City of Sacramento
City Council - 5PM Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2025-01274 6/24/2025
Sacramento Urban Forest Plan [Published 06/13/2025]
File ID: 2025-01274
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion: 1) adopt a Resolution determining 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; and 2) adopt a Resolution adopting the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan.
Contact: Rachel Patten, Sustainability Program Manager, (916) 808-5016, [email protected]; Kevin Hocker, City Urban Forester, (916) 808-4996, [email protected]; Jennifer Donlon Wyant, Planning Director, (916) 808-5913, [email protected]; Lucinda Willcox, Assistant Director, (916) 808-5052, [email protected]; Department of Public Works Presenter: Rachel Patten, Sustainability Program Manager, (916) 808-5016, [email protected], Department of Public Works Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Sacramento Urban Forest Plan Major Revisions
3-Resolution of Environmental Determination for the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan 4-Resolution Adopting the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan
5-Presentation
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: The Department of Public Works (DPW) has completed a comprehensive, multi-year planning process to lead the development of the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan. The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan is a subsequent project under the City’s 2040 General Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report and has been developed in conjunction with the 2040 General Plan update. The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan will serve as the City’s 20-year guiding document for City vision, goals, policies, and implementation related to tree preservation, enhancement, and stewardship will direct staff work through multiple departments.
File ID: 2025-01274 6/24/2025
The Urban Forest Plan is intended to guide the City’s management and enhancement of City- managed trees, address development requirements, and support actions by the City’s residents, businesses, and other agencies to preserve and enhance the City’s urban forest. With a citywide urban forest encompassing an estimated one million trees, the City is directly responsible for caring for about 100,000 trees currently, primarily along its streets, in its parks, and on other City facilities.
The remaining trees are located on private property and on property owned by other agencies, including its universities and colleges, school districts, Sacramento County, and the State of California. Successful realization of the goals of the Urban Forest Plan will require communitywide investment and support, in the same manner in which the City achieved its current urban forest.
This public hearing for City Council is being held for staff to present the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan. This is the culmination of seven years of community engagement, policy development, and cross-departmental and inter-agency coordination. At the end of this public hearing, staff will recommend adoption of a resolution of environmental determination for the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan and the adoption of the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan.
Policy Considerations: The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan is consistent with the 2040 General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan and was listed as a subsequent project of the 2040 General Plan. The primary 2040 General Plan policies that are supported by the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan are:
ERC-3.1. Urban Forest Plan. The City shall maintain and implement an Urban Forest Plan.
ERC-3.2. Tree Canopy Expansion. The City should strive to achieve a 25 percent urban tree canopy cover by 2030 and 35 percent by 2045. Prioritize tree planting and tree maintenance in areas with the lowest average canopy cover and explore strategies to reduce barriers to tree planting in disadvantaged communities and improve tree health.
ERC-3.3. Tree Protection. The City shall encourage public agencies and require private development projects to consider alternatives to removals of healthy trees whenever feasible and to evaluate the longer-term consequences of inability to meet tree canopy objectives when conducting project analyses and environmental documents. Ensure adequate protection during construction to protect existing tree roots and structures.
Economic Impacts: Not applicable.
Environmental Considerations: The proposed Sacramento Urban Forest Plan implements, and is consistent with, the 2040 General Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR). An initial study was completed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15177(b), to review the discussions of cumulative impacts, growth inducing impacts, and irreversible significant effects in the 2040 General Plan Master EIR to determine their adequacy for the proposed Sacramento Urban Forest Plan and to
File ID: 2025-01274 6/24/2025
identify any potential new or additional project-specific significant environmental effects that were not analyzed in the 2040 General Plan Master EIR and any mitigation measures or alternatives that may avoid or mitigate the identified effects to a level of insignificance. The Environmental Planning Services Manager has determined that the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan would not result in any new significant effects not identified and evaluated in the 2040 General Plan Master EIR. A notice to this effect was provided for public review as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The 2040 General Plan Master EIR and 15177 Notice and Initial Study for the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan are available for review online at:
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-development/planning/environmental/impact-reports On the basis of the initial study, the proposed Sacramento Urban Forest Plan will not have any project-specific additional significant environmental effects not previously examined in the 2040 General Plan Master EIR, and no new mitigation measures or alternatives will be required. No further CEQA review is required.
Sustainability: The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan implements Measure CS-1 of the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, which is expected to offset Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions through carbon sequestration by 61,474 MT CO2e by 2045. This GHG reduction, expected to result from implementing the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan, equates to an approximately 2 percent reduction in citywide emissions.
Commission/Committee Action: Presentations to eight commissions and Committees were conducted during the plan develop process and feedback from the groups were incorporated into the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan, including the Preservation Commission, Active Transportation Commission, Planning and Design Commission, Sacramento Youth Commission, Disabilities Advisory Commission, Parks and Community Enrichment Commission, Measure U Community Advisory Committee, and Racial Equity Committee (twice).
A summary of the input received from all Commissions and Committee’s during public review for the draft Sacramento Urban Forest Plan are available for review online at:
https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/pw/climate-action/urban-forestry/Summary% 20of%20Feedback%20from%20Commissions.pdf.
Rationale for Recommendation: The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan is consistent with and implements the 2040 General Plan, reflecting extensive input from a broad base of community and business organizations, and elected and appointed officials. The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan is a guiding policy document that will direct the Department of Public Works and City staff from a variety of Departments with work planning related to trees for the next 20 years. To ensure that the City is making progress in implementation, the Plan requires annual reports and regular updates to City Council.
File ID: 2025-01274 6/24/2025
Financial Considerations: The foundational goal of the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan, established in the 2040 General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, is to achieve 35 percent tree canopy in Sacramento by 2045, which would essentially double the number of trees in the city.
To implement the Urban Forest Plan will require a comparable budget increase, essentially doubling the City budget for urban forestry, which is currently primarily budgeted through Landscaping and Lighting District assessments and some General Fund/Measure U funding. This increased funding is needed to: 1) support appropriate tree maintenance frequency to meet best practices for tree health and safety, 2) increase tree planting in parks and streets, 3) increase maintenance capacity to care for new trees added to the inventory from increased planting levels, and 4) implement new programs to support tree planting and care on private property. Staff estimate the City will likely need an additional $12 to $13 million annually to fully implement the City’s responsibilities under the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan, which will require the identification of new revenue streams. Costs associated with individual programs will be brought forward as those programs are implemented.
Implementation of the plan will also require additional investments for private owners and other agencies responsible for 90 percent of the trees in the city.
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
Background: The City of Sacramento has a long-standing reputation as the City of Trees.
Historical emphasis on the importance of trees in Sacramento dates to its earliest actions, when City founders incorporated shade trees along streets and in parks, and residents planted trees on property to keep their homes cool. The City’s national reputation carries into present day with Sacramento being recognized in 2017 by Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers as the greenest city in the United States. Sacramento’s nickname reflects its extensive urban forest, which boasts an estimated 1 million trees across the city.
In August 2016, the City adopted amendments to the City Code (City Code Chapter 12.56) to update and clarify its tree regulations. This effort consolidated three existing tree-related ordinances into a single chapter and clarified the City’s urban forestry practices, processes, and definitions. 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, including policies for canopy coverage, age and species diversity, survivability of newly planted trees, green infrastructure, development policies, sustainability and neighborhood equity.
As a result, in 2017, the Sacramento City Council initiated a comprehensive multi-year initiative to develop the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan and establish a clear vision and goals for the city’s urban trees - including their growth, maintenance, and protection. The City’s existing Urban Forest Management Plan was adopted in 1994. The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan updates this prior plan with considerations for new technological tools to evaluate the city’s tree canopy, incorporation of best management practices, alignment with current city code and policies, and establishment of new
File ID: 2025-01274 6/24/2025
urban forest goals and policies.
The multi-year phased approach to plan development included data collection and analysis of city- managed trees and citywide canopy cover, extensive public engagement, diverse community outreach, and involvement of a partner advisory committee. The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan development was initially projected to be completed in 2019; however, when Sacramento City Council initiated the comprehensive update to the General Plan and Climate Action Plan in 2019, the City's goals for urban tree canopy needed to be considered comprehensively across those land use planning documents. The scope of the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan was expanded to align with the 2040 General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan as a subsequent project.
Concurrent with the 2040 General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, the planning process had regular checkpoints with interdepartmental working groups, inter-agency advisory groups, guidance and advice from city commissions, councilmember briefings, and department leadership feedback during critical touchpoints to inform the development of the draft Sacramento Urban Forest Plan.
Including the 2040 General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan aligns with other essential City plans and initiatives, such as the Parks Plan 2040 and the Streets for People Active Transportation Plan. The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan supports these concurrent plans and initiatives by incorporating overlapping policy statements and guidelines within each of these documents.
The 2040 General Plan and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, adopted by City Council in February 2024, established the goal to increase citywide tree canopy to 35 percent by 2045. As a subsequent project, the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan provides detailed policy and program guidance to support the achievement of this goal and guides annual work planning for City Departments.
The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan identifies six key challenges and issues facing the urban forest that complicate achieving the 35 percent citywide canopy coverage goal. The plan overviews those challenges in the context of existing conditions and trends within the urban canopy across public and private property, existing City policy and regulations, and community-wide urban forest management practices. After this discussion, the Sacramento Urban Forest Plans details a Policy and Program Framework that includes five goals for the urban forest which together comprise 53 recommended policies and implementation actions to achieve 35 percent citywide canopy coverage and address the challenges facing our city’s trees. The subsequent Implementation Strategy within the plan assigns a lead and support City Department and timeframe for completion to each of the 53 policies and actions.
From the outset of the plan development process, extensive public engagement, diverse community engagement, and the involvement of a Partner Advisory Committee helped ensure the Sacramento
File ID: 2025-01274 6/24/2025
Urban Forest Plan reflects the needs and desires of the Sacramento community. The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan kept residents, care holders, and community groups engaged through information sharing, consultations on public opinion, and collaboration in decision-making. Public engagement took place in two major phases: Phase 1) early planning and information gathering to develop the administrative draft Sacramento Urban Forest Plan, and Phase 2) public review and comment on the draft Sacramento Urban Forest Plan.
