10 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
1.4 Our Strategy for the Future:
An Urban Forest Management Plan
An urban forest management plan (UFMP) is a strategic road map and guiding document that the City will use to set and achieve urban forest goals over the next 30 years. The planning process involved a comprehensive analysis of existing conditions, identification of key challenges and opportunities, and the development of actionable goals to support long-term sustainability and the resilience of Hanford’s urban forest. While the City has long demonstrated a commitment to tree planting and canopy enhancement, the creation of this UFMP represents the first comprehensive effort to align policies, staffing, and field practices under a unified strategy.
1.5 Why Hanford Needs a UFMP
New Period of Transformation
Hanford is entering a period of significant transformation. With major public projects on the horizon such as the creation of the new Heroes Park, upgrades to East Lacey Boulevard, and the construction of the California High-Speed Rail station, the City is preparing for increased regional prominence, enhanced connectivity, and long-term economic and community growth. These developments present a unique opportunity at this crucial time to shape Hanford’s future and establish new tree canopy in a way that is resilient, equitable, and community focused.
Equitable access to tree canopy is a critical issue for Hanford’s urban forest. Although trees provide essential benefits such as shade, cooling, and improved air quality, these benefits are not shared evenly across the city. The areas with the least canopy are often the same places where residents face higher levels of poverty, greater exposure to summer heat, and limited access to shaded public spaces.
These conditions are most evident in central, south, and southeast Hanford, where tree cover is sparse and large areas of pavement and buildings leave residents more vulnerable to extreme heat (see Figure 1-8). In contrast, neighborhoods in north and west Hanford have more established tree cover and greater access to shade.
This uneven distribution creates disparities in comfort, health, and livability across the community.
The UFMP provides an opportunity to address these inequities by guiding tree planting and canopy investment in neighborhoods where they are needed most. The City can reduce heat-related risks, improve quality of life, and ensure that all residents benefit from the protection and services provided by a healthy urban forest by focusing on areas with limited canopy and higher social vulnerability.
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 11
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1-8. 2022 Canopy Cover by Census Tract
Source: Dudek 2025
12 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
Environmental Threats
Trees in cities face many challenges including environmental stressors and those caused by people. In Hanford, some of the environmental threats for trees include extreme heat, drought, and high boron levels in the soil. These conditions, intensified by climate change, make urban trees more susceptible to water stress, pests, diseases, and other emerging threats. Invasive insects, fungal pathogens, and shifting weather patterns can weaken tree health and shorten lifespans, often necessitating removal to protect public safety and infrastructure. Each tree lost diminishes the vital benefits they provide including cooling shade, cleaner air, and a healthier, more livable city. This plan helps the City to identify potential threats, evaluate risks they present, and develop strategies to enhance resiliency.
Mitigating Impacts of a Hotter Future Climate
Hanford’s trees are a crucial component in reducing the impact of the predicted hotter future climate. People in Hanford are already experiencing persistent extreme heat in the summers with average temperatures regularly exceeding 90°F and often remaining in the triple digits for several consecutive days. Other climate and health risks include drought, localized flooding, and poor air quality.
These issues are expected to increase in the future according to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment (Cayan 2018). Trees will be vital in mitigating these impacts and protecting Hanford’s current and future community members from these environmental stressors by providing shade and cooler temperatures on hot summer days, reducing the urban heat island effect (Figure 1-9), and improving air quality. At the same time, Hanford’s trees will also need more support from City staff and private property owners over the summer to ensure they are receiving enough water during those extreme heat days. The UFMP provides planting recommendations for drought-tolerant tree species, as well as recommended management actions to help the City better prepare and maintain the existing trees for climate-related challenges, ensuring they stay healthy for a long time.
Management
Urban forest management in Hanford has historically been implemented without a dedicated International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist on staff and with limited documentation of tree-related activities. Tree maintenance practices vary between City crews and contractors, highlighting the need for clear standards and guidance. These conditions have shaped a program that is responsive in addressing immediate needs yet limited in its ability to plan proactively or evaluate long-term outcomes. Despite these challenges, City staff and leadership have shown a clear interest in strengthening the program.
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 13
INTRODUCTION
Figure 1-9. Urban Heat Island Effect
Source: EPA 2019, 2020
14 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
Many residents are unaware of the City’s Trees and Shrubs Ordinance and their responsibilities related to caring for trees in the public right-of-way. Parkway tree maintenance is largely the responsibility of adjacent property owners, which reduces City tree management costs, but also creates other issues such as deferred care, occasional unpermitted removals, and community frustration related to the responsibility of maintaining City-planted trees. The UFMP helps clarify roles, improve communication, and support more coordinated stewardship across public and private landscapes.
Funding constraints further complicate the City’s ability to manage and grow its urban forest. With limited resources, it is essential to prioritize actions that deliver measurable value, including reduced liability, improved public safety, and long-term cost savings. Targeted efforts are needed to ensure City resources are consistently applied and responsive to emerging challenges, including extreme heat, declining canopy, and increasing development pressure. Despite the many challenges, the City is taking proactive steps to ensure the foundational elements of their urban forestry program are in place. As part of this UFMP effort, the City is in the process of making updates to the Ordinance to clarify tree maintenance responsibilities, replanting requirements, and penalties; they developed a tree inventory and workflow management system for all publicly managed trees; and they have started to build partnerships with community organizations and schools for future tree planting efforts. This plan represents a practical step forward in improving Hanford’s urban forest. It is designed to help the City manage its trees with greater clarity, consistency, and purpose. By investing in thoughtful planning, the City can build a healthier, safer, and more resilient urban forest that reflects the values and needs of its community members. For a deeper dive into the analysis and recommendations for the City’s urban forest management program, see Appendix B, Urban Forest Management Staffing and Budget Report.
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 15
INTRODUCTION
2 UFMP KEY FINDINGS
AND PLANNING PROCESS
2 UFMP KEY FINDINGS
AND PLANNING PROCESS
2.1 UFMP Key Findings
and Planning Process
The City lost 140 acres of tree canopy between
2018 and 2022.#1
#2
The City would benefit from a maintenance management
system for tree-related work
#3
Current staffing levels restrict the City’s ability to plant trees and maintain the urban forest
#4
Residents of Hanford recognize the collaborative
nature of planting and caring for trees.
#5
Community members have limited awareness and
understanding of the City’s Trees and
Shrubs Ordinance.
The development of this
UFMP involved a thorough
assessment of the City’s
urban forest resources,
policies, and practices.
The following key
findings highlight critical
strengths, challenges, and
opportunities that emerged
through data analysis,
field observations, and
stakeholder input.
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 17
18 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS18 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
Key Finding #2
The City would benefit from a
maintenance management system
for tree-related work.
Without work record data, the City is not able to accurately determine how much they annually spend on the services they provide for tree planting, establishment care, tree pruning, removals, and other management actions. Understanding costs for each tree service metric and management activity is essential for the City to create annual budgets and project its future budgetary needs. This would also clarify how staff and contractor time is spent, determine where resources should be prioritized to better manage the urban forest, and determine whether the City efficiently completes urban forest management related tasks.
Key Finding #1
The City lost 140 acres of tree
canopy between 2018 and 2022.
Tree canopy cover within Hanford’s urban boundary declined from 905 acres in 2018 to 765 acres in 2022, reducing overall cover from
9.5% to 8.0%. This reduction of 140 acres is equivalent to losing approximately 106 football fields of tree cover. Private parcels accounted for the largest change, losing 138 acres of canopy.
Public parcels gained 1 acre during this time, while canopy in streetscapes, medians, and other areas outside the parcel dataset declined by 3 acres. The full canopy cover and public tree inventory analyses can be found in Appendix A.
This trend shows that canopy is being lost faster than it is being replaced, especially on private property where the majority (82%) of Hanford’s trees are located. Protecting and expanding the canopy will require property owners to play a central role, supported by City policies, incentives, outreach, and continued investment in public trees and partnerships.
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 19
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESSCITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 19
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
Key Finding #3
Current staffing levels restrict the City’s
ability to plant trees and maintain the
urban forest.
The City has historically faced a combination of limited funding for staff positions and difficulties in consistently filling the existing positions. This challenge impacts the City’s ability to proactively plant trees, provide sufficient irrigation, conduct routine maintenance, and implement strategic initiatives. To address staffing limitations in the short term, the City should prioritize tree trimming and removals and take advantage of new development projects to increase tree planting, supplemented by grant funding.
The City has set a goal to strengthen the urban forestry program through the addition of a dedicated urban forester and field staff team that would manage the City’s public tree services, tree contractor services, and the implementation of the UFMP Strategic Plan. The City is currently working on identifying additional sources of funding through grants and other financial sources (see Section 3.4.1) to help in filling the staffing positions that were recommended as part of Appendix B. The City is also working on building partnerships with community organizations to create opportunities for volunteer- led urban forest improvement efforts. Municipal programs with certified arborists and sufficient field crews consistently demonstrate improved canopy health, reduced public safety liabilities, and more equitable service delivery, resulting in a more resilient urban forest.
20 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS20 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
Key Finding #4
Residents of Hanford recognize the
collaborative nature of planting and
caring for trees.
During the community engagement phase of the UFMP, both survey participants and several attendees of the Thursday Night Market events shared that residents understand the City cannot completely maintain all of Hanford’s trees by themselves.
While some residents voiced financial concerns about caring for trees, several others said they would like to understand how they can help with the effort of maintaining trees in Hanford for the benefit of their community. Hanford residents and the City have demonstrated that they care for trees and are willing to take proactive measures to ensure there are sufficient funds and partnerships in place to grow and maintain Hanford’s trees. This is evident with the passing of local Measure H, which includes funds for park improvements, as well as the with City applying for and being awarded an Urban and Community Forestry grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service under the Inflation Reduction Act (administered by Green Latinos). This grant is supporting this UFMP effort and the planting of 600 new trees in Hanford. The City has also taken steps to support ongoing efforts to improve the City’s urban forest by building partnerships with a wide range of urban forestry experts and community organizations like Kings County Action Organization, the Urban Tree Foundation, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and Tree Fresno. The City is committed to ongoing outreach efforts after the completion of the UFMP to inform and educate the community on how they can best help grow and maintain City trees.
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 21
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESSCITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 21
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
Key Finding #5
Community members have limited
awareness and understanding of the
City’s Trees and Shrubs Ordinance.
The City’s Ordinance places the responsibility of right-of-way tree maintenance on the adjacent property owner. Many community members are not aware of this policy, resulting in trees not receiving proper care. The City has acknowledged that more can be done to educate and inform residents and business owners on the specifics of the Ordinance. This has been identified as a top priority for the next several years. The Ordinance was reviewed and provided recommended updates during the UFMP process to improve clarity on ordinance definitions, City versus property owner responsibilities, replanting requirements, and penalties for unauthorized tree removals. A full summary of the ordinance updates can be found in Appendix C, Hanford Trees and Shrubs Ordinance Recommended Updates Summary.
An Urban Tree Care Guide (see Figure 2-1) has been created to provide information to community members in Hanford on how to plant, water, maintain, and prune residential trees. This guide also provides an information page summarizing the key facts from the Ordinance, tree maintenance responsibilities for property owners, a recommended list of climate-appropriate tree species for Hanford, and a guide to ensure the “right tree” is planted in the “right place.”
Figure 2-1. Urban Tree Care Guide
22 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
2.2 Plan Dev elopment Process
The City kicked off the UFMP project in October 2024 with a tree planting celebration called “Hanford Goes Green” after receiving the previously mentioned Urban and Community Forestry grant. In December 2024, the City hired the environmental consultant Dudek, and the first UFMP project meeting was held in January 2025. The City’s parks and community services director, parks manager, and community relations manager were the main staff responsible for overseeing the UFMP’s development and provided important insights into the City’s urban forestry practices, as well as the specific City standard documents and other datasets that were crucial for analysis. These City staff also coordinated with internal and external stakeholders and co-hosted community engagement events, which shed light on the community’s interactions and perspective around City trees. The following sections detail the analysis, community engagement activities, and processes involved in developing the UFMP .
2.2.1 U rban Forest Resource Assessment
Public Tree Inventory
Tree inventory data were collected between April and July 2025 for all 7,245 City-managed sites, including along sidewalks, medians, parks, City facilities, and boundaries of Landscape Assessment Districts. An accurate inventory helps determine the current condition and environmental benefits of City trees and inform management recommendations.
Canopy Cover Analysis
Existing canopy cover data from 2022 and 2018, created by the U.S. Forest Service and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, were analyzed to identify total area covered by tree canopy from both City trees and private property trees. This analysis determined the level of change in the City’s tree canopy cover over time and was used to establish a canopy cover goal for the City.
See Appendix A for the full tree inventory and canopy cover analysis and methodology.
2.2.2 U rban Forest Management Assessment
A comprehensive review was conducted of Hanford’s urban forestry program and related plans, policies, and ordinances to better understand the effectiveness of City tree management. This review included analyses of urban forest funding, staffing policy and procedure manuals, municipal plans, tree ordinances, design guidelines, and planning documents. Understanding current City efforts and the effectiveness of existing City programs and policies provides a baseline in which to measure the success of new urban forestry practices in meeting future urban forest goals. City staff
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 23
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
interviews and a comprehensive budget and urban forest metrics analysis was used to discover trends and gaps that informed the funding and urban forest management program recommendations in Appendix B.
2.2.3 A ligning Urban Forest Goals with
Existing City Goals
Policies and Ordinances
Municipal Code Chapter 12.12, Trees and Shrubs Ordinance, was reviewed and provided recommended updates as part of the UFMP process. The recommend updates clarify tree protection standards, tree maintenance responsibilities, replacement requirements, fees, and the tree removal permit process. It was also provided recommended updates to align with International Society of Arboriculture best management practices.
Planning
The City’s General Plan and Parks Master Plan were reviewed for the development process to ensure the UFMP directly supports these plans and provides updated urban forestry and tree-related information that should be incorporated as these plans are updated. The full plan review can be found in Appendix D, City Document Review.
2.2.4 U nderstanding Hanford’s Urban Forest
Values and Perspectives
City Staff Interviews
City staff from various departments were interviewed to further inform the urban forest analysis (Table 2-1). Gathering input from various departments that impact urban forestry illuminated the core values of the community and informed key development processes of the UFMP . The City departments and staff positions that took part in the interviews are listed in Table 2-1.
24 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
Table 2-1. Department Interview Participants
Department Position
Parks and Community Services Parks and Community Services Director Community Relations Manager
Community Relations Community Relations Manager
Community Development Deputy City Manager
Public Works Public Works Director
Utilities and Engineering Utilities and Engineering Department Director Utilities and Engineering Associate Engineer
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 25
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
Community Engagement
Community engagement was a crucial step to understanding the perspective and values of Hanford’s community. Outreach for the UFMP began in April 2025, with community members being engaged in the following ways:
• An online, tree-related community survey (69 responses total) • Tabling at community events including one Easter egg hunt event and two Thursday Night Markets in Civic Park with educational posters describing tree benefits, desired future tree planting locations, tree ordinance information, and a QR code linking to the tree survey.
• Hanford’s UFMP webpage (https://www.cityofhanfordca.
com/1594/Urban-Forest-Management-Plan), detailing project updates, public meeting and UFMP review notifications, and other community resources.
• Social media outreach through City channels (Instagram, Facebook, and NextDoor).
• An Urban Forest Informational Open House hosted in February 2026 to inform attendees on the UFMP key findings, goals, and recommended actions, as well as to gather general feedback on the Strategic Plan and the recommended updates to the Trees and Shrubs Ordinance (10 attendees).
• A working group made up of various local organizations and community members who helped craft the vision statement and guiding principles for the Strategic Plan (3 meetings, 12 members)
Working Group
The consultant team formed a working group of various community stakeholders (Table 2-2) that met three times during the plan development process. The three meetings provided an opportunity for the consultant team to relay key findings to the working group, get feedback on the draft plan, and discuss and prioritize strategies and actions for addressing current issues and achieving Hanford’s future urban forestry goals. The result was the creation of the UFMP’s vision statement, guiding principles, and the strategic, implementation, and monitoring plans.
26 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
Table 2-2. Working Group Participants
Participant Organization/Affiliation
Bradley Albert City of Hanford
Brian Johnson City of Hanford
Kevin Cullinen Dudek
Kanami Otani Dudek
Joe Castaneda Hanford Parks and Recreation Commission
Victor Rosa Hanford Joint Union High School District
Daniel Pierotte Hanford Elementary School District
Todd Barlow Kings County Office of Education
Jeff Garner Kings County Action Organization
Marilyn Castaneda Kings Partnership
Carson DeBlieck Resident and Community Champion
Greg Mendonsa Urban Tree Foundation
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 27
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
28 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Master Plan 3 STRATEGIC PLAN
3 STRATEGIC PLAN
3.1 VISION
Hanford’s trees are a valuable resource, sustainably
managed by the City and its residents, providing shade from heat and cleaner air to breathe, increasing property values, and enhancing the quality of life for current and future generations.
STRATEGIC PLAN
The Hanford UFMP Strategic Plan provides the specific goals and actions it will take to achieve the City’s future vision. The Implementation Plan (Section 3.4) prioritizes these actions and assigns an associated cost, who is responsible for completing the action, and a method of measurement to determine successful completion. The Monitoring Plan (Section 3.5) is the long-term strategy the City will take to periodically assess whether it is successfully progressing towards its urban forest goals. The following strategic plan has been developed to guide the growth and management of Hanford’s urban forest over the next 30 years.
3.2 Guiding Principles
The Guiding Principles described in Table 3-1 are themes that represent the core values and long-term vision for Hanford’s urban forest. These principles serve as a foundation for shaping the goals and strategies of the UFMP, ensuring that all actions align with the community’s aspirations for a healthy, resilient, and sustainable urban forest. Each Guiding Principle has associated goals and actions listed in Section 3.3.
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 31
STRATEGIC PLAN
Table 3-1. Guiding Principles
Guiding
Principle Guiding Principle Description This Principle Emphasizes A resilient and
sustainable
urban forest
The City will cultivate a resilient and sustainable urban forest by prioritizing science-based planning, climate-adapted tree species, and the consistent application of arboricultural best practices. Long- term success will be supported by stable and sufficient funding, proactive maintenance, and a commitment to continuous learning and innovation. Hanford’s urban forest will be managed as a living infrastructure that is essential to the health, safety, and well-being of current and future generations.
• Resilience through climate-appropriate and
diverse species
• Sustainability via long-term investment and planning
• Professionalism through adherence to best practices
• Infrastructure mindset, treating trees as vital assets • Future-readiness through innovation and adaptability
Community-
centered
stewardship
Urban forest management should be rooted in inclusive, transparent, and ongoing community engagement. The City is committed to empowering residents with accessible information, meaningful opportunities for participation, and a responsive planning process that reflects the diverse values, needs, and aspirations of its community members. Decisions will be guided not only by arboricultural and technical expertise but also by the lived experiences and voices of the community.
• Shared responsibility between the City and
the community
• Transparency in decision-making
• Accessibility of information
• Inclusivity in participation
• Responsiveness to community input
• Integration of community values with urban forest goals A connected and
healthy Hanford
The City will foster a connected and healthy community by ensuring equitable access to trees and green spaces that support walking, biking, and outdoor activity. Urban forest planning will be integrated with pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to promote physical and mental well-being. While the City leads in designing inclusive pathways, parks, and other public spaces, residents and businesses will be empowered as stewards of the street trees that enhance neighborhood vitality and livability.
• Equity in access to green infrastructure
• Integration of trees with active transportation networks • Health and wellness as core outcomes of urban forestry • Connectivity both physical and social, through parks, green spaces, and corridors
1 2
3
32 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRATEGIC PLAN
Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest Action
No. Action Time
Frame* Cost Responsible
Party Method of Measurement
GOAL 1.1 - Achieve urban forest sustainability indicators for tree species diversity, age distribution, health condition, and relative performance index by 2056.
1.1A
Increase tree species diversity through future
plantings by prioritizing alternative tree species
to the City’s most commonly planted species
which currently include Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis), Chinese hackberry (Celtis
sinensis), London plane (Platanus x hispanica),
and crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica).
Short
(ongoing) $$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Short-term: Percentage of new tree species
planted that are not in the five most common
species of the 2025 inventory. Long-term:
Achieving an inventory where no one species
represents more than 10% of the overall
inventory.
1.1B
Every 5 years, complete an analysis of the
City's public tree inventory to measure progress
towards urban forest sustainability indicators
of species diversity, age distribution, health
condition, and relative performance index.
Medium $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Achieving urban forest sustainability indicators
such as a City-managed tree inventory
comprising no more than 10% of one species
and 20% of one genus. The top six most
common species in the inventory will have a
relative performance index of 1 or better.
3.3 Goals, Actions, and Implementation Plan
The three Guiding Principles are used to categorize the goals of the strategic plan. The goals reflect what the City wants to achieve for each guiding principle. The actions are the specific steps it will take to achieve each goal, and the time frame prioritizes when the action is expected to be completed (see Tables 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4).
1 Table 3-2. Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 33
STRATEGIC PLAN
1 Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest Action
No. Action Time
Frame* Cost Responsible
Party Method of Measurement
GOAL 1.1 - Achieve urban forest sustainability indicators for tree species diversity, age distribution, health condition, and relative performance index by 2056.
1.1C
As trees age and require replacement
and as new parks and public spaces are
developed, plant available tree sites with
climate appropriate species identified in the
Recommended Species List with the goal of
planting the right tree in the right place.
Long $$$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services/
Streets Division
100% of all new City-planted trees are from the
recommended species list.
GOAL 1.2 - Develop the financial and human resources necessary to effectively manage the urban forest and implement the UFMP.
1.2A
Accurately record program expenses by
management actions to develop annual
program budgets that will need to progressively
increase over time as more trees are added to
the inventory.
Short
(ongoing) $$$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Annual funding should include additional
resources for tree maintenance, arborist review
for planning and development, implementation
of the updated tree ordinance, and an expanded
tree planting program over and above current
funding levels. Funding may also go to a new
position for an urban forest manager.
1.2B
Maintain an updated inventory using tree
management software to accurately document
tree plantings, removals, pruning, and other
maintenance.
Short
(ongoing) $$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Maintaining an updated inventory where tree
inventory information is no more than 5 years
old.
1 Table 3-2. Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest
34 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRATEGIC PLAN
Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest Action
No. Action Time
Frame* Cost Responsible
Party Method of Measurement
GOAL 1.2 - Develop the financial and human resources necessary to effectively manage the urban forest and implement the UFMP.
1.2C
Develop an invoicing and reporting template for
contractors to better track tree service metrics
in Landscape Assessment Districts and other
areas where tree contractors are utilized.
Short $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Development of a contract template for
tree contractors that has invoice reporting
requirements to provide information on tree
services metrics.
1.2D
Create and fill the position of an urban
forest manager, an International Society
of Arboriculture Certified Arborist who will
coordinate with all City departments in
implementation of the UFMP , urban forestry
programming, and community engagement
efforts, including finding and applying for
grants, educating the public, and coordinating
with non-profits.
Medium $$$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Filling the urban forest manager position.
1.2E
Explore potential partnerships with
schools, non-profits, and community-based
organizations to apply for urban forestry-
related grant funding (e.g., Kings County
Action Organization, Tree Fresno, Urban Tree
Foundation) to establish more trees on schools
and private property in Hanford.
Medium $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Number of dollars of funding secured, or
partnerships built with schools, CBOs, and non-
profits. Number of new trees planted on schools
and private property.
1 Table 3-2. Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 35
STRATEGIC PLAN
Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest Action
No. Action Time
Frame* Cost Responsible
Party Method of Measurement
GOAL 1.2 - Develop the financial and human resources necessary to effectively manage the urban forest and implement the UFMP.
1.2F
Partner with local service groups (e.g., rotary
clubs, Elk Lodge, religious groups) to secure
sponsorships (e.g., Adventist Health) for urban
tree work and increasing tree planting on
private property.
Long $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Number of sponsorships secured, total number
of dollars secured from those sponsorships, or
number of new trees planted on private property.
Note: *
Short: Years 1–2
Medium: Years 3–5
Long: Years 5–10+
Ongoing: Actions that should continue to be implemented once completed.
Cost: $ = Low ($0–$15,000), $$ = Medium ($15,000–$50,000), $$$ = High ($50,000–$100,000). 1 Table 3-2. Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest
36 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRATEGIC PLAN
Guiding Principle No. 2: Community-Centered Stewardship Action
No. Action Time
Frame* Cost Responsible
Party Method of Measurement
GOAL 2.1 - By 2036, engage at least 50% of residents through outreach and informational efforts on the City's UFMP and updated Trees and Shrubs Ordinance. Engage with a population representative of all residential types and demographics within the City.
2.1A
Table at a minimum of two community events
(Thursday Night Market, National Night Out,
etc.) annually with information about the
benefits of the City's urban forest and/or an
update on the implementation status of the
UFMP . Inform residents how they can get
involved in the urban forest.
Short
(ongoing) $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Number of events where the City tabled with
UFMP information, or number of community
members that stopped by the table.
2.1B
In addition to having resources on the City's
website, create and distribute informational
materials like the Urban Tree Care Guide with
recommended drought-tolerant and other
climate appropriate species for private property
to hand out at commonly attended public
events.
Short $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Number of new drought-tolerant species planted
on private property.
2.1C
Host five in-person and/or virtual workshops
over the next 5 years to inform and educate
residents on the updated Trees and Shrubs
Ordinance and the tree maintenance
responsibilities of private property owners, with
a target of reaching at least 200 people.
Medium $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Number of residents who attended information
events.
2 Table 3-3. Guiding Principle No. 2: Community-Centered Stewardship
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 37
STRATEGIC PLAN
Guiding Principle No. 2: Community-Centered Stewardship Action
No. Action Time
Frame* Cost Responsible
Party Method of Measurement
GOAL 2.1 - By 2036, engage at least 50% of residents through outreach and informational efforts on the City's UFMP and updated Trees and Shrubs Ordinance. Engage with a population representative of all residential types and demographics within the City.
2.1D
Provide educational information to
commercial property owners on the benefits
of trees for businesses, to encourage
commercial property owners to plant and
maintain trees.
Short
(ongoing) $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Informational materials developed and
number of commercial property owners that
plant new trees.
GOAL 2.2 - Residents will plant at least 2,200 trees on private property by 2056.
2.2A
Purchase, or partner with a utility (e.g.,
Southern California Edison), to give away up
to 40 shade trees per year with tree planting
and care information resources at tree
giveaway events.
Short
(ongoing) $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services/
Private
Residents
Number of trees given away and planted on
private property. Promotion of appropriate
species to plant under utilities.
Note: *
Short: Years 1–2
Medium: Years 3–5
Long: Years 5–10+
Ongoing: Actions that should continue to be implemented once completed.
Cost: $ = Low ($0–$15,000), $$ = Medium ($15,000–$50,000), $$$ = High ($50,000–$100,000). 2 Table 3-3. Guiding Principle No. 2: Community-Centered Stewardship
38 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRATEGIC PLAN
Guiding Principle No. 3: A Connected and Healthy Hanford Action
No. Action Time
Frame* Cost Responsible
Party Method of Measurement
GOAL 3 - Maintain and grow a healthy and diverse urban forest to bring the City-wide canopy cover to 10% by 2056 and increase equitable access to greenspace for residents. 3A
Annually plant 52 trees (in addition to planting
replacement trees for any removals) on City-
owned land and right -of-way. Fill all 600
City-managed viable tree planting sites that are
currently vacant or occupied by a stump and
identify other planting locations to create more
tree-lined streets throughout Hanford. Utilize
tree inventory management software to identify
and prioritize viable tree planting locations
and incorporate new viable sites into the tree
inventory.
