Sacramento City Council
June 24, 2025

1b. If not, what percentage of tree canopy should the City aim for?

• I recommend 35%, given the impacts of a warmer climate on health; heat island effect, air quality, the economy, etc.
• Set an ambitious tree canopy goal.

2. What outreach would be helpful to achieve a higher percentage of tree canopy? • Education on tree maintenance, selection of species, benefits, and economic value. Reach out to commercial and residential landowners.
• Education on the conflicts and (perceived or real) negative qualities of trees. • Educate people on the rules and enforce them.
• Education on social justice and equality as it relates to trees. The City should work with private property owners, educate people on the health of trees, and find trees that will work for all communities.
• Increased outreach to property owners.
• Display the benefits of trees to residents, property values, safety, visual appeal, etc. • Increased canopy may reduce particulate matter concentration, ozone levels, incidence of asthma, as well as many other health benefits.
• Help homeowners select and plant appropriate trees. Also help folks learn how to care for trees.

0 0.5
1 1.5
2 2.5
3 3.5
4 4.5
45% 35% 25-30%
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
134
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.

3a. For parking lot shade requirements, is 50% a reasonable goal?

Yes
• With good parking lot designs, a higher percentage of tree canopies may be achievable. What's missing is enforcement.
• I think this can be achieved through a mix of solar panels and increased tree canopy. • Parking lots are giant frying pans.
• The ordinance needs to be revised to require the total parking lot to be shaded, not just new positions of parking lots for retrofits.

No
• 75% should be the goal

3 b. If yes, what are some ideas to increase shade in parking lots? If no, why? Enforcement
• Enforcement is needed.
• Amend the ordinance with stricter enforcement.
• Enhance compliance; increase code enforcement involvement where non-compliance with parking lot shade ordinance is observed or reported. The City could use volunteers to assist with identifying non-compliant parking lots.

Specific Zones
• Clarify that pruning is allowable for security cameras in cannabis project parking lots. • The City could increase its tree canopy through conditions of approval in Conditional Use Permit requests for cannabis projects, which are generally in warehouses with large, bare parking lots.

Link the tree canopy goal with cannabis approvals to provide a community benefit.

Physical environment
• Increase the City’s soil capacity.
• Water trees for the first three years to guarantee more root space. 89%
11%
Yes
No
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
135
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.

Update regulations
• Check the formula for tree shade – it should be realistic for parking lots. • Prohibit tree topping.
• Ensure construction plans include sufficient planting / growth space. • Plant trees in medians and borders of buildings.
• Plant the right trees, at right size, and in the right locations. • Increase required planting areas for trees.
• Require trees to be planted at one of the following times: at a building’s initial construction, when a parking lot is retrofitted to install EV chargers (part of the City's EV strategy), or when a street is first paved.
• Implement new regulations with any new developments in which lots are reconfigured. • Revamp the parking lot shade requirement to emphasize the placement of large trees in parking lots.
• Develop Public Works Standards for tree maintenance.
• Instruct all local landscaping companies how to take care of trees including: pruning, maintenance, removing diseased trees.
• Codify through council resolution a revised Parking Lot Shade Tree Design and Maintenance Guideline document to improve the current planter dimension requirements, planting specifications, and approved species list. Rename this document a “manual” instead of a “guideline.”
• Revise chapter 17 (17.68.040 F.) of the Parking Lot Shade Tree Design and Maintenance Guideline document to explicitly require permits to prune or remove parking lot trees. • Revise Chapter 17 of the Parking Lot Shade Tree Design and Maintenance Guideline document to require that existing parking lots subject to the shade ordinance make improvements as needed to meet the 50% shade coverage requirement following a notice of non-compliance.

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
136
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.

4. Where would you like to see more trees?

• Public spaces in low-income neighborhoods and low-canopy areas. This would bring tree benefits and encourage private and commercial landowners to plant more trees. • Low-income residential and commercial areas to promote and enable more people to walk, bike, and ride transit.
• Walkable areas including private developments, public properties, and around building developments.
• Front yards near sidewalks.
• New infill under canopied areas.

Additional Comments
Consider Sacramento’s climate
• We will have more years of drought and water-use reduction. Let the grass in parks and public / private properties die, but stress the need for infrequent, deep watering. • For reduced ozone formation, select tree species that are low emitters of biogenic volatile organic compounds.
• Plant drought-tolerant trees to anticipate future heat and drought. • Anticipate urban heat island and vulnerable communities. • Develop strategies for keeping trees watered during severe drought, include standard policy / practices for placing vegetative barriers between freeways and other busy roadways and development such as residential, schools, parks, and other places where more people most vulnerable to air pollution may be located.

Policy & Enforcement
• Make sure there is consistent tree-canopy-supportive policy among the General Plan, the Urban Forest Master Plan, and specific plans. For instance, require a minimum 7-foot width for tree planters.
• Increase requirements for front yard trees. Develop incentives for planting backyard trees. • Work to get school districts to adopt the parking lot shade ordinance.

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
137
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.

• Look at the relationship between the population density and canopy. Set a goal accordingly.

Consider costs to the public in maintaining canopy, particularly in areas with again or inappropriate species.
• Develop specific recommended tree removal mitigation measures that will promote the return of health benefits of tree canopy as quickly as possible.
• Develop street tree policy to promote increased canopy, including adequate planter sizes.

Include street trees in definitions of Complete Streets. Focus on street tree planting to provide sidewalk shade versus just in medians.
• Building setback standards need to allow space for shade tree planting. • Planning guidelines need to allow for canopy trees.
• Consider reinstituting registration of tree companies – stop tree-topping! • Enforce tree protection for construction sites.
• Consider revising sidewalk accommodations for major trees (i.e. more room to root zone). • Embed irrigation infrastructure into trenches for EV charging conduits when EV chargers are installed.
• Maintenance is critical and should have more investment.

Tree Size
• A focus on large stature trees (where growth space is available) to maximize benefits. • Emphasize the planting of large trees for shade.

Other
• Demonstrate net dollar benefits for private landowners to encourage planting and care. • Why is Urban Forestry in the Public Works Department? The Parks department would be more appropriate.
• Parking lots seem to be a no-brainer.
• The report was very data driven, not ready for prime time, some numbers were "unreasonable." • In your reports, it would be helpful to see the City’s population density layered over the current canopy.

Next Steps
The next steps in creating the Urban Forest Master Plan include an online community workshop along with a series of Pop-Up events throughout the late spring and summer 2018. A community workshop will be held in the summer of 2018. By fall, the project team will have an administrative draft of the Urban Forest Master Plan for the second Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting. Following the second SRG meeting, there will be a public draft of the plan available for comment and review. A third and final SRG meeting will take place in winter of 2018, with the Final Urban Master Plan published in Spring of 2019.

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
138
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.

Appendix
• Meeting invite
• Presentation
• Meeting agenda
• Feedback Form

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
139
City of Sacramento Urban Forest Plan Partner Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary

Urban Forest Plan
Partner Advisory Committee Meeting #4
December 13, 2023 | 5:00 – 6:30 PM

Meeting Summary
On Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the City of Sacramento held the fourth and final meeting of the Partner Advisory Committee (PAC) for the Urban Forest Plan (UFP). The meeting took place from 5:00- 6:30 p.m. at Sacramento City Hall, located at 915 I Street, in Sacramento.

The following City staff and project team members attended the meeting:
• Rachel Patten, Sustainability Analyst, Public Works
• Lucinda Willcox, Assistant Public Works Director, Public Works • Kevin Hocker, City Urban Forester, Public Works
• Sarah Kolarik, Sustainability Analyst, Office of Climate Action and Sustainability • Taner Pasamehmetoglu, Arts Program Assistant, Office of Climate Action and Sustainability

PAC members attended the meeting, representing the following organizations:
• 350 Sacramento
• California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE) • Elmhurst Neighborhood Association
• Hollywood Park Neighborhood Association CommuniTree Project • Meadowview Urban Tree Canopy Project (MUTP)
• North Natomas community
• Preservation Sacramento
• River Park Tree Canopy Project
• Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) • Sacramento Municipal Utilities District (SMUD)
• Sacramento Tree Foundation
• Trees4Sacramento

After the third PAC meeting, on Thursday November 2, 2023, PAC members were asked to review and provide comments on the Preliminary Administrative Draft Urban Forest Plan. The PAC’s review was focused on: recommendations for Vision Statements, prioritization of Implementation Measures, and identifying any major topic areas that were missing, unclear, or inaccurate.