Phase 1 Outreach:
· Partner Advisory Committee (May-December 2018 & November-December 2023): The City invited leaders from 30 community groups to participate in a Partner Advisory Committee (PAC). City staff convened four meetings with the PAC, including two meetings in the beginning stages of the project development process in 2018 and two more during finalization of the administrative draft plan in 2023. The PAC provided review and feedback of the findings from the technical analysis and data collection as well as the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan’s goals, policy and program framework, and implementation strategy. · Survey (August-October 2018): The survey was available on the Urban Forest webpage section, emailed out via local media, social media, and available at public workshops. The survey was open for 15 weeks, beginning July 26, 2018, and closing November 1, 2018; in total 1,699 people responded. The survey included a series of 13 questions, including questions about public views of the benefits of trees, awareness of the urban forest program, expectations for public tree maintenance and planting, perception of strategies to increase planting trees on private property, and tree education topics. · Pop-up Workshops (May-December 2018): Staff hosted 13 pop-up workshops including at least one workshop in each of the eight city council districts. Questions presented at each pop- up workshop were geared toward neighborhood preferences. The results from the pop-up workshops showed that participants would primarily like to see large trees that provide air quality, shade, and health benefits in their neighborhoods, with more trees planted along streets, in parks, and at schools.
Major themes and commonalities emerged from the Phase 1 outreach conducted. Participant responses emphasized deep appreciation for Sacramento’s urban forest, while calling out critical needs, concerns, and aspirations for the future. There was a strong consensus that the city is not appropriately shaded at current trees canopy levels and that there is a need for an ambitious tree canopy goal. Many participants spoke about inequity between neighborhoods in access to tree shade and the importance of stronger policies and enforcement mechanisms for existing policies to achieve increased canopy cover. These themes were all incorporated into the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan.
Phase 2 Outreach:
File ID: 2025-01274 6/24/2025
· Public Review Period (April 26, 2024-June 21, 2024): The draft Sacramento Urban Forest Plan was available for a 60-day public review and comment period from April 26 through June 21, 2024. During that time the draft plan was made publicly available on the project website.
Comments were collected through an online self-guided workshop, received via email, solicited in-person at pop-up workshops and community events, staff presentations to community groups, and staff presentations to Commission and Committee meetings. At the conclusion of the public review period, project staff reviewed and considered all comments received and made final revisions to the plan based on the public input and final staff review.
In total, across both phases of outreach, project staff spoke directly to the public at over 45 community engagement opportunities and received input from thousands of participants. The records of public feedback from both phases, staff responses to comments, and the original draft and revised version of the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan are available for review on the project website:
www.cityofsacramento.gov/sactreeplan
REVISED DRAFT MAY 2025
Sacramento
Urban Forest Plan
To the original people of this land, the Nisenan people, the Southern Maidu, Valley and Plains Miwok, Patwin Wintun
peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento’s only federally recognized Tribe:
May we acknowledge and honor the Native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento’s
Indigenous People’s history, contributions, and lives.
The City of Sacramento affirms racial equity as a core value in which race does not affect life outcomes. We acknowledge historical racial inequities and are committed to transparent, deliberate, and actionable solutions that will remedy those inequities and serve all our diverse communities.
LAND AND EQUITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Department of Public Works
Lucinda Willcox, Assistant Director
Kevin Hocker, Urban Forester
Rachel Patten, Program SpecialistClimate Action Lead
Taner Pasamehmetoglu, Arts Program Assistant
Community Development Department
Greg Sandlund, Planning Director
Matt Hertel, Long Range Planning ManagerAssistant Director Victor Randall, Senior Planner
Laura Tuller, Associate Planner
Nguyen Nguyen, Associate Planner
Helen Selph, Associate Planner
Department of Y outh, Parks, and Community Enrichment
Dana Repan, Senior Planner
City Council
Mayor – Kevin McCarty District 3 – Karina Talamantes District 6 – Eric Guerra District 1 – Lisa Kaplan District 4 – Phil Pluckebaum District 7 – Rick Jennings District 2 – Roger Dickinson District 5 – Caity Maple District 8 – Mai Vang Partner Advisory Committee
SPECIAL THANKS
350 Sacramento
Asian Resources Inc.
Avondale/Glen Elder Neighborhood
Association
California Department of Forestry and
Fire Protection
California Strategic Growth Council
City of Sacramento Youth Commission
Council Member District 3 Jeff Harris
Elmhurst Neighborhood Association
Explore Midtown
Friends of Capitol Mansions
Hagginwood Neighborhood Association
Historic Monterey Trail District
Hodgson and Company
Hollywood Park Communi-Tree
Committee
LDK Ventures, LLC
Meadowview Urban Tree Project
Midtown Association
North Natomas community representative
North State BIA
Preservation Sacramento
Public Health Institute
River Park Neighborhood Association
Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Sacramento City Unified School District
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District
Sacramento Municipal Utility District
Sacramento Tree Foundation
South Natomas community representative
Trees4Sacramento
Additional thanks to:
AIM Consulting Inc. and Davey Resource Group
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Purpose of the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan ................................... 8 Developing the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan .................................. 9 What is an urban forest? ....................................................... 11 Why invest in trees? ............................................................ 12 Benefits of Trees ........................................................... 13 Benefits of Public Trees Measured .......................................... 16 Extreme Heat and Climate Change Adaptation ............................. 17 Challenges and Issues ......................................................... 18 KEY RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 STATUS OF SACRAMENTO’S URBAN FOREST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 History of Sacramento’s Urban Forest ........................................... 26 Pre-urban Sacramento ..................................................... 26 Urban Sacramento ........................................................ 27 Sacramento Ecology and Environment ......................................... 29 Mediterranean Climate .................................................... 30 The California Floristic Province ............................................ 30 The Pacific Flyway ......................................................... 31 City -wide Tree Canopy Assessment ............................................. 32 Tree Canopy Summary .................................................... 32 Neighborhood ............................................................ 35 Census Tract ............................................................... 37 Zoning .................................................................... 39 Parks ...................................................................... 42 Parking Lots ............................................................... 42 Street Trees ............................................................... 44 Historic Change ........................................................... 45 Social Equity .............................................................. 47 City- Mmanaged Trees Analysis ................................................. 51 Species Diversity .......................................................... 51 Age Distribution ........................................................... 52 Urban Forest Management and Regulation ..................................... 54 Who Manages Urban Trees? ................................................ 54 City of Sacramento – Department Roles .................................... 55 City Services .............................................................. 56 Funding ................................................................... 61 Tree Regulations & Policies ................................................. 63 Sacramento City Code – Tree Ordinances and Standards .................... 66 Community Priorities ...................................................... 69 POLICY AND PROGRAM FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Vision ......................................................................... 74 Guiding Principles ............................................................. 75
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Goals & Strategies ............................................................. 76 Grow ...................................................................... 77 Steward ................................................................... 82 Manage ................................................................... 85 Engage ................................................................... 88 Sustain .................................................................... 92 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Grow .......................................................................... 96 Steward ....................................................................... 98 Manage ..................................................................... 100 Engage ...................................................................... 102 Sustain ...................................................................... 104
FIGURES
Figure 1 Areas with mediterranean climate ......................................... 30 Figure 2 California Floristic Province ................................................ 30 Figure 3 Biodiversity hotspots ..................................................... 31 Figure 4 The Pacific Flyway ......................................................... 31 Figure 5 Sacramento land cover classes ............................................ 32 Figure 6 Neighborhood canopy cover map ......................................... 36 Figure 7 Census tract canopy cover map ........................................... 38 Figure 8 Residential zoning canopy map ........................................... 40 Figure 9 Canopy cover by zoning type ............................................. 41 Figure 10 Street Ttrees and Ccanopy cover by Ccensus Ttract ....................... 45 Figure 11 Sacramento County Ddrought Mmonitor from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Nnational Iintegrated Ddrought Iinformation Ssystem 46 Figure 12 Urban Forest Priority Intervention Areas Map ............................. 50 Figure 13 Age distribution of City of Sacramento trees compared to ideal population distribution. ........................................................ 53 Figure 14 Heirarchy of policies, plans, and codes that effect and regulate trees in the City of Sacramento. ...................................................... 65 TABLES
Table 1 Research and analysis stages of developing
the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan. ............................................. 10 Table 2 Number of Ttrees Nneeded to Iincrease Ccanopy Ccover .................... 34 Table 3 Number of trees needed to be planted per year to reach canopy target by 2045, assuming an average annual mortality rate of 5 percent. ............... 34 Table 4 Summary of statistical findings for parking lot shading of randomized sample of 648 parking lots in the City of Sacramento ............................ 43 Table 5 City funding for City-managed trees. ....................................... 61 Table 6 Shade trees approved for use as street trees on the City of Sacramento Street Tree List. ................................................................ 67
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Tree Canopy by Neighborhood ...................................... 107 Appendix B: Tree Canopy in City Parks ............................................ 111 Appendix C: Partner Advisory Committee Summary ............................... 119 Appendix D: Community Survey Results .......................................... 149 Appendix E: Pop-up Workshop Summary ......................................... 160 SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
6 California State University, Sacramento Arboretum
Introduction
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
7 Sacramento’s urban forest is made up of an
estimated one million trees, extending across
public property, private land, residential yards,
parks, natural areas, streetscapes, schools, and
commercial businesses throughout the cCity.
Many residents consider Sacramento’s urban
forest to be its most notable characteristic
and take pride in being from the “City of
Trees. ” The tree canopy that shades the cCity
today is the result of deep commitment
from Sacramentans, past and present, who
established the cCity’s tree legacy. While
many cities with lush urban forests were built
in areas once covered by native forests or
woodlands, Sacramento is primarily a natural
grassland. Aside from the native oaks along
rivers and creeks, nearly all of the one million
trees in Sacramento were individually selected
and planted.
Sacramento’s urban forest creates a more
livable, healthy, and sustainable City.
These trees cool our homes, roads, and
neighborhoods; clean our air and water;
create beautiful spaces for rest and recreation;
improve public health; and absorb greenhouse
gases. While the benefits trees provide
can be difficult to quantify, the cumulative
environmental benefit that Sacramento’s trees
provide to the community are estimated to be
over $100 million annually1.
Sacramento’s urban forest is fundamental
to the cCity’s character and to its residents’
quality of life; however, it faces several
challenges. Uneven distribution of canopy
cover across the cCity, management
and infrastructure needs, pressure from
development, and environmental threats
worsened by climate change—such as
extreme heat, drought, severe storms, and
increases in pests—all require ongoing
attention and action to ensure existing trees
are preserved and new trees grow.
The trees owned and maintained by the City
are a vital piece of the City’s infrastructure and
a valuable capital asset worth an estimated
$409 million. Like any piece of infrastructure,
such as the roads on which we drive and
bicycle and the pipes that bring water to our
faucets, the urban forest supports the function
of the cCity and requires a long-term plan to
ensure its longevity and sustainability. The
Sacramento Urban Forest Plan (SUFP) provides
a guiding vision and policy framework to
ensure a thriving, growing urban forest that
supports our community health and climate
resilience goals now and for generations to
come.
