Hanford City Council
April 21, 2026

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

PROJECT NAME / REPORT TYPE

APPENDIX D – CITY DOCUMENT REVIEW
7 2 References
City of Hanford. Hanford 2035 General Plan. 2017. Accessed June 14, 2025. https://www.cityofhanfordca.com/DocumentCenter/View/383/2035-General-Plan-Policy-Document-PDF City of Hanford. Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2020. Accessed June 14, 2025. https://www.cityofhanfordca.com/DocumentCenter/View/745/2020-Hanford-Parks-Master-Plan-PDF

120 of 201

APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS
Appendix E
Community Engagement Results
121 of 201

APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS
Community Engagement
Community outreach was a key step in the development process of the UFMP to understand and amplify the voices of Hanford’s community. Kicking off in spring 2025, residents and businesses were engaged in outreach efforts that included the following activities and educational materials:
▪ 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 the City of Hanford channels (Instagram, Facebook, and NextDoor). ▪ An Urban Forest Informational Open House hosted in November 2025 to inform attendees on the status of Urban Forest Management Plan, tree inventory and canopy cover analysis results, and to gather general feedback on the recommended updates to the Trees and Sh rubs Ordinance and Hanford’s UFMP Strategic Plan (XX 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)

Summary of Stakeholder Input
Online Surveys
An online survey was created to identify the public’s perception and understanding of the City’s trees, and to offer a space for public feedback on the City’s Trees and Shrubs Ordinance (Ch 12.12). The 22-question survey was open between April 1, 2025 and July 31, 2025, and was distributed through various City social media outlets, local newspapers, and Thursday Night markets. The survey had a total of 69 respondents, which is a fairly low level of participation. Of the combined 69 respondents, XX% live in Hanford, XX% work in Hanford, and 8% go to school in Hanford (Table C-1). Table C-2 highlights other relevant survey respondent demographics, and how they compare to City data from the US Census Bureau. The survey responses only reflect the opinions of small porion of Hanford’s residents. During the implementation phase of the UFMP, it will be important to continue to outreach to City residents to ensure that diverse prospectives are heard and valued. The full survey response results can be found at the end of this Appendix.

Table C-1. Percentage of Survey Respondents Who Live, Work, or go to School in Hanford
Response Percent of Respondents
Live in Hanford 84%
Work in Hanford 36%
Go to school in Hanford 7%
Source: Hanford UFMP Community Survey 2025
122 of 201

APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS
Table C-2. Demographics of Survey Respondents Compared to Demographics of the City of Hanford
Category Demographics of Survey Respondents
U.S. Census Demographics of
City of Hanford 202 3
Age 65 or older 19% 65 or older 13%
Age Between 18 and 65 77% Between 18 and 65 58%
Age Under 18 3% Under 18 29%
Housing Status Homeowner 70% Homeowner 62%
Education Bachelor’s degree or
higher
52% Bachelor’s degree or
higher
24%
Source: U.S Census Bureau 2023
Survey Results Limitations and Need for Ongoing Community Engagement The community survey conducted as part of this UFMP process offers a glimpse into how residents perceive and engage with Hanford’s urban forest and related ordinances. It’s important to acknowledge that the number of respondents (69) was a small fraction of the City’s total population of 60,000 people. This means the survey doesn’t reflect a statistically representative cross-section of the community. Instead, it likely reflects the views of individuals who are already interested or invested in urban forestry issues. Their feedback, while not comprehensive, is still valuable as it highlights the concerns and priorities of engaged residents who too k the time to share their thoughts.

Rather than drawing broad conclusions, the survey results can be used to identify recurring themes and areas of interest. These included concerns about tree maintenance responsibilities, desires for more trees and shade in public spaces, and interest in educational resources for tree care . Such patterns can help guide future outreach and planning efforts, especially when paired with other data sources like canopy coverage maps or neighborhood demographics.

Ultimately, the survey serves as a starting point. It underscores the need for ongoing and deeper engagement using more inclusive outreach strategies to ensure that future efforts reflect the diversity of Hanford’s residents and their viewpoints. At the same time, it provides a foundation of community input that can inform early steps in urban forest planning and help shape conversations moving forward.

Urban Forest In-Person Public Engagement
Dudek tabled at three separate in-person events including an Easter Egg Hunt in Civic Park on April 18, 2025, and two Thursday Night Markets in Civic Park on May 1, 2025 and June 12, 2025. The Project Team had a table with information on poster boards that introduced residents and other attendees to the UFMP and the City’s Trees and Shr ubs Ordinance, encouraged participation in the online community survey, asked which areas around the City could use more trees, asked what people’s favorite benefit was from trees, and created a venue for residents to voice their opinions and perceptions about the City’s urban forest. The combined attendance from the three in -person outreach is estimated to be over 100 individuals who stopped by the tables and/or participated in one of the poster board activities. The poster board responses were digitized and are detailed in Table C-3 and Figures C-1a-c.

Table C-3. Urban Forest Engagement Responses to Poster 1 – What Do You Love Most About Trees?
123 of 201

APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS
Poster 1: What Do You Love
Most About Trees?
04/18/25
Easter Egg
Event
05-01-2025
Thursday
Night Market
06-12-2025
Thursday
Night Market
Total
Votes
% of all
Votes
Cleaner Air 8 4 14 26 32%
Shade 11 1 9 21 26%
Energy Savings 3 0 4 7 9%
Beauty 2 1 6 9 11%
Wildlife Habitat 2 0 2 4 5%
Food 1 0 2 3 4%
Healthier Communities 1 2 4 7 9%
Stormwater Mitigation 0 1 3 4 5%
Connecting with Neighbors 0 0 1 1 1%
Total Votes 82

Table C-4. Urban Forest Engagement Responses to Poster 2 – Where do We Need More Trees?
Poster 2: Where Do We Need
More Trees?
04/18/25
Easter Egg
Event
05-01-2025
Thursday
Night Market
06-12-2025
Thursday
Night Market
Total
Votes
% of all
Votes
Parks 5 1 10 16 22%
Schools 12 1 2 15 20%
Parking Lots 5 0 5 10 14%
Sidewalks 6 0 4 10 14%
Front and Back Yards 5 0 3 8 11%
Transit Stops 4 0 1 5 7%
Apartment Communities 0 0 6 6 8%
Retail Areas 3 0 1 4 5%
Total Votes 74

Figures C-1a – c. Poster Boards and Table at the In-Person Community Engagement Events

124 of 201

APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS
Urban Forest Open House (To be completed after open house event)

Working Group
The consultant team formed a working group of various community stakeholders (Table C-5) 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.

Table C-5. Hanford’s 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 King’s Partnership
Carson DeBlieck Resident
Greg Mendonsa Urban Tree Foundation

125 of 201

APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

CITY OF HANFORD –UFMP SURVEY RESULTS 08 -05 -202 5 (6 9 TOTAL

RESPONDENTS)

1. Does your neighborhood have planted street trees (street trees- any tree that is planted in the public right- of-way near and along the roadways which shade sidewalks and grow over the road)? Feelings on Planted City Trees Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this
option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes, and I support having them. 32 46%
No, but I wish we did. 33 48%
Yes, but I wish we didn't. 1 1%
No and I prefer not having them 1 1%
Did not answer question 2 3%

49%
44%
2% 2% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Yes, and I support
having them.

No, but I wish we did. Yes, but I wish we
didn't.

No and I prefer not
having them
Did not answer
question

1. Percentage of respondents with and without planted street trees 126 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

2. Where would you like to see more trees planted in Hanford? Where respondents would like trees planted category (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this
option:

Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Sidewalks and streets 35 51%
Parks 33 48%
Parking Lots 29 42%
Biking and walking paths 29 42%
Neighborhoods 26 38%
Schools 12 17%
Shopping Districts 11 16%
New developments 9 13%
Residential Properties 5 7%
Apartment Communities 3 4%
Other - Lower Income Communities 1 1%
Other - Playgrounds 1 1%
I would NOT like to see more trees in Hanford 0 0%
Did not answer question 0 0%

127 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

3. Where should the City of Hanford plant more trees?

128 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

4. Rank the City’s management of trees in Hanford from highest priority (number 1) to lowest priority (number 7).

Preferences for City Priorities in UFMP (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected the following
UFMP Prioritization
category as #1 choice:

Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Plant native trees that enhance native pollinators and
wildlife habitats 20 29%
Increase the number of trees planted each year. 15 22% Better maintain and preserve existing trees. 13 19%
Prioritize planting drought tolerant and low-maintenance species 5 7%
Diversify the urban forest by planting uncommon tree
species 3 4%
Provide opportunities and educational resources for
community members relating to trees 2 3%
Reduce the risk of invasive pests and diseases. 1 1%
Did not answer question 4 6%

129 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

5. Which of the following activities would you be willing to participate in? Activities that respondents would do Category (full
description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option:

Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Plant a tree on your private property. 43 62%
Attend a tree education workshop (in person or virtual). 35 51% Volunteer or help organize a community tree planting event. 34 49% Help the City promote the Urban Forest program through
community outreach and social media 28 41%
Volunteer to provide basic tree care in your neighborhood (watering and weeding). 15 22%
I am not interested in helping to support the City's urban forest program. 5 7%
Other (please specify below) 3 4%
Did not answer question 2 3%

130 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

6. What factors would make you more inclined to plant a tree on your property? Factors that would make respondents more inclined to
plant a tree on their property Category (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option:

Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
A list of tree species suggestions that are climate
appropriate and do no damage infrastructure 41 59%
Information on how to properly plant, water, and maintain a tree. 30 43%
Assistance with cost to water, maintain, and trim trees. 26 38% Pruning assistance to reduce risk of damage by falling
branches. 25 36%
I am not inclined to plant a tree on my property. 3 4% Other (please specify) 6 9%
Did not answer question 4 6%

131 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

7. It typically costs under $10 a year to water a newly planted tree. Does this information make it more likely that you would plant a tree on your property?
Feelings on Planted City Trees Category (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes. 29 42%
Yes, and I would plant a tree even if the cost was higher 19 28% Only if the City provided an incentive such as a rebate program 6 9%
No, the cost is prohibitive 1 1%
No, the watering cost isn't prohibitive, but the cost of continual maintenance is. 9 13%
Other (please specify) 4 6%
Did not answer question 1 1%

132 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

8. Please select your level of agreement with the following statement: “I think Hanford effectively protects its trees.”
Level of agreement on statement: "Hanford effectively
protects its trees" Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Strongly agree 1 1%
Agree 19 28%
Neutral 26 38%
Disagree 16 23%
Strongly disagree 7 10%
Did not answer question 0 0%

133 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

9. Before taking this survey, I was aware that Hanford has an ordinance that provides protections and regulations for the City’s street trees.

