Should Richmond protect trees on private property?

Residents of Atchison Village, a neighborhood sandwiched between the Chevron refinery and downtown Richmond, recall a time when their streets were lined with so many trees it could feel like “biking through the woods.” 

Historical planning documents for the village show a neighborhood inundated with trees. Yet today, residents report the population has decreased as some have died and others were cut down, and they’re concerned that this could negatively impact air quality that’s already so burdened by the nearby refinery.

“There’s sort of a group of us who are concerned about the environment,” said Kaylynn Schreve, who has lived there for four years. “We’re also concerned about pollution because, of course, trees absorb some of the industrial pollution that we have, which is a big issue so close to the Chevron refinery.”  

They say too many trees are being unnecessarily chopped down  — a concern given that the city more than a decade ago was found to have a significantly smaller overall canopy than other urban cities. And, they point out that Richmond doesn’t have any laws prohibiting property owners from doing this, setting it apart from nearby cities.  

For example, in May the Oakland City Council fined a North Oakland couple $1 million for cutting down protected trees on their property. 

The fine, which has been called excessive by some Oakland residents, amounts to more than the value of the property itself. Council members who voted yes reasoned that the fine reflects the severity of the ecological consequences of removing 38 old growth coast live oaks and bigleaf maples, an act that will take decades, if not centuries, to repair.  

Council members also emphasized the importance of setting an example by enforcing the law. Under Oakland’s Tree Protection Ordinance, any tree on private property that is over 9 inches in diameter at breast height, excluding eucalyptus and Monterey pine, which are invasive species, is protected. Coast live oaks over 4 inches in diameter at breast height are also protected. 

Oakland residents who wish to remove such trees from their property must apply for a permit from the city. If the city deems they have a valid reason, such as the tree is creating a public safety hazard or blocking important views, they may be allowed to cut it down, with the condition that a native tree is planted in its place.     

In Richmond, while trees on city-owned land are explicitly protected in the municipal code and require a petition of the Recreation and Parks Department superintendent  before they can be removed, tree removal on private property is at the property owner’s discretion. 

Jason Lacy, Richmond’s Parks and Landscaping superintendent, says that the city has governance over “street trees,” trees planted in a public right-of-way. If a tree is dying, damaging infrastructure, or touching utilities such as power lines, they will inspect it for removal. 

“As far as public trees, we do not have protection ordinances, per se,” Lacy told Richmondside. “We do have some governance in the fact that if trees are encroaching into the public right of way, we can govern that they be trimmed out of the right of way. But we do not control the aspect of removal on private property.”  

In San Francisco, a resident must obtain a permit before removing large trees from their property. In Santa Clara, San Bruno, and Contra Costa County, local ordinances protect “heritage trees” – trees determined to have special significance to the community because of reasons such as unique history, girth, height, or species – on private property from being removed without  a permit. In most cases, a replacement tree from an approved species list must be planted in its place. Failure to comply with this process could result in fines of anywhere from $1,000 to $200,000, depending on the type of tree and severity of the offense. 

Atchison Village residents say trees are disappearing

Atchison Village was originally built to house defense workers from the Kaiser Shipyards. But, after the war, the federal government began tearing down its housing stock. In 1956, village residents banded together to buy the property for $1.5 million — equivalent to nearly $18 million today — creating one of the first housing cooperatives in California, where homeowners buy a share of the mutual benefit corporation in exchange for the right to perpetually use their unit. 

The village has its own governing board, made up of 11 residents elected every few years, that creates and enforces policies in the neighborhood. Its tree policy, approved by the board in 2004, established a Tree Committee comprised of village residents and stipulates guidelines for tree removal and maintenance. Similar to Richmond’s policy, trees on private property are not officially protected.

“Trees planted by the Corporation and City of Richmond will be recorded,” the policy states. “All other trees will be assumed to be the responsibility of individual members.”    

Chris Dunaway, president of the Board of Directors in Atchison Village, says that multiple large trees have been cut down by residents in recent years. 

“One beautiful, mature tree was cut in someone’s yard,” Dunaway said. “Not sure why. When I questioned the previous board about it, they were like, ‘Well, it’s in the person’s front yard. 
So you know, we can’t really say anything.’” 

Dunaway would like to see their tree policy strengthened so that this doesn’t happen. 

“We need to have things on the books that would prevent them from just doing that and would require a permit,” Dunaway said. “Basically, many things that happen in the village, there are regulations about… there are certain things that need to have a permit, we need to go out and okay it, things like that. Trees need to be on that list as well.”

In the last year, Schreve has been shocked by the disappearance of large willow and maple trees from her neighbors’ yards. In early July, she witnessed a man take a saw to a maple tree near the entrance to the Village that had been for about 15 years. The tree was not completely removed, but its branches were stripped bare.

“It looks like they were trying to kill it,” Dunaway said. “It doesn’t have any leaves left on it.”

Dunaway and Schreve think that educating the public about the importance of significant and heritage trees is necessary to help preserve them. 

“There’s a lot of tree friendly people here,” Dunaway said. “And then there’s the people who want a tree, but forget to maintain it. They’re like, ‘oh, it’s a tree, it’ll take care of itself.’ When it’s young, it does need some TLC.”

Expanding Richmond’s urban forest requires cooperation between the city and residents

In 2011, Richmond was awarded a Proposition 84 grant from the state to develop an Urban Greening Master Plan. The plan, adopted by the city council in 2017, outlines ways that Richmond can improve its physical landscape, “by identifying opportunities for policy making, programs, and partnerships to grow, maintain, and fund the urban forest through promoting community stewardship.”