1 City of Sacramento Urban Forest Resource Analysis (2018) (https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Public-Works/Maintenance-Services/ Urban-Forest-Master-Plan/SacramentoCA_ResourceAnalysis_20180522.pdf?la=en) SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
8 PURPOSE OF THE SACRAMENTO URBAN
FOREST PLAN
The SUFP is the City’s primary planning tool for the protection, expansion, maintenance, sustainability, and enhancement of Sacramento’s uUrban fForest.
The core of the SUFP is a set of goals, policies, implementation measures, and actions that set ambitious urban forestry targets, measure progress towards those targets, and support a healthy and sustainable urban forest.
The policy and program framework of the SUFP informed the development of the City’s 2040 General Plan and the Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP), as related to the urban forest, and was integrated into these plans to serve as an implementation tool.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
9 DEVELOPING THE SACRAMENTO URBAN
FOREST PLAN
The SUFP was developed by the Department of Public Works and a consultant team in close collaboration with City staff across departments, the City’s Urban Forester, and community partners. The process began in 2017 and included research and analysis of existing urban forest programs, current conditions of City-owned trees, and status of cCity-wide canopy cover. The SUFP was further informed by community engagement efforts to learn the values and priorities of Sacramento community members and utilize their input to guide the creation of strategic goals, policies, and actions. Core components of the process to develop the SUFP are summarized in Table 1 on the next page. After an initial draft document was developed by the consultant team in 2019, Public Works staff began working internally to strengthen the recommendations of the SUFP and align them with the recommendations of the 2040 General Plan and CAAP . The following section describes the research, analysis, and community engagement activities used to develop the SUFP recommendations. The results of each step are further outlined in detail throughout the “Status of Sacramento’s Urban Forest” Chapter of this SUFP .
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
10 Table 1 Research and analysis stages of developing the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan Urban Forest
Resource Analysis2
Urban Tree
Canopy Assessment3
Community
Engagement4
To understand the structure,
function, and value of
Sacramento’s public trees, the
City performed a resource
analysis. The resource
analysis assessed the City’s
inventory of City-managed
trees in conjunction with
i-Tree Streets—a benefit-
cost modeling software—to
examine the composition,
canopy cover, age,
distribution, condition, and
performance of public trees.
This analysis also established
benchmarks to inform
management decisions and
assessed the economic value
public trees hold.
To understand City-wide tree
canopy, the City performed
an Urban Tree Canopy
Assessment (UTC) using high-
resolution aerial imagery and
remote-sensing software.
The assessment resulted
in Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) maps detailing
the location and extent of
existing tree canopy, on both
public and private property.
The UTC identifies canopy
cover and potential plant-
able space by zoning type,
park land, neighborhood, and
community plan area. It also
assesses change over time by
comparing imagery from 2004
and 2016. The UTC establishes
a baseline for monitoring
overall tree canopy cover
throughout the community,
provides a foundation for
developing community goals
and urban forest policies,
and creates a benchmark for
measuring the success of long-
term planning objectives.
To understand community
values and provide residents
and partners multiple
opportunities to express their
views, the development of the
SUFP included the formation
of and meetings for a Partner
Advisory Committee (formerly
called the Stakeholder
Representative Group),
numerous public meetings
and workshops, a digital
survey, and a series of pop-up
booths at community events.
2 City of Sacramento Urban Forest Resource Analysis (2018) (https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Public-Works/Maintenance-Services/ Urban-Forest-Master-Plan/SacramentoCA_ResourceAnalysis_20180522.pdf?la=en) 3 City of Sacramento Urban Tree Canopy Assessment (2018) (https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Public-Works/Maintenance-Services/ Urban-Forest-Master-Plan/Copy-of-Sacramento-UTC-Assessment-20180515.pdf?la=en) 4 Community Engagement efforts for developing this plan are outlined in Appendices C, D, and E.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
11 WHAT IS AN URBAN FOREST?
“Urban forest” is a term used to describe the collection of trees found within the built environment. An urban forest is defined by its urban setting full of paved surfaces, buildings, parks, and large human population. Sacramento’s urban forest is primarily human-created – the result of tree planting and greening activities carried out by people – with pockets of remnant native forest ecosystem. Given its location, an urban forest requires regular maintenance to keep roads, sidewalks, and parks clear and safe.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
12 WHY INVEST IN TREES?
Sacramento’s trees work hard around the clock to improve and enhance public health, the urban environment, and community quality of life. It is difficult to overstate the value of urban trees. There is no other investment that delivers the vast array of benefits as a healthy urban forest. A thriving urban forest is also an infrastructure investment that increases in aesthetic, functional, and economic value over time. With proper care and maintenance, trees’ value and community benefits increase as they age and grow. This section discusses the social, economic, and environmental benefits that Sacramento’s trees provide, and gives context to our urban forest’s role in providing protection from the impacts of extreme heat and climate change.
The tree benefits that Sacramentans identified as most important during community outreach are highlighted in green.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
13 Social benefits
Infuse beauty: The visual characteristics (e.g., form, color, texture) of trees and landscaping (e.g., form, color, texture) add to the aesthetics of urban spaces, provide character and a sense of place within neighborhoods.
Strengthen communities: Trees enhance neighborhoods by strengthening ties between neighbors, fostering neighborhood pride, and promoting connection through the shared planting and caring for trees.
Support education: Tree canopy cover near and around schools has been associated with higher standardized student test scores in reading and math5.
Improve physical and mental health: People living in neighborhoods with more tree canopy cover have been shown to have better overall health6, including lower rates of obesity, less chronic stress, lower blood pressure, lower rates of depression and anxiety, improved healing times from injury and illness, and fewer incidents of hospitalization from acute respiratory symptoms and heat related illnesses.
Calm traffic: The presence of trees can reduce driving speeds by narrowing the visual width of the roadway and signaling to drivers that people walking and bicycling are present.
Promote active transportation: Trees also support walking, bicycling, and use of public transit by making roadways and transit stops safer, cooler, and more comfortable.
Reduce violent and property crimes: Increased neighborhood tree canopy cover has been associated with a reduction in violent and property crimes as well as an overall improved sense of safety.7
5 Kuo, M., Klein, S. E., Browning, M. HEM., & Zaplatosch, J. “Greening for academic achievement: Prioritizing what to plant and where, ” Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 206, 2021. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169204620314456) 6 Ulmer, J. M., Wolf, K. L., Backman, D. R., Tretheway, R. L., Blain, C. J., O’Neil-Dunne, J. P ., & Frank, L. D. (2016). “Multiple health benefits of urban tree canopy: The mounting evidence for a green prescription, ” Health & Place, Volume 42, 2016. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1353829216301332?via percent3Dihub)
7 Ogletree, S. S., Larson, L. R., Powell, R. B., White, D. L., & Brownlee, M. T. J. “Urban greenspace linked to lower crime risk across 301 major U.S. cities, ” Cities, Volume 131, 2022. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264275122003882) Benefits of Trees
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
14 Economic benefits
Lower electricity bills: Trees can reduce energy use for summer cooling by 20-40 percent8. Trees help buildings conserve energy by shading buildings from the sun, providing a wind break that slows the loss of heat from buildings, and shading air conditioning units so they run more efficiently. This benefit is anticipated to significantly increase over time as extreme heat impacts grow in the coming decades.
Increase property values: Mature, healthy trees can increase property values for both residential and commercial properties.
Boost commercial activity: Shoppers tend to spend more time and money in commercial districts with mature, healthy trees9.
Create jobs: In 2009, urban forestry supported 60,067 jobs in California resulting in $3.3 billion in individual income10.
Promote productivity: Employees with views of nature are often more productive, happier, and healthier11.
8 Monitoring conducted by the California Institute of Energy Efficiency and Sacramento Municipal Utility District in the summer of 1991 indicated these savings are achievable. (https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/1992/data/papers/SS92_Panel5_Paper28.pdf) 9 Wolf, K.L. “Community Economics - A Literature Review, ” Green Cities: Good Health, 2010. College of the Environment, University of Washington. (https://depts. washington.edu/hhwb/Print_Economics.html)
10 Urban forestry jobs impact (https://www.vibrantcitieslab.com/research/economic-development-jobs-impact) 11 Berto, R. “Exposure to Restorative Environments Helps Restore Attentional Capacity, ” Journal of Environmental Psychology, Volume 25, 2005. (https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0272494405000381)
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
15 12 When temperatures are high, trees release water vapor from their leaves into the air through a process called transpiration, which cools down both the plant and the surrounding area.
12 Shade from trees in parking lots reduce surface asphalt temperatures as much as 36 degrees F. The cooler parking lot temperatures reduce ozone concentrations and hydrocarbon emissions (fuel evaporation) from parked cars. (https://extension.psu.edu/green-parking-lots-mitigating-climate-change-and-the-urban-heat- island)
13 Xiao, Q., McPherson, E. G., Simpson, J. R., & Ustin, S. L. “Rainfall Interception by Sacramento’s Urban Forest, ” Journal of Arboriculture, Volume 24, 1998. (https:// www.fs.usda.gov/psw/publications/mcpherson/psw_1998_mcpherson005_xiao.pdf) 14 Gomez-Baggethun, E., & Barton, D. N. “Classifying and valuing ecosystem services for urban planning, ” Ecological Economics, Volume 86, 2013. (https://www. sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S092180091200362X) Environmental benefits
Lower temperatures: Shade from large, healthy, mature trees reduces the amount of sunlight that is absorbed and stored by impervious surfaces, such as roads and buildings. When temperatures are high, trees release water vapor from their leaves into the air through a process called transpiration, which cools down both the plant and the surrounding area. Through shade and transpiration12, trees lower ambient air temperature and reduce urban heat island effects.
Improve air quality: Trees clean the air by absorbing harmful gaseous pollutants like carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, and nitrous oxide. Trees also capture airborne particulate matter such as dust, ash, pollen, and smoke on their leaf surfaces; turn convert carbon dioxide into fresh oxygen through photosynthesis; and reduce ozone formation12 by shading surfaces and reducing air temperatures.
Reduce flooding: During storm events, trees intercept rainfall in their canopies and tree roots increase the amount of water soil can hold. Rainfall then evaporates from the leaves or slowly soaks into the ground, which slows and reduces and slows stormwater runoff and limits sediment and pollutants from entering waterways13.