PAC members were asked to provide comments through two methods:

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
140
City of Sacramento Urban Forest Plan Partner Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary

1) Responding to a digital survey
2) Sending additional comments not captured by the survey via email

The focus of PAC meeting #4 was to summarize the PAC feedback on the Preliminary Administrative Draft Urban Forest Plan, provide staff responses to major topic areas, facilitate group discussion of the plan and allow final comments, and finally to outline the next steps for the UFP and the PAC.

Meeting Agenda
• Welcome and Introductions
• Summary of survey responses and comments
• How staff will respond to comments
• Next steps for the draft Urban Forest Plan and Partner Advisory Committee • Discussion/Question and Answer
Meeting Notes
Summary of Survey Responses and Comments
18 of 31 PAC members completed the digital survey to provide feedback and comments on the Preliminary Administrative Draft Urban Forest Plan. The survey consisted of 15 questions that asked participants to rank preferred Vision Statements, prioritize Implementation Strategies from each of the five Goals of the UFP , rank how well they felt the UFP addressed the unique needs and challenges of Sacramento’s urban forest, and spaces for narrative comments on each topic. The results of that survey are as follows:

Vision Statement
Survey respondents voted for the vision statement:

The City of Sacramento, together with community investment and involvement, will reinforce Sacramento’s legacy as the “City of Trees”. The City will address historic inequity in access to nature, and prioritize the sustainable management and expansion of the urban tree canopy to provide extensive benefits and reprieve from the impacts of climate change for generations of Sacramentans to come.

Priority Implementation Strategies
There were nine total Implementation Strategies across all five Goals that at least ~50% of survey respondents voted as high priority for implementation. Those Implementation Strategies fell into four broad categories: 1) Funding for UFP strategies, 2) Shading streets and sidewalks, 3) Supporting Disadvantaged Communities, and 4) Protecting native trees.

The nine high priority Implementation Strategies listed in order of priority ranking were:
• 5.1.2 Pursue an increase in dedicated long-term funding to provide an increased level of tree canopy, perform associated care and maintenance, and expand core urban forestry services and programs.
• 5.2.1 Explore providing financial support to residents in disadvantaged communities for tree planting and care.

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
141
City of Sacramento Urban Forest Plan Partner Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary

• 1.2.7 Support the achievement of 50 percent tree shading over streets and sidewalks. • 3.4.3 When designing transportation improvements, support the inclusion of adequate tree canopy to provide substantial shade for active transportation infrastructure and support achievement of 50 percent shading on streets and sidewalks. • 4.2.3 Strengthen partnerships with entities in disadvantaged and low tree canopy neighborhoods.
• 3.4.3 When designing transportation improvements, support the inclusion of adequate tree canopy to provide substantial shade for active transportation infrastructure and support achievement of 50 percent shading on streets and sidewalks. • 4.2.3 Strengthen partnerships with entities in disadvantaged and low tree canopy neighborhoods.
• 3.1.3 Strengthen collaboration and support between all City departments that manage trees. • 5.1.1 Perform a cost analysis to determine the projected cost to meet the tree planting and maintenance targets identified in the Urban Forest Plan to reach 35 percent canopy cover by 2045.

Effectiveness of the UFP
Survey respondents voted that the Preliminary Administrative Draft Urban Forest Plan “Mostly” addressed the unique needs and challenges of Sacramento’s Urban Forest.

Comments about why the draft plan did not fully address the needs of Sacramento’s urban forest mainly focused on the need for more resource allocation, additional specifics about implementation, and aggressive private property canopy goals. Many comments also expressed appreciation of the details and high-level guidance that the UFP draft provided.

General Feedback
In addition to the 18 survey responses, Staff also received 8 comment letters via email. Staff will review and respond to the feedback through two ways:
1) Incorporate changes into public review draft. (E.g., higher-level changes) Yes
6%
Mostly
65%
No
17%
Not
sure
12%
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
142
City of Sacramento Urban Forest Plan Partner Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary

2) Respond to comments during the public review period (E.g., more specific implementation action changes or topics that require broader public discussion) There were four major theme’s that appeared in many survey responses and comment emails that staff wanted to address directly with the PAC.

Strengthen Language
PAC Comments: Reduce the use of words that do not convey a specific measurable outcome or add a measurable outcome to the statement to bolster words like “encourage,” “seek,” and “support.”

Staff Response: We will go through and look at each instance, limit the usage as much as possible, and add direction. Some will likely stay in the document based on staffs' authority to recommend changes and ability/resources to guarantee policies and programs.

Increase Canopy Goal
PAC Comments: Some calls to increase the overall canopy goal above 35% or to achieve the 35% goal before 2045.

Staff Response: Based on UTC report by Davey, underlying ecological conditions, and urban forestry best practices, staff believe 35% canopy (shading 35% of the entire land surface of the City of Sacramento) is the maximum feasible that we can achieve on this timeline.

We want to set an ambitious but realistic goal. 35% would nearly double the number of trees in the City. Nothing will prevent us from exceeding this goal.

City Maintenance of Private Trees
PAC Comments: Calls to revive previous practices of planting and maintaining trees on private property.

Staff Response: Several decades ago, the City attempted to help homeowners provide care of trees in the “private maintenance easement” or private front yard trees in close physical and visual proximity to public-right-of-way trees. After review, it was identified that not only did this result in unacceptably long pruning cycles, but was also not an allowable practice. Since 1990, only trees within public-right-of-way easements are pruned by the City.

Legally, the City does not have the right to begin pruning trees on private property without permission or an easement, and that process does not appear feasible. While staff does not see a legal avenue for the City to directly care for trees on private property, the Plan does explore alternative options to provide tree care assistance through other programs.

To grow tree canopy on private property the City must:
• Support increased planting efforts.
• Support ongoing tree maintenance.

Policy + Implementation Actions recommended to address this need:

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
143
City of Sacramento Urban Forest Plan Partner Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary

• 1.3.2 Support and facilitate canopy expansion efforts on private property across the City with focus in priority communities.
• 2.3.6 Support the use of proper pruning techniques on privately maintained trees. • 4.2.2 Support and encourage businesses to increase tree canopy. • 5.2.1 Explore providing financial support to residents in disadvantaged communities for tree planting and care.
• 5.2.2 Explore financial incentives to support residents with mature trees.

Continued Involvement of the PAC
PAC Comments: The City should continue to involve the PAC in the implementation of the UFP and/or create a tree commission.

Staff Response: It is currently not a Council priority to expand commissions. Community members are welcome to recommend this to Council for consideration.

The PAC’s feedback is extremely valuable in the development of this planning and visioning document. Staff are not recommending ongoing engagement with this specific group past the plan development. But implementation of the UFP will require deep engagement with many partners and constituents.

Policy + Implementation Actions recommended to address this need:
• 1.2.2 Amend Sacramento City Code as necessary to improve tree canopy inclusion and require minimum levels of tree planting in development projects. • 3.1.4 Conduct annual reporting on the urban forest plan to ensure progress towards goals and appropriate resource allocation.
• 4.1 Community Engagement: Support community advocacy for and involvement in the urban forest.
• 4.2 Partner Coordination: Facilitate coordination, involvement, and commitment from all entities that own, control, regulate, or affect the urban forest. • 4.3 Youth Engagement: Cultivate youth engagement in the urban forest to continue Sacramento’s legacy of tree stewardship.
• 4.4 Workforce Development: Advance career pathways in urban forestry.

Next Steps
Staff finalize public review draft over the next few months. Public review will likely begin winter/spring 2024.
• Goal of Feb. 2024 for launch of public review period
• At least 30 days of public review
• Will go through commissions, Council, community meetings, and have an online public review draft.
• PAC can comment again at that time. PAC can share widely with their networks.

Discussion / Q&A
Below is a summary of the large group discussion that followed the meeting presentation.