Medium
(ongoing) $$$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services /
Streets Division
Number of new trees planted by 2030 and 2055.
Number of vacant viable tree planting sites filled.
City-wide canopy cover achieved.
3B
Provide a 3-year establishment care period
for all newly planted trees. If it is too costly,
explore other methods for watering trees such
as through the use of volunteers or irrigation
improvements.
Medium
(ongoing) $$$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Number of trees provided a 3-year establishment
care period.
3 Table 3-4. Guiding Principle No. 3: A Connected and Healthy Hanford
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 39
STRATEGIC PLAN
Guiding Principle No. 3: A Connected and Healthy Hanford Action
No. Action Time
Frame* Cost Responsible
Party Method of Measurement
GOAL 3 - Maintain and grow a healthy and diverse urban forest to bring the City-wide canopy cover to 10% by 2056 and increase equitable access to greenspace for residents (Continued). 3C
Prioritize City tree planting and establishment
care resources to census tracts with the lowest
canopy cover and highest tree priority planting
index scores as established in the UFMP .
Medium
(ongoing) $$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Achieve at least 10% canopy cover in all census
tracts by 2055. Measure city-wide and census
tract canopy cover every 5 years using the latest
published U.S. Forest Service canopy cover data,
found here: https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/
rastergateway/treecanopycover/.
3D
Establish new, tree-lined pedestrian and
bicycle pathways throughout Hanford, such
as along the People's Ditch or as part of the
Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail Station and Cross
Valley Corridor Rail Service Planning Project, to
encourage non-vehicle modes of transportation
and interconnectivity between neighborhoods.
Long) $$$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Each year, determine the number of new trees
planted along new pedestrian and bicycle
pathways.
Note: *
Short: Years 1–2
Medium: Years 3–5
Long: Years 5–10+
Ongoing: Actions that should continue to be implemented once completed.
Cost: $ = Low ($0–$15,000), $$ = Medium ($15,000–$50,000), $$$ = High ($50,000–$100,000). 3 Table 3-4. Guiding Principle No. 3: A Connected and Healthy Hanford
40 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRATEGIC PLAN
3.3.1 Bu dgeting to Achieve Hanford’s
Urban Forest Goals
Limitations of the Funding Data
The current urban forest program budget (estimated to be around $175,000 annually as of 2024) is based on rough estimates of in-house labor costs for tree-related services that were provided by the Parks and Community Services department, as well as a rough estimate for the portion of landscape assessment district fees that pay for contracted tree work in those districts. These expenditures come from a mix of general funds and landscape assessment district fees. There is a large gap in work records, especially for tree services in landscape assessment districts, where half of the City-managed trees are located. This creates uncertainty about how much the City spends on tree-related work, which impacts the accuracy of the projected funding gap between the current urban forestry funding and the amount of funding needed to reach the 10% canopy cover goal. Moving forward, the City should focus on creating a consistent and detailed work records system that will also be used by contractors so that all urban forestry-related services are documented accurately each month. This will enable the City to create more accurate cost projections for their urban forest program needs. The following provides a framework for how the City should prioritize existing funds but does not provide estimates for budgetary increases.
Program Impacts To Achieve 10% City-Wide Canopy Cover
Increasing canopy cover within the City is an endeavor that will require a combined public and private effort from the City and community members. For Hanford to increase canopy cover on a city-wide basis from its current level (8%) to its future 10% goal, approximately 3,750 new trees will need to be planted over the next 30 years. When accounting for the average of 25 City trees that die and need to be replaced every year, the total number of trees needed to be planted increases to roughly 4,500 trees. It is expected that the City could take on the planting for just over half of these new trees (a total of 2,300 trees), while the remaining 2,200 trees would be planted on private property as described below:
30-year Total for City: 2,300 trees
• 26 trees per year planted in existing vacant sites by the City (800 total)
• 25 new tree sites created or identified and planted by the City per year (750 total)
• 25 trees planted per year as a replacement for a dead tree by the City (750 total)
30-year Total for Non-City Planted Trees: 2,200 trees
• 40 trees per year purchased by the City or partnering organizations and given away to the community to be planted
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 41
STRATEGIC PLAN
on private property (1,200 total)
• 11 trees per year planted by private residents outside of the tree giveaways (330 total)
• 15 trees per year planted and maintained through new
development projects (450 total)
• 7 trees per year planted and maintained by schools in Hanford (210 total)
Budgeting For The Urban Forest Program
Based on the above and when excluding replacement trees, the City will need to plant approximately 1,550 new trees towards the goal.
However, the City currently has a grant that is paying for the planting and establishment care of 600 new trees, will progress the City over a third of the way toward their tree planting goal and leave 950 new trees to be planted. The City has demonstrated that it can be successful in applying for and receiving grant funds that can support tree planting, establishment care, and the creation of new tree wells. As such, it would be practical for the City to continue to seek additional grant funds to pay for the material costs, planting, and establishment of the remaining 950 trees. This approach would reduce the need for the City to use general funds to cover the costs for the tree planting effort and could likely be completed on a much shorter time scale like ten years, which would ultimately save the City money.
The City should then prioritize its annual urban forestry budget, allocated from the general fund and landscape assessment district fees, for the planting of replacement trees and the watering and establishment care needed. Further cost savings on watering and establishment care can be achieved by planting trees in locations with existing irrigation. The City will also need to budget for the purchase of approximately 40 trees a year to be given away to community members to plant on private property.
This per tree cost is much lower than City planting costs as it would likely only include purchasing 5-gallon size container trees and the staff time to coordinate distribution. The combination of using grant funds for new tree planting efforts (including outreach to encourage tree planting on private property), and using City funds to plant replacement trees and give away trees to the community will minimize the overall budget impact for the City to achieve its canopy cover goal.
The influx of 600 trees over the next two years, as well as any future influx from an accelerated grant funded tree planting program, will increase the number of trees the City will need to prune, monitor, and remove. Those trees will need structural pruning in the first three to five years after planting. After that, they will have to be accounted for in the regular pruning and maintenance cycle of the City managed tree inventory. In total, planting 1,550 new trees will increase the total City managed trees by approximately 24%, which could provide a baseline for the potential long-term increase in funding for the urban forest program.
42 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRATEGIC PLAN
3.3.2 F unding Methods to Achieve the City’s
Urban Forest Goals
The City needs to allocate and enhance their annual urban forestry budget to effectively manage their urban forest and achieve their urban forestry goals. Assessment districts, taxes, and administrative fees related to urban forestry; local, state, and federal grant programs; departmental partnerships; and community resources are methods commonly used in urban forestry to enhance or supplement operational budgets (Appendix G, Potential Funding Sources).
The City has limited yet various methods to explore when enhancing their urban forestry budget. For example, fees, taxes, and assessments are a common funding mechanism; however, the City recently passed Measure H, which includes allocated funding for the City’s parks. Due to this recent measure, requesting additional funding through this mechanism may not be of interest to the community or City leadership. Establishing administrative fees within the urban forestry program such as permit fees and ordinance violation penalties should be explored. These methods may allow the City to recover costs associated with urban forest management. When fees are set at a reasonable cost, effective communication regarding the administrative burdens associated with these tasks may establish an understanding by community members of the necessity of these fees. Working with internal City departments such as the water provider, streets, and risk reduction may allow for collaborative funding opportunities for community engagement efforts or maintenance tasks that meet the goals of internal departments such as large-scale tree and infrastructure conflict resolution.
Hanford’s urban forest is a community asset that provides benefits such as cleaner air and water, shade, lower temperatures, and stormwater mitigation, which is often recognized by community members.
Community groups, individuals, and businesses may be open to sponsoring a tree planting event or volunteering their time to plant trees in public areas. These community partners can enhance urban forest advocacy, can allow the public to engage with urban forestry efforts, and can be included as a match component for grant projects, while supporting the engagement goals of the City.
Community groups are typically interested in funding tree planting events or sponsoring refreshments for volunteer planting but typically are not interested in funding new tree watering or mature tree pruning, which are often included in operational budgets.
Volunteers and their commitments are not guaranteed, and the City should enhance their operational budgets without relying on potential volunteers or sponsorship opportunities. However, long-term contracts with urban forestry and other community organizations to engage community members is a successful method used by other municipalities to creatively fund urban forestry efforts. These organizations can employ Hanford residents, not employed by the City, who are interested in community engagement efforts. These partners can provide educational
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 43
STRATEGIC PLAN
canvassing for tree adoption, seek corporate sponsorships, and host educational workshops in partnership with the City but hosted by the organization. This method establishes a secure income source for community organizations to employ staff, minimizes the burden on staff to meet engagement goals, allows another organization to be an engagement lead in City projects, and simultaneously allows the City to reach residents who may be hesitant to engage with City staff.
Although the City is a target population for grant funded programs, the future of these programs is uncertain at the time of UFMP development. Even when these programs were available annually, national surveys note that only 2.6% of the urban forestry budget of municipal programs relied on grant awards (Hauer and Peterson 2016). While grant programs can be helpful in funding short term urban forestry goals and programs, they cannot be relied on as a sole source of long-term funding necessary to sustain Hanford's urban forestry program. However, exploring other grant programs where urban trees can be used as a tool such as for heat mitigation, stormwater mitigation, or workforce development, may allow for trees to be included in grant applications not focused on urban forestry. Although these opportunities should be explored as they arise, the City must also seek resources separate from potential grant opportunities to effectively manage the growing urban forest.
44 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRATEGIC PLAN
3.4 Monitoring Plan
The Hanford Monitoring Plan will be accomplished through a combination of processes identified in the Implementation Plan and additional actions as listed below:
• Annually assess progress towards the Strategic Plan actions using the methods of measurement as outlined in the implementation plan. • Every 2 years complete the Community Assessment and Goal- Setting Tool (described below).
• Every 3 years assess the Strategic and Implementation Plans and determine if specific actions should be revised or reprioritized based on current conditions in the City.
• Every 5 years conduct an updated canopy cover analysis to measure progress towards the canopy cover goal.
• Every 5 years complete an analysis of the City's public tree inventory to measure progress towards urban forest sustainability indicators of species diversity, age distribution, health condition, and relative performance index.
• Every 10 years determine if the UFMP should be updated to address progress towards goals, changes in the City’s environmental and economic conditions, or other unforeseen factors.
Community Assessment and Goal-Setting Tool
The Community Assessment and Goal-Setting Tool was created by the Vibrant Cities Lab to provide a quantifiable method for a city to track its progress towards a sustainable urban forest. Vibrant Cities Lab is a collaboration of partners that includes the U.S. Forest Service, American Forests, and the National Association of Regional Councils and serves as an online hub of urban forest and tree research, best practices, and planning tools (http://vibrantcitieslab.com). The Assessment and Goal- Setting Tool is based on research of urban forest sustainability and establishes criteria and indicators to measure urban forest sustainability.
The tool is used to define the current state of a specific area of a city’s urban forest sustainability. The user decides what the current state of the metric is and then sets where the goal metric should be. Each metric is assigned a point value, and the city is assigned a “Total Current Score” and a “Gap Score,” or 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. Gap scores of 40+ indicate that a city is still implementing programs and policies to close the gap and develop a sustainable urban forest.
Hanford’s first assessment was conducted on August 6, 2025, by City staff and the consultant team. Table 3-6 provides the results from the first assessment, which set the baseline for the City’s “Total Current Score” at its pre-UFMP metrics. Staff used Vibrant Cities Lab’s rating descriptions to determine Hanford’s status (prior to the UFMP process)
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 45
STRATEGIC PLAN
Table 3-5. Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment Goal Setting Tool Summary Category Current Score Goal Score Gap Score
Measure Your Current Tree Canopy and Set Goals 1 4 3
Urban Forest Inventory and Assessment 4 6 2
Know What's Happening to Trees in Your Community 4 11 7 Urban Forest Characteristics 3 8 5
Engaging Peers and Residents in Process 2 16 14
Creating Essential, Effective Public/Private Partnerships −1 6 7 Resource Management: Planning 1 8 7
Resource Management: Implementation 2 20 18
Resource Management: Monitoring and Maintenance 4 12 8
Score Totals 20 91 71
for the various categories and then chose the goals they want to achieve in each category to determine the gap between the two ratings.
Based on this first assessment, the City has a current rating of 20, with a gap score of 71. The City’s UFMP monitoring plan should be based around the Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal-Setting Tool and be retaken each year to track, measure, and highlight progress.
The assessment can also be used to demonstrate successes and justify additional funding requests to City Council. The full Goal Setting Tool can be found in Appendix F.
46 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRATEGIC PLAN
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 47
STRATEGIC PLAN
48 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
REFERENCES
4 REFERENCES
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 49
REFERENCES
Austin, J.T. 2012. “Floods and Droughts in the Tulare
Lake Basin.” Accessed August 5, 2025. http://
orangecoveid.org/Web%20Page/MATERIAL/Floods-
Droughts-Tulare-Lake-Basin_JAustin_20130109.pdf.
Best, J. 2023. “Kings County history is a story of humanity, agriculture, oil and growth.” The Sentinel. February 7, 2024. Accessed July 1, 2025. https://hanfordsentinel.
com/news/local/kings-county-history-is-a-story-of-
humanity-agriculture-oil-and-growth/article_0a72fca8-
4d48-526f-9278-ef5eaf9cddb0.html.
City of Hanford. 2025a. “History.” Accessed July 1, 2025. https://www.ci.hanford.ca.us/1290/History.
City of Hanford. 2025b. “Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail
Station TOD Project (Hanford Connected).” Accessed
July 1, 2025. https://www.cityofhanfordca.com/1580/
Kings-Tulare-High-Speed-Rail-Station-TOD.
CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2025. “Valley Oak (Quercus lobata).” Accessed September 26, 2025.
https://calscape.org/Quercus-lobata-(Valley-Oak).
Daniels, B., J. Jedamski, R. Ottermanns, and M. Ross-Nickoll. 2020. “A ‘Plan Bee’ for Cities: Pollinator Diversity and Plant-Pollinator Interactions in Urban Green Spaces.”
PLoS ONE 15(7): e0235492. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0235492.
Hauer, R.J., and W.D. Peterson. 2016. Municipal Tree Care and Management in the United States: A 2014 Urban
& Community Forestry Census of Tree Activities.
Accessed August 15, 2025. https://caufc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2025/03/Hauer-Peterson-2014-
urban-forest-program-census.pdf.
Latta, F.F. 1949. Handbook of the Y okut Indians. Bear State Books.
Noss, R. 2020. "California Central Valley grasslands."
Terrestrial Ecoregions. World Wildlife Fund. Accessed
July 1, 2025. https://www.oneearth.org/ecoregions/
california-central-valley-grasslands/.
Nowak, D.J. 2002. “The Effects of Urban Trees on Air
Quality.” Accessed March 3, 2021. https://www.nrs.
fs.fed.us/units/urban/local-resources/downloads/
Tree_Air_Qual. pdf.
Pierce, D.W., J.F. Kalansky, and D.R. Cayan. 2018. Climate, Drought, and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the
Fourth California Climate Assessment. California's
Fourth Climate Change Assessment, California
Energy Commission. Publication Number: CNRA-
CEC-2018-006.
Rahman, M.A., Pawijit, Y., Xu, C., Moser-Reischl, A.,
Pretzsch, H., Rötzer, T. and Pauleit, S., 2023. A
comparative analysis of urban forests for storm-water
management. Scientific Reports, 13(1), p.1451.
Roberts, M.R. 2005. Images of America: Hanford. Arcadia Publishing.
White, M.P., I. Alcock, B.W. Wheeler, M.H. Depledge. 2014. “Would Y ou Be Happier Living in a Greener Urban
Area? A Fixed-Effects Analysis of Panel Data.”
Psychological Science 24(6): 920–928. https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23613211/.
50 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
REFERENCES
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 51
REFERENCES
PREPARED BY
APPENDICES
THE CITY OF HANFORD
URBAN FOREST
MANAGMENT PLAN
1 of 201
Hanford UFMP Appendices
Table of Contents
▪ Appendix A: Urban Forest Resource Assessment………………………………………...3 ▪ Appendix B: Urban Forest Management Staffing and Budget Report…………………75 ▪ Appendix C: Hanford Trees and Shrubs Ordinance Recommended Updates …...85 ▪ Appendix D: City Document Review ………………….…………………………………….112 ▪ Appendix E: Community Engagement Summary………..………………………………120 ▪ Appendix F: Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal Setting Tool Self- Evaluation ………………………………………………………..........................................149 ▪ Appendix G: Potential Funding Sources……………………………………………………155 ▪ Appendix H Arboriculture Best Management Practices……………………………….162 ▪ Appendix I: Recommended Tree Species List…………………………………………...195
2 of 201
Appendix A
Hanford Urban Forest Resource Report
3 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
16991 1
OCTOBER 2025
City of Hanford
Urban Forest Resource Report
OCTOBER 2025
Prepared for:
CITY OF HANFORD
319 N Douty Street
Hanford, CA Zip
Contact: Bradley Albert
Prepared by:
605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Kevin Cullinen
Alexandria Reed
4 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 2
OCTOBER 2025
Table of Contents
1 Hanford Tree Inventory Overview ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.1 Sustainability Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 6
1.1.1 Genus and Species Diversity .................................................................................................... 6
1.1.2 Age Diversity .............................................................................................................................. 7
1.1.3 Health Condition ....................................................................................................................... 9
1.1.4 Relative Performance Index .................................................................................................. 10
1.1.5 Water Use ............................................................................................................................... 11
1.1.6 Climate Resiliency .................................................................................................................. 12
1.2 Environmental Services and Economic Value ................................................................................... 14 2 Hanford Canopy Overview ................................................................................................................................ 16
2.1 Citywide Canopy Change and Current Condition ............................................................................... 17
2.1.1 Public and Private Parcels ..................................................................................................... 17
2.1.2 Census Tracts......................................................................................................................... 19
2.1.3 Zoning Districts ...................................................................................................................... 20
2.1.4 Landscape Assessment Districts (LADs) .............................................................................. 22
2.1.5 Parks ....................................................................................................................................... 24
2.2 Canopy Cover Target Analysis ............................................................................................................. 26
2.2.1 Potential Canopy Growth ....................................................................................................... 26
2.2.2 Increasing Canopy Cover ....................................................................................................... 27
2.3 Priority Planting Areas ......................................................................................................................... 29
2.3.1 Urban Heat Severity ............................................................................................................... 29
2.3.2 Viable Planting Sites .............................................................................................................. 31
2.3.3 Tree Equity.............................................................................................................................. 32 3 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 35
TABLE(S)
Table 1. Environmental Services of Hanford Trees ...................................................................................................... 14 Table 2. Financial Value of Hanford Trees .................................................................................................................... 15 Table 3. Tree Canopy Change Metrics (2018–2022) .................................................................................................. 15 Table 4. Canopy Distribution by Area Type (2022) ....................................................................................................... 15 Table 5. Estimated Tree Planting Requirements to Achieve 10% Canopy Cover ....................................................... 15
5 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 3
OCTOBER 2025
EXHIBIT(S)
Exhibit 1. Hanford 2025 Tree Inventory ........................................................................................................................... 5 Exhibit 2. Tree Inventory Genus and Species Diversity ................................................................................................... 6 Exhibit 3. Age Diversity ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 Exhibit 4. Tree Condition Diversity ................................................................................................................................. 10 Exhibit 5. Tree Inventory Relative Performance Index .................................................................................................. 11 Exhibit 6. Water Use Rating Diversity ............................................................................................................................ 12 Exhibit 7. Tree Inventory Species Climate Resiliency Analysis .................................................................................... 13 Exhibit 8. Hanford Urban Canopy Cover, 2022 ............................................................................................................. 16 Exhibit 9. Parcel Ownership and Tree Canopy Distribution by Parcel Type ................................................................. 18 Exhibit 10. Canopy Cover and Change by Census Tract (2018–2022) ...................................................................... 19 Exhibit 11. 2022 Canopy Cover by Census Tract ......................................................................................................... 20 Exhibit 12. Canopy Cover and Change by Zoning District (2018–2022) .................................................................... 21 Exhibit 13. 2022 Canopy Cover by Zoning District ....................................................................................................... 22 Exhibit 14. Canopy Cover Distribution Across LADs ..................................................................................................... 23 Exhibit 15. Canopy Cover and Change by Parks (2018–2022) ................................................................................... 24 Exhibit 16. 2022 Canopy Cover by Parks ...................................................................................................................... 25 Exhibit 17. Projected Canopy Gains from City-Managed Tree Growth and Vacant Planting Sites ............................ 27 Exhibit 18. Urban Heat Island Severity by Census Tract .............................................................................................. 30 Exhibit 19. Viable Planting Site Density by Census Tract ............................................................................................. 31 Exhibit 20. Tree Equity Score by Census Block Groups ................................................................................................ 32
ATTACHMENT(S)
Attachment 1. iTree Report ............................................................................................................................................ 36 6 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 4
OCTOBER 2025
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 5
OCTOBER 2025
1 Hanford Tree Inventory Overview
To support long-term urban forest planning and sustainability efforts, the City of Hanford (City) partnered with Dudek to complete a comprehensive tree inventory. This inventory provides the foundation for all analyses presented in this report, including assessments of species diversity, tree health, age structure, water use, and environmental services. Data from the City-managed inventory were also submitted to the i-Tree Eco model to estimate associated environmental and economic benefits.
Inventory data were collected by Dudek staff in April through July 2025, covering all City-managed trees within City sidewalks, medians , parks, City facilities, and boundaries of Landscape Assessment Districts . Each tree was recorded using TreePlotter inventory software on mobile smart phone devices, with data attributes including location, species, diameter at standard height (DSH), condition, height, crown characteristics, and growing space type.
In total, the inventory includes 7,245
sites, c onsisting of 6, 486 living City -
managed trees, 159 dead standing
trees, trees, and 600 vacant sites or
stumps. These data represent a
snapshot of the City’s urban forest and
serve as a baseline for identifying
priorities, tracking progress, and
guiding future planting, maintenance,
and policy decisions. Exhibit 1
presents a map of inventoried sites
across the City, including existing
trees, vacant planting sites, and
stumps.
Exhibit 1. Hanford 2025 Tree Inventory
8 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 6
OCTOBER 2025
1.1 Sustainability Analysis
The sustainability analysis evaluates the City’s tree inventory against a set of indicators used to guide management priorities and assess the urban forest’s resilience to pests, disease, and climate change. These indicators provide a current snapshot of t he condition and structure of City -managed trees and establish a baseline for tracking changes over time.
This analysis reflects conditions at the time of data collection and should be repeated every 3 to 5 years to monitor progress toward long-term sustainability goals. The selected indicators are based on widely accepted urban forestry standards and best pra ctices, including those developed by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and published research in peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of Arboriculture.
1.1.1 Genus and Species Diversity
Maintaining a diverse tree population improves the urban forest’s ability to withstand pests, diseases, and extreme weather. A well -distributed mix of species provides a buffer against the potential loss of a dominant tree type, helping to ensure long-term canopy continuity and ecological resilience. The City-managed inventory includes 6,645 trees composed of approximately 64 genera and 100 species. The top 10 genera and species are shown in Exhibit
2. Diversity is evaluated using species composition sustainability goals originally proposed by Moll (1989), which serve as benchmarks for promoting a resilient and balanced urban forest:
Genus Sustainability Goal: No single genus represents more than 10% of inventory.
Species Sustainability Goal: No single species represents more than 5% of inventory.
Exhibit 2. Tree Inventory Genus and Species Diversity
9 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 7
OCTOBER 2025
Source: City of Hanford, Dudek 2025.
Exhibit 2 show that Pistacia exceeds the recommended genus-level sustainability goal, accounting for 34.3% of the inventory. At the species level, Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), Chinese hackberry (Celtis sinensis), and valley oak (Quercus lobata) all exceed the 5 percent threshold. To improve diversity and reduce long-term risk, these species should be a lower priority in future planting efforts. Appendix I of the UFMP, provides a selection of recommended species for the City's climate and conditions that are suitable for replacement trees and can help increase diversity in future plantings.
Increasing diversity improves resilience but may also introduce challenges for maintenance. Trees vary in size, structure, and pruning needs. For example, some species have wide, spreading crowns with large branches, while others are tall and narrow. These differences can affect equipment needs, trimming techniques, and scheduling.
To maintain efficiency, the City can group trees with similar forms and maintenance requirements within the same block or maintenance area. Balancing species diversity with opera tional consistency will help maintain a resilient and manageable urban forest.
1.1.2 Age Diversity
Understanding the tree age distribution within the City’s urban forest is useful for informing management decisions, estimating future budgets, and forecasting potential shortfalls in canopy coverage. Management activities influenced by age distribution typically include planting priorities, removal planning, and pruning schedules.
Because tree age is difficult to determine without invasive methods like tree coring, diameter at standard height (DSH) is used as a proxy for estimating age. Exhibit 3 shows the DSH distribution for all trees in the City’s inventory.
A widely referenced ideal age distribution, represented by DSH classes, was proposed in an analysis of the Syracuse, 10 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 8
OCTOBER 2025
New York urban forest (Richards 1993) and has since been adopted as a guideline for achieving long -term urban forest sustainability. The recommended structure includes:
▪ Maintaining a steady supply of young trees to replace those lost to age or decline ▪ Ensuring the majority of trees are functionally mature and delivering consistent environmental and economic benefits
▪ Retaining a smaller share of large, aging trees that, despite being near the end of their lifespan, continue to deliver consistent environmental and economic benefits
Exhibit 3. Age Diversity
Source: City of Hanford, Dudek 2025.
The inventory is currently dominated by younger trees. As shown in Exhibit 3, 47% of trees are immature (less than 6" DSH) and 46% are young (6" –18" DSH), meaning 93% of the inventory consists of recently planted or small - stature trees. Only 4% are middle-aged (18"–24" DSH), and 3% are mature (greater than 24" DSH), falling short of the combined 30% sustainability target for those classes.
This imbalance suggests that while planting efforts have increased in recent years, relatively few trees have been retained or supported long enough to reach middle-aged or mature stages. Part of this pattern may also reflect the City’s species composition. For example, approximately 34% of Hanford’s public trees are Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), a species that typically does not exceed 18 inches DSH , even at maturity. As a result, DSH - based age estimates may somewhat understate the functional maturity of smaller-stature species. 11 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 9
OCTOBER 2025
To build a more balanced age structure, the City should continue planting new trees to support future canopy growth while investing in the preservation of older trees and selecting species that can reach larger sizes in suitable planting spaces. Early investment in establishment care, including structural pruning and watering, guided by an ISA Certified Arborist, can help reduce long -term costs and promote healthy canopy development. Addressing structural defects with simple pruning while the tree is young and small is often more cost effective than having to address defects with more advanced pruning equipment when the tree is mature. This approach also allows the critical root zone for trees to better establish into the landscape, increasing resilience to prolonged droughts and high heat events. However, the high proportion of young trees in the current inventory also indicates a shift in how allocations to tree care may be spent. As trees already in the inventory may have structural defects that were not addressed due to a lack of past funding for establishment care, mature trees may benefit from a scheduled and cyclical pruning cycle to maintain a healthy, resilient and sustainable municipal urban forest. Establishing dedicated and reoccurring budgets for pruning cycles of mature stature trees will allow the City to monitor tree conditions and address defects in a phased, proactive approach.
