deterring the illegal removal of trees.

ATTITUDES AND FEELINGS ABOUT TREES
Many respondents expressed the desire to increase the number of trees planted every year in the City, and to plant new species and to protect against climate change. Most respondents agree there are not enough trees in the community forest and that trees are very important to public spaces. It is evident that respondents
value trees for the environmental services they
provide, such as clean air, that contribute to
having healthy neighborhoods and the cooling
benefits that tree shade provides.

The survey also assessed respondents’ understanding of tree maintenance. The majority of respondents either inspect their trees annually
or only if the tree appears to be in poor condition, almost equally. Additionally, respondents reported 2 to 5 years as the recommended frequency for the maintenance pruning of trees in the urban environment. As an objective of this
CFMP, the City aims to further educate and provide resources to property owners to achieve optimum maintenance practices for trees on
and adjacent to their properties.

At the end of the survey, respondents had the
opportunity to provide open-ended feedback;
more than 900 comments were received. These
comments are summarized by categories and
can be found in Appendix A. The comments
provide insight into how property owners currently interact with the City and how they would prefer to work with the City to achieve a healthier community forest.

Fall color
64 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION
Section Recommendation Discussion
Canopy Cover Can Illuminate Equity
Issues
Collaborate with the Office of Racial
Equity on prioritizing areas of the
City with the highest CalEnviroScreen
Scores for new tree plantings.

The large discrepancy in canopy cover is an area that the departments in charge of tree management can collaborate with the Office of Racial Equity on strategizing the best path forward.

Online Survey Increase public outreach and education about trees to renters in San José.

90.4% of survey respondents were homeowners and 88% lived in a single-family home, in comparison to City data that shows 43.9% of housing units are renter occupied. Understanding the priorities of renters is an important step to ensure the CFMP is inclusive of all stakeholder perspectives.

Online Survey – City Managed vs.

Private Property Managed Street
Trees
Further study the funding mechanisms
most appropriate to support community forest management, and the degree to which residents or the City
would generate the funding.

Respondents showed varying opinions for how street tree management should be funded. Additional public engagement and education efforts should be undertaken to investigate where public support lies.

Online Survey – Private Property
Tree Management
Increase public education about tree
benefits.

Respondents identified several costly maintenance actions they needed to take in recent years. The City will need to develop strategies to educate residents on the value of trees to overcome the perception of trees as costly and causing damage, so tree canopy can be preserved and expanded on private property.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 65
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Ash Tree
66 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
Community Forest Program
Funding
To maintain and grow San José’s community
forest, CFMP goals must be adequately funded
to support successful implementation. There
are several factors that can be used to determine if the City is funding the community forest management program to meet established
safety and economic goals, while maximizing
the environmental services provided by trees.

These factors include (1) maintaining trees in a
safe condition, (2) adequate staffing to enforce
ordinances and implement policies, and (3)
managing new tree planting to expand Citywide
canopy cover in support of Climate Smart initiative goals. Additionally, as the City’s economic conditions change, funding should be thoughtfully allocated to prioritized community forest management actions so the City can continue
to progress towards a sustainable community
forest. Analysis of the City’s community forest
management program funding incorporated
the use of methods that are based on (1) current program goals, (2) a comparison of funding levels with other municipalities’ urban forest
management programs, and (3) applicable
sustainability principles.

CURRENT FUNDING
A sustainable community forest program is a
sufficiently funded community forest program.

There is no set standard for what a City will
need to invest in managing its tree population
to support a sustainable community forest program. The funding allocation will vary depending on the City’s health, safety, and environmental goals. City budgets to manage trees in the public space vary considerably for per-tree
spending, from as low as $12.96 (City of San
José) to as high as $119 per tree (City of Palo
Alto). The substantial gap in per-tree spending
requires further examination to understand if it
progresses a City’s urban forest program goals
and is sufficient to support tasks needed to
Street Tree Maintenance
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 67
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
manage a tree population (i.e., such as maintaining a 5- to 7-year pruning cycle and annually planting trees to increase canopy cover).

In analyzing the current funding levels of the
San José community forest management
program, this CFMP reviewed the annual budgets for all tree-related work from fiscal year 2014–2015 to fiscal year 2019–2020, considered
the amount of work completed in those years,
and compared funding to other municipal tree
budgets. Based on an average annual budget
of $3.9 million from fiscal years 2018-2020, and
an estimated City-managed tree population of
300,000, the City of San José spends approximately $12.96 per tree annually.

An important caveat to this section’s discussion
is that the City of San José only directly manages
street trees located in medians, backups, and
special maintenance districts; City-identified
heritage trees; and trees requiring maintenance
for streetlight clearance, or an approximate
37,000 trees of the total 270,000 street tree
population. PRNS is responsible for approximately 30,000 trees in City parks. The maintenance responsibility for the remaining 233,000 street trees resides with the private property
owner adjacent to the street tree(s), or 86%
of the street tree population. Limited data are
available to estimate the costs a private property owner will incur to maintain a street tree.

As such, the online public survey asked respondents to indicate how much they have spent on maintenance or repairs related to trees or tree
root damage over the past 5 years (Table 18).

Based on the survey results, only 22.53% of
respondents have had no tree maintenance
and associated repair costs; 36.8% have had
costs between $1 to $999; and 40.67% of
respondents have paid more than $1,000. The
total cost for all respondents could be as high as
$894,750 when using an average per cost category ($0, $250, $750, $1,500, $2,000), times the total responses per category. Based on these
assumptions, each respondent could anticipate
a need to spend approximately $912 on tree
maintenance and repair costs over a 5-year period, or $182 per year. Using an annual per tree cost of $182, San José residents would need to
spend approximately $42.41 million dollars a
year to maintain the 233,000 street trees and
perform associated repairs from tree root damages. This figure is only provided as an estimate based on survey results, and as an indicator of
what it may cost to maintain all City public space
street trees. It is not known what each respondent considered a tree maintenance or repair cost, and actual totals may decrease or increase
with further clarification of what constitutes a
cost for tree maintenance and related repairs to
tree or tree root damage.

FUNDING OF MAINTENANCE PRACTICES
An important factor in determining if funding
is sufficient, is understanding whether maintenance practices are supporting program goals and other goals developed in the CFMP.

Some maintenance practices, such as the
frequency with which a newly planted tree is
watered, are specific to local climate conditions and annual rain totals in an area. Others, such as maintaining a 5- to 7-year pruning cycle
(Miller et al. 1981 are relatively consistent for all
tree management programs. As such, the City’s
Table 18 Online Survey Results of Private Property Owner Tree Maintenance and Repair Costs Costs $0 $1–$499 $500–$999 $1,000–$1,999 $2,000+
Total Responses 221 189 172 159 240
% of Responses 22.53% 19.27% 17.53% 16.21% 24.46%
68 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
pruning cycle is a useful indicator to understand
its funding needs.

A 5- to 7-year pruning cycle is the optimal intersection of maintaining trees in a safe condition and limiting expenses to a City (Figure 1; Miller
et. al 1981). A pruning cycle on a shorter time
frame has a higher cost to the City but does not
correlate to a proportional increase in safety.

Conversely, a longer time frame lowers costs to
the City, but also decreases tree safety. While
it is not known how many trees managed by
private property owners are pruned annually,
City records indicate that between the years of
2014–2019, the annual average of tree pruning
permits completed by private property owners
was 1,566. If the total number of completed
permits directly related to the quantity of trees
pruned, it would equate to a pruning cycle of
once every 123 years. The City does have the
ability to require property owners to maintain
trees adjacent to their property. However,
enforcement actions are limited to only a small
percentage of properties that are reported as
noncompliant or required to repair hazardous
sidewalks each year as DOT is limited in staff
and resources to enforce City policy.

The City is responsible for caring for approximately 19,451 trees on medians and backups, which is approximately 15% of all street trees
in the community forest. These City-managed
trees, not including the 17,239 trees in Maintenance Districts, are currently on a 100-year pruning cycle. The City receives funding from a
limited number of Special Maintenance Districts
that is sufficient to prune 17,239 trees on a 5- to
7-year pruning cycle. While the City is not responsible for all 270,000 street trees, the combined expenses of the City and private property owners for tree maintenance and how many
trees are pruned annually by private property
Park Trees
(30,000 Total)
All Public Space
Trees (300,000)
Budget
Trees
Trimmed Budget
Trees
Trimmed Budget
Trees
Trimmed
To Achieve
5- to 7-Year
Cycle
$750,000 6,000
Current
Estimates
Gap To
Sustainable
Management
*Does Not Include Special Maintenance Districts
$200,000 1,600
$6,125,00
*Street Trees
(253,000 Total)
$6,325,000 50,600
Table 19. Estimated Funding to Maintain 5-Year Pruning Cycle of Public Space Trees 49,000
$150,000
4,800
$7,075,000 56,600
$350,000 2,800
$600,000 $6,725,000 53,800
1,200
owners is not known. Therefore, this analysis
is based on determining what funding may be
needed to maintain the entire tree population
on a 5- to 7-year pruning cycle, to create a
baseline for the City to measure its progression
towards a sustainable community forest.

Table 19reflects the estimated funding needed to maintain a 5- to 7-year pruning cycle of public space trees (excluding special districts)
in the City. The costs toprune trees is derived
from the City’s 2020 Deferred Maintenance
and Infrastructure Backlog,which assumed
$490,000 is needed to prune
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 69
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1

HEALTH AND SAFETY CONDITION OF TREES
The current health condition of the community forest is one factor to determine if funding supports maintenance activities that progress
the City towards sustainability. A review of the
available City tree inventory data shows 48% of
the trees as rated “good” or better and another
45% rated fair,” which suggests the majority of
trees in the inventory (93%) have an average
or better health condition. On face value, the
health condition of trees would suggest that
community forest program funding is sufficient
to maintain a relatively healthy tree population.

However, without an updated inventory or trees
being pruned on a 5- to 7-year cycle, it is not
known if trees are currently in a safe condition,
despite a positive health condition.

One way to understand if trees are in a safe
condition is to examine the total number of
emergency tree situations in a given year.

Table 20 provides the number of emergency
calls received annually by the City, based on
annual Core Service Data reports.

On average, the City annually receives 819
emergency calls for street trees. The lack of
regular tree maintenance increases the amount
of funding City arborists need to allocate to
emergency situations as they present an urgent
public safety concern. With a DOT estimated
cost of $600 to $700 per tree emergency, expenses for responding to tree emergencies cost on average $491,400 to $573,300. That cost is
shared between the City and by private property owners who are billed by the City for completing emergency work on their property. If these costs were reflected in the tree management
budget, the City could actively prune five trees
for every one tree it prunes in an emergency situation, resulting in annually pruning an additional 4,096 trees. Actively maintaining trees would increase the efficiency of the tree pruning
program and help to reduce potential hazardous tree situations before they occur. While active tree management would not eliminate
all emergency situations, it would lower the
potential for emergencies to occur.

Table 20. Annual Emergency Calls for Street Trees
Fiscal Year 2014–2015 2015–2016 2016–2017 2017–2018 2018–2019 Emergency Calls 769 651 1,208 822 644
19,451 trees on a 5-year cycle. This provides a
baseline estimate of $125 to prune a mature
tree ($490,000 to prune 3,890 trees annually).If
the City were to assume pruning and maintenance responsibilities for all 270,000 streets trees, it would potentially need to annually
invest an additional $6,125,000 in the community forest program. All park trees are currently managed by the City, and the $600,000 gap in
funding needed to bring park tree pruning into
a 5-year cycle reflects an actual deficiency in
City management.

Each year the City of San José evaluates the
deficit in funds available to maintain the
City’s infrastructure in a sustained functional
condition, which is published in the annual
Deferred Maintenance and Infrastructure
Backlog staff report. As stated in the 2020
report, to bring all existing City-maintained
trees into good condition, it is estimated that
$3 million in one-time funding is needed, and
an additional $583,000 is needed one time
to plant trees in existing City-maintained,
appropriate planting sites. Further, ongoing
annual funding of $490,000 is needed to
maintain a 5-year pruning cycle for the 19,451
City-maintained trees,. With a current base
budget funding level of $100,000, that leaves
an annual ongoing shortfall of $390,000.
70 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program

STAFFING LEVELS
The number of staff available to perform annual tree inspections and enforce ordinances and policies is a critical element of a sustainable forest (Table 21a). In 2016, a large-scale review was published that detailed munici3 The cities represented in the report are not known because all responses were anonymous. pal tree care management and community
programs throughout the country (Hauer and
Peterson 2016a). Of the 667 cities that responded to the survey, two3 had populations
comparable to San José (1 million+) (Table
21b). The survey results showed that of these
two cities, an average of 38 full-time equivalents (FTEs) were involved in the management of the City tree population. These FTEs held
positions such as arborists, tree trimmers,
clerical support/office staff, equipment operators, laborers, managers, contracted nonTable 21a. All City Staff involved with Tree Management Position Type
Number
of FTEs
Maintenance Workers Trimmer/laborer 2.5
Sr Office Specialist/Office Specialist Clerical Support/Office 1 Heavy Equipment Operator Equipment operator 0
Associate Construction Inspector Laborer 1.5
City Arborist/Assistant Arborist Management/Supervisor 3 Park Supervisor Management/Supervisor 0.5
Planner/Sr Planner Mgmt/Supervisor 2
Arborist Technician Field Inspection 3
Seasonal Employees/Interns Seasonal Employees/Interns 0 Truck Driver Truck Driver 0
Working Foreman Working Foreman 0.5
Total 15.5
Table 21b. Mean Number of FTEs by population size
Population
Number
of Cities
Mean number
of FTEs
2,500-4,999 47 3.3
5,000-9,999 35 3.1
10,000-24,999 41 4.7
25,000-49,999 121 5.3
50,000-99,999 146 6.3
100,000-249,999 87 11.8
250,000-499,999 20 18.3
500,000-1,000,000 9 18.2
1,000,000+ 2 38.0
San José 15.5
Note: table adapted from Hauer and Peterson 2016a
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 71
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
profits, seasonal employees, truck drivers,
working foreman, and other.

In comparing the City of San José’s staffing for
tree management, the City has 15.5 FTEs DOT
specifically has a City arborist, two assistant
arborists, and three arborist technicians on
staff who can perform high-level health and
risk inspections and provide recommendations to improve tree health and safety. On average, each inspector is responsible for
more than 18,000 trees annually and may
exceed a realistic workload for an arborist
inspector. PRNS does not have an arborist
on staff responsible for tree management.

Table 21b shows the mean FTEs in cities who
responded to the Hauer and Peterson study.

San José’s current staffing is more closely
aligned with the staffing of cities that have
half of San José’s population size. These comparison data suggest that San José needs to add 22-23 additional FTEs to manage the
community forest.

COMPARISON OF FUNDING WITH OTHER
CITIES
Another useful way to measure City funding of the community forest program is by comparing the City’s budget to those of
other municipalities. Table 22 provides the
budgets of various city urban forest management programs throughout California.

Comparison cities were selected based in
part on the amount of verifiable information
for each city to provide an accurate baseline
of the potential funding needed to carry out
management activities and costs.

As indicated in Table 23, San José has the
lowest allocation per resident and lowest
allocation per tree of any other City in the
comparison group. As discussed, private
property owners are responsible for the
majority of street trees in the City, whereas all other cities in the comparison study are responsible for any tree in the public
right-of-way. This difference in responsibility
structure is the main factor contributing to
the low funding of San José’s trees in comparison with other cities. This difference means San José’s tree management funding
cannot be directly correlated as sufficient or
deficient, as it is not a direct comparison of
maintenance responsibilities. Rather, Table
23 provides a framework to understand
what spending levels are used throughout
the state to manage a municipal tree population and related maintenance activities. To that end, we will examine the tree management budgets and maintenance activities of the comparison cities by the standards
used to analyze San José’s community forest
management program.

In 2012, the City of San Francisco faced a
similar set of circumstances in managing
their urban forest and completed an audit
of its urban forest management program to
identify key areas for improvement. Like San
José, San Francisco identified limited funds
for urban forest management and property
owners having responsibility for street tree
and sidewalk maintenance. In response,
the City assessment continued in 2014 with
a report on the financial resources and funding mechanisms needed to implement the changes to management practices. These
assessments resulted in the passing of a
ballot measure in 2016 that requires the City
to budget $19 million a year on urban forest
management. The funding supports City
management of all trees in the public space
(streets and parks), provides 3 years of
establishment care to newly planted trees,
completion of an urban forestry management plan, and a planting plan in place to increase canopy cover. In addition, the City
72 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
of San Francisco takes full responsibility for
tree pruning and repairing sidewalk damage
caused by trees. Because of the comprehensive level of the San Francisco urban forest management program, and proximity to San
José, the San Francisco tree management
budget is a good indicator of what funding
might be needed to support a sustainable
community forest program in San José. In
comparing these cities, the City of San José
spends 75% less per resident, and 78% less
per tree, than the City of San Francisco.

Another factor examined by the municipal
tree care management and community programs report was the annual average spent per tree of each city (Hauer and Peterson
2016a). Of the three cities with populations
greater than 1 million that responded to the
survey, an average of $25.10 was spent per
tree including all public trees. San Francisco’s per-tree spending of $80.51 is above the total tree spending average in the report,
but suggest the amount could be used as a
baseline to determine what level of funding
San José may need to sustainably manage
the entire public space tree population
Table 22.Comparison of Municipal Urban Forest Management Funding City Total Budget Total Population
Allocation
per Resident
Total
Trees
Allocation
per Tree
Pruning
Cycle
Establishment
Care
Stocking
Rate
San Francisco $19 million
(2018) 874,961 $21.72 236,000 $80.51 3-5 years 3 years 2,500 per year,goal of Sacramento $6.7 million
(2018) 501,334 $13.36 100,000 $67.00 5 years 3 years 1,000 per year Los Angeles $25.4 million
(2018) 3,979,576 $6.38 1,000,000 $25.40 18 years For grant-funded projects 90,000 trees
in low canopy
areas by 2021
San José $3.89 million1
(2019) 1,021,795 $3.81 300,0002 $12.97 NA For grant-funded projects None Notes:
1 Total budget totals are based on average annual community forest program budget data from FY2018-2020. 2 Total number of trees is based on inventory information provided by the City.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 73
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
(300,000 trees). Applying San Francisco
per-tree spending San José would need to
increase overall program spending by $20.26
million dollars a year, for a total annual budget of $24.15 million, to maintain a sustainable community forest.

FUNDING THE COMMUNITY FOREST
Maintaining San José’s community forest is
an investment in the health and safety of the
residents and visitors, as well as in the environment. The benefits of community forests are discussed in detail throughout this CFMP,
such as greenhouse gas reductions, increased
health benefits, environmental justice, and
water and energy conservation. As the health
and expanse of the community forest canopy
cover increases, so do the benefits. Each dollar
invested in San José’s community forest will
be reflected in a realized environmental and
economic benefit to the City.

San José must balance how it allocates
available resources to numerous competing
interests and needs of the residents. Often,
funding for municipal urban forest programs
is reduced during times of financial downturn, to maintain funding levels for other city services such as the police department, fire
department, road projects, schools, and other
public services. As a result, tree maintenance
budgets are often at risk for reductions (Voght
et al. 2015). This trend occurred for the City
after the 18-month long recession in late 2007
through 2009 when the tree crews consisting
of approximately 12 staff were eliminated and
funding levels have yet to be restored.

As outlined in Table 23, there are various
costs associated with maintaining the community forest. There are also costs associated with not maintaining the community forest, and these costs are typically greater.

For example, Browning and Wiant (1997)
found that deferring utility tree pruning 4
years past the optimal pruning cycle (5–7
years) yielded $1.47 to $1.69 in costs for
every $1 deferred, and resulted in a two-fold
increase in pruning debris. In another study,
Ryder and Moore (2013) found that pruning
trees at a young age (formative pruning) was
less expensive than waiting to correct structural defects 20 years later. Ultimately, as demonstrated in urban forestry and arboriculture literature, the cost of not maintaining the community forest is much greater than
sustainably funding the community forest.

Table 23. Costs Associated with Community Forests
Cost Examples
Direct costs Planting, pruning, watering, and other types of maintenance Infrastructure interference
costs
Pavement and sewer repair, blockage of signs, tree-initiated power outages
Externally related costs
Emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds, release of carbon dioxide during decomposition, allergies due to pollen release, leaf/debris cleanup
Opportunity costs Space for trees cannot be used for parking, bike lanes, etc.

Staff time Salary and benefits for staff and laborers associated with community forest management and maintenance.

Source: Adapted from Voght et al. 2015.
74 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
$10

MILLION
$5

MILLION
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$0
Historical City Tree
Maintenance Budget

AMOUNT RECEIVED PER FISCAL YEAR

FISCAL YEAR
BUDGET
$2.9 M
$3.6 M $3.4 M
$4.1 M
$3.8 M
$4.1 M $3.7 M
Figure 10.Timeline for City Tree Maintenance Budget
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 75
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Funding Opportunities
State Funding
Environmental
Enhancement Mitigation
Program (California Natural
Resources Agency)
With approximately $13.4 million for the 2021–2023 funding cycle, this program encourages projects that produce multiple benefits that reduce greenhouse gas emissions; increase water use efficiency; reduce risks from climate change impacts; and demonstrate collaboration with local, state, and community entities. Eligible projects like tree planting and habitat restoration, must be directly or indirectly related to the environmental impact of the modification of an existing transportation facility or construction of a new transportation facility.

Urban Flood Protection
Grant Program (California
Natural Resources Agency)
The Urban Flood Protection Program was created by Proposition 68 for the purpose of multi-benefit projects in urbanized areas to address flooding. Projects must provide multi-benefit solutions to address flooding in urban areas, protect people, and protect property from flood damage. Examples of eligible projects include tree planting and establishment care and creating native landscapes with stormwater capture features like bioswales. There was one funding cycle for fiscal year 2020–2021 totaling $92.5 million.

Urban and Community
Forestry Program (CAL
FIRE)
Multiple grant programs supported by the Urban and Community Forestry Program will fund tree planting, tree inventories, urban wood and biomass utilization, blighted urban lands improvements, and leading edge work that advances the goals and objectives of supporting healthy urban forests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There was an estimated $10 million available to fund a variety of urban forestry projects in fiscal year 2019–2020.

Urban Greening Grant
Program (California Natural
Resources Agency):

Consistent with Assembly Bill 32 (2006), the Urban Greening Program will fund projects that reduce greenhouse gases by sequestering carbon, decreasing energy consumption, and reducing vehicles miles traveled, while also transforming the built environment into places that are more sustainable, enjoyable, and effective in creating healthy and vibrant communities. During the 2019–2020 fiscal year, there was approximately $28.5 million available for selected project applicants, which included public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and qualifying districts.

Active Transportation
Program (California
Department of
Transportation)
This program provides funding to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking. Trees and other vegetation are significant components of several eligible projects under the Active Transportation Program, including parks, trails, and safe routes to schools. $440 million will be distributed to project applicants over fiscal years 2019–2020, 2020– 2021, 2021–2022, and 2022–2023. Applicants include public agencies, transit agencies, school districts, tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations.

Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities
(California Strategic Growth
Council)
The Strategic Growth Council is authorized to fund land use, housing, transportation, and land preservation projects to support infill and compact development that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Urban Greening is a threshold requirement for all Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities funded projects. Eligible urban greening projects include, but are not limited to, rainwater recycling; flow and filtration systems including rain gardens, stormwater planters, and filters; vegetated swales; bioretention basins; infiltration trenches; and integration with riparian buffers, shade trees, community gardens, and parks and open space.

Funding for 2021 is estimated at $452 million and will be available to locality (e.g., local agencies), developer (entity responsible for project construction), or program operator (day-to-day operational project administrator) project applicants. 76 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
* Local and Regional Funding
Parcel Tax A parcel tax is a special tax levied for the provision of special benefits. Revenues from special taxes must be used for the specific purpose for which they are intended, so a parcel tax would create a dedicated funding stream for street trees. Similar to a special assessment, a parcel tax cannot be based on the value of property; however, the amount levied on each parcel need not be directly related to the benefits provided (ILG 2008). Cities have the flexibility to levy parcel taxes as they see fit, but they are typically based on lot square footage or levied as a flat tax, with the same amount per parcel (CTD 2012a). Parcel taxes are designed to encompass entire cities and therefore, are good candidates for a citywide street tree program, as opposed to the district-level approach that often occurs under special assessments.

Landscape
and Lighting
Assessment
Districts
LLADs are a form of special assessment that finance improvements to landscaping, lighting and open space, along with open space acquisition.

The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 authorizes municipal agencies in California to initiate and administer LLADs. The creation of a LLAD, as with any special assessment, requires the preparation of an Engineer’s Report that demonstrates the nexus between fees assessed and benefits provided, followed by majority (50 percent plus one) approval via a special ballot, pursuant to Proposition 218. LLADs are widely used throughout California to fund a range of public realm improvements and services related to street trees, streetscape improvements, street and traffic lights, and recreational facilities, among others. As with parcel taxes, LLADs typically fund more than just street tree planting, establishment and maintenance. While a LLAD could be designed for street trees alone, the process may attract other agencies in need of additional revenue and interested in expanding the scope to services such as park and recreation maintenance. One caution would be to avoid setting the assessment so high as to generate voter backlash. Local municipalities have often convened focus groups to determine the appropriate assessment level.

Maintenance
Assessment
Districts
The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 authorizes Maintenance Assessment Districts (MADs), which are closely related to LLADs. The key difference is that charter cities, can create MADs for the provision of services not specifically authorized under state law, thereby broadening their use (Griffin, pers. comm., 2012). MADs may be used to finance street tree care, but as with a LLAD, a MAD intended for street trees alone could also attract the attention of other agencies interested in funding the provision of additional non-related services.

Partnerships Partnerships are one opportunity to promote on-going collaborations like that with Our City Forest, while also creating new collaborations with corporate sponsors, individual donors, and utility companies. San José as home to ‘Silicon Valley’ has many opportunities to create partnerships with several large corporations that could provide one-time or ongoing support to City community forest activities. Partnerships with utility companies have proven to be reliable source of funding for tree planting efforts where there is a shared objective. As an example, Los Angeles has an on-going funding partnership with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power that helps support tree planting activities as an energy savings program. Finally, a City-wide tree fund would provide an opportunity for individual donors to support City tree efforts and could be focused on increasing canopy cover in areas most in need of trees.

Joint Powers
Association:

Multiple public agencies including the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, Valley Water and other entities have an interest in tree management activities in San José. Street trees help mitigate air quality impacts of freeways and other major roadways and retain and divert stormwater runoff from the sewer system. Overlapping interests in street trees may create an opportunity for a unified urban forestry program, such as a Joint Powers Authority, to coordinate on planting and maintenance and engage in cost-sharing. This requires additional analysis of issues such as feasibility, potential cost savings, the involvement of other agencies and organizations, and fair share contributions that reflect the relative benefits enjoyed by the various parties. * Source: City of San Fransico, Financing San Francisco's Urban Forest 2013.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 77
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDING COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT Section Recommendation Discussion
Funding of Maintenance Practices Continue to evaluate the deficit in funds that are available to maintain
the City’s infrastructure in the annual
Deferred Maintenance and Infrastructure Report
This document provides a review and dollar amount of funding gaps for trees, and is an important tool to measure what tree work is being completed and what tree work remains deferred each year.

Health and Safety Condition of
Trees
Reallocate funding to allow for active
and/or regular tree maintenance
In the current structure, the lack of regular tree maintenance increases the amount of funding City arborists need to allocate to emergency situations as they present an urgent public safety concern.

Staffing Levels Conduct a review to determine the
number of staff members that would
need to be hired to increase urban
forest program capacity
Based on comparison to the urban forest programs of other Cities, San José’s program includes the staffing levels of Cities with approximately one fifth the population size.

Funding Opportunities-Grants Consider jointly applying to local, regional, state, and federal urban forest grant programs
The six grant programs recommended in this section may require partnership with OCF and/or other City departments for eligibility. Funding provided by these grants may support expansion of sustainable community forest program practices.

Funding Opportunities-Fees,
Assessments, and Taxes
Consider expanding fees, assessments, and taxes to generate funding for the Community Forest program
Funding generated by special fees, assessments, and taxes could generate unrestricted funds, which differ from grant funding that has specific requirements 78 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
Street Tree Management
Practices
Achieving a sustainable San José community
forest will in part be dependent on having
tree management practices that promote
the annual planting of trees to meet canopy
goals, provide early tree care that establishes newly planted trees, and use of pruning and removal practices that promote healthy
and safe trees, improve life expectancy, and
increase the benefits received. A community
forest management program that successfully implements these practices will progress the City towards the CFMP goals and other
Citywide environmental goals established in
planning documents like Climate Smart San
José. The tree management responsibility of
public space street trees is shared between
the City and private property owners, with
City park trees managed solely by PRNS.

TREE INVENTORY
Having current information on the status of
the community forest ensures City community forest program decisions are driven by accurate data and provide the basis for the
strategic investment of City resources. A city
will often obtain tree condition information
by perpetually updating its inventory when
it plants, maintains, and prunes trees. In San
José, private property owners are responsible
for most of the tree management in the City,
and the City does not inspect or prune public
space trees on a regular basis. As a result, the
City would have to implement an inventory
and inspection program to understand the
current condition of City trees. A conservative
estimate for a Citywide tree inventory based
on industry rates would cost $3 to $4 per
tree, or approximately $900,000-1 million
dollars to inventory all 300,000 street and
park trees. The City could include updating
a portion of the inventory as an annual or
every-other-year cost to its community forest
management program. Another option would
be to invest in maintaining a 5- to 7-year
pruning cycle, which would ensure the City
tree inventory is updated in perpetuity. Without an updated inventory, the City is missing key information that informs management
decisions to maintain trees in a safe and
healthy condition.

STREET TREES
Management of street tree populations vary
widely depending on the city. Some cities
such as Los Angeles ask private property
owners to opt into planting and maintaining
trees in the parkway, while the City takes
responsibility for sidewalk repairs and emergency situations. Others like San Francisco take full responsibility for a street tree from
the time it’s planted through removal and
replacement. No one method is prescribed
as a best management practice for all municipalities as each situation comes with a unique set of budget and resource limitations, political climate, and priorities of private property owners. The one consistent reality for all methods is that public tree management
is most effective when the City and private
property owners understand and agree with
their defined roles and responsibilities and
work together towards achieving goals for the
community forest. The review of public space
street trees in San José will discuss management practices of the City and the current expectations of private property owners to
manage public space street trees. This model
will be measured against baseline sustainability indicators to further understand the impact on the overall community forest,
benefits of the model, and recommendations
to improve tree management practices so
they progress the City towards sustainable
community forest management.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 79
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Fallen Tree Branch
80 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program

PROPERTY-OWNER MAINTAINED TREES

VERSUS CITY-MAINTAINED TREES
Perhaps the most significant City policy that
impacts the ability to progress towards a
sustainable community forest is the shared
management of street trees adjacent to
private property. The City has a street tree
population of approximately 270,000 trees, of
which private property owners are responsible for approximately 233,000 trees.

Municipal Code 13.28.400 establishes that
the property owner is responsible for tree
related work on street trees location adjacent
to private property located in park strips,
behind sidewalk or in the sidewalk cut out
where the sidewalk abuts the curb and gutter. The remaining trees directly managed by the City fall into one of the following designations according to the San José Tree Manual:

1. Trees located between the sidewalk
and the curb and gutter or behind
sidewalk where the sidewalk abuts
the curb and gutter only when the
adjacent property is a City-owned
facility

2. Trees located in all median islands on
public streets.

3. Trees located in specifically designated City-maintained landscape areas that abut roadways.

The responsibility of private property owners to maintain the street trees adjacent their property has been in the City municipal
code since 1951 (City of San José n.d.b), and
when private property transfers ownership,
the new owner is notified of their responsibility to maintain the street tree. However, as expressed in interviews with City staff,
despite the notification and clear language
of the municipal code, many residents and
private property owners are not aware of
their responsibility to manage the street
trees adjacent their property. Often property owners did not plant the trees adjacent their property and assume because it was
existing prior to their ownership that the
City is responsible for it. The first time they
become aware of their responsibility is when
they are notified by the City that they are
required to prune a tree or fix a damaged
sidewalk. This common scenario causes
frustration and confusion with property
owners who view street tree maintenance
as a City responsibility as evidenced by the
CFMP online survey with 60% of respondents indicating the City should have full responsibility for street trees (see Appendix
D. for all survey results).

The current model can also create a disproportionate burden on low-income residents who may not have the resources to pay for
tree pruning or sidewalk repairs. The cost
of maintenance can also create a barrier for
Street Median Tree Planting
PHOTO: OUR CITY TREES
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 81
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Who is responsible for these trees?
The photo below shows an area of San José where responsibility for street and landscape trees is divided among multiple property owners. There are many neighborhoods in the City where tree ownership, care, and maintenance are the responsibility of multiple public agencies.

Private property
Hillsdale Ave.

Waterford Park
Vistapark Dr.

Woodmere Dr.

Regency Ave.

Co
m
m
unications
Hill Blvd.

Special District Trees General Fund Landscape PRNS Park Landscaping Figure 11. Property-Owner Maintained trees versus City-Maintained trees Who is responsible for these trees?
The photo below shows an area of San José where responsibility for street and landscape trees is divided among multiple property owners. There are many neighborhoods in the City where tree ownership, care, and maintenance are the responsibility of multiple public agencies.

Private property
Hillsdale Ave.

Waterford Park
Vistapark Dr.

Woodmere Dr.

Regency Ave.

Co
m
m
unications
Hill Blvd.

Special District Trees General Fund Landscape PRNS Park Landscaping 82 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
residents in disadvantaged communities to
participate in tree planting programs, and
further exacerbate disparities in canopy
cover between low-income and high-income
communities. Transferring the responsibility of street trees to the City would resolve the confusion with private property owners
and help alleviate the impact to low-income
residents. It would also require a drastic
increase of City funding to the community
forest program.

City staff and representatives of City Councilmembers indicated during interviews that the current system is beneficial to the City
due to budget constraints and reduced liability. Managing the entire tree population could potentially cost the City $20–$24 million annually, which would be a significant increase from the current $3.89 million annual budget
to of the community forest program (See
Funding section for more details). These factors may cause reluctance from City decision makers to assume responsibility for street
trees without additional outside funding beyond what is currently allocated from the City general fund. It may become even more difficult to prioritize an increased level of funding for street trees with the economic uncertainty brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic.

It is difficult to measure the impact of this
approach on the condition of street trees
in the community forest with available data.