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
144
City of Sacramento Urban Forest Plan Partner Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary

1) Will there be a mailing list that updates people every time something happens on the project (e.g., missing middle, CAAP)?
▪ Project team response: Yes! We have a mailing list
‘‹ ƒ‹Ž‹‰ Ž‹•– ˆ‘” ‡ƒ‹Ž 
—’†ƒ–‡• We can automatically add the full PAC to the list. And We will send notices throughout process.
2) Ordinance reviews will go through Law and Leg?
▪ Project team response: Correct
3) Rancho Cordova has a program to provide free trees to property owners. Has the City of Sacramento considered that?
▪ Project team response: No, the City hasn’t looked at the approach of providing trees directly to homeowners. STF already runs this type of program and is partnering with the City of Rancho Cordova to offer that program. The City not set up to administer its own free tree program at this point.

We do have recommended Policy and Implementation Strategies recommended in the UFP to address financial assistance to homeowners for tree planting and care, understanding that this is can be a financial obstacle that prevents tree care.
4) You mentioned that the City used to have a tree easement. ▪ Project team response: There has never been a tree easement. The City used to trim trees in what was called a “private maintenance easement” but was just private front yards that were close physically and visually to the public-right-of- way. The City did this work because it was a public good. But, the City didn’t have the financial resources to continue, and it negatively impacted broader tree maintenance capacity. It’s also not legal for the City to do that work without property owner permission, so we can’t just start doing it again. 5) Trees for Sacramento is interested in continuing a dialogue for implementation. Can’t wait 5 years with the timelines on this plan. Requesting sign ups to mailing list. 6) Interest in keeping the dialogue open (echoed from many members) ▪ Project team response: Implementation Strategy 4.1.3 – tree ambassador program as an avenue for continued engagement.
7) Frustration regarding that developers remove a lot of trees and feeling that petitions to save trees don’t matter. Need this change to happen before the 0-5 year timeline for most tasks. Regulations feel like they are set up to remove trees. ▪ Project team response: Need this plan in place to advance some of the ordinance update pieces.
8) Front yard maintenance – EJCGC had discussed that many of those homes receiving that maintenance were in low-income areas. Want to find ways to incentivize people. Need to find ways to help cover unaffordable costs of tree maintenance. Lack of equity. 9) Community education. Are people adequately watering trees in their yards? Need outreach. Can there be information as part of the low-water use application that provide info about tree watering needs?
▪ Project team response: Yes, great idea!
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
145
City of Sacramento Urban Forest Plan Partner Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary

10) City should be looking into marketing for this thing. Needs to have central management from the City
11) Document is amazing! Full of information.
12) For easement issue. Isn’t it a policy issue?
▪ Project team response: No policy around it. Something that changed prior to the 1994 Urban Forest Management Plan.
• If owner gave permission, you could do it.
o Project team response: Theoretically, but we would need a program in place to do so. Liability and cost are major concerns that makes this infeasible. Operationally it would be challenging and very inefficient because each property owner would need to opt-in and give permission, likely resulting in a patchwork of homes receiving care. We won’t have more staff or money to do this so a program of this type would decrease City tree maintenance overall, which was a major factor for moving away from the practice originally.
▪ What about overarching benefit of reducing urban heat island impact? Liability concerns of climate change. Lots of benefits from trees (e.g., multi-modal safety, etc.).

Looking at doing something precedent setting. How do
we make these big goals happen?
13) Community partnerships and awareness. Need that first to bring in the money needed for the UFP. Would want to see that as part of the priority of implementation. 14) State Water Board outdoor water efficiency standards decrease amount allocated for water providers for outdoor water use. What about incentives for outdoor asphalt removal that have related benefit? Asphalt is part of the water efficiency score. Can you look at all City incentives city wide.
▪ Project team response: Yes, we will talk with DOU
• Fellows at Air District are working on an urban heat island project. Trees are fantastic, but also cool pavements. Both heat mitigation measures together.
o Doesn’t have to be an either or. How do you make it work together at a high level. But driveways – do people need that much parking? Can there be incentives to remove pavement? And remaining pavement could be cool pavements. Reducing parking and replacing with trees.
▪ Cal Fire: reflective paints are not proven yet. More of a band-aid approach. Caution around this approach.
• State laws that reduce and/or eliminate
requirements for off-street parking (e.g., not
required for ADUs, not required for other new
development (??)
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
146
City of Sacramento Urban Forest Plan Partner Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary

15) Also artificial turf removal. Can City ban? Not supposed to have artificial turf under the drip line of the tree. Not in the tree ordinance (Title 12.56), but in a separate City policy (Title 17).
16) Objective design standards are needed to preserve existing canopy in infill projects. Matt and Ngyuen (Planning staff) said they were going to start working on that. ▪ Project team response: Yes, CDD has started working on the Missing Middle Housing update and our project team are engaged in discussions with them about the needs of trees/canopy related to those updates. 17) Old arena side in Natomas is a giant parking lot with dying trees. Want to see parking garages rather than sprawl. With solar on top
▪ Or transit and active transportation so we don’t need parking lots! 18) Home insurance conflicts. Home insurance providers are pulling out of CA. They are wanting people to remove all trees on property to receive insurance (they are looking for any reason to drop coverage). Does the City fit into that conversation? Discussion with the insurance commissioner? Using wildfires as excuse, even in urban areas. ▪ Project team response: This is a great flag. We will looking this. 19) NASA cool community project. Projected that doubling the canopy would reduce ambient air temperature by a couple degrees.
20) Want to see pervious pavement if pavement is needed in the future. Concern about flooding. Want a holistic approach to ordinances so that they work together to create a green city.
21) North Natomas Development Commission reviews proposals (e.g., a hotel). They are including a bioretention facility as part of the periphery of the facility. Includes trees in facilities.
▪ But caution that the correct trees are planted. Needs to be carefully designed. • Rain gardens. DC will design these for you.
o North Natomas has a lot of retention basins. Not a combined storm-sewer system.
22) Post-project clean-up. Frustration about working with the City since they see old materials (e.g., stakes or out of date irrigation).
▪ Project team response: Can you give more details about the project that has issues?
• Native tree planting
o Regional park is mostly undeveloped. Lots of construction debris that doesn’t make it safe to use. Sheep and goats do weed maintenance.
23) Process question: Best case scenario. When will it get all of the necessary approvals and to start implementation?
▪ Project team response: Firstly, we are not waiting for the plan adoption for high- level things we know are needed (e.g., increased planting in DACs). Already got approval to add trees to street design update and the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan.

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
147
City of Sacramento Urban Forest Plan Partner Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary

Best case scenario is public review will start in Feb. and go through March-early April. Processing comments will take a couple of months. The best case is adoption middle of May. Otherwise, will wait until after the budget is adopted in mid-July.
24) How can this group support next steps?
▪ Project team response: Go back into the plan during public review. Share with networks. Want this to get a lot of detailed, diverse feedback. For implementation – not quite there yet. PAC will be tapped as part of that process.

Getting through this step first.
25) Will the PAC receive direct responses to the comments they submitted? Want to know how they were addressed. Access to public comments?
▪ Project team response: Wasn’t going to directly respond to each comment.

Happy to have deeper discussions as requested. Everyone will have access to the summary of public comments with responses as part of the Council report package. Responses will be grouped by topic.
26) Want to see another canopy assessment. This wasn’t highlighted in top takeaways. Last time was 2018/2019. Want to see change from “ground zero” from adoption. ▪ Project team response: Noted. There is an implementation measure regarding the more frequent canopy assessments.
• Been 5 years from the Davey Resource Group. Money issue? o Project team response: Everything is tradeoffs. Could spend money on a canopy assessment, but would have to reduce
spending elsewhere.
▪ How much did it cost?
• Project team response: Assessment was part of
the bigger DRG contract. We can look into
determining how much was specifically for the
canopy data.
27) 35% increase of tree canopy for what? What’s the baseline for the 35% increase? ▪ Project team response: The goal is not an increase from a baseline – the goal is to achieve 35% of ALL city land area as being covered by tree canopy. 28) Conflicts/alignment with missing middle housing. Front setbacks are being removed with missing middle. Need to save space for trees. Many benefits from those trees. Don’t want lots to be developed without any space for trees.
▪ Project team response: Currently working with the missing middle housing staff on this update and improving provisions for trees.
• Setbacks for second story of home that allow for tree canopy. Some housing advocates want to remove that setback. Though flexible design standards to save trees on request. Want to see sign off of trees being planted as part of the site.
o Project team response: Kevin and Rachel are coordinating with them. Requesting reductions in rear yard setbacks instead of setbacks in front in public realm. Talking about minimum SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
148
City of Sacramento Urban Forest Plan Partner Advisory Committee Meeting #4 Summary

reasonable space for trees and requiring trees in development.