Carbon sequestration: Trees sequester greenhouse gases that trap and retain heat in the atmosphere and cause climate change. Carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, is stored in tree trunks, branches, leaves, and roots through photosynthesis. The amount of carbon that can be stored is directly related to the size of the tree, meaning larger trees store more carbon14. Carbon sequestration through the expansion of the urban forest is identified in Sacramento’s CAAP as a key measure that may provide greenhouse gas reductions up to 2 percent of the city’s total usage by 2030. Sacramento’s CAAP identifies carbon sequestration through expansion of the urban forest as providing approximately 2 percent of the total greenhouse gas reductions possible by 2030.
Support wildlife: Trees provide critical habitat, food, and shelter for birds, mammals, reptiles, insects, fish, and other aquatic species and create wildlife corridors that support migration and preservation of species.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
16 Benefits of Public Trees Measured
15 iTree is a peer-reviewed software tool developed by the U.S. Forest Service that can quantify the ecosystem services of urban trees. (https://www.itreetools.org) 16 https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/pw/Maintenance-Services/Urban-Forestry/Urban-Forest-Master-Plan/SacramentoCA_ ResourceAnalysis_20180522.pdf
Trees benefit Sacramento in many ways that cannot be measured, such as beauty and connection to nature. Yet, many of the benefits from trees are quantifiable. Tools, like the Utilizing iTree software15, the benefits that our public trees return to the City have been estimated and are depicted in the figure below. used in this analysis, can generate a snapshot estimate of the benefits of trees by using tree inventory data. These estimates are helpful to understand the value of trees but fluctuate year to year, and even day to day, as trees are planted, grow overtime, and removed.
The City tree inventory from 2018 included almost 90,000 trees – a number that has risen to approximately 100,000 trees in 2023 – in City parks, on City property, and in the City right-of-way.
The benefits that our public trees provide to the city have been estimated16 and are depicted in the graphic below. Note that the estimates listed represent just a fraction of the total tree benefits in Sacramento. Approximately 90% of all trees in Sacramento are on private property, thus the total community benefit of the citywide urban forest is about ten times greater than that is listed below.
Cumulative benefits to the community from these environmental services value nearly $10.5 million annually. When the annual investment of $8.2 million in maintenance and care for these public trees is considered, there is an annual net benefit to the community of about $2.3 million dollars. In other words, for every $1 spent on public tree maintenance and care, the community receives $1.28 in benefits – a positive return on investment.
CITY-WIDE CANOPY DATA:
> 19% Canopy cover – total surface area of the entire City of Sacramento shaded by trees > 1,000,000 Estimated number of trees in the entire cCity CITY-MAINTAINED TREES DATA:
> 87,324 Number of City-maintained trees in the City inventory > $408,000,000 Capital value of Sacramento’s public trees (Cost to replace canopy with trees of equivalent species, size, and condition)
> 65,000,000 gallons sStormwater diverted from the drainage system annually > 6,485 tons of cCarbon dioxide captured by City trees annually > 21 .4 tons pPollutants removed from the air by City trees annually > $1,200,000 Annual savings from reduced electricity and natural gas usage for heating and cooling
> $7,700,000 Property value increase provided by public trees annually SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
17 The effects of climate change are already being felt in Sacramento with impacts to public health, ecosystems, and the local economy. Scientists project that climate-driven impacts will increase significantly throughout the century.
These impacts will not be evenly distributed across the City as climate change compounds the effects of historical lack of investment in trees and areas where development patterns were not planned for tree inclusion, greater exposure to pollution, and other existing inequities, thus disproportionately affecting people of color and low-income communities.Climate change will exacerbate existing inequities that disproportionately affect people of color and low-income communities, such as low tree canopy and exposure to pollution.
The City has recently taken several critical steps to advance long-standing efforts to mitigate and adapt to climate change, including the development of the CAAP , the City’s 2021 Climate Implementation Work Plan, 2020 Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change Report, and the 2019 Climate Emergency Declaration16. Both the Mayors’ Commission on Climate Change Report and the CAAP identify urban tree canopy as centrally important to sequestering carbon, building resilience to heat and air quality impacts, and improving community health.
The CAAP is the City’s overarching strategy to address climate change and includes targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as well as specific adaptation measures. The CAAP identifies clear goals for urban forestry and this Urban Forest Plan includes policies and implementation measures that were developed to support and achieve the CAAP targets. The CAAP urban forestry goal is 35 percent by 2045.:
When comparing the expected impacts of climate change to the benefits of trees, the rationale for the prioritization of trees is clear. Trees are a unique, multi-benefit approach to help decrease temperatures, clean the air, protect residents from negative health impacts, make outdoor recreation safer, make active transportation (e.g., walking, biking) and transit use safer and more comfortable, and protect against flooding while increasing groundwater infiltration.
Extreme Heat and Climate Change Adaptation
16 The City’s Office of Climate Action & Sustainability webpage links to key policy documents, recent meetings, and ongoing initiatives. (https://www. cityofsacramento.org/climateaction)
> more frequent flooding and extreme storm
events
> increased frequency and length of droughts
> decreased groundwater supply
Specific impacts of climate change expected in Sacramento include:
> increased number of extreme heat days
> increased incidents of heat-related
illness and death
> growing urban heat island effect
> heat-related disruption to energy
generation and distribution
> increased cost of cooling
> decreased safety and comfort of active
transportation on high heat days
> more frequent regional wildfires that negatively
impact water, soil, and air quality
Increased temperature Changes in precipitation
Worsening air quality
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
18 CHALLENGES AND ISSUES
Sacramento’s urban forest provides essential benefits and services to the City and its residents; however, those benefits are not guaranteed without ongoing attention and action. Since Sacramento’s urban forest was primarily planted by humans in urbanized settings, the urban forest requires ongoing human intervention to sustain and preserve growth, optimize benefits, and meet established safety and economic goals. Sacramento’s urban forest is currently facing several challenges; without intervention, these issues may threaten the long-term health and success of the city’s urban tree City’s canopy. The most significant challenges and issues facing the urban forest include: are summarized in this section.
1) Uneven distribution of canopy and benefits
2) Lack of awareness and compliance with City ordinances 3) Pressure from planned development
4) Dispersed maintenance and management responsibilities 5) Demands on City resources and responsibilities
6) Emergent environmental threats
For a more detailed discussion of each topic, please refer to the “Status of Sacramento’s Urban Forest” section.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
19 Uneven distribution of canopy and benefits
In 2017, Sacramento was identified as the greenest cCity in the United States according to TreePedia, a project conducted by MIT’s Senseable City Lab17. While large-stature trees along streets in the Central City and surrounding neighborhoods garnered this recognition by providing an impressive eye-level perspective of greenery, Sacramento is not a “green” cCity in every neighborhood. Canopy cover—measured by the amount of land covered by trees when viewed from above—varies wildly from one area of the cCity to another. Sacramento’s average tree canopy is 19.1 percent, with canopy in residential neighborhoods varying from 43 percent to 12 percent. This discrepancy in access to canopy and green space leads to disparities in who receives the social, economic, and environmental benefits of trees.
The cCity’s canopy is growing, but the current rate is not enough to achieve the ambitious goals of this Plan or to create equity without intervention. Every zoning type, planning area, council district, and major park has seen an increase in canopy cover over the past two decades18. This growth, while historic and important, is not aggressive enough to achieve canopy cover goals across the cCity.
Specific focus needs to be given to planting and maintaining trees in neighborhoods that are below the target canopy ranges, starting with the lowest canopy areas and neighborhoods with the most vulnerable populations.
Lack of awareness and compliance with City ordinances
The City has both a tree protection ordinance18 and a parking lot shade ordinance19. These ordinances establish policies that protect large and native trees on private property and require 50 percent shade cover in newly built or improved parking lots. In community engagement meetings, City staff and partnersstakeholders expressed, in community engagement meetings, that most private property owners are not aware of these City ordinances and that compliance is primarily enforced through community reporting. The City only becomes aware of private tree removals if reported or by the filing of a permit application. This makes it difficult to protect against prohibited tree removals.
Additionally, the results of the UTC assessment found that only 5.9 percent of parking lots in the City achieve 50 percent shading, a result driven by both issues with ordinance compliance and legacy parking lots constructed before the ordinance was effectivein place.
Increasing canopy cover is dependent on both preserving trees - especially mature shade trees - and planting new trees. It will be difficult for the City to protect the existing canopy if residents are not aware of the regulations that limit when trees can be removed on private property, and without enforcement of these maintenance and protection policies. 17 https://senseable.mit.edu/treepedia/cities/sacramento 18 Sacramento City Code Title 12.56
18 https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/pw/Maintenance-Services/Urban-Forestry/Urban-Forest-Master-Plan/Copy-of-Sacramento-UTC- Assessment-20180515.pdf
19 Sacramento City Code Title 17.612.040
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
20 Pressure from planned development
Sacramento is among the fastest growing communities in the state and is projected to experience significant growth over the next 20 years. City policies support accommodating much of this growth through infill development, especially in the Central City, older commercial corridors, and in transit- oriented development.
While higher densities and infill development do not preclude trees and trees shading, policies and design standards can help ensure that trees are preserved and incorporated throughout the design process and are affordedgiven the above- and below-ground growing space needed to reach maturity, all while minimizing conflicts with other infrastructure (e.g., roads, sidewalks, streetlights, solar panels, and utilities).
Strategic review and updates toing of community development and design standards, as well as ongoing monitoring, is necessary development to achieve canopy cover goals, is necessary to ensure that neighborhoods and business districts include trees that can grow to maturity and provide canopy cover.
Demands on City resources and responsibility
Within the City, staff from a variety of departments play a role in managing the urban forest and are responsible for the planting, maintenance, and care of trees on City property and right-of-way and ensuring compliance with relevant City codes.
Funding for urban forestry is not increasing at the same rate as costs for maintenance of City- managed trees. The City is currently not able to achieve the recommended five-year cycle for maintenance of all City trees. Increasing Deferring maintenance intervals is not a viable option as it increases the risks of decay, deadwood, and heavy limbs, thereby increasing potential risks and reducing the opportunities to identify health issues – resulting in potential liability to the City.
With a focus on funding tree maintenance, funding to regularly update tree inventories has declined resulting in a backlog of tree entries. Additionally, many City parks are older facilities that were installed without irrigation for trees, because passive irrigation from turf lawn sprinklers was all that was needed at the time. However, due to changing climate conditions, more irrigation is needed to serve existing and newly planted trees. built without appropriate irrigation that best serves needs for trees. Reducing lawn watering in times of drought also impacted trees. Identifying necessary funding to install or retrofit irrigation to provide appropriate watering to trees presents significant challenges for canopy expansion in parks.