The inventory is now seven years old and
does not reflect the current health conditions of the trees. Tree health may experience a significant shift in seven years, and it is not known if trees remain in their 2014
condition. It will be important for the City to
complete an updated inventory if management practices continue as is to determine if the City street tree population is resilient
to climate change, pests, diseases, and
development.

The issue is bifurcated between who
should be responsible for the management
and associated costs of street trees and
whether current management practices are
progressing the City towards a community
forest with healthy trees that increase their
benefit as they grow larger and mature.

This section will continue to review specific issues related to management of street trees and explore the issues created by the
current responsibility model and the effectiveness of practices to plant, care for, and maintain street trees.

Tree Planting and
Establishment Care

TREE PLANTING
The tree planting component of the City’s
community forest program is one example of
a City management practice that attempts to
bridge the responsibility for street trees by
providing trees at a reduced cost to disadvantaged residents, free permits, and with support of outreach and engagement efforts.

Outside of OCF grant-funded tree planting
projects, the City is limited in its ability to
actively plant street trees adjacent to private property. Because of this, planting new street trees is dependent on either a property owner initiating a street tree planting, as a requirement for a development project,
or by compelling a property owner to plant
a tree through enforcement of Municipal
Code Section 13.28.400. Enforcement of the
Municipal Code requiring a street tree to be
maintained or replaced adjacent a private
property typically occurs when the property
is not compliant with other repair issues. The
City could begin to require any property that
has a vacant tree site adjacent their property
to increase the annual total of trees planted.

It would be difficult to implement this strat-
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 83
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
egy though without an increase in DOT staff
that manage street trees. Requiring property
owners to plant trees also has the potential
to create a negative relationship between the
property owner and the newly planted street
tree since property owners would also have to
assume the maintenance responsibilities and
associated costs for a tree they did not want
to plant. Based on these factors, the current
voluntary tree planting campaign offers the
best opportunity for the City to increase the
total number of street trees and create a
positive experience for community members,
but is not likely to significantly increase the
number of trees planted annually.

The main way residents are encouraged to get
a street tree planted is through OCF, which is
one example of how the City benefits from its
partnership with OCF. With the support of City
and grant funding, OCF can navigate residents
through the City permit process, select an appropriate species for the planting location, and deliver a tree to the property for the resident
to plant. OCF and its volunteers are also able to
provide free tree planting services on a limited
basis for elderly or disabled citizens who are
physically unable to plant the tree themselves.

Approximately 1,600 new and replacement
street trees are planted every year from the
efforts of OCF in partnership with the City. This
program demonstrates a willingness of residents to support community forest program efforts when there is a system in place that has
clear permit processes and shared responsibilities with the City.

ESTABLISHMENT CARE
Another important aspect of a tree planting
program is whether a comprehensive establishment care program is in place to ensure trees successfully transplant. Establishment
care typically refers to the 3- to 5-year period
after planting and related tree maintenance
activities to support tree growth and health.

Maintenance activities include supplemental
watering, monitoring, repairing and removing
supportive stakes and ties as needed, removing weeds from the planting area, and pruning as needed to remove dead or broken branches
and establish good structure. In California cities
such as San José that can experience little or no
Community tree planting
84 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
rainfall for months, establishment care is crucial
to the survival of newly planted trees.

Residents who receive a tree from OCF agree
to maintain the tree for 3 years after planting
and follow a prescribed maintenance regiment
to water weekly, provide necessary pruning,
keep the watering basin free of competing
vegetation, and properly support the tree with
stakes and ties (OCF 2020). The recommended
maintenance practices align with ISA standards
for establishment care and when implemented
would be effective for tree health and growth.

What is not well understood is the extent to
which street tree recipients implement the
establishment care standards. For trees managed by private property owners, the City street tree inventory indicates a health condition of
fair or better for 94% of trees with a DSH of 0
to 6 inches; with 2% of the trees dead.4
If these
percentages are an actual reflection of all similar
trees, then it is reasonable to assume newly
planted trees are given sufficient establishment
care by private property owners. It may also
reflect that residents who actively pursue trees
for planting in their parkway take the time and
4 These data were available for 17,022 privately managed street trees and does not reflect all trees with a DBH of 0 to 6 inches managed by private property owners in the inventory as not all trees had a recorded health condition effort to obtain City permits and then plant the
trees, are invested in their survival. If so, the
current model of obtaining trees from OCF and
having residents provide establishment care
may warrant further investment from the City
to expand the current outreach and monitoring
program to increase the total number of trees
planted each year.

Another possibility to increase resident participation in a tree planting campaign could be for the City to fund the maintenance of newly
planted trees when residents absorb the cost
of planting. Currently the City provides limited
funding for the establishment of newly planted
trees on select locations like medians and for
trees planted as part of a grant funded program.

As reported by the City, it costs approximately
$550 to provide 3 years of watering and establishment care to a newly planted tree. A model of sharing planting and establishment care costs
would demonstrate to residents that the City is
willing to invest in the growth of the community
forest by providing a resource to assist residents.

It would also increase the total number of trees
that successfully establish, contributing to the
long-term expansion of Citywide canopy cover.

Pruning and Emergency
Tree Work
Trees are living organisms, and arborists
cannot detect every malady within a tree or
determine when a tree might experience
failure. However, in general, trees with a good
structure and in good health are less likely
to have unexpected root, trunk, and limb
failures. Therefore, this section is dedicated
to discussing both City pruning practices of
public space street trees, as well as emergency tree work as one continuous management practice, because it is difficult to separate the
effectiveness of a tree pruning program from
subsequent emergency tree work.

A 5- to 7-year pruning cycle is the optimal
intersection of maintaining trees in a safe
condition and limiting expenses to a City (Miller
et. al 1981). The majority of City-managed
street trees are on a 38-year pruning cycle,
with the exception of trees in Maintenance
Districts that are on a 14-year pruning cycle.

Maintenance Districts have a unique dedicated
funding stream that allows for a more frequent
pruning cycle, while the City does not provide
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 85
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Los Angeles*
18 YEAR PRUNING CYCLE
San Francisco*
3-5 YEAR PRUNING CYCLE

PRUNING CYCLE IN YEARS
SAN JOSÉ
ANNUAL

PRUNING
BUDGET
NEEDS
Pruning Cycles Affect the Health of Community Forests
The ideal pruning cycle for maintaining the health of a community forest is 5-7 years.

Funding availability for pruning is a critical factor in the health of any urban tree canopy. *Figure does not reflect annual pruning budgets needs of comparison cities. 10 $0
(Source: Miller, et al.)
$8 MILLION
$7 MILLION
$6 MILLION
$5 MILLION
$4 MILLION
$3 MILLION
$2 MILLION
$1 MILLION
5 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140
Sacramento*
5-7 YEAR PRUNING CYCLE
San José
123 YEAR

PRUNING CYCLE

GRAPH CURVE INDICATES

TREE HEALTH
At this funding level and property
owner permit activity, each street tree
would be pruned once per 123 years.
$200,000
SAN JOSÉ’S CURRENT

ANNUAL PRUNING BUDGET
Figure 12. Pruning Cycles
86 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
the same level of funding for the remaining
City-managed general fund street trees. A 100-
year pruning cycle is excessively beyond the
recommended time frame, and it is important
to understand that extending the pruning cycle
beyond 5- to 7-years increases the potential for
tree part failure.

DOT arborists report that they are not able
to identify and correct defects in a timely
manner because of the lengthy pruning
cycle, and as a result, annually spend 60% to
80% of the tree maintenance budget reacting
to instances of tree part failure. Consequently, funding is reduced for active tree pruning and the time period between when trees
are actively pruned is extended. If the City
continues with the same level of funding for
tree maintenance activities, it will be unable
to break the cycle of reacting to tree emergencies as opposed to preventing them. This method will not only impact the ability of City
arborists to allocate funds to more cost-effective active pruning ($125 a tree for active pruning versus $600 for emergency work as
discussed in the Funding section), but it also
increases the potential for liability claims and
settlement payments that may result from
tree failure.

There is not enough data to fully understand
the current or potential financial impact to the
City from liability claims. However, a comparison
with the City of Los Angeles urban forest management program provides some indication of what the City could potentially face. In 2018, the
City of Los Angeles completed an analysis of its
urban forest management program, including a
review of its pruning practices and tree-related
settlements. Prior to the 2008 recession, the
City of Los Angeles maintained a pruning cycle of
7 to 10 years. After the recession, however, from
2010–2012, the City readjusted the tree pruning
cycle to 50 to 60 years. While the City was able
to reduce pruning cycle to 18 years by 2015,
tree-related settlements began to rise. In fiscal
year 2014–2015, Los Angeles paid $796,055.80
in tree-related settlements, with that annual
total continuing to increase in fiscal year 2015-
2016 to $1,696,8123.14, again in fiscal year
2016-2017 to $3,250,799.30, and then declined
to $2,716,915.37 in fiscal year 2017-2018. Tree
related settlements were classified as resulting
from the tree being in a dangerous condition or
from trip and fall hazards due to tree damage to
sidewalks. While the City of Los Angeles street
population totals approximately 700,000 trees
as opposed to the San José street tree population of an estimated 270,000 trees, it does provide an understanding of what costs San
José may incur if it assumed responsibility of the
street tree population. The lowest total of tree
settlements paid by Los Angeles in the study
period ($796,055.80) would account for approximately 15% of the entire San José community forest program budget and almost 8 times what
San José budgets for tree maintenance.

The frequency of street tree pruning, and emergency tree work is also a pressing issue with private property owner-managed street trees as
they represent approximately 80% of the street
tree population. The City can annually prune a
very limited number of trees for clearance of
traffic signals, covering a streetlight, or pavement operations. Outside of those situations, private property owners are fully responsible
to maintain their street trees in a safe condition
and for any associated pruning costs. Participants in the community survey listed the cost to prune and maintain trees as the second biggest
issue they have with a tree on their property,
indicating a private property owner may forgo
needed pruning if it is deemed too costly.

Additionally, the City does not have data on the
frequency pruning occurs on trees managed
by private property owners. City records show
an annual average of 1,566 completed tree
pruning permits between 2014–2019, which
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 87
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
may include one or more trees pruned. Assuming that some permits include more than one tree, the number of private property street
trees pruned on an annual basis could potentially range from 2,000 to 4,000 trees, which would equate to a pruning cycle between 58 to
116 years for all private property owner-managed street trees (233,000 trees). More likely, the annual total of trees pruned by private
property owners may be higher as some trees
are pruned without a permit. However, it is not
possible to verify if tree pruning completed
without a permit is done to arboriculture standards that would improve tree safety. Based on available data, the number of trees reported
as being pruned by private property owners is
excessively below the recommended frequency and has the potential to impact public safety if unsafe tree conditions are not mitigated.

As discussed, emergency tree work is inextricably linked to pruning frequency as extended periods between pruning increase the potential
for a defect to occur and cause tree part failure.

From 2014–2019, the City averaged 1,396 tree
emergency calls a year, only 170 short of the
total number of processed pruning permits. The
emergency calls reflect any time a tree, limb/
branch, or other tree part had a failure occur
that obstructed the use of the public right-ofway. Data does not exist on the exact number of emergency situations that caused damage to
parked cars, homes, pedestrians, or other targets, and 1,396 emergency incidents represent less than 1% of the tree population. However,
tree part failures do occur, and depending on the
size of the tree part and fall distance, impacts to
a target (people, cars, homes) could have severe
consequences that can be avoided if trees
are pruned on the recommended 5- to 7-year
cycle. This threat to public safety increases the
potential for the City to incur liability claims and
settlement payments that could otherwise be
directed toward the maintenance of street trees.

The prolonged tree pruning cycle of street trees
also causes additional issues for the private
property owners who experience a tree emergency. When a tree part falls into the public space, the adjacent property is responsible to
remove the debris at their own expense. Based
on the emergency situation or responsiveness
of the property owner to remove the debris,
the City will remove the debris from the street
or sidewalk, and the private property owner is invoiced for the cost of service plus an administrative fee.. When a tree part falls onto the adjacent private property, the property owner is responsible for removing the debris and paying removal costs. On average, emergency tree work costs $600–$700 per incident to address only
the hazard, as opposed to the average cost of
$150–$250 to prune the entire tree canopy as a
part of a proactive program (see Funding section
for more details). Prioritizing funds for proactive
pruning represents another circumstance by
which the City could maximize the limited funds
available for the community forest program.

Finally, there is a need to educate private property owners on how to properly prune a tree.

Often trees in San José are improperly pruned
or topped, a practice that indiscriminately
removes branches, creates poor structure, and
decreases tree health. Trees need leaves to
create food for itself through photosynthesis
that is broken down into energy and used to
carry out biological functions. Trees that are
continually topped do not have the leaf cover
to create new food and are constantly relying
on stored resources for growth and vigor. Over
time the stored resources can be depleted and
lead to tree mortality. Branch growth on topped
trees also creates poor structure with weak
attachment points more prone to failure during
wind events impacting public safety. Educating
private property owners to prevent practices
like tree topping will be important to maintaining
tree canopy cover for the existing mature trees
and as newly planted trees develop a crown.
88 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
Private property owners also need to be educated on what steps they should take to determine if a contractor is qualified to prune their tree.

Typically pruning contractors should have an ISA
Certified Arborist on-staff to direct tree pruning
activities, with other professional credentials
for tree climbing, maintenance, and utility line
clearance. Identifying contractors with this level
of professional credentials will help ensure they
perform quality work but does not guarantee
work will be completed to industry standards.

If property owners do not understand proper
tree pruning practices, they are left to trust the
contractor to correctly prune the tree and may
accept practices like topping without knowing the impacts to tree health and safety. It is difficult to understand how frequently trees are
properly or improperly pruned by contractors,
but it was identified by stakeholders as a limiting
factor to increasing canopy cover.

Under the City street tree policy, property owners can be fined $250 for improper tree pruning, which is low in comparison to the average value of $3,003 for a street tree in San José.

Enforcing a higher penalty on a property owner
who may not understand proper pruning practices could also be viewed as an overly punitive action and not result in preserving tree canopy.

These factors suggest that a robust education
campaign on proper maintenance and pruning practice is needed if the City is going to continue to rely on private property owners to
maintain trees.

Tree pruning that is dependent on private property owners is resulting in an increased potential for tree failure to impact public safety and higher costs to private property owners. In order to improve these conditions, the City will need to
define a new strategy to increase tree pruning
by private property owners or the City will need
to take responsibility for the pruning of street
trees and fund the pruning program at a level to
maintain a 5- to 7-year cycle. If private property
owners continue to be responsible for street
tree pruning, the City should determine what
measures it can take to encourage or require
private property to prune their street trees.

Strategies could include a more robust education and outreach campaign about the need to prune trees, how to prune them to ISA standards, and how to find a qualified contractor to perform the work, or the City could conduct a
periodic inspection and property owner noticing
program to require pruning. A rebate program
for private property owners to recover some or
all of the cost they incurred to prune their street
tree could also help increase participation.

Sidewalk Repair, Tree
Removal, and Tree
Replacement
The impact of decisions made by urban foresters, arborists, landscape architects, planners, and engineers are often not realized until years later as trees continue to grow and
mature in an urban landscape. One common
impact to residents from trees are when
they have outgrown the soil space provided
and disrupt the adjacent sidewalk. Lifted
sidewalks can be impassable for residents
with mobility issues, present a trip hazard,
and be costly to repair. In San José, private
property owners are responsible for the
sidewalk adjacent their property in the same
way they are for their adjacent street trees.

Many private property owners are not aware
of these responsibilities and may only come
to realize it when they receive a notification
from the City requesting sidewalk repair. If
the property owner knew sooner, they could
take earlier action when there is less damage
and potentially lower associated repair costs.

The resulting confusion and frustration from
unexpected sidewalk repair costs and navigation of a repair process they do not know how to complete could be avoided.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 89
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
In some cases, it is only possible to repair the
sidewalk by removing the tree, which creates
another point of contention with private property owners. While some may respond favorably to removing the tree, others are frustrated by the unexpected cost and reality of the many
years it will take to replace the lost shade, landscape aesthetics, and property value. When tree removal is necessary, the property owner
is then required to plant a new tree in the same
location creating additional potential frustration with owners who recognize that future conflicts and damage may occur again. If the
City determines site conditions will not support
a tree, another location will be selected. Some
property owners feel they are being forced to
fix a sidewalk they believe they are not responsible for and to remove a tree they don’t want to remove. Others may want the tree to
be removed, but do not want to be forced to
plant a new tree because of unexpected costs,
future maintenance, and other hardships.

Whatever the situation, confusion over dealing
with sidewalk damage is not beneficial for the
City, private property owners, or tree/community forest. If private property owners are going to be responsible for the trees, sidewalks, and
associated repair and maintenance costs, the
City must do a better job to inform property
owners of their responsibility.

Tree Root and Sidewalk Conflict
90 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
The management practice to actively address
hazards within the public right-of-way by
repairing sidewalks and removing and replacing trees as needed is important to provide mobility throughout the City and maintain
canopy cover. Often, root pruning is the main
approach to preserve a tree and fix a sidewalk, but this practice comes with the potential to impact tree health and tree longevity. If a tree cannot be safely preserved after root
pruning, it requires removal. However, alternative materials and methods are becoming more common to repair sidewalk issues in
lieu of tree removal. New sidewalk materials
and technologies can be used that reinforce
the structural integrity of concrete to allow
tree roots to grow underneath sidewalks and
increase useful longevity like suspended pavement systems and structural soils. In some cases, tree planting areas can be expanded
to allow more growing space like meandering
sidewalks, bulb-outs, or increased tree well
sizes. All of these methods should be within
the solutions “toolbox” before tree removal is
allowed, but they are not all currently codified
as available City options and agreed upon by
City staff as acceptable City standards.

The tree replacement ratio of 1:1 is also
discussed in the section “Planning, Building,
Code Enforcement (Private Property),” and
should be updated to progress the City towards a more sustainable community forest.

In all tree removal and replacement scenarios,
the City must consider if the policy is adequately replacing the lost canopy cover and how soon canopy cover should be recovered.

The replacement policy does not outline a
process that verifies if the tree is alive after it
is planted. The City can issue a notice of violation if they discover that the tree is removed, but it does not have the resources to monitor
or ensure enforcement of penalties..

Urban Wood Utilization
and Waste Diversion
In 2016 California passed SB 1383 to reduce
emissions from short-lived climate pollutants
(https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/organics/
slcp). One aspect of the new law calls for
the reduction of organic waste (food scraps,
yard trimmings, paper, cardboard) disposal of 50% by 2020 and 75% by 2025. The goal is to divert organic waste from landfills
where materials decompose and release
methane, a greenhouse gas contributing
to climate change. The policy is reflected in
community forest management by utilizing
chipped branches and leaves as mulch in City
landscape projects. The practice of utilizing
mulch helps to reduce waste to the landfills
while also providing organic material to improve the health of urban soils. A shortcoming of this practice is that the stored carbon in the wood of the tree is released into the
atmosphere as a greenhouse gas. An urban
wood utilization program is one method to
keep carbon stored in the wood of the tree
after is removed.

Urban wood utilization is an emerging
practice and economy in California that
reclaims the wood of a removed tree to be
turned into lumber, tables, chairs, and other
wood products. By turning a removed tree
into a wood product, stored carbon stays
in the wood, and reduces the greenhouse
gas inputs of the City, which contribute to
Climate Smart San Jose goals. Currently San
José does not implement an urban wood
utilization program and could explore the
financial costs and return on investment to
implement a program. In addition to the environmental benefits of carbon storage, urban wood utilization programs contribute to the
green economy of San José and can provideemployment opportunities throughout the entire process to remove, store, treat, and
prepare wood for its second life.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 91
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
92 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STREET TREE MANAGEMENT
Section – Subsection Recommendation Discussion
Tree Inventory Complete an inventory of all street
and park trees.

The City does not have a completed inventory for trees in City managed parks, and partially completed inventory of street trees in 2014. Completing and maintaining an inventory of street and park trees will ensure management decisions are made with the most recent and accurate information.

Property-Owner
Maintained versus CityMaintained Trees
Educate community members on
their responsibility to maintain
trees adjacent their property.

It was evident through internal discussions with the City and online survey results that most residents are not aware of their responsibility to maintain the street tree adjacent their property, which contributes to confusion over who should be conducting maintenance, and impacts community forest management.

Tree Planting Explore the possibilities to expand
the City partnership with OCF to
engage residents in tree planting.

The City is limited in its ability to actively plant street trees adjacent to private property. Given OCF’s ability to plant approximately 1,600 new and replacement trees, the City could further expand these efforts and shared responsibilities.

Establishment Care Provide watering and establishment care for a minimum of three years to all trees planted by the
City.

These recommended maintenance practices align with ISA standards for establishment care and when implemented would be effective for tree health and growth.

Establishment Care Work with OCF to further engage
and educate residents on how
to properly water and maintain
newly planted trees
Residents who receive a tree from OCF agree to maintain the tree for 3 years after planting.

The current model of obtaining trees from OCF and having residents provide establishment care may warrant further investment from the City to expand the current outreach and monitoring program to increase the total number of trees planted each year.

Pruning Educate private property owners
on proper tree pruning practices.

Trees in San José are often topped and/or incorrectly pruned. Under the City street tree policy, property owners can be fined $250 for improper tree pruning. If residents are educated on proper pruning practices, their trees are more likely to contribute to San José’s overall canopy cover.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 93
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Section – Subsection Recommendation Discussion
Pruning Develop a strategy to reduce reactive tree pruning and emergency work.

Reactive tree maintenance costs significantly more than proactive or preventative maintenance. Identifying a strategy and funding mechanism to conduct proactive maintenance can save the City money in the long term.

Pruning Determine the feasibility for the
City to prune all street and park
trees on a 5- to 7- year cycle.

The City’s current 123-year pruning cycle of street trees is excessively beyond the recommended 5- to 7-year pruning cycle, which increases the potential for tree part failure.

Sidewalk Repair, Tree
Removal, and Tree
Replacement
Ensure that residents are aware
that they are responsible for adjacent sidewalk repair.

Many residents are not aware that they are responsible for sidewalk repair. If private property owners are going to be responsible for the trees, sidewalks, and associated repair and maintenance costs, the City must inform property owners of their responsibility.

Sidewalk Repair, Tree
Removal, and Tree
Replacement
Implement sidewalk repair strategies that minimize tree removal.New sidewalk materials and technologies can be used that reinforce the structural integrity of concrete to allow tree roots to grow underneath sidewalks and increase useful longevity like suspended pavement systems and structural soils. All of these methods should be within the solutions “toolbox” before tree removal is allowed.

Sidewalk Repair, Tree
Removal, and Tree
Replacement
Update the City’s 1:1 tree replacement ratio.In all tree removal and replacement scenarios, the City must consider if the policy is adequately replacing the lost canopy cover and how soon canopy cover should be recovered. The replacement policy does not outline a process that verifies if the tree is alive after it is planted.

Urban Wood Utilization
and Waste Diversion
Explore the financial costs and return on investment to implement an urban wood utilization and
waste diversion program.

In addition to the environmental benefits of carbon storage, such a program can contribute to San José’s green economy and provide employment opportunities throughout the entire process to remove, store, treat, and prepare wood for its second life. 94 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
Park Trees
PRNS is solely responsible for managing
trees in City parks, community centers, and
City-managed open space areas. In interviews
with the consultant team, City Council members and Council staff frequently expressed that residents view parks as one of the most
valued assets in their community as they
provide a respite in the urban environment.

While there is a high value placed on parks by
residents and some City Council offices, PRNS
receives only $150,000 a year to manage the
estimated 30,000 park trees. The per-tree
spending on park trees is $5.00, which is well
below the City average spending per-street
tree of $14.41. This low funding impacts
PRNS’s management practices, ability to plant
and establish new trees, and maintain existing
trees in a safe condition, and increases the
potential for liability claims and settlements.

Due to the lack of funds, PRNS staff are not
able to actively prune trees, which has necessitated development of partnerships for park tree planting and care. PRNS’s maintenance
practices and strategies are discussed further in the sections below and are measured against the same sustainability factors as
street trees to determine if the current practices progress the City towards a sustainable community forest.

Tree Planting and
Establishment Care

TREE PLANTING
Currently there is no funding available to plant
trees in parks, and PRNS staff are dependent
on partnerships with OCF, City Council offices,
and other community organizations for tree
planting. These partnerships help to plant
250–500 trees per year in City parks and
planting is typically a community volunteer
event. If one of these groups would like to
hold a volunteer tree planting in a City park,
they must also commit to water and care of
the trees for the first 3 years after planting.

Outside of these community planting events,
new trees are usually only planted to replace a
removed tree or with new park development,
and it does not occur frequently. There are
advantages to the community planting model
in that it engages residents, corporate groups,
and elected officials in the community forest
program and builds a connection with the
local park and trees. It also benefits PRNS as
San José Rose Garden
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 95
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program
1 OCF can sometimes provide trees for park
plantings through grants or other awards as
there is no dedicated budget to purchase
plant material.

While the current partnerships do provide
benefits, there are inconsistencies in the
process that limit the structure from fully
contributing to the expansion of canopy cover
in City parks. The first limitation is the total
number of trees that are planted on an annual
basis. At the time of writing this CFMP, the
park tree inventory is not complete, and the
condition of park trees and available planting
locations is not known. Based on City staff
estimates, there are approximately 30,000
trees dispersed through the more than 200
PRNS-maintained facilities. PRNS staff report-
ed that many of the trees are aging, beginning
to decline, and in some instances standing
dead. While there currently may be adequate
canopy cover in most PRNS-maintained parks,
planting 250 to 500 trees within more than
200 parks will most likely fall short of the
annual totals needed to replace trees as they
are removed due to various causes. However,
without funding to plant and care for trees,
PRNS staff are limited in their ability to affect
tree cover. Thus, there is a strong possibility of
a sharp decrease in park tree cover during the
Japanese Friendship Garden
inside Kelley Park
96 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
next inevitable extended drought or introduction of an invasive pest.

ESTABLISHMENT CARE
Another limitation of the current structure
is the inability to provide tree establishment
watering and care. There is currently no
funding for PRNS to provide establishment
care. Without supplemental watering, the new
trees have the potential to fail during prolonged periods of drought or extreme heat.

The type of irrigation currently provided is not
ideal for tree root establishment and growth,
either. The current watering practice is to
deliver water from overhead spray sprinklers.

Although trees are correctly planted within
the irrigation footprint, the quantity of water
delivered is often not sufficient to soak the entire root ball and the area beyond the planting pit to encourage root growth. This watering
method can lead to trees with shallow root
systems that are not able to support their
biological functions without regular irrigation.

Shallow rooted trees are typically less resilient
during droughts and more dependent on the
frequent irrigation applications. In the event
irrigation stops, even a mature tree is at risk of
decline and failure. The best method to water
a newly planted tree is automated irrigation
systems (bubbler irrigation) that provide deep
watering, or by hand with a hose, which concentrates water into the tree basin, throughout the root ball, and the area just beyond the root ball. Despite being the most efficient watering systems, both methods require funding that is not currently available to PRNS.

Without funding for this type of watering,
PRNS staff require the community group
that led the tree planting event to provide
follow-up watering and care. As reported by
PRNS staff in consultant interviews, community groups will often be diligent in watering and care of park trees after planting, but after
a few months the groups will begin to provide
less and less watering until they eventually
stop. This trend is partly due to the level of
dedication it takes to water 10 or more trees
on a weekly or twice-a-month basis as it can
be labor- and time-intensive. However, without dedicated funding to support a City or contractor crew to water trees, or installation
of bubbler irrigation, volunteer watering is the
only available method to provide supplemental tree watering. Because of the inconsistency of volunteer watering, the City must consider
other options to manage park tree planting
and establishment care.

COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO TREE

PLANTING AND ESTABLISHMENT CARE
The success of park tree planting is directly
related to the success of the establishment
care trees receive, which is dependent on
funding to support 3 years of maintenance for
any tree planted in a park. PRNS understands
the level of watering and care new trees
require and are capable of either performing
the work with City crews or hiring a contrac-
Tree Maintenance
PHOTO: OUR CITY TREES
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 97
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
tor if funds were available. There are several
options to support establishment care of
park trees. First, the City can provide funds
requested by PRNS to plant and care for a
certain number of trees on an annual basis.

PRNS can continue its partnership with OCF
to provide trees and hold community tree
planting events to offset some of the program
costs. Another option would be for PRNS to
use existing City fee structures to develop a
per-tree cost to water a tree for 3 years and
provide that document to OCF, City Council
offices, and corporate groups so they can plan
their tree planting event. Those groups should
then provide the funds to PRNS before the
tree planting event to cover 3 years of maintenance for each tree that will be planted. If the funds cannot be provided by the group, the
tree planting could continue at the discretion
of PRNS, under the assumption that PRNS
would be responsible for tree care. Another
option could be for PRNS to partner with
OCF to apply for a CAL FIRE grant to fund the
planting and care of park trees, to build on
their current partnership. These are just some
options to support the planting and care of
park trees, and no one method is prescribed
over another. The point is that tree planting
and establishment care must be funded to
have a successful tree planting program.

Pruning, Tree Removal, and
Emergency Tree Work
The $150,000 of funding PRNS receives for tree
maintenance is divided among the 10 Council
Districts, with each district receiving approximately $15,000. While annual contractor and City costs have increased in recent years, the
PRNS tree maintenance budget has either
declined or remained constant. This level of
funding does not even address all liabilities, and
forces PRNS to prioritize trees that present the
biggest risk factor, which frequently includes
the removal of dead or dying trees. The costs
associated with removing large trees means
that in some cases only 2 to 3 trees per District
are removed each year, leaving hundreds or
more trees standing in poor condition. With all
the funding directed towards tree removals, no
funds remain to proactively prune trees and
mitigate risk. In the event of a tree emergency,
PRNS staff must find the funds to do the work in
other budgets like capital improvement funds,
make requests to City Council offices, or identify
limited special park funding. As discussed in the
section about pruning street trees, this type
of reactionary maintenance is more expensive
than proactively pruning trees and has the potential to elevate the risk associated with a tree by not mitigating a defect in a timely manner. As
reported by PRNS staff, the park tree population
is aging and in decline. Older trees result in higher pruning costs, and they are more prone to stem, branch, or whole tree failure as tree parts
begin to decay. These trees should be inspected
for their health and safety.

Multiple steps will need to be taken for PRNS
to be able to actively manage park trees. The
completion of a park tree inventory will provide
PRNS staff with the information to understand
the condition of park trees and determine which
trees present elevated risk levels. The inventory
can then be used to develop annual maintenance plans that prioritize the highest risk trees for pruning or removal. The maintenance plans
should be based on a 5-year timeline to bring
the maintenance cycle within the recommended
frequency. PRNS will either need a staff arborist or third-party consulting arborist to further conduct tree assessment and risk evaluations
throughout the year to continually update the
inventory and identify potential hazards. However, this management program is dependent on PRNS receiving funding beyond current levels.

The goal is to provide a diligent effort based on
a reasonable inspection and maintenance cycle
that allows tree health to be improved/maintained while reducing risk through an industry consistent management program.
98 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program

TREE REPLACEMENT
PRNS has an internal standard to plant three trees in the same park where one tree was removed. The policy is a
higher replacement ratio than other City policies that usually require a one-for-one replacement of trees on private property and street trees, although four-to-one replacement may be required for mature native trees in parks as well. PRNS also selects the replacement species based on site conditions and does not automatically replace with the same species. Both practices create a more sustainable
tree replacement policy as the higher replacement ratio and appropriate species selection would recover lost canopy and environmental services over a shorter time frame.

The main issue of the policy is the requirement to plant trees in the same park
from which trees were removed. In some situations, the
park with the removed tree(s) does not have the space to support more than one or two new trees despite losing a large tree. PRNS staff must still plant the required number of replacement trees in the park even though they will not have sufficient space for their canopies when mature. The PRNS replacement policy should be directed toward the
goal of maximizing canopy cover in City parks overall and revised to allow flexibility in the locations trees are replanted when parks do not have space to support all replacement trees. The remainder of replacement trees could then be planted in nearby parks that lack canopy cover. San José City Staff CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 99
Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PARK TREE MANAGEMENT
Section – Subsection Recommendation Discussion
Tree Planting Identify a mechanism to adequately staff and fund park tree planting.

PRNS staff may partner with City departments and OCF to leverage tree plantings in parks.

Without a formalized tree planting mechanism for parks, there is a strong possibility of sharp decrease of park canopy cover because there are not enough trees being planted to replace predicted removals.

Establishment Care Identify a mechanism to
adequately staff and provide
establishment care to park
trees
Without establishment care, trees planted in parks are likely to fail. The City can provide funds requested by PRNS to plant and care for a certain number of trees on an annual basis. PRNS can continue its partnership with OCF to provide trees and hold community tree planting events to offset some of the program costs. Another option would be for PRNS to use existing City fee structures to develop a per-tree cost to water a tree for 3 years. Another option could be for PRNS to partner with OCF to apply for a CAL FIRE grant to fund the planting and care of park trees, to build on their current partnership.

Pruning, Tree Removal, and
Emergency Tree Work
Conduct a risk assessment of
all park trees.

As reported by PRNS staff, the park tree population is aging and in decline. Older trees result in higher pruning costs, and they are more prone to stem, branch, or whole tree failure as tree parts begin to decay. These trees should be inspected for their health and safety.

Pruning, Tree Removal, and
Emergency Tree Work
Complete a park tree inventory
The completion of a park tree inventory will provide PRNS staff with the information needed to understand the condition of park trees and determine which trees present elevated risk levels. The inventory can then be used to develop annual maintenance plans that prioritize the highest risk trees for pruning or removal.

Tree Replacement Consider revising the requirement to replant trees in the same park in which they were
removed.

The PRNS replacement policy should be directed toward the goal of maximizing canopy cover in City parks overall and revised to allow flexibility in the locations trees are replanted when parks do not have space to support all replacement trees. The remainder of replacement trees could then be planted in nearby parks that lack canopy cover. 100 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
Planning, Building, Code
Enforcement (Private Property)
One factor to developing a sustainable community
forest is the extent to which the City can effectively influence the management of trees on private property as most of the community forest exists
on privately owned land. These trees are managed
differently than street trees on private property,
and are under the purview of the Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement Department. The City’s methods by which it can influence tree management on private property are a combination of indirect actions, such as community education
campaigns, and direct actions, such as City ordinances, policies, and permits. While each method has a different approach to influence private property owners, the goal is the same: to grow and
maintain healthy trees on privately owned land. An
attractive quality of a robust community education
campaign is voluntary participation from private
landowners to contribute to reaching environmental and sustainability goals by implementing City standards for tree management. While some
private landowners will adopt and implement City
tree management standards, it is not reasonable
to expect all private landowners to do so, which
is the impetus for City ordinances, policies, and
permit procedures to further enforce tree management standards on private property.