Will share this info and have that dialogue with them.
▪ PUDs – can have a very large tree that would provide
shade for multiple homes on a street.
29) Charts of sizes of trees that would be planted. Lots of favoritism toward small trees, not medium or large. Want to see large trees along streets and sidewalks. Want to maximize canopy where there is space for it.
▪ Project team response: The tables don’t recommend which trees we plant. One is about how many of each size of tree would be needed to meet canopy goal (pg. 21). The other table is for trees currently on the street tree list (pg. 47) • Want to see 8’ in parkways to have enough space for trees in parkway strip.
o Can all ordinances be aligned to meaningfully contribute to City canopy?
30) Key opportunities: private industry partnerships. Want to see no net loss of tree canopy.

Tree removals would require tree planting elsewhere. Tree planting on schools.

Maintenance is a big challenge. Want to see that partnership. Partnership with State.

Cal Fire program was mandated to increase canopy cover across the state. Also urban canopy cover assessment taking place statewide.
31) Lots of state buildings in Sacramento. Lots of new developments that haven’t included a lot of tree canopy.
▪ State buildings and public schools are DSA. Fall under state building code. That code doesn’t encourage planting a lot of trees.
• State of CA recently establishes 35% canopy cover, 50% parking lot coverage requirements for NEW schools
32) Underground infrastructure. Conflicts with SMUD infrastructure. City investment in EV charging will pose a conflict. Want the City to map these out together. Share that information regarding planting potential.

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
149
APPENDIX D: COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
To get input on community priorities for preparation of the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan, the following survey was available online and distributed at pop-up events from August–October 2018.

The following summarizes the responses to the survey and the numerous individual comments. Each written comment has been “coded” with a brief description that helps capture what the response is about and allows for better summarizing the results of the entire survey effectively. The coded summaries of the written responses are provided below the results of the corresponding question.

Sacramento Urban Forest Master Plan:

Community Survey
The trees planted throughout the City of Sacramento are its “urban forest. ” An urban forest is the network of trees in a city. Scientists have found that urban forests provide many environmental and health benefits. Unlike natural forests, however, most City trees have to be planted and cared for by people.

We really want to hear Sacramento residents’ ideas! Your responses to this survey will be used to create the Urban Forest Master Plan. The Urban Forest Master Plan is important because it will establish the City’s goals and actions necessary to ensure that future generations continue to enjoy the benefits of a healthy urban forest in Sacramento.

The survey should take about 5 to 10 minutes. Thank you for your input.

Trees are important to the
quality of life in Sacramento. Response % Response Count Very True 93.05% 1,581
True 6.42% 109
Not True 0.24% 4
Definitely, not true 0.18% 3
Not Sure 0.12% 2
TOTAL 1,699
1)
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
150
2) I value trees for the following
reason: (select your top five) Response % Response Count They shade streets, sidewalks, and bike
trails

76.46% 1,299
They clean the air 70.69% 1,201
Their beauty 70.22% 1,193
They bring birds and wildlife 46.62% 792
They save energy 46.14% 784
They support human health 41.44% 704
They reduce greenhouse gases 37.3% 636
They define my neighborhood 35.31% 600
I enjoy being outside in shady parks 25.78% 438
They shade parking lots 19.42% 330
They increase property values 13.89% 236
They absorb stormwater runoff 11.54% 196
Other (please specify) 5.06% 86
TOTAL 1,699
Respondents who selected “Other” wrote responses that fell into the following categories:
• Desire to select more than five reasons they value trees • Importance of trees to Sacramento’s city identity
• Importance of trees for cooling and urban heat reduction • Importance of trees for ecological and environmental health • Trees providing calming and connection to nature
• Trees improving quality of life and livability
• Trees providing food
• Trees providing resilience to climate change
• Trees improving air quality
• Trees providing noise pollution reduction
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
151
3) Are there enough trees in
your neighborhood? Response % Response Count
No, not enough trees 55.56% 944
Yes, there are enough trees 38.38% 652
Not sure 4.83% 82
There are too many trees 1.24% 21
TOTAL 1,699
4) Are there enough trees
throughout the city? Response % Response Count
No, not enough trees 73.87% 1,255
Yes, there are enough trees 16.01% 272
Not sure 9.54% 162
There are too many trees 0.59% 10
TOTAL 1,699
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
152
5) Is there anything else you would like to
say about trees in Sacramento? Response Count
1,012 Answered
687 Skipped
TOTAL 1,699
Respondents wrote responses that fell into the following categories:

Increasing canopy and planting trees:
• Respondents described a desire to see more trees planted, desire for large scale planting efforts, concern about lack of trees in new development, desire for more large and mature trees, desire for more park school and parking lot trees, desire for removed trees to be replaced, expressed concern about small trees being planted to replace large trees, and recommended specific planting locations.

Protecting existing trees:
• Respondents described the importance of proactive preservation of mature and heritage trees, opposition to removing trees, emphasis on caring for existing trees, concern about private property owners removing trees, and concern about topping and excessive pruning.

Proper care and maintenance:
• Respondents emphasized the importance of managing tree hazards and unhealthy/dead/ dying trees. Emphasized the importance of proper care for safety and tree health. Described the importance of maintenance for pest and disease control and longevity of mature trees.

Expressed uncertainty about who holds responsibility for maintenance, concerns about proper watering and drought stress, and concerns about maintenance costs.

Equity and distribution of trees across the city:
• Respondents noted canopy cover changed significantly between certain neighborhoods and expressed concern that there were not enough trees in socio-economically disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Recognition of trees as a defining feature of Sacramento:
• Respondents identified trees as important to livability in Sacramento, as an important consideration in why they live in or moved to Sacramento, a desire to rebrand Sacramento as “the City of Trees” , and trees as beautifying their neighborhoods and as important cultural resources.

Criticism of city policies and programs:
• Respondents expressed concerns that city policies and enforcement efforts are insufficient to protect existing canopy, that tree requirements in new development are insufficient, that tree removals for development need to be more strictly regulated, that maintenance of city trees in insufficient, and a perception that city services are unequally distributed between all neighborhoods.

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
153
Appreciation for the benefits and importance of trees:
• Respondents expressed appreciation for the benefits trees provide including shading, cooling, beauty, environmental benefits, crime prevention, air quality, increased home values, and increased appeal of neighborhoods. Respondents also expressed preferences and appreciation for specific tree species.

Concerns about trees:
• Respondents expressed concerns about property damage from trees, allergies, the tree population aging and dying off, and specific criticism of certain tree species. A few respondents questioned the importance of trees as a city priority.

Concerns about conflicts between trees and other infrastructure:
• Respondents expressed concerns about conflicts between trees and utilities (both overhead and underground), streetlights, sidewalks, and generally trees being planted in unsuitable locations that cause damage.

Concerns about climate change:
• Respondents raised concerns about the impact of climate change on the urban forest, specifically issues regarding tree species diversity, hardiness, and adaptability to increased drought and extreme storms. Respondents also highlighted the importance of trees for combatting climate change, including for air quality and urban cooling.

Importance of native trees:
• Respondents expressed appreciation for native oaks and heritage trees and identified native trees importance for the natural ecology and wildlife as a priority.

Addressing food insecurity:
• Respondents hoped to see more fruit and nut bearing trees in the city and increased gleaning efforts to provide food to low-income and un-housed populations.

New programs:
• Respondents wanted to see workforce development programs to provide entry level employment to local youth and young adults. Respondents wanted to see the city develop incentive programs for private maintenance, planting, and watering.