1.1.3 Health Condition
Healthy trees increase public safety and may reduce the City’s liability by lowering the risk of tree part failure. They are also more resilient to pests, disease, drought, and extreme weather. Assessing tree health provides insight into the City’s level of urban forest management, how trees are performing overall, and the baseline resilience of the tree population.
Tree condition ratings used in the inventory are defined as follows:
▪ Excellent: Nearly perfect health and canopy structure. ▪ Good: Normal health and canopy structure
▪ Fair: Minor deficiencies in health and canopy structure ▪ Poor: Significant deficiencies in health and canopy structure ▪ Critical: Major deficiencies, is in late stage of decline, and is a candidate for removal. ▪ Dead: No longer a viable tree and should be removed
Based on the analysis of the City’s tree inventory shown in Exhibit 4, approximately 21% of trees are in good condition and 67% are in fair condition. In total, 88% of trees are rated as fair or better (fair, good, or excellent), indicating a generally healthy and structurally sound urban forest. The remaining trees are rated poor (8%), critical (2%), or dead (2%).
12 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 10
OCTOBER 2025
Exhibit 4. Tree Condition Diversity
Source: City of Hanford, Dudek 2025.
These results suggest the City’s urban forest is not currently showing signs of widespread stress or decline. The high percentage of trees in fair and good condition reflects effective management practices and a growing environment suited to the tree species found in the inventory. Continued monitoring and maintenance will be essential to sustain this condition and address emerging issues.Trees in poor, critical, and dead condition should be evaluated to determine appropriate actions such as targeted prunin g, treatment, or removal to improve tree condition of individual specimens.
This assessment can also help identify whether certain species are underperforming. For example, of the 113 Carolina laurel cherry (Prunus caroliniana) trees in the inventory, 103 were rated as poor, critical, or dead, indicating a potential issue with species suitability or site-specific conditions. Understanding these patterns can guide future species selection and management strategies.
1.1.4 Relative Performance Index
While overall condition ratings provide a snapshot of individual tree health, they do not account for species -level performance trends. The Relative Performance Index (RPI) offers a way to evaluate how each species performs in comparison to the inventory average and can help identify species that may require further evaluation or targeted management. RPI is calculated by dividing the percentage of trees within a species that are rated in good or better condition by the percentage of all trees in the inventory that are rated in good or better condition.
A species with an RPI above 1.0 is more likely to be in good condition than the inventory average. A value below 1.0 indicates that the species is underperforming relative to the overall population. For example, a species with an RPI of 0.75 is 25 percent less likely to be in good condition compared to the inventory average. The average RPI across all species in the inventory is 0.61, meaning many species have condition ratings below the inventory average. This reflects variation in species performance and highlights the value of using RPI as a comparative tool. Exhibit 5 presents the RPI values for the six most common species in the inventory. 13 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 11
OCTOBER 2025
Exhibit 5. Tree Inventory Relative Performance Index
Source: City of Hanford, Dudek 2025.
Valley oak ( Quercus lobata) has the highest RPI, followed by crape myrtle ( Lagerstroemia indica) and Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis). The valley oak has an RPI of 2.0, indicating that this species performs well in the City and exploring other oak species and varieties may be beneficial to enhance tree species diversity with a large canopied species. Chinese hackberry (Celtis sinensis) and London plane ( Platanus × hispanica ) fall below the inventory average, suggesting they may be underperforming relative to other species. These lower values may indicate site incompatibility or higher susceptibility to stress. The City may want to evaluate whether continued planting of these species is appropriate, particularly if maintenance needs or health concerns persist across different planting locations.
1.1.5 Water Use
In urban environments, trees often face limited rooting space, compacted soils, and restricted access to groundwater. Supplemental irrigation is critical during the first 1 to 3 years after planting to ensure establishment.
However, water scarcity is an increasing concern throughout California, especially in the Central Valley, where hot and dry conditions are common. The City has experienced multiple drought years over the past decade, with ongoing pressure on water resources due to rising temperatur es and limited regional precipitation. Climate projections indicate that drought frequency and severity are likely to increase in the years ahead (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2021; Lacan and McBride 2018; Watson 2014; California State Water Resourc es Control Board 2023).
Tree species differ widely in their water needs. In water-limited regions such as Hanford, selecting low and very low water use species helps reduce long-term irrigation demands. Providing supplemental irrigation to a newly planted tree helps establish the root structure which improves the ability for a tree to recover from drought stress over the 14 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 12
OCTOBER 2025
tree’s lifetime. Exhibit 6 shows the breakdown of water use ratings for the City’s tree inventory, based on the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) database as well as water use data from Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute’s (UFEI) SelecTree tree selection guide (https://selectree.calpoly.edu/).
Exhibit 6. Water Use Rating Diversity
Source: City of Hanford, Dudek 2025.
Low and very low water use species make up 62% of the City’s tree inventory. Moderate water use species account for 37%, and less than 1% are rated as high water use, not appropriate for the region, or are unlisted in WUCOLS or UFEI’s SelecTree . While moderate water use species may be appropriate in irrigated areas, the City should continue prioritizing drought-adapted species, particularly in locations with limited watering infrastructure. Selecting species based on site conditions, water needs, and growth characteristics will help reduce long -term reliance on supplemental water and improve the success of future plantings.
1.1.6 Climate Resiliency
Urban forests are increasingly vulnerable to climate change, particularly in cities facing hotter and drier conditions.
In dense urban environments, trees already contend with stressors such as limited rooting space, reflected heat from pavement, compacted soils, and exposure to air pollutants. When combined with prolonged drought and rising temperatures, these conditions can reduce tree health, shorten lifespans, and diminish the long -term benefits provided by the urban forest.
In 2018, a climate suitability study was conducted by Lacan and McBride to evaluate the long-term viability of street trees in California. The study selected one city to represent each of the state’s 16 climate zones, then identified common street tree spe cies in each location. These species lists were compared to those in cities with current 15 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 13
OCTOBER 2025
temperatures similar to what each California city is projected to experience by the year 2099. Species that were largely absent from those warmer cities were flagged as potentially unsuitable for future planting. The final list was informed by professional judgment and WUCOLS water use ratings that identified species as unsuitable under high heat or water-limited conditions.
When this framework is applied to the City’s inventory, 21 species are identified as potentially unsuitable for the City’s future climate. These species make up 25.9% of the total inventory, or 1,718 trees. Exhibit 7 highlights the 10 species identified as potentially unsuitable that are most prevalent in the City’s current inventory.
Exhibit 7. Tree Inventory Species Climate Resiliency Analysis
Source: City of Hanford, Dudek 2025.
Notably, several of the most common species in the City’s inventory have been identified as potentially unsuitable under future climate conditions, including crape myrtle ( Lagerstroemia indica ), London plane ( Platanus × hispanica), and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Reducing reliance on these species in future plantings may help the City manage long -term maintenance needs and reduce the risk of canopy loss as conditions grow hotter and drier. London plane also has a below-average RPI, suggesting it may already be underperforming relative to other species in the City. In contrast, crape myrtle shows a high RPI but is overrepresented and vulnerable under projected climate conditions, reinforcing the importance of diversifying future plantings. 16 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 14
OCTOBER 2025
While the 2018 Lacan and McBride study provides a valuable framework for evaluating species under future climate scenarios, it should not be the sole resource guiding planting decisions. Species performance, site conditions, and observed health trends within the City should also be considered. City staff and arborists play a key role in identifying underperforming species and tracking changes over time. Monitoring tree condition by species will help determine whether certain trees should be phased out of fu ture planting efforts. In addition to selecting climate -adapted species, long-term success depends on using high -quality nursery stock, planting at the correct depth, matching trees to site conditions, and providing adequate watering during establishment. Applying ISA best management practices throughout the planting and maintenance process will support healthier and longer -lasting trees.
Prioritizing species that are both resilient to future climate conditions and suited to the urban environment will help the City maintain a sustainable and adaptable urban forest
1.2 Environmental Services and Economic Value
Data from the City -managed inventory w as submitted to the i -Tree Eco software. The 2025 i -Tree Eco analysis quantifies environmental and economic contributions for the portion of the City’s inventory that met i -Tree input requirements. Results highlight both the ecological and economic benefits of trees in Hanford’s inventory, along with potential risks from invasive species and pests.
The analysis found that 82 percent of trees are non-native to North America, with only 9 percent native to California, and identified four invasive species, including tree of heaven, though these account for just 1.3 percent of the population.
Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis) makes up more than one-third of the population, which increases risk if pests or diseases affect the species. The i-Tree analysis identified several pests that pose a high potential economic risk, including Pine Shoot Beetle, Sout hern Pine Beetle, and Sirex Wood Wasp, each with potential losses exceeding $2.5 million in replacement value, along with Oak Wilt and Winter Moth, each threatening more than $1.5 million.
These findings reinforce the importance of diversifying the species composition to strengthen long-term resilience.
The complete i-Tree Eco results are provided at the end of this report. Key takeaways are summarized below.
Table 1 presents estimates of the environmental services provided by the City’s trees, including air pollution removal, carbon storage and sequestration, and avoided runoff. Table 2 summarizes the economic value of these services, along with the broader replacement value of City’s urban forest.
Table 1. Environmental Services of Hanford Trees
Service
Environmental
Benefit Why it Matters
Air Pollution Removal 2,029
Pounds per year
Poor air quality is a common problem in many urban areas. It can lead to decreased human health, damage to landscape materials and ecosystem processes, and reduced visibility. The urban forest can help improve air quality by reducing air temperature, directly removing pollutants from the air, and reducing energy
consumption in buildings, which consequently reduces air pollutant emissions from fossil-fuel-based power sources (i-Tree 2020).
Carbon stored in
trees
1,324 tons of
carbon
Climate change is an issue of global concern. Urban trees can help mitigate climate change by sequestering atmospheric carbon (from carbon dioxide) in tree tissue and by altering energy use in 17 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 15
OCTOBER 2025
Table 2. Financial Value of Hanford Trees
Value Description Amount
Functional Value based on the functions (environmental
services) trees perform
$25,700/year
Carbon Storage Value of the carbon stored in the trees $573,000 total Replacement Cost of having to replace the entire inventory of City-managed trees with similar trees
$10.9 million total
Table 1. Environmental Services of Hanford Trees
Service
Environmental
Benefit Why it Matters
buildings, which consequently reduces carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel-based power sources (Abdollahi et al 2000).
Carbon Sequestration
(Carbon Removed
From Air)
38.89 tons per
year
Increasing greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere is one of the main causes of climate change. Human activity is releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide, principally through the burning of fossil fuels. Trees play an important role in the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Through the biochemical process of photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is taken in by trees and stored as carbon in the trunk, branches, leaves, and roots.
Avoided Runoff 146,100 gallons
per year
Surface runoff can be a cause for concern in many urban areas, as it can contribute pollution to streams, wetlands, rivers, lakes, and oceans. During precipitation events, some portion of the precipitation is intercepted by vegetation (trees and shrubs) while the other portion reaches the ground. The portion of the precipitation that reaches the ground and does not infiltrate into the soil becomes surface runoff (Hirabayashi et al. 2013). In urban areas, the large extent of impervious surfaces increases the amount of surface runoff.
Urban trees and shrubs are beneficial in reducing surface runoff.
Trees and shrubs intercept precipitation, while their root systems promote infiltration and storage in the soil.
18 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 16
OCTOBER 2025
2 Hanford Canopy Overview
To support the City’s urban forest planning and sustainability initiatives, Dudek completed a comprehensive canopy cover assessment using publicly available canopy data derived from the 2018 and 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery. For the purposes of this section, “City” refers to the urban area boundaries within the City limits. The defined urban boundary encompasses 9,526 acres, and all acreage, percent cover, and change values presented here are based on this area. Within this boundary, canopy cover was estimated at 765 acres, or
8.0% in 2022.
The assessment provides a current snapshot of urban tree canopy distribution, evaluates changes since 2018, and identifies opportunities for canopy growth. Results are summarized for several geographic units including, urban boundary, public and private parcels, census tracts, zoning districts, Landscape Assessment Districts (LADs) , and parks, to highlight where canopy is most and least concentrated to inform strategies for expansion. Exhibit 8 highlights the current canopy distribution across the City.
Exhibit 8. Hanford Urban Canopy Cover, 2022
Source: EarthDefine 2025, derived from 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery. 19 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 17
OCTOBER 2025
2.1 Citywide Canopy Change and Current
Condition
Citywide canopy cover declined from 905 acres (9.5%) in 2018 to 765 acres (8.0%) in 2022, a net reduction of approximately 140 acres. This decline equates to a 1.5 percentage point decrease in cover and a 15.8 percent relative reduction compared to the 2018 baseline.
Table 3. Tree Canopy Change Metrics (2018–2022)
Metric Value Description
Canopy loss (acres) -140 Actual land area lost to canopy decline Absolute % change -1.5 percentage points Difference in canopy cover percentage from 2018 to 2022
Relative % change -15.8% Proportional decline in canopy cover compared to 2018 baseline
Canopy loss occurred across most land use types, zoning categories, and census tracts, indicating a citywide trend rather than an isolated issue. Several factors may have contributed to the decline, including development or redevelopment that resulted in tree removals, mortality of aging trees without replacement, pest or disease impacts, or drought stress.
The 2022 canopy distribution (Exhibit 8) provides the current planning baseline for the UFMP. The following sections examine how canopy distribution and change vary across different geographic units to help identify trends and priority areas for future planting.
2.1.1 Public and Private Parcels
This analysis evaluated canopy cover within the parcel dataset, dividing parcels into public and private ownership.
Some areas are not represented in the parcel dataset, such as streetscapes, medians, highways, and rights-of-way (ROW). Values are approximate, as totals depend on how parcel information is defined and categorized.
In 2018, public parcels supported 6.3 percent canopy cover (40.8 acres). By 2022, canopy on public parcels increased slightly to 6.5 percent (41.8 acres), a gain of about 0.14 percentage points. Private parcels contained
10.7 percent canopy cover in 2018 (765.9 acres) but declined to 8.7 percent in 2022 (628.0 acres), a reduction of 2.0 percentage points. Areas outside the parcel dataset accounted for 5.6 percent canopy cover in 2022 (95 acres).
Although public parcels experienced a small canopy gain between 2018 and 2022, overall canopy change was driven by losses on private parcels. With about four-fifths of the City’s canopy in private ownership, expanding and protecting canopy will depend largely on actions taken on private property owners. City efforts such as tree planting giveaways, community education and outreach, ordinance updates, and incentive programs can encourage planting and long-term care on private land, while continued management of public trees will remain an important part of sustaining and expanding the overall urban forest.
20 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 18
OCTOBER 2025
Table 4 provides the 2022 canopy distribution across the full urban boundary, including public and private parcels, and areas not represented in the parcel dataset. Exhibit 9 illustrates the distribution of parcels classified as private or public and the share of canopy cover within each area type.
Table 4. Canopy Distribution by Area Type (2022)
Area Type Area (Acres) Canopy Area (Acres) Canopy Cover (%) Share of Total Canopy (%)
Public Parcels 647 42 6.5 6.0
Private Parcels 7,191 628 8.7 82
Other areas outside
parcels (ROW,
medians, etc.)
1,688 95 5.6 12
Urban Area 9,526 765 8.0 100
Exhibit 9. Parcel Ownership and Tree Canopy Distribution by Parcel Type
Source: Hanford GIS Data, 2025.
21 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 19
OCTOBER 2025
2.1.2 Census Tracts
Tree canopy cover was evaluated across 12 census tracts to assess distribution patterns relative to population - based units. Census tracts are a useful geographical unit for assessing canopy because they align with demographic, health, and environmental datasets. This makes them valuable for identifying disparities, supporting grant applications, and prioritizing areas for community investment.
Between 2018 and 2022, canopy cover declined in 11 of the 12 tracts, with only tract 06031001001 showing a slight gain of 0.2 percentage points. Losses ranged from less than 1 percentage point (tracts 06031000902 and 06031001100) to nearly 5 percentage poi nts in tract 06031000603. Other substantial decreases occurred in tracts 06031000701, 06031000901, and 06031000602, each losing between 2.6 and 3.0 percentage points.
In 2022, the highest canopy levels were found in tracts 06031000602 (13.9%) and 06031000901 (12.5%), while the lowest were in tracts 06031001100 (5.2%) and 06031000800 (4.9%). These results show that canopy loss has occurred across both higher - and lower -coverage neighborhoods, indicating that restoration efforts should balance expanding canopy in historically low -coverage areas with protecting existing canopy in tracts that began with higher levels of tree cover.
Exhibit 10 presents canopy change by census tract from 2018 to 2022 alongside 2022 canopy levels. Exhibit 11 shows the spatial distribution of 2022 canopy cover.
Exhibit 10. Canopy Cover and Change by Census Tract (2018–2022)
Source: EarthDefine 2025, derived from 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery.
22 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 20
OCTOBER 2025
Exhibit 11. 2022 Canopy Cover by Census Tract
Source: EarthDefine 2025, derived from 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery.
2.1.3 Zoning Districts
Canopy cover was analyzed by zoning district to understand how tree distribution aligns with land use regulations.
Zoning is a useful framework because it reflects both existing development patterns and future growth potential, providing insight into where canopy gains or losses may have the greatest planning implications.
Between 2018 and 2022, canopy declined in nearly all zoning districts, with the exception of the Public zoning district, which increased by 1.5 percentage points. Losses were most pronounced in Airport Protection, which 23 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 21
OCTOBER 2025
declined by 69 percentage points, Low Density Residential areas (-3.1), followed by Office (-1.5), Commercial (-1.7), and Medium Density Residential (-1.4).
In 2022, the highest canopy levels were found in Conservation (11.5%), Office (10.5%), and Low Density Residential (10.2%). The lowest canopy levels were in Airport Protection (0.2%), City (0.6%), and Industrial (1.5%). Right-of-way areas also contained relatively little canopy at 1.6%.
These results indicate that while Conservation and residential areas continue to support the majority of canopy cover, residential zoning districts are also experiencing some of the steepest declines. This trend suggests that strategies to expand canopy will need to prioritize residential neighborhoods while also ensuring canopy retention within commercial, industrial, and mixed-use zones where cover is currently limited.
Exhibit 12 presents canopy change by zoning district from 2018 to 2022 alongside 2022 canopy levels. Exhibit 13 shows the spatial distribution of canopy cover in 2022 across zoning districts.
Exhibit 12. Canopy Cover and Change by Zoning District (2018–2022)
Source: EarthDefine 2025, derived from 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery; Hanford GIS Data, 2025.
24 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 22
OCTOBER 2025
Exhibit 13. 2022 Canopy Cover by Zoning District
Source: EarthDefine 2025, derived from 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery; Hanford GIS Data, 2025.
2.1.4 Landscape Assessment Districts (LADs)
Canopy cover was evaluated across 42 Landscape Assessment Districts (LADs) to identify local-scale variations in canopy change. LAD boundaries provide a finer level of geographic resolution than zoning or census tracts and can help link canopy trends to specific maintenance areas with associated funding districts.
Between 2018 and 2022, canopy change varied widely across LADs, with some districts showing gains while others experienced substantial losses. The largest increases occurred in Quail (+3.4 percentage points) and S idonia Estates (+1.3 percentage points). Other LADs with gains over 1 percentage point included Independence Units 3 & 4 and Independence Units 1 & 2.
The most substantial loss occurred in San Joaquin Valley Homes (−18.9 percentage points), largely due to housing development. However, part of this decline reflects a classification issue in the 2018 dataset, which appears to have mapped vineyards or cropland as canopy. Other LADs with notable losses included S ilver Oaks, Stonecrest, and Pinecastle, each declining by more than 2 percentage points. 25 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 23
OCTOBER 2025
Overall, canopy loss was more prevalent than canopy gain across LADs, indicating that localized declines are contributing to the citywide canopy reduction. LADs are tied to specific maintenance and funding structures, so reversing these losses may require targeted replanting, adjusted maintenance schedules, and community engagement to sustain canopy over the long term.
Exhibit 14 shows the spatial distribution of canopy cover in 2022 across LADs.
Exhibit 14. Canopy Cover Distribution Across LADs
Source: EarthDefine 2025, derived from 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery.
26 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 24
OCTOBER 2025
2.1.5 Parks
Canopy cover was evaluated across 28 parks within the urban boundary. Parks provide important local -scale benefits, offering shade, recreation, and wildlife habitat, and their canopy distribution can highlight opportunities for preservation of large canopy trees and replanting large species.
Between 2018 and 2022, canopy change varied across parks. The largest increases occurred in Vineyard Park (+8.0), Quail Run Estates (+7.0), and Freedom Park (+4.0). Other parks such as the Hanford Sports Complex, Brown Street Park BMX, and The Plunge Skatepark also saw smaller gains. The most substantial losses occurred in Encore Park (−6.4), Lacey Park (−6.2), Pond – 2582 N Glacier Way (−5.9), and Sherwood Park (−4.4).
In 2022, canopy levels in parks ranged from 0 to 48 percent, with the highest coverage in Quail Run Estates (48.3%), Community – 2000 N. 9 1/4 Ave. (26.0%), and Civic and Courthouse Park (24.4%). Several small parks and conservation areas contained less than 1 percent canopy cover.
Parks with declining canopy may benefit from targeted replanting and management to stabilize long -term cover, while those with higher canopy levels highlight opportunities for continued preservation.
Exhibit 15 presents canopy change by parks from 2018 to 2022 alongside 2022 canopy levels. Exhibit 16 shows the spatial distribution of canopy cover in 2022 parks.
Exhibit 15. Canopy Cover and Change by Parks (2018–2022)
Source: EarthDefine 2025, derived from 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery; Hanford GIS Data, 2025. 27 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 25
OCTOBER 2025
Exhibit 16. 2022 Canopy Cover by Parks
Source: EarthDefine 2025, derived from 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery.
28 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 26
OCTOBER 2025
2.2 Canopy Cover Target Analysis
Setting canopy cover targets requires balancing planting potential with the City's capacity to maintain and sustain urban forest growth over time. This section presents a preliminary analysis to support target setting by estimating potential canopy gains from the growth of existing public trees and planting within viable sites identified in the City’s inventory, and evaluating the number of additional trees needed to reach a citywide canopy goal of 10%.
Although these findings provide a helpful foundation, they do not capture all conditions that influence urban forest outcomes, such as available funding, community support, and long -term tree care needs. These broader considerations will be addressed through the UFMP to ensure canopy targets are both realistic and sustainable.
2.2.1 Potential Canopy Growth
This analysis estimates how much additional canopy cover the City could gain through the natural growth of existing public trees and, separately, the potential expansion that could occur if all viable vacant sites identified in the inventory were planted. Together, these estimates provide a preliminary understanding of the City’s overall canopy growth potential based on its existing tree population and the physical availability of planting space on City-managed land.
City-managed trees were evaluated for potential canopy expansion as they continue to mature. The analysis assumed an average mature height of 45 feet and a corresponding canopy diameter of approximately 34 feet, based on a height -to-canopy ratio of 1:0.75 derived from the City’s tree inventory. Additional canopy area was calculated by comparing the estimated mature canopy area for each tree to its current canopy area, summing the difference across all tr ees, and converting the total to acres. This portion o f the analysis suggests a potential increase in canopy cover of approximately 1.0%, representing the maximum canopy gain achievable from existing public trees as they reach maturity under current conditions.
A separate analysis was completed to estimate the potential canopy cover gained if all inventoried vacant planting sites and sites with stumps were filled with new trees. Of the 600 total sites, 591 were determined to be viable and were used to estimate potential canopy gain. Each site was assigned a typical mature canopy diameter based on its category: 20 feet for stumps and small planting sites, 35 feet for medium sites, and 50 feet for large sites. If all recorded vacant sites were planted and the trees grown to maturity, canopy cover could increase by an additional
0.2 percent.
This analysis suggests that the City’s total canopy cover could increase from the current 8% to approximately 9.3% if all existing public trees reach maturity and all viable vacant sites are eventually planted. This represents a maximum potential scenario using existing public resources and planting space. Potential canopy increases from creating new planting areas, such as converting paved or built surfaces, were not included and require additional analysis. These results are based on assumptions such as a vailable funding for tree planting and the ability to preserve existing trees, and do not account for tree mortality, removals, or other long -term management factors that could reduce the maximum canopy growth potential.
Exhibit 17 illustrates the potential canopy gains achievable from the growth of existing City -managed trees and planting within viable vacant sites identified in the inventory. 29 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 27
OCTOBER 2025
Exhibit 17. Projected Canopy Gains from City-Managed Tree Growth and Vacant Planting Sites
Source: City of Hanford, Dudek 2025.
2.2.2 Increasing Canopy Cover
The results of the canopy growth analysis indicate that, under current conditions, the City’s canopy cover could reach approximately 9.3% if all existing public trees were preserved to maturity and all viable vacant sites in the inventory were planted. This represents the upper limit of canopy expansion achievable through trees on City- managed land.
To explore how canopy cover could increase beyond this estimate, additional planting scenarios were modeled.
These scenarios estimate the number of trees that would need to be established to achieve higher canopy levels across the City. A 10% canopy cover scenario was selected as a practical next step and planning benchmark. While the analysis is based on publicly managed trees and known planting sites, achieving this canopy level would ultimately depend on participation across both public and private properties. The scenario builds on the results of the canopy growth analysis to provide a realistic and measurable reference point for guiding long-term investment in tree planting and maintenance efforts.
Achieving a 10% canopy level would require expanding total canopy cover by approximately two percentage points above current conditions. Assuming existing public trees continue to mature and private canopy remains stable, this increase represents roughly 88 additional acres of canopy citywide. To illustrate what this level of growth would require, the additional canopy area was translated into approximate tree counts using a representative mix of tree sizes and their expected mature canopy spread.
Table 5 summarizes the number of trees and corresponding canopy area needed to increase total canopy cover by approximately 88 acres. The analysis assumes a balanced distribution of canopy width classes, small, medium, large, and extra-large, representative of typical urban planting conditions.
30 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 28
OCTOBER 2025
Table 5. Estimated Tree Planting Requirements to Achieve 10% Canopy Cover Canopy Width Ratio Trees to Plant Total Acres Increase Small (20’) 20% 749 5.29
Medium (30’) 30% 1,122 17.85
Large (40’) 30% 1,122 31.73
Extra-Large (50’) 20% 749 33.09
Total 100% 3,742 87.96
Reaching a 10% canopy level would require planting approximately 3,742 trees, distributed across a mix of small, medium, large, and extra -large canopy width classes. If implemented gradually over a 30 -year period, this would equate to planting about 125 new trees per year. The estimate includes a 2% mortality adjustment applied at the end of the analysis period, representing expected losses through maturity. This estimate assumes the City would continue to replace trees lost to mortality through replanting efforts, supporting the long -term establishment and sustainability of canopy gains.
With only 591 viable planting sites currently identified in the City’s tree inventory, Hanford would need to identify additional viable planting areas and expand opportunities through streetscape retrofits, new development requirements, or private property initiatives to meet this goal. While the City plays a leading role in managing and expanding canopy cover through the care and planting of public trees, the long -term success of the urban forest will also rely heavily on actions taken on private property.
The canopy cover analysis shows that approximately 82% of the City’s existing canopy is located on private property, with 6% on public land and 12% within rights -of-way and medians. This distribution highlights the importance of community participation and policy support to achieve meaningful canopy increases.