Emergency Tree Removal
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 101 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Oak Tree
Private Property Tree
Removal Definitions

PROTECTED TREE
The first component in reviewing Municipal
Code 13.32, which regulates tree removal on
private property, is to understand and discuss
what is defined as a protected tree (i.e., a tree
protected by ordinance and requiring a permit
approval for removal) on private property. The
Municipal Code requires a property owner to
obtain a permit prior to the removal of any
live or dead “tree” on a residential private
property and provides the following definition
of a “tree” on private property:
“Tree” means any live or dead woody perennial plant characterized by having a main stem or trunk which measures thirty-eight
(38) inches or more in circumference at a
height of fifty-four (54) inches above natural
grade slope. For purposes of this Chapter, a
multi-trunk tree shall be considered a single
tree and measurement of that tree shall
include the sum of the circumference of the
trunks of that tree at a height of fifty-four
inches above natural grade slope. “Tree”
shall include the plural of that term.

The private property tree removal ordinance’s
definition of a protected tree has a positive
impact on the sustainability of the community
forest. Typically, a municipal code will define a
protected tree by the trunk DSH and specific
tree species. However, the San José Municipal
Code only uses trunk DSH to define a protected tree and allows for the removal of a limited number of ‘unsuitable’ tree species under
specific circumstances. Trees that meet this
size threshold (38-inch circumference, which
equates to an approximately 12-inch DSH) for
protection are considered “ordinance-sized”
trees. The choice to protect all species that
meet a 12-inch DSH threshold is a significant
step to protecting most trees that make up
the community forest on private property.

While the removal of any tree results in a loss
of canopy cover and associated environmental services, middle-aged (DSH of 19 to 24 inches) and mature trees (DSH of 25 inches
or larger) provide significantly higher canopy
cover and environmental services than immature (DSH of 0 to 6 inches) and young (DSH of 7 to 18 inches) trees. Using a 12-inch DSH as
a standard for tree protection is a sufficient
balance of retaining trees with a high environmental value to the City without making the ordinance a burden on private property owners. The size threshold for when a tree becomes protected on private property should remain in place and be reviewed periodically
to ensure it continues to meet CFMP sustainability goals. It should be noted that this protection for ordinance-sized trees applies to
single-family or duplex lots, while trees of any
size on multifamily, commercial, or industrial
lots are protected.
102 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program

HERITAGE TREE
Per Municipal Code Section 13.32.140, heritage trees are also protected by City ordinance. The Municipal Code defines “heritage trees” as follows:

Any tree as the term “tree” is defined in Section

13.28.020 located on private property which,
because of factors including but not limited to
its history, girth, height, species or unique quality, has been found by the city council to have a special significance to the community shall
be designated a heritage tree. Such trees shall
be placed on a heritage tree list which shall be
adopted by the city council by resolution, which
resolution may be amended from time to time
to add to or delete certain trees therefrom.

The protection for heritage trees includes enforcement action by the City against any person who unlawfully vandalizes, grievously mutilates,
removes or destroys a heritage tree. The penalty includes an administrative citation and a fine set forth by the city council for each afflicted
heritage tree. This protection of trees that are
large, historic trees, or of unique quality is another positive step toward protecting trees that significantly contribute to character of neighborhoods as well as the City’s overall canopy cover.

UNSUITABLE TREE
The City includes an additional definition of
“unsuitable trees” that can be used to apply
for a tree removal permit. The definitions of
an “unsuitable tree” by land use types are as
follows (Municipal Code Section 13.32):
• For single-family and duplex lots:
• The tree trunk is 5 feet or less from the existing residence, secondary unit or garage. • The tree trunk is 5 feet or less from the
centerline of a below-ground utility line
or pipe.
• The tree is on the City’s List of Unsuitable
Trees, which are certain tree species identified as being unsuitable for single-family lots, and includes: Eucalyptus, Liquidambar, Pine, Tree of Heaven, Tulip tree, and Palm tree (unless in the Palm Haven Conservation Area). This list does NOT apply to street trees or trees on duplex, multifamily, or commercial/industrial properties. • For multifamily lots: The tree trunk is 5
feet or less from the existing multifamily
residential building.
• For all land uses: The tree trunk is 5 feet
or less from the centerline of a below-ground utility line or pipe.

During interviews, City staff expressed that the
intent of the above clause was to make it easier
and less expensive for residents to remove
certain tree species that are undesirable in the
San José landscape or when a tree is perceived
to be a nuisance. The conditions are in support
of that effort by allowing tree removal when a
tree is within 5 feet of a residence, secondary
unit, garage, or the centerline of a below-grade
utility pipe or line. These definitions indicate the
intent of the City is to prevent damage to existing houses and infrastructure by anticipating that the proximity of the tree would eventually
cause a conflict. However, the proximity of a tree
to a home, utility line, sidewalk, or driveway does
not inherently mean that it will cause damage in
the future. Many factors contribute to whether
a tree root, trunk, or limb will impact adjacent
hardscape like the tree’s health, soil conditions,
water availability, and surface root growth. The
unsuitable tree species allowance could allow
for the removal of trees that appear to present
a conflict but may grow their entire lifespan near
infrastructure without ever causing damage.

A removal permit can also be issued for trees
that have been found by the City Council to be
“uniquely less compatible with the immediate
environment because the species is invasive or
non-native to the San José region or is suscepti-
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 103 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
ble to disease” (Municipal Code 13.32.020). The
selected species are currently defined as eucalyptus, liquidambar, palm, pine, tree of heaven, and tulip. It should be noted that eucalyptus,
liquidambar, palm, pine, and tulip are not tree
species but the larger species categorization
of multiple genera of trees. If the City wishes to
continue to define unsuitable tree species, it
should update the language to better reflect if it
is targeting a specific species such as Liquidambar styraciflua (American sweetgum tree), or the larger Liquidambar genus. It also assumes that the
aforementioned species are unsuitable under
any circumstance without examining site conditions, tree health, and benefit to the landscape.

The unsuitable tree species allowance has the
potential to lead to the removal of healthy trees
that present a low risk and would otherwise be
considered appropriate for the landscape. Based
on these factors, the definition of an unsuitable
species should either be completely removed or
be narrowed to a specific list of species that is
determined by City arborists and other arboriculture experts of the San José region.

HAZARDOUS TREES
Another condition under which the City will
allow permitted tree removal is in the instance
of a safety hazard as defined in the tree removal permit application:

If an ordinance-size tree on private property
presents an imminent safety hazard, it may
qualify for an over-the-counter (same day) Unsuitable Tree Removal Permit. Please bring the completed application and required materials
to the Permit Center to obtain the permit. If the
tree is a street tree or heritage tree, immediately
contact the City Arborist at 408-794-1901.

It is reasonable to allow for the expedited
processing of trees that present an imminent
hazard to people or property to avoid consequences for tree failure. However, the definition presented is vague at defining an imminent
safety hazard and who is qualified to determine
if a tree presents an imminent safety hazard.

A leaning tree or broken limb can have the
appearance that there is an immediate threat
to people and property by whole tree or tree
part failure. But determining whether a tree is
safe or presents a hazard requires an arborist
with specialized knowledge and training from
the ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification
(TRAQ) program. The TRAQ standards provide
Exhibit 1. Tree Risk Assessment Matrix
Matrix1. Likelihood matrix.

Likelihood
of Failure
Likelihood of Impact
Very low Low Medium High
Imminent Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely Very likely
Probable Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely Likely
Possible Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Somewhat likely
Improbable Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely
Matrix 2. Risk rating matrix.

Likelihood
of Failure
Consequences of Failure
Negligible Minor Significant Severe
Very likely Low Moderate High Extreme
Likely Low Moderate High High
Somewhat likely Low Low Moderate Moderate
Unlikely Low Low Low Low
104 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
the arboricultural risk rating system that uses
a combination of the likelihood a tree or tree
part will fail, the time frame in which failure may
occur, likelihood of impact to target (e.g., people,
home, car), and severity if impact should occur
to determine the overall risk associated with
a tree. Each factor of the TRAQ assessment is
important to determine the overall risk rating as
presented in Exhibit 1. While a tree may have a
very likely possibility of failure and impact, if the
consequences of the impact are negligible, then
the overall risk associated with a tree is low.

Conversely, a tree with severe consequences
from impact to a target but unlikely to actually
impact a target is also considered to have a
low risk rating. All of these decisions should
only be made by an arborist who is qualified
in tree risk assessment, and not by Planning
division staff members who lack the expertise.

The City should process all hazardous tree
requests through a City certified arborist or by a
third-party consultant who are tree risk assessment qualified.

DEAD TREE
The final definition used in the private property tree removal permit application is for “dead” trees. The Municipal Code provides the
following definition of a dead tree:
“Dead tree” means a tree that is no longer alive,
has been removed beyond repair, or is in an
advanced state of decline (where an insufficient
amount of live tissue, green leaves, limbs or
branches exists to sustain life) and has been
determined to be in such a state by a certified arborist during a non-dormant or other natural stage of the tree that would minimize
the likelihood that the tree would be mistakenly
identified as being in such a dead state.

The Municipal Code provides a useful definition of a dead tree as no longer living, but also includes trees that are in decline and are
approaching the end of their life cycle. It is
important that this determination is made by a
certified arborist during a time of the year when
a tree is nondormant to ensure an accurate
assessment of its health condition is conducted.

Dead Tree
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 105 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1

PERMIT PROCESS AND FEES
Property owners must obtain a permit for
removal of any tree protected by Municipal
Code Section 13.32, as defined above. The
permit process and associated fees vary for
each type of tree removal permit application,
including live trees, heritage trees, unsuitable
trees, and dead trees. Table 24 presents all
tree permit fees of the Planning Department.

The processing of all permit applications begins with submitting the application and the following instructions:
• You MUST provide the following required
documents when you submit your application.
• Tree description table and site plan.
• Clear photograph of each tree. Provide a
clear, color photograph showing the entire tree, printed or mounted on 8½ x11” paper. If seeking to remove a tree that is
5’ or less from a structure, include a tape
measure in the photograph that extends
from the tree to the primary residence.
• Non-refundable fee if required. Make
check payable to: City of San José.
• An arborist’s report may be required. After reviewing your application, City staff may require you to submit a report from
a licensed arborist; a report is typically
required for dead and hazardous trees.

If you already have a report, you may
include it with your submission.

The tree evaluation and tree description
table and site plan require the applicant to
provide several pieces of information that are
not commonly understood by the public and
would make the application difficult to complete. First, the applicant is asked to answer a series of questions related to tree risk, diseases, and whether they are dead or dying, conditions which should only be assessed by a qualified arborist. Second, the applicant must
list each species of tree that are on the property and whether they are to be removed, remain, or replaced. Again, it is unreasonable
to expect someone not experienced in tree
species identification to identify a tree by its
Table 24. City of San José Planning Department Tree Removal Fee Schedule Tree Type Permit Fee 11.97% Citywide
Planning Fee Total fees
Dead Tree $227 $27 $254
Each additional tree $30 $3 $33
Unsuitable Tree $227 $27 $254
Each additional tree $30 $3 $33
Live Trees
Single-family and two-family/duplex
properties
$1,969 $235 $2,204
All other properties $2,272 $271 $2,543
Heritage Trees $10,038 $1,201 $11,239
Off-Site Tree Replacement Fee (per tree) $775 NA $775
Note: throughout the CFMP, the amounts shown for various fines and fees are subject to change.

Source: City of San José 2020b.
106 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
species or genus, where there is a high potential for trees to be identified incorrectly. The table also requires the applicant to include the
trees circumference in inches but does not
provide any further instruction on how to do
so or the equipment needed. Again, this type
of information is not commonly understood
by those outside of the arboriculture profession and could be confusing for residents.

Finally, the tree removal permit requires the
applicant to describe the reason for removal or replacement and lists the following as reasons why a tree would be considered for
removal:
• The tree is a safety hazard.
• The tree is dead, dying, or diseased.
• The tree is unsuitable.
• The tree restricts economic development
and proposed improvement of a parcel.

Determining a tree’s health and safety condition or viability in a landscape are all judgments that should be made by a qualified arborist. Placing the expectation on a resident
to clearly define the reasons for removal
based on those considerations places an undue burden on an applicant that could lead to an incomplete or inaccurate application. The
last part of the process states that an arborist
report may be required for some applications
but not all. An arborist report is required for
a dead tree application but should also be
required with a live tree or unsuitable tree
application based on the information required
by the application.

The application process requires applicants
to pay a nonrefundable permit fee, as shown
in Table 25. The permit fees for live trees
($2,204/$2,543) are significantly higher than
fees associated with dead or unsuitable trees
($254). It is not clear how the Planning Division
justifies the higher permit fees for live trees,
when the $254 fee to process a permit for an
unsuitable or dead tree requires the same
application as a live tree removal permit.

According to the Planning Application Filing
Fee Schedule effective August 17, 2020, the
hourly rate for Planning Division review of tree
removal permit applications is $303 per hour
(City of San José 2020b). These rates indicate
it will take more than 7 hours of staff time to
review an application, but less than 1 hour
to review an unsuitable or dead tree application. Without further justification from the Planning Division, the tree removal permit fee
for live trees appears to be excessive. When
compared to the fines for illegal tree removal on private property without a permit, the excessive permit fee may actually discourage
a resident from obtaining a legal permit to
remove a tree:
• $1,500 fine for illegal removal of a tree
with a trunk diameter of 17.83 to 23.99
inches
• $2,000 fine for illegal removal of a tree
with a trunk diameter of 24 inches or
greater
The fee schedule is also confusing when
considering the permit fee for removal of a
heritage tree. The permit fee for removal of a
heritage tree is $11,239. While heritage trees
warrant extra protections, the excessive permit
fee may dissuade property owners from obtaining the appropriate permits for tree removal. Additionally, the fine for illegally removing or pruning a heritage tree is up to $10,000 (for
the first offense). Similar to other live trees, the
permit fee for heritage trees is greater than the
fine for violating the ordinance.

The discrepancy in the permit fee and fine
structure should be further reviewed and assessed so residents are encouraged to follow the City process to remove trees on private
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 107 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Shade of street trees
108 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
property, and ensure replacement trees
are planted to continue to expand Citywide
canopy cover. The fine amount should also
be reviewed to determine if it is sufficient to
deter violation of the Municipal Code. Each
San José street tree is worth approximately
$3,003 in its structural and functional value
based on the tree’s species, size, and health
condition (see San José Urban Forest Assessment section for more details). It might be more appropriate to determine a fine that
reflects the loss in environmental services
and economic value when a tree is removed.

The one variance in the tree removal permit
process is that a permit application for dead
trees must be submitted with a certified
arborist report. The City correctly requests
an extra layer of analysis before the application is submitted but does not require the same level of due diligence for ordinance-size
and unsuitable tree removal applications. It
is unclear why there is a higher standard of
information required with dead tree removal
applications, and the City would benefit from
applying the same level of reporting to all
application types.

REPLACEMENT TREE REQUIREMENTS
If a tree removal permit application is approved, the applicant is required to replace a tree as stated in the Planning Division application page:
• You must replace each ordinance-size
tree that you remove.
• Single-family/duplex lots: Replace with a
minimum 15-gallon tree.
• Other properties: Contact the Planning
Division for information about replacement trees.

An effective tree replacement policy should
be directed towards specific goals of the community forest program such as maintaining or increasing canopy cover, species diversity, or
the environmental service benefits received
from trees. The City’s required one-to-one
replacement ratio with smaller nursery stock
(15-gallon trees) will not adequately address
those goals without further clarification and
refinement of the requirement. The tree
species (current size and at maturity) being
removed must be considered as there is the
potential for a net loss of canopy cover and
environmental services and benefits if an
applicant removes, for example, a large tree
such as a coast live oak, and replaces it with a
small tree like a crape myrtle. The location of
the removed tree is also important as trees
planted close (beyond 5 feet) to a residence
would have the added benefit of cooling
homes during hot summer months and lowering energy use and costs. It may be difficult for single-family or duplex lot owners to find
room on their property for more than one
tree to be appropriately planted and maintaining a one-to-one replacement ratio would be important so the requirement can be met
by all applicants.

It would be appropriate to update the replacement policy so the applicant is required to plant the tree in a location that would provide additional cooling and energy reduction benefit, and require a species that is similar
in size and appropriate for site conditions
without creating a future conflict with utilities
or structures. Another consideration is giving
each removed tree an appraised value based
on the most recent approved methods of the
Council for Tree and Landscape Appraisal,
which would help recover the lost economic
value of the tree. These updates would help
to recover the loss of canopy cover and environmental services of the removed tree and meet goals of the community forest program.

The permit application form directs applicants to contact OCF, which would be able to further assist in determining suitable tree
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 109 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
species and planting locations to meet the
replacement requirement. The City benefits
from OCF providing this consultation in the
permit process by reducing City staff workloads and costs. Continuing with this arrangement could benefit the City as long as they do not have the City arborist inspector staff to
provide this service.

Tree Protection During
Construction
The City Municipal Code includes two
sections that define standards to protect
trees during construction. Section 13.28.420
discusses the methods to protect street
trees when nearby construction work or
activity is occurring on a building or structure, and Section 13.32.130 directs protection of trees on private property during site development. When tree protection is not
reasonable or feasible during construction,
tree removal permits are issued, and no
further protection standards are required.

In all other situations the site developer
should follow the standards discussed in
the City Municipal Code to protect trees
during construction. Preserving trees during
construction is key to ensuring a continuum
of canopy cover within a specified development site or streetscape. ISA and the ANSI have both developed industry-standard tree
protection measures that, when implemented, reduce the potential for impacts to tree health during and after construction. The
review of the City tree protection construction standard is based on both ISA and ANSI standards and measured by their ability to
protect and preserve trees during site development.

Municipal Code Section 13.28.420 outlines
the standards to protect street trees during
construction and are consistent with other
municipalities and industry standards. The
section provides clear direction that anyone
without written permission is prohibited
from damaging a street tree and lists several
activities that are damaging to a tree. One
area that could benefit from further clarification is the requirement to place guards around all nearby street trees to prevent
injury to a tree. Instead of a general description of placing a guard around a tree, the City should provide a standard detail
for protecting the tree trunk so there is no
ambiguity in the requirement.

Municipal Code Section 13.32.130 provides
a thorough list of protection methods that
site developers should implement to protect
trees during construction. While the section
provides many standards that are industry-standard tree protection measures, it does not state that an arborist is required
to have any oversight during the process.

Instead of the City providing a list of protection measures, it should be incumbent uponthe site developer to provide a tree protection plan that is developed or reviewed by a qualified certified arborist. Further,
construction- related activities should only
be allowed to begin after the City completes
a site visit with the project arborist to verify
that all protection measures are in place.

During interviews, Planning and DOT staff
stated that while the City has standards for
tree protection, they are not a requirement
for development projects. As such, tree
protection measures are often not implemented, resulting in the potential for trees on development projects to be impacted
by construction-related activities. With the
influx of urban infill development, it is anticipated that mature trees will continue to be impacted from development. Without a
set standard and process for protecting and
preserving trees, the City risks losing canopy
cover on each development project.
110 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY TREE MANAGEMENT
Section – Subsection Recommendation Discussion
Private Property Tree
Removal – Unsuitable Tree
Eliminate the “unsuitable
tree” definition The definition for an unsuitable tree is broad, not scientifically accurate, and allows for the unnecessary removal of many trees that are not actually unsuitable. The City would benefit from entirely getting rid of the unsuitable tree allowance to permit tree removal, so all tree removals are evaluated by a criterion based on arboriculture standards and not an arbitrary definition.

Private Property Tree
Removal – Permit Process
and Fees
Require due diligence
from a certified arborist
that no alternative exists
to tree removal
If the City continues to allow tree removal when a tree is 5 feet from a residence, secondary unit, garage, or the centerline of a below-grade utility pipe or line, the City should also require a report from a certified arborist that the tree is in conflict with the adjacent structure or utility. The certified arborist report could determine if the tree in question is causing or has substantial evidence to indicate that it will cause a conflict in the future. The applicant and certified arborist should also explore mitigation options to resolve the conflict without removing the tree. Options could include root pruning, crown reduction, tree cables or bracing, and adjustments to the existing infrastructure.

One option would be to give applicants a reduced permit fee when they provide a report prepared by a certified arborist who is also ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified. This incentive would encourage private property owners to have an expert review their tree concern before submitting removal applications to the City. It has the potential to reduce the number of applications submitted to the City, as arborists would be able to fully explain the options for tree preservation and whether the resident’s concern warrants tree removal. It would also provide the City with better information to assess applications, which should reduce application processing time and associated staff review costs.

Private Property Tree
Removal – Permit Fees and
Fees
Review and align permit
fees The current permit fee for live tree removal is excessive and not supported by the level of review needed to process permits. It is also higher than the fine for illegal tree removals, and consequently does not encourage residents to file for a permit to remove a protected tree. For the City to have an effective ordinance to protect trees on private property, the permit fee must align with realistic costs of the City and not be a burden on applicants.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 111 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Section – Subsection Recommendation Discussion
Private Property Tree
Removal – Permit Fees and
Fees
Review the fine structure
for illegal removal and
pruning
It should be determined if the current fine structure for illegal tree pruning and removal is sufficient to deter violation and adequately replace the lost value of the tree. The review of the illegal removal fines should happen concurrently with the permit fees so there is continuity between the fees and fines that encourage participation in the City process to legally remove protected trees. The review process should also include a resource assessment that outlines how code enforcement will occur.

Private Property Tree
Removal – Replacement
Tree Requirements
Focus requirements of
replacement trees on
community forest program goals
The 1:1 tree replacement ratio should be directed towards goals of the community forest program to increase canopy cover, species diversity, and the environmental services of trees. It should also include a requirement for replacement trees to be similar in size at maturity of the removed tree.

The City could also provide an approved replacement species list to applicants based on neighborhood-level species diversity goals. The City could further expand its partnership with OCF to provide guidance to homeowners to properly place trees around their property to cool homes and lower energy use.

Tree Protection During
Construction
Require site developers to
provide detailed tree protection plans in alignment
with industry standards
It should be a condition of approval for development projects to provide a tree protection plan for all on-site and street trees that are to be preserved during construction. Tree protection plans should be prepared by a certified arborist hired by the site developer, and the plan should be approved by a City arborist. The protection plan should adhere to City, ISA, and ANSI standards.

Tree Protection During
Construction
Conduct a site visit prior
to any construction to ensure protection measures
are installed
The site developer, project arborist, and City arborist (or contracted arborist) should conduct a site visit to confirm that all protection measures are implemented as described in the protection plan.

Tree Protection During
Construction
Require a certified arborist to periodically monitor
on-site construction
activities when there is
potential to impact trees
A certified arborist should be on-site whenever construction encroaches upon the critical root zone of a tree or a tree requires limb or root pruning. Any impacts to a tree should be documented by the project arborist with a report submitted to the Planning Division and City arborist to determine if the site developer is compliant with the protection plan. 112 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
City Planning Documents
This section will describe the relationship of the
CFMP to other City documents that provide
goals and policies relating to the community
forest. The two main documents that influence
Citywide environmental policy and programs are
the City’s Envision San José 2040 General Plan
and Climate Smart San José. The City’s General
Plan is a long-range vision which establishes land
use and circulation patterns with consideration
for other issue area policies, such as those established for safety, conservation, or open space.

The City has also adopted Climate Smart San
José, which builds on the City Green Vision with
a people-focused approach, encouraging the
entire San José community to join an ambitious
campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,
save water, and improve quality of life.

ENVISION SAN JOSÉ 2040 GENERAL PLAN
California law requires that every city and county prepare and adopt a long-range comprehensive general plan to guide future development and to identify the community’s environmental,
social, and economic goals. A general plan is
currently required to include seven elements:
land use, circulation, housing, conservation,
open space, noise, and safety (OPR 2021). In
addition to the mandatory elements, each
jurisdiction can also include locally relevant
elements, such as arts and culture, economic
development, or air quality. The Envision San
José 2040 General Plan is an integrated plan
that consolidates mandatory elements with
optional elements targeted at addressing the
unique planning needs of the City. Adopted on
November 1, 2011, and last amended on March
16, 2020, the Envision San José 2040 General
Plan plans for future growth, development,
and the provision of municipal services for San
José. The Envision San José 2040 General Plan
has a planning horizon of 2040 and plans for
the development of up to 382,000 new jobs
and 120,000 new dwelling units, supporting a
population of approximately 1.3 million people.

The Envision San José 2040 General Plan identifies 12 major strategies. Collectively, these strategies build on the vision to directly inform
the Land Use/Transportation Diagram and the
Goals, Policies, and Implementation Actions
formulated to guide the physical development
of San José and the evolving delivery of City
services over the life of the General Plan.

These 12 interrelated and mutually supportive strategies are considered fundamental to achievement of the City’s vision and together
promote the continuing evolution of San José
into a great city. These strategies are:

1. Community Based Planning

2. Form Based Plan

3. Focused Growth

4. Innovation/Regional Employment
Center

5. Urban Villages

6. Streetscapes for People

7. Measurable Sustainability/
Environmental Stewardship

8. Fiscally Strong City

9. Destination Downtown

10. Life Amidst Abundant Natural
Resources

11. Design for a Healthful Community

12. Plan Horizons and Periodic Major
Review
Of these major strategies, the CFMP would
directly support:
• Urban Villages, which aims to provide
active, walkable, bicycle-friendly, transit-oriented, mixed-use urban settings for new housing and job growth;
• Streetscapes for People, which aims to
provide safe, comfortable, attractive, and
convenient access and travel for pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit users of all ages, abilities, and preferences;
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 113 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
San José Aerial View
114 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
Table 25. Management Practices Related Goals and Policies Goal MS-21 – Community Forest
MS-21.1 Manage the Community Forest to achieve San José’s environmental goals for water and energy conservation, wildlife habitat preservation, stormwater retention, heat reduction in urban areas, energy conservation, and the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

MS-21.2 Provide appropriate resources to preserve, protect and expand the City’s Community Forest.

MS-21.11 Create and maintain an inventory of the City’s street and park trees.

MS-21.12 Complete the development of a Community Forest Master Plan that provides a strategy to achieve the City’s Community Forest Goals; implement this Master Plan.

MS-21.13 Develop performance measures for tree planting and canopy coverage which measure the City’s success in achieving the Community Forest goals. These performance measures should inform tree planting goals for the years between 2022 (the horizon year for the Green Vision) and 2040.

MS-21.14 Secure adequate human and financial resources to oversee all City tree services, to implement policies and to address the deferred and on-going maintenance funding needs for the community forest.

MS-21.18 Implement the Heritage Tree Ordinance to maintain and protect San José’s heritage trees.

MS-21.19 Periodically update the heritage tree list, identifying trees of special significance to the community. • Measurable Sustainability/
Environmental Stewardship, which aims
to advance the City’s Green Vision through
2040 and establish Measurable Environmental Sustainability indicators consistent with Green Vision Goal #7;
• Life Amidst Abundant Natural
Resources, which aims to promote access
to the natural environment and a favorable
climate as important strengths for San José
by building a world-class trail network, reinforcing the Greenline/Urban Growth Boundary as the limit of the City’s urbanized area, and preserving the surrounding hillsides
largely as open space, and by adding parks
and other recreational amenities to serve
existing and new populations; and
• Design for a Healthful Community,
which aims to support good nutrition and
healthful air and water, protect the community from human-made and natural hazards and disasters, provide for economic opportunities that meet the needs of all residents, and provide for the equitable distribution
of public resources, including public health
facilities, throughout the City.

Each of the goals and policies included in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan supports one or more of these major strategies, of which 39
policies incorporate trees into the various goals.

Additionally, the Envision San José 2040 General
Plan recognizes ongoing tree planting activities as
one method it will use to achieve its 2007 Green
Vision to “create jobs, preserve the environment,
and improve the quality of life for our community.”

RELATIONSHIP TO CFMP
Each of the following discussions provide a brief
analysis and recommendations for how the
CFMP will support the goals and policies outlined
in the Envision San José 2040 General Plan.

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Table 25 identifies the goals and policies that
provide the foundation for the City’s approach
to managing the community forest. The current
funding and staffing allocations prohibit the City
from achieving the measurable sustainability
(MS) directives MS-21.1, MS-21.2, and MS-21-14
of the General Plan. Some trees are providing a
high level of environmental services, but others
lack the care and maintenance needed to have
a healthy and mature canopy. The goals and
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 115 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Table 26. Species Selection Related Goals and Policies
Goal MS-11 – Toxic Air Contaminants [TACs]
MS-11.5 Encourage the use of pollution absorbing trees and vegetation in buffer areas between substantial sources of TACs and sensitive land uses.

Goal MS-21 – Community Forest
MS-21.3 Ensure that San José’s Community Forest is comprised of species that have low water requirements and are well adapted to its Mediterranean climate. Select and plant diverse species to prevent monocultures that are vulnerable to pest invasions. Furthermore, consider the appropriate placement of tree species and their lifespan to ensure the perpetuation of the Community Forest.

MS-21.9 Where urban development occurs adjacent to natural plant communities (e.g., oak woodland, riparian forest), landscape plantings shall incorporate tree species native to the area and propagated from local sources (generally from within 5–10 miles and preferably from within the same watershed).

MS-21.10 Prohibit London plane trees from being planted in the Coyote Planning Area, which is located near the most significant stands of sycamore alluvial woodland in the City. Planting of this species is discouraged elsewhere, particularly near riparian areas. Prohibit holly-leaved oaks from being planted in areas containing stands of native oaks or in proximity to native oak woodland habitat.
objectives of the CFMP will help move the City
toward directive MS-21.1, but without dedicated
funding, the program will be difficult to achieve.

Most of the resources are in place to meet
directive MS-21.2 except for having an arborist
in the Planning Division to review development
plans and removal applications. Currently, some
staff who are not arborists are making decisions
about the health and risk associated with trees,
and they are not qualified to do so. The City
should hire a certified arborist to work directly in
reviewing development designs, project permits,
and removal applications to ensure the best
arboricultural practices are being instituted.

A street and park tree inventory needs to be
completed, to meet directive MS 21.1. The City
will need to continue to maintain an updated
inventory by ensuring every tree is assessed on
a 5-year cycle. To meet directives MS 21.12 and
MS 21.13, the City can follow the implementation
and monitoring protocols of the CFMP, and adjust
goals and objectives based on the current environmental and economic conditions of the City.

Regarding directive MS 21.14, the City needs to
first decide if property owners or the City will
be financially responsible for the maintenance
of trees in the public space, and then develop a
dedicated funding stream, or cost reimbursement program, that funds the community forest management program at a sustainable level.

Directives MS-21.18 and MS-21.19 do not have
clear success criteria for the Heritage Tree Ordinance or the desired outcomes. Currently, 134 trees and over 300 palms (Palm Haven Conservation Area) are listed in the inventory as heritage trees, out of the City inventory of 270,000 trees.

The Heritage Tree Ordinance would benefit from
clear objectives and goals that could be developed
with an outreach and education campaign to highlight the services residents receive from trees.

SPECIES SELECTION
Table 26 identifies the goals and policies that
frame the City’s approach to species selection
within the community forest. Species selection was reviewed through the CFMP process, with consideration for the directives related
to species selection, and created a standard
for species selection based in part from the
elements discussed in this section. Next steps
include updating the list of recommended
species and providing residents with guidelines for selecting an appropriate species for their residential location.
116 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program

DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN PRACTICES
Table 27identifies the goals and policies
that frame the City’s approach to development and design practices as they relate to the community forest. Frequently, trees are
considered at the end of the design review
process. As such, they are placed where
space is available, which limits the amount
and canopy size of the tree that can be
planted to avoid conflicts with other parts of
infrastructure. In recognition of this practice,
the City has recently developed a guideline
for private property development projects
aimed at the long-term sustainability of trees
on the project site. The guidelines include
recommended practices to provide adequate soil volume for tree growth, minimizing conflict with infrastructure, and site canopy
cover goals. If adopted and implemented at
the beginning of the review process, development projects should be able to meaningfully include trees with other infrastructure to
increase the amount and canopy size of the
trees that can be planted.

Directive MS-14.4 accurately suggests planting
of trees to reduce energy consumption. However, further details related to tree placement would help ensure that buildings are receiving
Table 27. Development and Design Practices Related Goals and Policies Goal MS-14 – Reduce Consumption and Increase Efficiency MS-14.4 Implement the City’s Green Building Policies (see Green Building Section) so that new construction and rehabilitation of existing buildings fully implements industry best practices, including the use of optimized energy systems, selection of materials and resources, water efficiency, sustainable site selection, passive solar building design, and planting of trees and other landscape materials to reduce energy consumption.

Goal MS-21 – Community Forest
MS-21.6 Ensure that San José’s Community Forest is comprised of species that have low water requirements and are well adapted to its Mediterranean climate. Select and plant diverse species to prevent monocultures that are vulnerable to pest invasions. Furthermore, consider the appropriate placement of tree species and their lifespan to ensure the perpetuation of the Community Forest.

MS-21.7 Where urban development occurs adjacent to natural plant communities (e.g., oak woodland, riparian forest), landscape plantings shall incorporate tree species native to the area and propagated from local sources (generally from within 5-10 miles and preferably from within the same watershed).

MS-21.20 Prohibit London plane trees from being planted in the Coyote Planning Area, which is located near the most significant stands of sycamore alluvial woodland in the City. Planting of this species is discouraged elsewhere, particularly near riparian areas. Prohibit holly-leaved oaks from being planted in areas containing stands of native oaks or in proximity to native oak woodland habitat.

Goal ER-6 – Urban Natural Interface
ER-6.8 Design and construct development to avoid changes in drainage patterns across adjacent natural areas and for adjacent native trees, such as oaks.

Goal CD-1 – Attractive City
CD–1.9 Give the greatest priority to developing high-quality pedestrian facilities in areas that will most promote transit use and bicycle and pedestrian activity. In pedestrian-oriented areas such as Downtown, Urban Villages, or along Main Streets, place commercial and mixed-use building frontages at or near the street-facing property line with entrance directly to the public sidewalk, provide high-quality pedestrian facilities that promote pedestrian activity, including adequate sidewalk dimensions for both circulation and outdoor activities related to adjacent land uses, a continuous tree canopy, and other pedestrian amenities. In these areas, strongly discourage parking areas located between the front of buildings and the street to promote a safe and attractive street façade and pedestrian access to buildings.