Desire for more collaboration across sectors:
• Respondents showed support for the Sacramento Tree Foundation and desire for SMUD and PG&E to be more proactive in managing tree/utility conflicts and replanting efforts.

Respondents expressed desire to see increased planting in collaboration with schools, including outdoor education for K-12.

Appreciation of city efforts to maintain trees:
• Respondents expressed appreciation for city maintenance crews caring for trees along streets and in parks and want to see increased funding for maintenance.

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
154
6) Did you know that the City has a program
for planting and taking care of public
trees? Please check all the answers below
that are true for you:

Response % Response Count
I was aware the City responds to tree
emergencies (falling trees and limbs)

58.26% 924
I have seen trees with signs that say they’ll be
removed

42.12% 668
I did not know that the City has a program for
planting and taking care of trees

39.03% 619
I have used the City’s tree website or called for
information about trees

17.02% 270
I have read in the newspaper about what the
City is doing to plant and take care of trees

46.14% 784
I have asked for a permit to remove a City tree 2.59% 41 Other (please specify) 12.36% 196
TOTAL 1,586
Respondents who selected “Other” wrote responses that fell into the following categories:
• Criticism of the city program
• Limited knowledge/uncertainty about the city tree program • Confusion about the city program vs other programs
• Praise of the city program
• General comments, including specific issues and personal experiences 7) Do you think that the
public trees in Sacramento
are getting good care from
the City?
Response % Response Count
I don’t know 39.22% 622
Yes 36.82% 584
No 15.38% 244
Yes, very good 5.23% 83
No, not at all 3.34% 53
TOTAL 1,586
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
155
8) Where does Sacramento need to
plant more trees? Please pick your
top three .

Response % Response Count
In neighborhoods lacking trees 82.98% 1,316
Along public streets 51.51% 817
In parking lots 34.87% 553
In industrial areas or business parks 28.44% 451
At schools 25.98% 412
In median islands in roads 25.09% 398
In parks 21.88% 347
Along trails and bike paths 19.92% 316
Sacramento has enough trees and
doesn’t need to plant any more

1.77% 28
Other (please specify) 7.57% 120
TOTAL 1,586
Respondents who selected “Other” wrote responses that fell into the following categories:
• In disadvantaged communities (specifically areas in South and North Sacramento were frequently mentioned)
• Along streets and sidewalks to make biking, walking, and public transit safer • To shade buildings: apartments, new homes, and commercial businesses • To replace removed trees
• Specific locations: addresses, schools, vacant lots, parks, playgrounds • General comments, including specific issues and personal experiences SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
156
9) What would you like to learn about?
Please check all that you would enjoy . Response % Response Count How to properly water trees during drought 51.70% 820
Caring for trees on my property 42.18% 669
Different kinds of trees in the City 42.06% 667
Caring for street trees 33.98% 539
How to get free trees to plant at my house 31.27% 496
How to contact the City about tree problems 24.19% 395
Best places in Sacramento to see trees 21.25% 337
Planting trees 21.19% 336
How trees save money 16.02% 254
Benefits of trees 13.37% 212
How to recycle and dispose of leaves and tree
trimmings

12.99% 206
Jobs in the tree care industry 7.06% 112
Other (please specify) 10.84% 172
Respondents who selected “Other” wrote responses that fell into the following categories:
• Tree care and maintenance
• City policies and programs
• How to get involved in supporting tree services
• General urban forestry concepts
• Agroforestry and urban food forests
• Resources for renters and landlords
• Multilingual resources
• Not interested/already knowledgeable
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
157
10) What would inspire you to plant more
trees? Check all that apply to you . Response % Response Count Free or low-cost trees 61.60% 977
Get money back (a rebate) 37.89% 601
Have big tree classes in my neighborhood 34.62% 549
Nothing, there are enough trees 6.37% 101
Other (please specify) *Coded responses listed
below

24.02% 381
TOTAL 1,586
Respondents who selected “Other” wrote responses that fell into the following categories:
• Education and outreach about why tree planting is important • Community events (some respondents recommended raffles and give aways at events) • Enthusiasm from their neighbors (i.e., promotion at neighborhoods association meetings, being a part of a community-wide effort)
• They would but they do not have the space or personal property • Assistance with planting and maintenance
• Education about planting, care, watering, and maintenance • Do not want to plant because of concerns with water usage and root damage • Financial incentives such as grants and subsidies for planting, maintenance, dead tree removal, and water
• Environmental benefits of planting
• They want to but are unable to plant due to restrictions (i.e., HOA, landlord, etc.) SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
158
11) Do you have any other comments on how
to increase tree planting in Sacramento? Response Count TOTAL 491
Respondents wrote responses that fell into the following categories:

Policy and Regulation:
• Enforce existing policies
• Develop new policies and codes requiring trees
• Increase funding
• Increase city tree inventory by taking responsibility for all front yard trees and maintenance cost
Education and Awareness:
• Advertise existing programs
• Perform education and awareness-raising campaigns about tree care topics • Provide educational resources about the benefits and importance of trees • Provide education about the value and importance of California native oaks Community Engagement:
• Host community tree planting events and provide volunteer opportunities • Provide neighborhood-based programs and workshops to encourage residents to plant and care for trees
• Focus on disadvantaged communities for education, outreach, planting, and maintenance programs
• Provide education to K-12 youth in coordination with schools Tree Management and Maintenance:
• Properly fund and implement maintenance of newly planted trees on public and private property throughout their lifetime
• Prioritize preserving existing mature trees and limit tree removals • Ensure diseased and dying trees are quickly removed and replaced Strategic Planting:
• Target school districts and school campuses for tree planting and youth education • Prioritize planting in low-canopy disadvantaged neighborhoods and streets • Use documented tree canopy cover to monitor and create a plan for city policy and practices to expand tree canopy cover
• Strategically plant trees to shade playgrounds, parks, vacant lots, parking lots, streets, and on/off ramps
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
159
• Maximize canopy on city property
• Replace removed trees and target age-related succession planting Financial Incentives
• Offer low or no-interest loans, rebates, and grant programs to private residential property for tree maintenance
• Providing incentives to commercial property owners to improve existing parking lots and landscape areas
• Offer rebates, and economic incentives to increase tree planting • Offer free trees and tree care supplies (i.e., irrigation, pruning services, etc.) • Develop a workforce development program
Appreciation
• For trees, city services, and community engagement on tree topics Personal Anecdotes
No comment
12)
What is your age? Response % Response Count
56+ 37.64% 592
46–55 15.83% 249
36–45 20.15% 317
26–35 21.93% 345
18–25 <1% 68
Under 18 <1% 2
TOTAL 1,573
13)
Please check all that are true about you . Response % Response Count I live in Sacramento 91.99% 1,447
I have planted trees in my own yard or I’ve convinced
neighbors to plant trees in their yards

59.82% 941
I work in Sacramento or I come to Sacramento often 54.61% 859 I have donated to a non-profit tree organization or
I’m a volunteer for one

22.70% 357
I have planted public trees as a volunteer 16.47% 259
None of the above <1% 10
TOTAL 1,573
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
160
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Pop-up Workshop Series Summary of Input

Project Overview
The City of Sacramento has a long‐standing reputation as the City of Trees. Emphasis on the importance of trees in Sacramento dates to its founding in 1849.

In August 2016, the City adopted comprehensive updates to the City Code to update and clarify its tree regulations. During the process of revising the city’s tree‐related ordinances, additional policy issues were raised regarding the City’s urban forest and its future. With a changing environment and new technological tools, an updated Urban Forest Master Plan is required to preserve the health and stewardship of Sacramento’s urban forest.

The City’s updated Urban Forest Master Plan will address the protection, maintenance, sustainability, and enhancement of Sacramento’s tree canopy, and allow the City to establish goals and monitor our progress.

Pop-up Workshop Series Objective
The objective of the pop-up workshop series was to engage community members throughout the City of Sacramento in a grassroots effort. The project team and the Tree Partners attended several community events throughout each district in Sacramento to obtain input.