Awareness that the City of Hanford has an ordinance that provides protections and regulations for the City's trees? Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes 27 39%
No 41 59%
Did not answer question 1 1%

134 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

10. Before taking this survey, I was aware that property owners who have a public street tree or shrub in front of their property are responsible for watering, pruning, maintaining, and replacing those public street trees and are liable for all damages and/or injuries caused by their failure to maintain those street trees and shrubs.

Awareness of the tree maintenance and replacement
responsibilities placed on property owners who have a
public street tree adjacent to their property by the City's Tree and Shrubs ordinance?
Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes 33 48%
No 35 51%
Did not answer question 1 1%

135 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

11. Who do you think should be responsible for maintaining public street trees? Who participants think should be responsible for
maintaining public street trees (full description):

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Shared responsibility between the City and adjacent
property owner 41 59%
The City only 25 36%
The adjacent property owner only 3 4%
Did not answer question 0 0%

136 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

12. I understand who to contact at the City if a street tree adjacent to my property is damaging a sidewalk, driveway, etc.?
Understanding of who to contact at the City for tree-related infrastructure damage issues.

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Yes 17 25%
No 49 71%
Did not answer question 3 4%

137 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

13. I understand when a permit is needed to work on public street trees and Heritage trees.

Level of agreement with the sentence: "I understand when a permit is needed to work on public street trees and Heritage trees."
Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Strongly agree 7 10%
Agree 8 12%
Neutral 16 23%
Disagree 24 35%
Strongly disagree 13 19%
Did not answer question 1 1%

138 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

14. I understand the penalties for removing a public street tree or Heritage tree.

Level of agreement with the sentence: "I understand the penalties for removing a public street tree or Heritage tree in Hanford"
Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Strongly agree 8 12%
Agree 10 14%
Neutral 12 17%
Disagree 24 35%
Strongly disagree 14 20%
Did not answer question 1 1%

139 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

15. I think the current Street Trees and Shrubs Ordinance is effective at protecting public street trees.

Level of agreement with the statement: "I think the current Street Trees and Shrubs Ordinance is effective at
protecting public street trees"
Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Strongly agree 1 1%
Agree 6 9%
Neutral 47 68%
Disagree 6 9%
Strongly disagree 8 12%
Did not answer question 1 1%

140 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

16. Have you had experience applying for a permit to remove or replace a public street tree or Heritage tree?
Level of experience with applying for a tree
removal permit.

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
No, and I don't want to. 44 64%
No, but I know about the process. 20 29%
Yes, and it was a good experience. 3 4%
Yes, and it was a bad experience. 1 1%
Did not answer question 1 1%

141 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

17. Do you live or work or go to school in the City of Hanford? Do you live, work, and/or go to school in City of
Hanford Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Live 58 84%
Work 25 36%
Go to school 5 7%
None of the above 9 13%
Did not answer question 0 0%

142 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

18. Which best describes your current housing situation? Current housing situation Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Homeowner 48 70%
Renter 13 19%
Child of homeowner 5 7%
Child of renter 1 1%
Did not answer question 2 3%

143 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

19. What neighborhood do you live in?
Neighborhood
Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Stonecrest 6 9%
10th 5 7%
Area 4 6%
Fargo 4 6%
Park 3 4%
School 3 4%
Grangeville 3 4%
Windgate 2 3%
Flowers 2 3%
Monroe 2 3%
East 2 3%
Hartley 2 3%
Copper 2 3%
Valley 2 3%
9th 1 1%
Woodside 1 1%
Hannahdale 1 1%
Vineyard 1 1%
Ave. 1 1%
Silver 1 1%
Oaks 1 1%
Short 1 1%
Acres 1 1%
Semas 1 1%
Elementary 1 1%
Salem 1 1%
Drive 1 1%
Riveroaks 1 1%
Apts 1 1%
Pinecastle 1 1%
Pine 1 1%
Castle 1 1%
North 1 1%
campus 1 1%
High 1 1%
Mission 1 1%
Housing 1 1%
Authority 1 1%
144 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS
Kings 1 1%
County 1 1%
Lincoln 1 1%
Elementary. 1 1%
Hoover 1 1%
Short 1 1%
Acres 1 1%
Semas 1 1%
Elementary 1 1%
Salem 1 1%
drive 1 1%
Riveroaks 1 1%
Apts 1 1%
Pinecastle 1 1%
Pine 1 1%
Castle 1 1%
North 1 1%
Campus 1 1%
High 1 1%
Mission 1 1%
Housing 1 1%
Authority 1 1%
Kings 1 1%
County 1 1%
Lincoln 1 1%
Elementary. 1 1%
Hoover 1 1%
Woods 1 1%
Did not answer 15 22%

145 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

146 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

20. Which of the following age groups are you a part of? Age Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Under 18 2 2.9%
18-24 0 0.0%
25-34 15 21.7%
35-44 19 27.5%
45-54 13 18.8%
55-64 7 10.1%
65+ 13 18.8%
Did not answer question 0 0%

147 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

21. What is the highest level of education you have attained? Highest level of education Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Graduate 13 19%
Bachelor 23 33%
Associates 23 33%
Some college but no degree 7 10%
High school diploma 2 3%
No high school diploma 1 1%
Did not answer question 13 19%

148 of 201

CITY OF HANFORD TREE ORDINANCE SURVEY RESULTS 8/4/2025
APPENDIX E – COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT RESULTS

22. How did you hear about this survey?
Where did participant hear about survey Category:

Number of survey
respondents who
selected this option
Percentage of
respondents who
selected this option
out of total
participants
Social Media 46 67%
Thursday Night Market 11 16%
Other Public Event 3 4%
Email 5 7%
Local Newspaper 0 0%
Friends or Family 0 0%
Other - Member of the Parks and Recreation
Commission 1 1%
Other - Repetitive conflicts with code enforcement
leading to a Parks and Rec Meeting 1 1%
Other - UFMP Zoom meeting 1 1%
Did not answer question 1 1%

149 of 201

Appendix F – Self-Assessment Monitoring Plan
Appendix F
Hanford Vibrant Cities Lab Self-Assessment Monitoring Plan

150 of 201

Appendix F – Self-Assessment Monitoring Plan
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 it’s progress towards a sustainable urban forest. Vibrant Cities Lab is a collaboration of partners which includes the United States 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 ( https://old.vibrantcitieslab.com/assessment/). 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 as an assessment to define the City’s current state of a specific a rea of urban forest sustainability. The user decides what the City’s 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. Conversely, gap scores of 40+ indicates that a City is still implementing programs and policies to close the gap and develop a sustainable urban forest.

Hanford’s assessment was conducted on August 6 2025, by City staff and the consultant team. Table M -1 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) for the vari ous 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 19, with a gap score of 72. 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 asks to City Council.

Table M-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Mid-UFMP) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Canopy cover The existing canopy is
50%-75% of desired. 1
The existing canopy is >75%-
100% of desired – at individual
neighborhood level as well as
overall municipality.
4 3
Inventory
Complete or sample-based
inventory of publicly owned
trees.
1 Inventory guides planning,
management decisions. 2 1
Assessment
Methodology
The existing canopy is
50%-75% of
desired+B3:B4.
3 Complete, detailed, and
spatially explicit, high-resolution
Urban Tree Canopy (UTC)
assessment based on
enhanced data (such as LIDAR)
– accompanied by
comprehensive set of goals by
land use and other parameters;
all utilized effectively to drive
urban forest and green
infrastructure policy and
4 1
151 of 201

Appendix F – Self-Assessment Monitoring Plan
Table M-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Mid-UFMP) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
practice municipality-wide and
at neighborhood or smaller
management level.

Publicly owned trees
Complete tree inventory
that includes detailed tree
condition ratings.
2 Complete GIS tree inventory
that includes detailed tree
condition and risk ratings.
4 2
Publicly owned natural
areas
Identified only in natural
area survey. 1
Ecological structure and
function of all natural areas
assessed and documented.
3 2
Private property trees
Aerial, point-based
assessment – capturing
extent and location.
1 Bottom-up sample-based
assessment, as well as basic
aerial view
4 3
Relative performance
index by species
Half of the six most
common species have
higher RPI scores than the
average of all species in
community. (>1.)
2 All of the six most common
species have higher RPI scores
than the average of all species
in the community
4 2
Use of native
vegetation
Voluntary use of native
species on publicly and
privately owned lands;
invasive species are
recognized.
1 Native species are widely used
on a project-appropriate basis
in all areas; invasive species
are proactively managed for
eradication to the full extent
possible.
4 2
Align municipal
departments
Municipal
departments/agencies
take actions impacting
urban forest with no cross-
departmental coordination
or consideration of the
urban forest resource.
-1
Municipal policy implemented
by formal interdepartmental/
interagency working teams on
all municipal projects.
4 5
Engage residents in
planning and
implementation
Some neighborhood
groups engaged across the
community but no minimal
outreach to assure
underserved
neighborhoods participate
effectively.
1 Proactive outreach and
coordination efforts by
municipality and NGO partners
resulting in widespread citizen
involvement and structured
engagement among diverse
neighborhood groups.
4 3
Environmental equity
Planting and outreach
includes attention to low
canopy neighborhoods or
areas.
1 Equitable planting and outreach
at the neighborhood level is
guided by strong resident
involvement in low canopy/high
need areas. Residents
participate actively in
identifying needs for their
neighborhoods, planning,
implementation and monitoring
4 3
Trees acknowledged as
vital community
resource
Trees generally recognized
as important and
beneficial.
1 Urban forest recognized as vital
to the community’s 4 3
152 of 201

Appendix F – Self-Assessment Monitoring Plan
Table M-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Mid-UFMP) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
environmental, social, and
economic well-being.

