Hanford City Council
April 21, 2026

City Council Meeting
Agenda
April 21, 2026
7:00 PM – Regular Meeting
Council Chambers
400 N. Douty St.

Council Members will meet in-person in the Council
Chambers. The meeting will also be lived streamed on the City’s website: http://livestream.hanford.city/

4:00 PM CALL TO ORDER STUDY SESSION AND CLOSED SESSION:

ROLL CALL BY THE CITY CLERK:

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Study Sessions are considered Special Meetings under the Brown Act. Accordingly, comments from the public are limited to items listed on the agenda (GC 54954.3a). Public Comment will be accepted during each agenda item. A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

STUDY SESSION:

A. Presentation on a potential ballot measure to fund large-scale parks and recreation capital projects, prioritizes the proposed capital projects, provide feedback, and consider an appropriation of $33,250 from the General Fund for professional polling services with FM3, which may be fully or partially reimbursed.

CLOSED SESSION FOR DISCUSSION OF THE FOLLOWING:

A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (GC 54956.9)(d)(1)) Linda Rose Moon v. City of Hanford, et al., Kings County Superior Court Case No. 25CU0514.

B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS (GC 54956.8) APNs: 012045001, 012045010, 012045004, 012045005, 012046019, 012046005, 012046006, 012046007, 012045001, 012045009, 012045008, 012045007, 012045006, 012045007
Negotiating Party: Solis Martin Vieyra & Araujo Fanny Castro, Miya Farms, PRE 4 LLC,

MCMASTER, WILLIAM T & KATHLEEN S H/W, EBERT JEANNINE, ALANIS, RICHARD &

LINDA TRUST,
Agency Negotiators: Chris Tavarez, Jason Waters, and Nick Matoian

C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (54956.9 (d)(4)) 1 Potential case.

D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL-PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS (GC 54956.8) Address: 109 E. Eighth Street
Negotiating Party: Carnegie Museum of Kings County
Agency Negotiators: Chris Tavarez, Jason Waters, and Ty Mizote CALL TO ORDER REGULAR SESSION:

ROLL CALL:

INVOCATION:

Adam Medeiros
FLAG SALUTE:

CLOSED SESSION ACTION REPORT:

PUBLIC COMMENT:

This is the time for citizens to comment on subject matters within the jurisdiction of the Hanford City Council. This is also the public’s opportunity to request an item from the Consent Calendar be pulled for discussion purposes or to comment on any item on the agenda. State law does not allow the Council to discuss or take action on issues not on the agenda, except that members of the Council or staff may briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising their public testimony rights (Gov. Code sec. 54954.2). A maximum of three minutes is allowed for each speaker. Please begin your comments by stating your name and providing your city of residence.

CONSENT CALENDAR:

Consent Calendar items are considered routine and will be enacted in one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these matters unless a request is made and then the item will be removed from the Consent Calendar to be discussed and voted upon by a separate motion.

A. Waive reading in full of resolutions and ordinances and approval and adoption of same by reading the title only.

B. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the March 3, 2026 Meeting C. City Clerk: Approval of the Minutes of the March 17, 2026 Meeting D. Public Works: Award of a three (3) year contract for City Uniform Services to Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies in the amount of $66,503.53 per year, with two (2) one-year options to extend the contract, at an agreed-upon price.

E. Police: Approval of the purchase of two (2) 2026 Jeep Grand Cherokee Administration Vehicles from Sager Dodge (Hanford, CA), five (5) 2026 Dodge Durango Patrol Vehicles from National Auto Fleet Group (Watsonville, CA), and required upfitting from Cook's Communications for all vehicles for a total cost of $575,708.90, and an appropriation of $5,708.90 from the Fleet Replacement Reserves to fully fund the purchase.

PUBLIC HEARING:

A. Community Development: Kings Garden Apartments TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act)
GENERAL BUSINESS:

A. Parks and Community Services: Adoption of the Urban Forest Master Plan B. Public Works: 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.

COUNCIL REPORTS/GENERAL REPORTS:

Brief information-only reports from City Council and/or Staff, including committee reports and reports by City Council related to meetings attended at City expenses (AB1234).

ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS:

At this time, any Council Member may ask a question for clarification or may request a matter, which is not otherwise scheduled on a City Council agenda, to be placed on a future agenda. The Council Member referring the item shall provide sufficient information as to the nature of the item. The City Council, by concurrence of a majority, may direct the City Manager to put the item on a future agenda. (GOV. CODE SEC. 54954.2) A. Council Future Agenda Items
B. Upcoming Events and Important Dates:

May 5: Regular City Council Meeting
May 12: Special City Council Meeting
May 19: Regular City Council Meeting
2026 National Community Survey Now Available More Information and Survey ADJOURNMENT:

Materials related to an item on this Agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available to public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California 93230, during normal business hours. Such agendas are also available at the city’s website, www.cityofhanfordca.com subject to staff’s ability to post the agenda before the meeting. If you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s office, 559-585-2515, 319 N. Douty Street, Hanford, California 93230, at least 2 days prior to the meeting {28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II}

4.A.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 4/21/2026 AGENDA SECTION: STUDY SESSION

SUBJECT:

Presentation on a potential ballot measure to fund large-scale parks and recreation capital projects, prioritizes the proposed capital projects, provide feedback, and consider an appropriation of $33,250 from the General Fund for professional polling services with FM3, which may be fully or partially reimbursed.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Council receives the presentation, prioritizes the proposed capital projects, provides feedback, and considers an appropriation of $33,250 from the General Fund for professional polling services with FM3, which may be fully or partially reimbursed

Recommended Motion: I move to receive the presentation, prioritize the proposed capital projects as discussed, and appropriate $33,250 from the General Fund for professional polling services with FM3, which may be fully or partially reimbursed
BACKGROUND:

Staff is seeking direction on a potential November 2026 (or future) ballot measure to fund recreation- based projects that will greatly benefit Hanford residents of all ages. Access to high-quality recreational opportunities is a widely recognized driver of a community's quality of life. Parks, sports facilities, and community spaces contribute not only to individual well-being but also to broader social, economic, and environmental outcomes. Without a viable funding source, long-range planning remains futile.

Many of the City’s recreational assets—including parks and community facilities—have experienced deferred maintenance and limited capital reinvestment over an extended period. Strategic investment in these assets is essential to provide recreational opportunities for our growing community, improve service delivery for all ages, and meet current and future community needs.

The 2020 Parks and Recreation Master Plan provides a roadmap for the City's future development of recreational facilities and opportunities over the next 10 years, consistent with the General Plan 2035 requirements. The Master Plan included strong stakeholder participation and community surveys.

Chapter 7 of the 2020 Master Plan contains the 10-Year capital improvement plan, which is categorized into three areas:

Description Amount

Category
Sustainable Projects Repair existing parks $1,800,000
Expanded Service Projects Improving what we have $2,620,000 Visionary Projects New/Major Upgrades $58,200,000
TOTAL $62,620,000

Measure H has greatly assisted with sustainable projects and deferred maintenance. However, a large funding gap remains for both expanded services projects and visionary projects.

The three proposed projects are:

A: Expansion of Hidden Valley Park The expansion of Hidden Valley Park has been debated for many decades. As part of the General Plan Update of 2017, the City Council approved rezoning the vacant 18-acre parcel from open space to low-density housing. In 2021, the Council directed staff to proceed with feasibility studies to rezone the property back to open space. Because the rezoning would lower the number of acres for housing units, additional acreage must be found elsewhere in the City to comply with the current state housing laws.

In 2023, the Council allocated $75,000 from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding and directed staff to conduct community outreach to determine the amenities, develop conceptual drawings, and estimate the cost of a reimagined Hidden Valley Park, consisting of developing the vacant 18-acre parcel and possible improvements to the existing park. On August 10, 2024, staff returned to the Council with five conceptual designs. During this meeting, the Council chose Concept S-5 as the preferred design. The Council also directed staff to return with phasing options and cost estimates. On December 17, 2024, staff returned with three project phases. At that meeting, the Council also directed staff to begin the environmental assessment of the possible project.

Hidden Valley Park Phasing and Cost Estimates
Phase Description Estimated
Cost
Planning Define project scope, conduct environmental studies, and identify funding strategies
$1,750,000
1 Infrastructure, development of vacant parcel, pathways, two restrooms, a small parking lot, irrigation, shrubs, and trees
$5,262,000
2 New play structure, two basketball courts, a new dog park, sports lighting, and backstops
$5,579,000
3 Renovate the existing pond, pipe the Peoples Ditch, artificial turf field, new splash pad, and two tennis courts (lined for eight pickleball courts) $6,064,000
TOTAL $18,655,000
(See Attachment 1: Hidden Valley Park Phased Concept Designs)

B: Multi-Generational Community Center
A multi-generational community center brings people of different ages together—kids, teens, adults, and seniors—in one shared space. That mix creates benefits that go far beyond what age-specific facilities can offer. The benefits include fostering social connections, promoting health and well-being, supporting youth development, and offering mentorship opportunities. In addition, a multi-use facility creates economic efficiency. Instead of building separate facilities for each age group, a shared center maximizes resources—staff space and programming—making it more cost-effective to build and maintain.

Currently, there is no dedicated senior center serving Hanford's mature population. In the past, Senior Inc. shared space in the Veterans and Senior Building located within Civic Park. A senior center plays a vital role in a healthy, well-functioning community. It serves not just as a gathering place, but as a hub for connection, support, and independence for older adults. According to the America Factfinder Census, 20.4% (11,598 people) of Hanford's residents are aged 55 and older. (See Attachment 1: Multi-Generational Community Center Concept Designs)

C: Complete build-out of Heroes Park
Under the current Proposition 68 program, Phase 1 is planned to include three multi-use athletic fields; two multi-age play structures with shade and lighting; an amphitheater; two outdoor basketball courts; a skate park; a dog park; a community/learning garden; an 18-hole disc golf course; an outdoor fitness area; a 190-space parking lot; two restroom facilities; public art; and a water feature.

These amenities collectively define the park's core functionality and reflect the original development scope of the Proposition 68 funding application. Future phasing of Heroes Park will include expanded recreational opportunities, including pickleball courts, additional open space/sports fields, and additional parking.
(See Attachment 1: Heroes Park Phase 1 and Build-Out Concept Designs)

Cost Estimates
Project Amount
Expansion of Hidden Valley Park $18,700,000
Multigenerational Community Center $36,000,000
Complete Build Out of Heroes Park $16,000,000
TOTAL (in today's $) 70,700,000

Staff is seeking Council direction to prioritize the three projects listed above.

Public Finance Options
In May 2023, the City partnered with the Trust for Public Land (TPL) to commission a Finance Feasibility Study that detailed public finance options for Hanford. That study was recently updated and includes reviews of several options for generating revenue for Hanford parks. In summary, the study outlines three financing options: bonds, parcel taxes, and sales tax. All three financing options require approval by 2/3rds of voters. This approval threshold may be challenging.

Option 1: General Obligation Bonds
Best Use: Major Capital Projects
Advantages:
• Provides significant upfront funding for immediate project delivery • Aligns costs with asset lifespan
• Can preserve operating budget capacity
• Typically well understood by voters
Considerations:
• Requires 2/3 voter approval
• Create long-term debt obligations
• Includes interest costs
• Reduces future financial flexibility

Option 2: Parcel Tax
Best Use: Ongoing services
Advantages:
• Generates stable, predictable revenue
• Not sensitive to economic downturns
• Provides local control and transparency
• Can be structures for specific service priorities
Considerations:
• Requires 2/3 voter approval
• Flat rate can be seen as regressive
• Limits natural revenue growth, unless indexed
• May face public resistance on fairness grounds

Option 3: Sales Tax
Best Use: General municipal services or flexible funding needs Advantages
• Broader revenue base
• Revenue grows with economic activity
• Flexible use
Considerations:
• Revenue is economically sensitive
• Special-purpose tax would require 2/3 approval
• Passage of Measure H may hinder voter approval
•
(See attached Hanford, California, Finance Options March 2026 for financing estimates prepared by TPL)

Ballot Initiative Estimated Costs:

Activity Organization Amount
Professional Polling (fully or
partially reimbursable)
FM3 $33,250
Community Outreach and
Communications
Peregrine
Strategies
$65,000
Election Consulting NHA Advisors $25,000
TOTAL $123,250

Recommended Next Steps:

1. Polling
Polling is a critical due diligence step to ensure that any proposed measure is both fiscally responsible and aligned with voter priorities, maximizing the likelihood of success while minimizing

risk. The strategic value of polling is to provide Council with an informed go/no-go decision, to select the most viable funding option, and to demonstrate responsiveness to community input. THIS COST MAY BE FULLY OR PARTIALLY REIMBURSED BY TRUST FOR PUBLIC LANDS.

2. Decide on the Finance Options
Choose the appropriate funding mechanism, including bonds, parcel tax, or sales tax.

Timeline for the November Ballot

Date Activity
April Council prioritizes capital projects, decides on polling May Polling
June Polling results
July Council adopts the resolution, final ballot question, submit to the Kings County Elections Office
August Community and Communications Campaign begins September Ballot materials are finalized and mailed October Vote-by-Mail begins
November Election
(See attached Ballot Measure Flow Chart)

Summary:

The relationship between recreational opportunities and quality of life is direct and measurable.

Investment in accessible, well-maintained, and diverse recreational amenities enhances public health, strengthens community connections, and improves the overall livability of the Hanford community. As such, recreational infrastructure should be considered a core component of the City’s long-term strategic planning and capital investment priorities. Polling for this potential initiative may provide the City with important information on the priority of these projects by the community and give data that will enable City Council to make decisions on next steps on the development of potential park projects in The City.

FISCAL IMPACT:

If directed by Council to proceed with polling services, an appropriation of $33,250 is required from the General Fund. These costs may be fully or partially reimbursed by Trust for Public Lands. Any costs not reimbursed will reduce the General Fund Reserve as this item was not budgeted. The results of the polling will dictate the next steps.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Concept Plans for Hidden Valley Park, Multi-Generational Community Center, & Heroes Park Phasing

2. Hanford Estimates

3. Ballot Measure Flow Chart

Attachment 1
Hidden Valley Park
PHASE 1 Design

Hidden Valley Park
PHASE 2 Design

Hidden Valley Park
PHASE 3 Design

Multi-Generational Community Center
Concept Designs

Heroes Park Design

Hanford, California Finance Options
March 2026
Our March 2023 Hanford, CA Public Finance Feasibility Study reviews several options for generating revenue for parks in Hanford. This memo updates revenue estimates for three finance options outlined in that study – bonds, parcel taxes, and sales taxes.

Bonds
To raise funds for capital improvements, such as land acquisition or building construction, counties, cities and districts may issue bonds. Generally, bond proceeds are limited to capital projects and may not be used for operations and maintenance purposes.

Hanford could consider issuing general obligation bonds for parks. The table below illustrates the estimated annual debt service, required property tax rate, and annual household cost of various general obligation bond issue amounts that could be considered by the city. For example, a 20-year $10 million bond would add about $735,818 to the city’s annual debt service and would cost approximately $40 per year for the median homeowner over the life of the bond. A 20-year $25 million bond would cost the median homeowner $101 per year. Approval by 2/3rds of voters is required.

Hanford Bond Financing Estimates
Bond
Issue
Interest
Rate
Maturity
(years)
Annual
Debt
Service
Total
Taxable
Value*
Tax Required
(per $100
Taxable Value)
Annual Cost
for Median
Home**
Annual Cost
per $100K
Taxable Value
$5,000,000 4% 20 $367,909 $6,372,751,113 $0.0058 $20 $6 $10,000,000 4% 20 $735,818 $6,372,751,113 $0.0115 $40 $12 $15,000,000 4% 20 $1,103,726 $6,372,751,113 $0.0173 $61 $17 $20,000,000 4% 20 $1,471,635 $6,372,751,113 $0.0231 $81 $23 $25,000,000 4% 20 $1,839,544 $6,372,751,113 $0.0289 $101 $29 *Kings County Assessor, 2025-2026 Assessment Roll Values & Information, Net Total Tangible (Without Utility Roll) **If median taxable value = $349,400 (US Census Quickfacts) Trust for Public Land’s bond cost calculations provide a basic estimate of debt service, tax required, and cost to the typical homeowner in the community of potential bond issuances. Assumptions include the following: the entire debt amount is issued in the first year and payments are equal until maturity; 20-year maturity; and 4 percent interest rate.

The property tax estimates assume that the jurisdiction would use property taxes to pay the debt service on bonds. The cost per household represents the maximum estimated annual impact of property taxes levied to pay the debt service. The estimates do not take

into account growth in the tax base due to new construction, annexation over the life of the bonds, or the possibility that the jurisdiction will issue bonds only as needed for specific projects, rather than all at once. The annual debt service and cost per household are the maximum tax impacts that could occur if the entire debt amount is issued at once.

The jurisdiction’s officials, financial advisors, bond counsel and underwriters would establish the actual terms of any bond.

Parcel Tax
A parcel tax is a tax collected on the property tax roll that is based on either a flat, per- parcel rate or a rate that varies based on other factors, such as parcel size, use, or other physical attributes. Parcel taxes based upon the value of the property are prohibited because they violate Proposition 13’s limits on ad valorem property taxes.

Proposition 218 eventually limited the types of taxes that local governments can impose upon a parcel of property to the ad valorem property tax and any special tax that receives a two-thirds vote, as required by article XIII A, section 4 of the Constitution. Accordingly, local governments may only impose a parcel tax as a special tax.

According to a policy brief from the California Taxpayers Association, the two most common types of parcel taxes are “fixed amount flat rate” and “fixed amount square footage” parcel taxes. Generally, state law requires that special district parcel taxes apply uniformly to all types of property. Some jurisdictions include exemptions for parcels owned by seniors and taxpayers with disabilities.

Hanford could consider a citywide parcel tax for parks. There are 19,605 secured parcels in the city. A parcel tax of $26 per parcel per year would generate $500,000 annually, and a parcel tax of $128 would generate $2.5 million annually, or $25 million over 10 years.

Parcel taxes are special taxes and must be approved by 2/3rds of voters.

Hanford Parcel Tax Estimates
Parcels* Parcel Tax Annual Revenue Revenue over 10 Years 19,605 $26 $500,000 $5,000,000
19,605 $51 $1,000,000 $10,000,000
19,605 $77 $1,500,000 $15,000,000
19,605 $102 $2,000,000 $20,000,000
19,605 $128 $2,500,000 $25,000,000
*Kings County Auditor-Controller, 2025-26 Assessed Value by Taxing Entity, Secured Parcels

Sales Tax
The minimum sales tax of 7.25 percent is imposed on retailers for the privilege of selling tangible personal property within California. A number of cities, counties and special districts impose additional sales taxes. Rates vary by jurisdiction but generally may not exceed 2 percent, for a combined maximum rate of 9.25 percent. Following the passage

of Measure H in 2024, the combined state and local sales and use tax rate in Hanford increased to 8.25 percent, leaving 1 percent of remaining capacity under the cap.

Hanford could consider adopting a local sales tax for parks. The tax can be levied in increments of 0.125 percent. For example, a quarter-cent (0.25 percent) sales tax would generate more than $3.3 million per year and cost the median household $44 per year.

Revenue over 10 years would grow to more than $33 million. Spending by residents would account for 26 percent of the revenues; the remaining 74 percent would come from visitor and business spending. Voter approval is required – a majority for a general tax, and 2/3rds for a special tax.

Hanford Sales Tax Estimates
Sales
Tax Rate
Annual
Revenue*
Annual Cost
for Median
Household
Total Revenue
Attributed to
Resident Spending
% Revenue
Attributed to
Resident Spending
Revenue over
10 Years

0.25% $3,335,243 $44 $858,110 26% $33,352,428

0.50% $6,670,486 $88 $1,716,221 26% $66,704,856

0.75% $10,005,728 $132 $2,574,331 26% $100,057,285

1.00% $13,340,971 $176 $3,432,441 26% $133,409,713
*Based 2024 Q4 - 2025 Q3 taxable sales of $1,334,097,127 (California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, Taxable Sales by City)

For citations and additional information, please see Trust for Public Land’s March 2023 Hanford, California Public Funding Feasibility Study.

Council
Direction
Proceed with
Polling
Do not proceed
Determine Finance
Mechanism
Polling Results
Favorable
Not Favorable
Do not proceed
Possible future people’s
initiative within two
years By Resolution
Ballot Measure
Language
Marketing/
Communications Plan
Ballot Measure
Passes with 2/3 Voter
Approval
Does Not Pass
Possible future people’s
initiative within two
years
Favorable
Ballot Measure
Decision Tree
Sell surplus land and
invest in parks
Ballot Measure
Submitted to the
Registrar of Voters

12.B.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 4/21/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT:

Approval of the Minutes of the March 3, 2026 Meeting

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the March 3, 2026 meeting.

BACKGROUND:

FISCAL IMPACT:

N/A

ATTACHMENTS:

1. March 3, 2026 Meeting Minutes

12.C.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 4/21/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT:

Approval of the Minutes of the March 17, 2026 Meeting

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Approve the minutes of the March 17, 2026 meeting.

BACKGROUND:

FISCAL IMPACT:

N/A

ATTACHMENTS:

1. March 17, 2026 Meeting Minutes

12.D.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 4/21/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT:

Award of a three (3) year contract for City Uniform Services to Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies in the amount of $66,503.53 per year, with two (2) one-year options to extend the contract, at an agreed-upon price.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

That the City Council award a three (3) year contract for City Uniform Services to Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies in the amount of $66,503.53 per year, with two (2) one-year options to extend the contract, at an agreed-upon price.

Recommended Motion:

That the City Council, by motion, award a three (3) year contract for City Uniform Services to Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies in the amount of $66,503.53 per year, with two (2) one-year options to extend the contract, at an agreed-upon price.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Hanford provides uniforms and related services to various employee groups as part of its operations and safety programs.

The City’s current agreement with Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies was originally a three (3) year contract with two (2) one-year extension options, all of which have been exercised and are now expired.

In preparation for a new agreement, staff evaluated alternative uniform options with a focus on durability, cost efficiency, and employee safety. Based on this evaluation, staff recommends transitioning to heavy-duty denim (blue jean) work pants and Class III high-visibility (Hi-Vis) shirts. This change eliminates the need for separate safety vests while improving overall visibility and ensuring continued compliance with safety standards.

All Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)—required uniform provisions will continue to be honored by the City.

After reviewing available cooperative purchasing options, staff recommends utilizing the Sourcewell cooperative purchasing contract (Contract No. 011124-VST, NAID S12006-New) to procure uniform services from Vestis Uniforms and Workplace Supplies. This approach ensures competitive pricing and streamlined procurement.

Contract Details
• Annual cost of $66,503.53
• No replacement costs for normal wear and tear items
• Class III Hi-Vis Safety Shirts
• No prep or emblem charges

• No price increase for the first 4 years of contract
• Max 4% increase in year 5, per City Approval
FISCAL IMPACT:

The various divisions that utilize these services currently have sufficient funds to support this contract. The City will realize annual savings of approximately $13,400 during the first four years of the new contract.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Addendum Vestis

2. Vestis Service Agreement

3. Vestis Summary

4. Vestis Agreement

ADDENDUM TO SERVICE AGREEMENT
City of Hanford & Vestis Uniforms
This Addendum is entered into by and between the City of Hanford (“Customer”) and Vestis Uniforms (“Provider”).

Term of Agreement
This Agreement shall become effective as of the date of the last signature affixed hereto (“Effective Date”) and shall continue for a period of thirty-six (36) consecutive months following the later of: (a) the Effective Date, or (b) the date on which merchandise is first installed at Customer’s location.

Extension Option
Upon expiration of the initial term, the City of Hanford shall have the option to extend this Agreement for up to two (2) additional one (1) year terms, upon mutual agreement of both parties.

Acceptance
IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the parties have executed this Addendum as of the dates set forth below.

City of Hanford
By: ___________________________
Name: _________________________
Title: __________________________
Date: __________________________

Vestis Uniforms
By: ___________________________
Name: _________________________
Title: __________________________
Date: __________________________

12.E.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 4/21/2026 AGENDA SECTION: CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT:

Approval of the purchase of two (2) 2026 Jeep Grand Cherokee Administration Vehicles from Sager Dodge (Hanford, CA), five (5) 2026 Dodge Durango Patrol Vehicles from National Auto Fleet Group (Watsonville, CA), and required upfitting from Cook's Communications for all vehicles for a total cost of $575,708.90, and an appropriation of $5,708.90 from the Fleet Replacement Reserves to fully fund the purchase.

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: That the City Council, by motion, approve the purchase of two (2) 2026 Jeep Grand Cherokee Administration Vehicles from Sager Dodge (Hanford, CA), five (5) 2026 Dodge Durango Patrol Vehicles from National Auto Fleet Group (Watsonville, CA), and required upfitting from Cook's Communications for all vehicles for a total cost of $575,708.90, and appropriate $5,708.90 from the Fleet Replacement Reserve to fully fund the purchase.

Recommended Motion: I move to approve the purchase of two (2) 2026 Jeep Grand Cherokee Administration Vehicles from Sager Dodge (Hanford, CA), five (5) 2026 Dodge Durango Patrol Vehicles from National Auto Fleet Group (Watsonville, CA), and required upfitting from Cook's Communications for all vehicles for a total cost of $575,708.90, and appropriate $5,708.90 from the Fleet Replacement Reserve to fully fund the purchase.

BACKGROUND:

At the March 17, 2026 City Council meeting, $570,000 was appropriated from the Fleet Replacement Reserve for the purchase of seven (7) new vehicles for the Police Department. Five (5) of the seven (7) vehicles are to be used as patrol vehicles and two (2) will be assigned to the Administration division. The requested amount was an estimate based on previous vehicle upfitting costs. Due to the increase in cost for materials, the upfitting costs were more than originally estimated when requesting the appropriation. Additionally, upon soliciting quotes for the Jeep Grand Cherokees, Sager Dodge, a local vendor, was determined to be within the approved five (5) percent local vendor preference of the lowest non-local vendor, resulting in an increased total purchase cost.

The Police Department's fleet includes several patrol vehicles that are over ten (10) years old and are considered retired as they have gone past their useful life. Retired vehicles cost the City more in repair and maintenance costs compared to newer vehicles. The five (5) 2026 Dodge Durangos will be used to replace in-service retired patrol vehicles currently in use. Those retired patrol vehicles will then be sold at auction by the City's Fleet Division. One (1) of the requested 2026 Jeep Grand Cherokees will be used to replace one (1) in-service retired administrative vehicle currently in the Police Department's fleet. The additional 2026 Jeep Grand Cherokee will be used to fill a shortage of

one (1) administrative vehicle caused by staffing changes. This vehicle will ensure that the Police Department's Administrative staff are fully equipped and allows the Police Department to comply with the Police Department Take-Home Vehicle Program. This program promotes faster response times, increased community presence, and stronger community trust.

The Police Department selected the 2026 Jeep Grand Cherokee as an administrative vehicle due to its lower cost compared to the Dodge Durangos used by patrol officers. Although this model is not currently part of the fleet, Fleet has approved the purchase, noting that Jeep and Dodge are both owned by the same parent company, which will help streamline parts availability and maintenance through existing relationships with local vendors. City Staff solicited quotes for two (2) 2026 Jeep Grand Cherokees from Sager Dodge, National Auto Fleet Group (NAFG), and Fresno Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram (CDJR). NAFG provided the lowest quote at $44,282.83 per vehicle (total cost of $88,565.66), Sager Dodge provided the second-highest quote at $46,045.23 and $45,813.58 per vehicle (total cost of $91,858.81), and Fresno CDJR did not include tax and tire fees in their quote and would be the highest vendor after those costs are factored in. Sager Dodge is a local dealership in Hanford, California and is within five (5) percent of the NAFG quote. For this reason and in accordance with the City's Purchasing Policy, staff is recommending to purchase the Jeep Grand Cherokees from Sager Dodge.

City Staff solicited a quote from National Auto Fleet Group for the purchase of the five (5) 2026 Dodge Durango Patrol Vehicles. National Auto Fleet Group provided a quote using Sourcewell contract 081325-NAF for $53,737.66 per vehicle (total cost of $268,688.30). National Auto Fleet Group has supplied patrol vehicles to the city in the past and is able to ensure that patrol vehicles are correctly configured. By using Sourcewell Contract 081325-NAF, the vendor is offering a total savings of $14,124.50. The Sourcewell contract was competitively bid at the time of original procurement.