Questions presented at each pop-up workshop included:
• What types of trees would you like to see in your neighborhood? • Trees come in all different shapes and sizes. Which trees best fit your neighborhood? Where do they fit?
• Trees have a lot to offer us. Choose the top three benefits that are most important to you.
• Where would you like to see more trees in your neighborhood? A total of 13 pop-up workshops were held by the project team and the Tree Partners in each district in Sacramento. The various events included farmers markets, family-friendly music and movie events, community tree planting workshops, a high school, and various neighborhood association events.


APPENDIX E: POP-UP WORKSHOP SUMMARY
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
161
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018


Pop-up Workshop Series Summary: All Districts
Below are community responses received from 13 pop-up workshops in each district, organized by question. The graphs below depict the responses received from all districts combined.

What types of trees would you like to see in your neighborhood?

Spreading
12%
Pyramidal
13%
Upright
Standard
4%
Round
14%
Weeping
18%
Open
5%
Conical
5%
Flowering
22%
Shrub
3%
Columnar
4%

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
162
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Trees come in all different shapes and sizes. Which trees best fit your neighborhood?

Trees have a lot to offer us. Choose the top three benefits that are most important to you?

Small Tree
14%
Medium
Tree
30%
Tees for
Narrow
Spaces
8%
Medium
to Large
Trees
18%
Very Large
Tree
30%
Air Quality
20%
Water
Quality
10%
Energy
Savings
8%
Health
15%
Shade
18%
Other
2%
Greenhouse
Gas and
Carbon
8%
Property
Values
4%
Aesthetics
9%
Economics
6%
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
163
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Pop-up Workshop Series Summary by District
Below are community responses received from 13 pop-up workshops in each district, organized by district.

District 1
The project team held one pop-up workshop in District 1 at Councilmember Angelique Ashby’s First Friday family event.

The pop-up was held on Friday, September 7, at Natomas
Regional Park, from 5:00 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

The project team received input from more than 30
community members, including families and children.

Below is a compilation of feedback received from District 1.

What types of trees would you like to see in your neighborhood?

Spreading
2%
Pyramidal
28%
Upright
Standard
4%
Round
13%
Weeping
20%
Open
4%
Conical
8%
Flowering
16%
Shrub
1%
Columnar
4%

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
164
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Trees come in all different shapes and sizes. Which trees best fit your neighborhood?

Comments:
• Small trees in the center divider.
• Fewer trees with sap. Small trees mean fewer leaves to rake. • Medium trees in parking lots, but no trees with sap! It sticks to cars. • No berry trees.
• I am considering buying a home, and when there are large trees with shade around, it is an incentive to buy.
• Fruit trees are good.

T
rees have a lot to offer us. Choose the top three benefits that are most important to you? No input received.

Small
Tree
15%
Medium
Tree
45%Tees for
Narrow
Spaces
6%
Medium
to Large
Trees
19%
Very
Large
Tree
15%
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
165
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Where would you like to see more trees in your neighborhood? • Along Mabry Drive and Cliff Breeze Place
• North Natomas Regional Park
• Tower Center Drive and New Market Drive
Additional comments:
• Weeping willows (at North Natomas Regional Park).
• We have incentive to buy based on trees.
• No trees that rain pollen on homes.

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
166
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

District 2
The project team held one pop-up workshop in District 2 at Grant Union High School during their lunch hour.

The pop-up was held on Thursday, October 4, in the
Promenade at GUHS from 11:55 – 12:35.

The project team received input from more than 40
students, and several faculty members.

Below is a compilation of feedback received from
District 2.

What types of trees would you like to see in your neighborhood?

Spreading
8%
Pyramidal
12%
Upright
Standard
2%
Round
11%
Weeping
17%Open
4%
Conical
11%
Flowering
27%
Shrub
2%
Columnar
6%

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
167
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Trees come in all different shapes and sizes. Which trees best fit your neighborhood?

Comments:
• Plant more native trees
Trees have a lot to offer us. Choose the top three benefits that are most important to you?

Comments:
• Greenhouse gas reduction helps with the future
Small Tree
13%
Medium
Tree
50%Tees for
Narrow
Spaces
10%
Medium to
Large
Trees
3%
Very Large
Tree
24%
Air Quality
17%
Water Quality
15%
Energy
Savings
7%
Health
16%
Shade
9%
Other
1%
Greenhouse
Gas and Carbon
10%
Property Values
5%
Aesthetics
9%
Economics
11%
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
168
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Where would you like to see more trees in your neighborhood? No input received.

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
169
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

District 3
The project team held three pop-up workshops in District 3, with the help of the project’s Tree Partner, Sacramento Tree Foundation, at Councilmember Jeff Harris’ Food Truck Mania event at Glen Hall Park, a Sacramento Tree Foundation
Mulching event at Gardenland Park, and a Sacramento Tree Foundation Planting Workshop at the South Natomas
Community Center.
• Food Truck Mania: Friday, August 10
• Mulching Event: Saturday, August 18
• Tree Planting Workshop: Saturday, October 6
The project team received input from more than 60 community members from all pop-up workshops.

Below is a compilation of feedback received from District 3.

W
hat types of trees would you like to see in your neighborhood?

Spreadin
g
20%
Pyramida
l
7%
Upright
Standard
5%
Round
16%Weeping
14%
Open
7%Conical
3%
Flowerin
g
24%
Shrub
1%
Columnar
3%

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
170
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Trees come in all different shapes and sizes. Which trees best fit your neighborhood?

Trees have a lot to offer us. Choose the top three benefits that are most important to you?

Small
Tree
17%
Medium
Tree
35%
Tees for
Narrow
Spaces
10%
Medium
to Large
Trees
20%
Very
Large
Tree
18%
Air Quality
22%
Water
Quality
7%
Energy
Savings
7%
Health
13%
Shade
23%
Other
3%
Greenhouse
Gas and
Carbon
7%
Property
Values
6%
Aesthetics
10%
Economics
2%
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
171
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Where would you like to see more trees in your neighborhood? • Intersection of Nordyke Drive and
Winter Garden Avenue
• Northgate Park
• South Natomas Community Park
• Cal Expo
• Sutter's Landing Regional Park
• Northgate Boulevard and Haggin
Avenue
• McKinley Park
• Glen Hall Park
• Sandburg Drive
• Caleb Greenwood Elementary School
• Elvas Avenue
• J and 51st Street
• East Portal Park
• Kit Carson Middle School
• Carlson Drive and Messina
Drive
• Gardenland park
• West El Camino Avenue
• Winds Parkway
• Northgate Boulevard

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
172
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

District 4
The project team held one pop-up workshop in District 4, at the Saturday morning Midtown Farmer’s Market, on 20th Street between J and K Streets in Downtown Sacramento.

The project team received input from around 25 community members from this pop-up workshop.

Below is a compilation of feedback received from District 4.

What types of trees would you like to see in your neighborhood?

Spreading
20%
Pyramidal
12%
Upright
Standard
6%
Round
18%
Weeping
18%
Open
0%
Conical
0%
Flowering
20%
Shrub
3%
Columnar
3%

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
173
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Trees come in all different shapes and sizes. Which trees best fit your neighborhood?

Trees have a lot to offer us. Choose the top three benefits that are most important to you?

Small Tree
11%
Medium
Tree
32%
Tees for
Narrow
Spaces
4%
Medium to
Large
Trees
14%
Very Large
Tree
39%
Air Quality
17%
Water
Quality
8%
Energy
Savings
0%
Health
12%
Shade
38%
Other
0%
Greenhouse Gas
and Carbon
4%
Property
Values
0%
Aesthetics
17%
Economics
4%
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
174
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

W
here would you like to see more trees in your neighborhood? • West El Camino Avenue
• Gateway Oaks Drive: Natomas Oak Park
• G and 26th Street
• Front Street under I-80
• 3rd Street, Leataata Floyd School
• Broadway and 17th Street
• S and 19th Street

A
dditional Comments
• Oak Park needs trees
• North Highlands needs more trees
• At the post office downtown, a tree died, was removed and nothing was re-planted. • Freeport Boulevard needs trees
• More trees on main streets, i.e. Boulevards

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
175
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

District 5
The project team held one pop-up workshop in District
5, at the Saturday morning Oak Park Farmer’s Market,
at McClatchy Park on Saturday, September 22.

The project team received input from more than 25
community members from this pop-up workshop.