Goal ES-3 – Law Enforcement and Fire Protection
ES–3.19 Remove excessive/overgrown vegetation (e.g., trees, shrubs, weeds) and rubbish from City-owned property to prevent and minimize fire risks to surrounding properties.

ES–3.20 Require private property owners to remove excessive/overgrown vegetation (e.g., trees, shrubs, weeds) and rubbish to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief to prevent and minimize fire risks to surrounding properties.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 117 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
optimal energy reduction benefits of trees. Directives MS-21.6, MS-21.7, and MS-21.20 include guidance for selecting native trees and trees
that are adapted to the City’s climate, as well as
prohibiting specific tree species. These directives would be supported by further guidance in the form of a recommended tree species and
prohibited tree species list and providing guidelines for selecting an appropriate species based on the planting location.

Directive CD-1.9 provides valuable guidance for
creating walkable and bikeable communities
by providing pedestrian and bicycle amenities.

However, the direction to “place commercial
and mixed-use building frontages at or near
the street-facing property line” and include
“adequate sidewalk dimensions for both circulation and outdoor activities” is in conflict with the direction to have a ‘continuous tree canopy’
as it does not consider providing adequate
space for street trees. Trees are an important
component of creating attractive spaces that
encourage pedestrian and bicyclist activity by
providing shade and creating buffers between
vehicular traffic and sidewalks or bike lanes.

TREE PRESERVATION
Table 28identifies the goals and policies that
frame the City’s approach to tree preservation. Directive MS-21.4 encourages the maintenance of mature trees on public and private property; however, it does not appear the City
is making any investment in the education of
residents on how to maintain trees, and directs a limited amount of funding to DOT and PRNS for tree management and maintenance.

If these trees are an “integral” part of the community forest, then more attention needs to be given to them. It’s not apparent that “all reaTable 28.Tree Preservation Related Goals and Policies Goal MS-21 – Community Forest
MS-21.4 Encourage the maintenance of mature trees, especially natives, on public and private property as an integral part of the community forest. Prior to allowing the removal of any mature tree, pursue all reasonable measures to preserve it.

MS-21.5 As part of the development review process, preserve protected trees (as defined by the Municipal Code), and other significant trees. Avoid any adverse effect on the health and longevity of protected or other significant trees through appropriate design measures and construction practices. Special priority should be given to the preservation of native oaks and native sycamores. When tree preservation is not feasible, include appropriate tree replacement, both in number and spread of canopy.

MS-21.8 For Capital Improvement Plan or other public development projects, or through the entitlement process for private development projects, require landscaping including the selection and planting of new trees to achieve the following goals: Avoid conflicts with nearby power lines. Avoid potential conflicts between tree roots and developed areas.

Avoid use of invasive, non-native trees. Remove existing invasive, non-native trees. Incorporate native trees into urban plantings in order to provide food and cover for native wildlife species. Plant native oak trees and native sycamores on sites which have adequately sized landscape areas and which historically supported these species.

Goal ER-1 – Grassland, Oak Woodlands, Chaparral and Coast Scrub ER – 1.5 Preserve and protect oak woodlands, and individual oak trees. Any loss of oak woodland and/or native oak trees must be fully mitigated.

Goal CD-1 – Attractive City
CD – 1.24 Within new development projects, include preservation of ordinance-sized and other significant trees, particularly natives. Avoid any adverse affect on the health and longevity of such trees through design measures, construction, and best maintenance practices. When tree preservation is not feasible, include replacements or alternative mitigation measures in the project to maintain and enhance our Community Forest Goal CD-9 – Access to Scenic Resources
CD – 9.2 Preserve the natural character of Rural Scenic Corridors by incorporating mature strands of trees, rock outcroppings, streams, lakes and reservoirs and other such natural features into project designs. 118 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
sonable measures” are being taken to preserve
trees. Frequently, residential or commercial
property owners who want to remove trees can
do so without providing a possible alternative to
removal.

Based on department interviews, when there
is a conflict between existing trees and new
development, the tree is usually removed to
make room for the structure. Staff are reluctant
to suggest or promote any alternative designs
or construction practices as these are not
included in approved City details. If they were,
then staff could include them as a requirement
in construction plans. To meet the intent of
directive MS-21.5, the City has developed new
design standards that provide City planners and
engineers options for how a site can be developed to include trees on site plans so they have the necessary soil volume and aboveground
space to reach a mature and full canopy without
interfering with existing infrastructure.

Directive MS-21.8 suggests that trees that are
non-native are not appropriate to be planted in
the City and that native trees should be prioritized. The added benefit to planting native trees is an increase wildlife habitat and biodiversity.

However, all trees provide environmental benefits, and some non-native trees are appropriate for the current and changing climate conditions
of the City. Removing non-native trees without further reasoning beyond their status as non-native is contradictory to goals of creating
a sustainable urban forest and assumes that
sites that historically supported native oaks and
sycamore trees will continue to do so.

Species selection, and what is recommended to
be preserved, should be based on CFMP goals
and favor any species of tree that is suitable
for the space provided and is low-water-use,
drought-tolerant, and adaptable to future
climate conditions. Native trees should be encouraged when appropriate and planted to the extent that they meet species diversity goals.

COMMUNITY INVESTMENT AND COLLABORATION
Table 29identifies the goals and policies that
frame the City’s approach to community
investment and collaboration for the community forest. OCF is the City’s primary partner in engaging the City’s residents in the community
forest and in it’s 25-year history has helped support the MS-21.15 goals by leveraging over $15 million dollars in local, state, and federal funds
to support community forest program goals.

Modeling from the successes of initiatives like
OCF’s 2015 CAL FIRE-funded “Trees for All” project which targeted plantings in disadvantaged San José neighborhoods, the City and OCF could
pool resources so more state grant opportunities can be pursued to support the planting of trees and education efforts in disadvantaged
Table 29.Community Investment and Collaboration-Related Goals and Policies Goal MS-21 – Community Forest
MS-21.15 Strengthen the City’s existing partnership with Our City Forest, and develop new partnerships with other non-profits, businesses, other agencies and the community, to maximize available resources to maintain and expand the Community Forest.

MS-21.16 Collaborate with other government agencies – local, state and federal – to leverage resources to achieve the City’s Community Forest goal.

MS-21.17 Support volunteer urban forestry programs that encourage the participation of citizens in tree planting and maintenance in neighborhoods and parks throughout the City.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 119 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
communities. This is one example of many ways
the two entities could partner on future grant
opportunities that support the defined efforts
and strengths of each.

The City could also begin to explore partnerships with other community-based organizations that have a direct relationship to various neighborhoods and demographic segments of
the City. A similar model is used in Los Angeles
where six different nonprofit organizations
partner with the City to engage residents in
specifically designated areas of the City. The
organizations provide a deeper connection and
relationship with the residents in the neighborhoods they serve that can be advantageous for advancing the community forest goals of the
City. It would be important to have clearly defined outcomes and deliverables for new organizations similar to the OCF and City partnership.

NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER
Table 30 identifies the goals and policies that
frame the City’s approach to neighborhood
character as it relates to the community forest. These directives collectively underscore the importance of trees to neighborhood
character, and the City should continue to
utilize the community forest to provide a comTable 30. Neighborhood Character-Related Goals and Policies Goal CD-2 – Function
CD-2.1 Promote the Circulation Goals and Policies in this Plan. Create streets that promote pedestrian and bicycle transportation by following applicable goals and policies in the Circulation section of this Plan.

Create a comfortable and safe pedestrian environment by implementing wider sidewalks, shade structures, attractive street furniture, street trees, reduced traffic speeds, pedestrian-oriented lighting, mid-block pedestrian crossings, pedestrian-activated crossing lights, bulb-outs and curb extensions at intersections, and on-street parking that buffers pedestrians from vehicles.

CD-2.3 Enhance pedestrian activity by incorporating design techniques and regulating uses in private developments, particularly in Downtown, Urban Villages, Main Streets, and other locations where appropriate.

Include attractive and interesting pedestrian-oriented streetscape features such as street furniture, pedestrian scale lighting, pedestrian oriented way-finding signage, clocks, fountains, landscaping, and street trees that provide shade, with improvements to sidewalks and other pedestrian ways.

Sidewalks should be wide with ample pedestrian amenities, including street trees, high-quality landscaping, pedestrian curb extensions or bulb-outs, enhanced street crossings, and pedestrian-oriented signage identifying trails and points of interest.

Goal LU-12 – Urban Agriculture
LU-12.6 Use the City’s public works projects (street lights, street tree plantings, sidewalk design, etc.) to promote, preserve, or enhance the historic character of Conservation Areas.

Goal LU-13 – Landmarks and Districts
LU-13.10 Ensure City public works projects (street lights, street tree plantings, sidewalk design, etc.) promote preserve, or enhance the character of Historic Districts.

Goal LU-14 – Historic Structures of Lesser Significance LU-14.7 Ensure City public works projects (street lights, street tree plantings, sidewalk design, etc.) promote preserve, or enhance the character of Conservation Areas.

Goal LU-17 – Hillside / Rural Preservation
LU-17.3 Minimize grading on hillsides and design any necessary grading or recontouring to preserve the natural character of the hills and to minimize the removal of significant vegetation, especially native trees such as Valley Oaks. 120 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
fortable and safe pedestrian environment,
enhance Conservation Areas and Historic
Districts, and minimize impact to native trees.

LONG-TERM GOALS
Table 31 identifies the goals and policies that
frame the City’s approach to long-term goals
as they relate to the community forest. These
directives lead San José to growing the community forest’s canopy with a goal to plant 100,000 trees by 2022. The City is a leader in
climate resiliency planning and should continue to invest in its community forest as an asset in achieving climate adaptation.

CLIMATE SMART SAN JOSÉ
Adopted in 2018, the Climate Smart San José
plan builds upon the foundational goals and
policies identified in the Envision San José
2040 General Plan, and provides additional
analysis, recommendations, and corresponding metrics. It articulates how every facet of the City—from buildings, to mobility, to growing the workforce—needs to transform to minimize the City’s impact on climate change.

To achieve the goals outlined in the Climate
Smart San José plan, multiple stakeholders
must come together: City departments, related agencies, the private sector, and, ultimately, residents and community groups. Climate Smart San José introduces a new framing
coined “the Good Life 2.0,” which gains traction by articulating the quality of life benefits of sustainability. In addressing benefits through the priorities of residents, such as an
affordable home, time with their loved ones,
and pleasant open space to enjoy with their
families, Climate Smart San José generates
excitement around tangible issues that matter
to the community.

Climate Smart San José outlines a framework
for action that includes three pillars, each of
which provides strategies towards implementation. Table 32 outlines each pillar and strategy and addresses potential ways the CFMP could support each pillar.

Table 31.

Long-Term Goals-Related Goals and Policies
Goal IP-3 – General Plan Annual Review and Measurable Sustainability IP-3.8 Consistent with the City’s Green Visions, evaluate achievement of the following goals for environmental sustainability as part of each General Plan annual review process: Develop performance measures for tree planting and canopy coverage which measures the City’s success in achieving the Community Forest goals. These performance measures should inform tree planting goals for the years between 2022 (the horizon year for the Green Vision) and 2040. [Community Forest Action MS-21.16]
IP-17.1 Use San José’s adopted Green Vision as a tool to advance the General Plan Vision for Environmental Leadership. San José’s Green Vision is a comprehensive fifteen-year plan to create jobs, preserve the environment, and improve quality of life for our community, demonstrating that the goals of economic growth, environmental stewardship and fiscal sustainability are inextricably linked. Adopted in 2007, San José’s Green Vision establishes the following Environmental Leadership Goals through 2022:

Plant 100,000 new trees and replace 100 percent of our streetlights with smart, zero emission lighting; With an integrated approach, planting 100,000 new trees and replacing all of the of the City’s streetlights with smart, zero emission lights, will help the San José “green” its transportation system—to create an integrated, sustainable system that consumes less energy, protects the environment, and accommodates growth in a manner that enhances the City’s quality of life.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 121 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
The CFMP is uniquely primed to support the
strategies and goals outlined in Climate Smart
San José. While none of the 94 options for
supporting City action directly mentions trees,
the community forest is currently serving the
City in achieving its Climate Smart San José vision by supporting strategies to make homes efficient and affordable for residents.

While Climate Smart San José does not directly capitalize on the City’s community forest, the CFMP will highlight opportunities that
can be incorporated in future iterations of
the Climate Smart San José plan. For example, Climate Smart San José aims to reduce household energy use to 5,704 kilowatt-hours
by 2050; proper placement of trees on private property can help reduce heating and cooling costs for households, which could
help achieve this milestone. The community
forest can also support the milestone to have
114,400 vehicles off the road as trees support
walkable neighborhoods, which help to reduce car dependency. The community forest is an existing City asset that with a relatively
small investment would enhance the Climate
Smart San José plan.

Table 32. Potential ways the CFMP Can Support Climate Smart San José Pillars Strategies Potential Ways the CFMP Can Support
Climate Smart San José
Pillar 1: A sustainable and climate smart city

1. Transition to a renewable energy future Plan for a community forest filled with diverse species that are appropriate for California’s
current and changing climate.

2. Embrace our Californian climate
Pillar 2: A vibrant city of connected and focused growth

1. Densify our city to accommodate our future
neighbors Provides more walkable communities, reduces
heating and cooling costs, and beautifies
neighborhoods.

2. Make homes efficient and affordable for our
families

3. Create clean, personalized mobility choices
Pillar 3: An economically inclusive city of opportunity

1. Develop integrated, accessible public transport infrastructure Provides shade for public transit stops, adds new jobs as the community forest grows, and
reduces air pollutants from the transportation
of commercial goods

2. Create local jobs in our city to reduce vehicle
miles traveled (VMT),

3. Improve our commercial building stock

4. Make commercial goods movement clean
and efficient
122 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
Urban Village Plan
The Envision San José 2040 General Plan
establishes the Urban Villages concept and
land use designation to encourage new jobs
and housing growth via infill development and
redevelopment in areas that are walkable,
bicycle-friendly, mixed-use settings that have
access to existing transit, infrastructure and
facilities. The Urban Villages presented in the
General Plan are divided into four categories:

Regional Transit Urban Villages, Local Transit Urban Villages, Commercial Corridor and Center Urban Villages, and Neighborhood
Urban Villages. Each Urban Village area would
be implemented through development of a
written Urban Village Plan.

The Urban Villages concept guides the City
toward sustainable growth through infill
development and redevelopment of underutilized sites. The concept also helps the City to attain its environmental, fiscal, economic, and
transportation goals by protecting the City’s
remaining open space areas and discouraging
urban sprawl; reducing greenhouse gas emissions and creating healthier communities by encouraging alternative and active transportation; and promoting economic development by revitalizing urban areas. Coast live oak
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 123 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Goal CD-7 of the General Plan sets forth design goals for the Urban Village Plan areas:

Goal CD-7, Urban Villages Design: Create
thriving, attractive Urban Villages that reflect
unique urban characteristics of an area and
provide complete neighborhoods for residents,
workers, and visitors.

Policies CD-7.1 through CD-7.10 provide design
guidelines related to land use types, urban
design character, outdoor gathering spaces,
building height and density, access to parks, and
Urban Village Plan development and approval. Additional policies throughout the General Plan guide Urban Village Plan development in
terms of urban form, transportation, housing,
commercial areas, educational facilities, healthcare facilities, public services, and amenities.

However, the policies lack guidance for inclusion
of trees and green infrastructure in the design
of Urban Villages. One policy, PR-1.9, considers
access to open space and parkland:

PR-1.9: As Urban Village areas redevelop,
incorporate urban open space and parkland
recreation areas through a combination
of high-quality, publicly accessible outdoor
spaces provided as part of new development
projects; privately or, in limited instances,
publicly owned and maintained pocket parks;
neighborhood parks where possible; as well
as through access to trails and other park and
recreation amenities.

Chapter 7 of the General Plan presents implementation strategies for the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan. Implementation
Goal IP-5 and its sub-policies provide strategies for implementing the Urban Village Planning process. Some of these sub-policies
(IP-5.1, IP-5.9, and IP-5.10) assert that plans
for urban character and streetscape design
as well as provision of parks and public open
space are necessary components that should
be addressed in an Urban Village Plan.

While the Urban Village Plan concept encourages sustainable growth through mixed-used, transit-oriented development, the concept
does not specify or encourage the inclusion
of green infrastructure within the plan areas.

Green infrastructure plays an important role
in placemaking while also providing environmental services and benefits to the residents and visitors of the Urban Village Areas. Planning for green infrastructure in dense urban areas, such as those envisioned for the Urban
Village concept, is an important component
of creating pedestrian friendly environments
that promote health and well-being. By
prioritizing green infrastructure in the Urban
Village Plans, the City would receive additional benefits from the Urban Villages concept, such as cleaner air and reduced stormwater
runoff, increased property values, reduced
urban heat island effect, and attractive urban
environments. As each Urban Village Plan is
developed, the City should look to the CFMP
to guide tree planting opportunities in each
Urban Village area during the planning stages.

American Sweet Gum
124 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
Green Stormwater
Infrastructure Plan
The City of San José Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (GSI Plan) provides a framework for advancing the City’s “gray” infrastructure
to include green stormwater infrastructure.

Green stormwater infrastructure (GSI) uses
plants, soil, and pervious surfaces to capture and treat urban stormwater runoff and reduce the water quality impacts to receiving waters, such as local creeks and the San Francisco Bay. The GSI Plan includes guidance
and standards for GSI project design and
construction and aims to implement and institutionalize the concepts of GSI into standard municipal engineering, construction, and
maintenance practices. The GSI Plan introduces the concept that urban forestry can be integrated with GSI to achieve multiple benefits that are in addition to reduced stormwater impacts, such as greening and beautifying of
public spaces, increased pedestrian safety,
habitat and ecological benefits (e.g., species
diversity), improved air quality, reduced urban
heat island effect, and reduced energy use.

Additionally, the GSI Plan appropriately asserts that GSI facilities can be used to harvest rainwater that can be used for irrigation of
trees and other vegetation.

Opportunities for implementing GSI facilities
exist throughout the City and priority projects have been identified. For example, traffic calming improvements such as curb extensions and bulb-outs provide opportunities to integrate GSI facilities that include trees. The
GSI Plan provides prioritization strategies for
implementing GSI projects in the City. As part
of the prioritization process, the existing conditions of potential project location and siting are considered for constraints; the presence
of mature trees and the number of trees per
block were included as a constraint to implementing GSI projects in certain locations, along with utility, space, and slope constraints.

Estimated driplines of mature trees, and
specifically 24-inch diameter trees are given a
2 foot buffer around the tree. By considering
mature trees as a constraint to implementing
GSI projects, the City has made an effort to
preserve the existing mature trees when identifying locations for GSI projects.

The GSI Plan includes details about five existing and early implementation City projects, which consist of street improvement projects or “green street projects”. Of these, two identify trees that have been or will be implemented as part of the projects (Chynoweth Avenue Green Street and San Carlos Safety
Improvement Project). Additionally, Appendix
C of the GSI Plan introduces concept design
and fact sheets for six conceptual projects in
the City, two of which discuss the planting of
trees (Kelley Park Disc Golf Regional Stormwater Capture Concept) or the preservation of existing trees (Vinci Park Regional Stormwater
Capture Concept).

RELATIONSHIP TO THE CFMP
The inclusion of trees and the community
forest as part of GSI facilities is addressed,
but the positive impact that trees can have on
stormwater retention and filtration is not thoroughly explained. Additionally, when including trees in GSI facilities, it is important that the
site is designed appropriately for trees. Soil
properties and soil volume are key to growing
trees in urban landscapes and using them
successfully in GSI facilities.

Species selection should also be made in
consideration of site specifics, growth rate,
ornamental traits, size, canopy shape, shade
potential, and benefits for wildlife. The project
site should be evaluated during the planning
stages to understand site constraints. Species
used in GSI facilities should be resilient and
compatible with the growing conditions asso-
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 125 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
ciated with the site, including the potential for
pollution and other stressors associated with
stormwater runoff and the urban environment.

While trees are generally recognized for their
many benefits, their innate ability to absorb
and divert rainfall is often underutilized. As
addressed in the GSI Plan, maintaining surface and groundwater quality is important for both human health and the environment.

Impervious surfaces in urban areas create
an interconnected network of hardscapes,
which reduces infiltration and groundwater
recharge. Additionally, high volumes of runoff may lead to flooding, overloading of the stormwater system, and contamination of
surface and groundwater resources (Berland
et al. 2017). Trees can reduce the amount of
stormwater runoff and pollutants that reach
local waters by slowing and storing runoff,
capturing and storing rainfall, creating conditions that promote infiltration of rainwater, and absorbing and converting pollutants into
less harmful substances (EPA 2013).

Trees planted in areas designed for stormwater capture (e.g., bio retention basins/ bioswales) provide benefits of both stormwater capture and increasing the City’s canopy.

Incorporated trees into GSI facilities can
include various design elements like the use
of tree grates, bioretention soils, and suspended pavements. Designing GSI facilities to accommodate the largest size tree possible
will increase its stormwater utility function
while also making a greater contribution to
the City’s canopy cover (EPA 2013).
126 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Section – Subsection Recommendation Discussion
Envision San José 2040
General Plan-Relationship
to CFMP-Management
Practices
Adequately fund MS-21.1 to ensure
the program will be achievable.

Some trees are providing a high level of environmental services, but others lack the care and maintenance needed to have a healthy and mature canopy. The goals and objectives of the CFMP will help move the City toward directive MS-21.1, but without dedicated funding, the program will be difficult to achieve.

Envision San José 2040
General Plan-Relationship
to CFMP-Management
Practices
To meet MS-21.2, the City should
hire a certified arborist an arborist
in support of the Planning Division
to review development plans and
removal applications.

The City should hire a certified arborist to work directly in reviewing development designs, project permits, and removal applications to ensure the best arboricultural practices are being instituted.

Envision San José 2040
General Plan-Relationship
to CFMP-Management
Practices
Clarify the Heritage Tree Ordinance The Heritage Tree Ordinance would benefit from clear objectives and goals that could be developed with an outreach and education campaign to highlight the services residents receive from trees.

Envision San José 2040
General Plan-Relationship
to CFMP-Species Selection
Update the list of recommended
species and provide residents with
guidelines for selecting an appropriate species for their residential location
Providing residents with an easily understandable resource list can increase resident education and health of newly established trees. Species selection, and what is recommended to be preserved, should be based on CFMP goals and favor any species of tree that is suitable for the space provided and is low-water-use, drought-tolerant, and adaptable to future climate conditions.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 127 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Section – Subsection Recommendation Discussion
Envision San José 2040
General Plan-Relationship
to CFMP-Community
Investment and
Collaboration
The City could also begin to
explore partnerships with other
community-based organizations
that have a direct relationship to
various neighborhoods and demographic segments of the City Different nonprofit organizations that engage residents in specific areas of the City could provide partnerships that offer a deeper connection and relationship with the residents in the neighborhoods they serve. These relationships can be advantageous for advancing the community forest goals of the City.

Envision San José 2040
General Plan-Relationship
to CFMP-Neighborhood
Character
Leverage neighborhood character
goals and priorities
The directives listed in CD-2.1 collectively underscore the importance of trees to neighborhood character, and the City should continue to utilize the community forest to provide a comfortable and safe pedestrian environment, enhance Conservation Areas and Historic Districts, and minimize impact to native trees.

Envision San José 2040
General Plan-Relationship
to CFMP-Long-Term Goals
Leverage the City’s leadership in
climate resiliency planning.

The City should continue to invest in its community forest as an asset in achieving climate adaptation, as listed in goal IP-3.

Climate Smart San José Align the CFMP with Climate Smart San José’s 3 pillars
Opportunities for alignment include planning for a community forest that contains climate ready tree species, encouraging walkable communities, and managing trees that provide shade and other environmental benefits to residents.

Urban Village Plan Prioritize green infrastructure in
the Urban Village Plan
The City would receive additional benefits from the Urban Villages concept, such as cleaner air and reduced stormwater runoff, increased property values, reduced urban heat island effect, and attractive urban environments. As each Urban Village Plan is developed, the City should look to the CFMP to guide tree planting opportunities in each Urban Village area during the planning stages.

Green Stormwater
Infrastructure Plan
Continue to consider mature trees
in projects identified in the GSI
Plan
By considering mature trees as a constraint to implementing GSI projects, the City has made an effort to preserve the existing mature trees when identifying locations for GSI projects.

Green Stormwater
Infrastructure Plan
Evaluate all project sites identified
in the GSI Plan during the planning
stages
Species selection should also be made in consideration of site specifics, growth rate, ornamental traits, size, canopy shape, shade potential, and benefits for wildlife. Evaluating the project site during the planning stage will help understand and ideally prevent site constraints. 128 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
Our City Forest
The following section provides a discussion
of the San José-based nonprofit organization Our City Forest (OCF), which is the main community partner for the City in engaging
residents to plant and care for the community forest. This section is dedicated to a discussion of the OCF and City partnership
because of the multiple OCF program areas
that intersect with various community forest
management activities and the depth of the
partnership. It is also intended to highlight
the potential to further leverage the strengths
that both the City and OCF bring to the partnership, to bring more financial and human resources to maintaining and expanding the
San José community forest.

BACKGROUND
In 1989, the City set a goal to plant 1 million
trees for its 1 million residents. In response,
OCF was formed in 1991 (incorporated in
1994) with supplemental funding provided by
the City. Since that time, OCF has been a leading urban forestry and environmental stewardship nonprofit in Silicon Valley, and states the values of the organization are:
“We believe in the power of trees to turn
our neighborhoods and cities from gray to
green, and we believe in the power of people
to help achieve this transformation.”
These values have guided the programs and
direction of OCF since its inception, which
began with a focus on community tree-planting activities. Since that time, OCF has expanded its programming to include tree care services, management of a tree nursery, a
turf-removal program, and educational and
training programs. As reported by OCF, these
programs throughout its history have resulted
in the engagement of over 200,000 community volunteers and residents, the planting and establishment of at least 80,000 trees
and shrubs, and completion of approximately
15,000 community projects. Using state and
federal grants, OCF has conducted tree plantings at 225 schools for 24 school districts, added 10,000+ trees to over 100 City parks,
and planted tens of thousands of street trees
throughout the city. OCF has also provided
nearly 500 young adults with 1-year of job
training opportunities where they provide
community service in exchange for a $20,000
stipend. These AmeriCorps service members
Table 33. Our City Forest Revenue by Type, Fiscal Years 2006–2016 Type Total Revenue OCF-Generated Revenue
City Funds
Development
Mitigation
Fee for
Services
AmeriCorps
Matching Grant
Operating
Grant
Amount $14,321,950 $10,252,035 $884,350 $616,785 $1,080,000 $1,488,780 Percent of Total 100% 72% 6% 4% 8% 10%
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 129 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
have contributed a total of approximately
740,000 service hours valued at an estimated
$22.9 million dollars. The value of tree stewards caring for their trees and of community volunteers who have helped plant the trees is
estimated at approximately $25 million. The
service data of Our City Forest reflects their
commitment to engage residents, contribute
to the community forest, and empower people to transform their neighborhood. The City of San José and OCF have the opportunity to
strengthen this partnership in order further
engage residents, continue its work in disadvantaged communities, and meet City goals established in the CFMP.

OCF and City Partnership

CITY FUNDING
As a nonprofit organization, OCF generates
funding for its operations and programs
through individual and corporate donations,
grants, fee for services, and funding provided
by the City. Table 33reflects revenue reported by OCF to the consultant team from fiscal years 2006–2016.

Table 33 indicates that, on average, OCF
total annual revenue for the time period was
$1.4 million, with the City contributing 28% of
OCF total revenue. In 2018-2019 City financial
support increased to 37% of OCF total annual
revenue (Table 35) This allocation is largely
accounted for by the additional funds provided by the City to cover unexpected new lease expenses for the OCF main office and land
that holds the OCF nursery.

The high level of financial support indicates
that the City values the contributions of OCF
and conversely, that OCF is reliant on the City
to maintain operations. While the City is making a significant contribution to support OCF operations and programs, the current levels
of operational support have not kept up with
inflation since they were first initiated and may
warrant an adjustment based on the Consumer Price Index.

Table 34. City Funds as a Percent of Our City Forest Revenue by Type, Fiscal Year 2018–2019 City Funds
Type
OCF
Operating
Budget
Office and
Nursery Lease
Fee for
Services
AmeriCorps
Matching Grant
Operating
Grant Total
Amount $1,829,673 $275,000 $100,000 $123,600 $179,014 $697,614 Percent of Operating Budget 100% 15% 5.5% 6.8% 9.8% 37% Note: City funding support of OCF increased in 2018-2019 due to unexpected new lease expenses 130 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
OCF Community Nursery &
Training Center
The Community Nursery is an example of
OCF’s ability to collaborate with other funding
partners on behalf of the community forest
and to create partnerships. OCF utilized two
federal grants and one CAL FIRE grant to fund
the building of the nursery on an empty City
parcel on Airport property. Over 1,000 community volunteers helped build the nursery from scratch, coached by the OCF staff team
and trained service members. The nursery
officially opened to the public in 2013 and now
holds thousands of trees, shrubs, and plants
that are available to the public on a donation
basis. Nursery trees are also used for City
street and park projects and for distribution
to single-family homes. The nursery is operated by OCF staff and AmeriCorps service members who manage approximately 2,500
nursery volunteers annually. In addition to
providing trees on a suggested donation
basis, OCF frequently holds training and
workshop events to educate the public on the
value of native plants, propagation, and other
tree-related issues.

OCF initiated the program to improve the
quality of nursery stock, expand species options and to provide the community trees for private property, since government grants at
that point were restricted to public property.

Both OCF and City staff recognize the need
to increase the variety of species available in
the nursery and are taking steps to address
the issue. The City is beginning to develop a
long-term plan for the species the City would
like to plant in the future, so OCF can begin to
acquire the desired species from commercial
nurseries and grow them to a size appropriate for the public space. Further exploration into commercial nursery contracts for specific
species is recommended.

AmeriCorps
In 2007 OCF began to apply for and receive
AmeriCorps member placements to build
the capacity of the organization. Since its
inception, OCF has leveraged $1 million in City
funding into an estimated value of $13 million
of AmeriCorps service time. AmeriCorps is
one of many service programs of the federally
funded Corporation for National and Community Service that focus on six services areas, including disaster services, economic opportunity, education, healthy futures, veterans and military families, and environmental stewardship. Currently, 30 AmeriCorps members serve with OCF to support all programmatic
areas from planting and caring for trees,
leading volunteers, managing the nursery, and
providing outreach to community members.

AmeriCorps members have also assisted
in the inventory of City trees, bilingual tree
maintenance trainings, and turf conversion
projects. To receive AmeriCorps members,
OCF must provide matching funds to the Corporation for National and Community Service, which in return provides a living stipend and
education award given to AmeriCorps members. Of the matching funds, 55% is directly contributed by the City on an annual basis,
with the remaining balance the responsibility
of OCF.

AmeriCorps members are a reliable source
of support for OCF programs and staff to
increase organizational capacity. More funding for this program may be warranted if it can be demonstrated that organizational capacity
increases in proportion to the addition of new
AmeriCorps members. If program funding is
expanded, the City should set clear expectations and deliverables for OCF that align with the City’s CFMP goals and where the
increased capacity is most beneficial or has
the highest return on investment.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 131 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
Grants
One avenue for nonprofit organizations to
receive sizeable cash contributions in support
of its programs is through government grants
(see Funding Opportunities section for an
extensive list). Over its 26-year history, OCF
has been successful in applying for state and
federal grants, receiving over $15 million in
funding to support tree planting, establishment care, and community engagement activities. A key component of a successful grant application is demonstrating that other funds
are contributing to the project from either the
applying organization or from an outside entity. These matching funds can be in the form of cash contributions, like those OCF receives
from the City, or in donated staff time, materials, and volunteer hours.

In California, one of the largest publicly funded
grant opportunities is through the CAL FIRE
Urban and Community Forestry Program. The
CAL FIRE grant opportunity directly funds the
planting and maintenance of trees, and other
urban forest management activities including
the creation of the San José CFMP. To receive
these funds, the applying organization must
provide 25% of the total budget through
matching funds. As an example, a $1 million
grant application would ask for $750,000 in
funds and contribute $250,000 in match. An
additional added benefit to this program is that
a City or nonprofit organization can receive
up to $1.5 million in funding to be used over
a 3-year grant period. Table 35lists some of
the awarded CAL FIRE Urban and Community
Forestry Program projects for the 2019/2020
grant cycle. The full list of grant awards can be
found on the CAL FIRE Urban and Community
Forestry grants webpage.

Table 35. 2019/2020 CAL FIRE Urban and Community Forestry Program Grant Awards Applicant Location Population Project Type Award
Amount
Required
Match
City of Los Angeles Sanitation Los Angeles 3,966,936 Urban Forest Expansion and Improvement $1,500,000 $375,000 Tree San Diego San Diego 1,409,573 Urban Forest Expansion and Improvement $1,180,000 $295,000 Our City Forest San José 1,027,690 Urban Forest Expansion and Improvement $748,000 $187,000 Friends of the Urban Forest San Francis-co 874,961 Urban Forest Expansion and Improvement $1,489,236 $372,309 Sacramento Tree Foundation Sacramento 500,930 Urban Wood and Bi-omass Utilization $750,000 $187,500 City of Watsonville Watsonville 53,800 Inventory and Urban Forestry Manage-ment Plan $700,000 $175,000 132 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program
These projects highlight the significant
amount of grant funds being distributed to
cities and nonprofit organizations throughout
the state and demonstrate the potential for
San José to receive a similar level of funds.

The current structure of the OCF and City
partnership provides a solid foundation for
successful joint grant applications. The maximum CAL FIRE award of $1.5 million requires a 25% matching contribution of $375,000, which
is feasible for the City to provide through current operating grant funds and contribution of staff time. Matching City staff time can come
in the form of staff time needed to prepare
grant materials, permit tree planting locations
and other related activities. OCF can also
leverage trees from the nursery as a matching
contribution towards a grant application.

One example of how Our City Forest has
leveraged City support is through a CAL FIRE
grant that awarded OCF $748,000 to plant
2,000 trees in disadvantaged and low-income
neighborhoods of San José. This grant also
supported OCF’s stewardship model which
ensures every tree is adopted and watered
by the resident receiving the tree, and also financed follow-up tree inspections. These tree stewards continue to water their trees and report regularly to OCF using online tree tracking forms. This project is made possible by support of OCF’s partners including the City,
school districts, volunteer organizations, and
neighborhood groups who commit matching
funds in the form of staff time and tree establishment efforts. This grant demonstrates that OCF’s current engagement model and
partnership with San José can continue to be
leveraged to help meet the City’s tree planting
goals while also staying focused on the OCF
mission to educate and engage residents.