City staff solicited a quote for vehicle upfitting from Cook's Communications for all seven (7) requested vehicles. Cook's Communications provided two (2) quotes for the upfitting of the patrol vehicles and administrative vehicles. The patrol vehicles require extensive upfitting to ensure officer and community safety. The provided quote for the Dodge Durango upfitting is $41,141.13 per vehicle.

The administrative vehicles do not require as much upfitting as a patrol vehicle, as they are not used on daily patrol. Cook's Communications provided a quote for the Jeep Grand Cherokee upfitting for $4,728.07 per vehicle.

The total cost breakdown is below:

Vehicle
Model
Vehicle Cost Upfitting Cost Total Per
Vehicle
Total Cost
(1) 2026
Jeep Grand
Cherokee
$46,045.23 $4,728.07 $50,773.30 $50,773.30
(1) 2026
Jeep Grand
Cherokee
$45,813.58 $4,728.07 $50,541.65 $50,541.65
(5) 2026
Dodge
Durango
$53,737.66 $41,141.13 $94,878.79 $474,393.95

Total Purchase Amount $575,708.90
FISCAL IMPACT:

Council approved an appropriation of $570,000 from the Fleet Replacement Reserves at the March 17, 2026 meeting for the purchase and upfitting of seven (7) vehicles. An additional appropriation of $5,708.90 is required to fully fund the purchase due to increased costs of upfitting and the selection of a local vendor for two (2) administrative vehicles. Based on the Police Department's share of the Fleet Replacement Reserve, sufficient funds are available to support the additional appropriation while maintaining a reserve to support future fleet replacement needs.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Sager Dodge Quote - Admin Vehicle

2. NAFG Quote - Admin Vehicle

3. Fresno CDJR Quote - Admin Vehicle

4. Cooks Quote - Admin Vehicles Upfitting

5. NAFG Quote - Patrol Vehicles

6. Cooks Quote - Patrol Vehicles Upfitting

One Unit
(MSRP)
One Unit Total %
Savings
Total Savings
Contract Price $43,005.00$40,899.84 4.895 % $2,105.16
Tax (8.2500 %) $3,374.24
Tire fee $8.75
Total $44,282.83
Jesse Cooper
Account Manager
Email: [email protected]
Office: (855) 289-6572
Fax: (831) 480-8497
3/3/2026 Quote ID: 42599 Order Cut Off Date: 5/24/2026
Jason Gustin
City of Hanford
Hanford Police Department
425 N Irwin St.

Hanford, California, 93230
Dear Jason Gustin,
National Auto Fleet Group is pleased to quote the following vehicle(s) for your consideration.

One (1) New/Unused (2026 Jeep Grand Cherokee L (WLTH75) Laredo 4x2, ) and delivered to your specified location, each for
- per the attached specifications.

This vehicle(s) is available under the Sourcewell Contract 081325-NAF . Please reference this Contract number on all purchase orders to National Auto Fleet Group. Payment terms are Net 20 days after receipt of vehicle.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

3/5/26, 10:04 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42599?ws=true&se=true&tsbt=true&ssdType=OrderRequest&knm=true 1/9

Purchase Order Instructions & Resources
Once units are scheduled by OEM, no cancellations are accepted

In order to finalize your purchase please submit this purchase packet to your governing body for a purchase order approval and submit your purchase order in the following way:

Email: [email protected]
Fax: (831) 480-8497
Mail: National Auto Fleet Group
490 Auto Center Drive
Watsonville, CA 95076

We will send a courtesy confirmation for your order and a W-9 if needed.

Additional Resources
Learn how to track your vehicle: www.NAFGETA.com Use the upfitter of your choice: www.NAFGpartner.com Vehicle Status: [email protected] General Inquiries: [email protected]

For general questions or assistance please contact our main office at:
1-855-289-6572
3/5/26, 10:04 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42599?ws=true&se=true&tsbt=true&ssdType=OrderRequest&knm=true 2/9

Vehicle Configuration Options
ENGINE
Code Description
ERC 3.6L V6 24V VVT Engine UPG I w/ESS, (STD)

TRANSMISSION
Code Description
DFT 8-Speed Automatic (850RE) Transmission, (STD)

PRIMARY PAINT
Code Description
PAS Baltic Gray Metallic Clearcoat

SEAT TYPE
Code Description
AJX7 Global Black, Cloth Seats

CPOS PKG
Code Description
22D Quick Order Package 22D Laredo, -inc: 3.6L V6 24V VVT Engine UPG I w/ESS, 8-Speed Automatic (850RE) Transmission
3/5/26, 10:04 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42599?ws=true&se=true&tsbt=true&ssdType=OrderRequest&knm=true 3/9

2026 Jeep Grand Cherokee L Laredo 4x2

CODE MSRP
WLTH75 $40,415.00

ERC $0.00
DFT $0.00
PAS $595.00
AJX7 $0.00
22D $0.00
$41,010.00
$0.00
$1,995.00
$43,005.00
Est City: 19 MPG
Est Highway: 26 MPG
Est Highway Cruising Range: 598.00 mi
2026 Fleet/Non-Retail Jeep Grand Cherokee L Laredo 4x2

WINDOW STICKER

MODEL
2026 Jeep Grand Cherokee L Laredo 4x2

OPTIONS

3.6L V6 24V VVT Engine UPG I w/ESS, (STD)
8-Speed Automatic (850RE) Transmission, (STD)
Baltic Gray Metallic Clearcoat
Global Black, Cloth Seats
Quick Order Package 22D Laredo, -inc: 3.6L V6 24V VVT Engine UPG I w/ESS, 8-Speed Automatic (850RE) Transmission
Please note selected options override standard equipment

SUBTOTAL
Advert/ Adjustments
Manufacturer Destination Charge

TOTAL PRICE

Any performance-related calculations are offered solely as guidelines. Actual unit performance will depend on your operating conditions.

Notes
3/5/26, 10:04 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42599?ws=true&se=true&tsbt=true&ssdType=OrderRequest&knm=true 4/9

Standard Equipment

MECHANICAL

3.6L V6 24V VVT Engine UPG I w/ESS (STD)
8-Speed Automatic (850RE) Transmission (STD)
WHEELS
18" x 8.0" Fully Painted Aluminum Wheels
TIRES
265/60R18 BSW A/S LRR Tires

ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT
50 State Emissions
Engine Auto Stop-Start Feature
Transmission w/Driver Selectable Mode and Sequential Shift Control w/Steering Wheel Controls Rear-Wheel Drive

3.45 Rear Axle Ratio
Engine Oil Cooler
700CCA Maintenance-Free Battery w/Run Down Protection
160 Amp Alternator
Towing Equipment -inc: Trailer Sway Control
1370# Maximum Payload
6,500 lbs GVWR
Gas-Pressurized Shock Absorbers
Front And Rear Anti-Roll Bars
Electric Power-Assist Steering
23 Gal. Fuel Tank
Single Stainless Steel Exhaust
Multi-Link Front Suspension w/Coil Springs
Multi-Link Rear Suspension w/Coil Springs
Normal Duty Suspension
4-Wheel Disc Brakes w/4-Wheel ABS, Front And Rear Vented Discs, Brake Assist, Hill Hold Control and Electric Parking Brake
Brake Actuated Limited Slip Differential
Aluminum Spare Wheel
Compact Spare Tire Mounted Inside Under Cargo
3/5/26, 10:04 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42599?ws=true&se=true&tsbt=true&ssdType=OrderRequest&knm=true 5/9

Body-Colored Front Bumper w/Black Rub Strip/Fascia Accent and Metal-Look Bumper Insert Body-Colored Rear Bumper w/Black Rub Strip/Fascia Accent and Metal-Look Bumper Insert Black Bodyside Cladding and Black Fender Flares
Body-Colored Door Handles
Chrome Side Windows Trim and Chrome Rear Window Trim
Power Side Mirrors
Heated Exterior Mirrors
Manual Folding Exterior Mirrors
Gloss Black Exterior Mirrors
Fixed Rear Window w/Wiper, Heated Wiper Park and Defroster Deep Tinted Glass
Speed Sensitive Variable Intermittent Wipers
Galvanized Steel/Aluminum Panels
Lip Spoiler
Chrome Grille
Liftgate Rear Cargo Access
Tailgate/Rear Door Lock Included w/Power Door Locks
Auto On/Off Reflector Led Low/High Beam Daytime Running Headlamps w/Delay-Off Perimeter/Approach Lights
LED Brakelights
Laminated Glass
USB Host Flip
Radio w/Seek-Scan, Clock, Speed Compensated Volume Control, Aux Audio Input Jack, Steering Wheel Controls, Voice Activation, Radio Data System and Uconnect External Memory Control Uconnect 5 w/8.4" Display
6 Speakers
Streaming Audio
Integrated Roof Antenna
Disassociated Touchscreen Display
GPS Antenna Input
Integrated Center Stack Radio
2 LCD Monitors In The Front
Front Seats w/Power 4-Way Driver Lumbar
12-Way Power Driver Seat -inc: Power Recline, Height Adjustment, Fore/Aft Movement, Cushion Tilt and Power 4-Way Lumbar Support
4-Way Passenger Seat -inc: Manual Recline, Fore/Aft Movement and Fold Flat Bucket Folding Bucket Front Facing Manual Reclining Cloth Rear Seat w/Manual Fore/Aft Front Center Armrest w/Storage and Rear Seat Mounted Armrest Manual Tilt/Telescoping Steering Column
Gauges -inc: Speedometer, Odometer, Voltmeter, Oil Pressure, Engine Coolant Temp, Tachometer, Oil Temperature, Transmission Fluid Temp, Engine Hour Meter, Trip Odometer and Trip Computer 3/5/26, 10:04 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42599?ws=true&se=true&tsbt=true&ssdType=OrderRequest&knm=true 6/9

Power Rear Windows and Fixed 3rd Row Windows
Fixed 50-50 Split-Bench Cloth 3rd Row Seat Front, Manual Recline, 2 Power and Fixed Head Restraints
Manual Fold Seatbacks
Power Fold Seatbacks
Leatherette Steering Wheel
Illuminated Front Cupholder
Rear Cupholder
Compass
Proximity Key For Doors And Push Button Start
Valet Function
Power Fuel Flap Locking Type
Remote Keyless Entry w/Integrated Key Transmitter, Illuminated Entry and Panic Button Cruise Control w/Steering Wheel Controls
Adaptive Cruise Control w/Stop & Go
Voice Activated Dual Zone Front Automatic Air Conditioning Rear HVAC w/Separate Controls
HVAC -inc: Underseat Ducts, Headliner/Pillar Ducts and Console Ducts Illuminated Locking Glove Box
Driver Foot Rest
Vinyl Door Trim Insert
Chrome Gear Shifter Material
Full Cloth Headliner
Interior Trim -inc: Metal-Look Instrument Panel Insert, Metal-Look Door Panel Insert, Piano Black Console Insert and Chrome/Metal-Look Interior Accents
Cloth Seats
Day-Night Rearview Mirror
Driver And Passenger Visor Vanity Mirrors w/Driver And Passenger Illumination Full Floor Console w/Covered Storage, Mini Overhead Console w/Storage and 2 12V DC Power Outlets
Front And Rear Map Lights
Fade-To-Off Interior Lighting
Full Carpet Floor Covering -inc: Carpet Front And Rear Floor Mats Carpet Floor Trim
Cargo Area Concealed Storage
Cargo Space Lights
FOB Controls -inc: Keyfob Cargo Access
Jeep Connect Tracker System
4G LTE Wi-Fi Hot Spot
Apple CarPlay
Global Telematics Box Module (TBM)
3/5/26, 10:04 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42599?ws=true&se=true&tsbt=true&ssdType=OrderRequest&knm=true 7/9

Google Android Auto
Integrated Voice Command w/Bluetooth
Connectivity - US/Canada
For Details, Visit DriveUconnect.com
Instrument Panel Covered Bin, Driver / Passenger And Rear Door Bins Power 1st Row Windows w/Driver And Passenger 1-Touch Up/Down Delayed Accessory Power
Power Door Locks w/Autolock Feature
Driver Information Center
Redundant Digital Speedometer
Trip Computer
Outside Temp Gauge
Digital/Analog Appearance
Manual Anti-Whiplash w/Tilt Front Head Restraints and Fixed Rear Head Restraints 2 Seatback Storage Pockets
Perimeter Alarm
Sentry Key Immobilizer
2 12V DC Power Outlets
Air Filtration
Electronic Stability Control (ESC) And Roll Stability Control (RSC) ABS And Driveline Traction Control
Side Impact Beams
Dual Stage Driver And Passenger Seat-Mounted Side Airbags Emergency Sos Capability
ParkSense with Stop Rear Parking Sensors
Blind Spot Detection Blind Spot
Cross Path Detection
Active Lane Management Lane Keeping Assist
Active Lane Management Lane Departure Warning
Collision Mitigation-Front
Full Speed Forward Collision Warning Plus
Front Cross Traffic Mitigation
Tire Specific Low Tire Pressure Warning
Dual Stage Driver And Passenger Front Airbags
Curtain 1st, 2nd And 3rd Row Airbags
Airbag Occupancy Sensor
Driver And Passenger Knee Airbag
Rear Child Safety Locks
Outboard Front Lap And Shoulder Safety Belts -inc: Height Adjusters and Pretensioners ParkView Back-Up Camera
3/5/26, 10:04 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42599?ws=true&se=true&tsbt=true&ssdType=OrderRequest&knm=true 8/9

3/5/26, 10:04 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42599?ws=true&se=true&tsbt=true&ssdType=OrderRequest&knm=true 9/9

Invoice
Customer No.:

Invoice No.:

Quote To: Ship To:

Date Ship Via F.O.B. Terms
Purchase Order Number Sales Person Expiration Date
Quantity Item Number Description Unit Price Amount
03/17/26 Up-FIt Shop Origin Net 30
David Burchfield
City of Hanford Police Department City of Hanford Police Department 315 N Douty St
Accounts Payable
Hanford, CA 93230-000
319 N Douty
Hanford, CA 93230-000

HANFORD PD
18171
160 North Broadway
Fresno, CA 93701-1592
Required
04/16/26
(559) 233-8818Phone:

Email:
(559) 585-2540Phone:
[email protected]
Phone:

Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
26 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE
***ADMIN BUILD***
****NO RADIO****

SIREN AND LIGHTING
******EQUIPMENT*******
MS4000U Federal Signal U/C
Mini Siren Controller
590.00590.001
ES100C Federal Signal 100 watt
Siren Speaker
281.00281.001
ESB-U Universal Siren Bracket
for ES100 Siren

36.0036.001
XSM1-BRW FS XStream Single Head
Interior Light
Blue/Red/White
280.00140.002
XSMBKT03 FS XStream Headliner Mount
Kit for single or dual head
models

36.0018.002

MOUNTED ON EITHER SIDE OF

THE REARVIEW MIRROR
XSM1-BRA FS Xtreme Single Head
Interior Light
Blue/Red/Amber
280.00140.002

MOUNTED IN THE REAR WINDOW

MISC INSTALLTION PARTS
32736020009008010001 Tuffy Custom Tactical Gear
Box. 36 x 20 x 9
570.00570.001
879-375-072-01 Lockdown Cable
for Tuffy Weapon Box
3/8" Coated Cable 72"

34.0034.001
7189B-BSS Resettable Circuit Breaker
Old p/n CB185-150

49.0049.001
Thank You

Invoice
Customer No.:

Invoice No.:

Quote To: Ship To:

Date Ship Via F.O.B. Terms
Purchase Order Number Sales Person Expiration Date
Quantity Item Number Description Unit Price Amount
03/17/26 Up-FIt Shop Origin Net 30
David Burchfield
City of Hanford Police Department City of Hanford Police Department 315 N Douty St
Accounts Payable
Hanford, CA 93230-000
319 N Douty
Hanford, CA 93230-000

HANFORD PD
18171
160 North Broadway
Fresno, CA 93701-1592
Required
04/16/26
(559) 233-8818Phone:

Email:
(559) 585-2540Phone:
[email protected]
Phone:

Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
7615B-BSS Blue Seas Solenoid/Timer.
120amp 12vdc
Old P/N 7615B
124.00124.001
5028B-BSS 6 Circuit Water Resistant
Fuse Block w/Cover

35.0035.001
5080 Relay 14.0014.001
7500090 Lighted Rocker Switch 15.00 15.001
MATERIALSFEE2 Installation Material
Bundle
100.00100.001
LAISREG Shop Installation 1980.00 165.0012.000
Subtotal
Freight charges
Sales tax @ 8.35000%

Total

4424.00
100.00
204.07

4728.07

Thank You for Considering Cook's Communications
Thank You

One Unit
(MSRP)
One Unit Total %
Savings
Extended
Unit's (5)
Total Savings
Contract Price $52,459.00$49,634.10 5.385 % $248,170.50 $14,124.50 Tax (8.2500 %) $4,094.81 $20,474.05
Tire fee $8.75 $43.75
Total $53,737.66 $268,688.30
Jesse Cooper
Account Manager
Email: [email protected]
Office: (855) 289-6572
Fax: (831) 480-8497
3/3/2026
3/5/2026 Re-Configured Quote ID: 42598 R2 Order Cut Off Date: 5/24/2026
Jason Gustin
City of Hanford
Hanford Police Department
425 N Irwin St.

Hanford, California, 93230
Dear Jason Gustin,
National Auto Fleet Group is pleased to quote the following vehicle(s) for your consideration.

Five (5) New/Unused (2026 Dodge Durango (WDEE75) Pursuit AWD, ) and delivered to your specified location, each for
- per the attached specifications.

This vehicle(s) is available under the Sourcewell Contract 081325-NAF . Please reference this Contract number on all purchase orders to National Auto Fleet Group. Payment terms are Net 20 days after receipt of vehicle.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

3/5/26, 10:25 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42598?ws=True&se=True&ssdType=OrderRequest&tsbt=False&knm=True 1/10

Purchase Order Instructions & Resources
Once units are scheduled by OEM, no cancellations are accepted

In order to finalize your purchase please submit this purchase packet to your governing body for a purchase order approval and submit your purchase order in the following way:

Email: [email protected]
Fax: (831) 480-8497
Mail: National Auto Fleet Group
490 Auto Center Drive
Watsonville, CA 95076

We will send a courtesy confirmation for your order and a W-9 if needed.

Additional Resources
Learn how to track your vehicle: www.NAFGETA.com Use the upfitter of your choice: www.NAFGpartner.com Vehicle Status: [email protected] General Inquiries: [email protected]

For general questions or assistance please contact our main office at:
1-855-289-6572
3/5/26, 10:25 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42598?ws=True&se=True&ssdType=OrderRequest&tsbt=False&knm=True 2/10

Vehicle Configuration Options
ENGINE
Code Description
ERC Engine: 3.6L V6 24V VVT UPG I w/ESS, (STD)

TRANSMISSION
Code Description
DFT Transmission: 8-Speed Automatic (850RE), (STD)
WHEELS
Code Description
WBN Wheels: 18" x 8" Black Steel, (STD)

PRIMARY PAINT
Code Description
PXJ DB Black Clearcoat

SEAT TYPE
Code Description
C5X9 Black, Cloth Bucket Seats w/Shift Insert, -inc: cloth rear seat

AXLE RATIO
Code Description
DLK 3.45 Rear Axle Ratio, (STD)
GVWR
Code Description
Z6K GVWR: 6,500 lbs, (STD)

CPOS PKG
Code Description
2BZ Quick Order Package 2BZ, -inc: Engine: 3.6L V6 24V VVT UPG I w/ESS, Transmission: 8- Speed Automatic (850RE), maximum speed of 130mph

ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT
Code Description
LNF Black Left LED Spot Lamp
LNA Black Right LED Spot Lamp
CW6 Deactivate Rear Doors/Windows
3/5/26, 10:25 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42598?ws=True&se=True&ssdType=OrderRequest&tsbt=False&knm=True 3/10

XDV Driver Side Ballistic Door Panel
GXF Entire Fleet Alike Key (FREQ 1), -inc: 4 additional / 8 FOBs total 3/5/26, 10:25 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42598?ws=True&se=True&ssdType=OrderRequest&tsbt=False&knm=True 4/10

2026 Dodge Durango Pursuit AWD

CODE MSRP
WDEE75 $44,879.00

ERC $0.00
DFT $0.00
WBN $0.00
PXJ $0.00
C5X9 $0.00
DLK $0.00
Z6K $0.00
2BZ $0.00
LNF $695.00
LNA $695.00
CW6 $95.00
XDV $3,500.00
GXF $600.00
$50,464.00
$0.00
$1,995.00
$52,459.00
Est City: 19 MPG
Est Highway: 26 MPG
Est Highway Cruising Range: 598.00 mi
2026 Fleet/Non-Retail Dodge Durango Pursuit AWD

WINDOW STICKER

MODEL
2026 Dodge Durango Pursuit AWD

OPTIONS
Engine: 3.6L V6 24V VVT UPG I w/ESS, (STD)
Transmission: 8-Speed Automatic (850RE), (STD)
Wheels: 18" x 8" Black Steel, (STD)
DB Black Clearcoat
Black, Cloth Bucket Seats w/Shift Insert, -inc: cloth rear seat

3.45 Rear Axle Ratio, (STD)
GVWR: 6,500 lbs, (STD)
Quick Order Package 2BZ, -inc: Engine: 3.6L V6 24V VVT UPG I w/ESS, Transmission: 8-Speed Automatic (850RE), maximum speed of 130mph
Black Left LED Spot Lamp
Black Right LED Spot Lamp
Deactivate Rear Doors/Windows
Driver Side Ballistic Door Panel
Entire Fleet Alike Key (FREQ 1), -inc: 4 additional / 8 FOBs total Please note selected options override standard equipment

SUBTOTAL
Advert/ Adjustments
Manufacturer Destination Charge

TOTAL PRICE

Any performance-related calculations are offered solely as guidelines. Actual unit performance will depend on your operating conditions.

Notes
3/5/26, 10:25 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42598?ws=True&se=True&ssdType=OrderRequest&tsbt=False&knm=True 5/10

3/5/26, 10:25 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42598?ws=True&se=True&ssdType=OrderRequest&tsbt=False&knm=True 6/10

Standard Equipment

MECHANICAL
Engine: 3.6L V6 24V VVT UPG I w/ESS (STD)
Transmission: 8-Speed Automatic (850RE) (STD)

3.45 Rear Axle Ratio (STD)
GVWR: 6,500 lbs (STD)

EXTERIOR
Wheels: 18" x 8" Black Steel (STD)
TIRES
Tires: 255/60R18 BSW On/Off Road

ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT
50 State Emissions
Transmission w/Sequential Shift Control
Full-Time All-Wheel
Engine Oil Cooler
650CCA Maintenance-Free Battery w/Run Down Protection
220 Amp Alternator
Class IV Towing Equipment -inc: Hitch and Trailer Sway Control Trailer Wiring Harness
Police/Fire
1250# Maximum Payload
Front And Rear Anti-Roll Bars
Gas-Pressurized Front Shock Absorbers and Nivomat Brand Name Rear Shock Absorbers Nivomat Suspension
HD Suspension
Electric Power-Assist Speed-Sensing Steering

24.6 Gal. Fuel Tank
Single Stainless Steel Exhaust
Permanent Locking Hubs
Short And Long Arm Front Suspension w/Coil Springs
Multi-Link Rear Suspension w/Coil Springs
4-Wheel Disc Brakes w/4-Wheel ABS, Front And Rear Vented Discs, Brake Assist and Hill Hold Control Upfitter Switches
3/5/26, 10:25 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42598?ws=True&se=True&ssdType=OrderRequest&tsbt=False&knm=True 7/10

Wheels w/Chrome Hub Covers
Steel Spare Wheel
Compact Spare Tire Stored Underbody w/Crankdown
Body-Colored Front Bumper w/Black Rub Strip/Fascia Accent Body-Colored Rear Step Bumper w/Black Rub Strip/Fascia Accent Black Side Windows Trim
Body-Colored Door Handles
Chrome Bodyside Insert and Black Wheel Well Trim
Black Power Heated Side Mirrors w/Manual Folding
Fixed Rear Window w/Wiper and Defroster
Deep Tinted Glass
Speed Sensitive Variable Intermittent Wipers
Galvanized Steel/Aluminum Panels
Lip Spoiler
Black Grille
Liftgate Rear Cargo Access
Tailgate/Rear Door Lock Included w/Power Door Locks
Auto On/Off Projector Beam Led Low/High Beam Daytime Running Headlamps w/Delay-Off Perimeter/Approach Lights
LED Brakelights
Laminated Glass
Radio w/Seek-Scan, Clock, Speed Compensated Volume Control, Aux Audio Input Jack, Steering Wheel Controls, Voice Activation and Radio Data System
Radio: Uconnect 5 Nav w/10.1" Display
6 Speakers
Streaming Audio
Integrated Roof Antenna
Wireless Phone Connectivity
2 LCD Monitors In The Front
Connected Travel & Traffic Services Real-Time Traffic Display Front Seats w/Power 4-Way Driver Lumbar
12-Way Power Driver Seat -inc: Power Recline, Height Adjustment, Fore/Aft Movement, Cushion Tilt and Power 4-Way Lumbar Support
4-Way Passenger Seat -inc: Manual Recline, Fore/Aft Movement and Fold Flat 60-40 Folding Split-Bench Front Facing Fold Forward Seatback Cloth Rear Seat Manual Tilt/Telescoping Steering Column
Gauges -inc: Speedometer, Odometer, Voltmeter, Oil Pressure, Engine Coolant Temp, Tachometer, Oil Temperature, Transmission Fluid Temp, Engine Hour Meter, Trip Odometer and Trip Computer Power Rear Windows and Fixed 3rd Row Windows
4G LTE Wi-Fi Hot Spot (3-month or 3 GB trial included) Mobile Hotspot Internet Access Leather Steering Wheel
3/5/26, 10:25 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42598?ws=True&se=True&ssdType=OrderRequest&tsbt=False&knm=True 8/10

Front Cupholder
Rear Cupholder
Compass
Proximity Key For Doors And Push Button Start
Valet Function
Remote Keyless Entry w/Integrated Key Transmitter, 2 Door Curb/Courtesy, Illuminated Entry and Panic Button
Cruise Control w/Steering Wheel Controls
Voice Activated Dual Zone Front Automatic Air Conditioning Rear HVAC w/Separate Controls
HVAC -inc: Auxiliary Rear Heater, Headliner/Pillar Ducts and Console Ducts Illuminated Locking Glove Box
Driver Foot Rest
Full Cloth Headliner
Interior Trim -inc: Metal-Look Instrument Panel Insert, Metal-Look Door Panel Insert and Chrome Interior Accents
Cloth Bucket Seats w/Shift Insert -inc: cloth rear seat Day-Night Auto-Dimming Rearview Mirror
Driver And Passenger Visor Vanity Mirrors
Partial Floor Console w/Covered Storage, Mini Overhead Console w/Storage and 3 12V DC Power Outlets
Front And Rear Map Lights
Fade-To-Off Interior Lighting
Carpet Floor Trim
Full Vinyl/Rubber Floor Covering
Cargo Area Concealed Storage
Cargo Space Lights
Integrated Navigation System w/Voice Activation
Smart Device Integration
FOB Controls -inc: Keyfob Cargo Access and Keyfob Window Activation Driver / Passenger And Rear Door Bins
Power 1st Row Windows w/Driver And Passenger 1-Touch Up/Down Delayed Accessory Power
Power Door Locks w/Autolock Feature
Driver Information Center
Redundant Digital Speedometer
Trip Computer
Outside Temp Gauge
Digital/Analog Appearance
Manual w/Tilt Front Head Restraints and Fixed Rear Head Restraints Front Center Armrest w/Storage and Rear Center Armrest
3/5/26, 10:25 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42598?ws=True&se=True&ssdType=OrderRequest&tsbt=False&knm=True 9/10

#7 Seat Foam Cushion
Sentry Key Immobilizer
3 12V DC Power Outlets
Air Filtration
Electronic Stability Control (ESC) And Roll Stability Control (RSC) ABS And Driveline Traction Control
Side Impact Beams
Dual Stage Driver And Passenger Seat-Mounted Side Airbags Dodge Connect Emergency Sos Capability
ParkSense with Stop Rear Parking Sensors
Rear Cross Path Detection
Blind Spot w/Trailer Detection Blind Spot
Tire Specific Low Tire Pressure Warning
Dual Stage Driver And Passenger Front Airbags
Curtain 1st, 2nd And 3rd Row Airbags
Airbag Occupancy Sensor
Driver Knee Airbag
Rear Child Safety Locks
Outboard Front Lap And Shoulder Safety Belts -inc: Rear Center 3 Point, Height Adjusters and Pretensioners
ParkView Back-Up Camera
3/5/26, 10:25 AM Sell, service, and deliver letter
https://nationalautofleetgroup.com/OrderRequest/SSDPrint/42598?ws=True&se=True&ssdType=OrderRequest&tsbt=False&knm=True 10/10

Estimate
Customer No.:

Quote No.:

Quote To: Ship To:

Date Ship Via F.O.B. Terms
Purchase Order Number Sales Person Expiration Date
Quantity Item Number Description Unit Price Amount
03/19/26 Up-FIt Shop Origin Net 30
David Burchfield
City of Hanford Police Department City of Hanford Police Department 315 N Douty St
Accounts Payable
Hanford, CA 93230-000
319 N Douty
Hanford, CA 93230-000

HANFORD PD
18189
160 North Broadway
Fresno, CA 93701-1592
Required
04/18/26
(559) 233-8818Phone:

Email:
(559) 585-2540Phone:
[email protected]
Phone:

Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
'26 DODGE DURANGO
***PATROL FULL CAGE***
****HANFORD PD*****
UNIT# TBD
***FEDERAL SIGNAL***
***PROMO PACKAGE***
****************************
VALR51J Federal Signal 51" Valor
2 Color LightbarBar.

