Laserfiche WebLink
aA <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 />Pleasanton <br />74,653 <br />23,348 <br />4.64 <br />Hauer and Peterson 2016b <br />(87 Survey respondents) <br />50,000 - 99,999 <br />30,036 <br />6.27 <br />Chico <br />130,178 <br />34,874 <br />9.25 <br />Redding <br />95,542 <br />20,600 <br />2.58 <br />Oxnard <br />208,154 <br />48,806 <br />4.57 <br />San Ramon <br />84,929 <br />45,606 <br />1.0 <br />Temecula <br />115,202 <br />30,715 <br />0.40 <br />100 1 CITY OF PLEASANTON URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN <br />