For the City to successfully implement the goals, policies, and programs identified in this plan additional resources will be required, particularly for ongoing maintenance of an urban forest that needs to nearly double its current size to reach canopy goals.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
21 Dispersed maintenance and management responsibilities The responsibility for the urban forest is shared by many. About 90 percent of Sacramento’s urban forest exists on property that is managed by private owners and public agencies other than the City of Sacramento. Each agency and property owner has different goals, priorities, and available resources, making tree management oversight complex and, at times, a competing priority. There is also a gap in technical expertise, particularly with private property owners - around proper maintenance practices such as irrigation and pruning.
This dispersed ownership structure results in varying levels of investment, maintenance, planting, and care. Reaching canopy cover goals City-wide requires the support and investment of each of these parties as they control most of the City-wide urban forest. The City’s direct role is primarily on City-managed right-of-way, street trees, parks, and other City property. Partnership, education, and outreach is required to achieve the goals of this Plan, with strong collaboration between the City, other public agencies, private businesses, community-based organizations, and the public.
Emergent environmental threats
Over the past century, average maximum temperatures in California have increased between
1.6°F and 2.5°F, and temperatures are expected to continue to rise due to climate change impacts on California. These changes are projected to bring more frequent, lasting, and intense periods of heatwaves and drought as well as increasingly intense winter storms. Drought conditions will weaken trees without proper irrigation and intense storms will affect weakened trees with increased incidents of limb drop and felling. Finding additional water and funding for irrigation improvements will present a challenge. Care needs to be given to drought-related watering restrictions, drought messaging, and water meter implementation to ensure that water-saving measures do not adversely affect trees. The City will also need to continue to critically examine its tree palette and plan for a hotter, drier future.
A new invasive species afflicts California approximately every 40 days, and the Sacramento region has been identified by the California Department of Food and Agriculture as one of the top five regions at risk for the establishment of invasive pests and diseases. These new threats have the potential to cause significant damage to the urban forest and pose a substantial risk to tree benefits. Frequent monitoring and early detection of signs and symptoms of disease development and pest infestation will provide the City with the best chance to sustain a healthy canopy into the future. Best practices recommend that no single species represents greater than 10 percent of the total tree population and that no single genus represents more than 20 percent. Increasing diversity in trees planted to meet this standard would increase City-wide resilience to new pests and diseases.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
22 Key Recommendations
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
23 The SUFP provides a long-term vision and strategy for the city’s trees focused on these key recommendations, summarized below and on the following pages. For a more detailed discussion of specific policy recommendations and implementation measures, please refer to the policy and program framework section.
1) Plan for Trees and _____
Trees should be addressed as critical infrastructure that helps support climate adaptation and targeted environmental and public health goals. Trees and other essential land use and community planning efforts should be advanced together through strategic planning and policy: The co-benefits of trees and other essential community planning efforts can be achieved through strategic planning and policy: trees and development, trees and density, trees and active transportation, trees and solar, trees and energy management, trees and public health.
2) City of Trees for All
The SUFP calls for increasing cCity-wide tree canopy from 19 percent to 35 percent by 2045. To reach that goal, the combined efforts of the City, other agencies, and the public will need to plant and maintain an additional ~25,000 trees per year. Prioritizing Targeting planting efforts in the neighborhoods with the lowest canopy levels, highest heat exposure, and most socio-economically vulnerable residents will ensure that Sacramento can be the City of Trees for all residents and that the benefits of trees are shared equitably.
3) Protect Trees
Reaching the canopy goal will require protecting existing, healthy trees and ensuring that young trees are able to grow to express their full potential canopy. Sacramento will not be able to reach 35 percent canopy coverage through planting alone; maintaining the existing canopy is key. Strong ordinances, increased enforcement capacity, creative planning, expert tree care, and public-private partnerships are necessary to protect and care for as many trees as possible. 4) Invest in Canopy
Increased City funding, staffing, and maintenance capacity is needed to carry out the expanded planting, maintenance, enforcement, and engagement responsibilities necessary to achieve the cCity-wide tree canopy goal of 35 percent. Associated efforts and investments from private partners and the public will be necessary; the City does not own sufficient plant-able space to reach the community canopy goal alone.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
24 Status of Sacramento’s
Urban Forest
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
25 Sacramento’s urban forest has been profoundly shaped by its past and current residents, the natural environment, and changes in physical conditions. It is constantly evolving as trees are planted, die, or are removed. The urban forest is living infrastructure that benefits the entire city and its residents. Made up of individual trees growing on both private and public land, the responsibility for stewarding Sacramento’s urban forest is shared by the entire community.
This chapter reviews the state of the urban canopy, past and present; provides detailed analysis of City-managed trees; and explains existing policies, programs, and tree management structure.
The details and analysis in this chapter inform the Key Recommendations, Policy and Program Framework, and Implementation Strategy sections of this SUFP .
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
26 20 Center, S. N. “Our Native Community, ” Sacramento Native American Health Center, 2022. (https://snahc.org/our-native-community) 21 Mensing, S. “The History of Oak Woodlands in California, Part II: The Native American and Historic Period, ” The California Geographer, Volume 46, 2006. (https:// www.researchgate.net/publication/232041282_The_History_of_Oak_Woodlands_in_California_Part_II_The_Native_American_and_Historic_Period) HISTORY OF SACRAMENTO’S URBAN FOREST
The City of Sacramento has a rich history of trees, driven by substantial City investment and community advocacy. Understanding the historical context of the urban forest and lessons learned from previous challenges is essential to informing future actions and investments. Trees were critical to the City’s past and are essential for addressing current and future challenges facing Sacramento.
Pre-urban Sacramento
The area encompassing Sacramento was, and still is, the Tribal land of the Nisenan people.
Sacramento was a gathering place for many local Tribes who have lived throughout the central valley and foothills for generations and were the original stewards of this land, including the Southern Maidu People, the Valley and Plains Miwok/Me-Wuk Peoples, and the Patwin Wintun Peoples.20 Before European American settlers arrived in Sacramento, the area was predominated by dry grassland with native riparian forests that grew along the rivers and savanna-like native oak woodlands at higher elevations. Native trees found in this region, historically and current day, include blue oak, interior live oak, valley oak, foothill pine, willow, cottonwood, Oregon ash, western sycamore, and California black walnut.
The influence of Indigenous Peoples on woodlands in the area can be inferred from observations made at the time of initial contact by European Americans, oral histories of elders, and landscape changes that have been documented since the dispossession of Indigenous populations. The open, park-like woodlands dominated by majestic oaks—that early European colonizers consistently describe throughout the Central Valley—suggest that these woodlands were the result of intense manipulation by fire. Fire and controlled burning were used by Indigenous Peoples to increase acorn production, promote secondary tree growth used for basketry material, reduce pest and diseases in acorn crops, and expand oak woodlands among other uses. This burning was done in large part due to oak acorns being a staple food source.21
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
27 22 McPherson, E. G., & Luttinger, N. “From nature to nurture: the history of Sacramento’s urban forest, ” Journal of Arboriculture, Volume 24, 1998. (https://www. fs.usda.gov/psw/topics/urban_forestry/products/cufr_20_EM98_19.pdf) 23 Daily Democratic State Journal. February 13, 1855.
24 Holden, W. “Sacramento: Excursions into its History and Natural World, Two Rivers Publishing Company, 1987.
Urban Sacramento
European American settlers began to arrive in the mid-1800s. Following the 1848 discovery of gold in the Sierra foothills, Sacramento experienced rapid growth, dispossession of land from the Indigenous Peoples, and significant changes to the native forest. Settlers and miners cut down and damaged trees for fuel and shelter while also recognizing the value of shade relief, often building around existing mature trees.22
As the area urbanized, trees and open space were intentionally included as a part of the urban fabric. Efforts to preserve open space and trees (e.g., as public parks) and to plant street trees date back to 1849 and 1855 respectively. Sacramento, initially known as the “City of Plains” due to the predominant grasslands, was quickly dubbed the “City of Trees. ” Two early reporters described this transition: “Our citizens have a mania for planting trees. There is hardly a street in the suburbs that in a few years will not be beautifully shaded”23 and “Shade trees add much to the beauty of the place; it will be, in a few years, the city of trees. ”24
Early in Sacramento’s history, both the City and its citizens took an active role in the care and creation of the urban forest and that legacy has persisted today. The City of Sacramento has been a leader in developing the area’s urban forest. Ordinances and actions from the Sacramento City Council, dating back to the 1850s, have progressively required tree plantings for public health, flood protection, street shading, new development, parking lots, and protection of large and native trees.
Sacramento City Hall in 1923. Photo courtesy of Sacramento Center for History, McCurry Foto.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
28 While the City has taken these steps, progress has been buoyed by the engagement and passion of Sacramento residents and civic leaders, particularly women. Mrs. J. Henry Miller led a lengthy campaign to convert a swamp into what is now McKinley Park. Other women, including Effie Yeaw and Eleanor McClatchy, were active champions in protecting ecology and trees. Fred N. Evans designed many parks for the city, including William Land Park, and developed a professional tree management program for the City. C.K. McClatchy, the editor of the Sacramento Bee from 1883 to 1936, became a leading advocate on the behalf of Sacramento’s trees and is credited with promoting the City’s reputation as a “City of Trees” in the paper, as well as publishing front-page obituaries for trees cut down or vandalized to raise public awareness and pride in city trees.3 In 1981, in response to the City’s declining budget for urban forest programs, the mayor and county board of supervisors gathered more than 125 civic, business, and community leaders to develop the concept of a community-based non-profit organization aimed at increasing tree planting and providing resources and education about stewardship and care of trees. By 1982, the non-profit Sacramento Tree Foundation (STF) was formed, led by a group of 50 volunteers. Today, STF provides urban forest programming and tree care to support historically disinvested areas in the Sacramento region. With financial sponsorship from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) and volunteerism from residents, STF has planted more than 500,000 trees in the Sacramento region.
While the City and its residents have put considerable investment into the urban forest, the opposing perspectives of trees as both essential to health and as nuisances have persisted. Affection for different tree species has changed over time, resulting in mass planting of certain species sometimes followed by mass removal. Widespread tree damage during large windstorms in the 1930s and 1940s prompted residents to view trees (particularly large trees) as a safety hazard, even though pruning practices and damage to root systems from road expansions were to blame at that time.