It includes a citywide tree inventory, an appendix for urban forest best practices, and a living list of approved street trees for the city. 

The tree inventory, completed in 2013, maps all of the trees on city-owned property and identifies sites where more could be planted. It showed that the city’s tree canopy cover — the area of ground that trees shield when viewed from above — was about 13%, which is less than half the national average for urban areas. Neighborhoods closest to major industrial sites and other pollution sources, including Atchison Village, had the least amount of tree canopy coverage, while those in northeastern Richmond and the hills had the most. 

Aside from aesthetics, healthy, strategically planted trees are essential for wildfire prevention and promote public health and environmental equity. Even though it has fewer trees than many other cities, the plan estimated that Richmond’s urban forest removes roughly 15,000 pounds of pollutants from the air annually. Investing in Richmond’s urban forest may also have financial benefits, according to the report, due to increased property values. Some studies show property value increases of up to 10% in neighborhoods with healthy tree cover. They also reduced public costs associated with high fuel emissions. 

North and East Richmond resident Diane Bloom has been involved with the city’s trees for almost 30 years. As a member of the urban street tree committee, she helped develop Richmond’s street tree program and worked with the city arborist to compile a list of approved species for planting. Bloom is also a member of the Richmond garden club and a docent at three East Bay botanical gardens.  

According to Bloom, there are numerous obstacles to maintaining a healthy urban canopy in Richmond, beginning with a lack of education about how to properly care for trees. 

“With the street tree program, [the city] plants them, then overwaters them or lets them die,” Bloom said. “Nobody knows how to maintain them.” 

She says that education is imperative to getting residents to care about their trees. 

“People don’t understand that trees give you oxygen and property value,” Bloom said. “There should be walks around the neighborhoods with people so they know about our trees, the kids should know. The kids should be watering them.”

Efforts to expand Richmond’s urban canopy

Groundwork Richmond, a nonprofit dedicated to expanding Richmond’s urban canopy, partners with the city to implement an Adopt-A-Tree program which offers free trees to individual residents in Richmond. Those who want a tree planted on their property can apply online, and must agree to care for and water the tree. Residents can also adopt a tree from Richmond Trees, a volunteer-run group, and through the city’s Parks & Landscaping Division.

Mike Parker, who serves on the board in Atchison Village and is a member of the Tree Committee, says that trees that have been planted through Groundwork and Urban Tilth are often not maintained properly. 

“They were all just left to dry up and rot,” Parker said of trees planted in one neighbor’s yard. “And then they had to be taken out.” 

In 2024, Groundwork set out to plant 500 trees along the Richmond Parkway, a major thoroughfare connecting Interstates 580 and 80 that cuts through the city and is a major source of pollution for adjacent neighborhoods, including Atchison Village. That planting project was completed in March.

Lorena Castillo, executive director at Groundwork Richmond, says the nonprofit has planted more than 5,000 trees in and around Richmond over the last 14 years, including at John F. Kennedy Park, Booker T. Anderson Park, Lucas Park, Southside Park and along the Richmond Parkway. On average, she says, they plant about 300 to 400 trees a year. Groundwork has funding to plant an additional 1,000 trees in the Iron Triangle, Santa Fe, and Coronado neighborhoods in the next two years.

“We did apply for additional funding to plant more trees outside of these three neighborhoods, because we recognize that there’s lots of tree planting that can be done outside of just this project area, and there is a need and a want for that,” Castillo said. “So, we’re hoping to get additional funding.”

Because data about the city’s trees has not been collected since the 2013 inventory in 2013, it is difficult to know how the urban canopy has changed. According to Jason Lacy, the city applied for a grant and is getting the necessary contracts to update the data and develop management and maintenance plans.

“And then the last part would be to look at ordinances and governance to review if that needs to be updated also,” Lacy said.

Lacy hopes that the inventory will be completed in the next 18 months or so, at which time arborists will collect data on tree health, species, condition, and whether there is any conflict with existing infrastructure.

The Urban Greening Master Plan outlines goals to achieve a net-zero loss of trees, strengthen protections for significant trees, and designate conservation areas in partnership with environmental agencies. As part of this effort, it recommends updating the city’s tree ordinance to include provisions that recognize and protect significant trees. 

However, these recommendations are aimed at trees on public, city-owned land. They do not address trees on resident’s private property.

Parker says that over the years the Atchison Village Tree Committee has oscillated between periods of activity and inactivity. Right now, it’s experiencing a lull. 

“I walk around the village and a lot of trees are never pruned. They look very sad and misshapen,” said Sylvia Hopkins, a longtime resident of Atchison Village and former member of the tree committee. Hopkins has also witnessed trees being mismanaged and prematurely removed over the years and is concerned by the lack of oversight in the village.

“It breaks your heart when you wake up one day, and the tree is not there,” she said. 

There are many reasons that someone might cut down a tree on their property – maybe it’s diseased or dying, it’s dropping leaves or sap on their car, they want to free up space to expand their driveway, or its roots are risking damage to the foundation of their home. These reasons may be valid, but without a permit process, there is no one to evaluate whether the tree does indeed need to come down. 

“Trees give beauty… they also shield from the wind that comes in off the bay, are beautification, and provide oxygen,” Hopkins said. “It just makes a better environment if you have some trees.”