Another model for a grant-funded project is
to have the City lead the development of the
application and include OCF as a subconsultant to implement the project. The City of Los Angeles’s Sanitation and Environment (LASAN)
department has successfully used this model
and received multiple CAL FIRE grant awards
to complete tree planting projects in disadTable 36. City of Los Angeles Sanitation Department’s CAL FIRE Grant Awards Year Awarded Grant Total Trees Planted New Tree Planting Locations Trees Watered for 3 Years Outreach and Education
2019 –2020 $1,500,000 2,000 750 1,550 Yes
2018–2019 $1,500,000 1,800 1,100 1,300 Yes
2017–2018 $1,500,000 2,700 900 1,000 Yes
2016–2017 $1,000,000 2,000 350 350 Yes
2014–2015 $750,000 1,847 700 700 Yes
Totals $6,250,000 10,547 2,700 3,600 Yes
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 133 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
vantaged communities throughout Los Angeles. Table 37 reflects awarded CAL FIRE grant funding and the expected grant deliverables of LASAN by year since 2014. Table 37 shows that CAL FIRE has recently increased the amount of available grant funds and OCF and the City could receive a higher amount of funding through a joint CAL FIRE grant application. A joint application would also add a layer of transparency to the partnership as both the City and OCF would work towards an agreed-upon set of deliverables.

An important aspect of the LASAN example is that the model and responsibilities of LASAN, other City departments, and non-profit partners are similar to San José. The grants are designed so LASAN, City departments, and non-profit partners can bring their specific strengths and functions to implement the project. The City of Los Angeles Urban Forest Division provides free City permits, watering, and inspections for tree planting locations; City Plants provides additional match in the form of trees to be planted; and the nonprofit partners plant and water the trees in the local communities they serve. This model ensures each partner is not asked to complete a task out of their scope of work and meets the individual and collective goals of the partners.

In San José, a grant project can be led by DOT, supported by other departments like PRNS, and implemented with OCF. DOT and PRNS can provide permits to plant trees, criteria for species selection, and confirming viable tree planting locations. OCF can engage and train community members, plant trees, and lead volunteer events focused on disadvantaged communities. It is reasonable that the City could submit a project within the same parameters as LASAN and be awarded a maximum grant amount of $1.5 million, as smaller sized cities like San Francisco have been awarded CAL FIRE grant funds of $1.4 million (Table 35).

Our City Forest AmeriCorps Member
PHOTO: OUR CITY FOREST
134 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Analysis of the San José 1 Community Forest Program

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OUR CITY FOREST PARTNERSHIP
Section Recommendation Discussion
OCF and City
Partnership
The City and OCF should further define OCF’s role in supporting the goals of the City’s community forest program
OCF has a mission to improve the community forest of San José by educating and engaging the community.

The City and OCF should work together to define their shared goals and determine how current OCF programs will help meet those goals. Funding can then be dedicated to those programs to ensure OCF can use City funds to support its core values and mission.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 135 Analysis of the San José
Community Forest Program 1
OCF Nursery
PHOTO: OUR CITY FOREST
Strategic
Workplan
2 CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 137 Strategic Workplan 2
Strategic Plan
Vision: The City of San José Community Forest is a testament to our history and honors our diversity while striving to cultivate the equitable values we hold true towards building a strong and resilient landscape and community forest.

Guiding Principles Definition
Equity, diversity,
and inclusion
City policies and management practices will reflect community values and achieve equitable outcomes by seeking the necessary resources for successful implementation.

Innovation The City seeks emerging technologies and current research to inform the development of standards and best management practices that lead to a sustainable Community Forest.

Regional Identity The City will maintain the unique sense of place and neighborhood character that comprises San José as it identifies distinctive community landscapes.

Resilient San José The City will seek to protect neighborhoods from the adversities of climate change, and to restore and grow canopy cover to maximize the environmental, economic, social and health benefits of the Community Forest.

In order to implement the vision and guiding principles of the Community Forest Master Plan, the following strategies are recommended for implemementation. These strategies and objectives are to bring the City into alignment with the CFMP. Finally, recommendations for ways the City can reach the strategies and objectives are presented.
138 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 Strategic Workplan
Streamline the Governance Structure
Strategy
1 Consolidate tree responsibilities to one division or create a new division.

Objectives
1a. Evaluate respective benefits of consolidation of responsibilities, or expansion of citywide tree staffing to properly manage trees located within the public rightsof-way and at City-owned facilities; and on private property if removal is required. Propose appropriate structure not later than the 2023-2024 budget process. 1b. Create one central City arborist or urban forester position to oversee and coordinate all community forest programs. 1c. Consolidate Maintenance of Public Works-Maintained City Facility Trees to a new department. 1d. Develop a strategy to manage trees in designated Riparian Corridors.

Strategy
2 Include trees in the beginning of the design and planning process Objectives
2a. Update the approval process for all development projects to require an arborist report with permit application materials that at a minimum includes: (1) a discussion of the existing conditions of the trees, (2) project impacts to trees, (3) tree candidates for preservation, (4) tree protection methods, and (5) required replacement plantings.

Strategy
3 Provide an arborist review of all Planning Division tree responsibilities Objectives
3a. Update the process for design review and approval of development projects to require the Building Division to provide City arborist recommendations to the project applicant as part of the initial review of the site plan. 3b. All private property tree removal applications submitted to the Planning Division are reviewed by either a City arborist or on-call third party consulting arborist, who is also ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified.
3c. All arborist reports submitted with private property development applications must be reviewed and verified by a City arborist as a condition of the protected tree removal permit approval process.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 139 Strategic Workplan 2
Ensure Community Forest Sustainability
Strategy

1. Tree planting activities will promote a sustainable urban forest.

Objectives
1a. Develop criteria for selecting tree species to plant on City managed streets, parks, and other public and open spaces that prioritizes trees known to be adapted to changing climate conditions such as extreme heat and drought. 1b. The City tree inventory will comprise no more than 10% of one species, 20% of one genus, or 30% of one family. 1c. Apply the 10% species, 20% genus, and 30% family standard to smaller geographic segments of the City based on existing defined neighborhood boundaries. 1d. Create a dashboard of community forest sustainability indicators and annually update dashboard statistics based on the most recent City tree inventory data. 1e. Continue to plant new trees to ensure a continuum of age diversity within the City managed tree inventory.

Strategy

2. Increase tree canopy cover across all census tracts and neighborhoods.

Objectives
2a. Achieve 20% Citywide canopy cover by 2051.
2b. Annually plant 2,000 new trees on both public and private property. Total will not include trees that are required as replacement for a removed tree. 2c. Evaluate and adjust the annual tree planting goal every 5 years to ensure the City is progressing towards canopy cover goals. 2d. Work with local tree nurseries to ensure tree species and quantities are available to meet City tree planting goals.

Strategy

3. Continually review the City recommended tree species list to ensure trees are adapted to climate change and support local habitat and wildlife.

Objectives
3a. Tree planting projects in open space, riparian, and native habitat areas will prioritize tree species that contribute to wildlife habitat. 3b. Tree planting projects in a City park will prioritize the use of local and regional native tree species. 3c. Prioritize planting trees rated by Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) as very low and low water users. 3d. Identify trees that are not expected to adapt to changing climate conditions and replace them with new suitable species. 3e. Increase the quantity of small and medium-sized species trees in the planting palette to provide more species options in locations that have limited soil volume. 3f. Develop a strategy to create a network of trees that will support wildlife connectivity and biodiversity. 140 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 Strategic Workplan
Support Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Strategy

1. Ensure the diverse demographics of the City are represented by the community stakeholders who participate in guiding the development of the community forest program.

Objectives
1a. Establish and maintain partnerships with community-based organizations that are inclusive of the diverse demographics of the City. 1b. Establish a Community Forest Advisory Committee consisting of City staff and external stakeholders to guide the implementation of the Community Forest Management Plan.
1c. Develop direct outreach and education programs informing the community on the value of trees, and roles and responsibilities, to under-represented communities; property renters, non-English speaking, and others.
1d. Maintain the CFMP webpage and use it as a resource to update community members about new initiatives, educational programs, and outreach events. 1e. All CFMP program materials, notices, and permits are made available in the 5 most common non-English speaking languages in the City and adhere to web content accessibility guidelines, and City branding guidelines. 1f. Annually update the Transportation and Environment Committee on the status of the community forest and report on the progress of achieving CFMP goals. Invite stakeholders to attend and provide an opportunity for input on setting priorities for the community forest management program. 1g. Review and modify, if needed, the agreements with OCF and any other non-profit partners the City may use to ensure that there are clearly defined parameters that align with the goals of the CFMP to expand tree canopy cover and promote equal representation in planning efforts.

Strategy

2. Prioritize increasing canopy cover in disadvantaged communities.

Objectives
2a. Prioritize tree planting activities in census tracts with low CalEnviroscreen scores and tree canopy cover or designated as areas of need by the San José equity atlas. 2b. Collaborate with the Office of Racial Equity on prioritizing areas of the City with the highest CalEnviroScreen Scores for new tree plantings. 2c. Develop a framework for the City and Our City Forest (OCF) to partner on and/or submit joint grant applications by providing matching resources that align with their expertise and mission statements, and directs resources to low-canopy and underserved communities. 2d. Develop a residential shade tree distribution program in partnership with a utility, corporate sponsor, or community benefit stakeholder, to provide free trees to be planted on private property.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 141 Strategic Workplan 2
Funding the Community Forest
Strategy

1. Develop a plan to annually provide funding to the community forest program so the City can sustainably manage the tree inventory, engage the community, and implement policies and ordinances.

Objectives
1a. Define funding scenarios for tree maintenance to determine how much funding would be required to properly maintain: 1) existing trees in City right-of-way areas, 2) all street trees and park trees in the City inventory, 3) Trees at all City facilities 1b. In collaboration with PRNS and other City stakeholders, research and identify potential funding mechanisms that would provide the necessary resources for the City to maintain all street and park trees.
1c. Develop a multi-year proposal that will result in the maintenance of all City owned trees that meets the standards of the International Society of Arboriculture, American National Standard Institute, and quantify the budgetary impact to the City Council for inclusion in the annual budget. 1d. Evaluate the policy benefits and costs of an incentive program for trees that relieves some (or all) of the maintenance responsibility from property owners for both existing and newly planted trees and make a recommendation during the 2022-2023 budget process. 1e. Continue to evaluate the deficit in funds that are available to maintain the City’s infrastructure in the annual Deferred Maintenance and Infrastructure Report 1f. Collaborate with local and regional stakeholders including the urban forestry alliance of Santa Clara County to maximize funding opportunities.

Strategy

2. Fund community forest management activities at a level to meet best management practices as defined by the City.

Objectives
2a. All newly planted street trees will have a dedicated source to provide watering and establishment care for the first three years after planting, which may include a commitment for residential property owners, contracted maintenance, or irrigation. 2b. Dedicate City or other appropriate funding to maintain and water the newly planted trees for projects initiated through community tree planting events within PRNSmanaged sites. 2c. Incrementally increase funding for the pruning of all street and park trees until the City achieves a pruning cycle that more closely aligns to the industry standard of 5-7 years.
2d. Begin to allocate resources to the structural pruning of young trees. 142 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 Strategic Workplan
Efficient and Effective Tree Management
Strategy

1. Maintain current information on the community forest to ensure management decisions are based on the best available data.

Objectives
1a. Complete a City tree inventory that at a minimum includes the information needed to analyze tree species diversity, health condition, age distribution, and inform management practices.
1b. Maintain the City tree inventory in perpetuity, with each tree in the inventory assessed on a regular cycle. 1c. Centralize tree inventory data using existing management software so community forest program dashboard goals and operational outcomes can be made available on a public online platform.
1d. Regularly conduct an urban tree canopy cover analysis using LiDAR or other high-resolution spatial imagery. 1e. Inspect trees for signs of decline, insect infestation, or pathogen infection. Collect samples from suspect trees and submit to a diagnostic laboratory or the Agriculture Commissioner’s Office of Santa Clara County. Develop an appropriate long-term maintenance plan, or strategy to remove and replace failing species, to maintain canopy cover. Each tree to be evaluated every 5-7 years.

Strategy

2. Ensure all City tree management activities and design standards reflect the most current understanding of community forest sustainability.

Objectives
2a. Regularly review and update City tree management practices to reflect the current industry standards as defined by the International Society of Arboriculture, American National Standards Institute, and current research.
2b. Develop and adopt alternative design standards for sidewalk installation and repair that minimizes conflicts between trees, sidewalks, and other infrastructure by considering and providing sufficient growing space for trees. 2c. Develop and adopt design standards for street trees that provide access to stormwater runoff. 2d. Green Stormwater Infrastructure projects will include the planting of one or more shade tree(s) that will contribute to stormwater reduction and avoided runoff.

Strategy

3. Community members and private property owners will understand their role in growing and maintaining the community forest.

Objectives
3a. Educate community members on their responsibility to maintain trees adjacent their property. 3b. Continue to work with OCF to engage and educate residents on how to properly water and maintain newly planted trees, and explore the possibilities to expand the City and OCF partnership.
3c. Educate private property owners on proper tree pruning practices.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 143 Strategic Workplan 2
Standardize and Improve Planning and Development
Strategy

1. Protect and preserve mature trees
Objectives
1a. All private property tree removal applications submitted to the Planning Division will provide written justification that no alternatives exist to tree removal. 1b. Remove the ‘unsuitable tree’ definition from the private property tree removal application. 1c. Update the notification process of all tree removal applications for development projects so City Council Offices and community stakeholders have the opportunity to provide comments on tree removals impacting their community. 1d. Review the fee structure associated with private property tree removal applications and determine if it is feasible to institute incentives that would result in reduced fees for applicants.
1e. Update the permit fees and illegal tree removal fee structure for private property tree removals so the fine to illegally remove a tree is greater than the permit fee to legally remove a tree.
1f. Develop an integrated pest management plan that is coordinated on a regional scale with the City, Santa Clara County, and other relevant government agencies and municipalities.

Strategy

2. City planning and development will contribute to increasing tree canopy cover.

Objectives
2a. All development projects will provide site plans that result in 100% canopy cover over adjacent sidewalks within a 15-year timeframe. 2b. Update the tree replacement policy for single-family and duplex lots to state that the property must maintain or achieve 35% canopy cover over a 15-year timeframe. 2c. Update the PRNS tree replacement policy to allow for replacement trees to be planted in adjacent park locations when the current park cannot accommodate all replacement trees.
2d. Review other local regional planning documents including the “Integrating Planning With Nature” and “Urban Ecological Planning Guide” and incorporate regional strategies into community forest management where appropriate. 2e. Support wildlife connectivity and biodiversity through tree management in designated riparian corridors and an integrated network of native trees. 144 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 Strategic Workplan
Recommendations
The recommendations contained in Part 1 of the CFMP are summarized on the following pages.

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE
Section Recommendation Discussion
Department of
Transportation
Consolidate tree
responsibilities to one
division or create a new
division
Tree responsibilities are dispersed across multiple City departments which contributes to inefficiencies in management. One possibility to streamline tree management is to create a new division or department that encompasses all tree management activities within the City. If all tree-related management activities, permitting, enforcement, and planning decisions were coalesced into one department, it would be clear where to go for answers to tree-related questions, and it would ensure qualified staff are always reviewing tree issues for the City.

While tree responsibilities have fallen under the purview of DOT, their funding allocation does not reflect their management needs.

Planning Division Include trees in the
beginning of the design
and planning process
In development (public, commercial, and private and both new and remodel/redesign) projects managed by both Planning and PRNS, or Public Works, trees are often not included in the initial design and planning phase, when critical decisions are made that impact the City’s ability to plant and preserve trees. In the case of Planning development projects, the City plan check and internal review processes should be updated to include an initial review of projects by either a City arborist or a contracted third-party consulting arborist. For PRNS development projects, a PRNS representative and certified arborist should review site plans. The initial review of all projects should determine if site plans consider how construction will impact the existing on-site tree and what available measures can be taken to ensure the long-term preservation/survival of trees before recommending removal. Consideration should also be given to whether the design or location of the project can be modified to accommodate the retention of existing mature trees. It should also include a review of the planting specifications to ensure site-appropriate tree species are selected, and that each newly planted tree has sufficient soil volume and grow space to reach a full canopy size at maturity.

Planning Division Provide an arborist review
of all Planning Division
tree responsibilities
Currently, the Planning Division does not have a staff arborist dedicated to the review of private property treerelated issues. This position is needed to implement policies and tree management decisions that support the City’s goals of a healthy and safe urban forest. Another option that would reduce the City’s financial commitment is to have a City-approved, independent third-party on-call arborist in lieu of an additional full-time employee. This model is often used by municipalities as it provides an unbiased expert opinion on tree issues and demonstrates to residents the extra step in due diligence the City is willing to take when deciding issues concerning their private property.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 145 Strategic Workplan 2
Section Recommendation Discussion
Public Works
Maintenance
Division
Consolidate Maintenance
of Public WorksMaintained City
Facility Trees to a new
department
The Public Works Maintenance Division does not have the staff capacity or training/experience to manage the approximately 500 trees on City-owned properties. The management of these trees should be consolidated within the department or division that will be responsible for management of the community forest program.

Parks
Recreation and
Neighborhood
Services
Update the PRNS Tree
Replacement Policy
The current PRNS policy is to replace every removed tree with three new trees in the same park. This policy has been successful in maintaining high canopy cover levels in some parks, but it has also led to parks receiving new trees that have already filled all available planting locations. Instead of requiring trees to be replanted back in the same park in all cases, replacement trees should be allocated first to the park in which they were removed to fill vacant planting locations. If all vacant planting locations are filled, the balance of trees should be planted in a park within the same neighborhood, council district, or adjacent disadvantaged community that has the space to accommodate more trees
Parks
Recreation and
Neighborhood
Services
Provide funding for
establishment care as a
condition to plant trees on
PRNS sites
PRNS is not able to adequately water newly planted trees due to a lack of funding for contract watering or the availability of in-house maintenance crews, but values the efforts from community planting events held in parks that are supported by nonprofit organizations, corporate groups, and City-elected officials. As such, groups interested in a community tree planting event in a City park should provide funds to PRNS that support the watering and establishment care of the newly planted trees for a period of up to 3 years. Groups unable to provide maintenance funds should be encouraged to hold community events that provide maintenance and care for newly planted trees in lieu of planting new trees, which would contribute to the health of park trees and are achievable without placing an additional burden on PRNS maintenance staff.

GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE (continued)
146 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 Strategic Workplan

COMMUNITY FOREST SUSTAINABILITY
Section Recommendation Discussion
Species Diversity Based on these factors, it is
important for the City to have
both Citywide and local species
diversity goals, which could form
into a three-tiered approach.
• Tier 1. Citywide Species Diversity Goal: The City should adopt a goal of having no one species comprise more than 10% of the City tree population and no one genus comprise 20%. This goal will help to ensure that the overall inventory is resilient to threats as it is dispersed over the 181 square miles of the City. The established goal can then be used to further inform a more nuanced plan for individual neighborhoods or geographic areas of the City.
• Tier 2. Implement Goal on Neighborhood Scale: The City should determine smaller geographic segments of the City and apply the species diversity goal to those areas. Boundaries could be formed from existing defined neighborhoods, Council Districts, or other set boundaries within the City. This strategy would help to identify what species dominate a specific area and plan for the introduction of new species to provide an additional layer of species diversity and protection from threats. This approach would also necessitate specific planting palettes for each area that factor in the current neighborhood-level species diversity percentages into what species are planted. • Tier 3. Street Level Diversity: The City should incorporate species diversity on a street or street block level. At this scale, species diversity decisions would include determining whether a street is planted with two or three alternating species, and the extent to which monoculture street plantings would be allowed. The planting palette for individual streets would be formed by decisions made in Tier 2 of the planning process. This tier would not include maintaining the Citywide species diversity goal as continuity and aesthetics are important considerations for developing neighborhood character and would be difficult to achieve with 10 or more species planted on a street.

Species Diversity Revise the City recommended
tree species list to:
• Ensure the total number of species recommended by the City can meet species diversity goals. • Prioritize planting trees rated by Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) as very low and low water users.
• Identify trees that are not expected to adapt to changing climate conditions and replace them with new suitable species.
• Increase the quantity of small and medium-sized species trees in the planting palette to provide more species options in locations that have limited soil volume.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 147 Strategic Workplan 2
Section Recommendation Discussion
Age Diversity Protect and preserve mature trees It will be difficult to increase the total number of mature trees without the enforcement of City ordinances and policies that protect and preserve trees in the public space. This will be especially important with the City’s emphasis on increased urban infill development that seeks to maximize lot space for buildings and not allow room for street trees. It may also require adopting new and innovative approaches to managing tree and sidewalk conflicts, which is a common reason for street tree removal. This could occur through the updated design guidelines or other mechanisms that provide guidance for developers to incorporate trees into the built environment.

COMMUNITY FOREST SUSTAINABILITY (continued)
148 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 Strategic Workplan

DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION
Section Recommendation Discussion
Canopy Cover Can Illuminate Equity
Issues
Collaborate with the Office of Racial
Equity on prioritizing areas of the City
with the highest CalEnviroScreen Scores
for new tree plantings
The large discrepancy in canopy cover is an area that the departments in charge of tree management can collaborate with the Office of Racial Equity on strategizing the best path forward
Online Survey Increase public outreach and education
about trees to renters in San José.

Online Survey – City Managed vs.

Private Property Managed Street
Trees
Further study the funding mechanisms
most appropriate to support community
forest management, and the degree
to which residents or the City would
generate the funding.

Respondents showed varying opinions for how street tree management should be funded. Additional public engagement and education efforts should be undertaken to investigate where public support lies.

Online Survey – Private Property
Tree Management
Increase public education about tree
benefits.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 149 Strategic Workplan 2

FUNDING COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT
Section Recommendation Discussion
Funding of Maintenance Practices Continue to evaluate the deficit in funds that are available to maintain the City’s
infrastructure in the annual Deferred
Maintenance and Infrastructure Report
This document provides a review and dollar amount of funding gaps for trees, and is an important tool to measure what tree work is being completed and what tree work remains deferred each year.

Funding Opportunities-Grants Consider jointly applying to local, regional, state, and federal urban forest
grant programs
The six grant programs recommended in this section may require partnership with OCF and/or other City departments for eligibility. Funding provided by these grants may support expansion of sustainable community forest program practices.

STREET TREE MANAGEMENT
Section – Subsection Recommendation Discussion
Tree Inventory Complete an inventory of all street
and park trees.

Property-Owner
Maintained versus
City-Maintained Trees
Educate community members on
their responsibility to maintain
trees adjacent their property.

Tree Planting Explore the possibilities to expand
the City partnership with OCF to
engage residents in tree planting.

Establishment Care Provide watering and establishment
care for a minimum of three years
to all trees planted by the City.

These recommended maintenance practices align with ISA standards for establishment care and when implemented would be effective for tree health and growth.

Establishment Care Work with OCF to further engage
and educate residents on how to
properly water and maintain newly
planted trees
Residents who receive a tree from OCF agree to maintain the tree for 3 years after planting.

Pruning Educate private property owners
on proper tree pruning practices.

Pruning Develop a strategy to reduce
reactive tree pruning and
emergency work.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 151 Strategic Workplan 2
Section – Subsection Recommendation Discussion
Pruning Determine the feasibility for the
City to prune all street and park
trees on a 5- to 7- year cycle.

The City’s current 123-year pruning cycle of street trees is excessively beyond the recommended 5- to 7-year pruning cycle, which increases the potential for tree part failure.

Sidewalk Repair, Tree
Removal, and Tree
Replacement
Ensure that residents are aware
that they are responsible for
adjacent sidewalk repair.

Sidewalk Repair, Tree
Removal, and Tree
Replacement
Implement sidewalk repair
strategies that minimize tree
removal.

New sidewalk materials and technologies can be used that reinforce the structural integrity of concrete to allow tree roots to grow underneath sidewalks and increase useful longevity like suspended pavement systems and structural soils. All of these methods should be within the solutions “toolbox” before tree removal is allowed.

Sidewalk Repair, Tree
Removal, and Tree
Replacement
Update the City’s 1:1 tree
replacement ratio.

In all tree removal and replacement scenarios, the City must consider if the policy is adequately replacing the lost canopy cover and how soon canopy cover should be recovered. The replacement policy does not outline a process that verifies if the tree is alive after it is planted.

Urban Wood Utilization
and Waste Diversion
Explore the financial costs and
return on investment to implement
an urban wood utilization and
waste diversion program.

STREET TREE MANAGEMENT (continued)
152 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 Strategic Workplan

PARK TREE MANAGEMENT
Section – Subsection Recommendation Discussion
Tree Planting Identify a mechanism to
adequately staff and fund park
tree planting.

PRNS staff may partner with City departments and OCF to leverage tree plantings in parks.

Pruning, Tree Removal, and
Emergency Tree Work
Conduct a risk assessment of
all park trees.

Pruning, Tree Removal, and
Emergency Tree Work
Complete a park tree inventory The completion of a park tree inventory will provide PRNS staff with the information needed to understand the condition of park trees and determine which trees present elevated risk levels. The inventory can then be used to develop annual maintenance plans that prioritize the highest risk trees for pruning or removal.

Tree Replacement Consider revising the
requirement to replant trees
in the same park in which they
were removed.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 153 Strategic Workplan 2

PRIVATE PROPERTY TREE MANAGEMENT
Section – Subsection Recommendation Discussion
Private Property Tree Removal
– Unsuitable Tree
Eliminate the “unsuitable tree”
definition
The definition for an unsuitable tree is broad, not scientifically accurate, and allows for the unnecessary removal of many trees that are not actually unsuitable. The City would benefit from entirely getting rid of the unsuitable tree allowance to permit tree removal, so all tree removals are evaluated by a criterion based on arboriculture standards and not an arbitrary definition.

Private Property Tree Removal
– Permit Process and Fees
Require due diligence from
a certified arborist that no
alternative exists to tree
removal
If the City continues to allow tree removal when a tree is 5 feet from a residence, secondary unit, garage, or the centerline of a below-grade utility pipe or line, the City should also require a report from a certified arborist that the tree is in conflict with the adjacent structure or utility. The certified arborist report could determine if the tree in question is causing or has substantial evidence to indicate that it will cause a conflict in the future. The applicant and certified arborist should also explore mitigation options to resolve the conflict without removing the tree. Options could include root pruning, crown reduction, tree cables or bracing, and adjustments to the existing infrastructure.

Private Property Tree Removal
– Permit Process and Fees
Provide an incentive for
applications that are submitted
with an arborist report
Multiple steps will need to be taken to improve the permit application process for ordinance-size and unsuitable private tree removals beginning with the information provided by the applicant. One option would be to give applicants a reduced permit fee when they provide a report prepared by a certified arborist who is also ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified.

This incentive would encourage private property owners to have an expert review their tree concern before submitting removal applications to the City. It has the potential to reduce the number of applications submitted to the City, as arborists would be able to fully explain the options for tree preservation and whether the resident’s concern warrants tree removal. It would also provide the City with better information to assess applications, which should reduce application processing time and associate staff review costs.

For the City to have an effective ordinance to protect trees on private property, the permit fee must align with realistic costs of the City and not be a burden on applicants. 154 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 Strategic Workplan
Section – Subsection Recommendation Discussion
Private Property Tree Removal
– Permit Fees and Fees
Review the illegal removal fine
structure
It should be determined if the current fine structure for illegal tree removal is sufficient to deter violation and adequately replace the lost value of the tree. The review of the illegal removal fines should happen concurrently with the permit fees so there is continuity between the fees and fines that encourage participation in the City process to legally remove protected trees.

Private Property Tree
Removal – Replacement Tree
Requirements
Focus requirements of
replacement trees on
community forest program
goals
The 1:1 tree replacement ratio should be directed towards goals of the community forest program to increase canopy cover, species diversity, and the environmental services of trees.

It should also include a requirement for replacement trees to be similar in size at maturity of the removed tree. The City could also provide an approved replacement species list to applicants based on neighborhood-level species diversity goals. The City could further expand its partnership with OCF to provide guidance to homeowners to properly place trees around their property to cool homes and lower energy use.

Tree Protection During
Construction
Require site developers to
provide detailed tree protection
plans in alignment with industry
standards
It should be a condition of approval for development projects to provide a tree protection plan for all on-site and street trees that are to be preserved during construction. Tree protection plans should be prepared by a certified arborist hired by the site developer, and the plan should be approved by a City arborist. The protection plan should adhere to City, ISA, and ANSI standards.

Tree Protection During
Construction
Conduct a site visit prior to
any construction to ensure
protection measures are
installed
The site developer, project arborist, and City arborist (or contracted arborist) should conduct a site visit to confirm that all protection measures are implemented as described in the protection plan.

PRIVATE PROPERTY TREE MANAGEMENT (continued)
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 155 Strategic Workplan 2

CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Section – Subsection Recommendation Discussion
Envision San José 2040
General Plan-Relationship
to CFMP-Management
Practices
Adequately fund MS-21.1 to ensure
the program will be achievable.

Envision San José 2040
General Plan-Relationship
to CFMP-Species Selection
Update the list of recommended
species and provide residents
with guidelines for selecting an
appropriate species for their
residential location
Providing residents with an easily understandable resource list can increase resident education and health of newly established trees. Species selection, and what is recommended to be preserved, should be based on CFMP goals and favor any species of tree that is suitable for the space provided and is low-water-use, drought-tolerant, and adaptable to future climate conditions.

Envision San José 2040
General Plan-Relationship
to CFMP-Community
Investment and
Collaboration
The City and OCF could pool
resources to engage the City’s
residents in the community forest
The City and OCF could pool resources so that more state grant opportunities can be pursued to support the planting of trees and education efforts in disadvantaged communities. 156 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 Strategic Workplan
Section – Subsection Recommendation Discussion
Envision San José 2040
General Plan-Relationship
to CFMP-Community
Investment and
Collaboration
The City could also begin to explore
partnerships with other communitybased organizations that have a direct relationship to various
neighborhoods and demographic
segments of the City
Different nonprofit organizations that engage residents in specific areas of the City could provide partnerships that offer a deeper connection and relationship with the residents in the neighborhoods they serve. These relationships can be advantageous for advancing the community forest goals of the City.

Envision San José 2040
General Plan-Relationship
to CFMP-Long-Term Goals
Leverage the City’s leadership in
climate resiliency planning.

The City should continue to invest in its community forest as an asset in achieving climate adaptation, as listed in goal IP-3.

Urban Village Plan Prioritize green infrastructure in the Urban Village Plan
The City would receive additional benefits from the Urban Villages concept, such as cleaner air and reduced stormwater runoff, increased property values, reduced urban heat island effect, and attractive urban environments. As each Urban Village Plan is developed, the City should look to the CFMP to guide tree planting opportunities in each Urban Village area during the planning stages.

Green Stormwater
Infrastructure Plan
Continue to consider mature trees in
projects identified in the GSI Plan
By considering mature trees as a constraint to implementing GSI projects, the City has made an effort to preserve the existing mature trees when identifying locations for GSI projects.

CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS (continued)
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 157 Strategic Workplan 2

OUR CITY FOREST PARTNERSHIP
Section Recommendation Discussion
OCF and City
Partnership
The City and OCF should
further define OCF’s role
in supporting the goals of
the City’s community forest
program
OCF has a mission to improve the community forest of San José by educating and engaging the community. OCF should work with the City to define their shared goals and determine how current OCF programs will help meet those goals. Funding can then be dedicated to those programs to ensure OCF can use City funds to support its core values and mission.

Grants OCF and the City should
explore joint grant applications
Both the City and OCF independently apply for, and receive, state and federal grant funds to expand community forest programs. While the grant funding is sufficient to support the objectives of the individual project, more substantial funding can be received through a joint OCF and City grant application. A joint application could be designed so each entity provides a core service function to the project and matching contribution of a resource they already have available. This avenue would ensure the project does not require either OCF or the City to provide a service of which it does not have experience and could greatly expand funding for tree planting and establishment care in disadvantaged communities of San José.
158 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 Strategic Workplan
Monitoring Plan
One of the most efficient models the City can
use to monitor the implementation of the CFMP
is the Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal-Setting Tool (Vibrant Cities Lab n.d.). The tool is based on the work of Clark et
al. (1997), Kenney et al. (2011), and Leff (2016),
and establishes criteria and indicators to measure urban forest sustainability. The tool functions as an assessment with multiple questions that provide different descriptions to define the
current state of a specific area of urban forest
sustainability. The user is asked to decide what
the current state is and what the goal should
be. The “low” level scores of -1 reflect actions
that have a negative impact. The “optimal” level
scores of 4 reflect the best possible standard
for the City. The “Total Current Score” reflects
the perceived state of how the City is functioning. The “Total Goal Score” reflects where the City wants to be. The “Gap Score” reflects how
far off the current state is from the desired goal.

A city that has a gap score between 20 to 40 is
not far from achieving the goals of its urban forest program and is progressing towards a sustainable urban forest. Conversely, a gap score of 40+ indicates that a City is still implementing
programs and policies to close the gap and develop a sustainable urban forest.

San José’s assessment was initially conducted
on August 21, 2019, by DOT staff and the consultant team. Table 37 reflects the Vibrant Cities Lab scores for San José and several other cities for comparison, with each city’s assessment conducted by City representatives or by knowledgeable arborists who work closely
with the respective cities.

The Cities of Melbourne and Irvine are known
to have well run and sustainably funded urban
forestry programs. Even so, they continue to
seek goal achievement that will reduce their
respectable current gaps. The City of Los Angeles is currently in the process of developing its urban forest management plan and has
nearly the same gap score identified as San
José. Despite San José having a seemingly insurmountable current gap, it is important to note that reducing the gap can happen quickly
with implementation of some basic urban forestry baselines. The results to San José’s Assessment are shown in Table 38.