VALR51J-P1BH
3031.003031.001
HKB-DUR11B-HP Fed Sig Hook Kit
fits '11-'22 Dodge Durango

0.000.001
PF200S17B Federal Signal Pathfinder
200W Siren Amp with 17
Button Remote Controller
1340.001340.001
OBDCABLE25-DGCAN Fed Sig OBD Install Cable
fits Dodge Charger
137.00137.001
ES100C Federal Signal 100 watt
Siren Speaker

0.000.001
ESB-U Universal Siren Bracket
for ES100 Siren

0.000.001
EXPMOD24 Fed Sig Expansion Module
24 Channel
265.00265.001
PFSYNC-1 Fed Sig On Scene Sync Module
GPS/Ambient
223.00223.001
RBKIT2-COMPACT Fed Sig Compact Rumbler
Dual Speaker
449.00449.001
RBC2-DUR23ND Federal Signal Rumbler
Speaker Brackets
Old p/n RBC2-DUR21ND
2) Compact, no drill,(1) passenger
side bracket and (1) driver side bracket,
Dodge Durango, 2019-2023

0.000.001
Thank You

Estimate
Customer No.:

Quote No.:

Quote To: Ship To:

Date Ship Via F.O.B. Terms
Purchase Order Number Sales Person Expiration Date
Quantity Item Number Description Unit Price Amount
03/19/26 Up-FIt Shop Origin Net 30
David Burchfield
City of Hanford Police Department City of Hanford Police Department 315 N Douty St
Accounts Payable
Hanford, CA 93230-000
319 N Douty
Hanford, CA 93230-000

HANFORD PD
18189
160 North Broadway
Fresno, CA 93701-1592
Required
04/18/26
(559) 233-8818Phone:

Email:
(559) 585-2540Phone:
[email protected]
Phone:

Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
****************************
MPSW9-RBW Fed Sig Micropulse WideAngle
9 LED Light
R/B/W
378.00189.002
MPSMW9-DUR21MIRS Fed Sig Mirror Bracket Kit
fits '21+ Dodge Durango

29.0029.001
XSM1-BRA FS Xtreme Single Head
Interior Light
Blue/Red/Amber
(MOUNTED ON THE REAR LIFT GATE IN

THE REAR WINDOW)
288.00144.002
MPS61U-R Fed Signal Micro-Pulse Ultra
Red/Red
Old Part# MPS600U-RR
128.00128.001
MPS61U-B Fed Signal Micro-Pulse Ultra
Blue
Old p/n MPS600U-BB
128.00128.001

MOUNTED ON THE REAR LIFTGATE NEXT

TO THE LICENSE PLATE
792H Opticom Emitter 1946.00 1946.001

CONSOLE EQUIPMENT
C-VS-2300-DUR Havis VS 23" Console
fits '21 Dodge Durango
512.00512.001
C-EB40-SSP-1P Havis 4" Faceplate
fits PA300-CN/SSP3000

0.000.001
C-EB30-KCH-1P Havis 3" Faceplate
fits Kenwood KCH20r
Control Head

0.000.001
CUP2-1001 Havis Self Adjusting
Cup Holder

58.0058.001
C-ARPB-145 Havis Zebra ZQ520 & ZQ521
Printer Mount With Accessory
378.00378.001
Thank You

Estimate
Customer No.:

Quote No.:

Quote To: Ship To:

Date Ship Via F.O.B. Terms
Purchase Order Number Sales Person Expiration Date
Quantity Item Number Description Unit Price Amount
03/19/26 Up-FIt Shop Origin Net 30
David Burchfield
City of Hanford Police Department City of Hanford Police Department 315 N Douty St
Accounts Payable
Hanford, CA 93230-000
319 N Douty
Hanford, CA 93230-000

HANFORD PD
18189
160 North Broadway
Fresno, CA 93701-1592
Required
04/18/26
(559) 233-8818Phone:

Email:
(559) 585-2540Phone:
[email protected]
Phone:

Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Pocket & Short Armrest
C-FP-1 1" Blank Havis Face Plate 0.00 0.001
C-MCB Havis Console Mic Clip
Bracket

17.0017.001
MMSU-1 Magnetic Mic
Conversion Kit

42.0042.001
C-HDM-426 HAVIS Internal Pole Mount
For 2021-2023 Dodge Durango

37.0037.001
C-HDM-214 HAVIS 8.5" Heavy-Duty
Telescoping Pole,
Side Mount
157.00157.001
C-HDM-307 Havis Heavy Duty Adapter
HAVIS
Heavy-Duty Adapter Plate For Swivel Arm
Mounts

18.0018.001
MD-ARM-0603 Havis Swing Arm Mount
6" Base 3" Extension
129.00129.001
PKG-KB-2002 HAVIS Rugged Keyboard
With Mount
(No Emergency Key)
581.00581.001
C-DMM-3024 HAVIS Heavy-Duty Dash Mount
For 2021-2023 Dodge Durango
Fits 2021-2023 Dodge Durango police pursuit
and retail vehicles
No permanent modification
12 lb. weight carrying rating
Flip up to view or control the OEM equipment
360° rotation for driver or passenger easy
viewing
Positive dual action latch for security
Includes VESA 75 hole pattern
Configurable for many devices
Works with tunnel mount consoles
Heavy gauge steel, welded construction
449.00449.001
Thank You

Estimate
Customer No.:

Quote No.:

Quote To: Ship To:

Date Ship Via F.O.B. Terms
Purchase Order Number Sales Person Expiration Date
Quantity Item Number Description Unit Price Amount
03/19/26 Up-FIt Shop Origin Net 30
David Burchfield
City of Hanford Police Department City of Hanford Police Department 315 N Douty St
Accounts Payable
Hanford, CA 93230-000
319 N Douty
Hanford, CA 93230-000

HANFORD PD
18189
160 North Broadway
Fresno, CA 93701-1592
Required
04/18/26
(559) 233-8818Phone:

Email:
(559) 585-2540Phone:
[email protected]
Phone:

Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
Black powder coat finish
Lifetime warranty
Made in USA
DS-DELL-905N Havis Docking Station w/P/S
w/Std Port Replication
fits Dell Rugged 12 7230
897.00897.001
T5VPN Dell 7230 Rugged Extreme
Tablet 12" i5 16gb 256GB SSD
3660.003660.001
BARCODESZQ521 Zebra ZQ521 Printer 998.00 998.001
BARCODESZQOEADAPTOR Zebra DC-DC Vehicle Adapter 67.00 67.001

COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT
NX-5800BK Kenwood 50 watt, 1024CH
450-520MHz, RF Deck
3 Year Warranty
621.00621.001
KWD-5100CV Kenwood P25 Conventional
License Key
478.00478.001
KWD-AE31K Kenwood AES&DES
Encryption
Order L-5008 if Install Req.
516.00516.001
LABHRMIN 1/2 Hour Labor Charge 65.00 65.001
5AFM Kenwood NX-5000 Series
Single Deck, Single Control
Head Remote Mount
815.00815.001
ROOF-FT-NITI Stico Flexi-Whip Antenna
136mhz-1ghz. Includes
coax & RFU505ST
112.00112.001
RFU505ST PL259 For RG58 10.00 10.001
MB01-19005GB-GA Cradlepoint IBR-1900
1-yr NetCloud Mobile Performance Essentials
Plan and R1900 router with WiFi (5G
modem), no AC power supply or antennas,
Global
1699.001699.001
Thank You

Estimate
Customer No.:

Quote No.:

Quote To: Ship To:

Date Ship Via F.O.B. Terms
Purchase Order Number Sales Person Expiration Date
Quantity Item Number Description Unit Price Amount
03/19/26 Up-FIt Shop Origin Net 30
David Burchfield
City of Hanford Police Department City of Hanford Police Department 315 N Douty St
Accounts Payable
Hanford, CA 93230-000
319 N Douty
Hanford, CA 93230-000

HANFORD PD
18189
160 North Broadway
Fresno, CA 93701-1592
Required
04/18/26
(559) 233-8818Phone:

Email:
(559) 585-2540Phone:
[email protected]
Phone:

Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
PWAT-328-TW-7N1COOKS Panoram Antenna for
Cradlepoint R1900
465.00465.001
MISC. HARDWARE
BK0802DUR21 Setina PB450L4 Push Bumper
w/4 FedSig Micropulse Lights
fits '21+ Dodge Durango
1138.001138.001
PK1126DUR11 #10XL C Horizontal Sliding
Window Coated Polycarbonate
With Expanded Metal Window Security
Screen
XL Panel Partition
977.00977.001
GK10271U Setina Single T Rail
Weapon Mount 1 XL Lock
Old p/n GK10271UXLSSCA
348.00348.001
WK0595DUR11 Window Barrier
Polycarbonate
*FOR USE WITH:
-Stock Door Panels
-SETINA TPO Door Panels
305.00305.001
WK0040DUR11 Setina Window Barriers
Cargo Area 3pcs.
fits '11-'21 Dodge Durango
416.00416.001
QK0635DUR11 Setina Full Replacement
Transport Seat w/Center Pull
Belts. fits Dodge Durango
1487.001487.001
TK0841DUR11 Setina Cargo Box
w/Keypad Lock
fits '11-'21 Dodge Durango
1750.001750.001
TK1246DUR11 Setina E-Z Lift Cargo Deck
With Lower Radio Tray
fits Durango 11-present
917.00917.001
S3700K 9' Stop Stick w/Storage Bag
Red
598.00598.001
Thank You

Estimate
Customer No.:

Quote No.:

Quote To: Ship To:

Date Ship Via F.O.B. Terms
Purchase Order Number Sales Person Expiration Date
Quantity Item Number Description Unit Price Amount
03/19/26 Up-FIt Shop Origin Net 30
David Burchfield
City of Hanford Police Department City of Hanford Police Department 315 N Douty St
Accounts Payable
Hanford, CA 93230-000
319 N Douty
Hanford, CA 93230-000

HANFORD PD
18189
160 North Broadway
Fresno, CA 93701-1592
Required
04/18/26
(559) 233-8818Phone:

Email:
(559) 585-2540Phone:
[email protected]
Phone:

Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
S2100 Stop Stick Sleeve
9' Black

65.0065.001
S3704 Stop Stick Storage Bag 71.00 71.001

MISC INSTALLATION
****EQUIPMENT*****
5029B-BSS 12 Circuit Water Resistant
Fuse Block w/Cover

42.0042.001
5080 Relay 70.0014.005
7615B-BSS Blue Seas Solenoid/Timer.
120amp 12vdc
124.00124.001
7189B-BSS Resettable Circuit Breaker
Resettable Circuit Breaker

49.0049.001
NUS-2X Nu-Tech Roof Entry Port 25.00 25.001
MATERIALSFEE4 Installation Material
Bundle
400.00400.001
LAISREG Shop Installation
Complete Patrol Car
customer provided MDT
6682.50165.0040.500
GRAPHICSPACKAGE Graphics Package for
Public Safety Vehicle
Custom Reflective Vehicle Graphic Kits for
HANFORD POLICE'S black
2026 Dodge Durangos (unit numbers to be
determined)
(3M 680CR White Reflective Vinyl. Large
format print)
18 inch tall White Reflective two digit roof
numbers (roof numbers to be
determined)
831.00831.001
GRAPHICS INSTALL PKG Includes Surface Prep
Wrap Graphics Around All
Ends, Stars, & Badges
495.00165.003.000
Thank You

Estimate
Customer No.:

Quote No.:

Quote To: Ship To:

Date Ship Via F.O.B. Terms
Purchase Order Number Sales Person Expiration Date
Quantity Item Number Description Unit Price Amount
03/19/26 Up-FIt Shop Origin Net 30
David Burchfield
City of Hanford Police Department City of Hanford Police Department 315 N Douty St
Accounts Payable
Hanford, CA 93230-000
319 N Douty
Hanford, CA 93230-000

HANFORD PD
18189
160 North Broadway
Fresno, CA 93701-1592
Required
04/18/26
(559) 233-8818Phone:

Email:
(559) 585-2540Phone:
[email protected]
Phone:

Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
'26 DODGE DURANGO
UNIT# TBD
VIN#
LIC#
MILEAGE:

Subtotal
Freight charges
Sales tax @ 8.35000%

Total

37913.50
700.00
2527.63

41141.13

Thank You for Considering Cook's Communications
Thank You

13.A.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

MEETING DATE: 4/21/2026 AGENDA SECTION: PUBLIC HEARING

SUBJECT:

Kings Garden Apartments TEFRA (Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act)

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation:

1) Conduct a public hearing under the requirements of TEFRA and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code").

2) Adopt Resolution No.26-18-R approving the issuance of revenue bonds by the California Municipal Finance Authority (CMFA) in an amount not to exceed $25,000,000 in aggregate principal amount (the "Bonds") for the benefit of FH Kings Garden LIHTC LP to provide for the financing of the Project. Such adoption is solely for the purposes of satisfying the requirements of TEFRA, the Code, and the California Government Code Section 6500 (and the following) BACKGROUND:

PROJECT SUMMARY

FH Kings Garden LIHTC LP (the “Borrower”), a partnership in which Forward Housing (the “Developer”) or an affiliate serves as general partner, has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (“CMFA”) act as the municipal issuer of tax-exempt revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $25,000,000 (the “Bonds”). Bond proceeds will be used to finance or refinance the acquisition, rehabilitation, improvement, and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 1224 Fernot Way in Hanford (the “Project”). If issued, these bonds are the responsibility of the applicant and not the City of Hanford. For this project, the City serves as a conduit for this public hearing process and is otherwise not associated with the project.

TEFRA HEARING REQUIREMENTS

In order for the Bonds to qualify for tax-exempt status, the City of Hanford (the “City”) must conduct a public hearing (the “TEFRA Hearing”) to provide an opportunity for members of the public to comment on the proposed financing. Reasonable public notice of the hearing must be provided in advance. Following the close of the TEFRA Hearing, an applicable elected representative of the City must approve the issuance of the Bonds.

CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY

The CMFA is a joint powers authority established in 2004 to promote economic, cultural, and community development through the issuance of taxable and tax-exempt bonds. More than 350 municipalities, including the City of Hanford (which joined in 2015), are members. The CMFA assists local governments, nonprofit organizations, and private entities in accessing capital markets to finance projects that benefit California communities. Its Board and staff have significant experience in public finance.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The bonds are conduit financing instruments and will be the sole responsibility of the borrower. The City will have no financial, legal, moral, or other obligation or liability for repayment of the Bonds or for the Project. All financing documents will clearly state that the bonds are not obligations of the City or the State of California and are payable solely from funds provided by the borrower.

The CMFA’s conduit issuance program provides a financial benefit to member agencies. A portion of issuance fees is shared with member jurisdictions and with the California Foundation for Stronger Communities (the “Foundation”), which supports local charitable initiatives. It is anticipated that a portion of the issuance fee attributable to the City will be remitted to the City’s General Fund and may be used for any lawful municipal purpose.

SUMMARY:

In light of the foregoing, and to support affordable housing, staff recommends that the City conduct the TEFRA Hearing and adopt the resolution in favor of the CMFA issuing the Bonds.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution Number 26-18 Kings Garden TEFRA

RESOLUTION NO. 26-18

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HANFORD APPROVING

THE ISSUANCE OF THE CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL FINANCE AUTHORITY

EXEMPT FACILITY BONDS IN AN AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,000,000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF FINANCING OR REFINANCING THE

ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION, IMPROVEMENT AND EQUIPPING OF KINGS

GARDEN AND CERTAIN OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO
WHEREAS, FH Kings Garden LIHTC LP (the “Borrower”) a partnership of which Forward Housing (the “Developer”) or a related person to the Developer is the general partner, has requested that the California Municipal Finance Authority (the “Authority”) adopt a plan of financing providing for the issuance of exempt facility bonds for a qualified residential rental project pursuant to Section 142(a)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the “Code”) in one or more series issued from time to time, including bonds issued to refund such exempt facility bonds in one or more series from time to time, and at no time to exceed $25,000,000 in aggregate principal amount (the “Bonds”), to finance or refinance the acquisition, rehabilitation, improvement and equipping of a multifamily rental housing project located at 1224 Fernot Way, Hanford, California (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority must be approved by the City of Hanford (the “City”) because the Project is located within the territorial limits of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City (the “City Council”) is the elected legislative body of the City and is one of the “applicable elected representatives” required to approve the issuance of the Bonds under Section 147(f) of the Code; and WHEREAS, the Authority has requested that the City Council approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority in order to satisfy the public approval requirement of Section 147(f) of the Code and the requirements of Section 4 of the Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Relating to the California Municipal Finance Authority, dated as of January 1, 2004 (the “Agreement”), among certain local agencies, including the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 147(f) of the Code, the City Council has, following notice duly given, held a public hearing regarding the issuance of the Bonds, and now desires to approve the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Hanford as follows:

Section 1. The foregoing resolutions are true and correct.

Section 2. The City Council hereby approves the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority.

It is the purpose and intent of the City Council that this resolution constitute approval of the issuance of the Bonds by the Authority, for the purposes of (a) Section 147(f) of the Code by the applicable elected representative of the governmental unit having jurisdiction over the area in

which the Project is located, in accordance with said Section 147(f) and (b) Section 4 of the Agreement.

Section 3. The issuance of the Bonds shall be subject to the approval of the Authority of all financing documents relating thereto to which the Authority is a party. The City shall have no responsibility or liability whatsoever with respect to the Bonds.

Section 4. The adoption of this Resolution shall not obligate the City or any department thereof to (i) provide any financing to acquire or construct the Project or any refinancing of the Project; (ii) approve any application or request for or take any other action in connection with any planning approval, permit or other action necessary for the acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, installation or operation of the Project; (iii) make any contribution or advance any funds whatsoever to the Authority; or (iv) take any further action with respect to the Authority or its membership therein.

Section 5. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed, jointly and severally, to do any and all things and to execute and deliver any and all documents which they deem necessary or advisable in order to carry out, give effect to and comply with the terms and intent of this resolution and the financing transaction approved hereby.

Section 6. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Hanford on April 21, 2026.

AES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Attest:

By:__________________________
City Clerk

14.A.

AGENDA

STAFF REPORT

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

SUBJECT:

Adoption of the Urban Forest Master Plan

RECOMMENDATION:

Recommendation: Approve the adoption of the City of Hanford's 2026 Urban Forest Master Plan

Recommended Motion: I move to approve and adopt the 2026 Urban Forest Master Plan.

BACKGROUND:

In October 2024, the City of Hanford was awarded $1 million for the USDA Urban and Community Forest grant to launch a comprehensive urban forestry program. As such, Hanford is embracing a bold vision for a healthier, cooler, and more equitable city through the development of its first Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). This UFMP includes both an analysis of current conditions and a 30-year strategic roadmap to improve the management and health of Hanford’s trees. With support from a $1 million U.S. Forest Service grant, Hanford is investing in trees as critical infrastructure, including planting 600 new trees over the next two years, to address climate resilience, public health, and environmental justice.

This item was placed on the City Council's consent calendar on March 17, 2026. During the public comment period, a member of the public came forward to voice their concerns and asked that the item be pulled from the consent calendar. This action circumvented the established process for written public comment regarding the Urban Forest Main Plan (UFMP), which opened on January 20th and closed on February 20th. Staff answered Council's questions and, by a 4-1 vote, decided to table the item for a future City Council meeting.

Several concerns were raised at the Hanford City Council Meeting on March 17, 2026, regarding the quality and content of the Hanford Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). The concerns raised centered on the depth of research and analysis conducted for the UMP, Dudek’s qualifications, issues with the City’s current Street Trees and Shrubs Ordinance (Ch 12.12 of the municipal code), and the recommended updates to the ordinance included in Appendix C of the UFMP. The majority of those concerns are simply outside the scope of a typical UFMP.

In terms of qualifications and experience, Dudek has completed 22 UFMPs to date for cities, counties, and park districts within California, Washington, and South Carolina. Dudek has also completed several urban forestry program assessments, tree inventories, and tree ordinance updates for municipalities throughout California. Dudek’s urban forestry group has ISA-certified arborists,

urban foresters, and data analysts. The Hanford UFMP follows the same industry standards for analysis that Dudek applies to all of its urban forest planning documents. Many comments raised include research tasks that would be considered outside the scope of a standard urban forest management or master plan document, and are outside the scope of work included in the City's request for proposal document.

Many of the concerns raised at the March 17, 2026, City Council meeting concerned the current tree maintenance responsibilities and the liability placed on property owners by the City’s Street Trees and Shrubs Ordinance (Ch 12.12 of the municipal code). Dudek has provided recommended updates to clarify the City's versus property owners' tree maintenance responsibilities, improve the permitting process, and add an in-lieu fee process when replanting is not feasible on site. Adopting an updated ordinance would require a formal City Council adoption process separate from the UFMP adoption process. Adopting the UFMP and its appendices is a standalone request before the City Council that does not include official changes to the ordinance.

In addition to Dudek's qualifications and experience, the staff has assembled an urban forest technical advisory team comprising urban forest professionals with a combined 107 years of experience and dozens of Urban Forest Master Plans. Those organizations include:
• Urban Tree Foundation
• West Coast Arborists
• Tree Fresno
• Cal Poly San Luis Obispo

Staff recommends adopting the UFMP. Since the adoption of the modification to Hanford's Municipal Code requires a Public Hearing, staff will bring an item back at a later date specific to adoption of any accompanying appendices, including appendix C a draft of the related municipal code. It should be noted that the interpretation of the California Streets & Highway Code Sections 5600 and 5610 is correct in that Section 5610 makes landowners responsible for "sidewalk" and Section 5600 defines "sidewalks" broadly to include adjacent parking strips, which include trees and other landscaping that may be located within a parking strip.

As part of the Downtown 2010 Plan, Sycamore trees were specified as the street tree species adjacent to 10th Avenue. This was the wrong tree species for this location, as Sycamore trees tend to grow quickly, with their root systems rising, causing sidewalk damage. To mitigate this problem, the City has removed several trees and will look for future opportunities to plant improved species planted in this area in communication with adjacent property owners.

Urban Forest Master Plan Executive Summary
Hanford is embracing a bold vision for a healthier, cooler, and more equitable city through the development of its first Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP). This UFMP contains both an analysis of current conditions and a 30-year strategic road map for improving the management and health of Hanford's trees. With the support of a $1 million U. S. Forest Service grant, Hanford is investing in trees over the next two years to address climate resilience, public health, and environmental justice.

Key Findings and Planning Processes:

1. The City lost 140 acres of tree canopy between 2028 and 2022

2. The City would benefit from a maintenance management system to plant and maintain the urban forest.

3. Current staffing levels restrict the City's ability to plant trees and maintain the urban forest.

4. Residents of Hanford recognize the collaborative nature of planting and caring for trees.

5. Community members have limited awareness and understanding of the City's Tree and Shrubs Ordinance.

Hanford's 2025 public tree inventory by the numbers:
• Living Trees: 6,486
• Vacant Sites and Stumps: 600
• Dead-Standing: 159
• Unique tree species: 100
On February 17, 2026, Kevin Culligan of Dudek provided an overview of the Urban Forest Master Plan and answered the Council's questions. In tandem, the UFMP draft was released for public comment for 30 days. On February 18, 2026, an additional open house was held, during which public comments were incorporated into the final UFMP.

The Benefits of Trees Include:
• Cleaner air: Trees absorb pollutants and improve respiratory health • Economic Value: Tree-lined streets can increase property value by 3–15% • Cooler streets: Tree canopy can reduce temperatures by 10 degrees during extreme heat • Stormwater management: Trees intercept thousands of gallons of runoff annually • Mental health and recreation: Green spaces promote well-being and community connections

The scope of work includes the following eleven deliverables:

1. Comprehensive Tree Inventory

2. Implementation of Tree Inventory Software

3. Development of an Urban Forest Master Plan

4. Urban Tree Canopy and Land Cover Assessment

5. Socioeconomic/Equity Analysis

6. Urban Heat Island Mapping

7. Tree Health Analysis

8. Climate Vulnerability Analysis

9. Review of Operations and Existing Policies and Ordinances

10. Community Engagement through collaboration with local nonprofits

11. Planting 600 trees in various disadvantaged communities as identified by CEJST, EPA IRA tool, and EJ Screen.

Utilizing grant funding, the City has committed to planting 600 trees within the next 18 months. One hundred trees have been planted at the Hanford Softball Complex, replacing prior trees that died.

Another 20 trees are planned for that site. In addition, 200 more trees will be planted prior to May 2026. These trees are located within City Parks, sports parks, and in the medians.

Attached is the Urban Forest Master Plan, and accompanying appendices. This will provide a guideline for city staff and the public to use for our urban forest in the city.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The development of the UFMP was funded 100% through the USFS Urban and Community Forest

Grant. Future funding includes adjustments to the city's operating budget and grant opportunities, which staff will actively pursue.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Table 1 - Responses to Hanford UFMP public comments

2. City of Hanford Urban Forrest Master Plan

3. Hanford UFMP Appendices Combined

Table 1 – Responses to Hanford UFMP Public Comments Raised at the March 17, 2026, City Council Meeting
# Thematic Group Complaint Summary Response Category Response 1 Legal & Liability CA Streets & Highways Code
§5610 conflicts with City Tree
Ordinance — property owners
bear liability for both sidewalk
maintenance and the tree
replacement that damages
that same sidewalk
Partially Addressed;
Ordinance Update
Recommended
The UFMP acknowledges the tension between sidewalk maintenance liability and tree ordinance obligations. Dudek has recommended updates to clarify City vs. property owner maintenance responsibilities, improve the permitting process, and add an in-lieu fee option where replanting is infeasible. These recommended ordinance updates require separate formal Council adoption and are not enacted by adoption of the UFMP alone.
2 Legal & Liability Active litigation tying CA
§5610 to the City Tree
Ordinance was ongoing during
plan preparation and was not
considered
Outside Standard
UFMP Scope
Review of active litigation is outside the standard scope of a UFMP. Legal matters are appropriately handled by the City Attorney's office. The UFMP focuses on urban forestry planning guidance, not legal analysis. 3 Legal & Liability City selectively performed tree
maintenance on privately-
fronted parcels (10th Ave.),
creating implied municipal
responsibility despite the
2016 ordinance placing that
duty on property owners
Referred to City Staff Questions regarding specific City maintenance actions on 10th Ave. and any implied liability are operational matters for City Public Works and the City Attorney to address. The UFMP's recommended ordinance updates directly address future clarity on maintenance responsibilities of the City versus private property owners.
4 Legal & Liability Property owners cannot
comply with the tree ordinance
watering requirement because
all parkway irrigation is City-
controlled — no individual
connections exist per APN
Valid Concern;
Referred to City Staff
This is a legitimate operational conflict: the ordinance requires property owners to water street trees, yet the irrigation infrastructure is City- controlled. City Public Works should address this as part of the ordinance update process. The UFMP's recommended ordinance revisions provide an appropriate vehicle to resolve this inconsistency.