Engage large private
landowners and
institutions
Large private landholders
are generally uninformed
about urban forest issues
and opportunities
-1
Municipality educates
landowners, provides technical
assistance, sets goals and
provides incentives for
managing resources in
accordance with plan
1 2
All utilities work with
municipality, employ
best management
practices
Utilities take actions
impacting urban forest
with no municipal
coordination
1 Utilities are included in informal
municipal teams that
communicate regularly and
collaborate on a project-specific
basis.
3 2
Green industry
embraces goals, high
standards
Little or no cooperation
among segments of green
industry or awareness of
municipality-wide urban
forest goals and
objectives.
-1
Specific collaborate
arrangements across segments
of green industry in support of
municipality-wide goals and
objectives.
2 3
Develop urban forest
management plan
New or recent urban forest
and green infrastructure
management plan which
targets public tree planting
sites, protection and
maintenance based on
assessment of anticipated
benefits ranging from
stormwater to heat island
mitigation, public
health, etc.
3 New or recent urban forest and
green infrastructure
management plan which
targets public and private tree
planting and protection based
on assessment of anticipated
benefits - and assures these
benefits are distributed
equitably among
neighborhoods.
4 1
Cooperative planning
with other
municipalities
Municipalities have no
interaction with each other
or the broader region. No
regional planning or
coordination on urban
forestry.
-1
Some urban forest planning
and cooperation across
municipalities and regional
agencies.
2 3
Forestry plan integrated
into other municipal
plans
Urban forestry plan
mentions how it could
meet other municipal
objectives or inform other
planning efforts.
-1
Once completed, urban forestry
planning team works with other
agencies to align current and
future objectives.
2 3
Urban forestry program
capacity
Lack of staff training
and/or access to adequate
equipment limits
effectiveness.
1 Team has capacity and will in
the future work to achieve all
goals of the urban forest
management plan, to maintain
the resource over time, and
adapt management as
circumstances change.
4 3
153 of 201

Appendix F – Self-Assessment Monitoring Plan
Table M-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Mid-UFMP) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Municipality-wide urban
forestry funding
Ad hoc funding for
emergency; reactive
management.
1 Sustained, long-term funding
from multiple municipal,
regional, and/or state agencies,
along with private sources to
implement a comprehensive
urban forest management plan
and provide for maintenance
and adaptive management as
circumstances change.
4 3
Growing site suitability
Appropriate tree species
are considered in site
selection
1 All trees planted in sites with
adequate soil quality and
quantity, and with sufficient
growing space and overall site
conditions to achieve their
genetic potential and thus
provide maximum ecosystem
services. Where growing
conditions are poor, guidance
provided on how to improve soil
volume, quality, other factors.
4 3
Tree establishment and
maintenance
Some tree planting and
establishment occurs, but
with limited overall
municipality-wide planning
and post-planting care.
-1
Comprehensive tree
establishment plan provides
concrete guidance on most of
the following criteria: site
selection, size, age class,
diversity of species, native plant
choice, planting protocols, and
young tree care.
4 5
Management of
publicly owned natural
areas
Only reactive management
to facilitate public use, e.g.
hazard abatement, trail
maintenance.
1 Management plan in place for
each publicly owned natural
area to facilitate appropriate
public use.
2 1
Policies that foster
good urban forestry on
private lands
No tree protection
ordinance, or one that's
weak and rarely enforced.
-1
Policies regarding stormwater,
site and subdivision planning,
zoning and other issues that
affect private forests are
included in management plan.
2 3
Tree protection policy
and enforcement
Policies in place to protect
public trees and employ
industry best management
practices, but rare or
inconsistent enforcement/
1 Integrated municipality-wide
policies and practices to protect
public and private trees,
consistently enforced and with
penalties sufficient to deter
violations.
4 3
Monitoring
Monitoring is infrequent
and reactive to reported
changes in tree health, site
condition.
1 Monitoring on a regular basis
with rotating schedule for each
area. Monitors are
professionals or volunteers
trained to collect specific data
required by municipality. Multi-
2 1
154 of 201

Appendix F – Self-Assessment Monitoring Plan
Table M-1. Tree Canopy Goal Assessment Summary (Mid-UFMP) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
year data available for trend
analyses
Tree risk management
Citizens and city staff
report tree safety issues to
the forestry department or
manager (e.g., 3-1-1
system, online form, etc.).

System tracks the time
between damage report
and mitigation action.
1 Includes "better" but with TRAQ-
qualified contractors on city
projects. Educate tree care
companies and public about
importance of TRAQ
qualifications.
4 3
Urban wood and green
waste utilization
While most green waste
does not go to landfill,
uses are limited to chips or
mulch.
1 The majority of green waste is
reused or recycled - for energy,
products, and other purposes
beyond chips or mulch.
2 1
Total Current Score 19 Total Goal Rating 91
Total Gap Score 72

155 of 201

APPENDIX G – POTENTIAL RESOURCES

Appendix G
Potential Resources

156 of 201

APPENDIX G – POTENTIAL RESOURCES

Potential Resources
Funding Sources
The City of Hanford (City of Hanford) needs to increase their annually allocated urban forestry budget to meet their urban forestry goals . Currently, the urban forestry budget is funded through a combination of Landscape Assessment Districts (LAD), the General Fund, and grant funding as it is available and awarded.

Funding strategies may include incurring fees throughout urban forestry operations, pursuing various grant funding sources, collaborative funding through partnership s with internal departments , and identifying community resources that may be interested in participating in urban forestry efforts.

Fees, Assessments, and Taxes
Voter approved fees, assessment, or tax measures can be one method to generate the additional revenue needed for the care of the urban forest. The level of funding required varies with the selected strategy.

Details regarding potential methods are found in Table G-1.

Table G-1. Fees, Assessments, Taxes
Mechanism Description
Parcel Tax*
A parcel tax is a special tax levied for the provision of special benefits. Revenues from special taxes must be used for the specific purpose for which they are intended, so a parcel tax would create a dedicated funding stream for street trees.

Similar to a special assessment, a parcel tax cannot be based on the value of property; however, the amount levied on each parcel need not be directly related to the benefits provided (ILG 2008). Cities have the flexibility to levy parcel taxes as they see fit, but they are typically based on lot square footage or levied as a flat tax, with the same amount per parcel (CTD 2012a). Parcel taxes are designed to encompass entire cities and therefore, are good candidates for a citywide street tree program, as opposed to the district-level approach that often occurs under special assessments.

General
Obligation
Bonds*
Local governments commonly use General Obligation (GO) bonds to fund construction and improvement of projects involving real property (e.g., buildings, infrastructure, and parks). GO bonds typically carry low interest rates, making them attractive for capital projects, which may include tree planting. However, funding is available for discrete projects, often over a limited time rather than an extended period. In addition, ongoing maintenance is ineligible for GO bond funding pursuant to federal tax law. California cities pay debt service from GO bonds through ad valorem property taxes, where assessments are based on property value. As a result, the issuance of GO bonds requires two-thirds voter approval (State Treasurer 2008).

Community
Benefit Districts*
Community Benefit Districts (CBDs) are used to finance neighborhood revitalization, commonly in commercial areas. Special benefits typically include public safety, economic development, beautification, and streetscape improvements. Formation of a CBD requires property owners to petition the appropriate local agency and demonstrate an interest in paying for additional services. A non-profit Board of Directors typically comprised of property owners, businesses, and government representatives administers a CBD. While CBDs may include street tree planting and maintenance, this is rarely the focus.

The City of Hanford is currently modifying their Landscape Assessment Districts to Community Benefit Districts.
157 of 201

APPENDIX G – POTENTIAL RESOURCES

Annexation of
Existing
Neighborhoods to
Community
Facilities Districts
Currently State law requires a 2/3 majority support on the ballots returned to form a new maintenance district or to annex property into an existing maintenance district under Mello-Roos law. This approach creates a new special tax to be levied, with revenue collected being limited to the specific neighborhood and for the specific services noted at time of formation or annexation. Funds would be protected specifically for the street trees or park trees within the boundary of the CFD annexation.

Enhanced
Infrastructure
Financing
Districts (EIFD)
A certain geographic boundary of the City would be established as an EIFD, where a portion of the tax increment could be designated for urban forest maintenance along with other services benefitting the district. Recognizing the argument that healthy, well maintained urban forests of streetscapes, parks and greenways increase property values, allocating a portion of tax increment could be one consideration as a funding strategy.

Permit Fees and Violation Penalties
The City of Hanford requires a tree removal permit to be filed for trees on public land, including the utility right-of-way. However, the parameters of the Street Trees and Shrubs Ordinance (Chapter 12.12) is not widely known among community members, resulting in trees being removed on public land without being replaced with new trees. As the Ordinance is updated, associating a cost with tree removal permit administration may help incur costs for the urban forestry program. Updating the Ordinance to include enforceable parameters and penalties for violation may be a strategy to recover funds to repopulate the urban forest when the Ordinance is violated.

In-Lieu Fee Fund
When a tree is removed and there is no viable vacant site on the property of the removal, an in-lieu fee fund can be created. Private property owners that are unable to plant a replacement tree can contribute to an in-lieu fund. Once funds are in the in-lieu fund, fees should be allocated towards the urban forestry program to distribute new tree planting in public areas with low canopy cover. This funding can be used to plant new trees in the ‘right tree, right place’, on public land, decreasing costs for the City while providing a pathway for residents to contribute to the urban forestry program when their property does not allow for a mitigation tree. The in-lieu fee should be seen as a last resort and on -site verification to confirm that an appropriate planting site is not available is a protective measure the City can use so the in-lieu fee is used as intended.

Grant Opportunities
State and Federal entities such as the US Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, California Natural Resources Agency, and CalFire may fund urban forestry efforts as part of their projects. Topics for funding typically include stormwater managemen t, green infrastructure, urban greening, green schools, environmental education, urban and community forestry, wood innovation, workforce development, and youth engagement, among others. Public funding sources often target disadvantaged communities based on state or federal assessment tools. The City of Hanford is identified as such through tools such as CalEnviroScreen 4.0 and the DAC Mapping Tool by the Department of Water Resources, meaning the City is a target for state and federal grant programs and is likely to be competitive for funding. 158 of 201

APPENDIX G – POTENTIAL RESOURCES

Exploring partnerships with regional entities and other community -based organizations for grant projects where urban forestry efforts are an eligible expense is one strategy to increase competitiveness and may reduce the administrative burden placed on the City should a grant be awarded.

As of 2025, the availability of future federal and state grant programs is uncertain, and grant funding should not be seen as a replacement to allocated funding for an urban forestry program. Table G-2 details various grant programs which have historically been funded and align with urban forestry efforts. Some of the opportunities listed in Table G-2 are not available at the time of UFMP development but were included due to uncertainty of these funds being reinstated.

Table G-2. Federal or State Grant Funding
Funding Program Agency Description
Proposition 4 Governor’s
Office of
California
In November 2024, voters approved Proposition 4, a $10 billion bond measure focused on increasing the state’s resilience to the impacts of climate change. The Governor has proposed a multiyear spending plan to implement the bond, including appropriations totaling $2.7 billion in 2025‑26. Funding will likely be allocated through other State agencies like CAL FIRE and will go to programs that address wildfire and forest resilience, extreme heat mitigation, and biodiversity and nature-based solutions, among others.

Urban and
Community
Forestry Grants
CAL FIRE Funding available for tree planting, tree inventories, urban wood and biomass utilization, blighted urban lands improvements, urban forest planning, and green schoolyards to advance the goals and objectives of supporting healthy urban forests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The City’s existing grant funding for the UFMP comes from this grant program.