Table 37. Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal Setting Scores City Total Current Score Total Goal Score Current Gap
Melbourne, Australia 65 109 44
Irvine, California 62 111 49
Toronto, Canada 34 111 77
Los Angeles, California 2 109 107
San José, California -6 103 109
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 159 Strategic Workplan 2
Table 38. San José’s Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal Setting Scores Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Canopy cover
The existing canopy cover for
entire municipality is <50% of
the desired canopy.
-1 The existing canopy is >75%-100% of desired – at individual neighborhood level as well as overall municipality. 4 5
Inventory &
assessment
methodology
Complete or sample-based
inventory of publicly owned
trees.
1 Systematic comprehensive inventory system of entire urban forest – with information tailored to users and supported by mapping in municipality-wide GIS [geographic information system]. Provides for change analysis. 4 3
No assessment. -1
As described for “Better” rating – and all utilized effectively to drive urban forest and green infrastructure policy and practice municipality-wide and at neighborhood or smaller management level.4 5 Publicly owned trees No information -1 Complete GIS tree inventory that includes detailed tree condition and risk ratings. 4 5 Publicly owned natural
areas
No information -1
Management plan focused on sustaining and, where possible, improving overall ecological structure and function while facilitating appropriate public use. Plan should consider impacts on contiguous natural areas [open space corridors] outside the community’s borders. 4 5
Private property trees No information -1
Bottom-up sample-based assessment, as well as detailed urban tree canopy analysis of entire urban forest, including private property, integrated into municipality-wide [multi-agency] GIS system. LIDAR and hyper-spectral imaging most helpful. 4 5
Relative performance
index by species No information. -1 All six most common species have higher RPI scores than the average of all species in community. (>1.) 4 5
Use of native
vegetation
Voluntary use of native
species on publicly and
privately owned lands; invasive
species are recognized.
1 Use of native species is encouraged on a project-appropriate basis in all areas; invasive species are recognized and discouraged on public and private lands. 2 3 Align municipal
departments
Municipal departments/
agencies recognize potential
conflicts and reach out to
urban forest managers on an
ad hoc basis – and vice versa.
1 Municipal policy implemented by formal interdepartmental/interagency working teams on all municipal projects. 4 3
160 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 Strategic Workplan
Table 38. San José’s Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal Setting Scores Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Engage residents
in planning and
implementation
Some neighborhood
groups engaged across
the community but no
minimal outreach to ensure
underserved neighborhoods
participate effectively.
1 Proactive outreach and coordination efforts by municipality and nongovernmental organization partners resulting in widespread citizen involvement and structured engagement among diverse neighborhood groups. 4 3
Environmental equity Planting and outreach include
attention to low canopy
neighborhoods or areas.
1 Equitable planting and outreach at the neighborhood level is guided by strong resident involvement in low canopy/high need areas. Residents participate actively in identifying needs for their neighborhoods, planning, implementation, and monitoring. 4 3
Trees acknowledged
as vital community
resource
Trees generally recognized as
important and beneficial. 1 Urban forest recognized as vital to the community’s environmental, social, and economic well-being. 4 3
Engage large private
landowners and
institutions
Large private landholders
are generally uninformed
about urban forest issues and
opportunities.
-1 Tree management plans developed with input from community, and public access to the property’s forest resource. 4 5
All utilities work with
municipality, employ
best management
practices
No utility consideration of
the health of the urban forest
resource.
-1 Utilities are included in informal municipal teams that communicate regularly and collaborate on a project-specific basis. 3 4
Green industry
embraces goals, high
standards
Little or no cooperation
among segments of green
industry or awareness of
municipality-wide urban forest
goals and objectives.
-1
Shared vision and goals and extensive committed partnerships in place. Solid adherence to high professional standards and commitment to credentialing and continuing education.
4 5
Develop urban forest
management plan No urban forest management
plan -1
New or recent urban forest and green infrastructure management plan which targets public and private tree planting and protection based on assessment of anticipated benefits, and ensures these benefits are distributed equitably among neighborhoods.
4 5
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 161 Strategic Workplan 2
Table 38. San José’s Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal Setting Scores Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Cooperative
planning with other
municipalities
Municipalities have no
interaction with each other or
the broader region. No regional
planning or coordination on
urban forestry.
-1 Some urban forest planning and cooperation across municipalities and regional agencies. 2 3
Forestry plan
integrated into other
municipal plans
Urban forestry plan mentions
how it could meet other
municipal objectives or inform
other planning efforts.
-1 All agencies whose goals are served by urban forestry practices, participate in creation of forestry plan, and commit to designated roles and responsibilities. 4 5 Urban forestry
program capacity
Lack of personnel and/or
adequate equipment severely
limits needed maintenance.

Few resources, if any available
to achieve new goals.
-1
Team has no [capacity issues] to achieve all goals of the urban forest management plan, to maintain the resource over time, and adapt management as circumstances change.4 5 Municipality-wide
urban forestry funding Little or no dedicated funding. -1 Sustained, long-term funding from multiple municipal, regional and/or state agencies, along with private sources to implement a comprehensive urban forest management plan and provide for maintenance and adaptive management as circumstances change. 4 5
Growing site suitability Appropriate tree species are
considered in site selection 1
All trees planted in sites with adequate soil quality and quantity, and with sufficient growing space and overall site conditions to achieve their genetic potential and thus provide maximum ecosystem services. Where growing conditions are poor, guidance provided on how to improve soil volume, quality, and other factors. 4 3
Tree establishment and
maintenance
Some tree planting and
establishment occurs, but with
limited overall municipalitywide planning and postplanting care. -1
Comprehensive tree establishment plan provides concrete guidance on most of the following criteria: site selection, size, age class, diversity of species, native plant choice; planting protocols [e.g., minimum soil volumes, soil conditions]; young tree care, including region appropriate irrigation requirements. Includes provisions and funding for maintenance.
4 5
Management of publicly
owned natural areas
Only reactive management
to facilitate public use, e.g.,
hazard abatement, trail
maintenance.
1 Management plan in place for each publicly owned natural area to facilitate appropriate public use. 2 1 162 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 2 Strategic Workplan
Table 38. San José’s Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal Setting Scores Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Policies that foster
good urban forestry on
private lands
No tree protection ordinance,
or one that’s weak and rarely
enforced.
-1
All relevant municipal policies require or incentivize adherence by private owners to standards incorporated in the plan. Incentives and sanctions applied when appropriate. 4 5 Tree protection policy
and enforcement
Policies in place to protect
public trees and employ
industry best management
practices, but rare or
inconsistent enforcement.
1 Integrated municipality-wide policies and practices to protect public and private trees, consistently enforced and with penalties sufficient to deter violations. 4 3 Monitoring Monitoring is infrequent and
reactive to reported changes
in tree health, site condition.
1 Monitoring adheres to the standards and protocols established by the Urban Tree Growth and Longevity network. 4 3
Tree risk management
No tree risk assessment or
risk management program.

Response is on a reactive
basis only.
-1 Includes “better” but with TRAQ-qualified contractors on City projects. Educate tree care companies and public about importance of TRAQ qualifications. 4 5 Urban wood and green
waste utilization While most green waste does
not go to landfill, uses are
limited to chips or mulch.
1 The majority of green waste is reused or recycled for energy, products, and other purposes beyond chips or mulch. 2 1
The City’s CFMP monitoring plan should be based around the Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal Setting Tool and should be retaken each year to track, measure, and celebrate progress. To demonstrate, since the City first took the assessment, several of the responses that had significant gaps such as the lack of a CFMP (5), a completed City inventory (5), and RPI by species (5) are already well on their way towards achieving the goal rating.

CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 163 Strategic Workplan 2
164 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
Tree Policy &
Best Management
Practices Manual
3 CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 165 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
Chapter 1 | Our City, Our Community Forest
The tree canopy in the City of San José is a
valuable and precious asset that enhances the
quality of life in this City. It is the duty of the
City and its residents to protect and support
the growth of the tree canopy so that it remains a viable asset for future generations.

The community forest is the only infrastructure
asset that continually increases in its value and its
benefits to the community. The City of San José
recognizes that the community forest is not a
self-renewable asset, but that it requires human
intervention to preserve, protect and enhance.

Our stewardship responsibilities include partnering with, and educating, the community and regional stakeholders, to provide thoughtful tree
management, centered on developing a knowledge-based, insightful decision-making process.

As the local government, it is our responsibility
to foster and develop this vision of a community
forest for every resident of San José and the surrounding communities that depend on us.

The City of San José is committed to promoting
the growth and care of its Community Forest.

The Community Forest is made up of trees on
private property, in parks and other open spaces, and approximately 243,000 street trees that are primarily located in park strips and median
islands throughout the City.

The City has chosen to use the term “Community Forest” rather than the more common “Urban Forest” in recognition of the diversity of
our City, which ranges from urban to semi-rural neighborhoods. It also reflects the City’s philosophy of actively engaging the community
in defining and growing our City.

Three primary goals for the Community Forest
Program have been established in the Strategic
Framework for the San José Community Forest
Master Plan (2010):

Grow, Protect, Preserve, Restore and
Expand San José’s Community Forest. A
healthy community forest helps to enhance
the City’s quality of life, protect public health,
encourage economic vitality and promote environmental sustainability.

Engage, Develop and Maintain Support for
the Community Forest. The more informed
and engaged the public and City staff are in
growing and sustaining the community forest,
the more the forest will flourish and be viewed
as an asset by the entire community.

Equity. Manage the Community Forest to
Maximize Benefits for All Residents of the City.

Resources should be allocated equitably and
appropriately so that all residents of San José
can realize the benefits of a thriving community forest to the greatest extent possible.

The purpose of the City of San José Community Tree Policy Manual & Best Management Practices is to define responsibilities for tree
management within the City of San José
and to provide guidelines and current recommended Best Management Practices to City staff, residents and others who provide
services to the Community Forest in the City
of San José.

Our Community Forest Asset
Unlike other pieces of infrastructure such as
roadways, sewer systems, streetlights, etc.,
our Community Forest consistently provides
a return on our investment through the
benefits it provides and must be treated as
an asset. Further, if managed appropriately,
the Community Forest is always growing and
increases in value over time. Recent scientific
research across the United States and around
the globe provides solid data proving that
166 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
trees provide a vast array of benefits which
include: monetary, physical, psychological,
emotional, environmental, ecological, and social benefits. The community forest improves and enhances the quality of life for those who
work, live and play in the City of San José.

Trees clean the air
Trees absorb and trap airborne air pollutants
and particulate matter. Trees reduce wind
speed which allows more particulates to settle
out of the air. Researchers calculated that trees
in the Chicago area removed 15 metric tons of
carbon monoxide, 84 tons of sulfur dioxide, 89
tons of nitrogen oxide, 191 tons of ozone, and
212 tons of small particulate matter. The trees
saved over $9 million for the greater Chicago
area in pollution removal costs. (Norwak 1994)
Visit the California EPA website for more information on Trees and Air Quality.

Trees provide energy savings
Trees cool the air by providing direct shade
and releasing water in the form of vapor. Trees
placed strategically around a conventional
home have been found to cut energy use by
up to 25 percent. (Heisler, 1986).

Scientific data show that shade from trees
planted in strategic locations reduce energy
consumption. In California it is estimated that
50 million trees could eliminate the need for
seven 100-megawatt power plants, (McPherson and Simpson, 2001).

Trees mitigate the urban heat island
effect
According to the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), trees are a solution to the urban
heat island effect. The term “heat Island”
describes built up areas that are hotter than
the nearby rural areas. The annual mean air
temperature of a city with 1 million people or
more can be 1.8-5.4°F (1-3°C) warmer than its
surroundings. In the evening, the difference
can be as high as 22°F (12°C). Heat islands can
affect communities by increasing summertime
peak energy demand, air conditioning costs,
air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions,
heat-related illness and mortality, and water
quality (EPA, May 2011).

Trees provide oxygen
Through the process of photosynthesis, trees
produce oxygen. On a daily basis, 1 acre of
trees can provide enough oxygen for 18 people. (Coder, 1996).

Trees reduce air pollution
Trees remove pollution by intercepting airborne particles. While some particles can be absorbed into the tree, most particles that are
intercepted are retained on the plant surface
at least temporarily. (Nowak 2002).

Trees help prevent flooding
Trees capture, absorb, and slow down rainfall
and stormwater runoff, thereby reducing the
total amount of runoff and spreading the flow
of water from storm events over a longer period of time (delaying peak flow). Without trees, cities would be more vulnerable to flooding
and would need to spend more on heavily
engineered stormwater drainage and sewage
systems to cope with increased runoff.

Trees clean contaminated soil
The US Department of Agriculture is conducting research to use trees to clean up contaminated soils. This process is “phytoremediation”. Dr. Joel Burken of the University CHAPTER 1 | OUR CITY, OUR COMMUNITY FOREST
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 167 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
of Missouri is a leader in this field of study. His
research shows a great monetary and environmental advantage to using trees to clean up soils. Learn more at Science Daily.

Trees prevent soil erosion
Wind, rainfall and stormwater runoff cause
soil erosion. Tree roots hold soil in place
and increase the ability of the soil to accept water. Tree leaves reduce the wind and decrease the force of the rain as it hits
the ground. By preventing soil erosion,
trees ultimately help reduce the amount of
sediment, which negatively impacts fish and
other aquatic species, from being carried
with stormwater runoff to creeks.

Trees protect against skin cancer
Skin cancer is the most common form of
cancer in the United States. Purdue University
researchers can now calculate the amount
of sun protection shade trees provide. More
shade trees, especially in urban areas, will
help to prevent skin cancer and reduce health
care costs.

Trees reduce the cost of maintenance for
our roadways
Trees shade and protect asphalt pavement
and extend the longevity of the road bed. A
study of street pavement in Modesto, California showed that an unshaded street required 6 slurry seals over 30 years while a street
with large shade trees required only 2.5. 20%
shade on a street improves pavement condition by 11%, which provides a 60% savings for resurfacing over 30 years.

Trees increase property values
Research indicates the average value of tree
canopy is $20,226 or 10.7% of the sale price of
the home. (Dimke, Sydnor, Grader, 2013)
Trees make our roadways safer
Tree lined roadways are safer. Drivers have a
better sense of their speed as they pass by
street trees. Motorists slow down and drive
more carefully making streets safer for both
pedestrians and drivers. (Dumbaugh, 2005)
Trees help patients heal faster
Children with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD)
show fewer symptoms when they have access
to greener settings when compared to indoor
activities or activities in paved areas with less
landscaping. It is called Green Therapy. Studies have shown that hospital patients with a bedside view of a window with trees outside
compared to those with a view of a brick wall
heal faster and with fewer complications when
recovering from surgery. (Taylor, et. al., 2001;
Ulrich, 1984).

Trees provide habitat for wildlife
Trees provide much needed food and shelter
for chipmunks, squirrels, birds, opossums, insects, spiders and many other species important to a healthy ecosystem. Trees also provide refuge to many important migratory bird
species to roost en route to and from their
breeding grounds. (National Wildlife Federation)
Trees build stronger and safer communities
Studies find that residents in inner-city
buildings with trees have a stronger sense of
community than buildings in the same area
surrounded by concrete and asphalt. There
are also fewer reports of physical violence in
homes with trees and greenery outside the
buildings. (Kuo, Sullivan, 2001)
168 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
Trees are good for businesses
Studies show that tree-lined business districts
are places where visitors have a more favorable experience. More shoppers frequent, shop longer, and spend more in business districts with trees. Planting and providing proper maintenance for street trees in commercial districts boosts the local economy and is a
smart business investment (Wolf, 2009).

CHAPTER 1 | OUR CITY, OUR COMMUNITY FOREST
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 169 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
Chapter 2 | Responsibility for the Care and Maintenance of Trees The City of San José provides for the protection of the Community Forest trees in Municipal Code Sections 13.28, 13.32 and 13.44.220.

Trees in the Public Right-Of-Way
(Street trees)
Per the Municipal Code Section 13.28.090: “
`Street’ shall mean a public right-of-way owned
by or under the control of the City of San José
whose primary function is to carry vehicular traffic and shall also include sidewalks, park strips and planting easements.” (See Appendix A)
Per the Municipal Code Section 13.28.095:
“`Street tree’ shall mean any tree that is planted
on a street.”
Trees within the City of San José Right-OfWay (City of San José maintained roads) Per the Municipal Code Section 13.28.400:
“The property owner of a lot or portion of a lot
adjacent to or fronting on any portion of a street
shall maintain and replace, if necessary, any
street trees, shrubs, hedges or other landscaping
adjacent to or fronting on the subject property
in such condition that the street trees, shrubs,
hedges or other landscaping comply with this
chapter. Each property owner shall plant and
replace any removed or otherwise missing street
trees in accordance with the requirements of
Sections 13.28.300 and 13.28.310” To report a
tree related issue within the City of San José
right-of-way call (408)794-1901.

Property owner maintained
This is any tree within the right-of-way and
along a property frontage where the adjacent
owner is a private property owner.

City of San José maintained (Property Frontages)
This is any tree within the right-of-way and
along the frontage where the adjacent owner
is the City of San José.

City of San José maintained (General Fund
Landscape Areas)
These are defined as any tree within a median
island landscape or roadway frontage landscape that falls within the public right-of-way.

City of San José maintained (Special Landscape
Assessment Districts)
This is any tree within the right-of-way and
along a property frontage, median or landscape area where the adjacent owners are part of a specially funded area where the owners pay a special assessment on their property taxes to receive enhanced services such as
tree maintenance.

Trees within County of Santa Clara RightsOf-Way (County of Santa Clara Maintained Roads)
The County of Santa Clara, County Roads &
Airport Department is responsible for any tree
related work located along expressways and
unincorporated county roads. The County Tree
Preservation and Removal Ordinance requires
permits for tree removal or other work around
trees. To report a tree related issue within
the Santa Clara County right-of-way you can
submit a Customer Service Request or call
(408)494-2750.

Trees within CALTRANS Right-Of-Way
(CALTRANS Maintained Roads)
The California Department of Transportation
(CALTRANS) is responsible for any tree related
work along freeways and highways. Caltrans
170 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
Adopt-A-Highway program utilizes volunteers
to plant and maintain trees. See the Caltrans
Adopt-A-Highway website for additional information. To report an issue within the CALTRANS right-of-way you can submit a Customer Service Request or call (916)654-4470.

Trees within Private Right-Of Way (Privately Maintained Roads) Private property owners are responsible for
any tree related work along privately maintained roadways.

Park Trees
Trees within City of San José Parks
The City Department of Parks, Recreation and
Neighborhood Services (PRNS) is responsible for maintenance of the trees within Cityowned parks. Through the use of park staff and tree maintenance contractors, park trees
are planted, pruned or removed for the health
and safety of our park visitors and/or the forest. To report an issue within a City of San José park, call (408)535-3570 or park.concerns@
sanjoseca.gov.

Trees within County of Santa Clara Parks
The Santa Clara County Parks Department
is responsible for maintenance of the trees
within County Parks. To report an issue within
a City of San José County Park, call (408)355-
2200 or [email protected].

Tree within Private Parks
Private property owners are responsible for
the maintenance of trees within private parks.

Creek Corridors or Riparian Habitat
The oversight of trees in or near creek corridors and riparian habitat within the boundaries of the City of San José is divided into three jurisdictions (City of San José, Santa Clara Valley Water District and The Department of Fish and Game) depending on the exact location of
the creek and the tree. Sources of information
for the three agencies are found in the Appendix, Contact Information.

Public Property Trees
The responsibility for trees located on public
property such as Airports, Community Centers, Libraries, Fire Stations, Police Stations, Corporation Yards, Water Treatment facilities,
Pump Stations is currently divided among four
departments (SJ Airport, PRNS, DOT and Public
Works).

Private Property Trees
The responsibility for trees located on private
property are the responsibility of the property
owner. Examples of private property include
but are not limited to the following: Single
family residences, Multi-family residences,
Commercial/Industrial buildings, Shopping
Malls, Retail businesses, Private recreation
facilities, Private parking facilities, Churches
and Schools.

CHAPTER 2 | RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CARE AND MAINTENANCE OF TREES CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 171 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
Chapter 3 | Permits and the Law
Over the past few decades it has become
common for local governments to implement
ordinances which are intended to protect
the urban forest. These ordinances vary
from one jurisdiction to the next and often
depend on whether the tree is located on
public or private property. This chapter is
intended to clarify current tree ordinances
which may affect the owners of property
within San José.

Street Tree Planting Permit
Section 13.28.300 of the Municipal Code
states: “It shall be unlawful for any person to
plant or install any street tree within the City,
unless one of the following conditions exist:

1. A permit that allows the planting or installation of a street tree was issued by the Director in accordance with this chapter; or“

2. There is a valid written contract with the
City for the planting or installation of street
trees approved by the City manager or City
Council, as applicable.“
Street Tree Planting Permits are free and
available upon request through the Department of Transportation (DOT) by request [email protected] or by
phone at (408)794-1901. Street Tree Planting
Permits are valid for 60 days and are eligible
for up to 60 days extension.

Once a street tree planting permit is complete,
the holder of the permit is required to report
completion of the work to DOT. Failure to report
completion of any planting prior to expiration of
the permit will result in an automatic inspection
by the Trees and Sidewalks team and the potential issuance of a “Street Tree Repair Notice” if work is required and not yet complete.

Street Tree Pruning and Removal Permit
requirements
Section 13.28.310 of the Municipal Code states:
“Except as provided in this section, it shall be
unlawful for any person to prune or remove any
street tree, or do any construction work or activity
that may affect the critical root zone of a street tree, without a permit issued by the Director.”
Street Tree Pruning Permits
Pruning permits are available on request for the
routine pruning of the upper canopy or roots of
a street tree. Street tree pruning permits are free
and can be obtained through Department of
Transportation at treesandsidewalks@sanjoseca.
gov or by phone at (408) 794-1901. Street tree
pruning permits are valid for 60and are eligible
for up to 60 days extension.

Once a street tree pruning permit is complete,
the holder of the permit is required to report
completion of the work to DOT. If the property
owner declines to remove the tree after a permit
is issued, the permit may be cancelled after 60
days or the expiration of any extensions. Failure
to report completion of any pruning prior to
expiration of the permit will result in an automatic inspection by the Trees and Sidewalks team and the potential issuance of a “Street Tree Repair
Notice” if work is required and not yet complete.

Street Tree Root Pruning Permits
Street Tree Root Pruning Permits are available on request for the routine pruning of the roots of a street tree. Street Tree Root Pruning
Permits are free and can be obtained through
172 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
the DOT at [email protected]
or by phone at (408)794-1901. Street Tree Root
Pruning Permits are valid for sixty days and are
eligible for up to 60 days extension.

Once a Street Tree Root Pruning Permit is
complete, the holder of the permit is required
to report completion of the work to DOT. If the
property owner declines to root prune after a
permit is issued, the permit may be cancelled
after sixty (60) days or the expiration of any
extensions. Failure to report completion of any
root pruning prior to expiration of the permit will
result in an automatic inspection by the Trees
and Sidewalks team and the potential issuance
of a “Street Tree Repair Notice” if work is required
and not yet complete.

Street Tree Removal Permits
Section 13.28.310c of the Municipal Code states:
“The director shall issue a permit to remove a street
tree only if at least one of the following criteria is met:”

1. The street tree is in a hazardous condition or
imminently hazardous condition“

2. The type, species, or location of the street tree
is in conflict with a community forest master
plan adopted by the city council or the street
tree policy, guidelines, and best practices published by the director.“

3. The street tree interferes with high tension
electrical lines and the interference cannot be
corrected by topping the street tree.“

4. The street tree has caused extensive concrete
damage and the concrete has been replaced
more than once in the preceding ten years.“

5. The street tree has done extensive sewer system
damage that cannot be resolved by any other
reasonable means“.

6. The street tree is in conflict with an approved
development permit for the adjacent property
or right-of-way pursuant to Title 20 of this
Municipal Code.“
Application for Street Tree Removal Permit
Street Tree Removal Permit Applications are free
and available upon request through the DOT by
request at [email protected] or
by phone at (408)794-1901. Street Tree Removal
Permits are valid for 60 days and are eligible for
up to 60 days extension.

Once a Street Tree Removal Permit is complete,
the holder of the permit is required to report
completion of the work to DOT. If the property
owner declines to remove the tree after a permit
is issued, the permit may be cancelled after 60 or
the expiration of any extensions. Failure to report
completion of any removals prior to expiration of
the permit will result in an automatic inspection
by the Trees and Sidewalks team and the potential issuance of a “Street Tree Repair Notice” if work is deemed required and not yet complete.

Street Tree Removal Permit Posting
Section 13.28.360 of the Municipal Code states:
” Any street tree for which a removal permit is
required pursuant to Section 13.28.310, and the
surrounding area, within one hundred and fifty feet
on both sides of the street tree and on both sides of
the street, shall be posted with a notice of proposed
removal in accordance with this section, unless the
director determines that such street tree poses an
imminently hazardous condition.”
The DOT posts all trees with a “Tree Removal Request” notice for a minimum of 14 calendar days.

This notice includes the date of posting, reason
for the proposed removal, any replanting requireCHAPTER 3 | PERMITS AND THE LAW CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 173 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
ments and information on how any citizen may
file an objection to proposed tree removal.

Street Tree Removal Permit Protests
Anyone who wishes to object to the permitting
of a street tree removal has the right do so within 14 days of the tree posting. Protests must be filed in writing with the Arborist’s Office and can
be sent by email to [email protected] or
standard mail to City Arborist, 1404 Mabury Rd,
San José CA 95133. Protests submitted through
standard mail must be received within 17 days of
the posting. Once a protest is received a protest
hearing will be scheduled to allow for all parties
to discuss the merits of the tree(s), the justifications for requesting removal and potential solutions that allow to retention of the tree(s) in
question.

Street Tree Removal Permit Protest Hearings
The DOT is responsible for conducting of protest
hearings. Hearings are typically held on weekdays and allow for both in-person and virtual participation. Hearings are informal and intended to stimulate discussions around the issues or concerns that precipitated the request for
removal and potential alternatives that would
effectively address any issues or concerns and
allow for retention of the tree for a period of
time.

Presentation of Permit
Section 13.28.370 of the Municipal Code states:
“A. It shall be unlawful for any person to prune
or remove or cause the same to be done to a street
tree unless the permit or a copy of the permit allowing for this activity is maintained on the site where the street tree to be pruned or removed is located.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person to prune or
remove or cause the same to be done to a street tree
unless the permit or a copy of the permit can immediately be presented upon request to the director of planning, building, and code enforcement, director
of transportation, police officers, and their designees.

C. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage
in any work on the street tree or allow any work on
the street tree that is the subject of the permit to occur unless and until: (1) the permit or a copy of the permit is located on the site where the subject tree is located; and (2) the permit or a copy of the permit
is readily available for presentation upon request as
described in this section.

Street Tree Repair Notice
Section 13.28.440 of the Municipal Code states:
“ No owner or person in possession or control of
any premises shall maintain any tree, shrub, hedge
or other landscaping located on such premises
in a manner that causes or may cause a hazardous condition on a street. No owner or person in possession or control of any premises on any corner
or interior lot abutting upon a street shall permit
the existence of any tree, shrub, hedge, landscaping,
mound of earth, or boulders that obscure and impair the view of intersecting or entering traffic from a street of passing motorists or pedestrians or which
impairs the view of the street signs, traffic signs, or any other control devices or signs placed upon the
streets for the safety and convenience of the public.”
Further, 13.28.500 of the Municipal Code states:
“If the director determines that the condition of
any tree, shrub, hedge, or landscaping constitutes
a violation of any provision of this chapter, the
director shall, by notice in writing, notify the owner
of the property in violation to prune or remove the
tree, shrub, hedge, or landscaping or take any other
necessary corrective action to cure the violation.”
When trees, whether public or private, that pose
a threat to vehicle and pedestrian safety by
174 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
blocking regulatory signage, advisory signage,
streetlights, traffic signals or from broken branches or other defects are identified, the City will issue a Street Tree Repair Notice to the property
owner that identifies any mitigation work that is
required. The property owner has up to 60 days
to complete any work identified in the Street Tree
Repair Notice.

Section 13.28.540 of the Municipal Code
states: “If the corrective action required by notice
is not completed within the time specified in the
notice of violation, the city shall have the authority to perform this work or cause this work to be performed and the owner of the affected property
shall be billed for the costs incurred. The property
owner shall be responsible for all costs associated
with the corrective action including costs of planting, removal or pruning of the tree, shrub, hedge, or landscaping, administration time and expense,
late charges, and the handling of any lien placed
on the property owner’s property due to failure
of the property owner to pay within the required
period.”
Private Property Tree Pruning Permit
No notification or permits are required for the
pruning of private property trees with the exception of “Heritage Trees”. However, any pruning that involves removal of more than 25% of the
foliage or woody tissues within a one year period
shall be deemed excessive and can be treated
as an illegal removal under section 13.32.020.J
which states: “Remove” means eliminate, take away,
uproot or destroy. For purposes of this Chapter,
“remove” also means taking any action that reasonably and foreseeably will lead to the death of a tree or to permanent significant damage to the health
or structural integrity of a tree. Such actions can
include, without limitation and by way of example, excessive pruning, cutting, girding, poisoning, or watering of a tree; the unauthorized relocation
or transportation of a tree; excessive excavation,
alteration, or grading of the soil within the dripline of a tree, or excessively bruising, tearing or breaking the roots, bark, trunk or branches of a tree.

Private Property Tree Removal Permits on
Single Family Lots
Section 13.32.020 defines a tree as: ““any live
or dead woody perennial plant characterized by
having a main stem or trunk which measures
thirty-eight (38) inches or more in circumference
at a height of fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade slope. For purposes of this Chapter, a multi-trunk tree shall be considered a single tree
and measurement of that tree shall include the
sum of the circumference of the trunks of that
tree at a height of fifty-four inches above natural
grade slope. “Tree” shall include the plural of that
term”. Further sections 13.32.030, 13.32.040
and 13.32.041 state: “It shall be unlawful for any
person to remove, or cause to be removed, any
tree, as defined in Section 13.32.020, from any
private parcel of land in the city unless a permit
has been issued.”
For specific information related to conditions
required for the issuance of a Private Property
Tree Removal Permit or to obtain an application, please contact the Planning Department at (408)535-3555, or email them at Live Tree
Removal Permit Application Planning Department Website.

Private Property Tree Repair Notice
Section 13.28.440 of the Municipal Code states:
“ No owner or person in possession or control of
any premises shall maintain any tree, shrub, hedge
or other landscaping located on such premises
in a manner that causes or may cause a hazardCHAPTER 3 | PERMITS AND THE LAW CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 175 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
ous condition on a street. No owner or person in
possession or control of any premises on any corner
or interior lot abutting upon a street shall permit
the existence of any tree, shrub, hedge, landscaping,
mound of earth, or boulders that obscure and impair the view of intersecting or entering traffic from a street of passing motorists or pedestrians or which
impairs the view of the street signs, traffic signs, or any other control devices or signs placed upon the
streets for the safety and convenience of the public.”
Further, 13.28.500 of the Municipal Code states:
“If the director determines that the condition of
any tree, shrub, hedge, or landscaping constitutes
a violation of any provision of this chapter, the
director shall, by notice in writing, notify the owner
of the property in violation to prune or remove the
tree, shrub, hedge, or landscaping or take any other
necessary corrective action to cure the violation.”
When trees, whether public or private, that
pose a threat to vehicle and pedestrian safety
by blocking regulatory signage, advisory signage, streetlights, traffic signals or from broken branches or other defects are identified, the
City will issue a Street Tree Repair Notice to the
property owner that identifies any mitigation
work that is required. The property owner has
up to 60days to complete any work identified in
the Street Tree Repair Notice.

Public Tree Removal Permits
While no permits are currently required for
removal of trees that grow on public property,
The City of San José is committed to following the
all best management practices, posting notifications and permit conditions required as a part of our street tree permits.

Heritage Tree Pruning Permits
Heritage Tree Pruning Permits are available on
request for the routine pruning of the upper
canopy or roots of a Heritage Tree. Heritage Tree
Pruning Permits are free and can be obtained
through the DOT at treesandsidewalks@sanjoseca.gov or by phone at (408)794-1901. Street tree pruning permits are valid for sixty (60) days and
are eligible for up to 60 days extension.

Once a Heritage Tree Pruning Permit is complete, the holder of the permit is required to report completion of the work to DOT. If the
property owner declines to prune the tree after
a permit is issued, the permit may be cancelled
after sixty (60) days or the expiration of any
extensions. Failure to report completion of any
pruning prior to expiration of the permit will result in an automatic inspection by the Trees and Sidewalks team and the potential issuance of a
“Street Tree Repair Notice” if work is required and
not yet complete.
176 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
Heritage Tree Removal Permits
Heritage Tree Removal Permits for street trees
and private trees are processed in the same
manner as Street and Private Tree Removal
Permits described above. Failure to obtain a
permit prior to performing work may result in
the issuance of an illegal tree removal citation
as described below.

Emergency Tree Services by Property
Owner
Section 13.28.340 of the Municipal Code
states: “Notwithstanding any provisions of this
part, no permit shall be required for pruning or
removing a street tree if any of the following criteria are met prior to any work being performed:

1. An imminently hazardous condition exists
where the immediate pruning of a street
tree(s) is necessary to protect the public
health, safety or welfare. The person who
performs the emergency work must not
prune the street tree(s) more than is reasonably required to eliminate the imminently hazardous condition and must provide,
within two business days of the completion
of the emergency work, written notice to
the director that includes a full description
of the work completed, the exact location
where the work was performed, and the
basis for the emergency pruning.

2. An imminently hazardous condition exists
and the director has provided written notice
to the responsible property owner to take
certain corrective action to abate the imminently hazardous condition and the work performed complies with the notice.”
While no permits are required to address “imminently hazardous trees” it should be noted that the person taking corrective action must
clearly document the imminent nature of the
hazard and why the corrective action taken
was the only option to mitigate the risk.

Emergency Tree Services by City of San
José
Section 13.28.550 of the Municipal Code
states:
“A. In cases of imminently hazardous conditions, the director shall have the authority to perform or cause to be performed the corrective
work to abate the imminently hazardous condition without observance of any notice requirements. The property containing a tree, shrub, hedge, or landscaping that poses an imminently
hazardous condition or the property adjacent
to or fronting on the subject street tree, shrub,
hedge, or landscaping that poses an imminently
hazardous condition may be assessed for the
costs incurred in accordance with this part.

B. The owner of a property containing a tree,
shrub, hedge, or landscaping that poses an imminently hazardous condition or adjacent to or fronting on a street tree, shrub, hedge, or landscaping or a property containing a tree, shrub, hedge, or landscaping that poses an imminently
hazardous condition for which the city takes corrective action shall pay any costs and expenses associated with the emergency services, including
costs of removal of the tree, shrub, hedge, or
landscaping, administration time and expense,
late charges, and the handling of any lien placed
on the property owner’s property due to failure
of the property owner to pay within the required
period. The city shall send an invoice to the property owner setting forth the costs and expenses as described herein and the date specified for full
payment to the city.