# Thematic Group Complaint Summary Response Category Response 5 Tree Selection &
Infrastructure
Sycamore trees on 10th Ave.
were an inappropriate species
selection for a sidewalk
parkway — they can reach
100'+ tall and will inevitably
damage infrastructure
Acknowledged; Within
UFMP Scope
Species suitability for specific planting locations is a core UFMP component. The updated tree species list (Appendix I) is organized by planting space width to guide 'right tree, right place' selection. The 10th Ave. situation reflects a historical planting decision; the UFMP's species guidance is designed to prevent similar mismatches going forward. 6 Tree Selection &
Infrastructure
Underground utility 'As Built'
maps were never requested —
essential for identifying where
trees should not be planted
(e.g., over high-voltage conduit
banks on 10th Ave.)
Partially Addressed;
Standard Practice
Referenced
A citywide utility engineering analysis is not typical for a standard UFMP.

The City's standard procedure is to call 811 and verify utilities at each individual planting site. During the tree inventory, Dudek documented vacant planting sites and recorded dimensions to guide future species and size selection (paired with Appendix I and H). From an arboricultural standpoint, underground electrical conduits rarely kill trees — conduits are insulated and typically buried deeper than root zones extend. 7 Tree Selection &
Infrastructure
Parkway trees on 10th Ave.
are planted directly over a
66KV conduit bank — property
owners cannot prevent a tree
hazard when the ordinance
directs them to create one
Valid Concern;
Referred to City Staff
/ Outside Standard
Scope
The specific conflict between existing tree locations and high-voltage underground infrastructure is an operational and liability matter for the City to resolve. The UFMP's utility conflict guidance (Appendix H) and species suitability recommendations are intended to prevent such situations in new plantings. Remediation of existing conflicts should be addressed by Public Works.
8 Tree Selection &
Infrastructure
No geotechnical analysis was
performed to assess subsoil
conditions (hardpan, pH) for
tree root zone suitability
across the city
Outside Standard
UFMP Scope
A full geotechnical or claypan analysis is outside the standard scope of a UFMP — it requires field coring, electromagnetic induction surveys, and soil science work more aligned with engineering projects. USDA Web Soil Survey data for Hanford indicate primarily loamy, well-drained soils with no indication of a hardpan layer within 200 cm of topsoil. Localized areas may vary; for current planting efforts (e.g., Softball Complex), the City has been amending soil with compost and mulch to improve porosity and moisture retention.

# Thematic Group Complaint Summary Response Category Response 9 Tree Selection &
Infrastructure
No analysis of municipal water
quality (2010–present) or its
correlation to tree mortality; no
comparison with privately-
irrigated areas outside City
limits
Outside Standard
UFMP Scope;
Addressed
Substantively
Water quality analysis is outside the standard UFMP scope. Hanford began chlorinating its water around February 2015. Research from Colorado State University indicates chlorine at standard municipal concentrations (2–4 ppm) does not threaten soil microorganism populations; Hanford reportedly used ~1 ppm. At these levels, chlorination alone is unlikely to explain mass tree mortality.

Understanding the cause of tree mortality requires additional information beyond one potential cause, as there are various reasons why individual or large tree mortality may occur. In this instance, it is not reasonable to conclude the chlorine caused the mortality of these trees. 10 Scope &
Methodology
No Public Records Request for
tree-related code enforcement
cases or tree-related litigation
over the last 5 years
Outside Standard
UFMP Scope;
Community Input
Addressed Differently
Systematic review of enforcement history and litigation is outside standard UFMP scope. Community concerns were gathered through staff interviews with City tree managers (to understand past legal issues), in- person public engagement events, and a community survey that specifically asked what factors make property owners less likely to plant trees. The Hanford Urban Tree Care Guide was also created to help residents understand their responsibilities under the current ordinance. 11 Scope &
Methodology
No timeline overlay of
escalating water restrictions
(2010–present) correlated
with canopy loss observed
2018–2022; exact cause of
canopy loss not identified
Partially Addressed The UFMP references canopy changes over 2018–2022. A quantitative correlation analysis linking water restriction timelines to canopy loss was not performed. Canopy loss over this period is likely multifactorial (drought, deferred maintenance, species mismatch, and potentially water quality/supply changes). A water restriction timeline as a contributing variable could strengthen future plan updates, but trees were exempted from the State's water use restrictions which ended in 2024.

# Thematic Group Complaint Summary Response Category Response 12 Regulatory
Omissions
California Solar Shade Control
Act (PRC §25980–25986) not
addressed — trees can
constitute a private nuisance if
they shade solar
collectors >10% between
10AM–2PM
Outside Standard
UFMP Scope
The Solar Shade Control Act governs private disputes between neighboring property owners and is not typically incorporated into municipal UFMPs. Additionally there are exceptions to the Solar Shade Control Act which state that the SSCA does not apply to: (i) a tree or shrub planted before the installation of a solar collector; (ii) the replacement of a tree or shrub that was growing prior to the installation of a solar collect and that dies or is removed for the protection of public health, safety, or the environment; or (iii) a tree or shrub that is subject to a city or county ordinance. In other words, as a result of Public Resources Code Section 25984, the SSCA does not apply to any street tree within the City because street trees are subject to HMC Ch. 12.12, which was adopted by ordinance.
13 Regulatory
Omissions
Title 24 Part 6 PV Mandate,
Executive Order N-7-22 (non-
functional turf irrigation ban),
City water regulations, and
Municipal Code §13.08.060
(sewer lateral responsibility)
not analyzed for their
combined effect on eligible
planting locations
Outside Standard
UFMP Scope
These state mandates and local codes primarily govern building energy standards, landscape irrigation, and utility maintenance rather than urban forestry directly. Their interaction with tree planting is an emerging policy area. The UFMP's drought-tolerant species recommendations and 'right tree, right place' guidance are implicitly consistent with these constraints. Explicit cross-referencing is beyond standard UFMP scope but could be incorporated into implementation guidelines. The Executive Order tasked the State Water Board the adoption of emergency regulations banning the irrigation of non-functional turf in commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors “except as it may be required to ensure the health and safety of trees and other perennial non-turf plantings.” Mr. Champi wrongly cites to the Executive Order as a form of legal authority that prohibits or limits the irrigation of street trees because the Executive Order is inapplicable to street trees for the following reasons: (i) the Executive Order exempts trees from the State Board’s emergency regulations regarding turf irrigation; and (ii) even if the State Board’s emergency regulations prohibited the watering of trees, the regulations expired in 2024.

# Thematic Group Complaint Summary Response Category Response 14 Survey & Data
Validity
Community survey sample size
of 69 respondents out of
~61,000 residents (0.0011%)
is not statistically valid
Acknowledged;
Limitation Noted
The survey sample size is small relative to total population and does not constitute a statistically representative sample. The survey was one input among multiple engagement methods — including staff interviews and in- person events — and was not the sole basis for plan recommendations.

Survey results limitations were stated and are presented as directional indicators. Broader community engagement is recommended in future update cycles.
15 Process & Contract Dudek sought a private
meeting with Mr. Champi
without City staff present
Process Matter;
Referred to City
Outreach to stakeholders raising substantive concerns is standard professional practice intended to understand those concerns constructively. All substantive responses are being provided through the formal public process with City staff fully involved. No decisions or commitments are made outside of that process.
16 Process & Contract Contract value (~$368,420)
perceived as excessive relative
to the depth of analysis
delivered
Outside UFMP
Comment Scope
The scope and fee were established through the City's formal RFP process and included a complete inventory of the City's public trees in addition to the UFMP document itself. The UFMP reflects the deliverables specified in that RFP. Additional analyses requested by Mr. Champi — geotechnical studies, water quality analysis, litigation review, comprehensive utility mapping — were not included in the RFP scope and would represent additional cost. Dudek has completed 22 UFMPs for cities, counties, and park districts in California, Washington, and South Carolina; the Hanford UFMP reflects the same industry-standard analysis applied across all of these projects.
17 Document Quality 'Management' misspelled as
'MANAGMENT' on Page 1 of
the Appendices
Correction
Acknowledged
Thank you for identifying this typographical error. This will be corrected in the final adopted version of the document.

THE CITY OF HANFORD

URBAN FOREST

MANAGMENT PLAN
PREPARED BY MARCH 2026

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

CITY COUNCIL
Mayor – Travis Paden
Council Member – Kimber Regan
Council Member – Nancy Howze
Council Member – Lou Martinez
Council Member – Mark Kairis

CITY MANAGER
City Manager – Mario Cifuentez

PARKS AND RECREATION

COMMISSION
Commissioner – Joseph Castaneda
Commissioner – Judy Scott
Commissioner – Gregory Kelley
Commissioner – Carolyn Hudgins
Commissioner – Sheldon Blackwell
Commissioner (Alternate) – Santiago Rodriguez

CITY DEPARTMENTS

AND STAFF
Parks and Community Services Director –
Bradley Albert
Parks Manager – Levi Winebrenner
Community Relations Manager – Brian Johnson
Utilities and Engineering Department Directo r–
Frank Senteno*
Associate Civil Engineer – Jaklin Hart*
Assistant City Manager – Jason Waters*
Public Works Director – Russ Sterling*
*Individuals who participated in portions of the Urban
Forest Management Plan development process.

HANFORD UFMP WORKING

GROUP MEMBERS
Joseph 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 – Engaged and Dedicated
Resident
Greg Mendonsa – Urban Tree Foundation
Dudek

INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF

KINGS COUNTY
Tachi Yokut Tribal Nation

FUNDING
Funding for the City of Hanford’s Urban Forest
Management Plan has been made possible
in part by an Urban and Community Forestry
Program grant from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s Forest Service, administered by
GreenLatinos.

Prepared By

URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN | v

TABLE OF

CONTENTS

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................................................V ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS ...............................................XI EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...........................................................XII 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 1

1.1 Benefits of an Urban Forest ........................................................ 3

1.2 Historical and Environmental Context ......................................... 3

1.3 Hanford's Urban Forest Today ..................................................... 6

1.4 Our Strategy for the Future: An Urban Forest
Management Plan ...................................................................... 10

1.5 Why Hanford Needs a UFMP ..................................................... 10 2 UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS ........................ 16

2.1 Key Findings ............................................................................... 17

2.2 Plan Development Process ........................................................ 22

2.2.1 Urban Forest Resource Assessment .......................................22

2.2.2 Urban Forest Management Assessment ................................22

2.2.3 Aligning Urban Forest Goals with Existing City Goals ............23

2.2.4 Understanding Hanford's Urban Forest Values
and Perspectives ......................................................................23 3 STRATEGIC PLAN ................................................................ 28

3.1 Vision .......................................................................................... 29

3.2 Guiding Principles ...................................................................... 31

3.3 Goals, Actions, and Implementation Plan .................................. 32

3.3.1 Budgeting to Achieve Hanford’s Urban Forest Goals .............40

3.3.2 Funding to Achieve the City’s Urban Forest Goals ..................42

3.4 Monitoring Plan .......................................................................... 44 4 REFERENCES ....................................................................... 48

viii | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLES
Table 2-1. Department Interview Participants ................................. 24 Table 2-2.Working Group Participants ............................................. 26 Table 3-1. Hanford UFMP's Guiding Principles ................................ 31 Table 3-2. Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and
Sustainable Urban Forest ................................................ 32 Table 3-3. Guiding Principle No. 2: Community-Centered
Stewardship ..................................................................... 36 Table 3-4. Guiding Principle No. 3: A Connected
and Healthy Hanford ....................................................... 38 Table 3-5. Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment Goal Setting Tool Summary ..................................................... 45

FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Hanford's Urban Forest .................................................... 1 Figure 1-2. The Benefits of Trees ....................................................... 2 Figure 1-3. Historic Map of Tulare Lake and Basin ............................ 4 Figure 1-4. Hanford Goes Green Kickoff Tree Planting ...................... 6 Figure 1-5. 2022 Tree Canopy Cover in Hanford ................................ 7 Figure 1-6. Hanford's 2025 Public Tree Inventory .............................. 8 Figure 1-7. Top 10 Most Common Tree Inventory Species ................ 9 Figure 1-8. 2022 Canopy Cover by Census Tract ............................. 11 Figure 1-9. Urban Heat Island Effect ................................................ 13 Figure 2-1. Urban Tree Care Guide ................................................... 21

ACRONYMS &

ABBREVIATIONS

Acronym/
Abbreviation Definition
BMP: best management pr actices
City/Hanford : City of Hanford
Ordinance: Trees and Shrubs Ordinance
UFMP: Urban F orest Management Plan

ACRONYMS &

ABBREVIATIONS

xii | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A GREENER FUTURE

FOR HANFORD
Hanford is embracing a bold vision for a healthier, cooler, and more equitable city through the development of its first Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). This UFMP contains both an analysis of current conditions, as well as a 30-year strategic road map for improving the management and health of Hanford’s trees. With support from a $1 million U.S. Forest Service grant, Hanford is investing in trees as critical infrastructure, including planting 600 new trees over the next two years, to address climate resilience, public health, and environmental justice.

Urban trees are more than just greenery—they are essential to Hanford’s quality of life:

WHY TREES MATTER

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban trees are more than just greenery—they are essential to Hanford’s quality of life:

WHY TREES MATTER
(Sources: Nowak 2002, Rahman et al. 2023, White et al. 2014, Wolf 2009) Cooler Streets
Tree canopy can reduce
temperatures by up to 10°F during
extreme heat.

Cleaner Air
Trees absorb pollutants and improve
respiratory health.

Stormwater Management
Trees intercept thousands of gallons
of runoff annually.

Mental Health & Recreation
Green spaces promote well-being
and community connection.

Economic Value
Tree-lined streets can increase property
values by 3–15%.

xiv | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hanford’s urban forest includes trees in parks, streets, private yards, and commercial areas. A comprehensive tree inventory and canopy cover assessment were conducted as part of this project. • Hanford has a current (2022) city-wide canopy cover of 8%, down from 9.5% in 2018. This is a loss of 140 canopy acres and equates to losing roughly 106 football fields of tree cover.

Roughly 138 acres of this loss was on private property, which is why the City will need help from residents to reach their future urban forest goals.
• Hanford’s 2025 public tree inventory by the numbers:

CURRENT URBAN

FOREST SNAPSHOT SNAPSHOT
TOP 3 SPECIES

IN HANFORD
(FROM THE CITY'S 2025

PUBLIC TREE INVENTORY)

Living Trees: 6,486
Dead-standing: 159
Vacant Sites & Stumps: 600
Unique Tree Species: 100
Chinese pistache
Pistacia chinensis
Crepe myrtle
Lagerstroemia indica
Chinese hackberry
Celtis sinensis
34%

9.1%

7.2%

xvi | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

KEY CHALLENGES TO THE URBAN FOREST
Hanford faces a number of key environmental, social, and financial challenges:

Extreme Heat: Summer highs often reach over 100°F for consecutive days.

Tree Equity Gaps: Underserved areas lack tree canopy and suffer from higher heat exposure and the urban heat island effect.

Limited Resources: Funding and staffing constraints impact long-term maintenance of the City’s public trees.

Limited public knowledge of the Trees and Shrubs Ordinance: Over half of the respondents who took the UFMP survey were not aware of Hanford’s ordinance or their responsibilities for maintaining trees in the parkway adjacent to their properties. The Trees and Shrubs Ordinance was updated as part of this project to clarify protection standards, maintenance responsibilities, the tree removal permit process, and replacement requirements.

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | xvii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hanford Future Urban Forest Vision:

Hanford’ s trees are a valuable resource, sustainably managed by the City and its residents, providing shade from heat, cleaner air to breathe, increasing property values, and enhancing the quality of life for our current and future generations.

Goals - Achieving the future urban forest vision will include:

1. Increasing City-wide Canopy Cover to 10% by 2055 to improve climate resilience.

Roughly 4,500 new trees will need to be planted over the next 30 years to achieve this goal.

2. Prioritizing Tree Equity through prioritizing tree planting in census tracts with the lowest canopy cover and access to green space.

3. Enhancing Tree Diversity, Health, and Sustainability through the development of additional financial and human resources, a shift to proactive maintenance, improving tree species selection, and better tracking of tree-related work records.

4. Engaging the Community by providing education and resources including an Urban Tree Care Guide and encouraging stewardship through tree giveaways.

VISION & GOALS

xviii | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The UFMP was shaped by community input through surveys, outreach events, and a Working Group with various community partners and interested parties.

Here is what we heard from the 69 survey respondents:
95% of respondents were in support of having
neighborhood street trees planted in the public
right-of-ways along roadways
Here is what we heard from the 82 attendees who participated at our UFMP outreach table:

The top four areas where attendees want
to see more trees planted are Parks (22%),
Schools (20%), Streets/Sidewalks (14%), and
Parking Lots (14%).

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

• Plant a tree on your property, request a tree to be planted in the parkway adjacent to your property, or participate in a volunteer tree planting event. Picking the “right tree for the right place” is important and a recommended tree species list is provided in Appendix I.
• Talk to your schools about planting more trees to shade playgrounds. • Help water and care for trees in your neighborhood.
• Attend a City-hosted educational workshop about trees. • Talk to your neighbors and friends about the importance of trees and the benefits they provide.
• Help report tree issues on public property using the My Hanford reporting website or mobile app: https:/ /www.cityofhanfordca.com/1385/Report-My-Hanford.

HOW YOU CAN GET INVOLVED

1 INTRODUCTION

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 1

INTRODUCTION
The City of Hanford’s (City’s) urban forest is made up of all the public and private trees within the city limits, including trees in parks like Civic Park and Hidden Valley Park, front and back yards, parking lots, and along streets and sidewalks in downtown Hanford or in residential neighborhoods (see Figure 1-1). All trees in Hanford, regardless of ownership, provide urban forestry benefits to the community, and community members play an important role in maintaining and enhancing the City’s urban forest. 1 INTRODUCTION
Figure 1-1. Hanford's Urban Forest
Source: Dudek

2 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

CLEANER AIR
Trees absorb pollutants and filter
particulates out of the air by trapping
them on their leaves and bark.

CONNECTING

WITH NEIGHBORS
Trees can encourage civic pride
while tree plantings provide
opportunities for community
involvement.

SHADE
Trees cool cities by up to 10˚F
and shaded areas can be 20-40˚F
cooler than peak temperatures.

SAVING ENERGY
Shade trees can lower air-conditioning costs
56% annually, burning fewer fossil fuels.

BEAUTY
Trees add character to city streets and
residential areas as they radiate with
colors, flowers, textures, and shapes.

FRESH FOOD
Trees provide food in the
form of fruits, nuts, leaves,
bark, and roots.

WILDLIFE HABITAT
Trees support the lives of many wildlife and insect
species, providing them with food, shelter, and nesting sites. A large diversity of tree species will attract a greater variety of pollinating insects, which benefits
nearby agriculture.

HEALTHIER

COMMUNITIES
Trees improve mental
health and public health by
decreasing respiratory illnesses
and encouraging outdoor
recreation.

HEALTH

THE BENEFITS OF TREES

ENVIRONMENTAL/INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICES
Figure 1-2. The Benefits of Trees
Source: Dudek 2024

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 3

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Benefits of an Urban Forest
Many Hanford residents already appreciate the commonly known benefits of trees such as the shade they provide on hot days or the aesthetic beauty they provide to the Hanford’s streetscapes, residential neighborhoods, and parks. Figure 1-2 illustrates the many other benefits that Hanford’s trees provide, including some that are less widely known, such as providing habitat and food for pollinating insects, which in turn, can benefit the local agriculture that relies on those insects to pollinate their crops (Daniels et al. 2020). It is important that trees are properly cared for so that their benefits can be maximized for the whole community.

1.2 Historical and Environmental Context
Early History
Understanding the history and environmental setting of Hanford helps give context for future urban forest planning. The earliest known history of this territory was that of the Yokuts tribe. Yokuts translates to “people” and is commonly used to refer to the indigenous people who have lived in and tended to the Central Valley for thousands of years. There were many tribes throughout the valley that were shaped by the ecosystems they lived near, such as the delta, rivers, lakes, and grasslands, but united by a common language. The valley was a place of great abundance for Yokuts. Its large rivers were teeming with seasonal salmon and trout runs; expansive riparian forests and oak woodlands provided ample acorns and fruit; vast lakes and wetlands housed countless waterfowl; endless grasslands with spring wildflowers were roamed by elk, deer, and pronghorn; and there was also alkali scrub land, which is vital to many unique species like the California kangaroo rat (Dipodomys californicus) and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica) (Noss 2020).

4 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION
The most prominent tribe today nearest to Hanford is the Tachi Yokuts, which historically lived around the banks of Tulare Lake, or Pa’ashi as it was originally called. At its historical capacity, the Tulare Lake was the largest freshwater lake west of the Great Lakes in what would
become the United States (Figure 1-3). The Hanford
region, being between the Kings River to the north and
Tulare Lake to the south, historically supported a vast woodland primarily dominated by the valley oak (Quercus lobata). Large valley oaks can still be found throughout Hanford today, and these trees can live up to 600 years old (CNPS 2025). The staple food source for the Yokuts
were acorns from oaks (Quercus spp.) and the tubers of
the tule (Schoenoplectus acutus) that grew in wetlands
and around lakes. In fact, the Spanish named Tulare Lake for the dense tule surrounding it.

European Arrival Through Incorporation
The arrival of European settlers after the Gold Rush in the mid-1800s led to significant changes, including the diversion of rivers, draining of wetlands, and development of large-scale agriculture, transforming the landscape
dramatically (Latta 1949; Best 2023).

Hanford originated in 1877 when the Southern Pacific
Railway passed through a modest sheep camp. The
Figure 1-3. Historic Map of Tulare Lake and Basin
Source: Austin 2012

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 5

INTRODUCTION
settlement was named after railroad auditor James Madison Hanford. The railway’s presence fueled rapid growth, making Hanford a regional trade hub, but water delivery was crucial to the survival of the city. Workers dug canals like the People’s Ditch and Last Chance Ditch by hand using crude equipment. Canals were deliberately planted with trees and bushes to strengthen the dikes, protect children and animals from falling in, and prevent evaporation. The value of irrigation canals as transportation arteries and recreational facilities was also appreciated by many residents (Roberts 2005). Hanford was officially incorporated as a city in 1891 and became the county seat when Kings County formed in 1893 (City of Hanford 2025a).
1900s and Early 2000s
Throughout the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, Hanford evolved into a vibrant community and transitioned to a modern city government. Responding to threats to its downtown vitality in the 1970s, city leaders and merchants launched revitalization programs, investing in infrastructure, historic preservation, and beautification.

These efforts earned statewide and national recognition, and in 2000, the Main Street Program was launched to continue fostering growth. Hanford's historic charm and civic pride remain central to its ongoing development (City of Hanford 2025a). Hanford was first recognized as a Tree City USA in 2007 and has maintained this recognition for the last 18 years. In November 2015, the City created and adopted its first Trees and Shrubs Ordinance (Ordinance) (Chapter 12.12 of the Municipal Code), which protects street trees and assigns responsibilities for tree maintenance and replacement.

The Ordinance was provided with update recommendations as part of this project to clarify tree protection standards, maintenance responsibilities, replacement requirements, fees, and the tree removal permit process.

6 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION
Current Planning Efforts
The City kicked off the Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) Project in October 2024 with a tree planting celebration called “Hanford Goes Green” (Figure 1-4) after receiving an Urban and Community Forestry grant from the U.S Department of Agriculture.

In December 2024, the City hired the environmental consultant Dudek, and the official urban forest management planning process began in January 2025. Another large part of the City grant included funding to plant 600 new trees in Hanford, which will be taking place over fall 2025 and fall 2026. To learn more about the full urban forest management plan development process, see Section 2.2, Plan Development Process. Concurrently with the UFMP effort, the City and partner agencies are developing a Transit-Oriented Development and Connectivity Plan that, once implemented, is meant to create a thriving, inclusive, and transit-oriented community near the new high speed rail station, ensuring that some of the state’s most disadvantaged and low-income communities can be the direct beneficiaries of high-speed rail’s arrival (City of Hanford 2025b).

1.3 Hanford’s Urban Forest Today
One of the main metrics for measuring the success of a city’s urban forest is the extent and distribution of its canopy cover, which is the portion of ground that is covered or shaded by tree leaves, branches, and stems when looking from a bird’s eye view. Using 2022 data, Hanford was found to have a canopy cover of 8.0% when looking at all of the public and private trees within the city’s urban boundary (see Figure 1-5). This canopy cover level has decreased by

1.5 percentage points or 140 acres since 2018. This loss of canopy is discussed further in Section 2.1, Key Findings. A full detailed breakdown of the canopy cover analysis including methodology and recommendations can be found in Appendix A, Urban Forest Resources Report.

Figure 1-4. Hanford Goes Green Kickoff Tree Planting
Source: Austin 2012

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 7

INTRODUCTION
Figure 1-5. 2022 Tree Canopy Cover in Hanford
Source: Dudek 2025; USFS and CAL FIRE 2022
Hanford’s public inventory of nearly 6,500
living trees (Figure 1-6) consists of 100
different types (species) of trees. Figure 1-7
shows the top 10 most common tree species
within Hanford’s public tree inventory. Chinese
pistache (Pistacia chinensis) trees make up
over one third of the total inventory. While
Chinese pistache does well in Hanford, if this
tree species becomes vulnerable to a future
pest or pathogen, it could potentially lead to
the decline and/or removal of a large number
of public trees and result in many lost benefits
to the community. Having an urban forest with
a large diversity of tree species combined
with a diversity of different tree age groups
builds resilience to future threats whether
from climate, pests, or pathogens. With this
snapshot of Hanford’s urban forest in mind,
let’s explore what a UFMP is, and why the City
needs one.

Figure 1-4. Hanford Goes Green Kickoff Tree Planting

Figure 1-6. Hanford's 2025 Public Tree Inventory
Source: Austin 2012
An inventory of all City-owned trees
was conducted in the late spring
and early summer of 2025 (Figure
1-6). Here are some interesting
facts about Hanford’s public trees:
• Living Trees: 6,486
• Stumps: 113
• Dead-standing: 159
• Vacant Sites: 487
• Unique Tree Species: 100
• Unique Genera: 64

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 9

INTRODUCTION
Figure 1-7. Top 10 Most Common Tree Inventory Species
Source: Dudek 2025; USFS and CAL FIRE 2022

4. Platanus X hispanica
London plane

10. Quercus virginiana
Southern live oak

7. Platanus racemosa
California sycamore

8. Cinnamomum camphora
camphor tree

5. Quercus lobata
Valley oak

9. Pinus halepensis
Aleppo pine

3. Celtis sinensis
Chinese hackberry

6.2%

2. Lagerstroemia indica
Crape myrtle

9.1%

2.0%2.4% 2.2%

3.7%

2.1%

1. Pistacia chinensis
Chinese pistache

7.2%34.3%

6. Pinus canariensis
Canary Island Pine

2.8%

10 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION

1.4 Our Strategy for the Future:

An Urban Forest Management Plan
An urban forest management plan (UFMP) is a strategic road map and guiding document that the City will use to set and achieve urban forest goals over the next 30 years. The planning process involved a comprehensive analysis of existing conditions, identification of key challenges and opportunities, and the development of actionable goals to support long-term sustainability and the resilience of Hanford’s urban forest. While the City has long demonstrated a commitment to tree planting and canopy enhancement, the creation of this UFMP represents the first comprehensive effort to align policies, staffing, and field practices under a unified strategy.

1.5 Why Hanford Needs a UFMP
New Period of Transformation
Hanford is entering a period of significant transformation. With major public projects on the horizon such as the creation of the new Heroes Park, upgrades to East Lacey Boulevard, and the construction of the California High-Speed Rail station, the City is preparing for increased regional prominence, enhanced connectivity, and long-term economic and community growth. These developments present a unique opportunity at this crucial time to shape Hanford’s future and establish new tree canopy in a way that is resilient, equitable, and community focused.

Equitable access to tree canopy is a critical issue for Hanford’s urban forest. Although trees provide essential benefits such as shade, cooling, and improved air quality, these benefits are not shared evenly across the city. The areas with the least canopy are often the same places where residents face higher levels of poverty, greater exposure to summer heat, and limited access to shaded public spaces.