Following World War II, rapid suburbanization, widespread support and availability of automobile travel, and availability of air conditioning led to changes in civic support of the urban forest. Tree removals increased to accommodate street widening, underground utilities, and commercial development. By the 1950s, subdivisions were frequently built with air conditioning and without trees to provide natural cooling. Ordinances that protected and required trees were relaxed and community involvement in the urban forest declined.
While support for trees has ebbed and flowed, it has never disappeared. Periods of decreased interest and protection of trees have been punctuated with public protest over tree removals, mobilization to demand that City Council strengthen tree removal ordinances and permitting requirements, changes in development patterns to require trees, dedicated volunteerism, and investment of residents’ time and City resources to protect and steward trees.
Today, many past challenges and strengths are still on display. The City continues to prioritize and invest in maintaining a substantial public tree resource; however, its scope of oversight, budget, and capacity is insufficient to support the entire urban forest. As a result, investment and involvement from the community, businesses, and private entities is essential for the continued growth and success of the urban forest.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
29 SACRAMENTO ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
Located at the confluence of two major rivers within California’s northern Central Valley, Sacramento exists in a unique location with a diverse ecology and environment that shapes the growth of the urban forest throughout the city. Understanding the natural ecological and environmental factors at play allows the City to make informed management decisions about both natural and urban forests within the city.
Sacramento’s trees and vegetation support local wildlife by providing food, shelter, and nesting areas to a wide variety of birds, animals, and insects. The city is home to a diverse ecology of native plants and animals—some of which cannot be found anywhere else on the planet25—and the interconnectedness of these native and non-native species contributes to the environmental health of the city and region. This biodiversity, or variety of plants and animals in local Sacramento habitats, is important for the resilience of the ecosystem.
Particularly in the rapidly changing environment caused by climate change impacts, preserving and propagating locally acclimated populations, where suitable, can enhance urban forest resilience. The SUFP strives to maintain and strengthen the capacity of the city’s urban forest to support wildlife and local biodiversity. Strategies include preserving native oak woodlands, planting native trees, and promoting more adaptive tree planting palettes. 25 Sacramento Orcutt Grass is a California endangered plant species found only in the bottom of vernal pools in eastern Sacramento County. It is the only plant known to be endemic (restricted to) Sacramento County.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
30 26 https://www.mediterraneangardensociety.org/climate.html 27 Biodiversity hotspots an exceptionally high number of plants and animals that are found nowhere else in the world (i.e., are endemic) and have lost at least 70 percent of the native vegetation coverage. (https://www.conservation.org/priorities/biodiversity-hotspots) 28 https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-hotspots/california-floristic-province/species 29 Keystone species have low functional redundancy meaning if the species were to disappear from the ecosystem, no other species would be able to fill its ecological niche.
Mediterranean Climate
Consistent with the majority
of California, Sacramento
has a Mediterranean climate
characterized by hot, dry
summers and mild, rainy
winters, each lasting about
6 months. Mediterranean
climate zones are unique,
found in few places around
the world. Similar conditions
are found in areas around
the Mediterranean Sea,
Australia, South America,
and Africa.
Figure 1 Areas with mediterranean climate26
Figure 2 California Floristic Province
The California Floristic Province
Sacramento is located in the California Floristic Province, one of only 36 biodiversity hotspots worldwide.27 The
California Floristic Province is home to over 3,500 plant species, 61 percent of which are endemic, or found
nowhere else in the world. Within the California Floristic Province, and Oak Woodlands are the region’s largest,
most important habitat types.28
In Sacramento, one of the primary native habitats is Blue Oak and Valley Oak Woodlands. These native oaks are
keystone species29 in our ecosystem and provide critical habitat for a diverse array of plants and animals. Without these native oaks, Sacramento’s ecosystem would change
drastically; many plant and animal species would die off, others would explode in number. When the keystone
species like native oaks are removed, it is called a “top- down trophic cascade” and can have major long-term
damaging effect on an ecosystem.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
31 30 https://abcbirds.org/blog/north-american-bird-flyways/#:~:text=Birds percent20navigate percent20along percent20more percent20or, percent2C percent20Central percent2C percent20and percent20Pacific percent20Flyways Figure 3 Biodiversity hotspots
The Pacific Flyway
The Pacific Flyway is a major north-
south travel route for migratory birds
that runs along the Pacific Coast, from
Alaska to Patagonia. Every year, at
least a billion birds travel some or all
this distance in both spring and fall
to follow food sources, find breeding
grounds, or reach over-wintering sites.30
For those birds that travel this avian
superhighway through the Sacramento
region, the city’s trees, parks, and water
bodies provide critical food and shelter
along their journey.
Figure 4 Pacific Flyway
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
32 31 For more detailed information, refer to the full Urban Tree Canopy Assessment (https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Public-Works/ Maintenance-Services/Urban-Forest-Master-Plan/Copy-of-Sacramento-UTC-Assessment-20180515.pdf?la=en)
CITY-WIDE TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT
The best way to understand Sacramento’s urban forest is to assess its “tree canopy. ” Tree canopy—also referred to as canopy cover—is the layer of leaves and branches of trees and other woody plants that cover the ground when viewed from above. Most of us notice tree canopy based on how much shade we can find on a hot summer day.; Similarly, canopy cover is quantified as a percentage of the total surface area of the ground that is shaded by trees.
Understanding canopy cover is important to measure the benefits of the urban forest, assess how the urban forest is distributed geographically, establish a baseline, and measure changes over time.
The development of the SUFP included an urban tree canopy assessment (UTC) using high resolution aerial imagery and remote sensing software that was completed in 2018. This assessment provides a bird’s-eye view of the entire urban forest, including all trees on both public and private property. To identify and evaluate geographic issues and trends, canopy data from the UTC31 was aggregated in several ways. Exploring canopy distribution across the city can help guide tree investment opportunities and identify areas ofor focus in the plan.
Tree Canopy Summary
Figure 5 Sacramento land cover classes
In 2018, the City of Sacramento
encompassed 99.7 square
miles (63,784 acres), of which
19 square miles (12,198 acres)
were shaded by tree canopy:
City-wide
• 19.1 percent tree canopy
(12,198 acres)
Parks
• 27.4 percent tree canopy
(1,639 acres)
Impervious Surfaces
46 .24%
Open Water
2 .17%
Bare Soil
15 .65%
Grass/Low Vegetation
16 .82%
Tree Canopy
19 .12%
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
33 32 Potential plant-able areas include bare soil and grass/low vegetation. 33 CS-1 (Carbon Sequestration 1): https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/cdd/Planning/General-Plan/2040-General-Plan/PDC%20Public%20 Hearing%20Draft%20Climate%20Action%20and%20Adaptation%20Plan.pdf 34 https://www.legacy.civicwell.org/climatecommission/
34 Leahy, I. “Why We No Longer Recommend a 40 Percent Urban Tree Canopy Goal, ” American Forests, 2017. (https://www.americanforests.org/article/why-we-no- longer-recommend-a-40-percent-urban-tree-canopy-goal)
The UTC conducted a high-level assessment of a maximum potential canopy cover, including existing canopy and potential plant-able area32. The UTC overstates plant-able areas, as it does not include an analysis of areas currently planned for future development, play areas (e.g., sports fields, passive spaces), drainage facilities, or other restrictions. The City may also seek to incorporate trees in areas currently covered with pervious surfaces, such as creating new landscape strips as part of complete streets projects and promoting trees in private parking lots. While the exact percentages for potential canopy cover are not exact,
the UTC shows there is an opportunity to increase urban tree canopy throughout the city.
The CAAP identifies 35 percent canopy by 2045 as the target canopy cover for Sacramento33. That goal, which lays the foundation for this Plan, was selected due to community feedback and priorities.
The goal was originally advanced by the Mayors Commission on Climate Change34. Additionally, the Partner Advisory Committee that was involved in the development of the SUFP advised the City to pursue a goal that was as aggressive as possible., a goal that was supported by the Partner Advisory Committee that has guided the development of the SUFP . According to national analysis by two U.S.
Forest Service researchers, “40–60 percent urban tree canopy is attainable under ideal conditions in forested states, 20 percent in grassland cities and 15 percent in desert cities are realistic baseline targets, with higher percentages possible through greater investment and prioritization. ” 34 Open Water
2 .17%
Bare Soil
15 .65%
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
34 Table 2 Number of Trees Needed to Increase Canopy Cover35 Table 3 Number of trees needed to be planted per year to reach canopy target by 2045, assuming an average annual mortality rate of 5 percent41
Total Canopy
Cover
Small
(20-ft)36
Medium
(30-ft)37
Large
(40-ft)38
Very Large
(60-ft)39 Average40
19% 0 0 0 0 0
20% 55,880 34,925 19,269 8,597 29,668
25% 374,800 234,250 129,241 57,662 198,988
30% 693,720 433,575 239,214 106,726 368,309
35% 1,012,640 632,900 349,186 155,791 537,629
Total Canopy
Cover
Small
(20-ft)36
Medium
(30-ft)37
Large
(40-ft)38
Very Large
(60-ft)39 Average40
19% 0 0 0 0 0
20% 2,667 1,667 920 410 1,416
25% 17,888 11,180 6,168 2,752 9,497
30% 33,109 20,693 11,417 5,094 17,578
35% 48,331 30,207 16,666 7,435 25,660
35 Each cell is the total number of trees of the specified size need to reach the canopy cover identified in the row. The rows/columns are not cumulative. 36 Eastern Redbud and Crape Myrtle were used to represent a small tree with a 20-foot canopy diameter. 37 Strawberry Tree and Chinese Pistache were used to represent a medium tree with a 30-foot canopy diameter. 38 Zelkova and Red Oak were used to represent a large tree with a 40-foot canopy diameter. 39 Valley Oak and American Elm were used to represent a very large tree with a 60-foot canopy diameter. 40 Calculation of the number of additional trees needed to achieve the identified canopy cover percentage, assuming that equal numbers of trees of each size are used. This is not a sum of the number of trees needed.
41 Average annual mortality rates were drawn from: Roman, L. A., & Scatena, F. N. “Street tree survival rates: Meta-analysis of previous studies and application to a field survey in Philadelphia, PA, USA, ” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Volume 10, 2011. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238003598_Street_tree_ survival_rates_Meta-analysis_of_previous_studies_and_application_to_a_field_survey_in_Philadelphia_PA_USA) Considering Sacramento’s natural ecology—primarily grassland with riparian woodlands—existing canopy cover, and potential for growth, 35 percent is an ambitious and important target that is likely close to the maximum ecological capacity for the city.