CHAPTER 3 | PERMITS AND THE LAW
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 177 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
C. If the property owner has failed to pay the
invoice, the director shall issue a notice of cost
informing the property owner of the failure to pay
the invoice and that failure to pay the amount
will result in the initiation of proceedings to place
a lien against the property owner’s property.”
While every effort will be made to contact the
adjacent property owner or responsible party
will be made prior to the City of San José taking
corrective action, public safety does not always
allow sufficient time and is not required.

Tree Citations
Street trees
Section 13.28.310 of the Municipal Code states:
“Except as provided in this section, it shall be
unlawful for any person to prune or remove any
street tree, or do any construction work or activity
that may affect the critical root zone of a street tree, without a permit issued by the director.”
Street Tree Planting Permit Violation
The DOT is responsible for the issuance of
administrative citations related to plantings of
street trees without a permit. Prior to issuing
an official “Administrative Citation”, a “Notice of
Violation” is mailed to the property owner. The
property owner must respond within 14 days
of receipt and provide justification for the illegal
planting. If the justification provided is determined to be inadequate, an Administrative Citation is issued. The fines for planting a street tree without a permit or of an inappropriate species
is as follows:

Trunk Diameter Fine Amount
Any size $50.00
Street Tree Pruning Permit Violation
The DOT is responsible for the issuance of
administrative citations for unpermitted or improper pruning of Street Trees. Prior to issuing an official “Administrative Citation”, a “Notice
of Violation” is mailed to the property owner.

The property owner must respond within 14
days of receipt and provide justification for the
illegal pruning. If the justification provided is
determined to be inadequate, an Administrative
Citation is issued. The fines for pruning a street
tree without a permit or improperly is as follows:

Trunk Diameter Fine Amount
0 to 5.99 inch $150.00

6.0 to 11.99 inch $175.00

12.0 to 17.99 inch $200.00

18.0 to 23.99 inch $225.00

24.0 and greater $250.00
178 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
Street Tree Removal Permit Violation
The DOT is responsible for the issuance of administrative citations for unpermitted removal or failure to plant a replacement street tree as a condition of the removal permit. Prior to issuing an official “Administrative Citation”, a “Notice of Violation” is mailed to the property owner. The property owner must respond within 14 days of receipt and provide justification for the illegal removal. If the justification provided is determined to be inadequate, an Administrative Citation is issued. The fines for removing a street tree without a permit are as follows:

Trunk Diameter
(When measured at 4.5’ above natural grade)
Fine Amount
(1st violation in
3 year period)
Fine Amount
(2nd violation in
3 year period)
Fine Amount
(3rd violation in
3 year period)
0 to 5.99 inch $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,500.00

6.0 to 11.99 inch $750.00 $1,500.00 $2,250.00

12.0 to 17.99 inch $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00

18.0 to 23.99 inch $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $4,500.00

24.0 to 29.99 inch $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,000.00

30.0 to 35.99 inch $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $9,000.00

36.0 to 39.99 inch $4,000.00 $8,000.00 $12,000.00

40.0 and greater $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00
CHAPTER 3 | PERMITS AND THE LAW
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 179 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
Private Property Tree Removal Permit Violation
Code Enforcement is responsible for the issuance of citations for unpermitted removal of private property trees. The fines for violating this ordinance are as follows:

Trunk Diameter
(When measured at 4.5’ above natural grade)
Fine Amount
(1st violation in
3 year period)
Fine Amount
(2nd violation in
3 year period)
Fine Amount
(3rd violation in
3 year period)

12.0 to 17.99 inch $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00

18.0 to 23.99 inch $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $4,500.00

24.0 to 29.99 inch $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $6,000.00

30.0 to 35.99 inch $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $9,000.00

36.0 to 39.99 inch $4,000.00 $8,000.00 $12,000.00

40.0 and greater $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00
180 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
Administrative Citation Appeal
Any individual who has been issued an administrative citation and wishes to contest a Tree Citation may do so by submitting an Administrative Citation Hearing Request Application and paying an advance deposit of the citation
costs. If you are contesting the citation and
are unable to pay the advance deposit, there
is a portion of the Hearing Request form
that allows you to request a hardship waiver.

Hardship waivers must be requested within 15
calendar days of the citation date.

County of Santa Clara – Tree Regulation
Any private tree that resides within the jurisdiction of the County of Santa Clara is subject to the rules and regulations of the County.

For the most up to date information, please
contact:

Santa Clara County Department of Planning
70 W Hedding Street, East Wing, 7th Floor, San
José, CA 95110
Phone: (408) 299-5770
Website: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/
Iwantto/Permits/Pages/Tree-Removal.aspx
Hazardous or fallen street trees along County
Roadways should be reported to
County Communications at (408)299-2750
Hazardous or fallen trees within Santa Clara
County Parks should be reported to:

County Parks Division
298 Garden Hill Dr., Los Gatos, CA 95032
Phone: 408-355-2200
Email: [email protected]
website https://www.sccgov.org/sites/parks/
Pages/Welcome-to-Santa-Clara-County-Parks.
aspx
School Districts – Tree Regulation
Street trees located adjacent to school district
property are subject to the permits requirements of the appropriate agency (e.g. City, County, etc.).

Trees located within School District property
are subject to the rules and regulations of
the individual School District and the State of
California. No planting, pruning or other tree
related work may be performed without specific permission from the school district office (not the particular school or facility). For more
information or to report tree emergencies
residents should contact the School Districts
Main office.

Riparian Areas and Valley Water – Tree
Regulation
Trees located within the various riparian areas
of San José are the responsibility of the property owner as identified in Santa Clara County parcel records.

Trees located within property that is owned by
Valley Water, or street trees along its frontage
and in riparian areas, are subject to the rules
and regulations of the Santa Clara Valley Water
and the State of California, and not subject
to City permitting. No planting, pruning or
other tree related work may be performed
without specific permission from Valley Water.

For more information or to report tree emergencies with riparian areas residents should contact:

Valley Water
5750 Almaden Expressway, San José, CA 95118
Phone: (408)265-2600
Email: [email protected]
Website: https://www.valleywater.org/
CHAPTER 3 | PERMITS AND THE LAW
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 181 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
California Fish and Wildlife
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) is responsible for the protection of California’s natural resources and provide public safety through effective and responsive law enforcement. CDFW is responsible to regulate, but not manage, trees in riparian corridors. The City is
responsible for tree and habitat maintenance on
the City’s creek side property. The City of San José
falls within District 3-Bay Delta Region. For more
information or to report concerns with wildlife,
residents should contact:

CA Fish and Wildlife
825 Cordelia Road, Suite 100, Fairfield, CA 94534
Phone: (707)428-2002
email: [email protected]
website: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Regions/3
State of California Highways (CALTRANS)
Trees located within property that is owned by
the State of California are subject to the rules and
regulations of the State of California. No planting,
pruning or other tree related work may be performed without specific permission from CALTRANS. For more information or to report tree emergencies or concerns along State Highways
residents should contact:

CALTRANS District 4
111 Grand Ave, Oakland, CA 94612
Phone: (510)286-4444
email: [email protected]
Online: Service Request Portal
website: https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/
district-4
Non-permit related section of City of San
José Municipal Code
Disclosure Upon Sale or Transfer of Residential
Real Property
Section 13.28.410 states: ”A. Not less than seven
business days before the sale or other transfer
of residential real property concludes a selling or
transferring property owner must disclose to the
acquiring property owner, on a disclosure form
provided by the city, whether the residential real
property to be sold or transferred fully complies with
the city’s street tree maintenance and replacement
requirements of Section 13.28.400. B. If the selling
or transferring property owner cannot determine whether street trees located on or adjacent to the residential property are substantially in
compliance with the approved development permits for the property, or the property’s approved development permits are inconclusive as to the
requirements for the presence and location of
street trees on or adjacent to the property, then
the following requirements for the planting and
presence of street trees shall apply:

1. The property must have one street tree
for any adjacent street if it is an interior lot and at least three street trees if it is a corner lot, unless
otherwise modified by the director in the interest
of public safety.

2. If the current general plan requirements
for street trees on or adjacent to the property
differ from the requirements specified in Subsection B.1., then the current general plan requirements shall govern the number and location of street trees required on or adjacent to the property at the time of sale or transfer. If the property meets the general plan requirement, then the
selling property owner must indicate such compliance with the general plan on the disclosure form provided to the acquiring property owner.

3. All street trees shall be planted in accordance with the requirements of Section

13.28.300.
182 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
C. Upon a written request, the director may
grant the selling or transferring property owner
an exemption in writing from the requirements
of this section if the director determines in the
interest of public safety that planting and maintaining street trees on or adjacent to the residential property at the time of sale or transfer is not appropriate. Such an exemption does not
run with the land and shall not allow any deviations from the disclosure requirements upon residential real property sales or transfers for
future sellers or transferors.”
Willful Damage to Tree
Section 13.28.420.B.A states “No person shall, except with written permission of the director damage, cut, carve, girdle or injure the bark of any street tree.” Attaching of Anything to Trees
Section 13.28.420.B.B states “No person shall,
except with written permission of the director, attach
or keep attached, or cause the same, any sign, wire,
device or injurious material to any such tree or to
the guard or stake intended for the protection of
such street tree.”
Section 13.28.420.E states” Every person having
any wire charged with electricity running through
a street in the city shall securely fasten such wire so that it will not come in contact with any street tree
therein; and no person shall, without the written
permit of the director, attach any electric wire, insulator or any device for the holding of any electric wire or for bracing the poles which carry the same
to any street tree growing or planted upon any
street.”
Protection of Street Trees during construction
Section 13.28.420.C states “As part of any construction work or activity of a building or structure, the owner or responsible party thereof shall place
such guards around all nearby street trees as shall
in the opinion of the director effectively prevent
injury to them.”
CHAPTER 3 | PERMITS AND THE LAW
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 183 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
Chapter 4 | Design Guidelines and Specifications
Proper tree care starts with the design and
placement of trees into an environment that
is able to meet their basic needs and avoid
significant conflicts that may impact the health or
structure of the tree reducing its life span or the
benefits it provides. Below are the most critical
factors that must be considered when planting
a tree.

Site assessment
Before planting any tree, a full site assessment
should be completed to ensure it will thrive in
its environment and have the space needed
to accommodate the tree at maturity. On a
developed site where buildings, utilities and
other features have already been installed, the
process is fairly straight forward. For designers
or planners that are working on new developments or redevelopments, the process may be more difficult. This is because the future building design, and utility locations are frequently on separate drawings.

A Site Assessment check list can be downloaded free of charge from the Cornell University publication, Recommended Urban Trees: Site
Assessment and Tree Selection for Stress Tolerance.

Some of the most important features of the site
assessment are discussed below
Sufficient Root and Trunk Space
Trees need adequate space for trunk expansion
and space to develop woody structural roots
for support. Since every location is unique, it is
important to involve a professional Arborist to
provide guidance on species location selection.

For street tree plantings the Office of the City
Arborist has a list of recommended set-backs
that can be found in Appendix A, Clearance and
Setback Guidelines for City Streetscape Projects.

Keep in mind that the setbacks are recommendations and can be adjusted depending on the individual planting locations.

Recent research has also suggested that to
ensure the sustainability of newly planted trees
one must consider the availability of loosely compacted soils (soil volume) available to the tree to reduce conflicts related to root growth and
provide sufficient water and nutrients for the
tree at maturity. Recommended soil volumes are
listed in Appendix B.

Placement of the tree in relation to other plant
material on the site must be considered. In a
new landscape turf and other ground cover,
shrubs and annuals should be planted a minimum of two feet from the outside edge of the planting pit. In existing landscapes, the same
guideline should be followed.

Similar to the upper canopy of a tree, tree roots
require water, nutrients and oxygen to grow. To
limit the availability of these basic needs frequently results in undue stress on the tree and reduces the benefits the tree is able to provide.

Therefore, the City of San José encourages the
use of designs that address these basic needs.

Tree Wells
In the dense urban areas (downtown) of San
José it is common for the City to require trees to
be planted in tree wells or small cut-outs within
the sidewalk to ensure safe and efficient movement of pedestrians. Unfortunately, this type of design is not conducive to proper tree development and frequently results in hazardous conditions when the roots or the root flare begin
to grow underneath the surrounding sidewalk.

To address this issue the City of San José recommends designers create the largest possible tree 184 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
well possible for the given right-of-way. Further,
the City of San José encourages the use of alternative technologies and surfaces that improve water infiltration and the absorption of air when
appropriate.

Decorative Tree Grates in the Public Right of Way
In the urban environment it is common for designers to recommend the use of decorative tree grates and tree guards. Decorative tree grates
are often used to provide some aesthetic appeal
to the sidewalk or to account for differences in
grade between the tree well and surrounding
sidewalk. These decorative grates are commonly
built with mostly solid surfaces and provide only
limited openings to ensure a solid and safe walking surface. Unfortunately, this means the decorative tree grates require continual monitoring, adjustment or enlargement to account for the
growth of the tree trunk. When this preventative
maintenance is not addressed in a timely manner, the resulting damage to the tree is often significant enough that the structural integrity of
the tree is compromised and complete removal
may be required. The City of San José does not
recommend the use of decorative tree grates
in most instances and would instead encourage
designers to use permeable pavers over a sand
and gravel base or other similar permeable
surface that accommodates tree growth without
requiring the additional on-going maintenance.

Decorative Tree Guards in the Public Right-ofWay
Similar to decorative tree grates, it is common
for designers to recommend the use of decorative tree guards in the urban environment.

Unfortunately, the challenges are similar to
those with decorative tree grates. The City of San
José does not recommend the use of decorative
tree grates in most instances and would encourage designers to use permeable pavers over a sand and gravel base or other similar permeable
surface that accommodates tree growth without
requiring the additional on-going maintenance.

Parkstrip or Landscape Strip
The majority of San José’s residential neighborhoods consists of parkstrip or landscape strips between the curb and gutter and the sidewalk.

The depth of this areas ranges from as little as
1 to two (2) feet across to as much as ten (10)
feet in some of the older neighborhoods north
of downtown. Similar to tree wells in the more
urban areas of San José, this limited grow
space frequently results in conflicts with the
surrounding hardscape and utilities that result
in significant impacts to the tree when repairs
are made. Of additional concern is that it is
not uncommon for property owners to pave
or otherwise fill the parkstrip/landscape strip
with concrete aggregate or other impervious
surfaces that provide a walkable surface but
prevent the infiltration of water and diffusion
of oxygen into the soil. The City of San José
recommends that property owners maintain
the parkstrip/landscape strip free of impervious surfaces. As inspection of these properties occurs the City of San José will require that
impervious surfaces be removed to provide
a minimum amount of pervious surface area
adjacent to the stem of a tree that allows for
air and oxygen to enter the soil. The minimum
dimensions of the pervious surface area will
be equivalent to the depth of parkstrip by
five feet in width. In cases where the depth of
parkstrip is larger, the property owner will be
expected to provide a surface area with equal
dimension of the depth and width (5 feet x 5
feet, 6 feet x 6 feet, 10 feet x 10 feet).

CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 185 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
Utility Conflicts
Further complicating the issue of sufficient root
volume and limiting the impacts to our trees is
the installation of utility conduits and vaults within the public rights-of-way and in close proximity to our street trees. Therefore the City of San José
encourages the use of alternative technologies
such as directional boring or complete relocation of utilities when repair or replacement is required to reduce the long term impacts that
repair and replacement of these utility facilities
have on our trees and the sustainability of the
Community Forest.

Sufficient Canopy Space
The shape and size of the tree canopy at maturity is one of the primary considerations to accurately determine the placement of the tree.

It is the goal of the City of San José to maximize
the tree canopy of our Community Forest. To accomplish this goal the City Arborist staff chooses a street tree species that will provide the largest
canopy at maturity and that is suitable for the
size of the planting site.

Unfortunately, street trees in the urban environment frequently have limited growing space. To ensure street trees have the ability to maximize
their canopy and limit future maintenance
needs, the project arborist must balance the
need for canopy over the street with the need
for clearance from vehicle traffic, buildings,
street lights, traffic signals, overhead utilities, etc.

On new developments, building designs should
consider incorporating step back architecture
to provide increased grow space for the upper
canopy at maturity. Consideration should also
be given to the undergrounding of overhead
utilities or selecting a species with mature canopy height that provides a minimum of five feet of clearance.

As a general rule, tree spacing should be equivalent to roughly 80% of what the canopy spread will be at maturity. This means that for a tree
with a canopy spread of 50 feet at maturity, the
spacing should be roughly 40 to 45 feet. Recommended tree spacings are listed in Appendix B.

Species Selection and Diversity
Experience has taught us that species diversity
is the key to a healthy community forest. In the
middle of the 20th Century, an over-reliance on
the American Elm (Ulmus americana) resulted in
the significant loss of tree canopy for many cities
in the Eastern and Central United States when
Dutch Elm Disease arrived in the United States.

To prevent similar issues from arising in the
future, it is important to maintain species diversity and limit the effect any one pest or disease can have on the Community Forest. As such,
experts recommend using the “10-20-30 rule” to
prevent over-reliance on any one species. The
10-20-30 rule can be described as follows:
• no more than 10 % of the overall tree population is composed of one species EX: Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
• no more than 20 % composed of one genus
EX: Red oak, black oak, live oak, etc. Quercus
• no more than 30 % is composed of one
family
EX: Fagaceae family includes the oaks (Quercus), tanoaks (Lithocarpus), beech (Fagus) and chestnut (Castanea)
Currently the street tree portion of our Community Forest has three popular tree species, the Chinese Pistache (Pistacia chinensis), the Crape
Myrtle (Lagerstroemia spp.) and the London
Plane tree (Platanus acerifolia) or Sycamore, that
186 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
are very close to or are already exceeding the
10 % of one species guideline. Therefore, planting more of these species should be avoided and other tree species should be considered
when planting new trees in San José.

For assistance with selecting appropriate species, the City of San José recommends using the SelecTree website published by California Polytechnic University (https://selectree.calpoly.edu).

Climate Change
Given the potential for significant climate
change and that trees are a long term asset, the
City of San José is committed to exploring alternative non-native species that may be better suited to a warmer and drier environment.

Native Species
Native species are those species that have either evolved in a geographic area or have naturally migrated to that area and very important to the overall ecological health of the environment.

As such, the City of San José is committed to
prioritizing the use of native plants that are appropriate to the location whenever possible with particular focus on Riparian and Urban Wildland
interface areas as well as Regional Parks.

Invasive Tree species
Imported trees (imported by design or by accident) often adapt well to our California climate and spread to open space, wetlands and forested areas. Often these imported or invasive trees can be detrimental to the habitat of native
plants and wildlife. Invasive trees can cause a
decline of the native species of plants, insects
and wildlife. Selection of landscape trees for
planting (whether on private property or in the
public right-of¬way) should include investigating
whether the tree species is considered invasive
or detrimental to our California Landscape.

The nonprofit organization California Invasive
Plants Council (Cal-IPC) is vigilant in its efforts to
prevent, detect and remove plant species detrimental to California to protect and restore waterways and wildlands. The CalIPC website provides information on invasive species including photographs and descriptions of invasive tree species.

The list of invasive tree species for the Bay Area
include trees commonly found in San José.
• Black Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)
• Tree-of-Heaven (Ailanthus altissima)
• Blue Gum tree (Eucalyptus globulus)
• Chinese Tallow Tree (Sapium sebiferum)
Refer to the Cal-IPC site before selecting any
tree, shrub, groundcover or other plant material
to plant in the City of San José.

Wildlife
Wildlife habitat life thrives where the complex
interactions between organisms and their surroundings are balanced. Trees provide habitat for a wide variety of wildlife that might otherwise
have a difficult time living in our cities. Native
trees support insects that provide pollination
services and that move energy up the food chain
from plants to birds, frogs, lizards and other wildlife. For example, a single oak tree can support up to 500 species of insects and invertebrate
species, thereby providing a broad range of
dietary choices for birds, bats, and other wildlife. This wildlife can in turn provide pest control services in our gardens and agricultural areas.

Additionally, by reducing both the amount of pollutants that reach the Bay and soil erosion, the trees support aquatic and riparian wildlife as well
as micro-organisms that live in the soil itself.

CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 187 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
Water Usage and Conservation
The City of San José is dedicated to long-term
water conservation to address the chronic water
shortage, to protect the aquifers of the city, and
to prevent land surface subsidence. Moreover,
the city is subject to periodic droughts, a circumstance which requires the city council to take steps to protect the health, safety and general
welfare of the public. Given the potential for
climate change and decreased levels of annual
rainfall, the City of San José is committed to prioritizing the use of tree species that are categorized as moderate, low and very low as identified in the California “Water Use Classification Of
Landscape Species” (WUCOLS) database.

Green Stormwater Facilities
Trees are perfectly suited for green stormwater infrastructure (GSI). As presented in this CFMP, trees naturally capture stormwater
in their canopies while absorbing precious
stormwater runoff with their roots. The next
time there is a light rain, observe the dry patch
underneath a leafy tree to understand the
benefits of its canopy, where the leaves will
absorb moisture. Stormwater capture within
the root zone is becoming a prized resource
during times of drought when supplemental
irrigation is insufficient. When a storm occurs,
roots will absorb moisture where trees can
store their supply throughout dry seasons.

This section discusses trees, their compatibility
with GSI, and some challenges for successful
designs.

The CFMP compliments the City of San José’s
Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan, or GSI
Plan (2019) that references trees eleven times
within Part 1, including assurances for the
protection of existing trees when installing
subsurface infiltration chambers (Appendices,
p. 6-1). One of the first discussions of trees
highlights the benefits of green systems, “especially for the types of GSI that use vegetation and trees. Vegetated GSI systems can help
improve air quality by filtering and removing
airborne contaminants from vehicle and industrial sources and can reduce urban heat island effects by providing shade and cooling landscapes. Increasing vegetation can also provide an ecological benefit by improving the biodiversity of plant types in the urban environment and providing habitat for birds, butterflies,
bees, and other local species” (p. 15). Trees
are key components to the multi-benefits of
green stormwater infrastructure.

Trees are considered when discussing community quality of life and new career paths in the GSI Plan. “These include greening and beautifying public spaces by planting additional trees, installing green roofs that provide park-like
spaces (if accessible), providing unique design
opportunities for the integration of public art,
and enhancing parks and public rights-of-way
for public gathering. When traffic calming
improvements such as curb extensions and
bulb-outs at intersections are used to promote
active transportation and increased pedestrian
bicycle safety, there is an opportunity to use
the additional space created by the improvements to integrate GSI facilities. The trend toward development of GSI facilities is also
creating the need for a new ‘green workforce’
to perform installation and maintenance of
the facilities, which helps create jobs” (p. 15).

Combined, trees within GSI participate in the
City’s plan to support a triple bottom line to
improve opportunities for quality of life, the
environment, and prosperity through new jobs
and career options.
188 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
Trees do not need to be specifically integrated
into GSI to be included for stormwater capture
considerations. For example, the GSI Plan
highlights median trees that were planted for
the Chynoweth Green Street (p.61). These
trees and related median renovation replaced
an exposed landscape area that would have
otherwise contributed sediment to runoff and
increased heat island effect. As the newly
installed trees mature, their canopies will support these mitigations.

Another example of an existing facility utilizing
trees in stormwater systems is discussed in
the GSI Plan. At the City of San José’s Environmental Innovation Center, 100-year-old olive trees are irrigated by a cistern capturing water
from the facility’s roof, an example of rainwater harvesting and storage for later use during the dry season (p. 18). While this example
highlights an opportunity when building new
construction, the GSI Plan recognizes the value
of existing trees when determining the feasibility of new installations and their compatibilities within existing infrastructure, including said trees with established root and canopy
structures.

As the GSI Plan establishes criteria for the
prioritization of sites to install GSI, the evaluation considers “site space constraints” (p. 41). Utility densities that present conflicts
when installing GSI facilities, street typologies (from residential to grand boulevards), public transportation stops, and mature trees
are assessed to determine the feasibility of
retrofitting GSI along our public rights-ofway. Should the co-benefits for improving water quality, flood mitigation, groundwater
recharge plus community, place-making, and
enhanced habitat outweigh hydrological and
site space constraints, a site may be reprioritized for GSI.

Looking further into site space constraints, the
GSI Plan’s Table 5-1, Updated Green Street
Prioritization Methodology specifically discusses length constraints of GSI treatments along roadways by what appears to be a 2’
buffer around existing trees 24” in diameter
(p. 43). This direction is unclear when considering larger or smaller trees or if the buffer is adequate, nor does it consider site specific
situations where tree roots are either shallow,
deep, twist, or turn. In other words, this direction provides an opportunity to discuss how trees will be evaluated by a certified arborist
so a GSI site can be properly prioritized. Site
constraints also include right-of-way length
and number of trees per block (p. 45) and “estimated driplines of mature trees” (p. 52).

The GSI Plan, while considering site constraints, also looks at opportunities when improvements can include street trees. As an
example, the San Carlos Safety Improvement
Project, located on West San Carlos Street
between Highway 880 and McEvoy Street, will
include street trees and landscaping while
integrating GSI facilities. At the time of this
writing, it is unclear if the street trees will be
integrated or act as compliments to GSI (p.
62). As the GSI workplan continues, additional
efforts will be directed toward updating site
space constraints to evaluate barriers and
conflicts, which includes established trees in
the landscape (p. 78). Should a site meet the
GSI Plans criteria for feasibility, the next step is
to determine how the trees, mature or newly
proposed, will be integrated within stormwater
treatments. Currently, GSI designs present
challenges to this tree integration.

CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 189 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
One such challenge is the use of biotreatment soil mix (BSM) in GSI practices. BSM is a mixture of sand and compost that allows
for the fast drainage to minimize ponding
within GSI. The resulting condition creates an
engineered drought that may require careful
selection of trees for their drought tolerance.

The City may resort to experimenting with
new and alternative soils that can be submitted for approval by the County-wide Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Executive Officer. The City of San José’s Infrastructure Maintenance Section has learned that careful monitoring of soil moistures, mulch
layers, and irrigation operations is required
to insure both short- and long-term success
of its managed GSI landscapes. This experience should inform how trees are used in public rights-of way when integrated with GSI.

Alternatively, trees could be planted in native
soil adjacent to BSM, which allows trees and
plants to adapt to familiar soil textures while
gaining access to stormwater runoff, depending on facility type.

Proprietary Tree Well Filters
Known for their convenience in constructing
GSI along public rights-of-way, proprietary
systems are designed to hold one or two large
shrubs or small trees within a subterranean
planter. Their installation supplements curb
drain inlets, and from the outside look very
similar. Stormwater enters the inlet where
the sediment and trash are captured, allowing
the water to filter through the tree’s planter as
the final cleaning process before flowing into
a nearby storm drain or infiltrating into the
native soil below.

Principally, these systems are effective practices, however, their confined space restricts root growth. Once trees reach container capacity,
there is growing concern that trees will no
longer effectively perform, become rootbound
and will likely decline, prompting a necessary
replacement and related expenses. Currently, proprietary tree well filters are exclusively used for projects that meet specified criteria
allowing them to provide less than 100% LID
stormwater treatment onsite.

Site-Constructed Tree Trenches
Large cities, such as Philadelphia, Canada’s Toronto and Vancouver, and state agencies from CalTrans to Minnesota Pollution Control and
Delaware’s Division of Energy & Climate have
either implemented or encouraged the use of
tree trenches. Visually, tree trenches within
the public rights-of-way are camouflaged to
appear like ordinary parkstrips between the
curb and sidewalk. For residential or high-aesthetic areas, parkstrips have diverse plantings, including street trees and understory shrubs
or ground covers serving as attractive streetscapes for pedestrians and drivers alike, effectively turning bland streets into dynamic public landscapes. Parkstrips may also act as landscape buffers for protected bikeways, further enhancing safety on urban streets.

Tree trenches enhance tree and landscape
performance by providing access to stormwater runoff and subsequent capture. Through curb inlets, water is collected then dispersed
through perforated pipes running the length
of the tree trench, enabling the stormwater to
be captured and cleaned for use by trees and
other ornamental plants. Excess water will
190 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
overflow into a storm drain through a lower
elevation pipe, if necessary, or infiltrates into
the native soil. In times of drought, this offers
an opportunity to provide trees with additional
moisture that trees will internally store over
the dry season.

Unlike standard parkstrips, tree trenches
will likely require additional structural support, particularly adjacent to roadways and buildings, and greater coordination with
underground infrastructure. To satisfy this
requirement, designs may include structurally
engineered soils, vertical retaining walls, and/
or suspended pavement systems. While the
short-term cost may be higher, the long-term
gain is proven with mature trees while reducing heat island effects. This is not the answer for all street trees, but as we look for opportunities to integrate GSI and trees into our landscape or rights-of-way, tree trenches offer
significant public benefits.

Alternative Systems
Following the parkstrip model, permeable
pavers set between trees will provide a comfortable walking experience where pedestrians do not need to maneuver around other landscape plants or uneven surfaces. These
permeable pavers would be set on a gravel
subbase and sand bed, allowing water to
percolate into the native soil. The trees will effectively utilize this water as they mature, minimizing their search for superficial water. Using permeable paver options over the alternative
poured concrete and tree wells offers another benefit by being less costly when repairs are needed. Permeable pavers are collected,
repairs resolved, then pavers are reinstalled.

Should any permeable pavers become damaged, there are plenty of manufacturers that can provide the same or similar, standardized
replacements when needed. Conversely,
poured concrete, when damaged, will require
removal and disposal to a landfill, only to be
replaced with more custom concrete.

Consider further the differences between
parkstrips and city standard tree wells. As
landscape areas, parkstrips offer opportunities to be self-treating stormwater facilities for sidewalk runoff, allowing for “infiltration,
evapotranspiration, and other natural processes [to] remove pollutants from stormwater,” as defined in SCVURPPP’s C.3 Stormwater
Handbook (p. xvii). By contrast, tree wells
minimize this opportunity, as they are in most
cases surrounded by impervious pavement.

This suggests that trees will potentially perform better in parkstrips where water could be more readily available during rain events
versus the confined space of a tree well. Tree
wells, however, offer pedestrian comfort, and
there are ways to accommodate both trees
and pedestrians alike.

New technologies, such as porous asphalt and
pervious concrete, are other options in support to trees’ access to water. These materials are already implemented on private developments around the Bay Area, where porous asphalt has replaced traditional parking lots,
and pervious concrete provides an alternative
to traditional sidewalks.

CHAPTER 4 | DESIGN GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 191 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
Chapter 5 | Tree Planting and Replacement
As discussed in Chapter 1 there are numerous
benefits to voluntarily planting trees within the
community. These include aesthetics, increased
property values, improved air quality and personal health, reduced energy consumption and stormwater runoff, and a more livable/walkable
community. In addition to voluntary planting of
trees, there are instances where tree planting is
required. These include as a condition of development, as a replacement for trees removed by permit, etc. To assist property owners with their
tree planting needs, the City of San José has partnered with Our City Forest. Our City Forest is a non-profit tree planting group in the Santa Clara
Valley that may be able to help with providing
and planting a tree. See Chapter 6, Our City
Forest.

Nursery Stock Selection
When choosing a young tree, make sure it is free
of significant defects, such as poor branching
structure, major wounds, overgrown roots, disease or insect infestations. Also look at the root structure. Trees that have been in their nursery
containers too long have roots that have overgrown the available soil space and are circling around one another. Poor quality nursery stock
is one of the major causes of poor tree growth
and tree failure.

Choosing younger trees of size that may not look
like trees, but more like a tall shrub is highly recommended. The lower branches (less than 3/8” diameter) help the trunk to grow and become
sturdy. The lower branches are only temporary
and will be removed later. It may take two to
three seasons of pruning before the tree form
begins to develop, but it is then possible to make
sure that the trunk develops good stability and
the lowest branches are high enough to allow for
safe pedestrian and vehicle traffic.

The City of San José recommends the planting of
15 gallon trees over the larger box or container
grown trees as it limits the potential for circling
roots to have developed, it is easier to correct
any branch or structural issues when the tree
is smaller and the smaller trees will typically
establish faster and out-perform the larger trees
as a result.

A guide to choosing good quality nursery stock
was developed by the Urban Tree Foundation
in cooperation with the UC Cooperative Extension. This guide has many excellent photographs showing both “good quality” and “bad quality” trees from roots to branches. It contains
a detailed checklist of characteristics that are
both acceptable and not acceptable for nursery
grown trees. Reading this guide is strongly recommended to professionals and homeowners before choosing any nursery plants. This guide
can be found and downloaded for free at The
Urban Tree Foundation website.

Tree Inspection for City Projects
Container grown trees to be planted on City
property or in the public right-of-way should
be inspected by the installing contractor and
City staff prior to planting the tree. Both above
ground and below ground parts of the tree are
inspected for conformity to species characteristics, pests and diseases, branch structure and root structure.

Branches should be uniformly spaced both
vertically and radially along the trunk. A central
leader should be present. The woody structural
roots should be present within the top one inch
of soil mix and flare out in a radial pattern from
the trunk. No bruised, torn, sunken, discolored
or soft tissues are acceptable on the trunk. No
192 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
broken branches or other defective branches
should be removed without approval of the City
inspection staff.

The entire rootball must be inspected. To
perform the root inspections, the tree should
be removed from the container and inspected
for the presence of circling roots. Small circling
roots less than one-half inch in diameter may
be easily removed before planting. However,
circling roots on the inside of the rootball are not
acceptable. A long knife or other probe must be
used to check the rootball for circling roots within the rootball. If circling roots are present near the trunk that are greater than one-fourth inch
in diameter the tree should be rejected. In some
cases, circling roots can be pruned to correct
this defect. The City arborist staff or inspection
team must approve of any corrective pruning to
the roots.

To avoid issues with contractors ordering, delivering and then having to return nursery stock that does not meet City of San José quality standards, the City has identified an independent contractor that can be dispatched to the local
wholesale nurseries at the expense of contractor
to perform the required inspections.

How to Plant Trees
The City of San José provides standard guidelines
to developers and contractors for City projects
involving planting street trees. In 2013, the City
of San José published our Streetscape Guidelines and Streetscape Standard Details. These Guidelines contain the written specifications
for street landscape improvements including
soil testing, nursery stock selection, planting
procedures, etc. The Details contain the drawings for all aspects of street tree plantings for development projects. The following sections
present general information for contractors and
homeowners, but contractors shall adhere to
the specifications, as written, for each individual
project.

Soil Testing
Prior to planting a tree in disturbed soil (recently
graded, altered or amended) the City requires
the developer or contractor to have the soil tested for nutrient content, chemical suitability and physical characteristics. Appendix C contains
both soil sampling guidelines (how to properly
procure, package and submit a soil sample) and
the types of tests to be performed.