These conditions are most evident in central, south, and southeast Hanford, where tree cover is sparse and large areas of pavement and buildings leave residents more vulnerable to extreme heat (see Figure 1-8). In contrast, neighborhoods in north and west Hanford have more established tree cover and greater access to shade.

This uneven distribution creates disparities in comfort, health, and livability across the community.

The UFMP provides an opportunity to address these inequities by guiding tree planting and canopy investment in neighborhoods where they are needed most. The City can reduce heat-related risks, improve quality of life, and ensure that all residents benefit from the protection and services provided by a healthy urban forest by focusing on areas with limited canopy and higher social vulnerability.

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 11

INTRODUCTION
Figure 1-8. 2022 Canopy Cover by Census Tract
Source: Dudek 2025

12 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION
Environmental Threats
Trees in cities face many challenges including environmental stressors and those caused by people. In Hanford, some of the environmental threats for trees include extreme heat, drought, and high boron levels in the soil. These conditions, intensified by climate change, make urban trees more susceptible to water stress, pests, diseases, and other emerging threats. Invasive insects, fungal pathogens, and shifting weather patterns can weaken tree health and shorten lifespans, often necessitating removal to protect public safety and infrastructure. Each tree lost diminishes the vital benefits they provide including cooling shade, cleaner air, and a healthier, more livable city. This plan helps the City to identify potential threats, evaluate risks they present, and develop strategies to enhance resiliency.

Mitigating Impacts of a Hotter Future Climate
Hanford’s trees are a crucial component in reducing the impact of the predicted hotter future climate. People in Hanford are already experiencing persistent extreme heat in the summers with average temperatures regularly exceeding 90°F and often remaining in the triple digits for several consecutive days. Other climate and health risks include drought, localized flooding, and poor air quality.

These issues are expected to increase in the future according to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment (Cayan 2018). Trees will be vital in mitigating these impacts and protecting Hanford’s current and future community members from these environmental stressors by providing shade and cooler temperatures on hot summer days, reducing the urban heat island effect (Figure 1-9), and improving air quality. At the same time, Hanford’s trees will also need more support from City staff and private property owners over the summer to ensure they are receiving enough water during those extreme heat days. The UFMP provides planting recommendations for drought-tolerant tree species, as well as recommended management actions to help the City better prepare and maintain the existing trees for climate-related challenges, ensuring they stay healthy for a long time.

Management
Urban forest management in Hanford has historically been implemented without a dedicated International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist on staff and with limited documentation of tree-related activities. Tree maintenance practices vary between City crews and contractors, highlighting the need for clear standards and guidance. These conditions have shaped a program that is responsive in addressing immediate needs yet limited in its ability to plan proactively or evaluate long-term outcomes. Despite these challenges, City staff and leadership have shown a clear interest in strengthening the program.

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 13

INTRODUCTION
Figure 1-9. Urban Heat Island Effect
Source: EPA 2019, 2020

14 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

INTRODUCTION
Many residents are unaware of the City’s Trees and Shrubs Ordinance and their responsibilities related to caring for trees in the public right-of-way. Parkway tree maintenance is largely the responsibility of adjacent property owners, which reduces City tree management costs, but also creates other issues such as deferred care, occasional unpermitted removals, and community frustration related to the responsibility of maintaining City-planted trees. The UFMP helps clarify roles, improve communication, and support more coordinated stewardship across public and private landscapes.

Funding constraints further complicate the City’s ability to manage and grow its urban forest. With limited resources, it is essential to prioritize actions that deliver measurable value, including reduced liability, improved public safety, and long-term cost savings. Targeted efforts are needed to ensure City resources are consistently applied and responsive to emerging challenges, including extreme heat, declining canopy, and increasing development pressure. Despite the many challenges, the City is taking proactive steps to ensure the foundational elements of their urban forestry program are in place. As part of this UFMP effort, the City is in the process of making updates to the Ordinance to clarify tree maintenance responsibilities, replanting requirements, and penalties; they developed a tree inventory and workflow management system for all publicly managed trees; and they have started to build partnerships with community organizations and schools for future tree planting efforts. This plan represents a practical step forward in improving Hanford’s urban forest. It is designed to help the City manage its trees with greater clarity, consistency, and purpose. By investing in thoughtful planning, the City can build a healthier, safer, and more resilient urban forest that reflects the values and needs of its community members. For a deeper dive into the analysis and recommendations for the City’s urban forest management program, see Appendix B, Urban Forest Management Staffing and Budget Report.

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 15

INTRODUCTION

2 UFMP KEY FINDINGS

AND PLANNING PROCESS

2 UFMP KEY FINDINGS

AND PLANNING PROCESS

2.1 UFMP Key Findings
and Planning Process

The City lost 140 acres of tree canopy between
2018 and 2022.#1
#2
The City would benefit from a maintenance management
system for tree-related work
#3
Current staffing levels restrict the City’s ability to plant trees and maintain the urban forest
#4
Residents of Hanford recognize the collaborative
nature of planting and caring for trees.
#5
Community members have limited awareness and
understanding of the City’s Trees and
Shrubs Ordinance.

The development of this
UFMP involved a thorough
assessment of the City’s
urban forest resources,
policies, and practices.

The following key
findings highlight critical
strengths, challenges, and
opportunities that emerged
through data analysis,
field observations, and
stakeholder input.

UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 17

18 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS18 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
Key Finding #2
The City would benefit from a
maintenance management system
for tree-related work.

Without work record data, the City is not able to accurately determine how much they annually spend on the services they provide for tree planting, establishment care, tree pruning, removals, and other management actions. Understanding costs for each tree service metric and management activity is essential for the City to create annual budgets and project its future budgetary needs. This would also clarify how staff and contractor time is spent, determine where resources should be prioritized to better manage the urban forest, and determine whether the City efficiently completes urban forest management related tasks.

Key Finding #1
The City lost 140 acres of tree
canopy between 2018 and 2022.

Tree canopy cover within Hanford’s urban boundary declined from 905 acres in 2018 to 765 acres in 2022, reducing overall cover from

9.5% to 8.0%. This reduction of 140 acres is equivalent to losing approximately 106 football fields of tree cover. Private parcels accounted for the largest change, losing 138 acres of canopy.

Public parcels gained 1 acre during this time, while canopy in streetscapes, medians, and other areas outside the parcel dataset declined by 3 acres. The full canopy cover and public tree inventory analyses can be found in Appendix A.

This trend shows that canopy is being lost faster than it is being replaced, especially on private property where the majority (82%) of Hanford’s trees are located. Protecting and expanding the canopy will require property owners to play a central role, supported by City policies, incentives, outreach, and continued investment in public trees and partnerships.

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 19
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESSCITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 19

UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
Key Finding #3
Current staffing levels restrict the City’s
ability to plant trees and maintain the
urban forest.

The City has historically faced a combination of limited funding for staff positions and difficulties in consistently filling the existing positions. This challenge impacts the City’s ability to proactively plant trees, provide sufficient irrigation, conduct routine maintenance, and implement strategic initiatives. To address staffing limitations in the short term, the City should prioritize tree trimming and removals and take advantage of new development projects to increase tree planting, supplemented by grant funding.

The City has set a goal to strengthen the urban forestry program through the addition of a dedicated urban forester and field staff team that would manage the City’s public tree services, tree contractor services, and the implementation of the UFMP Strategic Plan. The City is currently working on identifying additional sources of funding through grants and other financial sources (see Section 3.4.1) to help in filling the staffing positions that were recommended as part of Appendix B. The City is also working on building partnerships with community organizations to create opportunities for volunteer- led urban forest improvement efforts. Municipal programs with certified arborists and sufficient field crews consistently demonstrate improved canopy health, reduced public safety liabilities, and more equitable service delivery, resulting in a more resilient urban forest.

20 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS20 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
Key Finding #4
Residents of Hanford recognize the
collaborative nature of planting and
caring for trees.

During the community engagement phase of the UFMP, both survey participants and several attendees of the Thursday Night Market events shared that residents understand the City cannot completely maintain all of Hanford’s trees by themselves.

While some residents voiced financial concerns about caring for trees, several others said they would like to understand how they can help with the effort of maintaining trees in Hanford for the benefit of their community. Hanford residents and the City have demonstrated that they care for trees and are willing to take proactive measures to ensure there are sufficient funds and partnerships in place to grow and maintain Hanford’s trees. This is evident with the passing of local Measure H, which includes funds for park improvements, as well as the with City applying for and being awarded an Urban and Community Forestry grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service under the Inflation Reduction Act (administered by Green Latinos). This grant is supporting this UFMP effort and the planting of 600 new trees in Hanford. The City has also taken steps to support ongoing efforts to improve the City’s urban forest by building partnerships with a wide range of urban forestry experts and community organizations like Kings County Action Organization, the Urban Tree Foundation, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, and Tree Fresno. The City is committed to ongoing outreach efforts after the completion of the UFMP to inform and educate the community on how they can best help grow and maintain City trees.

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 21
UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESSCITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 21

UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
Key Finding #5
Community members have limited
awareness and understanding of the
City’s Trees and Shrubs Ordinance.

The City’s Ordinance places the responsibility of right-of-way tree maintenance on the adjacent property owner. Many community members are not aware of this policy, resulting in trees not receiving proper care. The City has acknowledged that more can be done to educate and inform residents and business owners on the specifics of the Ordinance. This has been identified as a top priority for the next several years. The Ordinance was reviewed and provided recommended updates during the UFMP process to improve clarity on ordinance definitions, City versus property owner responsibilities, replanting requirements, and penalties for unauthorized tree removals. A full summary of the ordinance updates can be found in Appendix C, Hanford Trees and Shrubs Ordinance Recommended Updates Summary.

An Urban Tree Care Guide (see Figure 2-1) has been created to provide information to community members in Hanford on how to plant, water, maintain, and prune residential trees. This guide also provides an information page summarizing the key facts from the Ordinance, tree maintenance responsibilities for property owners, a recommended list of climate-appropriate tree species for Hanford, and a guide to ensure the “right tree” is planted in the “right place.”
Figure 2-1. Urban Tree Care Guide

22 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS

2.2 Plan Dev elopment Process
The City kicked off the UFMP project in October 2024 with a tree planting celebration called “Hanford Goes Green” after receiving the previously mentioned Urban and Community Forestry grant. In December 2024, the City hired the environmental consultant Dudek, and the first UFMP project meeting was held in January 2025. The City’s parks and community services director, parks manager, and community relations manager were the main staff responsible for overseeing the UFMP’s development and provided important insights into the City’s urban forestry practices, as well as the specific City standard documents and other datasets that were crucial for analysis. These City staff also coordinated with internal and external stakeholders and co-hosted community engagement events, which shed light on the community’s interactions and perspective around City trees. The following sections detail the analysis, community engagement activities, and processes involved in developing the UFMP .

2.2.1 U rban Forest Resource Assessment
Public Tree Inventory
Tree inventory data were collected between April and July 2025 for all 7,245 City-managed sites, including along sidewalks, medians, parks, City facilities, and boundaries of Landscape Assessment Districts. An accurate inventory helps determine the current condition and environmental benefits of City trees and inform management recommendations.

Canopy Cover Analysis
Existing canopy cover data from 2022 and 2018, created by the U.S. Forest Service and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, were analyzed to identify total area covered by tree canopy from both City trees and private property trees. This analysis determined the level of change in the City’s tree canopy cover over time and was used to establish a canopy cover goal for the City.

See Appendix A for the full tree inventory and canopy cover analysis and methodology.

2.2.2 U rban Forest Management Assessment
A comprehensive review was conducted of Hanford’s urban forestry program and related plans, policies, and ordinances to better understand the effectiveness of City tree management. This review included analyses of urban forest funding, staffing policy and procedure manuals, municipal plans, tree ordinances, design guidelines, and planning documents. Understanding current City efforts and the effectiveness of existing City programs and policies provides a baseline in which to measure the success of new urban forestry practices in meeting future urban forest goals. City staff

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 23

UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
interviews and a comprehensive budget and urban forest metrics analysis was used to discover trends and gaps that informed the funding and urban forest management program recommendations in Appendix B.

2.2.3 A ligning Urban Forest Goals with
Existing City Goals
Policies and Ordinances
Municipal Code Chapter 12.12, Trees and Shrubs Ordinance, was reviewed and provided recommended updates as part of the UFMP process. The recommend updates clarify tree protection standards, tree maintenance responsibilities, replacement requirements, fees, and the tree removal permit process. It was also provided recommended updates to align with International Society of Arboriculture best management practices.

Planning
The City’s General Plan and Parks Master Plan were reviewed for the development process to ensure the UFMP directly supports these plans and provides updated urban forestry and tree-related information that should be incorporated as these plans are updated. The full plan review can be found in Appendix D, City Document Review.

2.2.4 U nderstanding Hanford’s Urban Forest
Values and Perspectives
City Staff Interviews
City staff from various departments were interviewed to further inform the urban forest analysis (Table 2-1). Gathering input from various departments that impact urban forestry illuminated the core values of the community and informed key development processes of the UFMP . The City departments and staff positions that took part in the interviews are listed in Table 2-1.

24 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
Table 2-1. Department Interview Participants
Department Position
Parks and Community Services Parks and Community Services Director Community Relations Manager
Community Relations Community Relations Manager
Community Development Deputy City Manager
Public Works Public Works Director
Utilities and Engineering Utilities and Engineering Department Director Utilities and Engineering Associate Engineer

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 25

UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
Community Engagement
Community engagement was a crucial step to understanding the perspective and values of Hanford’s community. Outreach for the UFMP began in April 2025, with community members being engaged in the following ways:
• An online, tree-related community survey (69 responses total) • Tabling at community events including one Easter egg hunt event and two Thursday Night Markets in Civic Park with educational posters describing tree benefits, desired future tree planting locations, tree ordinance information, and a QR code linking to the tree survey.
• Hanford’s UFMP webpage (https://www.cityofhanfordca.
com/1594/Urban-Forest-Management-Plan), detailing project updates, public meeting and UFMP review notifications, and other community resources.
• Social media outreach through City channels (Instagram, Facebook, and NextDoor).
• An Urban Forest Informational Open House hosted in February 2026 to inform attendees on the UFMP key findings, goals, and recommended actions, as well as to gather general feedback on the Strategic Plan and the recommended updates to the Trees and Shrubs Ordinance (10 attendees).
• A working group made up of various local organizations and community members who helped craft the vision statement and guiding principles for the Strategic Plan (3 meetings, 12 members)
Working Group
The consultant team formed a working group of various community stakeholders (Table 2-2) that met three times during the plan development process. The three meetings provided an opportunity for the consultant team to relay key findings to the working group, get feedback on the draft plan, and discuss and prioritize strategies and actions for addressing current issues and achieving Hanford’s future urban forestry goals. The result was the creation of the UFMP’s vision statement, guiding principles, and the strategic, implementation, and monitoring plans.

26 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS
Table 2-2. Working Group Participants
Participant Organization/Affiliation
Bradley Albert City of Hanford
Brian Johnson City of Hanford
Kevin Cullinen Dudek
Kanami Otani Dudek
Joe Castaneda Hanford Parks and Recreation Commission
Victor Rosa Hanford Joint Union High School District
Daniel Pierotte Hanford Elementary School District
Todd Barlow Kings County Office of Education
Jeff Garner Kings County Action Organization
Marilyn Castaneda Kings Partnership
Carson DeBlieck Resident and Community Champion
Greg Mendonsa Urban Tree Foundation

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 27

UFMP KEY FINDINGS AND PLANNING PROCESS

28 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Master Plan 3 STRATEGIC PLAN

3 STRATEGIC PLAN

3.1 VISION
Hanford’s trees are a valuable resource, sustainably
managed by the City and its residents, providing shade from heat and cleaner air to breathe, increasing property values, and enhancing the quality of life for current and future generations.

STRATEGIC PLAN
The Hanford UFMP Strategic Plan provides the specific goals and actions it will take to achieve the City’s future vision. The Implementation Plan (Section 3.4) prioritizes these actions and assigns an associated cost, who is responsible for completing the action, and a method of measurement to determine successful completion. The Monitoring Plan (Section 3.5) is the long-term strategy the City will take to periodically assess whether it is successfully progressing towards its urban forest goals. The following strategic plan has been developed to guide the growth and management of Hanford’s urban forest over the next 30 years.

3.2 Guiding Principles
The Guiding Principles described in Table 3-1 are themes that represent the core values and long-term vision for Hanford’s urban forest. These principles serve as a foundation for shaping the goals and strategies of the UFMP, ensuring that all actions align with the community’s aspirations for a healthy, resilient, and sustainable urban forest. Each Guiding Principle has associated goals and actions listed in Section 3.3.

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 31

STRATEGIC PLAN
Table 3-1. Guiding Principles
Guiding
Principle Guiding Principle Description This Principle Emphasizes A resilient and
sustainable
urban forest
The City will cultivate a resilient and sustainable urban forest by prioritizing science-based planning, climate-adapted tree species, and the consistent application of arboricultural best practices. Long- term success will be supported by stable and sufficient funding, proactive maintenance, and a commitment to continuous learning and innovation. Hanford’s urban forest will be managed as a living infrastructure that is essential to the health, safety, and well-being of current and future generations.
• Resilience through climate-appropriate and
diverse species
• Sustainability via long-term investment and planning
• Professionalism through adherence to best practices
• Infrastructure mindset, treating trees as vital assets • Future-readiness through innovation and adaptability
Community-
centered
stewardship
Urban forest management should be rooted in inclusive, transparent, and ongoing community engagement. The City is committed to empowering residents with accessible information, meaningful opportunities for participation, and a responsive planning process that reflects the diverse values, needs, and aspirations of its community members. Decisions will be guided not only by arboricultural and technical expertise but also by the lived experiences and voices of the community.
• Shared responsibility between the City and
the community
• Transparency in decision-making
• Accessibility of information
• Inclusivity in participation
• Responsiveness to community input
• Integration of community values with urban forest goals A connected and
healthy Hanford
The City will foster a connected and healthy community by ensuring equitable access to trees and green spaces that support walking, biking, and outdoor activity. Urban forest planning will be integrated with pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to promote physical and mental well-being. While the City leads in designing inclusive pathways, parks, and other public spaces, residents and businesses will be empowered as stewards of the street trees that enhance neighborhood vitality and livability.
• Equity in access to green infrastructure
• Integration of trees with active transportation networks • Health and wellness as core outcomes of urban forestry • Connectivity both physical and social, through parks, green spaces, and corridors
1 2
3

32 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

STRATEGIC PLAN
Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest Action
No. Action Time
Frame* Cost Responsible
Party Method of Measurement
GOAL 1.1 - Achieve urban forest sustainability indicators for tree species diversity, age distribution, health condition, and relative performance index by 2056.

1.1A
Increase tree species diversity through future
plantings by prioritizing alternative tree species
to the City’s most commonly planted species
which currently include Chinese pistache
(Pistacia chinensis), Chinese hackberry (Celtis
sinensis), London plane (Platanus x hispanica),
and crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica).

Short
(ongoing) $$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Short-term: Percentage of new tree species
planted that are not in the five most common
species of the 2025 inventory. Long-term:

Achieving an inventory where no one species
represents more than 10% of the overall
inventory.

1.1B
Every 5 years, complete an analysis of the
City's public tree inventory to measure progress
towards urban forest sustainability indicators
of species diversity, age distribution, health
condition, and relative performance index.

Medium $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Achieving urban forest sustainability indicators
such as a City-managed tree inventory
comprising no more than 10% of one species
and 20% of one genus. The top six most
common species in the inventory will have a
relative performance index of 1 or better.

3.3 Goals, Actions, and Implementation Plan
The three Guiding Principles are used to categorize the goals of the strategic plan. The goals reflect what the City wants to achieve for each guiding principle. The actions are the specific steps it will take to achieve each goal, and the time frame prioritizes when the action is expected to be completed (see Tables 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4).
1 Table 3-2. Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 33

STRATEGIC PLAN
1 Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest Action
No. Action Time
Frame* Cost Responsible
Party Method of Measurement
GOAL 1.1 - Achieve urban forest sustainability indicators for tree species diversity, age distribution, health condition, and relative performance index by 2056.

1.1C
As trees age and require replacement
and as new parks and public spaces are
developed, plant available tree sites with
climate appropriate species identified in the
Recommended Species List with the goal of
planting the right tree in the right place.

Long $$$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services/
Streets Division
100% of all new City-planted trees are from the
recommended species list.

GOAL 1.2 - Develop the financial and human resources necessary to effectively manage the urban forest and implement the UFMP.

1.2A
Accurately record program expenses by
management actions to develop annual
program budgets that will need to progressively
increase over time as more trees are added to
the inventory.

Short
(ongoing) $$$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Annual funding should include additional
resources for tree maintenance, arborist review
for planning and development, implementation
of the updated tree ordinance, and an expanded
tree planting program over and above current
funding levels. Funding may also go to a new
position for an urban forest manager.

1.2B
Maintain an updated inventory using tree
management software to accurately document
tree plantings, removals, pruning, and other
maintenance.

Short
(ongoing) $$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Maintaining an updated inventory where tree
inventory information is no more than 5 years
old.
1 Table 3-2. Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest

34 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

STRATEGIC PLAN
Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest Action
No. Action Time
Frame* Cost Responsible
Party Method of Measurement
GOAL 1.2 - Develop the financial and human resources necessary to effectively manage the urban forest and implement the UFMP.

1.2C
Develop an invoicing and reporting template for
contractors to better track tree service metrics
in Landscape Assessment Districts and other
areas where tree contractors are utilized.

Short $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Development of a contract template for
tree contractors that has invoice reporting
requirements to provide information on tree
services metrics.

1.2D
Create and fill the position of an urban
forest manager, an International Society
of Arboriculture Certified Arborist who will
coordinate with all City departments in
implementation of the UFMP , urban forestry
programming, and community engagement
efforts, including finding and applying for
grants, educating the public, and coordinating
with non-profits.

Medium $$$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Filling the urban forest manager position.

1.2E
Explore potential partnerships with
schools, non-profits, and community-based
organizations to apply for urban forestry-
related grant funding (e.g., Kings County
Action Organization, Tree Fresno, Urban Tree
Foundation) to establish more trees on schools
and private property in Hanford.

Medium $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Number of dollars of funding secured, or
partnerships built with schools, CBOs, and non-
profits. Number of new trees planted on schools
and private property.
1 Table 3-2. Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 35

STRATEGIC PLAN
Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest Action
No. Action Time
Frame* Cost Responsible
Party Method of Measurement
GOAL 1.2 - Develop the financial and human resources necessary to effectively manage the urban forest and implement the UFMP.

1.2F
Partner with local service groups (e.g., rotary
clubs, Elk Lodge, religious groups) to secure
sponsorships (e.g., Adventist Health) for urban
tree work and increasing tree planting on
private property.

Long $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Number of sponsorships secured, total number
of dollars secured from those sponsorships, or
number of new trees planted on private property.

Note: *
Short: Years 1–2
Medium: Years 3–5
Long: Years 5–10+
Ongoing: Actions that should continue to be implemented once completed.

Cost: $ = Low ($0–$15,000), $$ = Medium ($15,000–$50,000), $$$ = High ($50,000–$100,000). 1 Table 3-2. Guiding Principle No. 1: A Resilient and Sustainable Urban Forest

36 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

STRATEGIC PLAN
Guiding Principle No. 2: Community-Centered Stewardship Action
No. Action Time
Frame* Cost Responsible
Party Method of Measurement
GOAL 2.1 - By 2036, engage at least 50% of residents through outreach and informational efforts on the City's UFMP and updated Trees and Shrubs Ordinance. Engage with a population representative of all residential types and demographics within the City.

2.1A
Table at a minimum of two community events
(Thursday Night Market, National Night Out,
etc.) annually with information about the
benefits of the City's urban forest and/or an
update on the implementation status of the
UFMP . Inform residents how they can get
involved in the urban forest.

Short
(ongoing) $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Number of events where the City tabled with
UFMP information, or number of community
members that stopped by the table.

2.1B
In addition to having resources on the City's
website, create and distribute informational
materials like the Urban Tree Care Guide with
recommended drought-tolerant and other
climate appropriate species for private property
to hand out at commonly attended public
events.

Short $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Number of new drought-tolerant species planted
on private property.

2.1C
Host five in-person and/or virtual workshops
over the next 5 years to inform and educate
residents on the updated Trees and Shrubs
Ordinance and the tree maintenance
responsibilities of private property owners, with
a target of reaching at least 200 people.

Medium $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Number of residents who attended information
events.
2 Table 3-3. Guiding Principle No. 2: Community-Centered Stewardship

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 37

STRATEGIC PLAN
Guiding Principle No. 2: Community-Centered Stewardship Action
No. Action Time
Frame* Cost Responsible
Party Method of Measurement
GOAL 2.1 - By 2036, engage at least 50% of residents through outreach and informational efforts on the City's UFMP and updated Trees and Shrubs Ordinance. Engage with a population representative of all residential types and demographics within the City.

2.1D
Provide educational information to
commercial property owners on the benefits
of trees for businesses, to encourage
commercial property owners to plant and
maintain trees.

Short
(ongoing) $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Informational materials developed and
number of commercial property owners that
plant new trees.

GOAL 2.2 - Residents will plant at least 2,200 trees on private property by 2056.

2.2A
Purchase, or partner with a utility (e.g.,
Southern California Edison), to give away up
to 40 shade trees per year with tree planting
and care information resources at tree
giveaway events.

Short
(ongoing) $
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services/
Private
Residents
Number of trees given away and planted on
private property. Promotion of appropriate
species to plant under utilities.

Note: *
Short: Years 1–2
Medium: Years 3–5
Long: Years 5–10+
Ongoing: Actions that should continue to be implemented once completed.

Cost: $ = Low ($0–$15,000), $$ = Medium ($15,000–$50,000), $$$ = High ($50,000–$100,000). 2 Table 3-3. Guiding Principle No. 2: Community-Centered Stewardship

38 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

STRATEGIC PLAN
Guiding Principle No. 3: A Connected and Healthy Hanford Action
No. Action Time
Frame* Cost Responsible
Party Method of Measurement
GOAL 3 - Maintain and grow a healthy and diverse urban forest to bring the City-wide canopy cover to 10% by 2056 and increase equitable access to greenspace for residents. 3A
Annually plant 52 trees (in addition to planting
replacement trees for any removals) on City-
owned land and right -of-way. Fill all 600
City-managed viable tree planting sites that are
currently vacant or occupied by a stump and
identify other planting locations to create more
tree-lined streets throughout Hanford. Utilize
tree inventory management software to identify
and prioritize viable tree planting locations
and incorporate new viable sites into the tree
inventory.

Medium
(ongoing) $$$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services /
Streets Division
Number of new trees planted by 2030 and 2055.

Number of vacant viable tree planting sites filled.

City-wide canopy cover achieved.
3B
Provide a 3-year establishment care period
for all newly planted trees. If it is too costly,
explore other methods for watering trees such
as through the use of volunteers or irrigation
improvements.

Medium
(ongoing) $$$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Number of trees provided a 3-year establishment
care period.
3 Table 3-4. Guiding Principle No. 3: A Connected and Healthy Hanford

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 39

STRATEGIC PLAN
Guiding Principle No. 3: A Connected and Healthy Hanford Action
No. Action Time
Frame* Cost Responsible
Party Method of Measurement
GOAL 3 - Maintain and grow a healthy and diverse urban forest to bring the City-wide canopy cover to 10% by 2056 and increase equitable access to greenspace for residents (Continued). 3C
Prioritize City tree planting and establishment
care resources to census tracts with the lowest
canopy cover and highest tree priority planting
index scores as established in the UFMP .

Medium
(ongoing) $$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Achieve at least 10% canopy cover in all census
tracts by 2055. Measure city-wide and census
tract canopy cover every 5 years using the latest
published U.S. Forest Service canopy cover data,
found here: https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/
rastergateway/treecanopycover/.
3D
Establish new, tree-lined pedestrian and
bicycle pathways throughout Hanford, such
as along the People's Ditch or as part of the
Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail Station and Cross
Valley Corridor Rail Service Planning Project, to
encourage non-vehicle modes of transportation
and interconnectivity between neighborhoods.