Green
Schoolyards
Grant
CAL FIRE One of the grants under the CAL FIRE Urban and Community Forestry Grant program that is specifically targeted towards improving tree canopy on school facilities.

Active
Transportation
California
Department of
Transportation
This program provides funding to encourage increased use of active modes of transportation, such as biking and walking. Trees and other vegetation are significant components of several eligible projects under the Active Transportation Program, including parks, trails, and safe routes to schools. Disadvantaged Communities are guaranteed a minimum of 25% of the entire program’s funding.

Sustainable
Transportation
Planning Grants
Caltrans This program has $34.8 million annually in grant funds and is meant to help communities implement Regional Transportation Plans (RTP).

It encourages sustainable communities strategies to achieve California’s GHG reduction targets of 40% by 2030 and 80% by 2050 (compared to 1990). Projects must have a transportation nexus and align with state goals for sustainability and climate resilience.

Community
Wildfire Defense
Grants
US Forest
Service
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law authorizes the $1 billion, five- year CWDG Program funding. This program funds the
development or revision of Community Wildfire Protection Plans (CWPP) and to implement projects described in a Community Wildfire Protection Plan that are less than ten years old. The program prioritizes at-risk communities:
- In an area identified as having high or very high wildfire hazard potential,
- Are low income,
- Have been impacted by a severe disaster that affects the risk of wildfire.
159 of 201

APPENDIX G – POTENTIAL RESOURCES

Due to a lack of wildfire urban interface/intermix areas identified in Hanford, the City may not be competitive for a CWDG grant.

However, CWPPs may create a pathway for future funding and should be explored with the Fire Department.

Wood
Innovations,
Community
Wood, and Wood
Products
Infrastructure
Assistance
US Forest
Service
Grant funding will support proposals that increase demand and create new and innovative uses for sustainably sourced wood.

Funded proposals include converting heating systems in schools to sustainable biomass boilers, installing cutting-edge equipment in sawmills and processing facilities to increase efficiency, supporting innovative housing using mass timber, and more.

Urban Wood
Reuse
CAL FIRE CAL FIRE has a grant assistance program that awards funding for Cities and non-profit organizations to develop an urban wood reuse program. Example projects include providing lumber and other wood products to local makers and artisans, generating funding to support operations and contributing to local economic
development.

Environmental
Enhancement
and Mitigation
California
Natural
Resources
Agency
This program was created by California Streets and Highways Code Section 164.56 (Article XIX, Section 1, of the State Constitution), which authorizes the legislature to allocate up to $7 million each fiscal year from the Highway Users Tax Account (Motor Vehicle Revenues, Section 2100) for environmental enhancement and mitigation projects that are directly or indirectly related to the environmental impact of modifying existing transportation facilities or for the design, construction, or expansion of new transportation facilities. The applicant entity is not required to be a transportation- or highway-related organization, and partnerships are encouraged. Urban forestry projects designed to offset vehicular emissions of carbon dioxide are eligible.

Urban and
Community
Forest
Sustainability
Standard
Sustainable
Forestry
Institute (SFI)
This grant program is being modified new guidelines are planned to be released. The prior grant funding allowed a city to benchmark their urban and community forest against the new SFI urban and community forestry sustainability standard.

Affordable
Housing and
Sustainable
Communities
(AHSC)
California
Strategic
Growth Council
Urban Greening is a threshold requirement for all AHSC funded projects. Eligible urban greening projects include, but are not limited to, rainwater recycling, flow and filtration systems including rain gardens, stormwater planters and filters, vegetated swales, bioretention basins, infiltration trenches and integration with riparian buffers, shade trees, community gardens, parks and open space.

Extreme Heat
and Community
Resilience
Program (EHCRP)
California
Governor’s
Office of Land
Use and
Climate
Innovation
Reduce the impacts of extreme heat. Maintenance and watering for nature-based solutions and any staff training necessary to ensure landscapes are maintained to achieve desired outcomes. is an eligible activity for this grant program. Parking space, asphalt, and/or other impervious and/or low albedo surface removal with trees or shade replacement is an eligible activity.

Partnerships
Municipal Partnerships
160 of 201

APPENDIX G – POTENTIAL RESOURCES

Cities are often siloed in their operational practices. However, some cities take the initiative to identify departments addressing similar issues and explore if a partnership can be developed to most effectively use public resources. Collaborating with st reets departments to cost share on repairing tree and infrastructure conflicts is one method. Other examples include hosting water-wise events in partnership with water providers, to educate the community on how to properly water trees and conserve water, cross marketing opportunities such as rebate or tree give away programs to reduce water use, and working with Fire Departments on tree maintenance education to reduce risk.

Community Resources
National community-based organizations such as American Forests, the Arbor Day Foundation, the National Wildlife Federation, and regional groups such as the California Urban Forests Council and California ReLeaf, at times, invest in programs to assist in urban forestry efforts. These organizations have hosted programs that give residents free trees to plant on their private property. Increasing canopy cover on private property is a continued challenge for many public entities, and public funding sources do not fund private property enhancements. These partnerships help to fill that gap and provide free urban forestry resources, education, and trees for private property.

Volunteer tree planting events are a popular activity among communities. Groups like Kiwanis, Rotary Clubs, beautification groups, and school and religious groups have historically supported volunteer efforts including tree planting and providing urban forestry education, canvassing for adopt-a-tree programs, and may be interested in collaboration as the City explores the community’s appetite for urban forestry advocacy.

When trees and infrastructure conflict, a public tree or a private tree may be causing damage to potentially both public and private infrastructure. Although cities continuously address and mitigate these issues, the time from the initial inquiry to repair may be lengthy and cumbersome. Some residents may be interested in prioritizing the repair of the infrastructure in front of their home, with a desire to provide funding for prioritization. In these cases, some cities have obliged to this request and shar e the repair cost with residents. Although this will increase the administrative burden on staff, cost-sharing may be an appealing method for the City, as the cost is supplemented, and resident satisfaction increases.

Table G-2. Potential Partnerships to Enhance Urban Forestry Community
Partner Examples Potential Collaboration
Volunteer Groups Hanford Rotary
Club, Boy and
Girl Scouts of
America, high
school Key
clubs,
educational
institutions,
religious
groups
Rotary clubs and other service-based organizations are known to donate volunteer time for urban forestry efforts such as volunteer tree planting. Some organizations identify an annual priority and these groups have historical prioritization of urban forestry efforts.

Health care
providers and
facilities
Tree Campus
Healthcare |
Arbor Day
Foundation
National recognition program through the Arbor Day Foundation to celebrate healthcare facilities using trees as a tool for community wellness.
161 of 201

APPENDIX G – POTENTIAL RESOURCES

Fee for Service
Groups
The Corps
Network, Kings
County Parks
Youth
Conservation
Corps
Workforce development or youth job training organizations may offer a lower fee-for-service for tree planting, watering, or concrete removal efforts. Partnering with these groups in a grant application also supports workforce and economic development goals and may increase competitiveness of proposals.

Adventist Health
Central Valley
Community
Partnership
Adventist
Health Group
Sponsorships ranging from $100 to $1,000 based on availability of funds and alignment with Adventist Health mission and values.

Corporate
Sponsorships
Costco
Wholesale,
Target, Inc.,
Del Monte
Foods Inc.,
Keller Ford,
Walmart
Supercenter,
etc.

For-profit businesses may be interested in sponsoring tree planting or Arbor Day events in a variety of ways including providing employees as volunteers, donating refreshments for volunteers, or providing tree planting or watering costs in exchange for a marketing opportunity. Reaching out to these corporations with local locations or offices through either city outreach or through a non-profit partnership (and a donation letter) may encourage sponsorship.

Identify/join
potential
partnership with
community
foundations to
seek funding
Central Valley
Community
Foundation

Central Valley
Joint Venture
Conserving
Bird Habitat
The Central Valley Community Foundation is the only nationally accredited community foundation serving Merced, Mariposa, Madera, Fresno, Tulare and Kings counties. The organization offers donors innovative and flexible charitable tools and help maximize the impact of their giving.

Focus on conserving bird habitat. Access to funding to support restoration activities on private land. Staff is available to help identify appropriate conservation projects and associated funding sources.

162 of 201

Appendix H
Arboric
ulture Bes
t Management Practices
▪ H1 - Nursery
Stock Standards
▪ H2 - Tree
Spacing Guidelines for Residential Yar
ds and City St
reets
▪ H3 - Tree
Planting Guidelines
▪ H4 - Tree
Staking Guidelines
▪ H5 – Tree Wat
ering Guidelines
▪ H6 - Youn
g Tree Pruning Gui
delines
▪ H7 - Matur
e Tree Pruning Gui
delines
▪ H8 - Tree Risk
Assessment Qualification (TRAQ)
▪ H9 - Trees
and High Wind
▪ H10 - Matur
e Tree Prot
ection During Construct
ion Gui
delines
▪ H11 - Tree
Care for Wildlife and Migratory Bird Treaty Act
▪ H12 - Tree
Replacement to Expand Canopy Cover

163 of 201

Appendix H1
Nursery Stock Standards
164 of 201

Introduction
The qu
ality of nu
rsery st
ock ha
s la
sting ef
fects on tr
ee lo
ngevity, hi
ghlighting th
e
importance of nu
rsery stock in
spection an
d se
lection. Th
is ap
pendix visually displays th
e
nursery selection IS
A BM
Ps an
d pr
ovides explanations on wh
y th
is pr
actice is im
portant for tr
ee
longevity.

Table H-1. Nursery Stock Characteristics
Ch
aracteristic Re
asoning Relation to Lo
ngevity
Root ball Inspect root ball to ensure
roots are white in color.

Healthy roots are necessary for tree roots to
efficiently absorb water and nutrients and provide
the entire tree with resources for tree growth and
health.

Reject stock that have roots
with a sour smell.

Remove girdling roots at the
time of planting or reject
stock.

Girdling roots restrict the tree’s water and nutrient
flow from roots to the rest of the tree reducing
growth and health.

Ensure structural roots are
horizontal and reach the root
ball periphery.

Trees with horizontal roots and balanced root
structure enable the roots to access larger soil areas
which may contain more nutrients and water to
provide to the tree.

Branching
structure
Look for specimens with a
strong, central leader, branch
aspect ratio less than 1/3rd of
the trunk for each primary
branch, with even branch
distribution both radially and
vertically.

Trees with optimal structure will have less defects to
correct as the tree establishes into landscape. When
trees are pruned or corrected for defects at the time
of planting, trees need resources to
compartmentalize the wound and heal. By avoiding
these defects, trees will be able to establish without
a need for greater resources including water.

Quality of stock Trees should be healthy and
vigorous with no signs of
drought stress, die-back, pest
or disease, and no signs of
mechanical injury.

