Laserfiche WebLink
100 | CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN <br />URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES <br />Table 1-6 compares Pleasanton’s FTEs related to tree <br />management to other Cities of comparable sizes. <br />Pleasanton’s 4.64 FTEs are slightly lower than the average <br />number of FTEs reported by cities of similar size in the 2016 <br />Hauer and Peterson study regarding municipal tree care and <br />management. This can largely be explained by the fact that, <br />like some of the other cities listed in Table 1-6, Pleasanton <br />utilizes contractors for all its street tree maintenance work. <br />It follows that the City only has the equivalent of a few <br />full-time staff to carry out the remaining urban forestry <br />work which includes tree planting and establishment care <br />work throughout the city and tree maintenance work in <br />parks. Pleasanton should continue to track and use their <br />annual tree service data (presented in the next section), to <br />determine if the current number of FTEs and contracted <br />work are sufficient to provide the level of service desired by <br />the City as well as sufficient to achieve future canopy cover <br />goals (discussed in Chapter 2). <br />Table 1-6. Comparison of Municipal Urban Forest Management Staffing <br />California City Population Number of Publicly Managed Trees Number of FTEs related <br />to tree management <br />Pleasanton 74,653 23,348 4.64 <br />Hauer and Peterson 2016b <br />(87 Survey respondents) 50,000 – 99,999 30,036 6.27 <br />Chico 130,178 34,874 9.25 <br />Redding 95,542 20,600 2.58 <br />Oxnard 208,154 48,806 4.57 <br />San Ramon 84,929 45,606 1.0 <br />Temecula 115,202 30,715 0.40