Long) $$$
Public Works/
Parks and
Community
Services
Each year, determine the number of new trees
planted along new pedestrian and bicycle
pathways.

Note: *
Short: Years 1–2
Medium: Years 3–5
Long: Years 5–10+
Ongoing: Actions that should continue to be implemented once completed.

Cost: $ = Low ($0–$15,000), $$ = Medium ($15,000–$50,000), $$$ = High ($50,000–$100,000). 3 Table 3-4. Guiding Principle No. 3: A Connected and Healthy Hanford

40 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

STRATEGIC PLAN

3.3.1 Bu dgeting to Achieve Hanford’s
Urban Forest Goals
Limitations of the Funding Data
The current urban forest program budget (estimated to be around $175,000 annually as of 2024) is based on rough estimates of in-house labor costs for tree-related services that were provided by the Parks and Community Services department, as well as a rough estimate for the portion of landscape assessment district fees that pay for contracted tree work in those districts. These expenditures come from a mix of general funds and landscape assessment district fees. There is a large gap in work records, especially for tree services in landscape assessment districts, where half of the City-managed trees are located. This creates uncertainty about how much the City spends on tree-related work, which impacts the accuracy of the projected funding gap between the current urban forestry funding and the amount of funding needed to reach the 10% canopy cover goal. Moving forward, the City should focus on creating a consistent and detailed work records system that will also be used by contractors so that all urban forestry-related services are documented accurately each month. This will enable the City to create more accurate cost projections for their urban forest program needs. The following provides a framework for how the City should prioritize existing funds but does not provide estimates for budgetary increases.

Program Impacts To Achieve 10% City-Wide Canopy Cover
Increasing canopy cover within the City is an endeavor that will require a combined public and private effort from the City and community members. For Hanford to increase canopy cover on a city-wide basis from its current level (8%) to its future 10% goal, approximately 3,750 new trees will need to be planted over the next 30 years. When accounting for the average of 25 City trees that die and need to be replaced every year, the total number of trees needed to be planted increases to roughly 4,500 trees. It is expected that the City could take on the planting for just over half of these new trees (a total of 2,300 trees), while the remaining 2,200 trees would be planted on private property as described below:
30-year Total for City: 2,300 trees
• 26 trees per year planted in existing vacant sites by the City (800 total)
• 25 new tree sites created or identified and planted by the City per year (750 total)
• 25 trees planted per year as a replacement for a dead tree by the City (750 total)
30-year Total for Non-City Planted Trees: 2,200 trees
• 40 trees per year purchased by the City or partnering organizations and given away to the community to be planted

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 41

STRATEGIC PLAN
on private property (1,200 total)
• 11 trees per year planted by private residents outside of the tree giveaways (330 total)
• 15 trees per year planted and maintained through new
development projects (450 total)
• 7 trees per year planted and maintained by schools in Hanford (210 total)
Budgeting For The Urban Forest Program
Based on the above and when excluding replacement trees, the City will need to plant approximately 1,550 new trees towards the goal.

However, the City currently has a grant that is paying for the planting and establishment care of 600 new trees, will progress the City over a third of the way toward their tree planting goal and leave 950 new trees to be planted. The City has demonstrated that it can be successful in applying for and receiving grant funds that can support tree planting, establishment care, and the creation of new tree wells. As such, it would be practical for the City to continue to seek additional grant funds to pay for the material costs, planting, and establishment of the remaining 950 trees. This approach would reduce the need for the City to use general funds to cover the costs for the tree planting effort and could likely be completed on a much shorter time scale like ten years, which would ultimately save the City money.

The City should then prioritize its annual urban forestry budget, allocated from the general fund and landscape assessment district fees, for the planting of replacement trees and the watering and establishment care needed. Further cost savings on watering and establishment care can be achieved by planting trees in locations with existing irrigation. The City will also need to budget for the purchase of approximately 40 trees a year to be given away to community members to plant on private property.

This per tree cost is much lower than City planting costs as it would likely only include purchasing 5-gallon size container trees and the staff time to coordinate distribution. The combination of using grant funds for new tree planting efforts (including outreach to encourage tree planting on private property), and using City funds to plant replacement trees and give away trees to the community will minimize the overall budget impact for the City to achieve its canopy cover goal.

The influx of 600 trees over the next two years, as well as any future influx from an accelerated grant funded tree planting program, will increase the number of trees the City will need to prune, monitor, and remove. Those trees will need structural pruning in the first three to five years after planting. After that, they will have to be accounted for in the regular pruning and maintenance cycle of the City managed tree inventory. In total, planting 1,550 new trees will increase the total City managed trees by approximately 24%, which could provide a baseline for the potential long-term increase in funding for the urban forest program.

42 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

STRATEGIC PLAN

3.3.2 F unding Methods to Achieve the City’s
Urban Forest Goals
The City needs to allocate and enhance their annual urban forestry budget to effectively manage their urban forest and achieve their urban forestry goals. Assessment districts, taxes, and administrative fees related to urban forestry; local, state, and federal grant programs; departmental partnerships; and community resources are methods commonly used in urban forestry to enhance or supplement operational budgets (Appendix G, Potential Funding Sources).

The City has limited yet various methods to explore when enhancing their urban forestry budget. For example, fees, taxes, and assessments are a common funding mechanism; however, the City recently passed Measure H, which includes allocated funding for the City’s parks. Due to this recent measure, requesting additional funding through this mechanism may not be of interest to the community or City leadership. Establishing administrative fees within the urban forestry program such as permit fees and ordinance violation penalties should be explored. These methods may allow the City to recover costs associated with urban forest management. When fees are set at a reasonable cost, effective communication regarding the administrative burdens associated with these tasks may establish an understanding by community members of the necessity of these fees. Working with internal City departments such as the water provider, streets, and risk reduction may allow for collaborative funding opportunities for community engagement efforts or maintenance tasks that meet the goals of internal departments such as large-scale tree and infrastructure conflict resolution.

Hanford’s urban forest is a community asset that provides benefits such as cleaner air and water, shade, lower temperatures, and stormwater mitigation, which is often recognized by community members.

Community groups, individuals, and businesses may be open to sponsoring a tree planting event or volunteering their time to plant trees in public areas. These community partners can enhance urban forest advocacy, can allow the public to engage with urban forestry efforts, and can be included as a match component for grant projects, while supporting the engagement goals of the City.

Community groups are typically interested in funding tree planting events or sponsoring refreshments for volunteer planting but typically are not interested in funding new tree watering or mature tree pruning, which are often included in operational budgets.

Volunteers and their commitments are not guaranteed, and the City should enhance their operational budgets without relying on potential volunteers or sponsorship opportunities. However, long-term contracts with urban forestry and other community organizations to engage community members is a successful method used by other municipalities to creatively fund urban forestry efforts. These organizations can employ Hanford residents, not employed by the City, who are interested in community engagement efforts. These partners can provide educational

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 43

STRATEGIC PLAN
canvassing for tree adoption, seek corporate sponsorships, and host educational workshops in partnership with the City but hosted by the organization. This method establishes a secure income source for community organizations to employ staff, minimizes the burden on staff to meet engagement goals, allows another organization to be an engagement lead in City projects, and simultaneously allows the City to reach residents who may be hesitant to engage with City staff.

Although the City is a target population for grant funded programs, the future of these programs is uncertain at the time of UFMP development. Even when these programs were available annually, national surveys note that only 2.6% of the urban forestry budget of municipal programs relied on grant awards (Hauer and Peterson 2016). While grant programs can be helpful in funding short term urban forestry goals and programs, they cannot be relied on as a sole source of long-term funding necessary to sustain Hanford's urban forestry program. However, exploring other grant programs where urban trees can be used as a tool such as for heat mitigation, stormwater mitigation, or workforce development, may allow for trees to be included in grant applications not focused on urban forestry. Although these opportunities should be explored as they arise, the City must also seek resources separate from potential grant opportunities to effectively manage the growing urban forest.

44 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

STRATEGIC PLAN

3.4 Monitoring Plan
The Hanford Monitoring Plan will be accomplished through a combination of processes identified in the Implementation Plan and additional actions as listed below:
• Annually assess progress towards the Strategic Plan actions using the methods of measurement as outlined in the implementation plan. • Every 2 years complete the Community Assessment and Goal- Setting Tool (described below).
• Every 3 years assess the Strategic and Implementation Plans and determine if specific actions should be revised or reprioritized based on current conditions in the City.
• Every 5 years conduct an updated canopy cover analysis to measure progress towards the canopy cover goal.
• Every 5 years complete an analysis of the City's public tree inventory to measure progress towards urban forest sustainability indicators of species diversity, age distribution, health condition, and relative performance index.
• Every 10 years determine if the UFMP should be updated to address progress towards goals, changes in the City’s environmental and economic conditions, or other unforeseen factors.

Community Assessment and Goal-Setting Tool
The Community Assessment and Goal-Setting Tool was created by the Vibrant Cities Lab to provide a quantifiable method for a city to track its progress towards a sustainable urban forest. Vibrant Cities Lab is a collaboration of partners that includes the U.S. Forest Service, American Forests, and the National Association of Regional Councils and serves as an online hub of urban forest and tree research, best practices, and planning tools (http://vibrantcitieslab.com). The Assessment and Goal- Setting Tool is based on research of urban forest sustainability and establishes criteria and indicators to measure urban forest sustainability.

The tool is used to define the current state of a specific area of a city’s urban forest sustainability. The user decides what the current state of the metric is and then sets where the goal metric should be. Each metric is assigned a point value, and the city is assigned a “Total Current Score” and a “Gap Score,” or how far off the current state is from the desired goal. A city that has a gap score between 20 to 40 is not far from achieving the goals of its urban forest program. Gap scores of 40+ indicate that a city is still implementing programs and policies to close the gap and develop a sustainable urban forest.

Hanford’s first assessment was conducted on August 6, 2025, by City staff and the consultant team. Table 3-6 provides the results from the first assessment, which set the baseline for the City’s “Total Current Score” at its pre-UFMP metrics. Staff used Vibrant Cities Lab’s rating descriptions to determine Hanford’s status (prior to the UFMP process)

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 45

STRATEGIC PLAN
Table 3-5. Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment Goal Setting Tool Summary Category Current Score Goal Score Gap Score
Measure Your Current Tree Canopy and Set Goals 1 4 3
Urban Forest Inventory and Assessment 4 6 2
Know What's Happening to Trees in Your Community 4 11 7 Urban Forest Characteristics 3 8 5
Engaging Peers and Residents in Process 2 16 14
Creating Essential, Effective Public/Private Partnerships −1 6 7 Resource Management: Planning 1 8 7
Resource Management: Implementation 2 20 18
Resource Management: Monitoring and Maintenance 4 12 8
Score Totals 20 91 71

for the various categories and then chose the goals they want to achieve in each category to determine the gap between the two ratings.

Based on this first assessment, the City has a current rating of 20, with a gap score of 71. The City’s UFMP monitoring plan should be based around the Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal-Setting Tool and be retaken each year to track, measure, and highlight progress.

The assessment can also be used to demonstrate successes and justify additional funding requests to City Council. The full Goal Setting Tool can be found in Appendix F.
46 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

STRATEGIC PLAN

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 47

STRATEGIC PLAN

48 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

REFERENCES
4 REFERENCES

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 49

REFERENCES
Austin, J.T. 2012. “Floods and Droughts in the Tulare
Lake Basin.” Accessed August 5, 2025. http://
orangecoveid.org/Web%20Page/MATERIAL/Floods-
Droughts-Tulare-Lake-Basin_JAustin_20130109.pdf.

Best, J. 2023. “Kings County history is a story of humanity, agriculture, oil and growth.” The Sentinel. February 7, 2024. Accessed July 1, 2025. https://hanfordsentinel.
com/news/local/kings-county-history-is-a-story-of-
humanity-agriculture-oil-and-growth/article_0a72fca8-
4d48-526f-9278-ef5eaf9cddb0.html.

City of Hanford. 2025a. “History.” Accessed July 1, 2025. https://www.ci.hanford.ca.us/1290/History.

City of Hanford. 2025b. “Kings-Tulare High-Speed Rail
Station TOD Project (Hanford Connected).” Accessed
July 1, 2025. https://www.cityofhanfordca.com/1580/
Kings-Tulare-High-Speed-Rail-Station-TOD.

CNPS (California Native Plant Society). 2025. “Valley Oak (Quercus lobata).” Accessed September 26, 2025.
https://calscape.org/Quercus-lobata-(Valley-Oak).

Daniels, B., J. Jedamski, R. Ottermanns, and M. Ross-Nickoll. 2020. “A ‘Plan Bee’ for Cities: Pollinator Diversity and Plant-Pollinator Interactions in Urban Green Spaces.”
PLoS ONE 15(7): e0235492. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0235492.

Hauer, R.J., and W.D. Peterson. 2016. Municipal Tree Care and Management in the United States: A 2014 Urban
& Community Forestry Census of Tree Activities.

Accessed August 15, 2025. https://caufc.org/wp-
content/uploads/2025/03/Hauer-Peterson-2014-
urban-forest-program-census.pdf.

Latta, F.F. 1949. Handbook of the Y okut Indians. Bear State Books.

Noss, R. 2020. "California Central Valley grasslands."
Terrestrial Ecoregions. World Wildlife Fund. Accessed
July 1, 2025. https://www.oneearth.org/ecoregions/
california-central-valley-grasslands/.

Nowak, D.J. 2002. “The Effects of Urban Trees on Air
Quality.” Accessed March 3, 2021. https://www.nrs.
fs.fed.us/units/urban/local-resources/downloads/
Tree_Air_Qual. pdf.

Pierce, D.W., J.F. Kalansky, and D.R. Cayan. 2018. Climate, Drought, and Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the
Fourth California Climate Assessment. California's
Fourth Climate Change Assessment, California
Energy Commission. Publication Number: CNRA-
CEC-2018-006.

Rahman, M.A., Pawijit, Y., Xu, C., Moser-Reischl, A.,
Pretzsch, H., Rötzer, T. and Pauleit, S., 2023. A
comparative analysis of urban forests for storm-water
management. Scientific Reports, 13(1), p.1451.

Roberts, M.R. 2005. Images of America: Hanford. Arcadia Publishing.

White, M.P., I. Alcock, B.W. Wheeler, M.H. Depledge. 2014. “Would Y ou Be Happier Living in a Greener Urban
Area? A Fixed-Effects Analysis of Panel Data.”
Psychological Science 24(6): 920–928. https://
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23613211/.
50 | CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN

REFERENCES

CITY OF HANFORD URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 51

REFERENCES

PREPARED BY

APPENDICES

THE CITY OF HANFORD

URBAN FOREST

MANAGMENT PLAN
1 of 201

Hanford UFMP Appendices

Table of Contents
▪ Appendix A: Urban Forest Resource Assessment………………………………………...3 ▪ Appendix B: Urban Forest Management Staffing and Budget Report…………………75 ▪ Appendix C: Hanford Trees and Shrubs Ordinance Recommended Updates …...85 ▪ Appendix D: City Document Review ………………….…………………………………….112 ▪ Appendix E: Community Engagement Summary………..………………………………120 ▪ Appendix F: Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal Setting Tool Self- Evaluation ………………………………………………………..........................................149 ▪ Appendix G: Potential Funding Sources……………………………………………………155 ▪ Appendix H Arboriculture Best Management Practices……………………………….162 ▪ Appendix I: Recommended Tree Species List…………………………………………...195

2 of 201

Appendix A
Hanford Urban Forest Resource Report

3 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

16991 1
OCTOBER 2025
City of Hanford
Urban Forest Resource Report
OCTOBER 2025
Prepared for:

CITY OF HANFORD
319 N Douty Street
Hanford, CA Zip
Contact: Bradley Albert
Prepared by:

605 Third Street
Encinitas, California 92024
Contact: Kevin Cullinen
Alexandria Reed

4 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 2
OCTOBER 2025
Table of Contents
1 Hanford Tree Inventory Overview ........................................................................................................................ 5

1.1 Sustainability Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 6

1.1.1 Genus and Species Diversity .................................................................................................... 6

1.1.2 Age Diversity .............................................................................................................................. 7

1.1.3 Health Condition ....................................................................................................................... 9

1.1.4 Relative Performance Index .................................................................................................. 10

1.1.5 Water Use ............................................................................................................................... 11

1.1.6 Climate Resiliency .................................................................................................................. 12

1.2 Environmental Services and Economic Value ................................................................................... 14 2 Hanford Canopy Overview ................................................................................................................................ 16

2.1 Citywide Canopy Change and Current Condition ............................................................................... 17

2.1.1 Public and Private Parcels ..................................................................................................... 17

2.1.2 Census Tracts......................................................................................................................... 19

2.1.3 Zoning Districts ...................................................................................................................... 20

2.1.4 Landscape Assessment Districts (LADs) .............................................................................. 22

2.1.5 Parks ....................................................................................................................................... 24

2.2 Canopy Cover Target Analysis ............................................................................................................. 26

2.2.1 Potential Canopy Growth ....................................................................................................... 26

2.2.2 Increasing Canopy Cover ....................................................................................................... 27

2.3 Priority Planting Areas ......................................................................................................................... 29

2.3.1 Urban Heat Severity ............................................................................................................... 29

2.3.2 Viable Planting Sites .............................................................................................................. 31

2.3.3 Tree Equity.............................................................................................................................. 32 3 References ........................................................................................................................................................ 35

TABLE(S)
Table 1. Environmental Services of Hanford Trees ...................................................................................................... 14 Table 2. Financial Value of Hanford Trees .................................................................................................................... 15 Table 3. Tree Canopy Change Metrics (2018–2022) .................................................................................................. 15 Table 4. Canopy Distribution by Area Type (2022) ....................................................................................................... 15 Table 5. Estimated Tree Planting Requirements to Achieve 10% Canopy Cover ....................................................... 15

5 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 3
OCTOBER 2025

EXHIBIT(S)
Exhibit 1. Hanford 2025 Tree Inventory ........................................................................................................................... 5 Exhibit 2. Tree Inventory Genus and Species Diversity ................................................................................................... 6 Exhibit 3. Age Diversity ...................................................................................................................................................... 8 Exhibit 4. Tree Condition Diversity ................................................................................................................................. 10 Exhibit 5. Tree Inventory Relative Performance Index .................................................................................................. 11 Exhibit 6. Water Use Rating Diversity ............................................................................................................................ 12 Exhibit 7. Tree Inventory Species Climate Resiliency Analysis .................................................................................... 13 Exhibit 8. Hanford Urban Canopy Cover, 2022 ............................................................................................................. 16 Exhibit 9. Parcel Ownership and Tree Canopy Distribution by Parcel Type ................................................................. 18 Exhibit 10. Canopy Cover and Change by Census Tract (2018–2022) ...................................................................... 19 Exhibit 11. 2022 Canopy Cover by Census Tract ......................................................................................................... 20 Exhibit 12. Canopy Cover and Change by Zoning District (2018–2022) .................................................................... 21 Exhibit 13. 2022 Canopy Cover by Zoning District ....................................................................................................... 22 Exhibit 14. Canopy Cover Distribution Across LADs ..................................................................................................... 23 Exhibit 15. Canopy Cover and Change by Parks (2018–2022) ................................................................................... 24 Exhibit 16. 2022 Canopy Cover by Parks ...................................................................................................................... 25 Exhibit 17. Projected Canopy Gains from City-Managed Tree Growth and Vacant Planting Sites ............................ 27 Exhibit 18. Urban Heat Island Severity by Census Tract .............................................................................................. 30 Exhibit 19. Viable Planting Site Density by Census Tract ............................................................................................. 31 Exhibit 20. Tree Equity Score by Census Block Groups ................................................................................................ 32

ATTACHMENT(S)
Attachment 1. iTree Report ............................................................................................................................................ 36 6 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 4
OCTOBER 2025

INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
7 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 5
OCTOBER 2025
1 Hanford Tree Inventory Overview
To support long-term urban forest planning and sustainability efforts, the City of Hanford (City) partnered with Dudek to complete a comprehensive tree inventory. This inventory provides the foundation for all analyses presented in this report, including assessments of species diversity, tree health, age structure, water use, and environmental services. Data from the City-managed inventory were also submitted to the i-Tree Eco model to estimate associated environmental and economic benefits.

Inventory data were collected by Dudek staff in April through July 2025, covering all City-managed trees within City sidewalks, medians , parks, City facilities, and boundaries of Landscape Assessment Districts . Each tree was recorded using TreePlotter inventory software on mobile smart phone devices, with data attributes including location, species, diameter at standard height (DSH), condition, height, crown characteristics, and growing space type.

In total, the inventory includes 7,245
sites, c onsisting of 6, 486 living City -
managed trees, 159 dead standing
trees, trees, and 600 vacant sites or
stumps. These data represent a
snapshot of the City’s urban forest and
serve as a baseline for identifying
priorities, tracking progress, and
guiding future planting, maintenance,
and policy decisions. Exhibit 1
presents a map of inventoried sites
across the City, including existing
trees, vacant planting sites, and
stumps.

Exhibit 1. Hanford 2025 Tree Inventory

8 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 6
OCTOBER 2025

1.1 Sustainability Analysis
The sustainability analysis evaluates the City’s tree inventory against a set of indicators used to guide management priorities and assess the urban forest’s resilience to pests, disease, and climate change. These indicators provide a current snapshot of t he condition and structure of City -managed trees and establish a baseline for tracking changes over time.

This analysis reflects conditions at the time of data collection and should be repeated every 3 to 5 years to monitor progress toward long-term sustainability goals. The selected indicators are based on widely accepted urban forestry standards and best pra ctices, including those developed by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), American National Standards Institute (ANSI), and published research in peer-reviewed journals such as the Journal of Arboriculture.

1.1.1 Genus and Species Diversity
Maintaining a diverse tree population improves the urban forest’s ability to withstand pests, diseases, and extreme weather. A well -distributed mix of species provides a buffer against the potential loss of a dominant tree type, helping to ensure long-term canopy continuity and ecological resilience. The City-managed inventory includes 6,645 trees composed of approximately 64 genera and 100 species. The top 10 genera and species are shown in Exhibit

2. Diversity is evaluated using species composition sustainability goals originally proposed by Moll (1989), which serve as benchmarks for promoting a resilient and balanced urban forest:

Genus Sustainability Goal: No single genus represents more than 10% of inventory.

Species Sustainability Goal: No single species represents more than 5% of inventory.

Exhibit 2. Tree Inventory Genus and Species Diversity

9 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 7
OCTOBER 2025

Source: City of Hanford, Dudek 2025.

Exhibit 2 show that Pistacia exceeds the recommended genus-level sustainability goal, accounting for 34.3% of the inventory. At the species level, Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica), Chinese hackberry (Celtis sinensis), and valley oak (Quercus lobata) all exceed the 5 percent threshold. To improve diversity and reduce long-term risk, these species should be a lower priority in future planting efforts. Appendix I of the UFMP, provides a selection of recommended species for the City's climate and conditions that are suitable for replacement trees and can help increase diversity in future plantings.

Increasing diversity improves resilience but may also introduce challenges for maintenance. Trees vary in size, structure, and pruning needs. For example, some species have wide, spreading crowns with large branches, while others are tall and narrow. These differences can affect equipment needs, trimming techniques, and scheduling.

To maintain efficiency, the City can group trees with similar forms and maintenance requirements within the same block or maintenance area. Balancing species diversity with opera tional consistency will help maintain a resilient and manageable urban forest.

1.1.2 Age Diversity
Understanding the tree age distribution within the City’s urban forest is useful for informing management decisions, estimating future budgets, and forecasting potential shortfalls in canopy coverage. Management activities influenced by age distribution typically include planting priorities, removal planning, and pruning schedules.

Because tree age is difficult to determine without invasive methods like tree coring, diameter at standard height (DSH) is used as a proxy for estimating age. Exhibit 3 shows the DSH distribution for all trees in the City’s inventory.

A widely referenced ideal age distribution, represented by DSH classes, was proposed in an analysis of the Syracuse, 10 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 8
OCTOBER 2025
New York urban forest (Richards 1993) and has since been adopted as a guideline for achieving long -term urban forest sustainability. The recommended structure includes:
▪ Maintaining a steady supply of young trees to replace those lost to age or decline ▪ Ensuring the majority of trees are functionally mature and delivering consistent environmental and economic benefits
▪ Retaining a smaller share of large, aging trees that, despite being near the end of their lifespan, continue to deliver consistent environmental and economic benefits

Exhibit 3. Age Diversity

Source: City of Hanford, Dudek 2025.

The inventory is currently dominated by younger trees. As shown in Exhibit 3, 47% of trees are immature (less than 6" DSH) and 46% are young (6" –18" DSH), meaning 93% of the inventory consists of recently planted or small - stature trees. Only 4% are middle-aged (18"–24" DSH), and 3% are mature (greater than 24" DSH), falling short of the combined 30% sustainability target for those classes.

This imbalance suggests that while planting efforts have increased in recent years, relatively few trees have been retained or supported long enough to reach middle-aged or mature stages. Part of this pattern may also reflect the City’s species composition. For example, approximately 34% of Hanford’s public trees are Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis), a species that typically does not exceed 18 inches DSH , even at maturity. As a result, DSH - based age estimates may somewhat understate the functional maturity of smaller-stature species. 11 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 9
OCTOBER 2025
To build a more balanced age structure, the City should continue planting new trees to support future canopy growth while investing in the preservation of older trees and selecting species that can reach larger sizes in suitable planting spaces. Early investment in establishment care, including structural pruning and watering, guided by an ISA Certified Arborist, can help reduce long -term costs and promote healthy canopy development. Addressing structural defects with simple pruning while the tree is young and small is often more cost effective than having to address defects with more advanced pruning equipment when the tree is mature. This approach also allows the critical root zone for trees to better establish into the landscape, increasing resilience to prolonged droughts and high heat events. However, the high proportion of young trees in the current inventory also indicates a shift in how allocations to tree care may be spent. As trees already in the inventory may have structural defects that were not addressed due to a lack of past funding for establishment care, mature trees may benefit from a scheduled and cyclical pruning cycle to maintain a healthy, resilient and sustainable municipal urban forest. Establishing dedicated and reoccurring budgets for pruning cycles of mature stature trees will allow the City to monitor tree conditions and address defects in a phased, proactive approach.

1.1.3 Health Condition
Healthy trees increase public safety and may reduce the City’s liability by lowering the risk of tree part failure. They are also more resilient to pests, disease, drought, and extreme weather. Assessing tree health provides insight into the City’s level of urban forest management, how trees are performing overall, and the baseline resilience of the tree population.

Tree condition ratings used in the inventory are defined as follows:
▪ Excellent: Nearly perfect health and canopy structure. ▪ Good: Normal health and canopy structure
▪ Fair: Minor deficiencies in health and canopy structure ▪ Poor: Significant deficiencies in health and canopy structure ▪ Critical: Major deficiencies, is in late stage of decline, and is a candidate for removal. ▪ Dead: No longer a viable tree and should be removed
Based on the analysis of the City’s tree inventory shown in Exhibit 4, approximately 21% of trees are in good condition and 67% are in fair condition. In total, 88% of trees are rated as fair or better (fair, good, or excellent), indicating a generally healthy and structurally sound urban forest. The remaining trees are rated poor (8%), critical (2%), or dead (2%).
12 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 10
OCTOBER 2025
Exhibit 4. Tree Condition Diversity

Source: City of Hanford, Dudek 2025.

These results suggest the City’s urban forest is not currently showing signs of widespread stress or decline. The high percentage of trees in fair and good condition reflects effective management practices and a growing environment suited to the tree species found in the inventory. Continued monitoring and maintenance will be essential to sustain this condition and address emerging issues.Trees in poor, critical, and dead condition should be evaluated to determine appropriate actions such as targeted prunin g, treatment, or removal to improve tree condition of individual specimens.

This assessment can also help identify whether certain species are underperforming. For example, of the 113 Carolina laurel cherry (Prunus caroliniana) trees in the inventory, 103 were rated as poor, critical, or dead, indicating a potential issue with species suitability or site-specific conditions. Understanding these patterns can guide future species selection and management strategies.

1.1.4 Relative Performance Index
While overall condition ratings provide a snapshot of individual tree health, they do not account for species -level performance trends. The Relative Performance Index (RPI) offers a way to evaluate how each species performs in comparison to the inventory average and can help identify species that may require further evaluation or targeted management. RPI is calculated by dividing the percentage of trees within a species that are rated in good or better condition by the percentage of all trees in the inventory that are rated in good or better condition.