Healthy trees with no signs of stress establish into
the landscape more readily.
165 of 201

Root Correction for
Container Grown Trees
Accept
Roots radiate from trunk and reach each side of root ball without deflecting down or around.

Root collar

Remove excess
soil. Do not cover
root collar.

Bottom-Up View

Absorbing
Roots

Structural
Roots

Example 1 Example 2
Reject
Structural roots primarily grow
to one side or tangent to trunk.

Remove girdling root
growing over or under
a structural root. Cut here

Structural roots do
not reach periphery.

Structural roots circle
and do not radiate
from the trunk.

Scenario 2

Scenario 1 Scenario 3

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION ADAPTED BY DUDEK
166 of 201

Nursery Stock Selection
Accept

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION ADAPTED BY DUDEK

Accept

One central leader
(No codominant leaders)
Aspect ratio of B:A less than 0.66 as measured 1"
above the top of the branch union

B A

Aspect ratio is
less than 0.66.
1”
Branch
union A B
1”
Branch
union

Reject
Multiple leaders
(Several co-dominant
leaders)
Reject
Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union.

Aspect ratio is
greater than 0.66.

B A
1”

Branch
union
B

NOTE: 1. Nursery stock with significant mechanical injury, serious root defects, and trees that show signs of dehydration are to be rejected. 2. Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions.

Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 3. Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected.

A
B
1”
Branch
union
167 of 201

Appendix H2
Tr
ee Spacing Guidelines for
Residential Yards and City Streets
168 of 201

Spacing Guidelines for
Residential Yard Trees
Spacing requirements
by tree size
Large 45’ tall and higher
30’ 16’
15’
15’
10’
12’ to 15’ 8’ to 10’
Medium 25’ to 45’ Small Up to 25’
Source: Sacramento Tree Foundation
If you plant more than
one tree, make sure they
are sited far enough
apart to allow full growth
of both trees. Trees
should be placed 12 to
30 feet apart depending
on their ultimate size
Knowing the type of soil, water needs, and eventual size of the tree will help you select the best tree for your yard.

Fence
12’ - 30’
Foundation
Plant at least 8 feet
from sidewalks and
driveways, 15 feet
from home founda-
tions and swimming
pools, and 6 feet
from fences.
15’
15’
10’ 10’ 10’
8’
6’
6’
6’ 6’ 6’
Spacing from
other trees
Spacing from
building foundations
Spacing from sidewalks.
curbs and driveways
Spacing from limbs to
overhead wires
Spacing from trunk at maturity
to in-ground electrical lines
Spacing from trunk at maturity
to in-ground gas lines
Deciduous trees (trees that lose their
leaves) will help cool your home in
the summer and allow the sun to
warm it in the winter.

Planting the right tree on the South,
West, and East side of your home
allows trees to shade your home and
lower energy costs.

Residence is
shaded from the
harsh summer
sun.

Site your tree
where the
tree can grow
to its full size.

EW
N
S
BEFORE

YOU DIG
CALL 811
169 of 201

Large
45’ tall and higher
15’
15’
12’ to 15’
10’
6’
6’ 4’
Spacing Guidelines for Street Trees
30’ 16’
10’
8’ to 10’
Medium
25’ to 45’
Small
Up to 25’
15’
15’
10’
6’
Spacing from
other trees
Spacing from
building foundations
Spacing from sidewalks,
curbs and driveways
Spacing from
sides of median
All trees
Streetlights
20 ft. from
trunk at
maturity
Fire Hydrant
10 ft. from
trunk at
maturity
Spacing from limbs
to overhead wires
Spacing from trunk at
maturity to in-ground
electrical lines
Spacing from trunk
at maturity to
in-ground gas lines
3’
10’
8’
6’
6’
6’
170 of 201

Appendix H3
Tree Pla
nting Guide
lines
171 of 201

Introduction
Tree est
ablishment an
d lon
g-term surv
ival can be im
pacted grea
tly by the ac
tions ta
ken du
ring pla
nting,
such as th
e wid
th an
d dept
h of th
e plan
ting hole, placi
ng th
e tree at the righ
t de
pth, an
d prop
er sta
king.

Refer to this app
endix cov
ers tree planting details an
d use th
e appendix for tree spa
cing guidelines to
minimize fu
ture in
frastructure con
flicts. Th
e ta
ble below prov
ide expl
anations on wh
y th
ese pra
ctices are
impo
rtant for tree
longevity.

Table H-2. Tree Planting Characteristics
Ch
aracteristic Re
asoning Relation to Lo
ngevity
Planting depth Planting a tree too deep or too
shallow will inhibit the tree’s
establishment and growth.

If planted too shallow, tree roots will not have
soil to establish in, decreasing the water and
nutrients available to the tree overall.

Planting a tree too deeply, may cause roots to
suffocate and cause root rot.

Water at planting Ensure newly planted trees
receives 15 gallons of water,
applied slowly upon planting.

Watering a tree after planting reduces
transplant shock experienced by the tree and
its roots, helping establishment.

Staking at planting Trees that lean at the time of
planting should be staked with
one, two, or three stakes and
supported by flexible ties. Each
stake and tie shall allow
movement of the tree trunk to
develop trunk taper.

Leaning trees can be corrected to grow
vertically with the support of stakes and ties.

Trees that grow with a lean into maturity can
potentially cause conflicts with pedestrian or
vehicle paths of travel.

Tying stakes to a tree too tightly will prevent
movement of the tree, slowing the growth of
the trunk and inhibiting establishment of a
strong root system that can support the tree
during high wind events.

Plant early in the
planting season
Plant trees in winter months
while rain events are likely and
high heat events are less
frequent.

Planting new trees in winter months will allow
the tree to take advantage of rain events and
limited heat stress. Providing water to newly
planted trees through the planting season
when not naturally occurring, assist the tree
in the early phases of establishment.
172 of 201

Tree Planting
and Mulching
Planting hole shall be dug
no deeper than the root ball
and root collar is to be 1 to 2
inches above finished grade.

Round-topped soil berm 4
inches high by 8 inches wide
above root ball surface shall be
constructed around the root ball.

Berm shall be built 6 to 12
inches outside of root ball. 2” to 3” layer of mulch.

Ensure root
collar is visable
Prior to mulching, lightly
tamp soil around the root
ball (do not over compact).

After backfilling, slowly water
to saturate the root ball.

Root ball width
Planting hole 2-3 times width of root ball
Loose soil. Dig and
turn the soil to reduce
compaction.

Keep mulch 4 to 6 inches
away from trunk.

Finished grade

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION

ADAPTED BY DUDEK
173 of 201

Appendix H4
Tree Stak
ing Gu
idelines
174 of 201

Tree Staking
Care Guidelines

Install two stakes outside of
the root ball.

Remove nursery stake.

Stake location shall not
interfere with permanent
branches.

Tree stakes should be
firmly secured vertically
in the soil 2 feet deep.

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION

ADAPTED BY DUDEK
Place non-abrasive tree ties
in the middle to lower portion
of the tree to allow 3-4” of
tree sway in each direction.

Nail tree ties to stake.

175 of 201

Appendix H5
Tree Wa
tering Guide
lines
176 of 201

177 of 201

Appendix H6
Young Tree Pruning Guide
lines
178 of 201

Pruning to Improve Young Tree Structure

1 Remove 2 Select central leader and 3 Select lowest 4 Select scaffold 5 Select low temporary broken branches. remove competing leaders. permanent branch. branches. branches. Cut back and leave as temporary.

1 Broken
branch

BEFORE PRUNING

2 Central
leader

WHAT TO PRUNE

Competing
leader

AFTER PRUNING

4 Scaffold
branch

5 Temporary branch

3 Lowest
permanent
branch

NOTE: 1. At the time of planting, limit pruning to removal of broken, dead, or diseased branches only.

2. Young Tree Structural Pruning is to occur only after trees establish and resume normal growth rates following planting.

Structural Pruning: A Guide for the Green Industry
URBAN TREE FOUNDATION | ADAPTED BY DUDEK
179 of 201

Appendix H7
Mature Tr
ee Pruning Gu
idelines
180 of 201

Tree Pruning
Central
Leader
Suckers
2 1
3 4
5 6
7 8
Limbs that compete with the
tree’s central leader.

Rubbing, crossing branches.

Inadequate spacing between
branches.

Awkward unattractive
branches.

Watersprouts that shoot up
from main “scaffold” branches.

Dead, diseased, or broken
limbs.

Limbs that sag or grow close
to the ground.

Suckers that grow from the
roots or base of the trunk.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Healthy Pruning Cuts
1 2
3 On the bottom of the limb between
6 and 12 inches from the trunk; cut
about one-quarter of the way through.

Through the limb from
the top, starting about
1 inch beyond the first
cut. The weight of the
branch may cause it
to snap off before the
cut is complete.

Cut completely through the short
remaining stub from top to bottom
just beyond the swollen branch collar.

Support the stub while sawing to
make a clean cut.
1 2
3 How to Make a Pruning Cut
To prune a tree limb larger than 2
inches in diameter cleanly and safely,
as shown in the image above, use a
pruning saw and make these three
sequential cuts:
181 of 201

Appendix H8
Tree Risk Management

182 of 201

Introduction
The International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) developed a specialized Tree Risk Assessment Qualification (TRAQ), training arborists to effectively assess tree risk using a systematic and documented process. TRAQ arborists are equipped to systematically assess tree health, structural integrity, likelihood of tree failure, time frame in which failure may occur, likelihood of impact to target (e.g., people, home, car), and severity of impact should it occur. TRAQ arborists are trained to consider solutions to mitigate tree risk prior to considering removal as a recommendation.

Tree risk management begins with the tree owner establishing an acceptable level of risk (ISA 2017) and identifying the appropriate level of assessment to determine the risk of individual trees. Three levels of risk assessment exist in the ISA TRAQ program which vary in detail and equipment used to complete the assessment: level 1 limited visual assessment, level 2 basic assessment, and level 3 advanced assessment (shown in the table below). Municipalities often utilize all levels of assessment throughout the City to balance risk assessment programs with responsible use of public funds. A level 1 assessment is often used to first identify trees that are high risk. Once high-risk trees or areas of concern are identified, a level 2 assessment occurs for indivi dual trees and mitigation follows, A level 3 assessment is typically reserved for trees of significance, protected trees, or large mature trees that provide value to the community with costly replacement. Effective risk management depends on tree risk assessments being conducted on a regular basis, occurring every 3-5 years as tree risk conditions may develop as trees continue to mature.

By utilizing these three assessment levels, the City can manage tree risk prior to failure and retain trees where risk can be mitigated.