Below is a compilation of feedback received from
District 5.

W
hat types of trees would you like to see in your neighborhood?

Spreading
16%
Pyramidal
8%
Upright
Standard
1%
Round
13%
Weeping
20%Open
3%
Conical
6%
Flowering
23%
Shrub
7%
Columnar
3%

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
176
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Trees come in all different shapes and sizes. Which trees best fit your neighborhood?

Trees have a lot to offer us. Choose the top three benefits that are most important to you?

Small
Tree
20%
Medium
Tree
13%
Tees for
Narrow
Spaces
13%
Medium
to Large
Trees
26%
Very
Large
Tree
28%
Air Quality
18%
Water
Quality
9%
Energy
Savings
10%
Health
15%
Shade
22%
Other
3%
Greenhouse
Gas and
Carbon
8%
Property
Values
3%
Aesthetics
7%
Economics
5%
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
177
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Where would you like to see more trees in your neighborhood? • 3rd Avenue and Santa Cruz Way
• 6th Avenue by C.K. McClatchy Park
between 33rd Street and 37th Street
• 20th Avenue and 52nd Street 53rd
Street Alley
• 49th Street and Lawrence Drive
• 25
th and 25th Avenue between 36th
Street and Martin Luther King Jr
Boulevard
• 23rd Avenue and 36th Street
• 28th Street and Fruitridge Road
• Norman Way and Fruitridge Road
• Helen Way and Fruitridge Road
• 35th and 38th Avenue and Freeport
Boulevard
• Police Station at
Blair Avenue and
Belleua Wood Lane
• Pony Express
School Park at Los
Cerros Drive
between San
Augustine Way and
58th Avenue
• Woodfield Avenue
and South Land
Park Drive
• Silver Oak Way and
Mooncrest Way

A
dditional Comments
• Trees at public libraries.
• Along Freeport Boulevard and other major roads
(Fruitridge Road, 12th Avenue, Sutterville Road).
• Small to medium trees south of McClatchy Park.
• Near Christian Brothers High School. People walk
around a lot there.
• 14th Avenue and Lisetta Avenue. There is a church
there and bus stop. Twelve to 15
people ride it, and there is no shade.
• In schoolyards throughout the city.
• Senior community on Broadway.
• 55th Avenue by EDD (Sacramento Job
Services).
• Transit stop past Stockton Boulevard.
• By Gerber Road and Florin area

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
178
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

District 6
The project team held three pop-up workshops in
District 6 with the help of the Sacramento Tree
Foundation. The three events included Councilmember
Guerra’s State of the Trees, a Sacramento Tree
Foundation Mulching Event, and the District 6
Resource Fair.
• State of the Trees: Saturday, July 28
• Mulching Event: Saturday, August 18
• Resource Fair: Friday, September 7

The project team received input from more than 50 community members from all three pop-up workshops.

Below is a compilation of feedback received from District 6.

What types of trees would you like to see in your neighborhood?

Spreading
29%
Pyramidal
9%
Upright
Standard
5%
Round
16%
Weeping
13%
Open
4%
Conical
2%
Flowering
18%
Shrub
2%
Columnar
2%

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
179
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Trees come in all different shapes and sizes. Which trees best fit your neighborhood?

Trees have a lot to offer us. Choose the top three benefits that are most important to you?

Small
Tree
12%
Medium
Tree
10%
Tees for
Narrow
Spaces
6%
Medium
to Large
Trees
25%
Very
Large
Tree
47%
Air Quality
22%
Water
Quality
11%
Energy
Savings
7%
Health
9%
Shade
22%
Other
0%
Greenhouse
Gas and
Carbon
13%
Property
Values
7% Aesthetics
9%
Economics
0%
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
180
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Where would you like to see more trees in your neighborhood? • Fruitridge Road
• Fruitridge and Power Inn
• 21st Avenue and 65th Street Expressway
• 21st Avenue at 20th Avenue
• T Street by the freeway
• Coloma Park
• Tahoe Park
• Hiram Johnson High School
• Power Inn Road and 32nd Avenue
• Power Inn Road and 37th Avenue
• Sun River Drive by George Sims Park
• Camellia Park
• Elder Creek Road

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
181
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

District 7
The project team held one pop-up workshop in District 7 at Councilmember Jennings Trucks & Such Foodtruck Mania and Backpack Giveaway, on Friday, August 17, at Garcia Bend Park.

The project team received input from more than 40 community members from this pop-up workshop, including young students and their parents.

Below is a compilation of feedback received from District 7.

What types of trees would you like to see in your neighborhood?

Spreading
5%
Pyramidal
15%
Upright
Standard
6%
Round
13%
Weeping
21%Open
5%
Conical
4%
Flowering
23%
Shrub
3%
Columnar
5%

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
182
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Trees come in all different shapes and sizes. Which trees best fit your neighborhood?

Trees have a lot to offer us. Choose the top three benefits that are most important to you?

Small
Tree
14%
Medium
Tree
23%
Tees for
Narrow
Spaces
9%
Medium
to Large
Trees
20%
Very
Large
Tree
34%
Air Quality
21%
Water
Quality
11%
Energy
Savings
11%
Health
20%
Shade
13%
Other
4%
Greenhous
e Gas and
Carbon
5%
Property
Values
1%
Aesthetics
6%
Economics
8%
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
183
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Where would you like to see more trees in your neighborhood? • Riverside Boulevard and Havenside Drive
• School of Engineering and Sciences
• Riverside Boulevard and Pocket Road
• Along the river at Marina Parkway
• Garcia Bend Park
• Gloria Drive and Florin Road
• Rush River Drive by Summerwind Way
• Maryhill Park City Middle School
• South Lan Park Drive and Corporate Way
• Bill Conlin Regional Youth Sports Complex
• Valley Hi Community Park
• Rocklin

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
184
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

District 8
The project team held two pop-up workshops in District
8 with the help of the Sacramento Tree Foundation. The
pop-up workshops included the ECOS Council Meeting
and the Valley Mack Farmers Market.
• ECOS Council Meeting: Thursday, September 6
• Valley Mack Farmers Market: Friday, September 7
The project team received input from more than 20
community members from both pop-up workshops.

Below is a compilation of feedback received from District 8.

What types of trees would you like to see in your neighborhood?

Spreading
4%
Pyramidal
11%
Upright
Standard
4%
Round
18%
Weeping
18%
Open
11%
Conical
0%
Flowering
26%
Shrub
4%
Columnar
4%

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
185
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Trees come in all different shapes and sizes. Which trees best fit your neighborhood?

T
rees have a lot to offer us. Choose the top three benefits that are most important to you?

Small Tree
8% Medium
Tree
10%
Tees for
Narrow
Spaces
8%
Medium
to Large
Trees
28%
Very Large
Tree
46%
Air Quality
18% Water
Quality
8%
Energy
Savings
13%
Health
5%
Shade
20%Other
5%
Greenhous
e Gas and
Carbon
10%
Property
Values
5%
Aesthetics
13%
Economics
3%
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
186
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Where would you like to see more trees in your neighborhood? • Beyond Meadowview Road and John Still Drive
• Pannell Meadowview Community Center Park
• Steve Jones Park
• Chesterbrook Drive and Laguna Star Drive
• El Terraza Drive and Gerber Road (Florin, CA)
• 24th Street Bypass Park
• 67th Avenue and 24th Street
• 24th Street and Meadowview Wood Circle
• Manuel E. Silva Park
• Steve Jones Park
• Along Meadowview Road, by the Pannell Center
• John Still Drive
Additional Comments
• Only small trees at Steve Jones Park.
• At the schools.
• Places with grass.
• We have enough trees.

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
187
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Pop-up Workshop Series
August–October 2018

Notification
Each pop-up workshop was advertised through the City of Sacramento’s Urban Forest Project webpage as well as through email notifications sent to the project’s Stakeholder Representative Group and interested community members who signed up for updates through the project website and at the pop-up events with their email. The Sacramento Tree Foundation, which helped the project team hold additional pop-up workshops, also shared information to their organization.

Councilmember Angelique Ashby of District 1, Councilmember Jeff Harris of District 3, and Councilmember Rick Jennings of District 7 shared information about the pop-up workshop series through the promotion of their community events that the project team attended.