A species with an RPI above 1.0 is more likely to be in good condition than the inventory average. A value below 1.0 indicates that the species is underperforming relative to the overall population. For example, a species with an RPI of 0.75 is 25 percent less likely to be in good condition compared to the inventory average. The average RPI across all species in the inventory is 0.61, meaning many species have condition ratings below the inventory average. This reflects variation in species performance and highlights the value of using RPI as a comparative tool. Exhibit 5 presents the RPI values for the six most common species in the inventory. 13 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 11
OCTOBER 2025
Exhibit 5. Tree Inventory Relative Performance Index

Source: City of Hanford, Dudek 2025.

Valley oak ( Quercus lobata) has the highest RPI, followed by crape myrtle ( Lagerstroemia indica) and Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis). The valley oak has an RPI of 2.0, indicating that this species performs well in the City and exploring other oak species and varieties may be beneficial to enhance tree species diversity with a large canopied species. Chinese hackberry (Celtis sinensis) and London plane ( Platanus × hispanica ) fall below the inventory average, suggesting they may be underperforming relative to other species. These lower values may indicate site incompatibility or higher susceptibility to stress. The City may want to evaluate whether continued planting of these species is appropriate, particularly if maintenance needs or health concerns persist across different planting locations.

1.1.5 Water Use
In urban environments, trees often face limited rooting space, compacted soils, and restricted access to groundwater. Supplemental irrigation is critical during the first 1 to 3 years after planting to ensure establishment.

However, water scarcity is an increasing concern throughout California, especially in the Central Valley, where hot and dry conditions are common. The City has experienced multiple drought years over the past decade, with ongoing pressure on water resources due to rising temperatur es and limited regional precipitation. Climate projections indicate that drought frequency and severity are likely to increase in the years ahead (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2021; Lacan and McBride 2018; Watson 2014; California State Water Resourc es Control Board 2023).

Tree species differ widely in their water needs. In water-limited regions such as Hanford, selecting low and very low water use species helps reduce long-term irrigation demands. Providing supplemental irrigation to a newly planted tree helps establish the root structure which improves the ability for a tree to recover from drought stress over the 14 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 12
OCTOBER 2025
tree’s lifetime. Exhibit 6 shows the breakdown of water use ratings for the City’s tree inventory, based on the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) database as well as water use data from Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute’s (UFEI) SelecTree tree selection guide (https://selectree.calpoly.edu/).

Exhibit 6. Water Use Rating Diversity

Source: City of Hanford, Dudek 2025.

Low and very low water use species make up 62% of the City’s tree inventory. Moderate water use species account for 37%, and less than 1% are rated as high water use, not appropriate for the region, or are unlisted in WUCOLS or UFEI’s SelecTree . While moderate water use species may be appropriate in irrigated areas, the City should continue prioritizing drought-adapted species, particularly in locations with limited watering infrastructure. Selecting species based on site conditions, water needs, and growth characteristics will help reduce long -term reliance on supplemental water and improve the success of future plantings.

1.1.6 Climate Resiliency
Urban forests are increasingly vulnerable to climate change, particularly in cities facing hotter and drier conditions.

In dense urban environments, trees already contend with stressors such as limited rooting space, reflected heat from pavement, compacted soils, and exposure to air pollutants. When combined with prolonged drought and rising temperatures, these conditions can reduce tree health, shorten lifespans, and diminish the long -term benefits provided by the urban forest.

In 2018, a climate suitability study was conducted by Lacan and McBride to evaluate the long-term viability of street trees in California. The study selected one city to represent each of the state’s 16 climate zones, then identified common street tree spe cies in each location. These species lists were compared to those in cities with current 15 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 13
OCTOBER 2025
temperatures similar to what each California city is projected to experience by the year 2099. Species that were largely absent from those warmer cities were flagged as potentially unsuitable for future planting. The final list was informed by professional judgment and WUCOLS water use ratings that identified species as unsuitable under high heat or water-limited conditions.

When this framework is applied to the City’s inventory, 21 species are identified as potentially unsuitable for the City’s future climate. These species make up 25.9% of the total inventory, or 1,718 trees. Exhibit 7 highlights the 10 species identified as potentially unsuitable that are most prevalent in the City’s current inventory.

Exhibit 7. Tree Inventory Species Climate Resiliency Analysis

Source: City of Hanford, Dudek 2025.

Notably, several of the most common species in the City’s inventory have been identified as potentially unsuitable under future climate conditions, including crape myrtle ( Lagerstroemia indica ), London plane ( Platanus × hispanica), and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Reducing reliance on these species in future plantings may help the City manage long -term maintenance needs and reduce the risk of canopy loss as conditions grow hotter and drier. London plane also has a below-average RPI, suggesting it may already be underperforming relative to other species in the City. In contrast, crape myrtle shows a high RPI but is overrepresented and vulnerable under projected climate conditions, reinforcing the importance of diversifying future plantings. 16 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 14
OCTOBER 2025
While the 2018 Lacan and McBride study provides a valuable framework for evaluating species under future climate scenarios, it should not be the sole resource guiding planting decisions. Species performance, site conditions, and observed health trends within the City should also be considered. City staff and arborists play a key role in identifying underperforming species and tracking changes over time. Monitoring tree condition by species will help determine whether certain trees should be phased out of fu ture planting efforts. In addition to selecting climate -adapted species, long-term success depends on using high -quality nursery stock, planting at the correct depth, matching trees to site conditions, and providing adequate watering during establishment. Applying ISA best management practices throughout the planting and maintenance process will support healthier and longer -lasting trees.

Prioritizing species that are both resilient to future climate conditions and suited to the urban environment will help the City maintain a sustainable and adaptable urban forest

1.2 Environmental Services and Economic Value
Data from the City -managed inventory w as submitted to the i -Tree Eco software. The 2025 i -Tree Eco analysis quantifies environmental and economic contributions for the portion of the City’s inventory that met i -Tree input requirements. Results highlight both the ecological and economic benefits of trees in Hanford’s inventory, along with potential risks from invasive species and pests.

The analysis found that 82 percent of trees are non-native to North America, with only 9 percent native to California, and identified four invasive species, including tree of heaven, though these account for just 1.3 percent of the population.

Chinese pistache (Pistacia chinensis) makes up more than one-third of the population, which increases risk if pests or diseases affect the species. The i-Tree analysis identified several pests that pose a high potential economic risk, including Pine Shoot Beetle, Sout hern Pine Beetle, and Sirex Wood Wasp, each with potential losses exceeding $2.5 million in replacement value, along with Oak Wilt and Winter Moth, each threatening more than $1.5 million.

These findings reinforce the importance of diversifying the species composition to strengthen long-term resilience.

The complete i-Tree Eco results are provided at the end of this report. Key takeaways are summarized below.

Table 1 presents estimates of the environmental services provided by the City’s trees, including air pollution removal, carbon storage and sequestration, and avoided runoff. Table 2 summarizes the economic value of these services, along with the broader replacement value of City’s urban forest.

Table 1. Environmental Services of Hanford Trees
Service
Environmental
Benefit Why it Matters
Air Pollution Removal 2,029
Pounds per year
Poor air quality is a common problem in many urban areas. It can lead to decreased human health, damage to landscape materials and ecosystem processes, and reduced visibility. The urban forest can help improve air quality by reducing air temperature, directly removing pollutants from the air, and reducing energy
consumption in buildings, which consequently reduces air pollutant emissions from fossil-fuel-based power sources (i-Tree 2020).

Carbon stored in
trees
1,324 tons of
carbon
Climate change is an issue of global concern. Urban trees can help mitigate climate change by sequestering atmospheric carbon (from carbon dioxide) in tree tissue and by altering energy use in 17 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 15
OCTOBER 2025

Table 2. Financial Value of Hanford Trees
Value Description Amount
Functional Value based on the functions (environmental
services) trees perform
$25,700/year
Carbon Storage Value of the carbon stored in the trees $573,000 total Replacement Cost of having to replace the entire inventory of City-managed trees with similar trees
$10.9 million total

Table 1. Environmental Services of Hanford Trees
Service
Environmental
Benefit Why it Matters
buildings, which consequently reduces carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel-based power sources (Abdollahi et al 2000).

Carbon Sequestration
(Carbon Removed
From Air)

38.89 tons per
year
Increasing greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, in the atmosphere is one of the main causes of climate change. Human activity is releasing vast amounts of carbon dioxide, principally through the burning of fossil fuels. Trees play an important role in the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Through the biochemical process of photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is taken in by trees and stored as carbon in the trunk, branches, leaves, and roots.

Avoided Runoff 146,100 gallons
per year
Surface runoff can be a cause for concern in many urban areas, as it can contribute pollution to streams, wetlands, rivers, lakes, and oceans. During precipitation events, some portion of the precipitation is intercepted by vegetation (trees and shrubs) while the other portion reaches the ground. The portion of the precipitation that reaches the ground and does not infiltrate into the soil becomes surface runoff (Hirabayashi et al. 2013). In urban areas, the large extent of impervious surfaces increases the amount of surface runoff.

Urban trees and shrubs are beneficial in reducing surface runoff.

Trees and shrubs intercept precipitation, while their root systems promote infiltration and storage in the soil.
18 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 16
OCTOBER 2025
2 Hanford Canopy Overview
To support the City’s urban forest planning and sustainability initiatives, Dudek completed a comprehensive canopy cover assessment using publicly available canopy data derived from the 2018 and 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery. For the purposes of this section, “City” refers to the urban area boundaries within the City limits. The defined urban boundary encompasses 9,526 acres, and all acreage, percent cover, and change values presented here are based on this area. Within this boundary, canopy cover was estimated at 765 acres, or

8.0% in 2022.

The assessment provides a current snapshot of urban tree canopy distribution, evaluates changes since 2018, and identifies opportunities for canopy growth. Results are summarized for several geographic units including, urban boundary, public and private parcels, census tracts, zoning districts, Landscape Assessment Districts (LADs) , and parks, to highlight where canopy is most and least concentrated to inform strategies for expansion. Exhibit 8 highlights the current canopy distribution across the City.

Exhibit 8. Hanford Urban Canopy Cover, 2022

Source: EarthDefine 2025, derived from 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery. 19 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 17
OCTOBER 2025

2.1 Citywide Canopy Change and Current
Condition
Citywide canopy cover declined from 905 acres (9.5%) in 2018 to 765 acres (8.0%) in 2022, a net reduction of approximately 140 acres. This decline equates to a 1.5 percentage point decrease in cover and a 15.8 percent relative reduction compared to the 2018 baseline.

Table 3. Tree Canopy Change Metrics (2018–2022)
Metric Value Description
Canopy loss (acres) -140 Actual land area lost to canopy decline Absolute % change -1.5 percentage points Difference in canopy cover percentage from 2018 to 2022
Relative % change -15.8% Proportional decline in canopy cover compared to 2018 baseline

Canopy loss occurred across most land use types, zoning categories, and census tracts, indicating a citywide trend rather than an isolated issue. Several factors may have contributed to the decline, including development or redevelopment that resulted in tree removals, mortality of aging trees without replacement, pest or disease impacts, or drought stress.

The 2022 canopy distribution (Exhibit 8) provides the current planning baseline for the UFMP. The following sections examine how canopy distribution and change vary across different geographic units to help identify trends and priority areas for future planting.

2.1.1 Public and Private Parcels
This analysis evaluated canopy cover within the parcel dataset, dividing parcels into public and private ownership.

Some areas are not represented in the parcel dataset, such as streetscapes, medians, highways, and rights-of-way (ROW). Values are approximate, as totals depend on how parcel information is defined and categorized.

In 2018, public parcels supported 6.3 percent canopy cover (40.8 acres). By 2022, canopy on public parcels increased slightly to 6.5 percent (41.8 acres), a gain of about 0.14 percentage points. Private parcels contained

10.7 percent canopy cover in 2018 (765.9 acres) but declined to 8.7 percent in 2022 (628.0 acres), a reduction of 2.0 percentage points. Areas outside the parcel dataset accounted for 5.6 percent canopy cover in 2022 (95 acres).

Although public parcels experienced a small canopy gain between 2018 and 2022, overall canopy change was driven by losses on private parcels. With about four-fifths of the City’s canopy in private ownership, expanding and protecting canopy will depend largely on actions taken on private property owners. City efforts such as tree planting giveaways, community education and outreach, ordinance updates, and incentive programs can encourage planting and long-term care on private land, while continued management of public trees will remain an important part of sustaining and expanding the overall urban forest.
20 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 18
OCTOBER 2025
Table 4 provides the 2022 canopy distribution across the full urban boundary, including public and private parcels, and areas not represented in the parcel dataset. Exhibit 9 illustrates the distribution of parcels classified as private or public and the share of canopy cover within each area type.

Table 4. Canopy Distribution by Area Type (2022)
Area Type Area (Acres) Canopy Area (Acres) Canopy Cover (%) Share of Total Canopy (%)
Public Parcels 647 42 6.5 6.0
Private Parcels 7,191 628 8.7 82
Other areas outside
parcels (ROW,
medians, etc.)
1,688 95 5.6 12
Urban Area 9,526 765 8.0 100

Exhibit 9. Parcel Ownership and Tree Canopy Distribution by Parcel Type

Source: Hanford GIS Data, 2025.

21 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 19
OCTOBER 2025

2.1.2 Census Tracts
Tree canopy cover was evaluated across 12 census tracts to assess distribution patterns relative to population - based units. Census tracts are a useful geographical unit for assessing canopy because they align with demographic, health, and environmental datasets. This makes them valuable for identifying disparities, supporting grant applications, and prioritizing areas for community investment.

Between 2018 and 2022, canopy cover declined in 11 of the 12 tracts, with only tract 06031001001 showing a slight gain of 0.2 percentage points. Losses ranged from less than 1 percentage point (tracts 06031000902 and 06031001100) to nearly 5 percentage poi nts in tract 06031000603. Other substantial decreases occurred in tracts 06031000701, 06031000901, and 06031000602, each losing between 2.6 and 3.0 percentage points.

In 2022, the highest canopy levels were found in tracts 06031000602 (13.9%) and 06031000901 (12.5%), while the lowest were in tracts 06031001100 (5.2%) and 06031000800 (4.9%). These results show that canopy loss has occurred across both higher - and lower -coverage neighborhoods, indicating that restoration efforts should balance expanding canopy in historically low -coverage areas with protecting existing canopy in tracts that began with higher levels of tree cover.

Exhibit 10 presents canopy change by census tract from 2018 to 2022 alongside 2022 canopy levels. Exhibit 11 shows the spatial distribution of 2022 canopy cover.

Exhibit 10. Canopy Cover and Change by Census Tract (2018–2022)

Source: EarthDefine 2025, derived from 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery.

22 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 20
OCTOBER 2025
Exhibit 11. 2022 Canopy Cover by Census Tract

Source: EarthDefine 2025, derived from 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery.

2.1.3 Zoning Districts
Canopy cover was analyzed by zoning district to understand how tree distribution aligns with land use regulations.

Zoning is a useful framework because it reflects both existing development patterns and future growth potential, providing insight into where canopy gains or losses may have the greatest planning implications.

Between 2018 and 2022, canopy declined in nearly all zoning districts, with the exception of the Public zoning district, which increased by 1.5 percentage points. Losses were most pronounced in Airport Protection, which 23 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 21
OCTOBER 2025
declined by 69 percentage points, Low Density Residential areas (-3.1), followed by Office (-1.5), Commercial (-1.7), and Medium Density Residential (-1.4).

In 2022, the highest canopy levels were found in Conservation (11.5%), Office (10.5%), and Low Density Residential (10.2%). The lowest canopy levels were in Airport Protection (0.2%), City (0.6%), and Industrial (1.5%). Right-of-way areas also contained relatively little canopy at 1.6%.

These results indicate that while Conservation and residential areas continue to support the majority of canopy cover, residential zoning districts are also experiencing some of the steepest declines. This trend suggests that strategies to expand canopy will need to prioritize residential neighborhoods while also ensuring canopy retention within commercial, industrial, and mixed-use zones where cover is currently limited.

Exhibit 12 presents canopy change by zoning district from 2018 to 2022 alongside 2022 canopy levels. Exhibit 13 shows the spatial distribution of canopy cover in 2022 across zoning districts.

Exhibit 12. Canopy Cover and Change by Zoning District (2018–2022)

Source: EarthDefine 2025, derived from 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery; Hanford GIS Data, 2025.

24 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 22
OCTOBER 2025
Exhibit 13. 2022 Canopy Cover by Zoning District

Source: EarthDefine 2025, derived from 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery; Hanford GIS Data, 2025.

2.1.4 Landscape Assessment Districts (LADs)
Canopy cover was evaluated across 42 Landscape Assessment Districts (LADs) to identify local-scale variations in canopy change. LAD boundaries provide a finer level of geographic resolution than zoning or census tracts and can help link canopy trends to specific maintenance areas with associated funding districts.

Between 2018 and 2022, canopy change varied widely across LADs, with some districts showing gains while others experienced substantial losses. The largest increases occurred in Quail (+3.4 percentage points) and S idonia Estates (+1.3 percentage points). Other LADs with gains over 1 percentage point included Independence Units 3 & 4 and Independence Units 1 & 2.

The most substantial loss occurred in San Joaquin Valley Homes (−18.9 percentage points), largely due to housing development. However, part of this decline reflects a classification issue in the 2018 dataset, which appears to have mapped vineyards or cropland as canopy. Other LADs with notable losses included S ilver Oaks, Stonecrest, and Pinecastle, each declining by more than 2 percentage points. 25 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 23
OCTOBER 2025
Overall, canopy loss was more prevalent than canopy gain across LADs, indicating that localized declines are contributing to the citywide canopy reduction. LADs are tied to specific maintenance and funding structures, so reversing these losses may require targeted replanting, adjusted maintenance schedules, and community engagement to sustain canopy over the long term.

Exhibit 14 shows the spatial distribution of canopy cover in 2022 across LADs.

Exhibit 14. Canopy Cover Distribution Across LADs

Source: EarthDefine 2025, derived from 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery.

26 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 24
OCTOBER 2025

2.1.5 Parks
Canopy cover was evaluated across 28 parks within the urban boundary. Parks provide important local -scale benefits, offering shade, recreation, and wildlife habitat, and their canopy distribution can highlight opportunities for preservation of large canopy trees and replanting large species.

Between 2018 and 2022, canopy change varied across parks. The largest increases occurred in Vineyard Park (+8.0), Quail Run Estates (+7.0), and Freedom Park (+4.0). Other parks such as the Hanford Sports Complex, Brown Street Park BMX, and The Plunge Skatepark also saw smaller gains. The most substantial losses occurred in Encore Park (−6.4), Lacey Park (−6.2), Pond – 2582 N Glacier Way (−5.9), and Sherwood Park (−4.4).

In 2022, canopy levels in parks ranged from 0 to 48 percent, with the highest coverage in Quail Run Estates (48.3%), Community – 2000 N. 9 1/4 Ave. (26.0%), and Civic and Courthouse Park (24.4%). Several small parks and conservation areas contained less than 1 percent canopy cover.

Parks with declining canopy may benefit from targeted replanting and management to stabilize long -term cover, while those with higher canopy levels highlight opportunities for continued preservation.

Exhibit 15 presents canopy change by parks from 2018 to 2022 alongside 2022 canopy levels. Exhibit 16 shows the spatial distribution of canopy cover in 2022 parks.

Exhibit 15. Canopy Cover and Change by Parks (2018–2022)

Source: EarthDefine 2025, derived from 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery; Hanford GIS Data, 2025. 27 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 25
OCTOBER 2025
Exhibit 16. 2022 Canopy Cover by Parks

Source: EarthDefine 2025, derived from 2022 National Agriculture Imagery Program imagery.

28 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 26
OCTOBER 2025

2.2 Canopy Cover Target Analysis
Setting canopy cover targets requires balancing planting potential with the City's capacity to maintain and sustain urban forest growth over time. This section presents a preliminary analysis to support target setting by estimating potential canopy gains from the growth of existing public trees and planting within viable sites identified in the City’s inventory, and evaluating the number of additional trees needed to reach a citywide canopy goal of 10%.

Although these findings provide a helpful foundation, they do not capture all conditions that influence urban forest outcomes, such as available funding, community support, and long -term tree care needs. These broader considerations will be addressed through the UFMP to ensure canopy targets are both realistic and sustainable.

2.2.1 Potential Canopy Growth
This analysis estimates how much additional canopy cover the City could gain through the natural growth of existing public trees and, separately, the potential expansion that could occur if all viable vacant sites identified in the inventory were planted. Together, these estimates provide a preliminary understanding of the City’s overall canopy growth potential based on its existing tree population and the physical availability of planting space on City-managed land.

City-managed trees were evaluated for potential canopy expansion as they continue to mature. The analysis assumed an average mature height of 45 feet and a corresponding canopy diameter of approximately 34 feet, based on a height -to-canopy ratio of 1:0.75 derived from the City’s tree inventory. Additional canopy area was calculated by comparing the estimated mature canopy area for each tree to its current canopy area, summing the difference across all tr ees, and converting the total to acres. This portion o f the analysis suggests a potential increase in canopy cover of approximately 1.0%, representing the maximum canopy gain achievable from existing public trees as they reach maturity under current conditions.

A separate analysis was completed to estimate the potential canopy cover gained if all inventoried vacant planting sites and sites with stumps were filled with new trees. Of the 600 total sites, 591 were determined to be viable and were used to estimate potential canopy gain. Each site was assigned a typical mature canopy diameter based on its category: 20 feet for stumps and small planting sites, 35 feet for medium sites, and 50 feet for large sites. If all recorded vacant sites were planted and the trees grown to maturity, canopy cover could increase by an additional

0.2 percent.

This analysis suggests that the City’s total canopy cover could increase from the current 8% to approximately 9.3% if all existing public trees reach maturity and all viable vacant sites are eventually planted. This represents a maximum potential scenario using existing public resources and planting space. Potential canopy increases from creating new planting areas, such as converting paved or built surfaces, were not included and require additional analysis. These results are based on assumptions such as a vailable funding for tree planting and the ability to preserve existing trees, and do not account for tree mortality, removals, or other long -term management factors that could reduce the maximum canopy growth potential.

Exhibit 17 illustrates the potential canopy gains achievable from the growth of existing City -managed trees and planting within viable vacant sites identified in the inventory. 29 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 27
OCTOBER 2025
Exhibit 17. Projected Canopy Gains from City-Managed Tree Growth and Vacant Planting Sites

Source: City of Hanford, Dudek 2025.

2.2.2 Increasing Canopy Cover
The results of the canopy growth analysis indicate that, under current conditions, the City’s canopy cover could reach approximately 9.3% if all existing public trees were preserved to maturity and all viable vacant sites in the inventory were planted. This represents the upper limit of canopy expansion achievable through trees on City- managed land.

To explore how canopy cover could increase beyond this estimate, additional planting scenarios were modeled.

These scenarios estimate the number of trees that would need to be established to achieve higher canopy levels across the City. A 10% canopy cover scenario was selected as a practical next step and planning benchmark. While the analysis is based on publicly managed trees and known planting sites, achieving this canopy level would ultimately depend on participation across both public and private properties. The scenario builds on the results of the canopy growth analysis to provide a realistic and measurable reference point for guiding long-term investment in tree planting and maintenance efforts.

Achieving a 10% canopy level would require expanding total canopy cover by approximately two percentage points above current conditions. Assuming existing public trees continue to mature and private canopy remains stable, this increase represents roughly 88 additional acres of canopy citywide. To illustrate what this level of growth would require, the additional canopy area was translated into approximate tree counts using a representative mix of tree sizes and their expected mature canopy spread.

Table 5 summarizes the number of trees and corresponding canopy area needed to increase total canopy cover by approximately 88 acres. The analysis assumes a balanced distribution of canopy width classes, small, medium, large, and extra-large, representative of typical urban planting conditions.

30 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 28
OCTOBER 2025
Table 5. Estimated Tree Planting Requirements to Achieve 10% Canopy Cover Canopy Width Ratio Trees to Plant Total Acres Increase Small (20’) 20% 749 5.29
Medium (30’) 30% 1,122 17.85
Large (40’) 30% 1,122 31.73
Extra-Large (50’) 20% 749 33.09
Total 100% 3,742 87.96

Reaching a 10% canopy level would require planting approximately 3,742 trees, distributed across a mix of small, medium, large, and extra -large canopy width classes. If implemented gradually over a 30 -year period, this would equate to planting about 125 new trees per year. The estimate includes a 2% mortality adjustment applied at the end of the analysis period, representing expected losses through maturity. This estimate assumes the City would continue to replace trees lost to mortality through replanting efforts, supporting the long -term establishment and sustainability of canopy gains.

With only 591 viable planting sites currently identified in the City’s tree inventory, Hanford would need to identify additional viable planting areas and expand opportunities through streetscape retrofits, new development requirements, or private property initiatives to meet this goal. While the City plays a leading role in managing and expanding canopy cover through the care and planting of public trees, the long -term success of the urban forest will also rely heavily on actions taken on private property.

The canopy cover analysis shows that approximately 82% of the City’s existing canopy is located on private property, with 6% on public land and 12% within rights -of-way and medians. This distribution highlights the importance of community participation and policy support to achieve meaningful canopy increases.

To make progress toward a 10% canopy goal, the City must consider influencing tree planting and preservation through various avenues including evaluating current planting and maintenance practices, identifying and prioritizing new planting opportunities, securing additional funding for the City’s urban forestry program , guiding developers to preserve or replace trees, and utilizing programmatic tools such as tree protection ordinances and partnerships with schools, private land owners, and community organizations. Initiatives like residential tree giveaways, securing funding for a proactive maintenance program, and encouraging preservation of existing trees during development or reconstruction can further support canopy growth and ensure the benefits of the urban forest are distributed equitably across Hanford’s neighborhoods.

31 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 29
OCTOBER 2025

2.3 Priority Planting Areas
A priority planting analysis was conducted to assist the City in identifying areas where new trees would provide the most benefit. The analysis incorporates information on urban heat severity, viable planting sites, and the Tree Equity Score (TES) to highl ight locations where tree planting may deliver the greatest environmental and community benefits.

This analysis serves as a planning tool to guide decision-making and support future implementation of the UFMP.

Priority areas may evolve as new data become available, advantageous funding opportunities arise, or community partnerships are developed, to enhance the urban forest collaboratively. The results of this analysis can inform policy development, outreach efforts , and strengthen grant applications, by identifying neighborhoods where planting can reduce heat exposure, increase shade, and promote equitable access to urban forest resources.

2.3.1 Urban Heat Severity
Urban heat island effects occur when built surfaces such as pavement, roofs, and parking lots absorb and retain heat, leading to higher local temperatures compared to surrounding rural or vegetated areas. To assess relative temperature patterns within Hanf ord, the analysis used the 2024 Urban Heat Severity dataset developed by the Trust for Public Land. The dataset classifies relative surface heat intensity on a scale from 1 (less severe) to 5 (more severe). For this assessment, the dataset was processed to calculate a weighted average heat severity for each Census tract, allowing comparison of localized heat exposure across Hanford. This approach combines both the extent and intensity of heat within each tract to identify neighborhoods most affected by elev ated surface temperatures where tree planting may help mitigate these heat impacts.

Exhibit 18 shows that central and southwestern Hanford experience the highest heat severity, indicating areas that may benefit most from increased tree canopy and shade infrastructure to mitigate urban heat. Northern and northeastern neighborhoods exhibit lower relative heat severity, likely reflecting greater vegetation cover or fewer impervious surfaces.
32 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 30
OCTOBER 2025
Exhibit 18. Urban Heat Island Severity by Census Tract

Source: The Trust for Public Land 2024.
33 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 31
OCTOBER 2025

2.3.2 Viable Planting Sites
Viable planting sites were evaluated using data from the City’s tree inventory. These sites represent existing locations where new trees could be established without major modifications to current land use or infrastructure .

Each site was categorized ba sed on the anticipated mature size of tree it can support: small, medium, or large.

Stump locations were also included, representing opportunities for replanting once stumps are removed. A total of 591 viable planting sites were identified, including:
• 60 small sites – best suited for narrow spaces or under utility lines, • 140 medium sites – appropriate for general use in most parkways and landscaped areas, and • 278 large sites – capable of supporting shade trees with expansive canopies, • 113 stump locations – representing opportunities for replacement planting once stumps are removed.