To make progress toward a 10% canopy goal, the City must consider influencing tree planting and preservation through various avenues including evaluating current planting and maintenance practices, identifying and prioritizing new planting opportunities, securing additional funding for the City’s urban forestry program , guiding developers to preserve or replace trees, and utilizing programmatic tools such as tree protection ordinances and partnerships with schools, private land owners, and community organizations. Initiatives like residential tree giveaways, securing funding for a proactive maintenance program, and encouraging preservation of existing trees during development or reconstruction can further support canopy growth and ensure the benefits of the urban forest are distributed equitably across Hanford’s neighborhoods.
31 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 29
OCTOBER 2025
2.3 Priority Planting Areas
A priority planting analysis was conducted to assist the City in identifying areas where new trees would provide the most benefit. The analysis incorporates information on urban heat severity, viable planting sites, and the Tree Equity Score (TES) to highl ight locations where tree planting may deliver the greatest environmental and community benefits.
This analysis serves as a planning tool to guide decision-making and support future implementation of the UFMP.
Priority areas may evolve as new data become available, advantageous funding opportunities arise, or community partnerships are developed, to enhance the urban forest collaboratively. The results of this analysis can inform policy development, outreach efforts , and strengthen grant applications, by identifying neighborhoods where planting can reduce heat exposure, increase shade, and promote equitable access to urban forest resources.
2.3.1 Urban Heat Severity
Urban heat island effects occur when built surfaces such as pavement, roofs, and parking lots absorb and retain heat, leading to higher local temperatures compared to surrounding rural or vegetated areas. To assess relative temperature patterns within Hanf ord, the analysis used the 2024 Urban Heat Severity dataset developed by the Trust for Public Land. The dataset classifies relative surface heat intensity on a scale from 1 (less severe) to 5 (more severe). For this assessment, the dataset was processed to calculate a weighted average heat severity for each Census tract, allowing comparison of localized heat exposure across Hanford. This approach combines both the extent and intensity of heat within each tract to identify neighborhoods most affected by elev ated surface temperatures where tree planting may help mitigate these heat impacts.
Exhibit 18 shows that central and southwestern Hanford experience the highest heat severity, indicating areas that may benefit most from increased tree canopy and shade infrastructure to mitigate urban heat. Northern and northeastern neighborhoods exhibit lower relative heat severity, likely reflecting greater vegetation cover or fewer impervious surfaces.
32 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 30
OCTOBER 2025
Exhibit 18. Urban Heat Island Severity by Census Tract
Source: The Trust for Public Land 2024.
33 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 31
OCTOBER 2025
2.3.2 Viable Planting Sites
Viable planting sites were evaluated using data from the City’s tree inventory. These sites represent existing locations where new trees could be established without major modifications to current land use or infrastructure .
Each site was categorized ba sed on the anticipated mature size of tree it can support: small, medium, or large.
Stump locations were also included, representing opportunities for replanting once stumps are removed. A total of 591 viable planting sites were identified, including:
• 60 small sites – best suited for narrow spaces or under utility lines, • 140 medium sites – appropriate for general use in most parkways and landscaped areas, and • 278 large sites – capable of supporting shade trees with expansive canopies, • 113 stump locations – representing opportunities for replacement planting once stumps are removed.
Exhibit 19 illustrates the density of viable planting sites across Hanford by Census tract. Darker areas indicate tracts with a higher number of vacant planting opportunities, highlighting where near -term canopy gains may be most feasible.
Exhibit 19. Viable Planting Site Density by Census Tract
Source: City of Hanford 2025.
34 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 32
OCTOBER 2025
2.3.3 Tree Equity
The Tree Equity Score (TES) is a nationwide metric developed by American Forests to measure how well the benefits of trees are reaching all residents within a community. The score evaluates whether neighborhoods have enough tree canopy to ensure equitable access to shade, air-quality benefits, and climate resilience. It is calculated at the Census block-group level and combines high -resolution tree canopy data with demographic, environmental , and socioeconomic indicators that influence vulnerability to extreme heat and pollution.
TES scores range from 0 to 100, with lower values indicating a greater need for tree planting. A score of 100 means the neighborhood has met its canopy goal and is providing an equitable level of tree benefits relative to local conditions. Tree canopy goals are determined based on biome -specific targets (e.g., forest, Mediterranean, grassland, or desert) adjusted for building density, while the social and environmental context is captured through a Priority Index , which considers factors such as income, race, age, linguistic isolation, unemployment, healt h burden, and heat severity.
Exhibit 20 illustrates Tree Equity Scores across the City ’s Census block groups. Lighter colors represent lower scores, indicating neighborhoods with limited canopy and higher planting need. Darker colors represent areas that have met or exceeded equitable canopy thresholds.
Exhibit 20. Tree Equity Score by Census Block Groups
Source: Tree Equity Score. 2023. American Forests.
35 of 201
APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT
APPENDIX A 33
OCTOBER 2025
In Hanford, the Tree Equity Score highlights neighborhoods where existing canopy does not adequately serve residents most affected by heat and socioeconomic stressors. These areas typically correspond with communities experiencing higher poverty rates, greater heat exposure, or limited access to shade. Evaluating TES across the City helps identify where tree planting and canopy preservation efforts can most effectively reduce environmental disparities, mitigate extreme heat, and improve quality of life.
Aligning future planting efforts in areas with low Tree Equity Scores, high heat severity, and available planting space overlap, will help the City direct resources where trees may provide the greatest combined benefit. Focusing on these overlapping areas can reduce heat exposure, expand canopy where establishment is most feasible, and improve equitable access to urban forest benefits across Hanford. This integrated approach support s data-driven prioritization and provides a foundation for future implementation , advocacy for funding, and management decisions for the urban forestry program.
36 of 201
35 3 References
Costello, L.R., and K.S. Jones. 2014. Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS IV): A Guide to the Water Needs of Landscape Plants in California. California Department of Water Resources. https://ucanr.edu/sites/WUCOLS.
Hirabayashi, Y., R. Mahendran, S. Koirala, L. Konoshima, D. Yamazaki, S. Watanabe, H. Kim, and S. Kanae. 2013. “Global flood Risk Under Climate Change.” Nature Climate Change 3(9): 816–821. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1911.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
Lacan, J., and J. McBride. 2018. “Street Trees and Climate Change.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 31:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.020.
McBride, J.R. and I. Lacan. 2018. Climate Change and Urban Forests: A Tree Selection Guide for Future Climates.
University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources.
McPherson, E.G., N.S. van Doorn, and J. de Goede. 2016. “Structure, Function and Value of Street Trees in California, USA.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 17:104–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.02.011.
Moll, Gary. 1989. Urban Forestry: Managing the Urban Forest. Washington, D.C.: The American Forestry Association.
Richards, N.A. 1993. “Reasonable Guidelines for Street Tree Diversity.” Journal of Arboriculture 19(6): 344–350.
The Trust for Public Land. 2024. “Heat Severity Urban Areas – USA 2024” [dataset]. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=b573ae35364e48d9ba9b2383f482630c.
Tree Equity Score. 2023. American Forests. Last accessed October 14, 2025. https://treeequityscore.org USFS (United States Forest Service). 2020. i-Tree Eco [online software]. https://www.itreetools.org/tools/i-tree- eco.
Watson, G. 2014. Best Management Practices: Tree Planting, 2nd ed. International Society of Arboriculture.
37 of 201
i-Tree
Ecosystem Analysis
Hanford
Urban Forest Effects and Values
July 2025
38 of 201
Summary
Understanding an urban forest's structure, function and value can promote management decisions that will improve human health and environmental quality. An assessment of the vegetation structure, function, and value of the Hanford urban forest was conducted during 2025. Data from 6640 trees located throughout Hanford were analyzed using the i-Tree Eco model developed by the U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station. • Number of trees: 6,640
• Tree Cover: 28.07 acres
• Most common species of trees: Chinese pistache, Common crapemyrtle, Chinese hackberry • Percentage of trees less than 6" (15.2 cm) diameter: 47.0% • Pollution Removal: 2029 pounds/year ($7.09 thousand/year) • Carbon Storage: 1.324 thousand tons ($573 thousand)
• Carbon Sequestration: 39.89 tons ($17.3 thousand/year) • Oxygen Production: 106.4 tons/year
• Avoided Runoff: 146.1 thousand gallon/year ($1.31 thousand/year) • Building energy savings: N/A – data not collected
• Avoided carbon emissions: N/A – data not collected
• Replacement values: $10.9 million
Ton: short ton (U.S.) (2,000 lbs)
Monetary values $ are reported in US Dollars throughout the report except where noted.
Ecosystem service estimates are reported for trees.
With Complete Inventory Projects, oxygen production is estimated from gross carbon sequestration and does not account for decomposition. Oxygen production in Plot Inventory Projects is estimated from net carbon sequestration.
For an overview of i-Tree Eco methodology, see Appendix I. Data collection quality is determined by the local data collectors, over which i-Tree has no control.
39 of 201
Table of Contents
Summary........................................................................................................................................................................2 I. Tree Characteristics of the Urban Forest ...................................................................................................................4 II. Urban Forest Cover and Leaf Area ............................................................................................................................7 III. Air Pollution Removal by Urban Trees .....................................................................................................................9 IV. Carbon Storage and Sequestration ........................................................................................................................11 V. Oxygen Production ..................................................................................................................................................13 VI. Avoided Runoff .......................................................................................................................................................14 VII. Trees and Building Energy Use ..............................................................................................................................15 VIII. Replacement and Functional Values ....................................................................................................................16 IX. Potential Pest Impacts ............................................................................................................................................17 Appendix I. i-Tree Eco Model and Field Measurements .............................................................................................18 Appendix II. Relative Tree Effects ...............................................................................................................................22 Appendix III. Comparison of Urban Forests ................................................................................................................23 Appendix IV. General Recommendations for Air Quality Improvement ....................................................................24 Appendix V. Invasive Species of the Urban Forest .....................................................................................................25 Appendix VI. Potential Risk of Pests ............................................................................................................................26 References ...................................................................................................................................................................33 40 of 201
I. Tree Characteristics of the Urban Forest
The urban forest of Hanford has 6,640 trees with a tree cover of Chinese pistache. The three most common species are Chinese pistache (33.6 percent), Common crapemyrtle (9.1 percent), and Chinese hackberry (7.2 percent). 41 of 201
Urban forests are composed of a mix of native and exotic tree species. Thus, urban forests often have a tree diversity that is higher than surrounding native landscapes. Increased tree diversity can minimize the overall impact or destruction by a species-specific insect or disease, but it can also pose a risk to native plants if some of the exotic species are invasive plants that can potentially out-compete and displace native species. In Hanford, about 18 percent of the trees are species native to North America, while 9 percent are native to California. Species exotic to North America make up 82 percent of the population. Most exotic tree species have an origin from Asia (59 percent of the species).
42 of 201
The plus sign (+) indicates the tree species is native to another continent other than the ones listed in the grouping.
Invasive plant species are often characterized by their vigor, ability to adapt, reproductive capacity, and general lack of natural enemies. These abilities enable them to displace native plants and make them a threat to natural areas.
Four of the 101 tree species in Hanford are identified as invasive on the state invasive species list (California Invasive Species Advisory Committee 2010). These invasive species comprise 1.3 percent of the tree population though they may only cause a minimal level of impact. The three most common invasive species are Chinese tallowtree (1.0 percent of population), Tree of heaven (0.1 percent), and California peppertree (0.1 percent) (see Appendix V for a complete list of invasive species).
43 of 201
II. Urban Forest Cover and Leaf Area
Many tree benefits equate directly to the amount of healthy leaf surface area of the plant. Trees cover about 28.07 acres of Hanford and provide 88.53 acres of leaf area.
In Hanford, the most dominant species in terms of leaf area are Chinese pistache, Chinese hackberry, and California white oak. The 10 species with the greatest importance values are listed in Table 1. Importance values (IV) are calculated as the sum of percent population and percent leaf area. High importance values do not mean that these trees should necessarily be encouraged in the future; rather these species currently dominate the urban forest structure.
Table 1. Most important species in Hanford
Species Name
Percent
Population
Percent
Leaf Area IV
Chinese pistache 33.6 15.7 49.3
Chinese hackberry 7.2 11.9 19.1
Sycamore spp 6.2 8.4 14.6
California white oak 3.7 10.7 14.4
Canary island pine 2.8 9.8 12.7
Common crapemyrtle 9.1 0.6 9.7
Italian stone pine 1.5 7.1 8.6
Aleppo pine 2.1 4.5 6.6
Camphor tree 2.2 3.2 5.4
Live oak 2.0 2.4 4.3
44 of 201
Common ground cover classes (including cover types beneath trees and shrubs) in Hanford are not available since they are configured not to be collected.
45 of 201
III. Air Pollution Removal by Urban Trees
Poor air quality is a common problem in many urban areas. It can lead to decreased human health, damage to landscape materials and ecosystem processes, and reduced visibility. The urban forest can help improve air quality by reducing air temperature, directly removing pollutants from the air, and reducing energy consumption in buildings, which consequently reduces air pollutant emissions from the power sources. Trees also emit volatile organic compounds that can contribute to ozone formation. However, integrative studies have revealed that an increase in tree cover leads to reduced ozone formation (Nowak and Dwyer 2000).
Pollution removal 1 by trees in Hanford was estimated using field data and recent available pollution and weather data available. Pollution removal was greatest for ozone (Figure 7). It is estimated that trees remove 2029 pounds of air pollution (ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), particulate matter less than 10 microns and greater than 2.5 microns (PM10*) 2, and sulfur dioxide (SO2)) per year with an associated value of $7.09 thousand (see Appendix I for more details). 1 PM10* is particulate matter less than 10 microns and greater than 2.5 microns. PM2.5 is particulate matter less than 2.5 microns. If PM2.5 is not monitored, PM10* represents particulate matter less than 10 microns. PM2.5 is generally more relevant in discussions concerning air pollution effects on human health. 2 Trees remove PM2.5 and PM10* when particulate matter is deposited on leaf surfaces. This deposited PM2.5 and PM10* can be resuspended to the atmosphere or removed during rain events and dissolved or transferred to the soil. This combination of events can lead to positive or negative pollution removal and value depending on various atmospheric factors (see Appendix I for more details). 46 of 201
In 2025, trees in Hanford emitted an estimated 1.451 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (0.7503 tons of isoprene and 0.7008 tons of monoterpenes). Emissions vary among species based on species characteristics (e.g. some genera such as oaks are high isoprene emitters) and amount of leaf biomass. Forty- five percent of the urban forest's VOC emissions were from California white oak and Live oak. These VOCs are precursor chemicals to ozone formation.³
General recommendations for improving air quality with trees are given in Appendix VIII. ³ Some economic studies have estimated VOC emission costs. These costs are not included here as there is a tendency to add positive dollar estimates of ozone removal effects with negative dollar values of VOC emission effects to determine whether tree effects are positive or negative in relation to ozone. This combining of dollar values to determine tree effects should not be done, rather estimates of VOC effects on ozone formation (e.g., via photochemical models) should be conducted and directly contrasted with ozone removal by trees (i.e., ozone effects should be directly compared, not dollar estimates). In addition, air temperature reductions by trees have been shown to significantly reduce ozone concentrations (Cardelino and Chameides 1990; Nowak et al 2000), but are not considered in this analysis. Photochemical modeling that integrates tree effects on air temperature, pollution removal, VOC emissions, and emissions from power plants can be used to determine the overall effect of trees on ozone concentrations. 47 of 201
IV. Carbon Storage and Sequestration
Climate change is an issue of global concern. Urban trees can help mitigate climate change by sequestering atmospheric carbon (from carbon dioxide) in tissue and by altering energy use in buildings, and consequently altering carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel based power sources (Abdollahi et al 2000).
Trees reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in new growth every year. The amount of carbon annually sequestered is increased with the size and health of the trees. The gross sequestration of Hanford trees is about 39.89 tons of carbon per year with an associated value of $17.3 thousand. See Appendix I for more details on methods.
Carbon storage is another way trees can influence global climate change. As a tree grows, it stores more carbon by holding it in its accumulated tissue. As a tree dies and decays, it releases much of the stored carbon back into the atmosphere. Thus, carbon storage is an indication of the amount of carbon that can be released if trees are allowed to die and decompose. Maintaining healthy trees will keep the carbon stored in trees, but tree maintenance can contribute to carbon emissions (Nowak et al 2002c). When a tree dies, using the wood in long-term wood products, to heat buildings, or to produce energy will help reduce carbon emissions from wood decomposition or from fossil- fuel or wood-based power plants.
48 of 201
Trees in Hanford are estimated to store 1320 tons of carbon ($573 thousand). Of the species sampled, Chinese pistache stores and sequesters the most carbon (approximately 24.6% of the total carbon stored and 36.8% of all sequestered carbon.)
49 of 201
V. Oxygen Production
Oxygen production is one of the most commonly cited benefits of urban trees. The annual oxygen production of a tree is directly related to the amount of carbon sequestered by the tree, which is tied to the accumulation of tree biomass.
Trees in Hanford are estimated to produce 106.4 tons of oxygen per year.⁴ However, this tree benefit is relatively insignificant because of the large and relatively stable amount of oxygen in the atmosphere and extensive production by aquatic systems. Our atmosphere has an enormous reserve of oxygen. If all fossil fuel reserves, all trees, and all organic matter in soils were burned, atmospheric oxygen would only drop a few percent (Broecker 1970).
Table 2. The top 20 oxygen production species.
Species Oxygen
Gross Carbon
Sequestration Number of Trees Leaf Area
(ton) (ton/yr) (acre)
Chinese pistache 39.13 14.67 2,234 13.88
California white oak 8.01 3.00 246 9.49
Camphor tree 6.28 2.36 148 2.81
Live oak 4.79 1.80 130 2.11
Canary island pine 4.37 1.64 189 8.70
Sycamore spp 4.26 1.60 411 7.42
Italian stone pine 4.12 1.54 99 6.25
Aleppo pine 3.13 1.18 140 4.00
Chinese tallowtree 2.47 0.93 66 0.85
Chinese hackberry 2.37 0.89 478 10.56
Common crapemyrtle 1.91 0.72 605 0.52
Coastal live oak 1.61 0.60 75 2.30
Carolina laurelcherry 1.47 0.55 113 0.42
Chinese elm 1.37 0.51 40 0.74
White mulberry 1.35 0.51 31 0.76
Callery pear 1.26 0.47 51 0.78
Ash spp 1.12 0.42 54 1.93
Red gum eucalyptus 1.08 0.41 9 1.07
Honeylocust 1.04 0.39 39 0.58
Silk oak 0.96 0.36 34 0.44
50 of 201
VI. Avoided Runoff
Surface runoff can be a cause for concern in many urban areas as it can contribute pollution to streams, wetlands, rivers, lakes, and oceans. During precipitation events, some portion of the precipitation is intercepted by vegetation (trees and shrubs) while the other portion reaches the ground. The portion of the precipitation that reaches the ground and does not infiltrate into the soil becomes surface runoff (Hirabayashi 2012). In urban areas, the large extent of impervious surfaces increases the amount of surface runoff.
Urban trees and shrubs, however, are beneficial in reducing surface runoff. Trees and shrubs intercept precipitation, while their root systems promote infiltration and storage in the soil. The trees and shrubs of Hanford help to reduce runoff by an estimated 146 thousand gallons a year with an associated value of $1.3 thousand (see Appendix I for more details). Avoided runoff is estimated based on local weather from the user-designated weather station. In Hanford, the total annual precipitation in 2023 was 12.8 inches. 51 of 201
VII. Trees and Building Energy Use
Trees affect energy consumption by shading buildings, providing evaporative cooling, and blocking winter winds.
Trees tend to reduce building energy consumption in the summer months and can either increase or decrease building energy use in the winter months, depending on the location of trees around the building. Estimates of tree effects on energy use are based on field measurements of tree distance and direction to space conditioned residential buildings (McPherson and Simpson 1999).
Because energy-related data were not collected, energy savings and carbon avoided cannot be calculated. ⁵ Trees modify climate, produce shade, and reduce wind speeds. Increased energy use or costs are likely due to these tree-building interactions creating a cooling effect during the winter season. For example, a tree (particularly evergreen species) located on the southern side of a residential building may produce a shading effect that causes increases in heating requirements.
Table 3. Annual energy savings due to trees near residential buildings, Hanford Heating Cooling Total
MBTUa 0 N/A 0
MWHb 0 0 0
Carbon Avoided (pounds) 0 0 0
aMBTU - one million British Thermal Units
bMWH - megawatt-hour
Table 4. Annual savings a($) in residential energy expenditure during heating and cooling seasons, Hanford Heating Cooling Total
MBTUb 0 N/A 0
MWHc 0 0 0
Carbon Avoided 0 0 0
bBased on the prices of $204.7 per MWH and $12.9396400362223 per MBTU (see Appendix I for more details) cMBTU - one million British Thermal Units
cMWH - megawatt-hour
52 of 201
VIII. Replacement and Functional Values
Urban forests have a replacement value based on the trees themselves (e.g., the cost of having to replace a tree with a similar tree); they also have functional values (either positive or negative) based on the functions the trees perform.
The replacement value of an urban forest tends to increase with a rise in the number and size of healthy trees (Nowak et al 2002a). Annual functional values also tend to increase with increased number and size of healthy trees.
Through proper management, urban forest values can be increased; however, the values and benefits also can decrease as the amount of healthy tree cover declines.
Urban trees in Hanford have the following replacement values:
• Replacement value: $10.9 million
• Carbon storage: $573 thousand
Urban trees in Hanford have the following annual functional values:
• Carbon sequestration: $17.3 thousand
• Avoided runoff: $1.31 thousand
• Pollution removal: $7.09 thousand
• Energy costs and carbon emission values: $0
(Note: negative value indicates increased energy cost and carbon emission value) 53 of 201
IX. Potential Pest Impacts
Various insects and diseases can infest urban forests, potentially killing trees and reducing the health, replacement value and sustainability of the urban forest. As pests tend to have differing tree hosts, the potential damage or risk of each pest will differ among cities.Fifty-three pests were analyzed for their potential impact and compared with pest range maps (Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team 2014) for the conterminous United States to determine their proximity to Kings County. Two of the fifty-three pests analyzed are located within the county. For a complete analysis of all pests, see Appendix VII.
Thousand canker disease (TCD) (Cranshaw and Tisserat 2009; Seybold et al 2010) is an insect-disease complex that kills several species of walnuts, including black walnut. Potential loss of trees from TCD is 0.0 percent ($0 in replacement value).
The western pine beetle (WPB) (DeMars and Roettgering 1982) is a bark beetle and aggressive attacker of ponderosa and Coulter pines. This pest threatens 0.0 percent of the population, which represents a potential loss of $0 in replacement value.
54 of 201
Appendix I. i-Tree Eco Model and Field Measurements
i-Tree Eco is designed to use standardized field data and local hourly air pollution and meteorological data to quantify urban forest structure and its numerous effects (Nowak and Crane 2000), including:
• Urban forest structure (e.g., species composition, tree health, leaf area, etc.). • Amount of pollution removed hourly by the urban forest, and its associated percent air quality improvement throughout a year.
• Total carbon stored and net carbon annually sequestered by the urban forest. • Effects of trees on building energy use and consequent effects on carbon dioxide emissions from power sources.
• Replacement value of the forest, as well as the value for air pollution removal and carbon storage and sequestration.
• Potential impact of infestations by pests, such as Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, spongy moth, and Dutch elm disease.
Typically, all field data are collected during the leaf-on season to properly assess tree canopies. Typical data collection (actual data collection may vary depending upon the user) includes land use, ground and tree cover, individual tree attributes of species, stem diameter, height, crown width, crown canopy missing and dieback, and distance and direction to residential buildings (Nowak et al 2005; Nowak et al 2008).
During data collection, trees are identified to the most specific taxonomic classification possible. Trees that are not classified to the species level may be classified by genus (e.g., ash) or species groups (e.g., hardwood). In this report, tree species, genera, or species groups are collectively referred to as tree species.
Tree Characteristics:
Leaf area of trees was assessed using measurements of crown dimensions and percentage of crown canopy missing.
In the event that these data variables were not collected, they are estimated by the model.
An analysis of invasive species is not available for studies outside of the United States. For the U.S., invasive species are identified using an invasive species list (California Invasive Species Advisory Committee 2010)for the state in which the urban forest is located. These lists are not exhaustive and they cover invasive species of varying degrees of invasiveness and distribution. In instances where a state did not have an invasive species list, a list was created based on the lists of the adjacent states. Tree species that are identified as invasive by the state invasive species list are cross-referenced with native range data. This helps eliminate species that are on the state invasive species list, but are native to the study area.
Air Pollution Removal:
Pollution removal is calculated for ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns, and particulate matter less than 10 microns and greater than 2.5 microns. PM2.5 is generally more relevant in discussions concerning air pollution effects on human health.
Air pollution removal estimates are derived from calculated hourly tree-canopy resistances for ozone, and sulfur and nitrogen dioxides based on a hybrid of big-leaf and multi-layer canopy deposition models (Baldocchi 1988; Baldocchi et al 1987). As the removal of carbon monoxide and particulate matter by vegetation is not directly related to transpiration, removal rates (deposition velocities) for these pollutants were based on average measured values from the literature (Bidwell and Fraser 1972; Lovett 1994) that were adjusted depending on leaf phenology and leaf area.
Particulate removal incorporated a 50 percent resuspension rate of particles back to the atmosphere (Zinke 1967).
Recent updates (2011) to air quality modeling are based on improved leaf area index simulations, weather and 55 of 201
pollution processing and interpolation, and updated pollutant monetary values (Hirabayashi et al 2011; Hirabayashi et al 2012; Hirabayashi 2011).
Trees remove PM2.5 and PM10* when particulate matter is deposited on leaf surfaces (Nowak et al 2013). This deposited PM2.5 and PM10* can be resuspended to the atmosphere or removed during rain events and dissolved or transferred to the soil. This combination of events can lead to positive or negative pollution removal and value depending on various atmospheric factors. Generally, PM2.5 and PM10* removal is positive with positive benefits.
However, there are some cases when net removal is negative or resuspended particles lead to increased pollution concentrations and negative values. During some months (e.g., with no rain), trees resuspend more particles than they remove. Resuspension can also lead to increased overall PM2.5 and PM10* concentrations if the boundary layer conditions are lower during net resuspension periods than during net removal periods. Since the pollution removal value is based on the change in pollution concentration, it is possible to have situations when trees remove PM2.5 and PM10* but increase concentrations and thus have negative values during periods of positive overall removal.
These events are not common, but can happen.
For reports in the United States, default air pollution removal value is calculated based on local incidence of adverse health effects and national median externality costs. The number of adverse health effects and associated economic value is calculated for ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns using data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP) (Nowak et al 2014). The model uses a damage-function approach that is based on the local change in pollution concentration and population. National median externality costs were used to calculate the value of carbon monoxide removal (Murray et al 1994).
For international reports, user-defined local pollution values are used. For international reports that do not have local values, estimates are based on either European median externality values (van Essen et al 2011) or BenMAP regression equations (Nowak et al 2014) that incorporate user-defined population estimates. Values are then converted to local currency with user-defined exchange rates.
For this analysis, pollution removal value is calculated based on the prices of $1,622 per ton (carbon monoxide), $6,007 per ton (ozone), $868 per ton (nitrogen dioxide), $313 per ton (sulfur dioxide), $201,290 per ton (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns), $7,623 per ton (particulate matter less than 10 microns and greater than 2.5 microns).