Table N-1. ISA Tree Risk Assessment Levels
Risk Assessment
Level Description
Level 1 ‘Windshield’ survey to identify high risk trees while driving or walking. Only major defects or concerns are observed and recorded.

Level 2
360-degree observation of the crown, limbs, and trunk.

Determination of targets (homes, people, cars) that may be impacted by tree or limb failure.

Level of damage to the target should impact occur.

Level 3 Advanced assessments of the roots, stem, or crown.

Analyze internal aspects of trees using sophisticated tools and technology.

183 of 201

Appendix H9
Trees and High Wind
184 of 201

Introduction
Minimizing wind related damage from trees is a priority for the City. The table below exhibits tree characteristics and management practices that influence tree risk in high wind areas. Findings are based on arboricultural best management practices and wind and tree management research studies. However, it should be noted that in extreme weather events, many tree failures are unexpected and happen to healthy trees.

Table O-1. Findings For Tree Care in High Wind Areas
Findings Considerations
Damage to roots from construction can
impact a tree's structural stability for
decades following.

Susceptibility to windstorms may warrant more stringent protection criteria such as larger Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) than other municipalities.

Certain pruning methods of branches and
roots can have detrimental effects on a tree’s
structural integrity.

Pruning methods such as topping and lion tailing should be prohibited. Pruning trees to establish structurally
sound trees with proper trunk and branch taper decrease risk of failure in high wind areas. Exercise caution and consider long term impacts when root pruning on the
windward side of a tree.

Most trees fall in the same direction as the
prevailing winds during the storm.

Use data from past storms to analyze potential targets at risk based on historic wind direction.

Each species of tree has specific traits such
as root vigor, wood composition, and branch
structure.

Use the species list, observations from past storms, and online resources to discern which species are suitable to plant in areas vulnerable to high winds.

Source: Gilman, Ed (2015). Storm Damage Prevention: Lessons Learned. Web. Accessed March 2024. International Society of Arboriculture (2017). Tree Risk Assessment, Second Edition.

185 of 201

Appendix H10
Mature Tree Protection During Construction Guidelines
186 of 201

Introduction
Construction for development, maintenance, and renovation can pose threats to tree survivability in numerous ways. Threats include injury to roots, trunks, and branches; soil compaction; soil contamination; and improper pruning. Including an arborist in the planning stages of construction helps avoid damage when trees intersect with the built environment. Arborists identify which trees will be retained or removed, create site-specific tree protection protocols, and establish areas where replacement trees will be planted.

Pleasanton’s Municipal Code (§17.16.070) provides guidelines for the mandatory tree protections during construction. Further detail for tree protection requirements may have significant benefits on the urban forest, as described below:

1. Tree Protection Zones: A Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is an area surrounding a tree and its critical root zone where no grading, excavation, construction activity, equipment storing, or vehicle parking is to occur. The purpose of the TPZ is to protect all parts of the tree, both above and below ground.

The size of TPZ ranges between tree owners; however, research suggests that a TPZ should be at least 1.5 feet (18 inches) wide per every inch of diameter at standard height (DSH), and 18:1 ratio. (Day et al. 2010). A successful TPZ is surrounded by signed fencing that reads “Keep Out: Tree Protection Zone.”

2. Reducing Compaction: When soil is compacted, water and oxygen available to tree roots is limited, leading to detrimental issues for a tree. In construction areas, compaction occurs purposefully through mechanical compaction or incidentally through the passage of vehicles and construction equipment over soil containing a tree’s roots.

3. Minimizing Effects of Grade Changes: The optimal zone for root growth is within the first 12 inches of soil depth. Any change in grade within a tree’s rooting zone will likely cause negative impacts for tree health. The degree to which these impacts affect the tree depends on the age of the tree, species, prior stressors, and environmental factors.

4. Inspection: Trees impacted during construction, maintenance, or renovations, should be monitored for decline annually by an ISA Certified Arborist for the first 5 years after construction. Monitoring should include photographs, annual reports, and mitigation techniques if necessary.

References:

Day, Susan, Wiseman, Phillip & Dickinson, Sarah & Harris, J. (2010). Contemporary Concepts of Root System Architecture of Urban Trees. Arboriculture and Urban Forestry. 36. 10.48044/jauf.2010.020. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265246704_Contemporary_Concepts_of_Root_System_Architecture _of_Urban_Trees
187 of 201

Tree Protection
Guidelines for
Construction

KEEP OUT
Tree Protection Zone
(contact info)
No vehicles, construction
equipment, material, debris, paint
or paint products, pallets,
chemicals, contaminated water or
other foreign material shall be
allowed to be placed, poured,
piled, pushed, or stored within the
Tree Protection Zone of any tree.

Laminated sign
with contact info.

Tree protection zone extends 1’ beyond drip line.

Drip Line

URBAN TREE FOUNDATION

ADAPTED BY DUDEK
6 ft
Drip line
A substantial construction fence,
such as a non-movable chain link
fence, must be placed around the
Tree Protection Zone of each
Protected Tree.

Tree protections shall be in
place prior to any
construction equipment or
materials being on site.

Fencing shall remain in
place until construction
equipment, materials, and
debris have been removed
from the site and approval
from the City Landscape
Architect has been given
for removal.
1’ 1’
188 of 201

Appendix H11
Tree Care for Wildlife and the Migr
atory Bird Tr
eaty Act

189 of 201

Introduction
Tree care professionals need to be aware of their impact on wildlife because their activities can directly or indirectly harm animals. Direct harm includes injuring or killing wildlife or removing nests with eggs or young. Indirect harm involves actions like removing vegetation that protects nests from weather or predators. Understanding these impacts helps arborists balance their work with wildlife care, ensuring they minimize harm while maintaining and creating habitats. This awareness is crucial for preserving urban biodiversity and supporting species that depend on specific tree structures, like dead branches.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703-712) plays a significant role in tree care by protecting migratory birds from harm during tree care activities. Here are some key points:

Protection of Birds: The MBTA makes it illegal to harm, kill, or disturb migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs without a permit. This includes both direct harm (e.g., cutting down a tree with an active nest) and indirect harm (e.g., removing vegetation that protects a nest).

Industry Standards: Tree care professionals must follow best practices to comply with the MBTA. This includes conducting pre-work inspections to identify and avoid disturbing active nests.

Minimizing Impact: The MBTA encourages arborists to adopt methods that minimize the impact on bird habitats. This can involve timing tree care activities to avoid nesting seasons (birds in California generally nest between February and August) and using techniques that reduce the risk of disturbing birds.

Legal Implications: Violating the MBTA can result in significant fines and penalties. Therefore, municipalities and tree care companies must be diligent in their practices to avoid unintentional harm to migratory birds.

By adhering to the MBTA, tree care professionals can help protect bird populations and contribute to the conservation of biodiversity in urban environments.

Minimizing Impacts to Wildlife During Tree Care:

Tree care work varies in its risk to wildlife, and proper preparation and on -site actions can reduce these impacts. Best management practices for minimizing impacts for wildlife are organized into the following categories:

Training:

Ensuring tree care workers are aware of wildlife and can involve trained professionals when needed.

Training levels range from basic awareness to Wildlife Trained Arborists to Wildlife Biologist with specialized knowledge in wildlife protection and habitat assessment.

Project Preparation:

Assessing the breeding season and habitat value of a site to categorize the work and minimize impacts.

This involves desktop reviews and site visits to understand potential wildlife presence. In California, nesting season for birds is generally from February through August. For standalone projects involving trees, work 190 of 201

should be done outside of these nesting season months if possible. For municipalities that need to prune thousands of trees each year, it is usually not possible to conduct pruning and removal activities only during the non-nesting season months, so measures should be implemented to minimize impacts to birds and other wildlife.

Tree care work can be roughly divided into three categories, based on the level of expertise and caution required to mitigate impacts to wildlife:

Low Habitat Value High Habitat Value Sensitive Habitat
Non-breeding Season Category 1 Category 2 Category 3
Breeding Season Category 2 Category 3 Category 3

Summary of Categories for Minimizing Impacts to Wildlife:
• Category 1: Low value habitat during the non-breeding season. Nesting wildlife are least likely to be encountered. A pre -work inspection by a tree care worker with awareness training is recommended.
• Category 2:
o Low value habitat during the breeding season, where nesting wildlife are more likely to be encountered.
o High value habitat during the non-breeding season, where valuable habitats are more likely to be encountered.
o A pre-work inspection by a Wildlife Trained Arborist is recommended. • Category 3:
o High value habitat during the breeding season or sensitive habitat at any time of the year, where nesting wildlife and valuable habitats are more likely to be encountered. o Best practice is to contact a Wildlife Biologist for direction. Companies with a programmatic approach may use a well-trained arborist to minimize impacts. o The Wildlife Biologist will provide recommendations on how the project can proceed, which may include timing or methodological changes. Permits from regulatory agencies may be required for work in sensitive areas.

Note: Wildlife can nest year -round in any habitat, so the assessed category may change during fieldwork. Signs of wildlife encountered during fieldwork may require further expertise.

Fieldwork:

Practices should be implemented based on the project’s category to protect wildlife during tree care activities. Staff with the appropriate training should conduct the pre-work inspection as mentioned above.

If active nests are found that may be impacted by the tree work, the Wildlife Biologist should delay the work 191 of 201

until the young no longer depend on the nest and work can safely proceed. In some cases the Wildlife Biologist may be able to suggest alternative methods to use near the nest, which are discussed below.

Considerations for Work Performed Near Active Bird Nests:

Special guidelines for working near nests to avoid disturbing breeding wildlife include:
▪ The duration of the work to be completed
▪ The tools being used
▪ The species involved
▪ The distance of the work to the active nest
▪ The status of the nest (e.g. eggs present, parent incubating, young unable to fly, mature nestlings close to fledging),
▪ The location specifics (e.g. urban vs. rural)
▪ The environmental conditions (temperature and wind)
Many nests require sufficient cover to provide protection from the elements and disguise from predators so vegetation removal should be minimized around nests . Additionally, a no-activity buffer, or an area in which no work should occur, should be established around the nest where possible.

Emergencies:

Wildlife emergencies during tree work involve situations where wildlife are injured, orphaned, or in danger, or where nests are abandoned or disturbed. The priority is to avoid these emergencies, but appropriate responses are crucial when they occur:
• Contacting Wildlife Rehabilitators : If wildlife are injured or abandoned, contact a local wildlife rehabilitator. Provide detailed information about the situation and species involved. The rehabilitator will guide the next steps, which may include doing nothing to allow parents to return or safely transporting the wildlife.
• Continuing Work: After a wildlife emergency, consult a Wildlife Biologist before resuming work. If no emergencies occur and no nesting wildlife are observed, continue working while remaining vigilant. Contact a Wildlife Trained Arborist or Wildlife Biologist if unsure how to proceed. • Human Health and Safety Emergencies: These involve immediate risks to human health or safety.