Typically, any data generated from the soil samples are interpreted by the soil testing laboratory and recommendations for fertilizers and soil
amendments (organic and inorganic) are provided to improve the characteristics of the soil.

Tree Planting Pit Width
The tree planting pit should be dug a minimum
of two times the diameter of the rootball of the
tree being planted whenever possible. The sides
of the planting pit should be scarified, loose and
free of any auger slick.

Tree Planting Pit Depth
The depth of the planting pit is shallow enough
to allow for the top of the root ball (where the
primary woody root flare out from the trunk) to
provide a finished planting height that is at least
equal or no more than one (1) inch above the
surrounding final soil grade on the outside of the
planting pit. This depth is not the same as the
depth of the rootball when pulled out of the container. The depth of the pit is equal to the depth of the rootball after any loosening or disturbance
to the rootball that has been removed from the
container.

CHAPTER 5 | TREE PLANTING AND REPLACEMENT
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 193 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
Be careful not to plant the tree too deeply. If
your tree looks like a pole in the ground, remove
some of the soil from the top until the trunk flare
is exposed. This may require adjustment of the
pit depth or removal of some of the soil from the
nursery pot the tree came in. Planting a tree too
deeply can cause many issues and can lead to
premature death.

Symptoms of trees planted too deeply are:
• Branch dieback
• Reduced growth or dwarfing
• Splits in the trunk
• Leaf yellowing
• Girdling Roots
• Death
Root Barriers
Root barriers are no longer required or recommended by the City as their effectiveness is limited to the area immediately adjacent to the
barrier. The most effective way to prevent roots
from breaking up your sidewalk is to select the
proper species, plant the tree properly in soil
with limited compaction and care for the tree
by deep-root watering (See Hand Watering
below). While the City does not prohibit the
installation of linear root barriers if desired by
the property owner, they must be linear along
either the edge of curb or sidewalk and allow
for lateral growth within the parkstrip. Round
or fully enclosed root barriers are prohibited
as they lead to trees with girdling roots and the
higher than normal risk of complete failure or
uprooting. Please consult the installation procedure provided by the manufacturer except in cases it may violate city standards.

Fertilizer and Amendments
For City projects the planting process for the
contractor differs from the process for a homeowner. For the contractor: The soil from the planting pit should be set aside and amended
per the recommendations generated by the soil
analysis. Most fertilizers and inorganic amendments can be mixed in the excavated soil.

The excavated soil mixed with inorganic amendments is used to backfill the planting pit. Organic amendments should only be mixed into the last batch of soil that is placed in the upper soil
profile (0 to 8 inches deep in a clayey soil; up
to 12 inches deep in a sandy soil). Contractors
and homeowners should avoid placing organic
amendment below 8 to 12 inches deep in the
planting pit.

Homeowners are not required to test the soil
or add fertilizer or inorganic amendments,
but may do so if done through the methods
described above.

Root Pruning
For street tree planting on City projects see previous section, Tree Inspection for City Projects.

Homeowners should also inspect the rootball
of trees before buying and planting them. Any
root pruning that may be required should be
minor in nature. See the guidelines provided by
the Urban Tree Foundation for more details.

Backfilling the Planting Pit
Soil excavated from the planting pit (or if the
soil analysis indicates, a contractor may be
required to use imported topsoil) should be
placed from the bottom of the pit to within 8
to 12 inches of the top of the pit. No organic
amendments should be placed at the lower
depths. (See directions above, Fertilizer and
Amendments).
194 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
Watering Berm and Basin
Create a berm around the outer edge of the
planting pit (not the outer edge of the rootball)
by building a berm that is at least 4 inches
high and 36 inches in diameter. The berm will
provide a basin to store an adequate volume
to keep the tree well watered. When a new
tree is planted it is important to immediately
and thoroughly soak the newly planted tree
with approximately 15 to 20 gallons of water
to settle the soil and collapse large air pockets.

Once the initial watering is complete, the watering basin should be filled with 3 to 4 inches of organic mulch, such as wood or bark chips,
to conserve water and protect the roots from
high temperatures. See section below.

Organic Mulch
There are many benefits to placing a layer of
wood chip mulch on the soil under woody
trees and shrubs. Mulch can provide significant water savings during the summer months. The wood chip mulch over the bare
soil helps to prevent the surface of the soil
from “crusting,” which often occurs when
irrigation water evaporates too quickly. When
the soil surface is crusty, water does not penetrate well and runs off the soil surface and into the gutter.

Wood mulch also helps woody plants by protecting the roots that grow just under the soil surface. This surface soil can reach high temperatures quickly in the hot summer months.

The temperature increase and the lack of water
as the soil dries out kills the roots growing in
the top few inches of soil. Organic mulch provides an insulated layer which prevents the soil from heating and drying out. Further, as wood
chip mulch decomposes it provides organic
nutrients to woody plants that are not available
in most fertilizers. Be aware that applying mulch
directly to the trunk of the tree or creating a
“volcano” around the base of the tree can be
detrimental to the tree. When the mulch is in
constant contact with the base and bark of a
tree and holds any moisture, the tree can begin
to rot or grow adventitious roots that have the
potential to girdle the tree. As the mulch decomposes, it can also produce and accumulate heat in this area that can cause additional damage to the bark and the underlying transporting systems of nutrients and water.

Similar to laying too much organic mulch,
the use of cobble rock, pea gravel or other
non-organic materials can be detrimental to
long term tree health of the tree because of
excessive heat build-up and storage.

A 3 or 4 inch layer of wood chips is all that is
needed. That amount translates to about one
cubic yard per 100 square feet. Often, free
wood chip mulch can be obtained from tree
service companies. A Bay Friendly Guide to
Mulch can be downloaded for free by clicking
on this link. Contractors working on City projects receive a package that contains specifications for the quality and type of mulch required for City projects.

Staking
Research in the field of arboriculture shows
that trees develop stronger and larger trunks
when no stakes are installed. However, many
trees from the nursery have not developed
trunks strong enough to stand alone. When the
trunk is weak or when the tree requires protection from vandalism, stakes may be needed.

Typically trees from the nursery will come with
a small stake attached directly to the stem of
the tree using landscape tie or some other
CHAPTER 5 | TREE PLANTING AND REPLACEMENT
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 195 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
similar material. Failure to remove a stake that
is tied tightly to the trunk can prohibit trunk
development and cause serious injury if left in
place. If damage to the trunk from the nursery
stake is noted at the time of removal, the tree
may require replacement.

The city requires the installation of at least 2
lodge pole pine stakes that are each 2-inches
in diameter on 15 gallon sized trees that are
installed as part of a city project. Tree stakes
and ties should be installed perpendicular to
the direction of the prevailing wind. The height
of the stake should be slightly lower than the
lowest permanent branch. This stake height
may vary between 3 and 6 feet depending on
the strength of the trunk and the height of the
lowest permanent branch.
“Young trees with weak trunks may also
require an additional set of ties at 1 m (3 ft)
below the leader terminal and about 150 mm
(6 in.) above the lowest level at which the trunk
can be held and the top return upright after
being deflected.” -Arboriculture, 2004.

As important as the height of the stake is the
distance between the stake and the flexible tie
which should be no more than 6 inches from
the top of the stake. Two tree ties are used
and affixed to each stake. The flexible ties are
installed with a twist around the trunk and secured with a nail or screw. The ties should be installed with enough slack to allow the trunk
to sway slightly in the wind. Ties can be made
of recycled tires, elastic nylon shock cord or
recycled watering hose.

Tree ties should be adjusted periodically for
the first two years to ensure that the tree is
not absorbing them or being damaged by
these ties.

Hand Watering
Once the tree is planted, keep it well watered
for the first three years to help establish a
deep root system. Water requirements will
be greater and more frequent during hot
summer days; less often if the tree is planted
near turf or other groundcover that is watered
frequently. Water requirements during the
winter depend on rainfall, irrigation of adjacent
plantings, the tree species and the soil type.

Monitoring Soil Moisture
The best way to judge if the planting site requires additional water is to dig using a small shovel or trowel in the soil surrounding the
rootball about 4 to 6 hours after water has
been applied. The sample should be taken at a
depth of 6 to 12 inches. A better tool to use to
monitor soil water is a soil probe. Soil probes
can be purchased at a nursery supply or hardware store.

Place a sample of the soil in the hand and
squeeze it. If free water runs out or the hand
remains wet and the soil sample is likely in a
tight ball (if loamy to clayey in texture) – the
soil is too wet . If the soil is moist to the touch
and slightly crumbly – the soil moisture is near
field capacity and perfect after irrigation. If the
soil sample is dry and feels like dust – the soil
moisture is near permanent wilting point and
water should be applied immediately.

The soil moisture for new tree plantings
should be monitored weekly at minimum for
the first 6 months, bi-weekly for the next 6
months and monthly thereafter to make sure
you are on a good schedule for your soil and
climate. For newly planted trees a sample
should be obtained from near the bottom
of the original rootball – usually about 12 to
196 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
16 inches for a 15-gallon size tree. Water will
often run through the nursery soil and accumulate at the bottom of the planting pit. The top may appear overly dry, when the bottom
of the rootball may be supersaturated.

Apply enough water in the basin so that it fills,
but drains within an hour or less. Apply water
slowly so that it will percolate into the soil
deeply, taking care not to apply water so fast
that it runs off.

CHAPTER 5 | TREE PLANTING AND REPLACEMENT
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 197 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
Chapter 6 | Tree Stewardship and Maintenance
The Community Forest provides benefits to
every person who lives, works or plays in the
City of San José. Properly planting and caring
for trees is a gift of clean air, clean water and
healthy living to not just the current generation but many generations to come. Each of us shares a role as stewards of the Community
Forest.

The Community Forest in San José consists
of a diverse array of location types. From
highly developed urban streets, to suburban
neighborhoods, parks, gardens and riparian
corridors, the community forest provides
continuing economic, social, environmental
and ecological benefits. The Community Forest
is the only infrastructure asset that continually
increases in value and the amount of benefits
that it provides to the community. The City
of San José recognizes that the Community
Forest is not a self-renewable asset and that
frequently requires human intervention to
enhance, protect and preserve. As the local
government, it is our responsibility to foster
and develop a vision of a community forest for
every citizen of San José and the surrounding
communities that depend on us. Our responsibilities include educating ourselves and partnering with the community and regional
stakeholders to provide proactive management of the urban forest that aligns with industry standards and community needs.

Monitoring and Inspection
One of the most important aspects of tree care
is the act of monitoring or inspecting the trees. It
could be said that most trees progress through
four different life stages - establishment, growth,
maintenance and decline. Each period has a different frequency of monitoring and inspection, but the points to be inspected are fairly consistent. Below are some basic guidelines on what to watch for:

Ground Plane
• Is the watering berm intact?
• Is soil moisture low, adequate or wet?
• Are mushrooms present (often indicates
over-watering)?
• Are there exposed or circling roots?
• Are weeds present?
• Is their cracking or lifted soil?
Trunk
• Is the trunk vertical or leaning?
• Is bark missing or damaged?
• Is sap or dark liquid oozing from the trunk?
• Are unusual growths (galls) present?
• Are there fungal bodies (mushrooms) on the
trunk?
Structural Branches (Lower Canopy)
• Are cracked, broken or hanging branches
present?
• Are branches too close or crossing and
rubbing?
• Are large structural branches spaced adequately?
• Are there any branches that have included
bark or weak points of attachment?
• Are branches discolored or oozing sap?
• Are there fungal bodies (mushrooms) on the
branches?
Upper Canopy
• Are the leaves fully formed and the right
color for the species and season?
198 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
• Are the leaves distorted, show signs of insect
chewing or dead spots?
• Are any insects present or signs of insects,
like sticky sap on the ground?
• Are leaves falling prematurely?
• Are there any dead/dying or crossing
branches?
• Are cracked, broken or hanging branches
present?
• Do any of the branches have heavy end
weights?
Are there any branches which extend beyond
the typical form for the canopy
During establishment stage (0-3 years), it is
recommended that property owners monitor or
inspect their tree on weekly basis during warmer
summer months and bi-weekly during cooler
winter months. Monitoring should include soil
moisture, repair the watering berm, replacement
of organic mulch, adjust, replace or remove tree
stakes or ties and identify potential damage from
yard tools such as string trimmers, lawn mowers,
or vandalism that require mitigation.

During the growth stage (3-20 years), it is recommended that property owners monitor or inspect their tree on a quarterly to annual basis.

Monitoring should include but is not limited
to soil moisture levels, replacement of organic
mulch, removal of tree stakes or ties, monitoring
for defects in the trunk, branches or upper canopy and the monitoring of the trunk and upper canopy for presence of disease or pests.

During the maintenance stage (20-60 years), it
is recommended that property owners monitor or inspect their tree on an annual basis.

Monitoring should include but is not limited
soil moisture levels, replacement of organic
mulch, monitoring for defects in the trunk,
branches or upper canopy and the monitoring
of the trunk and upper canopy for presence of
disease or pests.

During the decline stage (20-60 years), it is
recommended that property owners monitor or inspect their tree on an annual basis.

Monitoring for Tree Defects
Tree defects present potential danger if repairs are not completed in a timely manner.

To help address this problem in the Community Forest, the USDA funded research and published a manuscript to help communities
recognize and report tree defects. The document is written for both community members and professionals. It provides detailed information about detecting tree defects, what the defect indicates and how to manage tree risk.

Also, the Appendix contains the USDA Community Tree Risk Evaluation Form which can be printed and used as a guideline for monitoring
community trees.

Automatic irrigation systems for trees
As with the hand watering procedures described above, Irrigation systems installed for the purpose of watering trees should be
designed in such a manner that it waters the
entire rootball and surrounding soils to a
depth of at least twenty-four (24) inches. The
recommended method to achieve this level of
watering is drip irrigation as it provides a slow
flow of water that can penetrate deep into
CHAPTER 6 | TREE STEWARDSHIP AND MAINTENANCE
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 199 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
the soil without generating much run-off. The
irrigation should be placed at the edge of the
rootball (approximately 12 inches from the
trunk) for new 15 gallon trees and progressively moved out or away from the trunk on an annual basis.

Irrigation should not be placed on or directly
against the base of the woody stem of a tree
as it can lead to rot or disease and affect the
long term health and structure of the tree..

Irrigation for shrubs, groundcover and turf
nearby should be designed to prevent the
irrigation water from wetting the trunk of any
tree for any duration.

Irrigation designers should be aware of the
City of San José Municipal Code section 15.11
which details the requirements for water efficient landscapes. See Chapter 3, Permits and the Law.

Tree Pruning
General Guidelines and Standards
Pruning is the most common tree maintenance procedure. Although forest trees grow well with only nature’s pruning, urban trees require a higher level of care to maintain certain clearances, improve structural integrity and
aesthetics and reduce risk related to branch
or tree failure. Pruning must be done with at
least a basic understanding of tree biology
because improper pruning can create lasting
damage, increase risk and shorten the tree’s
life. For more information on the proper care
of trees, visit the TREESAREGOOD.ORG website brought to you by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).

The City of San José follows the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 Pruning Standard. (ANSI) A300 pruning standards are a
nationwide pruning standard prepared by professional arboricultural industry leaders and university researchers to ensure the proper
care of trees that may be obtained from your
local library or purchased online.

The City of San José endorses the use of the
ISA Best Management Practices – Pruning 3rd
edition (2019) published by the International
Society of Arboriculture (ISA) for tree related
work performed by all professional tree care
companies providing services within the City of
San José.

The City of San José does not currently provide
funds for pruning street trees except in cases
of financial hardship or work related to special
public works projects. For example, the City
may prune trees before a major neighborhood
street resurfacing project or when a street
light is repaired or replaced. For individuals on
a limited income or those that are experiencing a temporary hardship, The City of San José does provide funding to cover the expense of
required planting, pruning, removal or stump
grinding services at households that meet
income guidelines. An application for hardship
assistance can be obtained by contacting the
Trees and Sidewalks section at 408-794-1901.

Pruning Techniques
Several different types of pruning techniques
have been defined by professional arborists.

In San José the two primary types of proper
pruning performed are “crown raising/clearance pruning” and “structural pruning”.

Crown Raising/Clearance Pruning
As trees grow and mature, it is important
to remove or reduce branches that would
otherwise impede vehicle or pedestrian traffic,
200 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
roadway signage, street lighting, traffic signals
or buildings. It is recommended that crown
raising/clearance pruning be performed to
provide the follwing clearances for vehicles
(14’) and pedestrians (8’), signage (5’), streetlights (5’) or other structures (5’). This type of pruning can often be accomplished by the
property owner with a basic understanding
of making proper cuts. Additional information
on proper pruning techniques is available
through the International Society of Arboriculture at their site Trees Are Good.

Structural Pruning
The first step in structural pruning is the
establishment of a central leader. This is
accomplished by identifying the dominant
leader that has the potential to be the tallest
growing point for the canopy and performing
either removal or reductive pruning on any
competing laterals. The second step involves
the removal of dead or dying, cracked, broken,
crossing, or diseased branches and any additional branches to create branch spacing of 8 inches for small canopy trees and up to 24
inches for large canopy trees. The third step
is to perform crown raising or limb reduction
as appropriate to provide sufficient clearance
for vehicles (14’) and pedestrians (8’), signage
(5’), streetlights (5’) or other structures (5’).

As structural pruning requires a significant
understanding of a trees physiology, The City
strongly recommends residents contact a
licensed and certified tree care professional to
perform these tasks (See section Why Hire a
Certified Arborist), but general instruction and
guidelines for pruning are provided with the
Street Tree Pruning Permit.

Clearance Pruning for overhead utilities
Occasionally, clearance pruning is required to
remove potentially dangerous branches that
threaten high voltage electrical lines or their
utility poles. It is extremely important to keep
trees and their branches away from these high
voltage lines to prevent wildfires and electrical
service disruption. This type of pruning must
be performed by an Electrical Line Clearance
Certified Contractor that has employees specifically trained on electrical hazard awareness and prevention. PG&E has an active Utility Line
Clearing program that actively monitors vegetation along these high voltage electrical lines (typically the thin wires at the top of the utility
pole, not the thick black lines that are lower
on the pole or that drop down directly to your
home) and will assist with clearing branches.

PG&E does this work for property owners free
of charge as is required by state law. If clearance cannot be obtained, removal of the tree may be required (I.e. a palm directly under the
lines). If you have Questions About Trees and
Power Lines visit the PGE website.

Illegal Pruning Practices
The harmful act of making large cuts to
reduce branch length for safety reasons is
called topping or heading and is a misguided
and injurious method of cutting a tree that
frequently damages the tree and results in a
tree with a weaker more hazardous structure.

When a tree is topped or headed the trees
natural response is to produce multiple new
shoots near the cut to make up for the loss
of foliage. Unfortunately, these new shoots
are weakly attached, grow at an accelerated
rate and stress the tree because it is forced to
draw upon stored energy reserves. Topping or
severe pruning of more that 25% of the tree
canopy within a growing season is prohibited.

The City may issue a citation for trees that are
CHAPTER 6 | TREE STEWARDSHIP AND MAINTENANCE
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 201 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
topped or pruned without obtaining a permit
or for not following the pruning permit guidelines. See Chapter 3, Permits and the Law, Unhealthy Pruning Practices
Misguided tree pruners often remove the
inner branches within a canopy to “show off”
the branch structure of the tree. This is called
“over thinning” or “lions tailing”. Although
some individuals may see this be aesthetically
pleasing, this type of pruning practice is damaging to the long term health and structure of the tree. This interior growth is the primary
source of energy for development of new
wood on the structural branches that support
the upper canopy. When this foliage is removed from the interior of the tree, it is forced to share the energy produced in the upper
canopy. This frequently results in reduced
branch caliper that is unable to support the
heavy foliage on the ends of the branch resulting in an increased risk of branch failure.

Tree Removal
Tree removal should be done in accordance
with ANSI A300 standard and ISA Best Management Practices. Tree removal should include grinding of the stump to a depth and
width that allows for future replant. In cases
where tree replacement is not required, flush
cutting of the stump to at or below the surrounding grade to prevent any tripping hazard is required.

Stump Grinding
The City of San José recommends that stump
removal be performed to a minimum depth
of 18 inches and at least 12 inches wider than
the stump to be removed. As discussed in
Chapter 4, there are numerous utilities that
have been installed below the soil surface but
within the parkstrip/landscape strip areas.

Any time a property owner will be digging,
grinding or otherwise disrupting the surface of
the parkstrip/landscape strip, they are legally required to contact Underground Service Alert (USANorth811) to have all underground
utilities marked for safety reasons. USANorrth811 can be reached by dialing 811 from your telephone.

Why Hire a Certified Arborist
Tree pruning or removal involves a significant level of risk of both personal injury and property damage and should mostly be left
to a trained and qualified professional. Unfortunately there are numerous businesses and individuals offering tree care services that are
not licensed by the state, county or city and
have very little professional training or experience. The City of San José highly encourages the hiring of only ISA Certified professionals
and TCIA accredited business that have undergone significant training. A list of certified arborists can be viewed at the ISA website Why
Hire an Arborist.

In addition to possessing professional technical expertise, the City of San José recommends that a professional arborist performing tree
services should provide a minimum of the
following to the property owner before commencing work:
• A Tree Pruning or Removal Permit as required
• A City business license
• A State of California Contractor License
• Proof of Insurance coverage including personal and property damage • Proof of Workers’ Compensation Insurance
202 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
• Professional references from other customers that have hired the company to do similar work.

Heritage Trees
Municipal Code, section 13.28.220 describes a
heritage tree as follows: “Any tree which, because
of factors including but not limited to its history, girth, height, species or unique quality, has been found by the city council to have a special
significance to the community shall be designated
a heritage tree. Such trees shall be placed on a
heritage tree list which shall be adopted by the
city council by resolution, which resolution may
be amended from time to time to add to or delete
certain trees therefrom.”
Nomination Process
Designation of a tree as a heritage tree resides
within the jurisdiction of the City Arborist’s
Office. The property owner can contact the Arborist’s office to nominate a tree for Heritage status or someone other than the property
owner may nominate a tree only after obtaining written permission form the property owner.

Maintenance Responsibility
Any tree that is designated as a heritage tree is
subject to the same maintenance responsibilities as a street tree whether or not it is located on private property. For any tree related services performed on a heritage tree the property owner should contact the Arborist’s Office for consultation.

Heritage Tree Removal
Permits to remove a heritage tree on private
property must be obtained from the Department of Planning, Building and Code Enforcement. For removal of a heritage tree planted in the public right-of-way contact the Arborist’s
Office for permit information. Violations can
lead to a citation and a fine of up to $10,000
for a first offense.

Transfer of Ownership
Property owner should disclose the presence
of any heritage trees prior to sale or transfer
of property ownership.

Inventory Collection and Updates
The City of San José will endeavor to maintain
its street, parks and facilities tree inventory
data through periodic updates. The International Society of Arboriculture recommended best practices calls for periodic updates to be
in the range of every 5-7 years.

CHAPTER 6 | TREE STEWARDSHIP AND MAINTENANCE
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 203 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
Chapter 7 | Our City Forest
Our City Forest (OCF) is a 501(c)3 nonprofit
serving the San José community since 1994. OCF
was founded in 1994 in partnership with the
City of San José, replicating a successful strategy
already used by other major cities throughout
the U.S. for advancing urban forestry. Our City
Forest’s mission to cultivate a green and healthy
metropolis by engaging the community to grow,
maintain, appreciate and understand our urban
forest, aims to increase the capacity of residents to be effective tree stewards. With a more informed and engaged populace, San José can
achieve its urban forestry goals. OCF’s programs
combine education with action and are proven
strategies for cost-effectively growing and maintaining trees in cities.

With foundational support from the city, OCF
garners state and federal grants to underwrite
its direct services for residents, neighborhoods, schools, businesses, and agencies. OCF has, to date:
• obtained and administered $15+ million in
non-City cash grants
• leveraged an estimated additional $25
million in donated volunteer time, including
tree stewards
• hosted/trained 425 individuals with green
jobs who have provided San José 700,000
hours of service
• certified 782 Tree Amigo volunteers
• engaged 180,000+ community volunteers
with greening opportunities
• developed and managed 15,000+ tree planting and tree care events • planted 100,000+ 15-gallon trees and
shrubs
• converted 196,000 sq ft of lawn to climate-smart gardens to save 6 million gallons of water annually
• conducted educational presentations for
41,431 elementary and middle school students
Green Jobs Training (AmeriCorps Service
Program)
OCF hosts an AmeriCorps program which
trains and supports up to 30 full-time service
members every year to provide urban forestry assistance to residents. Each member provides 1,700 hours of service to the San
José area over 11 months. In 2015, OCF was
one of two organizations in the nation to win
the Senator Harkin Service Award from the
AmeriCorps national office. To date, OCF has
graduated some 400 service members, many
immediately embarking on an urban forestry
or related career. Service members receive a
stipend of $20,000 for 11 months of full-time
community service. The AmeriCorps grant
pays for approximately one-third of OCF’s cost
for stipends and health insurance, plus a portion of the cost to train and daily manage the service members. OCF obtains match funds
from the City of San José and others to pay the
remaining two-thirds cost plus seeks additional funding to cover field project expenses, fleet operations, accounting and other expenses.

The AmeriCorps program provides a cost-effective means to deliver services and programming for California’s 3rd largest city, including planting trees in every zip code across San
José for the past 13 years.

For more information, please visit www.
ourcityforest.org/americorps
Volunteer Recruitment, Training
& Opportunities
Our City Forest has engaged an average of
204 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
5,000 volunteers each year to assist with a
variety of urban forest projects. Opportunities
include nursery work days, tree plantings, tree
care projects, community outreach, watering
and office assignments. OCF is committed
to recruiting and engaging residents from
various ethnic, age, social and employment
backgrounds, and who reflect our community’s
vast diversity. Volunteers include high-school
students, retirees, corporate employees, nonprofit groups, business associations, people with disabilities, at-risk youth, government and
elected officials, and members of such service
clubs as Rotary and Kiwanis.

All volunteers receive training from OCF staff
and service members. For plantings, one-time
volunteers are required to watch a planting
demonstration as well as a tool safety demonstration. For those desiring to be regular volunteers, OCF offers more in-depth training
through its Tree Amigo course. Since 1994, the
number of residents attending the complete
course is 782. Tree Amigos are invited to help
with such tasks as coaching the many onetime planting volunteers, conducting planting or tree staking demonstrations, or contacting
tree stewards for health updates. Additional training is also available for specialized opportunities such as helping with nursery
open hours or assisting with truck watering in
non-residential locations.

Interested volunteers can register for events
and trainings on the OCF website www.ourcityforest.org/volunteers Community Nursery & Training Center
Our City Forest (OCF) operates a nursery for
the general public that offers 250+ species
of largely drought-tolerant trees, shrubs, and
grasses, including many California natives. OCF
cultivates trees from seedlings as well as from
small container stock until the trees are ready
to be planted. OCF promotes tree diversity to
ensure a sustainable, healthy urban forest that
is resilient to pests and disease. An average of
1,500 volunteers assist at the nursery every
year, helping maintain the younger trees and
preparing them for future plantings throughout the community.

The nursery is a valuable regional resource
for the general public as well as for cities
and agencies throughout the South Bay. The
nursery welcomes an average of 2,000 visitors
every year. Anyone can visit the nursery during
open hours, or place a phone or online order
and arrange for curbside pick-up. Open hours
can change, but are typically Thursday, Friday
and Saturdays from 9 AM to noon. Agencies
wishing to source trees through OCF may
schedule an appointment with the nursery
manager during the week. For planning largescale plantings that are scheduled one or two years into the future, OCF can accommodate
contract-grow requests.

During the winter holiday season, OCF also
offers residents and businesses a Rent-AHoliday-Tree program. These often smaller versions of traditional Christmas trees are
returned by renters in January to be cared for
until they are ready for planting.

Nursery tours for neighborhood groups, businesses and others are available by appointment.

For current open hours and curbside pick-up
options, as well as any other questions, please
visit www.ourcityforest.org/nursery.

CHAPTER 7 | OUR CITY FOREST
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 205 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
3-Year Tree Stewardship Program
Any resident, school, business, or agency can
receive a tree from OCF after signing a stewardship agreement to properly water and care for the tree for at least 3 years. This agreement helps ensure that every new tree will be cared for and properly maintained by a steward - whether that is a resident, a teacher, a business owner, or a park manager. Throughout this 3-year establishment period, stewards are also asked to complete and return surveys
to OCF to report on the health of their trees.

OCF also invites stewards to contact OCF via
email or phone with any questions.

This community engagement model for tree
establishment is a best practice. It is the only
economically feasible approach for establishing newly planted trees, given that relying on truck watering by any agency is simply
cost-prohibitive. Investing resources in the
training and ongoing support of residents as
tree stewards not only ensures tree survival,
but also protects the considerable capital and
labor outlay of getting the trees in the ground.

Community engagement is the essential key to
a healthy urban forest.

For more information please visit www.ourcityforest.org/tree-care Community Tree Plantings
The Community Tree Planting program coordinates and oversees tree planting events for neighborhoods, schools, parks, businesses, and
all other public and private properties. The Community Planting team conducts site visits, recommends tree species, obtains planting permits, secures stewardship agreements, discusses the
maintenance plan, and creates planting sitemaps in consultation with tree applicants. Other pre-event tasks include recruiting an adequate
number of volunteers, hand-selecting trees, subcontracting for augering and/or cement-cutting as needed, and arranging for delivery of trees,
stakes, mulch, safety equipment, vests, gloves,
materials and tools. For all plantings, volunteers
are carefully instructed in the proper techniques
for planting, staking, and tool safety.

To request planting services, please visit www.
ourcityforest.org/plant-on-your-street
Parks
Park plantings are essential for a healthy
urban ecosystem and provide an opportunity
to plant trees that may require more space
than is available for trees in residential parking strips. The larger the canopy, the more environmental benefits a tree can provide,
including filtering dangerous air particulates,
managing stormwater, recharging groundwater, and providing habitat for birds and insects.

OCF has granted and planted more than
15,000 15-gallon shade trees in San José parks
using state urban forestry grants. OCF continues to provide free trees when grants are available, relaying these opportunities to the
city, and working closely with parks personnel
to determine potential projects. Species selections, tree locations, and tree care plans are discussed and agreed upon prior to moving
forward.

Trees For All Program
Residents may request trees through OCF for
the street or their yard. When OCF has a state
planting grant available, residents in the eligible area may receive street trees at no cost.

The vast majority of street trees (as well as
parks and schools) planted through OCF have
been provided in this manner.
206 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
To request one or more trees, residents complete an online tree application form which includes a stewardship agreement which also
must be signed. If the resident is a renter, the
property owner must sign the application,
while the renter can sign on as the steward.

Street tree requests can be for replacement
street trees where the resident has been referred to OCF with a planting permit already issued. In other cases, the resident may request OCF to obtain a street tree planting permit.

Residents must have a valid permit in order to
plant in any street location.

OCF works closely with each tree applicant to
determine whether the tree will be planted by
OCF, or if the resident prefers to pick up the
tree at the OCF Community Nursery and attend
the required planting and staking class. Senior
citizens, as well as anyone with a disability, have
always been able to request the cost of planting
waived. Residents are responsible for the care
and maintenance of each tree that is planted
per signed stewardship agreements.

Please visit www.ourcityforest.org/plant-trees for
more information and a tree application form.

Lawn Busters
Lawn Busters is an innovative OCF lawn conversion program for installing drought-tolerant landscapes for residents who meet low income, disabled, veteran, or senior citizen qualifiers. The Lawn Busters program is sponsored, in part, by the Santa Clara Valley Water District
and thus adheres to the District’s rebate program requirements. Lawn Busters was created to address the severe drought by assisting
high-need residents to lower their water use
by replacing thirsty lawns with water-wise gardens. These conversions also create beneficial urban habitats by adding plants which thrive in
Santa Clara Valley’s climate. Plants are sourced
from Our City Forest’s Community Nursery and
hand-selected for residents. For residents who
do not qualify for Lawn Busters, OCF offers a
3-day DIY training course.

To inquire about Lawn Busters, please visit
www.ourcityforest.org/lawnbusters
Planet Tree & Youth Education
Planet Tree is OCF’s popular school program
for elementary and middle school students.

Planet Tree engages our future generation,
especially underserved youth, in environmental topics such as the importance of our urban forest, tree biology, how trees address climate
change, and the meaning of environmental
stewardship. Though this program has been
significantly curtailed in recent years due to
funding challenges, it has managed to reach
more than 40,000 students through nearly
600 school presentations. Educating young
children about trees in cities at a young age
provides a foundation for future community
stewardship. OCF also offers online educational and immersive activities such as neighborhood tree tours, an urban scavenger hunt, pollinator activities, and coloring pages.

For more information about environmental
education opportunites for youth, please visit
www.ourcityforest.org/activities
Urban Forestry Education Center
Our City Forest’s unique outdoor environmental education venue is under development at Martial Cottle County Park in San José. The
Urban Forest Education Center currently
includes a new outdoor education classroom,
an arboretum, a native garden, and a DIY Lawn
CHAPTER 7 | OUR CITY FOREST
CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 207 Tree Policy &
Best Management Practices Manual 3
Busters teaching area. OCF is seeking funding
to add additional features, including an educational greenhouse for propagation workshops, a fruit tree orchard and a rainwater harvesting
system. OCF is committed to raising awareness about the benefits that trees and shrubs provide, all with the goal of emphasizing the
importance of stewardship in order to build
and maintain a healthy urban forest. With its
outdoor demonstration areas, this venue adds
an important dimension to Our City Forest’s
ongoing efforts to engage, inspire and teach.

To learn more about the Education Center and
scheduled events, please visit www.ourcityforest.org/martialcottle OCF Plantings - 20 Years
To view a 7-second animated map showing
locations of trees planted by Our City Forest,
please go to www.ourcityforest.org/
These data are taken from the OCF database
using the longitude and latitude of each planted tree.

CONTACT INFORMATION:

Office Headquarters: 1195 Clark Street, San
José, 95125
Phone: (408) 998-7337
Email: [email protected]
Website: http://www.ourcityforest.org
President & CEO: Rhonda Berry - rberry@
ourcityforest.org
208 | CITY OF SAN JOSÉ COMMUNITY FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Policy & 3 Best Management Practices Manual
RD:MD
8/23/16
City of San José, California

COUNCIL POLICY
TITLE

RIPARIAN CORRIDOR PROTECTION AND

BIRD-SAFE DESIGN
PAGE

Page 1 of 8 ends

San Jose City CouncilFebruary 8, 2022

San Jose City Council
February 8, 2022