To reach the 35 percent canopy goal by 2045, an estimated 540,000 additional trees need to be planted—about 25,000 per year—while maintaining existing canopy levels.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
35 42 It is important to note that these neighborhood boundaries are intended to be illustrative only and do not correspond directly to neighborhood association boundaries; rather, they are intended to provide a general assessment of conditions. 43 Issues with development patterns include but are not limited to annexation of neighborhoods that were developed under both Sacramento County and City of North Sacramento design requirements, which varied from the City’s at the time of development. 44 Roman L. A. “Urban Tree Mortality: A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Environmental Science, Policy, and Management in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley, ” 2013.
Neighborhood
A neighborhood-based analysis—using Sacramento’s 129 identified neighborhoods—can better reflect geographies that are well understood by community members.42 Exploring canopy distribution and socioeconomic indicators at the neighborhood level can provide a more meaningful understanding of tree canopy and guide implementation of outreach, education, and planting activities.
A table of canopy levels in City Parks is included in Appendix A. Ten neighborhoods currently meet or exceed 35 percent canopy cover. An additional 26 neighborhoods have between 25–35 percent canopy cover. Those ten neighborhoods with the highest tree canopy are Boulevard Park, Campus Commons, Elmhurst, Land Park, Marshall School, Natomas Corporate Center, New Era Park, Richmond Grove, River Park, and Southside Park. These neighborhoods are primarily characterized by mature trees planted many decades ago, and many have large public parks that are rich in trees or are neighborhoods adjacent to riparian corridors. Most of these neighborhoods also host significant street tree resources within the City’s right-of-way and on City property.
Of the areas with the lowest canopy cover, 24 neighborhoods have between 20–25 percent canopy cover and 69 neighborhoods have 20 percent or less canopy cover. Many of the neighborhoods with the very lowest tree canopy are industrial areas, most with canopy cover less than 5 percent.
Residential neighborhoods with the lowest canopy cover are primarily in South Sacramento, North Sacramento, and North Natomas. The factors behind the lower canopy coverage vary from neighborhood to neighborhood, but include development patterns43, neighborhood age, the amount and size of parks, school sites with low canopy, limited street tree planter strips, high proportions of rental housing and short-term occupancy,44 history of redlining and racist housing covenants, and other socio-economic factors. Details about how redlining and demographics correlate to the urban forest are further discussed in the Tree Canopy and Social Equity section.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
36 Figure 6 Neighborhood canopy cover map
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
37 Census Tract
Analysis of canopy coverage at a census tract level is important because most grant funding opportunities allocate funds based on project boundaries defined by census tract. Looking at tree canopy by census tract allows the City to target urban forest grant opportunities to grow canopy where is it below target goals. Assessing canopy cover this way, a similar pattern to neighborhood level canopy is visible; there are the highest levels of canopy in older neighborhoods, near the cCity’s core, and adjacent to riparian corridors and fewer trees in South Sacramento, North Sacramento, and North Natomas.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
38 Figure 7 Census tract canopy cover map
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
39 Zoning
Zoning is a regulatory tool through which governments assign land area into “zones, ” each of which has a set of regulations governing the type of new development in each zone to help guide urban growth and development. The City’s zoning requirements, found in Title 17 of the City Code (the Planning and Development Code), regulate the height, lot coverage, parking standards, landscaping requirements, and setback requirements that apply within each zone. Zones may be defined for a single use (e.g., residential, commercial) or have several combined activities that are compatible (e.g., residential mixed use, which allows a mix of residential and commercial uses). Given the variation in types of development, density/intensity, and lot coverage, canopy cover varies significantly among different zones.
In Sacramento, the American River Parkway-Flood Zone, Residential Office, Office Buildings, and Residential zones have the greatest canopy cover percentages; Manufacturing, Industrial, and Highway Commercial zones have the lowest canopy cover. Due to the localized, household and community-level public health and environmental benefits of trees, high levels of canopy cover in the areas where most residents spend most of their time is essential. Residential zoning comprises the areas of the cCity where most people live; specific attention to canopy maintenance and expansion in these areas is a priority.
Residential zones cover the greatest proportion of the city. Current canopy levels in Single Family Residential (R-1) residential zones are 26 percent – above the cCity average of 19 percent. With R-1 zones reflecting 35 percent of the cCity’s footprint, trees in R-1 zones make up 49 percent of all trees in the City. While trees in R-1 make up a huge proportion of the total trees in the cCity, the amount of cCity canopy in R-1 is consistent with how much of the cCity’s land mass is within the R-1 zone.
Recent land use changes to allow greater densities in single family neighborhoods by allowing duplexes to fourplexes and multiplemulti-unit housing and accessory dwelling units (ADUs) have raised community concerns related to potential effects on tree canopy. The City is also focusing on other actions to address residential densities in other land use and zoning categories to support provision of more housing opportunities. An analysis of current canopy levels by residential zoning type shows very limited correlation between density and canopy; overall, all residential zones regardless of density have between 19 and 26 percent canopy.
To provide for the successful implementation of housing density development and tree canopy preservation and enhancement, several key recommendations are included in the policy and program framework, including: reviewing and amending development standards, city code, and design guidelines as necessary to promote future canopy levels, allowing maximum flexibility in development standards to encourage preservation of existing trees, continuing to enforce the tree protection ordinance (City Code chapter 12.56), and developing metrics to track and report on tree removals and projected canopy levels for development projects.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
40 Figure 8 Residential zoning canopy map
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
41 Figure 9 Canopy cover by zoning type
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
42 Parks
Public parks are a primary area for people to take advantage of the benefits of public trees, through both passive and active recreationconnect with nature and enjoy the benefits of public trees through recreation. This is particularly important in areas where there is less overall tree canopy, as public parks may be the main source of green space and shade. The potential canopy cover in public parks depends on the use of the park (e.g., open play areas and swimming pools versus natural and picnic areas) and available plant-able space that does not conflict with these recreational uses.
Within city limits, there are 2378 parks covering 5,9934,300 acres managed by the City of Sacramento.
This does not include parks managed by Sacramento County, the State of California, and other organizations. Among the top ten largest City parks, William Land Park has the greatest canopy cover at 67.1 percent and Sutter’s Landing Regional Park, which was a former landfill and as a result has limits on planting in and adjacent to the landfill area, has the lowest canopy cover at 1.8 percent.
Overall, tree canopy covers 27.4 percent of parks and open space areas. A table of canopy levels in City parks in included in Appendix B. Additional planting at parks and open space areas can increase access to trees in communities with lower tree canopy levels. Similar to neighborhood-level strategies, prioritizing canopy expansion efforts in parks with priority communities that have the lowest canopy, that serve the most vulnerable populations and have the most significant potential for canopy increase, will be important in the implementation stages of this plan.
Parking Lots
Though not as obvious as neighborhoods and parks, parking lots are important areas of the urban forest. Parking lots are areas of the city that often have high urban heat island effect and poor air quality, and trees are effective tools for combatting both problems.
The materials that are used to build parking lots, such as asphalt and concrete, absorb heat. These materials then radiate absorbed heat and can raise temperatures by several degrees.45 Additionally, the operation of conventional gas and diesel cars that combust fossil fuels can also raise air temperatures.46 As temperatures in parking lots increase, gasoline from leaky fuel tanks and worn hoses evaporates and results in hydrocarbon emissions and the formation of ground-level ozone.
Ground-level ozone is one of Sacramento’s biggest air quality problems and Sacramento has been classified as a severe nonattainment zone—an area that does not meet the EPA’s national ambient air quality standards.
Planting trees in parking lots reduces heat through shading asphalt and concrete, reducing both heat absorption and the radiation of heat, and by reducing the ambient air temperature through transpiration47. Cooler air temperatures reduce ozone concentrations by lowering the emissions of 45 Golden, J. S. “The built environment induced urban heat island effect in rapidly urbanizing arid regions–a sustainable urban engineering complexity, ” Environmental Sciences, Volume 1, 2004. (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15693430412331291698) 46 Wilby, R. “A Reivew of Climate Change Impacts on the Built Environment, ” Built Environment, Volume 33, 2007. (https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/alex/ benv/2007/00000033/00000001/art00003)
47 Transpiration is the process of water movement through a plant and out the surface of a plant.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
43 48 McPherson, E. G. “Sacramento’s parking lot shading ordinance: environmental and economic costs of compliance, ” Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 57, 2001. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169204601001967) Based on these findings, evaluation of and amendments to the Parking Lot Shade Ordinance and the Parking Lot Tree Shading Design and Maintenance Guidelines as well as exploration of enforcement options and incentives to increase parking lot shading will be needed.
Table 4 Summary of statistical findings for parking lot shading of randomized sample of 648 parking lots in the City of Sacramento Highest Canopy Cover 89.4%
Lowest Canopy Cover 0.0%
Average Canopy Cover 15.3%
Standard Deviation 16.8%
Percent Compliance Lots Compliant with 50% Shading 5.9% Percent Non-Compliance Lots Non-Compliant with 50% Shading 94.1% hydrocarbons that are involved in ozone formation. Planting trees in parking lots throughout the Sacramento region to achieve 50 percent shade on paved areas is estimated to have the potential to reduce hydrocarbon emissions by 1 meteric ton per day.48 The City first enacted a parking lot shading ordinance, City Code section 17.612.040, in 1983, which established tree shading requirements and standards for planting, maintenance, protection, removal, and replacement of trees in parking lots. However, many existing parking lots in the city pre-date the 1983 application of these standards and are not subject to the ordinance. In addition, many parking lots developed since 1983 have failed to reach 50 percent shade coverage. A randomized assessment (as a part of the UTC in 2018) of 648 parking lots found that the average canopy was 15.3 percent and only 5.9 percent of parking lots had 50 percent shading. This analysis did not consider when parking lots were approved.
One challenge to enforcing the ordinance is that a complex series of calculations is necessary to determine if a given plan or existing parking lot complies with the ordinance. There are mechanisms within the ordinance to allow for enforcement of the code but without clear, objective, and observable metrics of compliance, only the most drastic examples of non-compliance are noticed and corrected.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
44 Street Trees
Sacramento’s large inventory of City-maintained street trees is a unique asset compared to other cities and is a critical component of the robust canopy cover that the City currently enjoys. Of the about 100,000 City trees maintained by the City, the majority of them are street trees. Street trees are primarily located in areas developed when standards required inclusion of landscape strips between the sidewalk and street. These standards primarily exist in older neighborhoods such as the Central City and immediately adjacent neighborhoods, like Land Park, Curtis Park, and East Sacramento.