Carbon Storage and Sequestration:
Carbon storage is the amount of carbon bound up in the above-ground and below-ground parts of woody vegetation.
To calculate current carbon storage, biomass for each tree was calculated using equations from the literature and measured tree data. Open-grown, maintained trees tend to have less biomass than predicted by forest-derived biomass equations (Nowak 1994). To adjust for this difference, biomass results for open-grown urban trees were multiplied by 0.8. No adjustment was made for trees found in natural stand conditions. Tree dry-weight biomass was converted to stored carbon by multiplying by 0.5.
Carbon sequestration is the removal of carbon dioxide from the air by plants. To estimate the gross amount of carbon sequestered annually, average diameter growth from the appropriate genera and diameter class and tree condition was added to the existing tree diameter (year x) to estimate tree diameter and carbon storage in year x+1.
Carbon storage and carbon sequestration values are based on estimated or customized local carbon values. For international reports that do not have local values, estimates are based on the carbon value for the United States (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon 2015) and converted to local currency with user-defined exchange rates.
For this analysis, carbon storage and carbon sequestration values are calculated based on $433 per ton. 56 of 201
Oxygen Production:
The amount of oxygen produced is estimated from carbon sequestration based on atomic weights: net O2 release (kg/yr) = net C sequestration (kg/yr) × 32/12. To estimate the net carbon sequestration rate, the amount of carbon sequestered as a result of tree growth is reduced by the amount lost resulting from tree mortality. Thus, net carbon sequestration and net annual oxygen production of the urban forest account for decomposition (Nowak et al 2007).
For complete inventory projects, oxygen production is estimated from gross carbon sequestration and does not account for decomposition.
Avoided Runoff:
Annual avoided surface runoff is calculated based on rainfall interception by vegetation, specifically the difference between annual runoff with and without vegetation. Although tree leaves, branches, and bark may intercept precipitation and thus mitigate surface runoff, only the precipitation intercepted by leaves is accounted for in this analysis.
The value of avoided runoff is based on estimated or user-defined local values. For international reports that do not have local values, the national average value for the United States is utilized and converted to local currency with user-defined exchange rates. The U.S. value of avoided runoff is based on the U.S. Forest Service's Community Tree Guide Series (McPherson et al 1999; 2000; 2001; 2002; 2003; 2004; 2006a; 2006b; 2006c; 2007; 2010; Peper et al 2009; 2010; Vargas et al 2007a; 2007b; 2008).
For this analysis, avoided runoff value is calculated based on the price of $0.01 per gallon.
Building Energy Use:
If appropriate field data were collected, seasonal effects of trees on residential building energy use were calculated based on procedures described in the literature (McPherson and Simpson 1999) using distance and direction of trees from residential structures, tree height and tree condition data. To calculate the monetary value of energy savings, local or custom prices per MWH or MBTU are utilized.
For this analysis, energy saving value is calculated based on the prices of $204.70 per MWH and $12.94 per MBTU.
Replacement Values:
Replacement value is the value of a tree based on the physical resource itself (e.g., the cost of having to replace a tree with a similar tree). Replacement values were based on valuation procedures of the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, which uses tree species, diameter, condition, and location information (Nowak et al 2002a; 2002b). Replacement value may not be included for international projects if there is insufficient local data to complete the valuation procedures.
Potential Pest Impacts:
The complete potential pest risk analysis is not available for studies outside of the United States. The number of trees at risk to the pests analyzed is reported, though the list of pests is based on known insects and disease in the United States.
For the U.S., potential pest risk is based on pest range maps and the known pest host species that are likely to experience mortality. Pest range maps for 2012 from the Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) (Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team 2014) were used to determine the proximity of each pest to the county in which 57 of 201
the urban forest is located. For the county, it was established whether the insect/disease occurs within the county, is within 250 miles of the county edge, is between 250 and 750 miles away, or is greater than 750 miles away. FHTET did not have pest range maps for Dutch elm disease and chestnut blight. The range of these pests was based on known occurrence and the host range, respectively (Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center; Worrall 2007).
Relative Tree Effects:
The relative value of tree benefits reported in Appendix II is calculated to show what carbon storage and sequestration, and air pollutant removal equate to in amounts of municipal carbon emissions, passenger automobile emissions, and house emissions.
Municipal carbon emissions are based on 2010 U.S. per capita carbon emissions (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center 2010). Per capita emissions were multiplied by city population to estimate total city carbon emissions.
Light duty vehicle emission rates (g/mi) for CO, NOx, VOCs, PM10, SO2 for 2010 (Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2010; Heirigs et al 2004), PM2.5 for 2011-2015 (California Air Resources Board 2013), and CO2 for 2011 (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency 2010) were multiplied by average miles driven per vehicle in 2011 (Federal Highway Administration 2013) to determine average emissions per vehicle.
Household emissions are based on average electricity kWh usage, natural gas Btu usage, fuel oil Btu usage, kerosene Btu usage, LPG Btu usage, and wood Btu usage per household in 2009 (Energy Information Administration 2013; Energy Information Administration 2014)
• CO2, SO2, and NOx power plant emission per KWh are from Leonardo Academy 2011. CO emission per kWh assumes 1/3 of one percent of C emissions is CO based on Energy Information Administration 1994. PM10 emission per kWh from Layton 2004.
• CO2, NOx, SO2, and CO emission per Btu for natural gas, propane and butane (average used to represent LPG), Fuel #4 and #6 (average used to represent fuel oil and kerosene) from Leonardo Academy 2011. • CO2 emissions per Btu of wood from Energy Information Administration 2014. • CO, NOx and SOx emission per Btu based on total emissions and wood burning (tons) from (British Columbia Ministry 2005; Georgia Forestry Commission 2009).
58 of 201
Appendix II. Relative Tree Effects
The urban forest in Hanford provides benefits that include carbon storage and sequestration, and air pollutant removal. To estimate the relative value of these benefits, tree benefits were compared to estimates of average municipal carbon emissions, average passenger automobile emissions, and average household emissions. See Appendix I for methodology.
Carbon storage is equivalent to:
• Amount of carbon emitted in Hanford in 2 days
• Annual carbon (C) emissions from 937 automobiles
• Annual C emissions from 384 single-family houses
Carbon monoxide removal is equivalent to:
• Annual carbon monoxide emissions from 0 automobiles
• Annual carbon monoxide emissions from 0 single-family houses Nitrogen dioxide removal is equivalent to:
• Annual nitrogen dioxide emissions from 8 automobiles
• Annual nitrogen dioxide emissions from 3 single-family houses Sulfur dioxide removal is equivalent to:
• Annual sulfur dioxide emissions from 111 automobiles
• Annual sulfur dioxide emissions from 0 single-family houses Annual carbon sequestration is equivalent to:
• Amount of carbon emitted in Hanford in 0.1 days
• Annual C emissions from 0 automobiles
• Annual C emissions from 0 single-family houses
59 of 201
Appendix III. Comparison of Urban Forests
A common question asked is, "How does this city compare to other cities?" Although comparison among cities should be made with caution as there are many attributes of a city that affect urban forest structure and functions, summary data are provided from other cities analyzed using the i-Tree Eco model.
I. City totals for trees
City % Tree Cover Number of Trees Carbon Storage Carbon Sequestration Pollution Removal (tons) (tons/yr) (tons/yr)
Toronto, ON, Canada 26.6 10,220,000 1,221,000 51,500 2,099 Atlanta, GA 36.7 9,415,000 1,344,000 46,400 1,663
Los Angeles, CA 11.1 5,993,000 1,269,000 77,000 1,975
New York, NY 20.9 5,212,000 1,350,000 42,300 1,676
London, ON, Canada 24.7 4,376,000 396,000 13,700 408
Chicago, IL 17.2 3,585,000 716,000 25,200 888
Phoenix, AZ 9.0 3,166,000 315,000 32,800 563
Baltimore, MD 21.0 2,479,000 570,000 18,400 430
Philadelphia, PA 15.7 2,113,000 530,000 16,100 575
Washington, DC 28.6 1,928,000 525,000 16,200 418
Oakville, ON , Canada 29.1 1,908,000 147,000 6,600 190
Albuquerque, NM 14.3 1,846,000 332,000 10,600 248
Boston, MA 22.3 1,183,000 319,000 10,500 283
Syracuse, NY 26.9 1,088,000 183,000 5,900 109
Woodbridge, NJ 29.5 986,000 160,000 5,600 210
Minneapolis, MN 26.4 979,000 250,000 8,900 305
San Francisco, CA 11.9 668,000 194,000 5,100 141
Morgantown, WV 35.5 658,000 93,000 2,900 72
Moorestown, NJ 28.0 583,000 117,000 3,800 118
Hartford, CT 25.9 568,000 143,000 4,300 58
Jersey City, NJ 11.5 136,000 21,000 890 41
Casper, WY 8.9 123,000 37,000 1,200 37
Freehold, NJ 34.4 48,000 20,000 540 22
II. Totals per acre of land area
City Number of Trees/ac Carbon Storage Carbon Sequestration Pollution Removal (tons/ac) (tons/ac/yr) (lb/ac/yr)
Toronto, ON, Canada 64.9 7.8 0.33 26.7
Atlanta, GA 111.6 15.9 0.55 39.4
Los Angeles, CA 19.6 4.2 0.16 13.1
New York, NY 26.4 6.8 0.21 17.0
London, ON, Canada 75.1 6.8 0.24 14.0
Chicago, IL 24.2 4.8 0.17 12.0
Phoenix, AZ 12.9 1.3 0.13 4.6
Baltimore, MD 48.0 11.1 0.36 16.6
Philadelphia, PA 25.1 6.3 0.19 13.6
Washington, DC 49.0 13.3 0.41 21.2
Oakville, ON , Canada 78.1 6.0 0.27 11.0
Albuquerque, NM 21.8 3.9 0.12 5.9
Boston, MA 33.5 9.1 0.30 16.1
Syracuse, NY 67.7 10.3 0.34 13.6
Woodbridge, NJ 66.5 10.8 0.38 28.4
Minneapolis, MN 26.2 6.7 0.24 16.3
San Francisco, CA 22.5 6.6 0.17 9.5
Morgantown, WV 119.2 16.8 0.52 26.0
Moorestown, NJ 62.1 12.4 0.40 25.1
Hartford, CT 50.4 12.7 0.38 10.2
Jersey City, NJ 14.4 2.2 0.09 8.6
Casper, WY 9.1 2.8 0.09 5.5
Freehold, NJ 38.3 16.0 0.44 35.3
60 of 201
Appendix IV. General Recommendations for Air Quality Improvement Urban vegetation can directly and indirectly affect local and regional air quality by altering the urban atmosphere environment. Four main ways that urban trees affect air quality are (Nowak 1995):
• Temperature reduction and other microclimate effects
• Removal of air pollutants
• Emission of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and tree maintenance emissions • Energy effects on buildings
The cumulative and interactive effects of trees on climate, pollution removal, and VOC and power plant emissions determine the impact of trees on air pollution. Cumulative studies involving urban tree impacts on ozone have revealed that increased urban canopy cover, particularly with low VOC emitting species, leads to reduced ozone concentrations in cities (Nowak 2000). Local urban management decisions also can help improve air quality.
Urban forest management strategies to help improve air quality include (Nowak 2000):
Strategy Result
Increase the number of healthy trees Increase pollution removal Sustain existing tree cover Maintain pollution removal levels Maximize use of low VOC-emitting trees Reduces ozone and carbon monoxide formation Sustain large, healthy trees Large trees have greatest per-tree effects Use long-lived trees Reduce long-term pollutant emissions from planting and removal
Use low maintenance trees Reduce pollutants emissions from maintenance activities
Reduce fossil fuel use in maintaining vegetation Reduce pollutant emissions Plant trees in energy conserving locations Reduce pollutant emissions from power plants Plant trees to shade parked cars Reduce vehicular VOC emissions Supply ample water to vegetation Enhance pollution removal and temperature reduction
Plant trees in polluted or heavily populated areas Maximizes tree air quality benefits Avoid pollutant-sensitive species Improve tree health
Utilize evergreen trees for particulate matter Year-round removal of particles 61 of 201
Appendix V. Invasive Species of the Urban Forest
The following inventoried tree species were listed as invasive on the California invasive species list (California Invasive Species Advisory Committee 2010):
Species Namea Number of Trees % of Trees Leaf Area Percent Leaf Area (ac)
Chinese tallowtree 66 1.0 0.8 1.0
Tree of heaven 9 0.1 0.2 0.2
California peppertree 6 0.1 0.1 0.1
Small flower tamerisk 3 0.0 0.1 0.1
Total 84 1.27 1.20 1.35
aSpecies are determined to be invasive if they are listed on the state's invasive species list 62 of 201
Appendix VI. Potential Risk of Pests
Fifty-three insects and diseases were analyzed to quantify their potential impact on the urban forest. As each insect/ disease is likely to attack different host tree species, the implications for {0} will vary. The number of trees at risk reflects only the known host species that are likely to experience mortality.
Code Scientific Name Common Name Trees at Risk Value
(#) ($ thousands)
AL Phyllocnistis populiella Aspen Leafminer 0 0.00
ALB Anoplophora glabripennis Asian Longhorned Beetle 84 119.18 ARCA Neodothiora populina Aspen Running Canker 0 0.00
ARD Armillaria spp. Armillaria Root Disease 0 0.00
BBD Neonectria faginata Beech Bark Disease 0 0.00
BC Sirococcus clavigignenti
juglandacearum
Butternut Canker 0 0.00
BLD Litylenchus crenatae mccannii Beech Leaf Disease 0 0.00 BM Euproctis chrysorrhoea Browntail Moth 13 17.34
BOB Tubakia iowensis Bur Oak Blight 6 5.65
BSRD Leptographium wageneri Black Stain Root Disease 0 0.00 BWA Adelges piceae Balsam Woolly Adelgid 0 0.00
CB Cryphonectria parasitica Chestnut Blight 0 0.00
DA Discula destructiva Dogwood Anthracnose 0 0.00
DBSR Leptographium wageneri var.
pseudotsugae
Douglas-fir Black Stain Root
Disease
0 0.00
DED Ophiostoma novo-ulmi Dutch Elm Disease 3 4.47
DFB Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Douglas-Fir Beetle 0 0.00 EAB Agrilus planipennis Emerald Ash Borer 62 171.75
FE Scolytus ventralis Fir Engraver 0 0.00
FR Cronartium quercuum f. sp.
Fusiforme
Fusiform Rust 0 0.00
FTC Malacosoma disstria Forest Tent Caterpillar 56 130.91 GSOB Agrilus auroguttatus Goldspotted Oak Borer 96 217.00 HRD Heterobasidion irregulare/
occidentale
Heterobasidion Root Disease 0 0.00
HS Neodiprion tsugae Hemlock Sawfly 0 0.00
HWA Adelges tsugae Hemlock Woolly Adelgid 0 0.00
JPB Dendroctonus jeffreyi Jeffrey Pine Beetle 0 0.00
JPBW Choristoneura pinus Jack Pine Budworm 0 0.00
LAT Choristoneura conflictana Large Aspen Tortrix 0 0.00 LWD Raffaelea lauricola Laurel Wilt 148 295.11
MOB Xyleborus monographus Mediterranean Oak Borer 0 0.00 MPB Dendroctonus ponderosae Mountain Pine Beetle 0 0.00 NSE Ips perturbatus Northern Spruce Engraver 0 0.00
OW Bretziella fagacearum Oak Wilt 651 1,528.11
PBSR Leptographium wageneri var.
ponderosum
Pine Black Stain Root Disease 0 0.00
POCRD Phytophthora lateralis Port-Orford-Cedar Root Disease 0 0.00 PSB Tomicus piniperda Pine Shoot Beetle 457 2,504.64
63 of 201
PSHB Euwallacea nov. sp. Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer 3,985 5,871.15 RPS Matsucoccus resinosae Red Pine Scale 0 0.00
SB Dendroctonus rufipennis Spruce Beetle 2 0.05
SBW Choristoneura fumiferana Spruce Budworm 0 0.00
SFM subalpine fir mortality summary Subalpine Fir Mortality 0 0.00 SLF Lycorma delicatula Spotted Lanternfly 294 496.89
SOD Phytophthora ramorum Sudden Oak Death 278 521.08
SPB Dendroctonus frontalis Southern Pine Beetle 457 2,504.64 SW Sirex noctilio Sirex Wood Wasp 455 2,504.59
TCD Geosmithia morbida Thousand Canker Disease 0 0.00
WBB Dryocoetes confusus Western Balsam Bark Beetle 0 0.00 WBBU Acleris gloverana Western Blackheaded Budworm 2 0.05 WFNPM western five-needle pine
mortality summary
Western Five-Needle Pine
Mortality
0 0.00
WM Operophtera brumata Winter Moth 623 1,530.48
WPB Dendroctonus brevicomis Western Pine Beetle 0 0.00
WPBR Cronartium ribicola White Pine Blister Rust 0 0.00 WSB Choristoneura occidentalis Western Spruce Budworm 0 0.00 Code Scientific Name Common Name Trees at Risk Value
(#) ($ thousands)
64 of 201
In the following graph, the pests are color coded according to the county's proximity to the pest occurrence in the United States. Red indicates that the pest is within the county; orange indicates that the pest is within 250 miles of the county; yellow indicates that the pest is within 750 miles of the county; and green indicates that the pest is outside of these ranges.
Note: points - Number of trees, bars - Replacement value 65 of 201
Based on the host tree species for each pest and the current range of the pest (Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team 2014), it is possible to determine what the risk is that each tree species in the urban forest could be attacked by an insect or disease.
Spp. Risk
Risk
Weight
Species
Name
AL
ALB
ARCA
ARD
BBD
BC
BLD
BM
BOB
BSRD
BWA
CB
DA
DBSR
DED
DFB
EAB
FE
FR
FTC
GSOB
HRD
HS
HWA
JPB
JPBW
LAT
LWD
MOB
MPB
NSE
OW
PBSR
11 Coastal live oak
9 Northern red oak
8 California black oak
8 Pin oak
7 Camphor tree
7 Holly oak
7 Spruce spp
7 Pine spp
7 American elm
6 Bur oak
5 California white oak
5 Live oak
5 Shumard oak
5 Ash spp
5 Trident maple
5 Persian silk tree
5 Velvet ash
5 Netleaf oak
5 Interior live oak
4 Canary island pine
4 Aleppo pine
4 Japanese zelkova
4 Italian stone pine
4 Cork oak
4 Chinese elm
4 White mulberry
4 Gray pine
4 Tree of heaven
4 Fremont cottonwood
4 Shamel ash
4 Japanese persimmon
4 Chinaberry
4 English oak
4 Siberian elm
3 Chinese pistache
3 California sycamore
3 Carolina laurelcherry
3 Strawberry tree
3 Chinese tallowtree
3 Callery pear
3 California palm
66 of 201
3 Goldenrain tree
3 Honeylocust
3 Babylon weeping
willow
3 Mexican fan palm
3 Red maple
3 Bay laurel
3 Olive
3 Sweetgum
3 Jerusalem thorn
3 Outeniqua
yellowwood
3 Red gum eucalyptus
3 Weeping bottlebrush
3 Southern magnolia
3 Pear spp
3 California peppertree
3 Carob
3 Loquat tree
3 Arizona sycamore
3 Shoestring acacia
3 Chinese fringe tree
2 Swamp white oak
1 Black locust
1 Black tupelo
1 Oriental arborvitae
Spp. Risk
Risk
Weight
Species
Name
AL
ALB
ARCA
ARD
BBD
BC
BLD
BM
BOB
BSRD
BWA
CB
DA
DBSR
DED
DFB
EAB
FE
FR
FTC
GSOB
HRD
HS
HWA
JPB
JPBW
LAT
LWD
MOB
MPB
NSE
OW
PBSR
Spp. Risk
Risk
Weight
Species
Name
POCRD
PSB
PSHB
RPS
SB
SBW
SFM
SLF
SOD
SPB
SW
TCD
WBB
WBBU
WFNPM
WM
WPB
WPBR
WSB
11 Coastal live oak
9 Northern red oak
8 California black oak
8 Pin oak
7 Camphor tree
7 Holly oak
7 Spruce spp
7 Pine spp
7 American elm
6 Bur oak
5 California white oak
5 Live oak
5 Shumard oak
5 Ash spp
5 Trident maple
5 Persian silk tree
5 Velvet ash
67 of 201
5 Netleaf oak
5 Interior live oak
4 Canary island pine
4 Aleppo pine
4 Japanese zelkova
4 Italian stone pine
4 Cork oak
4 Chinese elm
4 White mulberry
4 Gray pine
4 Tree of heaven
4 Fremont cottonwood
4 Shamel ash
4 Japanese persimmon
4 Chinaberry
4 English oak
4 Siberian elm
3 Chinese pistache
3 California sycamore
3 Carolina laurelcherry
3 Strawberry tree
3 Chinese tallowtree
3 Callery pear
3 California palm
3 Goldenrain tree
3 Honeylocust
3 Babylon weeping
willow
3 Mexican fan palm
3 Red maple
3 Bay laurel
3 Olive
3 Sweetgum
3 Jerusalem thorn
3 Outeniqua
yellowwood
3 Red gum eucalyptus
3 Weeping bottlebrush
3 Southern magnolia
3 Pear spp
3 California peppertree
3 Carob
3 Loquat tree
3 Arizona sycamore
3 Shoestring acacia
Spp. Risk
Risk
Weight
Species
Name
POCRD
PSB
PSHB
RPS
SB
SBW
SFM
SLF
SOD
SPB
SW
TCD
WBB
WBBU
WFNPM
WM
WPB
WPBR
WSB
68 of 201
3 Chinese fringe tree
2 Swamp white oak
1 Black locust
1 Black tupelo
1 Oriental arborvitae
Spp. Risk
Risk
Weight
Species
Name
POCRD
PSB
PSHB
RPS
SB
SBW
SFM
SLF
SOD
SPB
SW
TCD
WBB
WBBU
WFNPM
WM
WPB
WPBR
WSB
Note:
Species that are not listed in the matrix are not known to be hosts to any of the pests analyzed.
Species Risk:
• Red indicates that tree species is at risk to at least one pest within county • Orange indicates that tree species has no risk to pests in county, but has a risk to at least one pest within 250 miles from the county
• Yellow indicates that tree species has no risk to pests within 250 miles of county, but has a risk to at least one pest that is 250 and 750 miles from the county
• Green indicates that tree species has no risk to pests within 750 miles of county, but has a risk to at least one pest that is greater than 750 miles from the county
Risk Weight:
Numerical scoring system based on sum of points assigned to pest risks for species. Each pest that could attack tree species is scored as 4 points if red, 3 points if orange, 2 points if yellow and 1 point if green.
Pest Color Codes:
• Red indicates pest is within Kings county
• Red indicates pest is within 250 miles county
• Yellow indicates pest is within 750 miles of Kings county • Green indicates pest is outside of these ranges
69 of 201
References
Abdollahi, K.K.; Ning, Z.H.; Appeaning, A., eds. 2000. Global climate change and the urban forest. Baton Rouge, LA:
GCRCC and Franklin Press. 77 p.
Baldocchi, D. 1988. A multi-layer model for estimating sulfur dioxide deposition to a deciduous oak forest canopy.
Atmospheric Environment. 22: 869-884.
Baldocchi, D.D.; Hicks, B.B.; Camara, P. 1987. A canopy stomatal resistance model for gaseous deposition to vegetated surfaces. Atmospheric Environment. 21: 91-101.
Bidwell, R.G.S.; Fraser, D.E. 1972. Carbon monoxide uptake and metabolism by leaves. Canadian Journal of Botany. 50:
1435-1439.
British Columbia Ministry of Water, Land, and Air Protection. 2005. Residential wood burning emissions in British Columbia. British Columbia.
Broecker, W.S. 1970. Man's oxygen reserve. Science 168(3939): 1537-1538.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2010. Estimated National Average Vehicle Emissions Rates per Vehicle by Vehicle Type using Gasoline and Diesel. Washington, DC: Burea of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation. Table 4-43.
California Air Resources Board. 2013. Methods to Find the Cost-Effectiveness of Funding Air Quality Projects. Table 3 Average Auto Emission Factors. CA: California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board.
California Invasive Species Advisory Committee. 2010. The California Invasive Species List. CA: Invasive Species Council of California. <http://www.iscc.ca.gov/docs/CaliforniaInvasiveSpeciesList.pdf> Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. 2010. CO2 Emissions (metric tons per capita). Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Cardelino, C.A.; Chameides, W.L. 1990. Natural hydrocarbons, urbanization, and urban ozone. Journal of Geophysical Research. 95(D9): 13,971-13,979.
Cranshaw, W.; Tisserat, N. 2009. Walnut twig beetle and the thousand cankers disease of black walnut. Pest Alert. Ft.
Collins, CO: Colorado State University.
Seybold, S.; Haugen, D.; Graves, A. 2010. Thousand Cankers Disease. Pest Alert. NA-PR-02-10. Newtown Square, PA:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Area State and Private Forestry.
DeMars, C. J., Jr.; Roettgering, B. H. 1982. Western Pine Beetle. Forest Insect & Disease Leaflet 1. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 8 p.
Eastern Forest Environmental Threat Assessment Center. Dutch Elm Disease. http://threatsummary.forestthreats.org/ threats/threatSummaryViewer.cfm?threatID=43
Energy Information Administration. 1994. Energy Use and Carbon Emissions: Non-OECD Countries. Washington, DC:
Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.
Energy Information Administration. 2013. CE2.1 Fuel consumption totals and averages, U.S. homes. Washington, DC:
70 of 201
Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.
Energy Information Administration. 2014. CE5.2 Household wood consumption. Washington, DC: Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy.
Federal Highway Administration. 2013. Highway Statistics 2011.Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration, U.S.
Department of Transportation. Table VM-1.
Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team. 2014. 2012 National Insect & Disease Risk Maps/Data. Fort Collins, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/nidrm2012.shtml Georgia Forestry Commission. 2009. Biomass Energy Conversion for Electricity and Pellets Worksheet. Dry Branch, GA:
Georgia Forestry Commission.
Heirigs, P.L.; Delaney, S.S.; Dulla, R.G. 2004. Evaluation of MOBILE Models: MOBILE6.1 (PM), MOBILE6.2 (Toxics), and MOBILE6/CNG. Sacramento, CA: National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board.
Hirabayashi, S. 2011. Urban Forest Effects-Dry Deposition (UFORE-D) Model Enhancements, http:// www.itreetools.org/eco/resources/UFORE-D enhancements.pdf Hirabayashi, S. 2012. i-Tree Eco Precipitation Interception Model Descriptions, http://www.itreetools.org/eco/ resources/iTree_Eco_Precipitation_Interception_Model_Descriptions_V1_2.pdf Hirabayashi, S.; Kroll, C.; Nowak, D. 2011. Component-based development and sensitivity analyses of an air pollutant dry deposition model. Environmental Modeling and Software. 26(6): 804-816.
Hirabayashi, S.; Kroll, C.; Nowak, D. 2012. i-Tree Eco Dry Deposition Model Descriptions V 1.0 Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United States Government. 2015. Technical Support Document:
Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. http:// www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/inforeg/scc-tsd-final-july-2015.pdf Layton, M. 2004. 2005 Electricity Environmental Performance Report: Electricity Generation and Air Emissions. CA:
California Energy Commission.
Leonardo Academy. 2011. Leonardo Academy's Guide to Calculating Emissions Including Emission Factors and Energy Prices. Madison, WI: Leonardo Academy Inc.