Exhibit 19 illustrates the density of viable planting sites across Hanford by Census tract. Darker areas indicate tracts with a higher number of vacant planting opportunities, highlighting where near -term canopy gains may be most feasible.

Exhibit 19. Viable Planting Site Density by Census Tract

Source: City of Hanford 2025.
34 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 32
OCTOBER 2025

2.3.3 Tree Equity
The Tree Equity Score (TES) is a nationwide metric developed by American Forests to measure how well the benefits of trees are reaching all residents within a community. The score evaluates whether neighborhoods have enough tree canopy to ensure equitable access to shade, air-quality benefits, and climate resilience. It is calculated at the Census block-group level and combines high -resolution tree canopy data with demographic, environmental , and socioeconomic indicators that influence vulnerability to extreme heat and pollution.

TES scores range from 0 to 100, with lower values indicating a greater need for tree planting. A score of 100 means the neighborhood has met its canopy goal and is providing an equitable level of tree benefits relative to local conditions. Tree canopy goals are determined based on biome -specific targets (e.g., forest, Mediterranean, grassland, or desert) adjusted for building density, while the social and environmental context is captured through a Priority Index , which considers factors such as income, race, age, linguistic isolation, unemployment, healt h burden, and heat severity.

Exhibit 20 illustrates Tree Equity Scores across the City ’s Census block groups. Lighter colors represent lower scores, indicating neighborhoods with limited canopy and higher planting need. Darker colors represent areas that have met or exceeded equitable canopy thresholds.

Exhibit 20. Tree Equity Score by Census Block Groups

Source: Tree Equity Score. 2023. American Forests.
35 of 201

APPENDIX A - HANFORD URBAN FOREST RESOURCE REPORT

APPENDIX A 33
OCTOBER 2025

In Hanford, the Tree Equity Score highlights neighborhoods where existing canopy does not adequately serve residents most affected by heat and socioeconomic stressors. These areas typically correspond with communities experiencing higher poverty rates, greater heat exposure, or limited access to shade. Evaluating TES across the City helps identify where tree planting and canopy preservation efforts can most effectively reduce environmental disparities, mitigate extreme heat, and improve quality of life.

Aligning future planting efforts in areas with low Tree Equity Scores, high heat severity, and available planting space overlap, will help the City direct resources where trees may provide the greatest combined benefit. Focusing on these overlapping areas can reduce heat exposure, expand canopy where establishment is most feasible, and improve equitable access to urban forest benefits across Hanford. This integrated approach support s data-driven prioritization and provides a foundation for future implementation , advocacy for funding, and management decisions for the urban forestry program.

36 of 201

35 3 References
Costello, L.R., and K.S. Jones. 2014. Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS IV): A Guide to the Water Needs of Landscape Plants in California. California Department of Water Resources. https://ucanr.edu/sites/WUCOLS.

Hirabayashi, Y., R. Mahendran, S. Koirala, L. Konoshima, D. Yamazaki, S. Watanabe, H. Kim, and S. Kanae. 2013. “Global flood Risk Under Climate Change.” Nature Climate Change 3(9): 816–821. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1911.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis.

Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.

Lacan, J., and J. McBride. 2018. “Street Trees and Climate Change.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 31:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.07.020.

McBride, J.R. and I. Lacan. 2018. Climate Change and Urban Forests: A Tree Selection Guide for Future Climates.

University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources.

McPherson, E.G., N.S. van Doorn, and J. de Goede. 2016. “Structure, Function and Value of Street Trees in California, USA.” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 17:104–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.02.011.

Moll, Gary. 1989. Urban Forestry: Managing the Urban Forest. Washington, D.C.: The American Forestry Association.

Richards, N.A. 1993. “Reasonable Guidelines for Street Tree Diversity.” Journal of Arboriculture 19(6): 344–350.

The Trust for Public Land. 2024. “Heat Severity Urban Areas – USA 2024” [dataset]. https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=b573ae35364e48d9ba9b2383f482630c.

Tree Equity Score. 2023. American Forests. Last accessed October 14, 2025. https://treeequityscore.org USFS (United States Forest Service). 2020. i-Tree Eco [online software]. https://www.itreetools.org/tools/i-tree- eco.

Watson, G. 2014. Best Management Practices: Tree Planting, 2nd ed. International Society of Arboriculture.

37 of 201

i-Tree
Ecosystem Analysis
Hanford
Urban Forest Effects and Values
July 2025
38 of 201

Summary
Understanding an urban forest's structure, function and value can promote management decisions that will improve human health and environmental quality. An assessment of the vegetation structure, function, and value of the Hanford urban forest was conducted during 2025. Data from 6640 trees located throughout Hanford were analyzed using the i-Tree Eco model developed by the U.S. Forest Service, Northern Research Station. • Number of trees: 6,640
• Tree Cover: 28.07 acres
• Most common species of trees: Chinese pistache, Common crapemyrtle, Chinese hackberry • Percentage of trees less than 6" (15.2 cm) diameter: 47.0% • Pollution Removal: 2029 pounds/year ($7.09 thousand/year) • Carbon Storage: 1.324 thousand tons ($573 thousand)
• Carbon Sequestration: 39.89 tons ($17.3 thousand/year) • Oxygen Production: 106.4 tons/year
• Avoided Runoff: 146.1 thousand gallon/year ($1.31 thousand/year) • Building energy savings: N/A – data not collected
• Avoided carbon emissions: N/A – data not collected
• Replacement values: $10.9 million
Ton: short ton (U.S.) (2,000 lbs)
Monetary values $ are reported in US Dollars throughout the report except where noted.

Ecosystem service estimates are reported for trees.

With Complete Inventory Projects, oxygen production is estimated from gross carbon sequestration and does not account for decomposition. Oxygen production in Plot Inventory Projects is estimated from net carbon sequestration.

For an overview of i-Tree Eco methodology, see Appendix I. Data collection quality is determined by the local data collectors, over which i-Tree has no control.
39 of 201

Table of Contents
Summary........................................................................................................................................................................2 I. Tree Characteristics of the Urban Forest ...................................................................................................................4 II. Urban Forest Cover and Leaf Area ............................................................................................................................7 III. Air Pollution Removal by Urban Trees .....................................................................................................................9 IV. Carbon Storage and Sequestration ........................................................................................................................11 V. Oxygen Production ..................................................................................................................................................13 VI. Avoided Runoff .......................................................................................................................................................14 VII. Trees and Building Energy Use ..............................................................................................................................15 VIII. Replacement and Functional Values ....................................................................................................................16 IX. Potential Pest Impacts ............................................................................................................................................17 Appendix I. i-Tree Eco Model and Field Measurements .............................................................................................18 Appendix II. Relative Tree Effects ...............................................................................................................................22 Appendix III. Comparison of Urban Forests ................................................................................................................23 Appendix IV. General Recommendations for Air Quality Improvement ....................................................................24 Appendix V. Invasive Species of the Urban Forest .....................................................................................................25 Appendix VI. Potential Risk of Pests ............................................................................................................................26 References ...................................................................................................................................................................33 40 of 201

I. Tree Characteristics of the Urban Forest
The urban forest of Hanford has 6,640 trees with a tree cover of Chinese pistache. The three most common species are Chinese pistache (33.6 percent), Common crapemyrtle (9.1 percent), and Chinese hackberry (7.2 percent). 41 of 201

Urban forests are composed of a mix of native and exotic tree species. Thus, urban forests often have a tree diversity that is higher than surrounding native landscapes. Increased tree diversity can minimize the overall impact or destruction by a species-specific insect or disease, but it can also pose a risk to native plants if some of the exotic species are invasive plants that can potentially out-compete and displace native species. In Hanford, about 18 percent of the trees are species native to North America, while 9 percent are native to California. Species exotic to North America make up 82 percent of the population. Most exotic tree species have an origin from Asia (59 percent of the species).
42 of 201

The plus sign (+) indicates the tree species is native to another continent other than the ones listed in the grouping.

Invasive plant species are often characterized by their vigor, ability to adapt, reproductive capacity, and general lack of natural enemies. These abilities enable them to displace native plants and make them a threat to natural areas.

Four of the 101 tree species in Hanford are identified as invasive on the state invasive species list (California Invasive Species Advisory Committee 2010). These invasive species comprise 1.3 percent of the tree population though they may only cause a minimal level of impact. The three most common invasive species are Chinese tallowtree (1.0 percent of population), Tree of heaven (0.1 percent), and California peppertree (0.1 percent) (see Appendix V for a complete list of invasive species).
43 of 201

II. Urban Forest Cover and Leaf Area
Many tree benefits equate directly to the amount of healthy leaf surface area of the plant. Trees cover about 28.07 acres of Hanford and provide 88.53 acres of leaf area.

In Hanford, the most dominant species in terms of leaf area are Chinese pistache, Chinese hackberry, and California white oak. The 10 species with the greatest importance values are listed in Table 1. Importance values (IV) are calculated as the sum of percent population and percent leaf area. High importance values do not mean that these trees should necessarily be encouraged in the future; rather these species currently dominate the urban forest structure.

Table 1. Most important species in Hanford
Species Name
Percent
Population
Percent
Leaf Area IV
Chinese pistache 33.6 15.7 49.3
Chinese hackberry 7.2 11.9 19.1
Sycamore spp 6.2 8.4 14.6
California white oak 3.7 10.7 14.4
Canary island pine 2.8 9.8 12.7
Common crapemyrtle 9.1 0.6 9.7
Italian stone pine 1.5 7.1 8.6
Aleppo pine 2.1 4.5 6.6
Camphor tree 2.2 3.2 5.4
Live oak 2.0 2.4 4.3
44 of 201

Common ground cover classes (including cover types beneath trees and shrubs) in Hanford are not available since they are configured not to be collected.
45 of 201

III. Air Pollution Removal by Urban Trees
Poor air quality is a common problem in many urban areas. It can lead to decreased human health, damage to landscape materials and ecosystem processes, and reduced visibility. The urban forest can help improve air quality by reducing air temperature, directly removing pollutants from the air, and reducing energy consumption in buildings, which consequently reduces air pollutant emissions from the power sources. Trees also emit volatile organic compounds that can contribute to ozone formation. However, integrative studies have revealed that an increase in tree cover leads to reduced ozone formation (Nowak and Dwyer 2000).

Pollution removal 1 by trees in Hanford was estimated using field data and recent available pollution and weather data available. Pollution removal was greatest for ozone (Figure 7). It is estimated that trees remove 2029 pounds of air pollution (ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5), particulate matter less than 10 microns and greater than 2.5 microns (PM10*) 2, and sulfur dioxide (SO2)) per year with an associated value of $7.09 thousand (see Appendix I for more details). 1 PM10* is particulate matter less than 10 microns and greater than 2.5 microns. PM2.5 is particulate matter less than 2.5 microns. If PM2.5 is not monitored, PM10* represents particulate matter less than 10 microns. PM2.5 is generally more relevant in discussions concerning air pollution effects on human health. 2 Trees remove PM2.5 and PM10* when particulate matter is deposited on leaf surfaces. This deposited PM2.5 and PM10* can be resuspended to the atmosphere or removed during rain events and dissolved or transferred to the soil. This combination of events can lead to positive or negative pollution removal and value depending on various atmospheric factors (see Appendix I for more details). 46 of 201

In 2025, trees in Hanford emitted an estimated 1.451 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) (0.7503 tons of isoprene and 0.7008 tons of monoterpenes). Emissions vary among species based on species characteristics (e.g. some genera such as oaks are high isoprene emitters) and amount of leaf biomass. Forty- five percent of the urban forest's VOC emissions were from California white oak and Live oak. These VOCs are precursor chemicals to ozone formation.³
General recommendations for improving air quality with trees are given in Appendix VIII. ³ Some economic studies have estimated VOC emission costs. These costs are not included here as there is a tendency to add positive dollar estimates of ozone removal effects with negative dollar values of VOC emission effects to determine whether tree effects are positive or negative in relation to ozone. This combining of dollar values to determine tree effects should not be done, rather estimates of VOC effects on ozone formation (e.g., via photochemical models) should be conducted and directly contrasted with ozone removal by trees (i.e., ozone effects should be directly compared, not dollar estimates). In addition, air temperature reductions by trees have been shown to significantly reduce ozone concentrations (Cardelino and Chameides 1990; Nowak et al 2000), but are not considered in this analysis. Photochemical modeling that integrates tree effects on air temperature, pollution removal, VOC emissions, and emissions from power plants can be used to determine the overall effect of trees on ozone concentrations. 47 of 201

IV. Carbon Storage and Sequestration
Climate change is an issue of global concern. Urban trees can help mitigate climate change by sequestering atmospheric carbon (from carbon dioxide) in tissue and by altering energy use in buildings, and consequently altering carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel based power sources (Abdollahi et al 2000).

Trees reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere by sequestering carbon in new growth every year. The amount of carbon annually sequestered is increased with the size and health of the trees. The gross sequestration of Hanford trees is about 39.89 tons of carbon per year with an associated value of $17.3 thousand. See Appendix I for more details on methods.

Carbon storage is another way trees can influence global climate change. As a tree grows, it stores more carbon by holding it in its accumulated tissue. As a tree dies and decays, it releases much of the stored carbon back into the atmosphere. Thus, carbon storage is an indication of the amount of carbon that can be released if trees are allowed to die and decompose. Maintaining healthy trees will keep the carbon stored in trees, but tree maintenance can contribute to carbon emissions (Nowak et al 2002c). When a tree dies, using the wood in long-term wood products, to heat buildings, or to produce energy will help reduce carbon emissions from wood decomposition or from fossil- fuel or wood-based power plants.
48 of 201

Trees in Hanford are estimated to store 1320 tons of carbon ($573 thousand). Of the species sampled, Chinese pistache stores and sequesters the most carbon (approximately 24.6% of the total carbon stored and 36.8% of all sequestered carbon.)
49 of 201

V. Oxygen Production
Oxygen production is one of the most commonly cited benefits of urban trees. The annual oxygen production of a tree is directly related to the amount of carbon sequestered by the tree, which is tied to the accumulation of tree biomass.

Trees in Hanford are estimated to produce 106.4 tons of oxygen per year.⁴ However, this tree benefit is relatively insignificant because of the large and relatively stable amount of oxygen in the atmosphere and extensive production by aquatic systems. Our atmosphere has an enormous reserve of oxygen. If all fossil fuel reserves, all trees, and all organic matter in soils were burned, atmospheric oxygen would only drop a few percent (Broecker 1970).

Table 2. The top 20 oxygen production species.

Species Oxygen
Gross Carbon
Sequestration Number of Trees Leaf Area
(ton) (ton/yr) (acre)
Chinese pistache 39.13 14.67 2,234 13.88
California white oak 8.01 3.00 246 9.49
Camphor tree 6.28 2.36 148 2.81
Live oak 4.79 1.80 130 2.11
Canary island pine 4.37 1.64 189 8.70
Sycamore spp 4.26 1.60 411 7.42
Italian stone pine 4.12 1.54 99 6.25
Aleppo pine 3.13 1.18 140 4.00
Chinese tallowtree 2.47 0.93 66 0.85
Chinese hackberry 2.37 0.89 478 10.56
Common crapemyrtle 1.91 0.72 605 0.52
Coastal live oak 1.61 0.60 75 2.30
Carolina laurelcherry 1.47 0.55 113 0.42
Chinese elm 1.37 0.51 40 0.74
White mulberry 1.35 0.51 31 0.76
Callery pear 1.26 0.47 51 0.78
Ash spp 1.12 0.42 54 1.93
Red gum eucalyptus 1.08 0.41 9 1.07
Honeylocust 1.04 0.39 39 0.58
Silk oak 0.96 0.36 34 0.44
50 of 201

VI. Avoided Runoff
Surface runoff can be a cause for concern in many urban areas as it can contribute pollution to streams, wetlands, rivers, lakes, and oceans. During precipitation events, some portion of the precipitation is intercepted by vegetation (trees and shrubs) while the other portion reaches the ground. The portion of the precipitation that reaches the ground and does not infiltrate into the soil becomes surface runoff (Hirabayashi 2012). In urban areas, the large extent of impervious surfaces increases the amount of surface runoff.

Urban trees and shrubs, however, are beneficial in reducing surface runoff. Trees and shrubs intercept precipitation, while their root systems promote infiltration and storage in the soil. The trees and shrubs of Hanford help to reduce runoff by an estimated 146 thousand gallons a year with an associated value of $1.3 thousand (see Appendix I for more details). Avoided runoff is estimated based on local weather from the user-designated weather station. In Hanford, the total annual precipitation in 2023 was 12.8 inches. 51 of 201

VII. Trees and Building Energy Use
Trees affect energy consumption by shading buildings, providing evaporative cooling, and blocking winter winds.

Trees tend to reduce building energy consumption in the summer months and can either increase or decrease building energy use in the winter months, depending on the location of trees around the building. Estimates of tree effects on energy use are based on field measurements of tree distance and direction to space conditioned residential buildings (McPherson and Simpson 1999).

Because energy-related data were not collected, energy savings and carbon avoided cannot be calculated. ⁵ Trees modify climate, produce shade, and reduce wind speeds. Increased energy use or costs are likely due to these tree-building interactions creating a cooling effect during the winter season. For example, a tree (particularly evergreen species) located on the southern side of a residential building may produce a shading effect that causes increases in heating requirements.

Table 3. Annual energy savings due to trees near residential buildings, Hanford Heating Cooling Total
MBTUa 0 N/A 0
MWHb 0 0 0
Carbon Avoided (pounds) 0 0 0
aMBTU - one million British Thermal Units
bMWH - megawatt-hour
Table 4. Annual savings a($) in residential energy expenditure during heating and cooling seasons, Hanford Heating Cooling Total
MBTUb 0 N/A 0
MWHc 0 0 0
Carbon Avoided 0 0 0
bBased on the prices of $204.7 per MWH and $12.9396400362223 per MBTU (see Appendix I for more details) cMBTU - one million British Thermal Units
cMWH - megawatt-hour
52 of 201

VIII. Replacement and Functional Values
Urban forests have a replacement value based on the trees themselves (e.g., the cost of having to replace a tree with a similar tree); they also have functional values (either positive or negative) based on the functions the trees perform.

The replacement value of an urban forest tends to increase with a rise in the number and size of healthy trees (Nowak et al 2002a). Annual functional values also tend to increase with increased number and size of healthy trees.

Through proper management, urban forest values can be increased; however, the values and benefits also can decrease as the amount of healthy tree cover declines.

Urban trees in Hanford have the following replacement values:
• Replacement value: $10.9 million
• Carbon storage: $573 thousand
Urban trees in Hanford have the following annual functional values:
• Carbon sequestration: $17.3 thousand
• Avoided runoff: $1.31 thousand
• Pollution removal: $7.09 thousand
• Energy costs and carbon emission values: $0
(Note: negative value indicates increased energy cost and carbon emission value) 53 of 201

IX. Potential Pest Impacts
Various insects and diseases can infest urban forests, potentially killing trees and reducing the health, replacement value and sustainability of the urban forest. As pests tend to have differing tree hosts, the potential damage or risk of each pest will differ among cities.Fifty-three pests were analyzed for their potential impact and compared with pest range maps (Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team 2014) for the conterminous United States to determine their proximity to Kings County. Two of the fifty-three pests analyzed are located within the county. For a complete analysis of all pests, see Appendix VII.

Thousand canker disease (TCD) (Cranshaw and Tisserat 2009; Seybold et al 2010) is an insect-disease complex that kills several species of walnuts, including black walnut. Potential loss of trees from TCD is 0.0 percent ($0 in replacement value).

The western pine beetle (WPB) (DeMars and Roettgering 1982) is a bark beetle and aggressive attacker of ponderosa and Coulter pines. This pest threatens 0.0 percent of the population, which represents a potential loss of $0 in replacement value.
54 of 201

Appendix I. i-Tree Eco Model and Field Measurements
i-Tree Eco is designed to use standardized field data and local hourly air pollution and meteorological data to quantify urban forest structure and its numerous effects (Nowak and Crane 2000), including:
• Urban forest structure (e.g., species composition, tree health, leaf area, etc.). • Amount of pollution removed hourly by the urban forest, and its associated percent air quality improvement throughout a year.
• Total carbon stored and net carbon annually sequestered by the urban forest. • Effects of trees on building energy use and consequent effects on carbon dioxide emissions from power sources.
• Replacement value of the forest, as well as the value for air pollution removal and carbon storage and sequestration.
• Potential impact of infestations by pests, such as Asian longhorned beetle, emerald ash borer, spongy moth, and Dutch elm disease.

Typically, all field data are collected during the leaf-on season to properly assess tree canopies. Typical data collection (actual data collection may vary depending upon the user) includes land use, ground and tree cover, individual tree attributes of species, stem diameter, height, crown width, crown canopy missing and dieback, and distance and direction to residential buildings (Nowak et al 2005; Nowak et al 2008).

During data collection, trees are identified to the most specific taxonomic classification possible. Trees that are not classified to the species level may be classified by genus (e.g., ash) or species groups (e.g., hardwood). In this report, tree species, genera, or species groups are collectively referred to as tree species.

Tree Characteristics:

Leaf area of trees was assessed using measurements of crown dimensions and percentage of crown canopy missing.

In the event that these data variables were not collected, they are estimated by the model.

An analysis of invasive species is not available for studies outside of the United States. For the U.S., invasive species are identified using an invasive species list (California Invasive Species Advisory Committee 2010)for the state in which the urban forest is located. These lists are not exhaustive and they cover invasive species of varying degrees of invasiveness and distribution. In instances where a state did not have an invasive species list, a list was created based on the lists of the adjacent states. Tree species that are identified as invasive by the state invasive species list are cross-referenced with native range data. This helps eliminate species that are on the state invasive species list, but are native to the study area.

Air Pollution Removal:

Pollution removal is calculated for ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns, and particulate matter less than 10 microns and greater than 2.5 microns. PM2.5 is generally more relevant in discussions concerning air pollution effects on human health.

Air pollution removal estimates are derived from calculated hourly tree-canopy resistances for ozone, and sulfur and nitrogen dioxides based on a hybrid of big-leaf and multi-layer canopy deposition models (Baldocchi 1988; Baldocchi et al 1987). As the removal of carbon monoxide and particulate matter by vegetation is not directly related to transpiration, removal rates (deposition velocities) for these pollutants were based on average measured values from the literature (Bidwell and Fraser 1972; Lovett 1994) that were adjusted depending on leaf phenology and leaf area.

Particulate removal incorporated a 50 percent resuspension rate of particles back to the atmosphere (Zinke 1967).

Recent updates (2011) to air quality modeling are based on improved leaf area index simulations, weather and 55 of 201

pollution processing and interpolation, and updated pollutant monetary values (Hirabayashi et al 2011; Hirabayashi et al 2012; Hirabayashi 2011).

Trees remove PM2.5 and PM10* when particulate matter is deposited on leaf surfaces (Nowak et al 2013). This deposited PM2.5 and PM10* can be resuspended to the atmosphere or removed during rain events and dissolved or transferred to the soil. This combination of events can lead to positive or negative pollution removal and value depending on various atmospheric factors. Generally, PM2.5 and PM10* removal is positive with positive benefits.

However, there are some cases when net removal is negative or resuspended particles lead to increased pollution concentrations and negative values. During some months (e.g., with no rain), trees resuspend more particles than they remove. Resuspension can also lead to increased overall PM2.5 and PM10* concentrations if the boundary layer conditions are lower during net resuspension periods than during net removal periods. Since the pollution removal value is based on the change in pollution concentration, it is possible to have situations when trees remove PM2.5 and PM10* but increase concentrations and thus have negative values during periods of positive overall removal.

These events are not common, but can happen.

For reports in the United States, default air pollution removal value is calculated based on local incidence of adverse health effects and national median externality costs. The number of adverse health effects and associated economic value is calculated for ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns using data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Environmental Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program (BenMAP) (Nowak et al 2014). The model uses a damage-function approach that is based on the local change in pollution concentration and population. National median externality costs were used to calculate the value of carbon monoxide removal (Murray et al 1994).

For international reports, user-defined local pollution values are used. For international reports that do not have local values, estimates are based on either European median externality values (van Essen et al 2011) or BenMAP regression equations (Nowak et al 2014) that incorporate user-defined population estimates. Values are then converted to local currency with user-defined exchange rates.

For this analysis, pollution removal value is calculated based on the prices of $1,622 per ton (carbon monoxide), $6,007 per ton (ozone), $868 per ton (nitrogen dioxide), $313 per ton (sulfur dioxide), $201,290 per ton (particulate matter less than 2.5 microns), $7,623 per ton (particulate matter less than 10 microns and greater than 2.5 microns).

Carbon Storage and Sequestration:

Carbon storage is the amount of carbon bound up in the above-ground and below-ground parts of woody vegetation.

To calculate current carbon storage, biomass for each tree was calculated using equations from the literature and measured tree data. Open-grown, maintained trees tend to have less biomass than predicted by forest-derived biomass equations (Nowak 1994). To adjust for this difference, biomass results for open-grown urban trees were multiplied by 0.8. No adjustment was made for trees found in natural stand conditions. Tree dry-weight biomass was converted to stored carbon by multiplying by 0.5.

Carbon sequestration is the removal of carbon dioxide from the air by plants. To estimate the gross amount of carbon sequestered annually, average diameter growth from the appropriate genera and diameter class and tree condition was added to the existing tree diameter (year x) to estimate tree diameter and carbon storage in year x+1.

Carbon storage and carbon sequestration values are based on estimated or customized local carbon values. For international reports that do not have local values, estimates are based on the carbon value for the United States (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015, Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon 2015) and converted to local currency with user-defined exchange rates.

For this analysis, carbon storage and carbon sequestration values are calculated based on $433 per ton. 56 of 201

Oxygen Production:

The amount of oxygen produced is estimated from carbon sequestration based on atomic weights: net O2 release (kg/yr) = net C sequestration (kg/yr) × 32/12. To estimate the net carbon sequestration rate, the amount of carbon sequestered as a result of tree growth is reduced by the amount lost resulting from tree mortality. Thus, net carbon sequestration and net annual oxygen production of the urban forest account for decomposition (Nowak et al 2007).

For complete inventory projects, oxygen production is estimated from gross carbon sequestration and does not account for decomposition.

Avoided Runoff:

Annual avoided surface runoff is calculated based on rainfall interception by vegetation, specifically the difference between annual runoff with and without vegetation. Although tree leaves, branches, and bark may intercept precipitation and thus mitigate surface runoff, only the precipitation intercepted by leaves is accounted for in this analysis.

The value of avoided runoff is based on estimated or user-defined local values. For international reports that do not have local values, the national average value for the United States is utilized and converted to local currency with user-defined exchange rates. The U.S. value of avoided runoff is based on the U.S. Forest Service's Community Tree Guide Series (McPherson et al 1999; 2000; 2001; 2002; 2003; 2004; 2006a; 2006b; 2006c; 2007; 2010; Peper et al 2009; 2010; Vargas et al 2007a; 2007b; 2008).

For this analysis, avoided runoff value is calculated based on the price of $0.01 per gallon.

Building Energy Use:

If appropriate field data were collected, seasonal effects of trees on residential building energy use were calculated based on procedures described in the literature (McPherson and Simpson 1999) using distance and direction of trees from residential structures, tree height and tree condition data. To calculate the monetary value of energy savings, local or custom prices per MWH or MBTU are utilized.

For this analysis, energy saving value is calculated based on the prices of $204.70 per MWH and $12.94 per MBTU.

Replacement Values:

Replacement value is the value of a tree based on the physical resource itself (e.g., the cost of having to replace a tree with a similar tree). Replacement values were based on valuation procedures of the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, which uses tree species, diameter, condition, and location information (Nowak et al 2002a; 2002b). Replacement value may not be included for international projects if there is insufficient local data to complete the valuation procedures.

Potential Pest Impacts:

The complete potential pest risk analysis is not available for studies outside of the United States. The number of trees at risk to the pests analyzed is reported, though the list of pests is based on known insects and disease in the United States.

For the U.S., potential pest risk is based on pest range maps and the known pest host species that are likely to experience mortality. Pest range maps for 2012 from the Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team (FHTET) (Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team 2014) were used to determine the proximity of each pest to the county in which 57 of 201