A Wildlife Biologist can help coordinate permission to remove active nests with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies. In extreme situations, action may be taken before permission is received, but this should be a last resort.

These guidelines help ensure that tree care activities are conducted responsibly, minimizing harm to wildlife while addressing emergencies effectively.

192 of 201

Municipalities and contractors can adopt a programmatic approach to consistently apply these practices across multiple sites. The goal is to balance tree care with wildlife protection, ensuring minimal harm while maintaining habitat value.

References:

U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service. “Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918.” Accessed October 9, 2024. https://www.fws.gov/law/migratory-bird-treaty-act-1918
Basset, Corey; Donohue, Kara; Gilpin, Ryan. 2022. Tree Care for Wildlife Best Management Practices with Western Chapter ISA Appendices . https://treecareforbirds.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/ Tree-Care-for-Wildlife-BMPs-4.13.22-2.pdf
193 of 201

Appendix H12
Tree Re
placement to Expand Canopy Cover
194 of 201

TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT TO

EXPAND CANOPY COVER
Height: 55’+
Example Species:

Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia)
Aleppo Pine (Pinus halpensis)
Engelmann Oak (Quercus engelmanii)
Benefits:

Large trees should be planted wherever
space allows. A large tree provides six
times more shade, stores seven times
as much carbon, and captures five
times more water than a small tree.

Height: 35’ to 55’
Example Species:

Box Elder (Acer negundo)
Jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia)
Australian Willow (Geijera parviflora)
Benefits:

Medium trees strike a balance between
the benefits of larger trees and the
spatial requirements of small trees.

Medium trees are beneficial to have
along parkways and in commercial
space that may not allow large trees.

Height: Under 35’
Example Species:

Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifuloia)
Desert Willow (Chilopsis linearis)
Western Redbud (Cercis occidentalis)
Benefits:

Small trees are best used when a
larger tree may conflict with
surrounding infrastructure such as
powerlines or nearby buildings. Small
trees are also used to fill in gaps in the
landscape and create visual interest.
...REPLACE WITH:

IF YOU REMOVE...

OR
OR
LARGE TREES2X
MEDIUM TREES4X
SMALL TREES6X
LARGE TREES2X
MEDIUM TREES3X
SMALL TREES4X
OR
OR
LARGE TREE1X
MEDIUM TREES2X
SMALL TREES3X
OR
OR
1x Large Tree
1x Medium Tree
1x Small Tree
195 of 201

APPENDIX I – RECOMMENDED

TREE SPECIES LIST
Appendix I
Hanford Recommended Tree Species List

196 of 201

APPENDIX I – RECOMMENDED

TREE SPECIES LIST
City of Hanford Tree Species Selection Guide
This Appendix provides more detail one each tree species from the approved tree species list inked above.

The matrix contains 8 attributes for each tree species. The Tree Species Selection Guide table below contains explanations for some attributes found in this appendix.

Table I-1. Tree Species Selection Guide
Attribute Explanation
Tree
size
Height at
maturity
These attributes should be the primary factors considered when finding the right species for a planting location. Before planting a tree, one should consider how large it will grow in the coming decades and choose a species that fits the available space at maturity.

Canopy
spread at
maturity
Trunk
Diameter
Planting
Area
requirement
Water Use Rating As California and the City of Hanford continue to cycle through extended periods of drought and extreme heat, tree species that require low amounts of water are likely to be suitable for the City’s environmental conditions.

Hardscape
Damage Potential
The hardscape damage potential is a metric for a species’ known ability to cause damage to sidewalks, streets, curbs, and gutters.

Pest and Disease
Vulnerability
There are an array of arboreal pests and diseases that affect tree health. Certain pests and diseases can have detrimental affects on certain species trees. Notes about pest and disease susceptibility are included for each species in the tree list.

Species Recommendations
Selecting the appropriate tree species for their designated planting locations can drastically simplify the task of maintaining a sustainable urban forest. Proper attention should be given to making the right species choice because decisions made at this stage have lasting impacts on the health and resiliency of a city’s urban forest. Hanford aims to follow the principles of “right tree, right place” when choosing which type of tree to plant and where to plant it.

The Recommended Tree Species List below has been developed to assist with the tree selection process and should be referenced whenever trees are being planted in the City of Hanford. All species included in this list have been filtered through the following considerations:
▪ Tree canopy. The City of Hanford aims to maintain and grow the Urban Forest. Therefore, trees that provide large, lush canopies must be included in the tree list and planted wherever feasible .

However, some sites don’t have the available space for a large tree to grow. Trees with small- and medium-sized canopies have also been included.
▪ Species diversity helps provide resiliency to pest and pathogen infestations. The tree list has been designed to maximize species options for all of the various site scenarios that exist in Hanford. The 197 of 201

APPENDIX I – RECOMMENDED

TREE SPECIES LIST
City of Hanford intends to maintain species diversity of its inventory such that no one species represents more than 5%, and no one genus comprises more than 10% of the total City inventory population (See species diversity sustainability goals in Section 1.4.2). Because Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis) currently makes up over one-third (34%) of the entire City inventory, City staff and residents should prioritize planting alternative species to increase the diversity of the City’s trees.
▪ Physical constraints such as the size of the planting soil area, canopy spread , and nearby powerlines or underground utilities, must be considered when choosing the appropriate species for a given planting site.
▪ Projected suitability and low maintenance costs. Individual trees should not require extraneous maintenance requirements to maximize the urban forest benefits throughout the city. Trees that are well-suited for their site will require less maintenance than trees in unsuitable locations. ▪ Wildlife Habitat. Trees that maximize wildlife habitat should be prioritized. In many cases, such as parks and large planting sites, this includes native trees. It must be noted, however, that native trees that thrive in wildland habitats may not thrive in some adjacent urb an sites where a tree’s access to groundwater may be limited and the soil is generally more acidic, saline, compact, and devoid of symbiotic microorganisms that the tree may benefit from. In such cases, a non -native tree able to provide long-term urban forest benefits may be prioritized. ▪ Aesthetic criteria of the planting . Involve the consideration of species -specific features including fruits, litter, thorns, and seasonal color when selecting tree species.

198 of 201

APPENDIX I – RECOMMENDED

TREE SPECIES LIST
Table I-2. City of Hanford Recommended Tree Species List

Small Trees: For 2-to-4-foot planter wells
Common Name Botanical Name Tree
Stature
Max.

Mature
Height (ft)
Max.

Canopy
Diameter
(ft)
Hardscape
Damage
Potential
Water
Use
CA
Native
Utility
Friendly
2-4 ft Planter Well
lemon bottlebrush Callistemon citrinus Small 25 15-25 Low Medium ✓ weeping bottlebrush Callistemon viminalis Small 25 15-25 Low Medium ✓ Ray Hartman ceanothus Ceanothus 'Ray Hartman' Small 20 15-20 Low Low ✓ ✓ Mexican redbud Cercis canadensis subsp. mexicana Small 40 15 Low Medium ✓ western redbud Cercis occidentalis Small 25 10-20 Low Medium ✓ ✓ desert willow Chilopsis linearis Small 30 10-20 Low Medium ✓ ✓ smoke tree Cotinus coggygria Small 15 10-20 Low Low ✓ purple hopseed Dodonaea viscose Small 15 10-15 Low Medium ✓ pineapple guava Feijoa sellowiana Small 20 15-20 Low Medium ✓ crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica Small 25 25 Low Medium ✓ desert museum palo
verde Parkinsonia × 'Desert Museum' Small 20 20-25 Low Medium ✓ ✓ chaste tree Vitex agnus castus Small 25 20-25 Low Medium ✓

199 of 201

APPENDIX I – RECOMMENDED

TREE SPECIES LIST
Medium Trees: For 4-to-7-foot planter wells or parkways Common Name Botanical Name Tree
Stature
Max.

Mature
Height (ft)
Max.

Canopy
Diameter
(ft)
Hardscape
Damage
Potential
Water
Use
CA
Native
Utility
Friendly
4-7 ft Planter Well or Parkway
strawberry tree Arbutus unedo Medium 35 8-35 Low Low
Kurrajong bottle tree Brachychiton populneus Medium 50 30 Moderate Low bottle tree Brachychiton rupestris Medium 40 20-30 Moderate Medium eastern redbud Cercis canadensis Small 30 25-36 Low Medium ✓ chitalpa Chitalpa tashkentensis Medium 35 30 Low Medium ✓ Chinese fringe tree Chionanthus retusus Small 25 15-20 Low Medium ✓ Australian willow Geijera parviflora Large 60 20 Low Medium Maidenhair tree
(grafted male) Ginkgo biloba Large 50 20-30 Low Medium
Tecate cypress Hesperocyparis forbesii Small 25 20 Moderate Low ✓ ✓ toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia Small 25 8-15 Low Medium ✓ Chinese flame tree Koelreuteria bipinnata Medium 40 20-40 Low Medium golden rain tree Koelreuteria paniculata Medium 35 25-40 Low Medium flowering crab apple Malus floribunda Small 25 46381 Low Medium fruitless olive Olea europaea ‘Wilsonii‘ Small 25 25 Moderate Low ✓ Chinese pistashe grafted
male 'Keith Davey' Pistacia chinensis Medium 40 25-35 Low Low coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Large 70 30-70 High Very Low ✓ Engelmann oak Quercus engelmanii Large 70 75-80 Moderate Low ✓ interior live oak Quercus wislizenii Large 70 40-75 Moderate Medium ✓

200 of 201

APPENDIX I – RECOMMENDED

TREE SPECIES LIST
Large Trees: For greater than 7-foot planter space, yards, or parks Common Name Botanical Name Tree
Stature
Max.

Mature
Height (ft)
Max.