Lovett, G.M. 1994. Atmospheric deposition of nutrients and pollutants in North America: an ecological perspective.
Ecological Applications. 4: 629-650.
McPherson, E.G.; Maco, S.E.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Xiao, Q.; VanDerZanden, A.M.; Bell, N. 2002. Western Washington and Oregon Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting. International Society of Arboriculture, Pacific Northwest, Silverton, OR.
McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R. 1999. Carbon dioxide reduction through urban forestry: guidelines for professional and volunteer tree planters. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-171. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 237 p.
McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Crowell, A.M.N.; Xiao, Q. 2010. Northern California coast community tree guide: benefits, costs, and strategic planting. PSW-GTR-228. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-228. U.S. Department of 71 of 201
Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Gardner, S.L.; Vargas, K.E.; Maco, S.E.; Xiao, Q. 2006a. Coastal Plain Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting PSW-GTR-201. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Gardner, S.L.; Vargas, K.E.; Xiao, Q. 2007. Northeast community tree guide:
benefits, costs, and strategic planting.
McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Maco, S.E.; Gardner, S.L.; Cozad, S.K.; Xiao, Q. 2006b. Midwest Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting PSW-GTR-199. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Maco, S.E.; Gardner, S.L.; Vargas, K.E.; Xiao, Q. 2006c. Piedmont Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting PSW-GTR 200. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Maco, S.E.; Xiao Q.; Mulrean, E. 2004. Desert Southwest Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Community Tree Council, Inc. 81 :81.
McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Scott, K.I.; Xiao, Q. 2000. Tree Guidelines for Coastal Southern California Communities. Local Government Commission, Sacramento, CA.
McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Xiao, Q. 1999. Tree Guidelines for San Joaquin Valley Communities. Local Government Commission, Sacramento, CA.
McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Xiao, Q.; Maco, S.E.; Hoefer, P.J. 2003. Northern Mountain and Prairie Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting. Center for Urban Forest Research, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Xiao, Q.; Pittenger, D.R.; Hodel, D.R. 2001. Tree Guidelines for Inland Empire Communities. Local Government Commission, Sacramento, CA.
Murray, F.J.; Marsh L.; Bradford, P.A. 1994. New York State Energy Plan, vol. II: issue reports. Albany, NY: New York State Energy Office.
National Invasive Species Information Center. 2011. Beltsville, MD: U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Invasive Species Information Center. http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/plants/main.shtml Nowak, D.J. 1994. Atmospheric carbon dioxide reduction by Chicago’s urban forest. In: McPherson, E.G.; Nowak, D.J.; Rowntree, R.A., eds. Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: results of the Chicago Urban Forest Climate Project. Gen.
Tech. Rep. NE-186. Radnor, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station: 83-94.
Nowak, D.J. 1995. Trees pollute? A "TREE" explains it all. In: Proceedings of the 7th National Urban Forestry Conference. Washington, DC: American Forests: 28-30.
Nowak, D.J. 2000. The interactions between urban forests and global climate change. In: Abdollahi, K.K.; Ning, Z.H.; Appeaning, A., eds. Global Climate Change and the Urban Forest. Baton Rouge, LA: GCRCC and Franklin Press: 31-44.
Nowak, D.J., Hirabayashi, S., Bodine, A., Greenfield, E. 2014. Tree and forest effects on air quality and human health in 72 of 201
the United States. Environmental Pollution. 193:119-129.
Nowak, D.J., Hirabayashi, S., Bodine, A., Hoehn, R. 2013. Modeled PM2.5 removal by trees in ten U.S. cities and associated health effects. Environmental Pollution. 178: 395-402.
Nowak, D.J.; Civerolo, K.L.; Rao, S.T.; Sistla, S.; Luley, C.J.; Crane, D.E. 2000. A modeling study of the impact of urban trees on ozone. Atmospheric Environment. 34: 1601-1613.
Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E. 2000. The Urban Forest Effects (UFORE) Model: quantifying urban forest structure and functions. In: Hansen, M.; Burk, T., eds. Integrated tools for natural resources inventories in the 21st century.
Proceedings of IUFRO conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-212. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research Station: 714-720.
Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E.; Dwyer, J.F. 2002a. Compensatory value of urban trees in the United States. Journal of Arboriculture. 28(4): 194 - 199.
Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C.; Hoehn, R.E. 2005. The urban forest effects (UFORE) model: field data collection manual. V1b. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station, 34 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/ne/syracuse/Tools/downloads/UFORE_Manual.pdf Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C.; Ibarra, M. 2002b. Brooklyn’s urban forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-290. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 107 p.
Nowak, D.J.; Dwyer, J.F. 2000. Understanding the benefits and costs of urban forest ecosystems. In: Kuser, John, ed.
Handbook of urban and community forestry in the northeast. New York, NY: Kluwer Academics/Plenum: 11-22.
Nowak, D.J.; Hoehn, R.; Crane, D. 2007. Oxygen production by urban trees in the United States. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry. 33(3):220-226.
Nowak, D.J.; Hoehn, R.E.; Crane, D.E.; Stevens, J.C.; Walton, J.T; Bond, J. 2008. A ground-based method of assessing urban forest structure and ecosystem services. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry. 34(6): 347-358.
Nowak, D.J.; Stevens, J.C.; Sisinni, S.M.; Luley, C.J. 2002c. Effects of urban tree management and species selection on atmospheric carbon dioxide. Journal of Arboriculture. 28(3): 113-122.
Peper, P.J.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Albers, S.N.; Xiao, Q. 2010. Central Florida community tree guide: benefits, costs, and strategic planting. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-230. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
Peper, P.J.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Vargas, K.E.; Xiao Q. 2009. Lower Midwest community tree guide: benefits, costs, and strategic planting. PSW-GTR-219. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-219. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA-420-R-10-012a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. The social cost of carbon. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ EPAactivities/economics/scc.html
van Essen, H.; Schroten, A.; Otten, M.; Sutter, D.; Schreyer, C.; Zandonella, R.; Maibach, M.; Doll, C. 2011. External Costs of Transport in Europe. Netherlands: CE Delft. 161 p. 73 of 201
Vargas, K.E.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Gardner, S.L.; Xiao, Q. 2007a. Interior West Tree Guide.
Vargas, K.E.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Gardner, S.L.; Xiao, Q. 2007b. Temperate Interior West Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs, and Strategic Planting.
Vargas, K.E.; McPherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.; Peper, P.J.; Gardner, S.L.; Xiao, Q. 2008. Tropical community tree guide:
benefits, costs, and strategic planting. PSW-GTR-216. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-216. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.
Worrall, J.J. 2007. Chestnut Blight. Forest and Shade Tree Pathology. http://www.forestpathology.org/dis_chestnut.html
Zinke, P.J. 1967. Forest interception studies in the United States. In: Sopper, W.E.; Lull, H.W., eds. Forest Hydrology.
Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press: 137-161.
74 of 201
Appendix B
Hanford Urban Forestry Program Staff and Budget Report
75 of 201
APPENDIX B – UF PROGRAM STAFF AND BUDGET REPORT 1
City of Hanford
Urban Forestry Program
Budget and Staff Report
FEBRUARY 2026
Prepared for:
CITY OF HANFORD
319 N Douty Street
Hanford, CA Zip
Prepared by:
76 of 201
APPENDIX B – UF PROGRAM STAFF AND BUDGET REPORT 2
Table of Contents
SECTION PAGE NO.
1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Key Takeaways ...................................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1 The City Demonstrates a Commitment to Urban Forestry ................................................................... 4
1.2 The City Would Benefit from a Maintenance Management System.................................................... 4
1.3 Limited Staff ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Need for Specialized Urban Forestry Staffing ....................................................................................... 5
1.5 The City Allocates a Low Level of Funding to Urban Forestry .............................................................. 6
1.6 The City Estimates they Plant More Trees than they Remove ............................................................. 7 2 References ........................................................................................................................................................... 9 77 of 201
APPENDIX B – UF PROGRAM STAFF AND BUDGET REPORT 3
1 Introduction
This Staff and Budget Report (Report) is an analysis of the City of Hanford’s (City’s) urban forest program as of fiscal year (FY) 2024/2025 and details the existing conditions prior to Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) implementation. Various aspects of the City’s urban forestry program were reviewed and analyzed, including governance structure, staffing, and budgetary records, to understand the program’s capacity and identify necessary resources. This analysis was used to then develop realistic and achievable goals for the City.
Key Takeaways
The following key takeaways were identified from staff interviews, inventory data, and a review of work and budgetary records and City policies:
1. The City demonstrates a commitment to urban forestry. City council and staff show an eagerness to enhance canopy cover, develop efficient management systems, and maximize the benefits that trees provide the community. This commitment is shown through the City’s tree planting efforts and the development of a UFMP, which will serve as a guide for the City’s urban forest initiatives.
2. The City would benefit from a Maintenance Management System for tree planting, pruning, and removals. Not having sufficient data on these work records results in gaps in understanding how staff and contractor time is spent, where resources may need to be allocated to better manage the urban forest, and whether the City efficiently completes urban forest management related tasks.
3. Current staffing levels restricts the City’s ability to plant trees and maintain the urban forest. This impacts the City’s ability to develop and implement programs that respond to the needs of the trees they manage and requests from community members.
4. Need for specialized urban forestry staffing. The City’s urban forestry program would benefit from having a City arborist on staff. The City arborist should be an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and would provide leadership to the City’s urban forestry efforts by coordinating internal and external urban forest management activities. They would also provide specialized skills and expertise for City tree management and coordinate the implementation of the UFMP Strategic Plan actions. This would help promote the long-term health and resilience of Hanford’s urban forest.
5. The City allocates a low level of funding to urban forestry. The City’s urban forest management spending is roughly one third of the amount that similar sized cities spend on urban forestry (see “Annual Maintenance Costs” section). The City needs to explore creative approaches to increase internal efficiencies and mechanisms that would generate additional revenue to support tree management. It will be difficult to achieve urban forestry goals without additional funding. 78 of 201
APPENDIX B – UF PROGRAM STAFF AND BUDGET REPORT 4
1.1 The City Demonstrates a Commitment to Urban
Forestry
City staff highly value trees and the benefits they provide for the community. Staff have taken proactive measures over the last several years to ensure there are sufficient funds and partnerships in place to grow and maintain Hanford’s trees. This is evident by the passing of local Measure H and the City applying for and being awarded a U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service Urban and Community Forestry grant. This grant is supporting this UFMP effort and the planting of 600 new trees in Hanford. The City has also taken steps to support ongoing efforts to improve the City’s urban forest by building partnerships with a wide range of urban forestry experts and community organizations like Kings County Action Organization, the Urban Tree Foundation, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and Tree Fresno and remains dedicated to continuing public education and outreach to support long-term tree stewardship.
1.2 The City Would Benefit from a Maintenance
Management System
The City does not currently have a maintenance management system, and accurate recordkeeping is essential for the success and sustainability of the urban forestry program. Detailed records help identify trends and areas needing more attention, enabling better planning and decision-making. Implementing a tracking system for maintenance activities, linking expenditures to specific actions, and keeping clear records can significantly improve the effectiveness of tree management. Better records will help the City understand if resources are being allocated efficiently by tracking budgets for activities such as planting, pruning, and removal. Accurate documentation, including metrics about work done by tree contractors, also supports accountability and can be used to justify funding requests and demonstrate the impact of urban forestry initiatives. This approach facilitates better planning and resource allocation, contributes to tree health and longevity, and fosters community trust by showing a commitment to maintaining and improving the urban forest.
This Report acknowledges that the analysis in the following sections is limited by the current level of work records.
This Report is based on information provided by City staff and reflects their understanding and best estimates of staff time and expenditures allocated to urban forest management. This analysis should be conducted again after the City has implemented a system to accurately record work and budget data.
1.3 Limited Staff
The City’s Parks and Community Services Department manages day-to-day urban forest management tasks including pruning, monitoring, planting, and addressing conflicts between trees and infrastructure. The City’s current staff allocation for the urban forestry program was analyzed to gain a better understanding of how trees are managed and help identify opportunities for improvement. Table 1 highlights the estimated percentage of time staff spend on urban forest responsibilities and the calculated total City investment in urban forest management spending.
79 of 201
APPENDIX B – UF PROGRAM STAFF AND BUDGET REPORT 5
Table 1. Urban Forestry Staffing in the City of Hanford Title No. of
Positions FTE
Total Salary
+ Benefits
+ Fringe
Percent of
Time
Allocated to
Urban
Forestry *
Average
Annual
Time
Allocated to
Urban
Forestry
(Hours )
Urban
Forestry
Adjusted
Salary +
Benefits
+ Fringe
Park Maintenance
Worker I/II 8 8 $666,498.56 15% 2,496 $99,974.78
Laborer 2 1 $43,056.00 5% 104 $2,152.80
Management
Director/Supervisor 2 2 $166,666.67 7.5% 312 $12,500
Total 12 11 $876,221.23 N/A 2,912 $114,627.58
Source: City of Hanford Departmental Interviews
Notes: FTE = full-time equivalent; N/A = not applicable. * Percent time is an estimate.
While the amount of time spent on tree maintenance varies significantly based on factors such as tree species, age, health, and location, studies suggest that urban trees typically require more frequent and intensive care to thrive (Roy et al. 2012; Roman et al. 2015). The City currently allocates limited staff time to urban forest management, with no more than 15% of any employee’s duties dedicated to tree care in a given year (Table 1).
While this demonstrates some commitment to maintaining the urban forest, it also reflects the challenge of managing over 7,000 trees with constrained resources and a limited amount of time available.
Additionally, the current staffing ratio of 20 acres per staff member exceeds the National Recreation and Park Association’s recommended average of 10 acres per staff member, further highlighting the need for additional support (NRPA 2024). The City has a standing target estimate for 6,000 hours to be dedicated to tree work each year. The discrepancy between the City’s target and their actual time spent is largely due to a crewmember shortage and other tasks receiving higher priority. These factors indicate a need for further resource allocation to urban forest management.
City staff have a goal to establish a small team dedicated to tree work. This crew, while still balancing park maintenance work during the busy summer season, would be the assigned staff for urban forest management tasks, which would primarily focus on tree planting, establishment care, watering, smaller tree prunings, and conducting outreach and education to the community on the City’s Trees and Shrubs Ordinance.
1.4 Need for Specialized Urban Forestry Staffing
Hanford would benefit from having a City arborist or urban forester on staff that would dedicate time to leadership and management of the urban forest program, as opposed to functioning as a crew lead or focusing on operational tasks. This role would provide full-time, specialized leadership for urban forest management, including tree planning and planting, contractor management, permit reviews, community engagement, and implementation of the UFMP.
80 of 201
APPENDIX B – UF PROGRAM STAFF AND BUDGET REPORT 6
This position should be filled by an ISA Certified Arborist who can make informed decisions about trees, including health assessments, risk management, and maintenance recommendations. This would help ensure the City arborist has the necessary expertise to minimize infrastructure conflicts and provide guidance on implementing tree best management practices. The City does not currently employ an ISA Certified Arborist. By comparison, a 2014 study shows that 84% of similar-sized Californian cities have a certified arborist on staff (Hauer and Peterson 2016).
Feedback from both staff and community members emphasized that this position is necessary to achieve City goals for the urban forest. If creating this position is not feasible, an alternative could be to employ an ISA Certified Arborist as either a City staff member or in an on-call consulting role to provide the necessary expertise to guide urban forest management. The City is currently working on hiring a consulting arborist to assist with tree removal permits and other arboricultural services. The City has put out a Request for Qualifications and expects to work with the consulting arborist until either existing staff are trained and receive their ISA arborist certification or they can fund and hire this full-time position in-house.
1.5 The City Allocates a Low Level of Funding to Urban
Forestry
The City allocates an estimated $876,221 per year to parks and facilities maintenance from the City’s General Fund. Of these funds, approximately $114,627 is expended on staff time for urban forestry tasks, while an estimated $60,000 is spent on contract tree work for pruning of palm trees and trees in landscape assessment districts (LADs), which the City will be transitioning to community facilities districts. This analysis does not include equipment costs in the calculation of urban forestry spending due to the lack of available City records.
Annual Maintenance Costs
Work history records help the City understand their current level of service, estimate costs necessary to meet urban forestry goals, and plan for future urban forestry efforts. Table 2 shows how management funds have been allocated in FY 2024/2025.
Table 2. Urban Forestry Expenditures
Expense Item Funded by General Fund
Funded by Landscape
Assessment District
(LAD) Fees
Sum of General Fund
and LAD Expenditures
Parks and Facilities Staff* $114,627 — $114,627
Contractor – All Tree-related work** — $50,000 $50,000 Contractor – Palm Pruning** $10,000 — $10,000
Materials and Equipment Data unavailable Data unavailable Data unavailable Total Urban Forestry Expenditures $124,627 $50,000 $174,627 Source: City of Hanford Departmental Interviews 2025.
Notes:
* Based on the percent time spent on Urban forestry, as seen in Table 1. ** Based on estimates provided by City staff.
81 of 201
APPENDIX B – UF PROGRAM STAFF AND BUDGET REPORT 7
American cities like Hanford with 50k–99k residents spend an average of $646,501 on urban forest management activities (Hauer and Peterson 2016). This means the City’s urban forest expenditures, totaling $174,627, are 27% of the 2016 national average. This large difference may indicate below average investment in tree planting, less frequent maintenance, and delayed responses to tree-related issues. Lower investment in urban forestry often means increased risk, such as higher chances of tree-related hazards, storm damage, or detrimental effects from pests and diseases, which may ultimately be more costly than routine maintenance. This level of investment may also set a lower-than-average standard that influences how the City’s private property owners value and manage urban forest on private property.
On the other hand, the City’s low level of expenditure may indicate efficient management of the City’s urban forest resources. The results are inconclusive since work history is not tracked closely enough to compare expenditures to the City’s level of service. See Section 1.2 for recommendations on improving City record keeping for urban forest management work.
1.6 The City Estimates they Plant More Trees than they
Remove
Figure 1 displays the City’s estimated in-house staff planting and removals between FY 2020/2021 and FY 2023/2024. These numbers are based on estimates from City staff with a moderate level of uncertainty. The City has not yet developed a system for tracking tree service metrics within the LADs and does not have an accurate method to estimate these tree service metrics, so service data for LADs are not included in Figure 1.
Source: City of Hanford Departmental Interviews 2025
Note:
* Based on staff estimates
FY 2019/20 FY2020/21 FY 2021/22 FY2022/23 FY2023/24
Trees Planted 25 30 50 45 35
Removals -25 -25 -35 -25 -20
Net Change 0 5 15 20 15
-40
-30
-20
-10
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Number of Trees
Figure 1 - Trees Planted and Removed, 2019-2024
82 of 201
APPENDIX B – UF PROGRAM STAFF AND BUDGET REPORT 8
Work history estimates suggest that City efforts have resulted in an estimated net gain of 55 trees on City-owned property in the past 5 fiscal years, averaging 11 new trees added per year. This estimated increase in trees in the City is a great jumping off point for the urban forest plan and shows that the City has demonstrated value for growing its urban forest resources.
As noted above, these numbers are based on staff estimates and may deviate from the actual work completed. A more detailed system for recordkeeping will enhance the City’s decision-making, budgeting, and efficiency.
83 of 201
APPENDIX B – UF PROGRAM STAFF AND BUDGET REPORT 9
2 References
City of Hanford Departmental Interviews. 2025. “Urban forestry management strategies” [Interviews].
Hauer, R., and W. Petersen. 2016. Municipal Tree Care and Management in the United States: A 2014 Urban & Community Forestry Census of Tree Activities. Accessed August 15, 2025. https://caufc.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Hauer-Peterson-2014-urban-forest-program- census.pdf.
International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Urban Forestry Best Management Practices for Public Works Managers: Budgeting & Funding. Accessed August 15, 2025. https://icma.org/sites/default/files/306729_UrbanForestry.pdf.
International City/County Management Association (ICMA). Urban Forestry Best Management Practices for Public Works Managers: Staffing. Accessed August 15, 2025. https://icma.org/sites/default/files/306728_UrbanForestryStaffing.pdf.
NRPA (National Recreation and Park Association). 2024. NRPA Agency Performance Review. Accessed August 15, 2025. https://www.nrpa.org/siteassets/research/2024-agency-performance- review.pdf.
Roman, L.A., J.J. Battles, and J.R. McBride. 2015. “The balance of planting and mortality in a street tree population.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 14(2), 356–364. https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2013/nrs_2013_roman_002.pdf.
Roy, S., J. Byrne, and C. Pickering. 2012. “A systematic quantitative review of urban tree benefits, costs, and assessment methods across cities in different climatic zones.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 11(4), 351–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2012.06.006. 84 of 201
Appendix C
Hanford Ch 12.12 Trees and Shrubs Ordinance
Recommended Updates
85 of 201
Chapter 12.12 - STREET TREES AND SHRUBS
Note: Prior history: Prior code §§ 7-2.01—7-2.13 and Ord. 96-18. § 12.12.010 Purpose.
§ 12.12.015 Applicability
§ 12.12.020 Definitions.
§ 12.12.110 Authority to direct work on trees, shrubs, hedges, and other plants. § 12.12.115 Tree establishment, maintenance, and property owner responsibilities. § 12.12.130 Prohibition of violation of chapter.
§ 12.12.210 Pruning or removal of heritage or street tree—Permit required. § 12.12.220 Permit application and appeals.
§ 12.12.230 Development permit combined.
§ 12.12.240 No permit required.
§ 12.12.260 Presentation of permit on request.
§ 12.12.270 Revocation of permit.
§ 12.12.280 Reforestation.Tree replacement.
§ 12.12.300 Property owner maintenance—Responsibility and duty to public.§
12.12.305 Determination of Heritage Tree by City Council. § 12.12.310 Protection and preservation of heritage trees. § 12.12.320 Interfering with maintenance work or injuring street trees prohibited. § 12.12.320 Protection During Construction
§ 12.12.330 Park strip inspection.
§ 12.12.340 Hazardous conditions—Sight obstructions on private property. § 12.12.350 Violations and penalties.
§ 12.12.400 Notice of violation.
§ 12.12.410 Notice of violation—Delivery.
§ 12.12.420 Notice of violation—Contents.
§ 12.12.430 Notice of violation—Right to appeal.
§ 12.12.440 Work performed by city.
§ 12.12.450 City invoice for work performed.
§ 12.12.460 Collection of city's costs.
§ 12.12.470 Collection of corrective action costs—Special assessment. § 12.12.480 Private arrangements for tree trimming or removal.
Commented [KC1]: These sections were shifted into
Section 12.12.400
Commented [KC2]: This sections were deleted.
86 of 201
§ 12.12.500 No interference with enforcement of this chapter. § 12.12.510 Failure to give or receive notice.
§ 12.12.520 Additional penalties.
§ 12.12.530 Remedies.
87 of 201
§ 12.12.010 Purpose
The purpose of this street trees and shrubs ordinance (ordinance) is to protect and enhance the urban forest within the City of Hanford, foremost recognizing its vital role in mitigating the extreme heat typical to the region. By preserving and managing trees on both public and private property, the ordinance aims to improve air quality, provide shade and wildlife habitat, and enhance the overall aesthetic and environmental quality of the city.
This ordinance ensures that the urban forest continues to contribute to the health, well- being, and resilience of the Hanford community.
§ 12.12.015 Applicability.
This chapter shall apply to all trees on public property and in right-of-ways within the City of Hanford.
§ 12.12.020 Definitions.
"Authorized street tree list" means that list identifying the types of trees which may be planted in parkways strips.
“Canopy width” means the ground covered by the foliage of a tree, measured at the greatest diameter. This measurement is used to determine the extent of shade and environmental benefits provided by the tree.
"City arborist" means an arborist who is a member of the International Society of Arborists (or equivalent organization) designated by the parks and recreation department director. "Critical root zone" or "CRZ" means a defined circular area around a tree with a radius measured to the nearest foot of the tree's longest drip line radius plus one foot as illustrated below.
“Community facilities district (CFD)” and “landscape assessment district (LAD)” means a special taxing district created by the City to fund public infrastructure and services, including landscape maintenance, in specific areas, typically new developments. "Damaged" means the removal of bark greater than three inches across, the breaking or splitting of the main trunk, or the dislocation of the main trunk or any act compromising its health or structural integrity according to accepted industry standards or to cause damage that is severely detrimental to its overall aesthetics. "Dead" means a tree, shrub, hedge, or other plant that is no longer alive, has been damaged beyond repair, or is in an advanced state of decline (where an insufficient amount of live tissue, green leaves, limbs, or branches exist to sustain life) and has been determined to be in such state by the director.
88 of 201
"Development project" means any exterior construction work associated with or requiring a building permit for any building addition, building demolition, site grading, excavation or site paving.
“Diameter at Standard Height (DSH)” means the diameter of a tree trunk measured at four and one-half feet (4.5 ft) above the natural grade on the uphill side of the tree. For multi- stemmed trees, DSH shall be calculated by taking the square root of the sum of each stem’s diameter squared.
"Director" means the parks and recreationPublic Works department director of the city of Hanford or designee.
"Hazard" or "hazardous condition" means any tree, shrub, hedge, or plant that is or appears to be: (1) dead; (2) likely to fall; (3) seriously diseased; (4) an obstruction or potential obstruction to pedestrian or vehicular traffic; (5) an obstruction or potential obstruction of any traffic signs, traffic control devices, streetlights, regulatory signs, or similar types of equipment or signs; or (6) in a condition that is detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare.
"Hedge" means any group of shrubs planted in line or in groups so that the branches of any one plant are intermingled or contact the branches of any other plant in the line or group. "Heritage tree" means any of the following: (1) any Oak Tree species native to Central California, Valley Oak Tree (Quercus lobata), located on public property and rights-of-way, with a Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) greater than 180 inches; (2) any tree or group of trees specifically designated by the City Council for protection due to historical significance, special character, or community benefit; (3) any replacement tree planted pursuant to this chapter that assumes heritage status under the ordinance.
"Imminent hazard" or "imminently hazardous condition" means a hazardous condition that presents an immediate threat to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public which requires immediate action to prevent injury to the public or property.
For purposes of this section,“Maintenance” shall maintenance of street trees, shrubs, hedges, and other plants includesmean the routine and ongoing care necessary to ensure the health, safety, and structural integrity of a tree. Maintenance includes, but is not limited to, watering, mulching, pruning, pest and disease management, weed abatement, removal of debris, and protection of the tree’s critical root zone. All maintenance activities shall be performed in accordance with best management practices and applicable standards, including those established by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI A300), without limitation: watering, pruning, Commented [KC3]: Does the City have a preference for
the method used to determine DSH for multi-stemmed
trees, we recommend staying consistent with the
TreePlotter method: square root of the sum of each
stem’s diameter squared.
Commented [AD4]: Should this be Public Works
Director now?
Commented [KC5R4]: Up to City preference.
Commented [JD6]: And private property?
Commented [AD7]: I would recommend removing any
Oak Tree species native to Central California and keeping the Quercus lobata as the singular protected species as item 1.
Commented [KC8R7]: The original ordinance included
language for protection of all oak tree species native to Central California. We would recommend keeping that
original language to protect more native oak trees in the City, rather than just limiting to valley oak, even if valley oak is the most prominent oak in Hanford.
Commented [KC9]: Moved from original section
12.12.300 (B)
89 of 201
fertilizing, pest control, spraying, removal of branches, leaves and other debris, weed abatement, and protection of the critical root zone. Watering shall occur in a manner consistent with the city's rules on water use identified in this code.