Sacramento Urban Forest Plan
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-XXXX
Adopted by the Sacramento City Council

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION FOR
SA

CRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN AS A

SUBSEQUENT PROJECT
UNDER THE MASTER EIR FOR THE 2040 GENERAL PLAN AND CLIMATE

ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN

BACKGROUND
A. On June 24, 2025, the City Council conducted a public hearing, for which notice was given pursuant Sacramento City Code and received and considered evidence concerning the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council finds that the Maste r Environmental Impact Report for the 2040 General Plan (EIR) was certified on February 27, 2024, and the 2040 General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan were adopted on that date.

Section 2. The City Council finds that the adequacy of the Master EIR has not been affected by approval of any subsequent project (i.e., there are not subsequent projects that were not identified in the Master EIR); no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Master EIR was certified; and that there is no new available information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the Master EIR was certified that would affect the analysis and conclusions of the Master EIR.

Accordingly, it is appropriate to review the project under the Master EIR.

Section 3. The City of Sacramento was the Lead Agency for the Master EIR.

Section 4. An initial study was prepared for the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan project and concluded that the project was described in the Master EIR and that the project would not cause any additional significant environmental effects that were not examined in the Master EIR. No new additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required, and the project is within the scope of the Master EIR.

Section 5. The City has incorporated all feasible mitigation measures or feasible alternatives appropriate to the project as set forth in the Master EIR.

Section 6. Notice of the conclusion that the project is a subsequent project under the Master EIR was provided in the manner required by CEQA Guidelines section 15177(d) and 15087. The Notice of Subsequent Project (Exhibit A) was posted in the office of the
S
acramento County Clerk/Recorder on May 20, 2025 and
published in a newspaper of general circulation on May 23, 2025.

The Notice established a thirty-day comment period, beginning on May 20, 2025, and ending on June 19, 2024.

Section 7. The City Council directs that, upon approval of the Project, the City Manager shall file a notice of determination with the County Clerk of Sacramento County and the State Office of Land Use and
Climate Innovation pursuant to the provisions of CEQA Guidelines section 15075.

Section 8. Pursuant to Guidelines section 15091(e), the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council has based its decision are located in and may be obtained from, the Office of the City Clerk at 915 I Street, Sacramento, California. The City Clerk is the custodian of records for all matters before the City Council.

Exhibit A:

Notice of Subsequent Project
D
ATE: May 20, 2025
SU
BJECT: NOTICE OF SUBSEQUENT PROJECT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE MASTER

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN P
ROJECT LOCATION: Citywide
COMMENT PERIOD: 30 days beginning May 20, 2025 and ending June 19, 2025 The City of Sacramento, Community Development Department, Environmental Planning Services has determined, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15177, that the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan constitutes a subsequent project within the scope of the Master EIR for the City of Sacramento 2040 General Plan, certified by the City as lead agency on February 27, 2024, and that no additional environmental review for the project is required. The City has prepared an Initial Study for the project and has determined that the project would not result in any additional significant environmental effect not previously analyzed in the Master EIR. No new additional mitigation measures or alternatives are required.

The 2040 Master EIR, 15177 Notice and Initial Study are available for review online at:
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-development/planning/environmental/impact-reports. The Notice is also available at the office of the Sacramento County Clerk Recorder.

A public hearing regarding the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan is currently scheduled before the City Council on Tuesday, June 24, 2025 at 5:00 p.m. The date and time of meetings and hearings can change, and the current schedules and agendas should be reviewed at
https://sacramento.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=21.

Comments regarding the initial study or project may be submitted to:

Charlie Tschudin, Senior Planner
City of Sacramento, Community Development Department
300 Richards Boulevard, Third Floor
Sacramento, CA 95811
Telephone: (916) 808-8145
Email: [email protected]
C
omments must be submitted no later than June 19, 2025.

RESOLUTION NO.

Adopted by the Sacramento City Council

ADOPTING AND IMPLEMENTING THE

SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN

BACKGROUND:

A. The City desires to adopt and implement the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan. The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan will serve as a 20- year guiding document for the City’s vision and goals related to trees and will direct staff work planning.

B. The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan is a subsequent project under the City’s 2040 General Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and has been developed in conjunction with the 2040 General Plan Update.

C. On June 24, 2025, the City Council adopted a resolution of environmental determination for the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan as a subsequent project under the Master EIR for the 2040 General Plan, conducted a noticed public hearing, and considered public testimony concerning the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan.

BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, THE
CITY COUNCIL RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council has considered all of the evidence submitted into the administrative record, including Resolution 202X-XXXX approving the environmental review for the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan as a subsequent project under the Master EIR for the 2040 General Plan.

Section 2. Based on the evidence contained in the administrative record, the City Council finds as follows:
(a) Preparation of the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan included outreach to provide for the involvement and input of residents, businesses, other public agencies, and civic, educational, and other community groups. The public review draft of the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan was referred out for public feedback and all comments received were considered.

(b) The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan is a policy and guiding document consistent with the 2040 General Plan and serves to guide Sacramento in its long- term growth and development. The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan is a subsequent project of the 2040 General Plan.

(c) The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan will serve as a 20-year guiding document for the City’s vision and goals related to trees and will direct staff work planning.

Section 3. Approval and Implementation. Based on the administrative record and the foregoing findings, the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan is approved.

Sacramento Urban Forest Plan
City Council, June 24, 2025
• Establishes long-term goals and policies to
protect and grow the City’s urban forest
• Carries out ambitious urban forest goals and
objectives in the 2040 General Plan and Climate
Action and Adaptation Plan
• Reflects community priorities
• Establishes and prioritizes action items
2 What is the Urban Forest Plan?

VISION STATEMENT
The City of Sacramento, together with community investment and involvement, will reinforce Sacramento’s legacy as the “City of Trees”. The City will address historic inequity in neighborhood tree canopy and prioritize the sustainable management and expansion of the urban tree canopy to provide extensive benefits and reprieve from the impacts of climate change for generations of Sacramentans to come.
3 • Status of Sacramento's Urban
Forest
• Policy and Program Framework (53
recommended policies and
implementation actions)
• Implementation Strategy (assigns a
lead and support City Department
and timeline for completion)
4 Components of Urban Forest Plan

Key objective adopted by City Council February
2024:

Increase urban tree canopy cover to 35% by 2045
5 Phase 1: Plan Development
• Community survey (1,700)
• Partner Advisory Committee (4)
• Pop-up workshops (13)
Phase 2: Public Review of Draft Plan
• Online workshop (456 participants)
• Additional comment letters and emails (37)
• Community events, workshops, and
presentations (20)
• Public input from City Committees and Commissions
(8 advisory bodies)
6 Community Engagement

• Uneven distribution of tree canopy across the City
• Lack of awareness and compliance with City ordinances • Pressure from planned development
• Dispersed maintenance and management responsibility
(e.g., 90% of trees are on private property or managed by other agencies)
• Demands on City resources and responsibilities
• Emergent environmental threats (e.g., climate change, pests)
7 Key Challenges
• Establish minimum tree requirements for development
• Strengthen protections for existing trees
• Enhance City street tree and park tree operations
• Support public-private partnerships
• Support community engagement and education
• Use an equity framework to guide implementation
priorities
• Incorporate adequate infrastructure for trees within street standards and Complete Street redevelopments
• Identify new revenue streams to support plan
implementation
8 Key Strategies
Focus on Equity
• Climate change
• Air quality
• Heat reduction
• Environmental justice
9 • Adoption of Plan
• Ongoing implementation:
• Grants
• Ordinance Updates
• New and revised programs
• Ongoing analysis and review
• Community partnerships and
education
• Exploration of needed resources
• Annual progress report
10 Next Steps
1) Adopt a Resolutiondetermining
that the Sacramento Urban Forest
Plan is a Subsequent Project under
the Master Environmental Impact
Report for the 2040 General Plan
and Climate Action and Adaptation
Plan
2) Adopt a Resolutionadopting the
Sacramento Urban Forest Plan
• Including revisions and
additions in attachment 2 of the
supplemental materials
11 Staff Recommendation
Questions?
12