Canopy
Diameter
(ft)
Hardscape
Damage
Potential
Water
Use
CA
Native
Utility
Friendly
> 7ft Planter Space, Yard, or Park
Illawarra flame tree Brachychiton acerifolius Large 60 30-40 Moderate Low pink flame tree Brachychiton discolor Large 70 30 Moderate Medium floss silk Cebia speciosa Large 60 40-50 Moderate Low
camphor tree Cinnamomum camphora Medium 45 30-45 Moderate Low Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis Large 60 40 Moderate Medium jelecote pine Pinus patula Large 70 20-30 Moderate Medium London plane Platanus x hispanica Large 80 50 High Medium scarlet oak Quercus coccinea Large 60 30-50 Moderate Medium blue oak Quercus douglasii Large 70 40-50 Low Very Low ✓ Hungarian oak Quercus frainetto Large 60 70 Moderate Medium California black oak Quercus kelloggii Large 70 30-50 Moderate Low ✓ valley oak Quercus lobata Large 70 50 Moderate Low ✓
bur oak Quercus macrocarpa Large 80 30 Moderate Medium
Chinquapin oak Quercus muhlenbergia Large 60 50-70 Low Medium Mexican blue oak Quercus oblongifolia Large 60 20-30 Moderate Low pin oak Quercus palustris Large 60 30-40 Moderate Medium netleaf oak Quercus rugosa Large 60 20-40 Moderate Low
cork oak Quercus suber Large 70 70 Moderate Low
island oak Quercus tomentella Medium 50 25-40 Low
southern live oak Quercus virginiana Large 80 60-75 High Medium Chinese elm Ulmus parvifolia Large 60 50-70 Moderate Low

201 of 201

14.B.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 4/21/2026 AGENDA SECTION: GENERAL BUSINESS

SUBJECT:

Authorization for the City Manager to enter into a contract with Cushman Contracting Services of Goleta, CA in the amount of $2,140,290 for the construction of the Hanford Municipal Airport fueling island project and review, discuss, and approve proposed funding options, appropriation(s) from the General Fund and Airport Facility Trust and potential reimbursement.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Cushman Contracting Services of Goleta, CA in the amount of $2,140,290 for the construction of the Hanford Municipal Airport fueling island project;

2. Approve the appropriation of $2,878,000 from the General Fund and $150,000 from the Airport Facility Trust, to be transferred as contributions to the Airport Fund to fund project costs, related expenses, and to address the existing fund deficit, including prior loan obligations;

3. Authorize annual transfers from the Airport Fund to the General Fund for fiscal years 2028 through 2037 for any net operational surplus exceeding $50,000.

Recommended motion:

I move to:

1. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Cushman Contracting Services of Goleta, CA in the amount of $2,140,290 for the construction of the Hanford Municipal Airport fueling island project;

2. Approve the appropriation of $2,878,000 from the General Fund and $150,000 from the Airport Facility Trust, to be transferred as contributions to the Airport Fund to fund project costs, related expenses, and to address the existing fund deficit, including prior loan obligations;

3. Authorize annual transfers from the Airport Fund to the General Fund for fiscal years 2028 through 2037 for any net operational surplus exceeding $50,000.

Alternate motion:

Reduce the scope of the project to not include Jet A Fuel, and reduce the total appropriation to approximately $1,777,000 dependent on the final cost of a contract with reduced scope BACKGROUND:

Strategic Considerations

Operational Needs

The Hanford Municipal Airport has experienced prolonged fuel service disruptions, including no aviation gasoline since December 2025 and no Jet A fuel since 2003. The absence of reliable fuel service:
• Limits airport usability for based and transient aircraft • Reduces emergency response capability (e.g., Cal Fire, medical, law enforcement) • Increases the risk of further decline in airport activity and relevance

Restoring consistent fuel availability is critical to maintaining the Airport as a viable public asset and regional transportation resource and overall long-term economic value.

Economic Development & Revenue Generation

Fuel availability is a foundational service that directly supports:
• Increased aircraft operations and transient traffic
• Local business activity tied to aviation (maintenance, agriculture, logistics) • Attraction and retention of aviation-related tenants
• Overall public benefit

Staff conservatively estimates annual fuel revenue profits at $126,000, based on historical sales of approximately 36,000 gallons, which is below industry averages for comparable airports (50,000– 150,000 gallons annually). This indicates upside potential as service reliability improves.

Financial Breakdown

Overall Financial Assessment

In both scenarios, based on conservative estimates, the Airport does not generate sufficient revenue to fully cover its operating costs. This is partially due to the implementation of an updated cost allocation plan beginning in FY25 in which related expenses have increased. Fuel revenue projections are based on a historical average of approximately 36,000 gals; however, revenues may increase if fuel sales exceed this baseline. To address some or all of the funding gap, the Department will review and consider increasing the price per gallon of fuel, and rent and lease rates to better align with rising operational expenses.

While not intended to be solely profit-driven, the investment is anticipated to generate ongoing revenue, although not guaranteed, and to support operational stability, and contribute to long-term economic value. City staff will continue to monitor the fund’s balance on an annual basis. If it is ultimately determined that the fund is not able to sustain its operations while maintaining adequate reserves for unforeseen expenses and long-term capital needs, the Council may consider establishing ongoing annual contributions from the General Fund as a permanent funding source to support operations, consistent with practices in other jurisdictions.

FISCAL IMPACT:

A total of $3,028,000 will be transferred from both the General Fund in the amount of $2,878,000 and from the Airport Facility Trust in the amount of $150,000 to fund the construction of the airport fueling island project costs, related expenses, and to address the existing fund deficit, including prior loan obligations. This project and related expenses are not currently budgeted for and, if approved will reduce the General Fund Reserve balance by $2,878,000.

Alternatively, if City Council approves the project with No Jet A Fuel, the amount will be reduced based on the reduced scope and negotiation with Cushman Contracting Services.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Cushman Bid

2. Balch Bid

ADDENDUM NO. 1

SUBMIT THIS SHEET AS PART OF YOUR BID.

Bid Proposal Division I - Page C-6

HANFORD MUNICIPAL AIRPORT

HANFORD, CALIFORNIA

NEW DIRECT TO AIRCRAFT FUELING EXPANSION
AIP NO. 3-06-0098-___-2026
RFB 2026-06

BID SCHEDULE

Item
No.

Estimated
Quantity
Item Description and
Unit Price (written in words)
Unit
Price
Item
Total
1 Lump Sum
Mobilization (C-105)*

______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
Lump Sum
Lump Sum $____________*
2 Lump Sum
Marking and Lighting of Closed Airport
Facilities (C-106)
______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
Lump Sum
Lump Sum $_____________
3 520 SY
Pavement Removal (P-101)

______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
per Square Yard
$__________ $__________
4 Lump Sum
Clearing and Grubbing (P-151)

______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
Lump Sum
Lump Sum $_____________
5 130 CY
Unclassified Excavation (P-152)

______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
per Cubic Yard
$__________ $__________
*Mobilization shall be limited to 10 percent of the total base bid.

ADDENDUM NO. 1

SUBMIT THIS SHEET AS PART OF YOUR BID.

Bid Proposal Division I - Page C-7
Item
No.

Estimated
Quantity
Item Description and
Unit Price (written in words)
Unit
Price
Item
Total
6 1,100 SY
Scarify and Recompact Subgrade (P-152)

______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
per Square Yard
$__________ $__________
7 120 CY
Crushed Aggregate Base Course (Caltrans
Class II) (Plan Sheet C-300)
______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
per Cubic Yard
$__________ $__________
8 110 TON
Asphalt Surface Course (CT-39)
______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
per Ton
$__________ $__________
9 Lump Sum
Emulsified Asphalt Prime Coat (P-602)
______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
per Lump Sum
Lump Sum $__________
10 Lump Sum
Fuel Tank Slab and Foundations (P-610)
______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
Lump Sum
Lump Sum $_____________
11 Lump Sum
Fuel Transfer Containment Pad (P-610)
______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
Lump Sum
Lump Sum $_____________
12 120 LF
Concrete Valley Gutter and Sidewalk (P-610)
______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
per Linear Foot
$__________ $____________

ADDENDUM NO. 1

SUBMIT THIS SHEET AS PART OF YOUR BID.

Bid Proposal Division I - Page C-8
Item
No.

Estimated
Quantity
Item Description and
Unit Price (written in words)
Unit
Price
Item
Total
13 150 SF
Surface Preparation - Marking Removal
(P-620)
______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
per Square Foot
$__________ $__________
14 2,050 SF
Marking (P-620)
______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
per Square Foot
$__________ $__________
15 60 LB.

Reflective Media (P-620)
______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
per Pound
$__________ $__________
16 Lump Sum
Signage (Plan Sheet D-200)
______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
Lump Sum
Lump Sum $_____________
17 150 LF
6-foot Chain Link Fence (F-162)

______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
per Linear Foot
$__________ $__________
18 1 EA
6-foot Wide Chain-Link Swing Gate
(F-162)

______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
per Each
$__________ $__________
19 58 EA
Bollards (Plan Sheet D-110)
______________________________Dollars
and___________________________Cents
per Each
$__________ $__________

ADDENDUM NO. 1

SUBMIT THIS SHEET AS PART OF YOUR BID.

Bid Proposal Division I - Page C-9
Item
No.

Estimated
Quantity
Item Description and
Unit Price (written in words)
Unit
Price
Item
Total
20 Lump Sum
Oil Water Separator System with Pump,
Piping and Connection to Existing SD
Manhole (D-701)
______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
Lump Sum
Lump Sum $____________
21 Lump Sum
Sodding (T-904)
______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
Lump Sum
Lump Sum $____________
22 Lump Sum
Decorative Rock (T-904)
______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
Lump Sum
Lump Sum $____________
23 Lump Sum
Electrical Wiring, Panels, and Floodlight
(L-108)
______________________________Dollars
and___________________________Cents
Lump Sum
Lump Sum $__________
24 Lump Sum
Electrical Duct(L-110)
______________________________Dollars
and___________________________Cents
Lump Sum
Lump Sum $__________
25 Lump Sum
12,000 Gallon Jet A Above Ground Tank –
Manufacture, Deliver and Install (Plans)

______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
Lump Sum
Lump Sum $__________

ADDENDUM NO. 1

SUBMIT THIS SHEET AS PART OF YOUR BID.

Bid Proposal Division I - Page C-10
Item
No.

Estimated
Quantity
Item Description and
Unit Price (written in words)
Unit
Price
Item
Total
26 Lump Sum
12,000 Gallon Avgas Above Ground Tank –
Manufacture, Deliver, and Install (Plans)

______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
Lump Sum
Lump Sum $__________
27 Lump Sum
Installation of QTPOD and Wireless
Communication (Plan Sheet M-500)

______________________________Dollars

and___________________________Cents
Lump Sum
Lump Sum $__________
TOTAL BID AMOUNT (In Figures) $______________________

TOTAL BID AMOUNT (In Words)

NOTES:

1. In the event the product of a unit price and an estimated quantity do not equal the extended amount stated, the unit price will govern and the correct product of the unit price and the estimated quantity shall be deemed to be the amount bid.

2. In case of conflict between words and numerals, the words, unless obviously incorrect, shall govern.

Council Future Agenda Items
Originated
Date Item Originator Staff Lead Date Estimate
11/4/2025 Artificial Intelligence Policy Discussion City Council Chris Tavarez TBD 11/18/2025 RFP for City Attorney Services City Council Chris Tavarez Mid 2027