“Landscape Buffers” mean the vegetated areas on the external boundaries of community facilities districts and landscape assessment districts that are maintained by the City. “Linear Park” means a long, narrow public open space, which may coincide with a parkway, offering recreation, pedestrian or bicycle circulation, and connectivity between neighborhoods, parks, or natural features.
“Median” means a physical barrier, paved, strip, or landscaped area located in the center of the roadway that separates opposing lanes of traffic. “Parkway” means a public strip of land within the right-of-way, between the property line and the roadway, providing a landscaped buffer, pedestrian circulation, recreation, or utility access. Parkways are owned and maintained by the City.
"Park strip" means that portion of the public street right-of-way between the curb or curb line and the adjacent sidewalk or property line, as applicable, used for or which may be used for the purpose of planting and maintaining street trees, shrubs, hedges, or other plants. In some areas within the city, park strips may extend into a private property's yard beyond the sidewalk. Park strips may be located on private property or may abut private property, and are the responsibility of private property owners to maintain. "Prune" or "trim" means to remove any segment of the above- or below-ground woody tissue of a tree, shrub, hedge, or other plant. If pruning is done in nonconformance with said conditions of permit or without a permit, it shall be deemed a "removal. " "Remove" or "removal" means cutting to the ground, complete extraction, or killing by spraying, girdling, or any other means of a tree.
"Replacement tree" means a tree that is planted in place of a tree that is protected in this ordinance. Tree replacement policy is covered in § 12.12.280 Reforestation. for the purposes of this chapter shall be determined by utilizing a certified tree and landscape appraiser or the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.
“Right-of-Way” means the street, sidewalk and parkway areas that are used by the public as a means of travel, and may contain public trees, shrubs, or other landscaping. 90 of 201
"Shrub" means a bush or plant (excluding weeds) more than 12 inches tall but not more than six feet tall.
"Street" means a public right-of-way owned by or under the control of the city whose primary function is to carry vehicular traffic and shall also include sidewalks and parkways strips.
“Street tree” means a tree located within the public right-of-way, typically in a parkways strip or planting area between the curb and sidewalk, or in other city-owned or controlled spaces adjacent to streets.
"Topping" means the removal of branches from mature trees leaving stubs and large wounds on such trees.
"Tree" shall mean any perennial, woody plant species or cultivar that reaches a height exceeding six feet at maturity, whether planted singly or as a hedge, or having secondary branches supported on a main stem or stems. The term "tree" includes street trees and heritage trees.
"Tree protection plan" means a plan in compliance with Section 12.12.320, Protection During Construction.
“Tree protection zone” or “TPZ” means the area surrounding the critical root zone of a tree which is typically located at or beyond the dripline of a tree. The TPZ should be determined by a city arborist and be specified in a tree protection plan or included in a construction plan. The TPZ is a restricted activity zone before and after construction where soil disturbance, vehicular or pedestrian traffic, or activities that compact soil within the critical root zone are prohibited unless approved and supervised by the city arborist with reasonable modifications to protect the tree.
§ 12.12.115 Tree Establishment, Maintenance, and Property Owner Responsibilities A. City Responsibilities for Newly Planted Trees:
All newly planted street trees by the City, whether in park strips, parkways, medians, linear parks, or landscape buffers, shall be subject to a three-year establishment period beginning on the date of planting. During this period, the City, shall be solely responsible for all establishment care. This includes watering, mulching, structural pruning, and any other maintenance necessary to support healthy root and canopy development.
B. City Responsibilities for Notification of Tree Ownership Transfer:
91 of 201
In cases where ownership of City-planted street trees will be transferred to a private property owner, such as in cases of planted park strip trees, the City shall provide written notification to the abutting property owner when a street tree is installed by the City. This notification shall clearly state that the City will maintain the park strip tree during the three-year establishment period immediately following the planting of the tree and provide the future date upon which responsibilities for tree maintenance will transfer to the property owner whose property abuts the park strip tree. The abutting property owner shall then assume full responsibility for the ongoing maintenance and replacement of the tree, unless the City or another party has formally agreed in writing, with approval from the director, to assume that responsibility. Once this transfer of responsibility occurs, the property owner shall also assume liability for any damage or injury resulting from failure to properly maintain the tree in accordance with this chapter.
C. City Responsibilities for Ongoing Maintenance of Street Trees and Shrubs:
For areas located within publicly-owned property or easements including parkways, medians, linear parks, and landscape buffers, the City shall maintain and replace, when necessary, any street trees, shrubs, hedges, or other plants in a manner that complies with this chapter. The City owes a duty to the public to maintain these plantings in a safe and non-hazardous condition.
D. Property Owner Responsibilities for Newly Planted Street Trees:
All newly planted street trees within the internal boundaries of community facilities districts and landscape assessment districts, or by private property owners within City of Hanford parkways shall be subject to a three-year establishment period beginning on the date of planting. During this period, the property owner whose property abuts the newly planted street tree shall be solely responsible for all establishment care. This includes watering, mulching, structural pruning, and any other maintenance necessary to support healthy root and canopy development.
E. Property Owner Responsibilities for Ongoing Maintenance of Street Trees and Shrubs:
Each property owner shall maintain and replace, when necessary, any street trees, shrubs, hedges, or other plants located within the park strip that abuts their property, in a manner that complies with this chapter. Property owners owe a duty to the public to maintain these plantings in a safe and non-hazardous condition.
F. Property owners responsible for ongoing maintenance shall:
Commented [AD10]: Need to review section
Commented [AD11]: Need to review section
Commented [KC12]: This clause was taken from the
original ordinance section 12.12.300 A
Commented [KC13]: Items D1 - 5 were taken form the
original ordinance Sec 12.12.300
92 of 201
1. Ensure trees and vegetation do not become hazardous;
2. Maintain a minimum of eight (8) feet of vertical pedestrian clearance from the sidewalk and fourteen (14) feet of vertical vehicular clearance from the street, with uniform canopy clearance;
3. Maintain clear visibility of traffic signals, street lights, regulatory signs, and street name signs;
4. Obtain a permit for pruning or removal as required under Section 12.12.210;
5. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for any work involving vehicles or equipment in the public right-of-way.
A.G. If a property owner fails to maintain trees or vegetation as required and such failure results in damage or injury, the property owner shall be liable for all resulting damages or injuries.
B.H. If, in the opinion of the director, a tree or plant on private property outside of a park strip constitutes a nuisance or hazard, the City may apply the same procedures and remedies as for vegetation within park strips.
I. Any damage caused by a tree, shrub, hedge, or plant to persons, property, or public infrastructure shall be the responsibility of:
1. The owner of the property on which the vegetation is located; or
2. If located in a park strip abutting private property, the owner of the abutting property.
§ 12.12.130 Prohibition of violation of chapter.
A. It is unlawful for any person to plant, remove, prune, or maintain any street trees, shrubs, hedges, or other plants or cause the same to be done in violation of this chapterlocated within public property or easements including parkways, medians, linear parks, and landscape buffers. It is unlawful for any person to remove street trees, shrubs, hedges, or other plants located within park strips or to prune street trees branches greater than four inches in diameter from a park strip without a permit, as required under 12.12.210. (Ord. 15-12 § 1, 2015)
B. No person shall, except with written permission of the director:
1. Damage, cut, carve, girdle, or injure the bark of any street tree; Commented [KC14]: Item G was taken from the original
ordinance Sec 12.12.300 (D)
Commented [KC15]: For City: I have added text to this
section to clarify what actions are completely prohibited, and actions that can be done with a permit (and potential mitigation)
Commented [AD16]: Substitute City-owned with
public.
Commented [KC17R16]: Updated
Commented [KC18]: Items B1 - 7 were taking from the
original Ordinance Sec 12.12.320 (A) and (B).
93 of 201
2. Attach or keep attached, or cause the same, any sign, wire, light, device, or injurious material to any such tree or the guard or stake intended for the protection of such street tree;
3. Allow any gaseous, liquid or solid substance, pesticide, herbicide, or similar chemical agent harmful to a street tree to come into contact with the roots, leaves, bark or any part of any street tree;
4. Construct concrete, asphalt or brick paving or otherwise fill the ground area within four the planting area feet of any street tree that may shut out/off air, light, or water to the street tree or its roots;
5. Pile building material or other material around any street tree in any manner that will in any way injure the street tree; or
1.6. Construct any raised planter around a street tree's trunk.
2.7. Interfere with the city or its employees or contractors engaged in the planting, mulching, pruning, spraying, treating, or removal of any street tree, or in the removal of stone, cement, or other substance around the trunk of any street tree.
§ 12.12.210 Pruning or removal of heritage or street tree—Permit required.
A. Except as provided in this subsection A, it is unlawful for any person to prune or remove any heritage tree or remove a street tree, ortree or do any construction work or activity that may affect the critical root zone of a heritage or street tree, without a permit issued by the director.
A.B. All pruning of heritage and street trees shall follow the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 standards. The City shall make available an Urban Tree Care Guide that includes visual examples of proper pruning techniques, including clearance pruning, structural pruning, and prohibited practices such as topping. This guide shall be available on the City’s website and distributed at public events.
C. A permit shall not be required for routine pruning of street trees performed solely for Public Works street improvement projects to maintain pedestrian or vehicular clearance, provided such pruning does not involve removal of branches exceeding four inches in diameter, does not compromise the tree’s structural integrity, and is conducted in accordance with ANSI A300 standards. Any pruning exceeding these thresholds or affecting the tree’s form or health shall require a permit. 94 of 201
B.D. Each permit to prune or remove one or morea heritage or street trees shall contain the following information:
1. Name of permit applicant; The name, address and telephone number of the property owner.
2.1. Time period in which to complete the action specified or required in the permit;
3.2. Reason for pruning or removal;
4.3. If a tree will be removed, the type and species of the replacement tree to be purchased and planted by the permittee at the permittee's sole cost and expense;
5.4. Description of the pruning, if applicable; and
5. Tree information for all trees under the permit, including:
a. Species: The botanical name or common name of the tree(s). b. Canopy sizewidth: The width of a tree’s leafy cover, measured as the longest distance from one edge of the canopy to the opposite edge (diameter). c. Diameter at Standard Height (DSH): diameter of a tree trunk measured at four and one-half feet (4.5 ft) above the natural grade on the uphill side of the tree.
a.d. Location: of the tree to be pruned or removed (Aaddress of property where tree is located and the specific location of the tree on or abutting the applicant's property).
C.E. The director shall, subject to the consultation requirements set forth below, issue a permit to prune or remove a street tree or prune or remove a heritage tree only if at least one of the following criteria is met:
1. The tree is in danger of falling or is deemed to be structurally unsound, according to generally accepted arboricultural standards, and is in proximity to existing or proposed structures; or The tree creates a hazardous condition or imminently hazardous condition;
95 of 201
2. The tree is a host for plant, pest, or disease endangering other species of trees or plants with infection or infestations.The type, species, or location of the tree is in conflict withconflicts with the policy or plans of the city;
3. Protection of pre-existing improvements that have been interfered with by the tree, or otherwise allow the reasonable enjoyment of private property.
4. The tree is causing damage to a dwelling, building or structure, including foundational support for same, and/or damaging the essential utilities servicing the dwelling, building or structure and this damage cannot be reasonably resolved by other means, and root pruning to address the issue will compromise the tree's stability, as determined by an ISA Certified Arborist. A professional evaluation by a certified arborist, licensed plumber, landscape architect or structural engineer detailing the damage being caused shall be required as part of the application for removal permit identified in Section 12.12.210.
1. The tree interferes with electrical lines and the interference cannot be corrected by pruning the tree;
4. The tree has caused damage to infrastructure including, but not limited to, concrete or asphalt, water or sewer lines, or other electrical infrastructure that creates, or has the potential to create, a hazardous or imminently hazardous condition and which cannot be resolved by other reasonable means; This damage cannot be reasonably resolved by other means, and root pruning to address the issue will compromise the tree's stability, as determined by an ISA Certified Arborist.
5. The property owner has received a non-renewal notice from their insurance company because of the proximity of the tree to the dwelling.
2. The tree has or may cause damage to utilities, including without limitation water, sewer, communication lines or power lines, that results or could result in a hazardous condition or imminently hazardous condition and which cannot be resolved by other reasonable means;
3. The tree is in conflict with an approved development permit for an adjacent property or right-of-way;
6. The tree that is being proposed for rRemoval is hindering the growth of an adjacent tree of greater value as determined by an ISA certified arborist.required for thinning to allow proper spacing; or
96 of 201
D. Removal would allow a more desirable planting in conformance with the approved tree list.
E. The director shall , subject to the consultation requirements set forth below, issue a permit to remove a heritage tree only if the tree creates a hazardous condition or imminently hazardous condition.
F. Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the director will consult with the commission on applications to remove street trees and applications to prune or remove heritage trees. The commission shall make recommendations to the director concerning heritage or street tree removal and heritage tree pruning after an inspection by a subcommittee of the commission and after deliberation by the commission.
Requests for such inspections shall be made by the director at commission meetings.
The director need not consult with the commission on heritage or street tree removal or heritage tree pruning if, in the director's reasonable judgment, a heritage or street tree poses an imminently hazardous condition. In such instance, the director may approve a permit without consulting the commission; provided however, the director will inform the commission of the issuance of such permit at the commission's meeting that immediately follows the permit's issuance. The director need not consult with the commission regarding applications to prune street trees.
F.
G. If the city grants a permit for the removal of a heritage or street tree, the person or entity removing the tree must remove the tree's trunk to a minimum depth of two feet below the adjacent ground level.
§ 12.12.220 Permit application and appeals.
A. Applications for permits required under this chapter shall be submitted to the director, along with an application fee. Application fees shall be set by resolution of the city council. The director shall review each permit application that the city accepts for filing.
As part of the review of each application, the director may request additional information from the applicant or conduct any investigation the director believes is necessary to complete the review. After the completion of the review of the permit application and advisory input by the commission, if required, the director shall provide written notice to the applicant of the decision to issue (as requested or modified) or deny the permit.
B. The notice shall be in a form prescribed by the director. The notice shall provide the opportunity for the applicant to appeal the director's decision.
Commented [KC19]: Recommendation is to remove the
commission’s role in heritage tree permit decisions and instead rely on a certified arborists assessment with the final decision made by the Director.
97 of 201
C. An applicant wishing to appeal the director's decision shall submit a written request for an appeal hearing to the City Clerkdirector within seven calendar days of the property owner's receipt of the director's notice. The city council will serve as the hearing body for appeals. A hearing shall be set for a date that is not less than 15 days and not more than 60 days from the date that the request for hearing is filed in accordance with the provisions of this section. The city council will give the applicant an opportunity to be heard and will thereafter render a written decision regarding the director's decision on the permit application.
D. Permits issued for work occurring under Section 12.12.210 shall, except as otherwise provided herein, be valid for 60 days, except permits issued to public utilities, which may be for a period of one year. The director may extend the effective period of a permit if the director finds good cause exists in a particular case. § 12.12.230 Development permit combined.
The request for a heritage or street tree planting, pruning, or removal permit may be included as part of an application for a development permit. Where the request for planting, pruning, or removal permit is included as part of the development permit application, the development permit may serve as the planting, pruning, or removal permit and be processed under the application, noticing, hearing, and appeal provisions applicable to the development permit application, and no separate planting, pruning, or removal permit application and planting, pruning, or removal permit is required, so long as all of the substantive provisions and permit processing requirements of this chapter are satisfied as part of the processing of the development application.
§ 12.12.240 No permit required.
A. Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter, no permit shall be required for pruning or removing a heritage or street tree if any of the following criteria are met prior to any work being performed:
1. An imminent hazard exists where the immediate pruning is necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare. Any pruning work to address hazardous tree conditions should be completed by an ISA Certified Arborist. The property owner who causes emergency work to be done must ensure that the heritage or street tree is not pruned more than is reasonably required to eliminate the imminent hazard; such . A permit is required for any additional, non-emergency pruning done on the same tree.party must obtain a permit for any non-emergency pruning of the same tree. The property owner causing the emergency pruning or removal must provide, Commented [AD20]: Do we want this requirement?
98 of 201
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, the bases for the emergency work, and photographs clearly showing the condition creating the imminently hazardous condition;
2. An imminently hazardous condition exists, and the director provides written notice to the responsible property owner to take corrective action, and the owner complies strictly with such notice;
3. Removal of the tree is in connection with a city-approved public works project; or
3.4. Public utilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Public Utilities Commission of the state of California may also take such action as may be necessary to maintain a safe operation for their facilities.
4.5. A development permit, or amendment thereto, which allows the removal of a tree, has been issued by the city and accepted by the permit applicant pursuant to the provisions of this code pertaining to development permits.
B. In case of emergency, when a tree is hazardous or dangerous to life or property, it may be pruned or removed by order of the city's public works, parks and recreationcommunity services, police, or fire departments, provided further,. that any Any franchise public utility or representative of the city may remove or prune trees which interferes with the safe and efficient operation of the public service for which they are responsible, but only to the extent made necessary by such interference. In such , with the permissioncases, permission from of the director and/or the city arborist is still required.
§ 12.12.260 Presentation of permit on request.
A. It is unlawful for any person to prune or remove or cause the same to be done to a heritage or street tree unless the permit or a copy of the permit allowing for this activity is maintained on the site where the tree to be pruned or removed is located.
B. It is unlawful for any person to prune or remove or cause the same to be done to a heritage or street tree unless the permit or a copy of the permit can immediately be presented upon request by an official or representative of the city.
C. It is unlawful for any person to engage in any work on or allow any work on a heritage or street tree that is subject to a 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.
Commented [AD21]: Recommend removing the
highlighted sections.
Commented [KC22R21]: The risk with removing these
sections is that without requiring proof that the tree in question was creating a hazardous condition, someone
could just remove a tree and state that it was hazardous, even if it wasn’t.
99 of 201
§ 12.12.270 Revocation of permit.
A. The director may revoke a permit issued pursuant to this part if the director determines any of the following:
1. The permit was obtained or extended by false, misleading, or incomplete information;
2. One or more conditions set forth in the permit have been violated; or
3. One or more provisions of this chapter have been violated.
B. The director shall give written notice of the revocation of the permit to the applicant.
The applicant may appeal the director's decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 12.12.220.
§ 12.12.280 Tree replacement.
A. Permits for heritage or street tree removal, removals without permits and acts causing damage to heritage or street trees shall require replanting in accordance with the following guidelines:
B. Replacement trees shall be planted on the same property or park strip at which they are removed. The number of replacement trees required shall be as prescribed in Table 1 Tree Replacement Standard.
Table 1: Replacement Requirements
Canopy Width (Diameter) of
Removed Tree
Replacement Trees
Requirement
Up to 25 feet 1 Tree
25.1 feet to 40 feet 2 Trees
40.1 feet to 65 feet 4 trees
More than 65 feet 6 trees
1. All replacement trees must be twenty-four inch box trees, unless noted otherwise by the director.
2. Replacement trees should come from the City of Hanford Tree List .
Commented [JD23]: @City, please review these new
replacement mechanisms closely, paying special
attention to replacement requirements and the in-lieu
fee.
100 of 201
C. Fees In-lieu of Replanting. In cases where the director determines replacing the tree(s) is inappropriate or infeasible due to existing tree canopy or site restrictions, in-lieu replacement fees will be required.
D. An in-lieu payment for each tree removed and not replaced onsite, as prescribed in Table 2 In-Lieu Fee in the amount of $1,500, shall be paid to the City Tree Replacement Fund, used to add or replace trees on public or private property in the vicinity of the subject property on other City-owned or private property; or to support the City’s urban forestry management program. The City Tree Replacement Fund shall be administered by the Public Worksarks and Community Services Department and used exclusively for tree planting, establishment, and maintenance in areas of need, or for related community outreach as identified in the Urban Forest Management Plan.
Table 2: In-Lieu Fee
Diameter at Standard Height
(DSH)
DSH of the tree to be removed x
$40
§ 12.12.280 Reforestation.
Permits for heritage or street tree removal, removals without permits and acts causing damage to heritage or street trees shall require replanting in accordance with the following guidelines:
A. Trees removed under jurisdiction of a planning approval pursuant to this chapter shall conform to conditions specified in the planning approval.
B. Trees removed with a valid tree removal permit shall be replaced in accordance with this chapter and instructions identified by the director. Replacement instructions shall include direction on the location and species of the replacement tree. Tree replacement shall be one to four twenty-four (24) inch box size tree(s) determined by the director, for each tree removed.
C. Trees removed without a valid tree removal permit shall be replaced by one to four 48 inch box size tree(s) for each tree removed at the discretion by the director if the value of the removed tree(s) was significantly greater than that of a forty-eight (48) inch box tree. In such cases of non-permitted removal, the determination of the level of replacement shall be within the discretion of the director, but will not exceed the actual tree loss as determined by the replacement value. In addition to the requirements of Commented [KC24]: For CITY , an analysis that we did
for San Mateo County to cover tree sourcing, materials, planting, and establishment care for 3 years came out to be around $3,300. This would likely be too high of a fee for Hanford residents, so we are proposing $1,500, but
ultimately the City would need to decide the balance
between covering City expenses to plant a replacement
tree elsewhere, and a fair fee to the average resident.
Commented [KC25]: Modified from original ordinance
Section 12.12.280 (E)
Commented [KC26]: I think charging by DSH instead of
a flat fee can work, but was curious to know how the $40 amount was chosen? Does the City feel this will cover
their costs enough to plant a replacement tree and care for it for at least 1 year?
101 of 201
this subsection, penalties under Section 12.12.530 or other sanctions allowed by law may be imposed for removal of heritage or street trees without a permit.
D. Where the director determines that replanting is not feasible and/or appropriate, e.g., sufficient trees exist on site, the director may: (1) require that a payment of equal value to the cost of the purchase and installation of the replacement tree(s) be made to the city tree planting fund; or (2) place other conditions on the permit which are of equal value to the cost of the purchase and installation of the replacement tree(s).
E. Any person causing damage to a heritage or street tree shall be required to take such steps as may be required by the director to assure the future vitality of the tree(s), including costs of treatment and/or construction of protection barriers, or if the director determines that the damage is so great that the tree is no longer reasonably sustainable, replacement of the damaged tree per subsection C.
§ 12.12.300 Property owner maintenance—Responsibility and duty to public.
A. Subject to the provisions of Section 12.12.110, each owner of property that is located in the city shall maintain and replace, when necessary, any street trees, shrubs, hedges, or other plants within a park strip located on or which abuts an owner's property in such condition so as to comply with this chapter. Each property owner shall plant and replace any removed or otherwise missing street trees in accordance with the requirements of Section 12.12.210.
B. A property owner required by this section to plant, maintain, and replace, when necessary, street trees, shrubs, hedges, and other plants shall owe a duty to the public using streets and/or sidewalks to maintain such street trees, shrubs, hedges, and other plants in a safe and non-hazardous condition. For purposes of this section, maintenance of street trees, shrubs, hedges, and other plants includes, without limitation: watering, pruning, fertilizing, pest control, spraying, removal of branches, leaves and other debris, weed abatement, and protection of the critical root zone.
Watering shall occur in a manner consistent with the city's rules on water use identified in this code.
C. A property owner required by this section to maintain any street trees, shrubs, hedges, or plants shall comply with the following:
1. Provide the necessary maintenance so that street trees, shrubs, hedges, and plants do not become a hazard;
2. Provide a minimum of eight foot vertical pedestrian clearance from the top of the sidewalk and a minimum 14 foot vertical vehicular clearance from the top of Commented [KC27]: Most of this section moved to new
section 12.12.115 Tree Establishment, Maintenance, and
Property Owner Responsibilities
102 of 201
pavement, to any part of a street tree; provided however, each street tree shall be trimmed so that the vertical clearance around the entire tree is uniform and consistent;
3. Provide adequate clearance for unobstructed pedestrian and vehicular view of all traffic signals, street lights, regulatory signs, street name signs, and other similar types of equipment and signs;
4. All maintenance shall be completed in accordance with the guidelines of the American National Standard Institute (ANSI);
5. Obtain a permit as required in Section 12.12.210; and
6. Obtain an encroachment permit from the city's public works department for any work that the property owner or his or her contractor will perform within a public right-of-way or if any vehicle or equipment will operate or be parked in any public right-of-way as a result of any work pertaining to a tree, shrub, hedge, or other plant for which the property owner is responsible.
D. If any property owner fails to maintain any street trees, shrubs, hedges or other plants for which the owner is responsible in a non-hazardous condition as required by this section, and any person or entity suffers damage or injury to person or property, the property owner shall be liable for all damages and/or injuries caused by his or her failure to maintain the street trees, shrubs, hedges, or other plants.
E. If, in the opinion of the director, a tree, shrub, hedge, or other plant located on private property located outside of a park strip constitutes a nuisance or hazard, the process, procedures, and remedies described in this chapter with respect to street trees, shrubs, hedges, and other plants located in park strips, will be available to the city.
F. Any and all damage caused by a tree, shrub, hedge, or plant to any person or property or to any utility, street, sidewalk or other improvement shall be the responsibility of: (1) the owner of the property on which such tree, shrub, hedge, or plant is located; or (2) if the offending street tree, shrub, hedge, or plant is located within a park strip that abuts private property, the owner of the private property that abuts such park strip.
§ 12.12.305 Determination of Heritage Tree by City Council A. All native Valley Ooak trees (Quercus lobata) to the region with a Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) greater than 180 inches are considered heritage trees. Oak species native to the region include valley oak (Quercus lobata), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), Commented [KC28]: New section to set criteria for
determining and nominating a heritage tree.
103 of 201
canyon live oak (Quercus chrysopolis), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), and interior live oak (Quercus wizlenski).
B. A tree or group of trees, other than Valleynative Ooaks, may be nominated for Heritage Tree designation if it meets one or more of the following criteria:
1. Is associated with a significant historical event, person, or site;
2. Possesses unique or rare species characteristics;
3. Provides exceptional ecosystem services (e.g., habitat, shade, carbon sequestration);
4. Has significant cultural, community, or aesthetic value.
C. Nomination Process.
1. Nominations may be submitted to the Public Works Director by any member of the public, City staff, or a recognized community organization.
2. Nominations must include:
• A completed Heritage Tree Nomination Form;
• Photographs of the tree(s);
• A description of how the tree meets one or more eligibility criteria; • A map or site plan showing the tree’s location.
3. Nominations shall be reviewed by the director for completeness and eligibility.
Eligible trees must be in good health as determined by the director.
D. Council Action.
1. Heritage trees shall be may be designated either by the City Council following a public hearing. or by an ISA Certified Arborist appointed by the Council.
2. Upon designation, the tree(s) shall be added to the City’s Heritage Tree Registry and subject to all applicable protections under this chapter.
E. Notification.
The City shall notify the abutting property owner(s) in writing of the designation and provide information regarding maintenance responsibilities and protections.
F. Removal from Registry.
A Heritage Tree may be removed from the registry only by City Council action, following 104 of 201
a public hearing, based on evidence that the tree no longer meets the designation criteria or poses an imminent hazard.
§ 12.12.310 Preservation of heritage trees.
A. Any person who owns, controls, has custody or possession of any real property within the city shall use reasonable efforts to maintain and preserve all heritage trees located thereon in a state of good health, pursuant to the provisions of these regulations. § 12.12.320 Protection During Construction.
A. Any application for discretionary development approval of real property, exterior construction work, or any other development project shall be accompanied by a Tree Protection Plan.
B. A Tree Protection Plan shall be prepared by an ISA Certified Arborist by requesting party and approved by the City, and include the following:
a. Identification of all trees, including those on neighboring properties, within 30 feet of the proposed construction area.
b. Species and DSH of each tree, and whether the tree is a street tree or Heritage Tree.
b.c. Location of all trees to be preserved, removed, or planted. d. Tree protection zone for each street tree and Heritage Tree. e. Potential impacts to each individual tree (including potential impacts to trees on neighboring sites), including potential impacts, including removal, pruning, trenching within the TPZ, grade changes within the TPZ, or other TPZ encroachment.
f. The tree protection plan shall be consistent wit h any site surveys included in the associated plans, and represented with an accurate scale. g. Description of the impact that construction actions may have on affected trees and ways to avoid impact.
h. Tree protection measures for construction that must be implemented throughout the duration of the proposed project , which may include site access and traffic route considerations, excavation limitations, appropriate locations for the piling of soil and debris, and the storage of equipment and vehicles as each of these activities pertain to trees on the project site.
105 of 201
C. Temporary, protective fencing shall be installed at the edge of the TPZ of any existing tree that is to be preserved on a project site, with signage indicating “Tree Protection Zone – No Entry. ”
i. Grading, trenching, soil compaction, material storage, chemical disposal, or equipment washing are prohibited within the Tree Protection Zone unless explicitly approved by the director or City Arborist.
C. approval by the director and/or the city arborist prior to the issuance of any permit for a development project. -- d
D. Prohibition of grading, trenching, soil compaction, or material storage within the Tree Protection Zone unless explicitly approved by the director and City Arborist. i. Routing of utility and irrigation lines outside the Tree Protection Zone where feasible.
j. Prohibition of chemical disposal, equipment washing, or attachment of foreign objects to any protected tree.
E. The property owner shall sign the Tree Protection Plan and ensure full compliance throughout the project. Any damage to protected trees shall be reported immediately to the Director.
i. The director may require mitigation, including treatment, replacement, or payment into the City Tree Replacement Fund, based on the severity of damage.
1. 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 that are required in the opinion of the director to effectively prevent injury to such trees.
2. Tree stakes or guards may be placed around street trees by the city, the city's contractors, or by the owner of the property on which the street tree is located or which is located in a park strip abutting the owner's property as long as such stakes and guards are merely placed near street trees for the purpose of protecting and/or training such trees.
3. Each property owner shall ensure that electrical lines and wires providing electricity to his or her property are secured so they do not come into contact with any street tree, and no person shall, without the written authorization of the director, attach to a street tree any electric wire or line, insulator, or device for the holding or securing of any electric wire or line, or electrical or utility poles.
4. No person shall move any building or other object along any street in such manner as to injure any street tree. Whenever the director determines or reasonably 106 of 201
believes that any street tree may be injured, the director may require the person moving the building or other object along a street in the city to furnish a bond in an amount sufficient to cover the damage or destruction of street trees. § 12.12.330 Park strip inspection.
The director may inspect or cause to be inspected all street trees, shrubs, hedges, and other plants located within park strips. Upon discovering that any street tree, shrubs, hedges, or other plants within a park strip are dead, infected or infested with plant, animal, insect, or other condition detrimental to the growth, health, or life of any such street tree, the director may utilize the provisions of and pursue the remedies outlined in Sections
12.12.400 through 12.12.530.
§ 12.12.340 Hazardous conditions—Sight obstructions on private property.
A. No owner or person in possession or control of any property shall maintain any tree, shrub, hedge or other plant located on his or her property, or located in a park strip abutting the owner's property, in a manner that causes or may cause a hazardous condition or imminently hazardous condition on a street.
B. No owner of property shall permit the existence of any tree, shrub, hedge, plant, mound of earth, boulders, or any other object located on his or her property or within a park strip abutting his or her property that obscures and/or impairs the view of passing motorists or pedestrians or which impairs the view of any street sign, traffic sign, or any other control device or sign placed upon the streets for the safety and convenience of the public. § 12.12.350 Violations and Penalties.
Any person who violates the provisions of this ordinance, including property owners and persons performing tree removal or pruning activities, shall be subject to the following penalty:
A. Mandatory Dual Penalty for Unauthorized Removals. Any unauthorized removal or damage of a heritage or street tree shall require:
1. On-Site Replacement. Replacement in accordance with Table 1 in §12.12.280; AND,
2. Payment of an In-Lieu Fee. Payment of an in-lieu fee for each tree removed, regardless of whether replacement occurs on-site, as follows:
i. First Violation: One (1) times the in-lieu fee per tree removed. ii. Second Violation: Two (2) times the in-lieu fee per tree removed. 107 of 201
iii. Third or Subsequent Violation: Four (4) times the in-lieu fee per tree removed.
3. When Replacement is Not Feasible. If on-site replacement is determined to not be feasible by the director or the City Arborist, payment of two (2) times the amount required above.r
B. Additional Penalties and Enforcement: The City may impose additional penalties, including:
1. Administrative fines
2. Stop work orders
3. Permit holds or revocations
4. Cost recovery for enforcement and restoration
§ 12.12.400 Notice of violation.
If the director determines that a violation of this chapter has occurred or that the condition of any tree, shrub, hedge, or plant constitutes a violation of any provisions of this chapter, the director may, by written notice, notify the owner of the property in violation to take corrective action. A notice of violation may be provided in the form of an administrative citation or other form of writing that the director deems appropriate.
A. The notice of violation specified in Section 12.12.400 may be given by delivering a written notice personally to the property owner, or by mailing the notice, certified with return receipt requested, to the property owner at his or her last known address as the same appears on the last equalized assessment rolls of the county.
B. Any notice of violation issued by the director shall contain the following information:
1. The date of inspection;
2. The address or a description of the property upon which such tree, shrub, hedge, or plant is located, or the address of the property which abuts the parkway strip in which such tree, shrub, hedge, or plant is located;
3. A description of the violation;
4. A description of the corrective action required to address the violation; and
5. A definitive time period or deadline to complete the corrective action. 108 of 201
§ 12.12.430 Notice of violation—Right to appeal.
A. The notice of violation will specify that the property owner may file with the director City Clerk a written request for an appeal hearing. Such written request must be received by the director within 15 calendar days of the date of the notice of violation. The written request for hearing must clearly outline the reasons and bases for the property owner's objection to the notice of violation.
B. The director shall consider each written request for appeal. If the director does not alter his or her decision on an issue as a result of the written request for appeal hearing, the director shall set the matter for a hearing before the city council. The city council will serve as the hearing body for appeals involving notices of violation. A hearing shall be set for a date that is not less than 15 days and not more than 60 days from the date that the request for hearing is filed in accordance with the provisions of this section. The city council will give the property owner an opportunity to be heard and will thereafter render a written decision regarding the notice of violation. § 12.12.440 Work performed by city.
A. If the corrective action required by a notice of violation is not completed within the time specified in the notice, the city may, but shall not be required to, perform the required work or cause the work to be performed.
B. In cases of imminently hazardous conditions, the director shall have the authority to perform or cause to be performed corrective work necessary to abate the imminent hazard without first issuing a notice of violation to the property owner. § 12.12.450 City invoice for work performed.
A. The property owner shall be responsible for all costs associated with any corrective action taken by the city, including, without limitation, costs of planting, removal, or pruning and the city's administration time and expenses associated therewith. After completion of the work by the city pursuant to Section 12.12.440, the city shall mail an invoice to the property owner. The property owner shall, except as otherwise provided in this section, remit full payment to the city within 30 calendar days of the date of the city's invoice.
B. Any invoice not fully paid within the 30 day calendar period referenced in the immediately preceding subsection shall be deemed delinquent and shall accrue interest at the rate of 10% per year or the maximum interest rate allowed by law, whichever is less.
Commented [KC29]: These sections are recommended
for removal due to the City never invoicing property
owners.
Commented [AD30R29]: These sections should remain
in place and has been used in the past. The payment
method needs to be reviewed and approved by the City’s
Finance Department.
109 of 201
C. The costs payable to the city pursuant to this section may, at the director's discretion, be made in installments of no less than $15 per month, which shall be included as a charge on the utility bills or property tax bills for the property at which the city provided services. A property owner wishing to pay the amount owed in installments pursuant to this subsection must submit a written request to the director within 15 calendar days of the date of the invoice issued by the city pursuant to this section; if a property owner fails to submit such a request within the 15 calendar-day period, the payment terms identified in subsection B shall apply. Each owner of real property who is allowed to make installment payments pursuant to this subsection shall execute a promissory note and/or other documents approved by the city to reflect: (1) the payment obligation; (2) interest at a rate equal to the local agency investment fund (LAIF) interest rate in effect on the date of execution of the promissory note and/or other documents; and (3) the city's cost to prepare and record the documents evidencing the debt owed to the city and to process such installment payments.
1. If the director determines that installment payments shall be added to a property's utility bills, the property owner shall also execute a lien or deed of trust, in a form approved by the city, that will be recorded against the real property at which the city provided services. In determining whether the amount owed to the city will be paid through installments added to a property's utility bills, the director may require satisfactory proof that the real property will sufficiently secure payment of the amount owed to the city.
2. If the director determines that installment payments shall be paid through an owner's property tax bills, the city will notify the Kings County tax collector of the amounts to be added to the tax roll. The amount added to each tax bill shall be the equivalent of the monthly installment rate approved by the director plus any administrative fees charged by Kings County to collect and process the payments. § 12.12.460 Collection of city's costs.
A. To cause the payment of a delinquent amount, the director may pursue any remedy available to the city to enforce this code.
B. The city may add to the owner's unpaid balance any costs incurred by the city to collect a delinquent amount.
§ 12.12.470 Collection of corrective action costs—Special assessment.
A. To cause the payment of a delinquent amount, the director may pursue any remedy available to the city to enforce this code.
110 of 201
B. The city may add to the owner's unpaid balance any costs incurred by the city to collect a delinquent amount.
C. If a property owner fails to pay a city invoice in a timely manner, the city may, but shall not be required to, declare the delinquent amount a special assessment against the owner's property.
D. If the city elects to declare a special assessment in accordance with subsection A, the director will cause a notice of a public hearing before the city council to be provided to the property owner in the manner specified in Section 12.12.430. The notice will specify the day, hour, and place where the city council will hear and pass upon a report of the director (the contents of which are described below), together with written objections, if any, which may be raised by the property owner.
E. Prior to such hearing, the director shall prepare and file with the city council a report specifying the work performed by the city, the cost thereof, a description of the real property upon which the offending tree, shrub, hedge, or plant was located or a description of the real property abutting the park strip in which the offending street tree, shrub, hedge, or plant was located, and the assessment proposed to be levied against the property to pay the costs incurred by the city.
F. On the day and hour fixed for the hearing, the city council will hear and pass upon the report of the director, together with any written or oral objections which may be raised by any property owner liable for the cost of the city's corrective work. The city council may make such modifications in the report as it may deem just, after which, the report, as submitted or as modified, will be confirmed and provided to the property owner. The decision of the city council on all objections shall be final and conclusive.
G. The hearing will serve to provide full opportunity to the person subject to the city's invoice to be heard and object. The failure of any person to appear at the hearing shall constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
H. The city council, after confirmation of a special assessment amount, may:
1. Order a notice of lien to be delivered to the county for recording against the owner's property; or
2. Order the assessment amount to be submitted to the county tax assessor, who shall enter the amount thereof in the county's assessment records opposite the description of the particular property, and the amount shall be collected together with taxes assessed against the property. Thereafter, the city's assessment shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as taxes against the property 111 of 201
are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and interest, and to the same foreclosure and sales rights and procedures in the event the owner fails to pay the assessment in a timely manner.
3. § 12.12.480 Private arrangements for tree trimming or removal.
4. The director may, if he or she deems it to be in the public's interest, cause street trees to be pruned or removed through a private arrangement between the city and the owner of the property on which such trees are located or the owner of the property that abuts the park strip in which the trees are located. The arrangement will include terms under which the city will be reimbursed for initially paying the costs of such work on the owner's behalf.
§ 12.12.500 No interference with enforcement of this chapter.
No person shall interfere with or delay an authorized representative or contractor of the city from executing and enforcing this chapter.
§ 12.12.510 Failure to give or receive notice.
The failure to post, mail, or deliver by personal service any notice required under this chapter or the failure of any person to receive such notice shall not affect the validity of any proceedings or actions taken by the city or its officers, officials, employees, contractors, or volunteers under this chapter.
§ 12.12.530 Remedies.
The provisions of this chapter are non-exclusive and supplement any existing rights and remedies available to the city. The provisions of this chapter may be enforced by any remedies provided for in this municipal code or otherwise available in law or equity.
Violations of this chapter may be prosecuted criminally, civilly, or administratively, either undertaken separately or in conjunction with other remedies, at the sole discretion of the city. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to prevent the city from commencing any administrative, legal, equitable, or criminal proceeding to enforce this chapter, the city's municipal code, or any law.
(Ord. 15-12 § 1, 2015)
112 of 201
Appendix D
Hanford City Document Review
113 of 201
APPENDIX D - HANFORD UFMP / CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW
APPENDIX D – CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW 1
1 City Document Review
This section reviews and highlights key documents that the city has published in regard to the health and maintenance of their urban forest, and how the UFMP addresses goals and actions within these documents.
1.1 2035 General Plan
The Hanford 2035 General Plan is the main document for the City that guides future development goals and policies and reflects the long-term vision of the community. All other city policies must be consistent with the General Plan.
This section focuses on how the General Plan interacts with the urban forest and the ways that recommendations in the Hanford UFMP align with goals and actions in the General Plan.
Table 1.1: General Plan Highlights
Goal/Policy Section Relation to UFMP
Goal E7: A vibrant and thriving Downtown
that serves as the City’s main commercial
center and location for community events.
Goal E8: A distinct Downtown that sets
Hanford apart from surrounding
communities.
Policy E35: Downtown Infrastructure
Improvements
Maintain parking, lighting, landscaping,
sidewalk and other public improvements
that support business activity and
movement in the Downtown.
Chapter 2: Economic
Development
Section 2.6: Downtown
The UFMP emphasizes the
importance of trees and landscaping
in enhancing the visual character of
Hanford’s built environment,
including the downtown area, where
trees can both soften the
appearance of large buildings and
parking areas, as well as provide
shade and greenery to improve the
pedestrian experience, encouraging
foot traffic and supporting local
businesses. The UFMP recommends
the City continue partnership with
Mainstreet Hanford to enhance
canopy cover in the downtown area
of the City.
Goal L9: Distinctive neighborhoods that
preserve and enhance the quality of life
for residents.
Policy L28: Street Trees and Landscaping
Encourage all new residential
developments to include shade trees
along the street and install landscaping
and irrigation systems that meet State
requirements for low water use.
Chapter 3: Land Use &
Community Design
Section 3.4: Residential
Land Use
The UFMP highlights the role of
urban trees in helping residents
adapt to extreme weather by
providing shade, cooling, and
stormwater management.
Requiring shade trees in new
developments contributes to this by
reducing urban heat island effects
and improving comfort in residential
areas.
The UFMP also provides a
recommended tree list with drought-
tolerant tree species which will
support the City and residents in
establishing green infrastructure that
is compliant with low water use
requirements.
114 of 201
APPENDIX D - HANFORD UFMP / CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW
APPENDIX D – CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW 2
Goal L38: Revitalized Arterial corridors
that accommodate a mix of
nonresidential and residential uses that
generate activity and economic vitality
and improve the visual character.
Policy L145: East Lacey Boulevard Design
Policies and Ordinances
Policy L151: Hanford-Armona Road Public
and Industrial Facilities
Develop design policies and ordinances
for mixed use development that provide
for pedestrians and bicyclists including
features such as street trees, buildings
close to the street, de-emphasis of
parking lots and garages, limitation of
driveway cuts, traffic-calming features,
clearly defined street crossings, adequate
lighting, and street furnishings.
Chapter 3: Land Use &
Community Design
Section 3.13: Corridor Areas
The inclusion of street trees in
mixed-use development directly
supports the UFMP’s goal of
expanding and maintaining a healthy
urban canopy. The UFMP recognizes
the role of trees in creating inviting,
shaded, and aesthetically pleasing
environments.
Goal L38: Revitalized Arterial corridors
that accommodate a mix of
nonresidential and residential uses that
generate activity and economic vitality
and improve the visual character.
Policy L54: Design of the Service
Commercial Land Use Designation
Policy L58: Design of the Highway
Commercial Land Use Designation
Policy L62: Design of the Neighborhood
Mixed Use Land Use Designation
Policy L67: Design of the Corridor Mixed
Use Land Use Designation
Policy L71: Design of the Downtown
Mixed Use Land Use Designation
Policy L78: Design of the Office Land Use
Designation
Require that new development projects
and major site reconfigurations in the
Highway/Service Commercial/
Neighborhood, Corridor and Downtown
Mixed Use/ Office land use designations
provide site layouts, landscaping, and
screening so that the site appears
Chapter 3: Land Use &
Community Design
Subsection 3.1.5: Service
Commercial
Subsection 3.5.4: Highway
Commercial
Subsection 3.6.2:
Neighborhood Mixed Use
Subsection 3.6.2: Corridor
Mixed Use
Subsection 3.6.3: Downtown
Mixed Use
Subsection 3.7.1: Office
The UFMP emphasizes the
importance of trees and landscaping
in enhancing the visual character of
Hanford’s built environment. The
UFMP encourages tree planting not
just in residential areas but also in
commercial corridors and downtown
zones, where trees can both soften
the appearance of large buildings
and parking areas, as well as provide
shade and greenery to improve the
pedestrian experience, encouraging
foot traffic and supporting local
businesses.
115 of 201
APPENDIX D - HANFORD UFMP / CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW
APPENDIX D – CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW 3
aesthetically pleasing from the public
street.
Goal T3: City streets that meet the needs
of bicyclists, pedestrians, children,
motorists, persons with disabilities, the
elderly, users of public transportation,
and commercial goods movers.
Policy T37: Shade Trees in Planter Strips
Where adequate space permits, include
street trees planted in planter strips
between the curb and sidewalk to shade
paved street surfaces.
Chapter 4: Transportation &
Circulation
Section 4.2: Streets and
Highways
Subsection 4.2.8: Planned
Roadway Improvements
The new public tree inventory data
collected as part of this UFMP
project allows for the City to analyze
the condition of existing trees and
identify where tree gaps exist along
streets.
Goal T3: City streets that meet the needs
of bicyclists, pedestrians, children,
motorists, persons with disabilities, the
elderly, users of public transportation,
and commercial goods movers.
Policy T41: Streetscape Enhancements
Strive to improve the visual character of
roadway corridors by improving
streetscapes with amenities such as
street trees, pedestrian-scaled lighting,
underground utilities, water-efficient
landscaping, and streetscape furniture.
Chapter 4: Transportation &
Circulation
Section 4.2: Streets and
Highways
Subsection 4.2.9: Complete
Streets Program
The new public tree inventory data
collected as part of this UFMP
project allows for the City to analyze
the condition of existing trees and
identify where tree gaps exist along
streets.
Goal O2: Conservation of non-renewable
energy resources and maximization of the
use of renewable energy resources.
Policy O16: Vegetation to Conserve
Energy
Encourage the use of native and drought
tolerant shade trees and vines on
southern and western exposure building
walls as an energy conservation
technique
Chapter 5: Open Space,
Conservation & Recreation
Section 5.3: Mineral and
Energy Resources
Subsection 5.3.3: Energy
Conservation
The UFMP contains an appendix with
arboricultural best practices for tree
spacing next to structures and
discusses the benefits of tree shade
and energy conservation.
Goal O4: Protection of natural habitat and
other biological resources.
Policy O36: Nonnative Invasive Species
Chapter 5: Open Space,
Conservation & Recreation
Section 5.5: Biological
Resources
The UFMP contains an updated
recommended tree species list for
staff and residents which includes
climate-appropriate and drought
resistant trees. The tree species list
will also include a section on
116 of 201
APPENDIX D - HANFORD UFMP / CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW
APPENDIX D – CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW 4
Manage or eliminate nonnative invasive
species from City-owned property and
open space.
Policy O38: Native Tree Species and
Drought Tolerant Vegetation
Encourage the planting of native tree
species and drought-tolerant vegetation.
Subsection 5.5.1: Natural
Habitat
invasive trees species that should
not be planted in Hanford.
Goal O4: Protection of natural habitat and
other biological resources.
Policy O37: Mature Trees
Promote the preservation of existing
mature trees and encourage the planting
of appropriate shade trees
in new developments.
Chapter 5: Open Space,
Conservation & Recreation
Section 5.5: Biological
Resources
Subsection 5.5.1: Natural
Habitat
As part of the UFMP process, the
City’s Trees and Shrubs ordinance
was reviewed and recommendations
were provided for updating the
ordinance to better preserve existing
trees and clarify responsibilities for
property owners and developers.
Goal O8: The equitable distribution of
parks throughout the community that are
well designed, accessible, and integrated
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Policy O51: Provision of Parkland
Acquire and develop new parks consistent
with the Parks, Recreation, and Open
Space Master Plan.
Chapter 5: Open Space,
Conservation & Recreation
Section 5.7: Parks and
Recreation
Subsection 5.7.1: Park
Classifications
As part of the UFMP project, a
planting plan was developed for 600
new trees to be planted over the
next two years along streets and in
parks, including the future Heroes
Park.
Goal O8: The equitable distribution of
parks throughout the community that are
well designed, accessible, and integrated
with the surrounding neighborhood.
Policy O66 Park and Landscaped Area
Maintenance
Provide adequate staff to maintain parks
and other public landscaped areas.
Chapter 5: Open Space,
Conservation & Recreation
Section 5.7: Parks and
Recreation
Subsection 5.7.6: Park
Design and Maintenance
The UFMP provides an analysis and
recommendations for appropriate
numbers of staff to maintain trees in
parks and other city-maintained
spaces. It also provides an inventory
and canopy cover analysis for each
of the City’s parks which will allow
the City to prioritize limited resources
for improving park canopy.
Goal H3: Reduced risk to public health
and safety and disruption of social,
economic, and environmental welfare
resulting from natural hazards.
Policy H18: Extreme Heat Emergency Plan
Support the maintenance and
implementation of the Kings County
Extreme Heat Emergency Plan to support
vulnerable populations during times of
extreme heat.
Chapter 7: Health, Safety,
and Noise
Section 7.3: Natural Hazards
Subsection 7.3.3: Extreme
Heat
The City’s urban forest will be crucial
for mitigating future climate impacts
like providing shade and cooler
temperatures on extreme heat days.
The UFMP provides resources on
climate-appropriate tree species,
and tree establishment and
maintenance. The UFMP also
provides recommended actions and
projected costs for increasing the
City’s tree canopy in priority areas
and identifies ways were the City can
117 of 201
APPENDIX D - HANFORD UFMP / CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW
APPENDIX D – CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW 5
improve its management of the
urban forest.
Goal H9: Improved health, safety, and
mental well-being
Policy H61: Public Amenities
Consider environmental justice issues as
they are related to the equitable provision
of desirable public amenities such as
parks, recreational facilities, and other
beneficial uses that improve the quality of
life.
Policy H62: Public Participation
Assure that all community residents have
opportunities to participate in decisions
that affect their environment and health
and make accommodations for them to
be involved in the decision-making
processes.
Chapter 7: Health, Safety,
and Noise
Section 7.6: Public Health
and Fitness
Subsection 7.6.2:
Environmental Justice
The tree canopy goals within the
UFMP are based on analysis of
where current canopy is lacking
within the City, and prioritizes tree
planting efforts to increase canopy in
those areas.
Community engagement and public
participation was a key component
of the UFMP process and involved
multiple opportunities for the public
to voice their opinions, concerns,
and desires including an online
public survey, City UFMP webpage
with email contact information, a
Working Group with participation
form the public, and a public review
period for the draft UFMP.
Goal H9: Improved health, safety, and
mental well-being
Policy H65: Comfortable Walking and
Biking Environments
Provide comfortable environments and
destinations for walking and bicycling to
integrate physical activity into daily
routines.
Chapter 7: Health, Safety,
and Noise
Section 7.6: Public Health
and Fitness
Subsection 7.6.3:
Relationship of Health to
Land Use Patterns and Parks
Access.
Trees play a crucial role in reducing
high temperatures along sidewalks
and pathways during the summer
months, encouraging the community
to use more non-vehicle forms of
transportation. The UFMP includes
recommended actions for identifying
new opportunities to establish trees
along planned future pathway
improvements associated with the
California high-speed rail station.
1.2 Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2020
The purpose of the City of Hanford’s Parks and Recreation Master Plan is “ to provide a roadmap for future development of recreational facilities and opportunities for the City over the next 10 years, consistent with the General Plan 2035 requirements.” The plan is based on recognized park planning principles and standards, and reflects input from residents and stakeholders in Hanford, City staff, the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council. Parks and open spaces within a City often contribute greatly to a city’s overall canopy cover . In addition, they provide areas for green space, recreation, and wildlife habitat, and improve mental and physical health benefits for the community. It is important that City’s parks, and trees within them, are well managed so that their benefits can be maximized for the public.
Table 1.2: Parks and Recreation Master Plan Highlights
Goal/Policy Section Relation to UFMP
118 of 201
APPENDIX D - HANFORD UFMP / CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW
APPENDIX D – CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW 6
Investing in the Existing parks System:
Continue to focus on reinvesting in, and
maintaining existing parks.
Resolution of the future of the 18 acres of
vacant land adjacent to Hidden Valley
Park.
Sec 1.4.2 Community Input
Key Findings
The UFMP provides an analysis of
what improvements can be made to
the City’s urban forestry program
including establishment and
maintenance of trees in City parks. It
also includes an updated tree
species list with drought tolerant,
climate appropriate trees that should
require less maintenance than some
current City trees.
Trails and Connectivity:
Desire for a connected, accessible
recreational trail system that also
supports active transportation initiatives.
Sec 1.4.2 Community Input
Key Findings
The UFMP contains recommended
actions for enhancing potential
future pedestrian and bike trails with
tree canopy as part of the California
high-speed rail station and related
projects.
Funding the Parks and Recreation System
Creative and multiple funding strategies
are required to meet the needs of the
community.
Sec 1.4.2 Community Input
Key Findings
The UFMP includes an appendix with
potential funding sources for
projects that increase tree canopy in
Parks and other public spaces.
Current System Inventory and Level of
Service (LOS):
If the City achieves the 2035 General
Plan’s stated goal (of 3.5 parkland acres
per 1,000 residents), the overall LOS for
the City of Hanford’s park system will be
4.57 acres per 1,000 population, which
would be slightly below the current LOS of
5.06 acres per 1,000 population.
Sec 1.4.4 Level of Service
and Facility Analysis
While the City is currently achieving
there parkland acreage per 1000
residents’ goal, the UFMP includes
an appendix with a tree planting plan
for the new Heroes Park, and other
parks and public spaces in the City
which will include 600 tree plantings
over late 2025 and late 2026.
Key Unmet Facility Needs:
Walking and biking trails to improve
connectivity.
Reservable covered picnic areas.
Shaded playgrounds.
Neighborhood/School parks.
Community parks
Sec 1.4.4 Level of Service
and Facility Analysis
The UFMP contains recommended
actions for enhancing future
pedestrian trails and bike paths with
additional tree canopy using climate
appropriate tree species. The UFMP
also identifies tree planting
opportunities adjacent to schools
and recommends partnering with
school administrators on grant
funding for tree planting on school
properties.
119 of 201