Where there were no landscape strips, these same areas often included an easement in front yards for street trees. These neighborhoods tend to have the largest, most mature trees within the cCity, as many are many decades old due to when the neighborhoods were developed. In all areas with street trees, adjacent property owners are responsible for watering street trees.
In areas developed after the 1980s, City development standards also typically required landscape strips and tree planting, although depending on tree selection and planter width, these may not include the largest canopy trees. Many areas developed after World War II and those originally developed in the unincorporated County and the former City of North Sacramento were developed with different development standards and often do not include landscape strips, thus lacking space for publicly maintained street trees, and in some cases also lacking sidewalks. Past community wide planting efforts often neglected many of these neighborhoods. This resulted in lower exitsting canopy levels and presents a major challenge to create planting space along streets in many Sacramento neighborhoods. As a result, options for planting and maintaining trees in the front and back of properties to provide neighborhood canopy coverage becomes a greater responsibility for private property owners to plant trees in the front and back of properties. Many of these areas are in low-income and racially diverse communities with the least financial and social resources to accomplish this goal.
While this does pose a signification challenge to planting and maintenance efforts, it does not preclude any neighborhood from reaching the canopy cover goals. The distribution of City street trees does not directly correlate to canopy cover levels in neighborhoods throughout the cCity, as can be seen in Figure 10. It does, however, require more incentive programs and intervention efforts to convert more public spaces for trees and supporting private property owners and other agencies to plant and maintain trees to accomplish the tree canopy goal.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
45 Figure 10 Street Trees and Canopy cover by Census TractTree Canopy Percent City Street Trees
Census Tracts
City Street TreesTree Canopy Percent
Historic Change
The last tree canopy assessment using the same methodology was in 2004. In 2004, the tree canopy was 8,856 acres, which at the time was 13.9 percent of the city’s land cover. By the time the aerial imagery used for this study was captured in 2016, tree canopy had increased by 3,343 acres to 12,199 total acres or 19.1 percent of the city’s land cover, which is a 37.8 percent overall increase. Every zoning type, planning area, council district, and major park saw an increase in canopy cover between 2004 and 2016.
Factors that have affected the increase in tree canopy include:
The increase in size of existing trees and
new trees.
The addition of thousands of trees to the
City-managed public tree resource through new
plantings along streets and in parks.
New developments with urban trees in areas
that were formerly agricultural or grass fields.
The planting of thousands of new trees on private
property by community members.
This significant change should inspire both optimism and caution. It is a marked improvement that indicates trees are being preserved, planted, and are growing across the cCity. However, it is challenging to differentiate the relative weight of each factor in driving this increase in canopy cover, specifically how much growth is due to trees maturing and increasing in canopy diameter, versus new trees being planted.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
46 49 Data for California from the National Integrated Drought Information System, May 2023 (https://www.drought.gov/states/california) 50 https://www.drought.gov/states/california
Figure 11 Sacramento County Drought Monitor from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Integrated Drought Information System50 Overall, the city’s canopy is growing, but not enough to achieve the ambitious goals of this SUFP or to create geographic equity without intervention. Specific focus needs to be given to planting trees in areas that are below the target canopy cover, starting with the lowest canopy areas and most vulnerable populations. Alongside new and replacement planting, existing mature trees should be maintained and protected whenever possible since the greatest benefits accrue from continued growth and longevity of existing canopy.
Much of the increase in canopy in new development areas, many of which were formerly grasslands or agricultural lands with close to zero canopy, is the result of newly planted urban trees. In these areas, development patterns as well as development standards and design guidelines have a substantial impact on the continued expansion of the canopy over time. Several factors will impact the total percent canopy cover of these areas when planted trees reach full maturity, including minimum required size of planting strips and tree wells, required tree spacing, tree species selection, residential yard size, and road width. Evaluation of and possible amendments to the planning ordinances, policies, standards, and guidelines that eaffect how trees are incorporated into new development as well as exploration of programs and funding needed to increase enforcement efforts is needed to ensure all new development can achieve a minimum of 35 percent canopy.
Another cause for caution is the recent extreme and exceptional periods of drought in Sacramento.
During the 2004 to 2016 period, Sacramento experienced two major periods of drought. One from 2007 through 2010 and another beginning at the end of 2011 and extending into 2017.49 At the peak of the drought in 2015, Governor Brown issued a call to conserve water that led many Californians to stop irrigating lawns and other landscaped areas. This had the unintended consequence of further impacting trees within those lawns and landscaped areas that were reliant on irrigation to supplement the increasingly scarce amounts of rainfall that the region had experienced for several years. While healthy trees can recover from short periods of drought stress, prolonged periods without water will eventually kill the tree, although it may take years before the tree finally succumbs.
There are many trees lost because of drought that are not captured in the most recent UTC. Future urban tree canopy assessments will be required to understand the impact of increasingly frequent extreme weather events on the urban canopy.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
47 Social Equity
As part of the 2040 General Plan Update, the City commissioned athe Race & Place report51 to outline the context of and provide baseline data for environmental justice issues in Sacramento. The report details the connection between Sacramento’s environmental conditions and intergenerational patterns of race and urban development that shape the city, in particular the historic impact of racial inequality in housing and the impacts of discriminatory housing programs. The cumulative effects of this trauma created disparities across Sacramento in social determinants of health, population, income, housing, education, employment, infrastructure, and tree canopy. The report identifies a north/south corridor across the city that exhibits poverty and segregation and an east/west corridor that exhibits wealth and opportunity. The neighborhoods in the north/south corridor are the locations most vulnerable to climate change impacts and environmental injustice. 51 Hernandez, J. “Race and Place in Sacramento: A Report for the City of Sacramento to support preparation of the Environmental Justice Element of the Sacramento 2040 General Plan Update, ” JCH Research, 2021. (https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/CDD/Planning/General-Plan/2040- General-Plan/Race_Place_Nov-2021.pdf?la=en)
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
48 Multiple scientific studies have been
conducted in Sacramento regarding the social
geography of tree canopy, and the correlation
between urban heat and tree canopy as well
as public health and tree canopy.
One study on the distributional equity of
urban tree canopy in U.S. cities found that
areas with more Black and Latino residents in
Sacramento have fewer trees52. This association
between income, race, and tree canopy cover
was unique to Sacramento and Los Angeles
when compared to the other cities in the
study, which the authors suggest may be
due to the hot, dry climate and the need for
irrigation.
When analyzing the UTC report prepared
for this plan, canopy data overlayed with
income statistics shows that Sacramento
neighborhoods with higher levels of income
also have greater percentages of tree
canopy, while neighborhoods with low- to
moderate-income—such as historically
redlined neighborhoods like Meadowview, Del
Paso Heights, Parkway and Valley Hi—have
noticeably fewer trees and less shade.53
An exploratory study on tree cover and health
in the Sacramento region showed that more
neighborhood tree cover was associated with
positive effects on health conditions for adults
aged 18 to 64 years. The study, conducted by
Urban Design 4 Health and the Sacramento
Tree Foundation, showed that higher levels
of tree cover in a neighborhood were
52 Schwarz, K., Fragkias, M., Boone, C. G., Zhou, W., McHale, M., Grove, J. M., . . ., Whitmer, A., & Cadenasso, M. “Trees Grow on Money: Urban Tree Canopy Cover and Environmental Justice, ” PLoS One, Volume 10, 2015.
53 Development patterns at the time of development when many of these areas were in the County prior to annexation into the City, did not require medians or separated sidewalks which has directly correlated to lower canopy. 54 Ulmer, J. M., Wolf, K. L., Backman, D. R., Trethy, R. L., Blain, C. J., O’Neil-Dunne, J. P ., & Frank, L. D. “Multiple health benefits of urban tree canopy: The mounting evidence for a green prescription, ” Health Place, Volume 42, 2016. 55 White, R. “Summer Days Often Feel Much Hotter If You Live In One Of California’s Historically Redlined Neighborhoods, ” CapRadio, May 2020. (https://www. capradio.org/articles/2020/05/26/summer-days-often-feel-much-hotter-if-you-live-in-one-of-californias-historically-redlined-neighborhoods) 56 Roman, L. A., Battles, J. J., & McBride, J. R. “Determinants of establishment survival for residential trees in Sacramento Count, CA, ” Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 129, 2014. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169204614001273) significantly associated with more vigorous
physical activity, less obesity, better general
health, lower rates of asthma, and better social
cohesion.54
A 2019 study on Sacramento’s heat islands
by Portland State University’s Heat Mapping
Project, found that the temperature
differentials between neighborhoods can vary
by as much as 20 degrees during summer
days.55 The study found that wealthy, tree-
canopied neighborhoods are typically cooler,
while low-income, asphalt-heavy communities
are hotter. Historically redlined neighborhoods
were an average of six degrees hotter than the
rest of the region, turning these locations into
places where outdoor activities are less safe
and enjoyable.
The environmental inequity of tree canopy
in Sacramento is further complicated by
the fact that tree planting efforts are also
affected by social and economic disparities.
A five-year study of trees distributed
through the Sacramento Tree Foundation
residential free shade tree program found that
homeownership and educational attainment
were directly linked to increased levels of both
tree planting and tree survival.56 While income
levels showed no consistent trend, stable
homeownership was the best predictor of tree
establishment success, a factor that is deeply
influenced by the historical, racist housing
practice of redlining.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
49 57 SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities and Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool disadvantaged community maps were used to identify disadvantaged status. 58 Based on Sacramento’s average relative humidity ranges during summer months, this temperature would likely reach a wet-bulb temperature near or above 86 degrees Fahrenheit, which could pose potentially fatal danger to humans outside. (https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/07/10/1028172/climate-change- human-body-extreme-heat-survival/)
When assessing these reports and studies
cumulatively, the results clearly depict
a persistent pattern of social inequity in
Sacramento’s tree canopy. Racially diverse and
economically disadvantaged neighborhoods
have fewer trees and experience greater heat
island effects; as a result, residents suffer
negative health effects.
Policies and implementation measures in this
SUFP must include efforts to not only increase
the city-wide canopy cover but to strive
for greater parity across all neighborhoods
while doing so. This will require strategically
developed programs and consistent,
dedicated funding to increase tree planting
and care efforts in neighborhoods with
low tree canopy, high heat island effects,
and high social vulnerability. Additionally,
because 90 percent of the tree canopy is
privately-owned, focusing only on equity in
the City-owned public tree resource will be
insufficient. Additional policies, programs,
and partnerships should be developed to
bolster the efforts of residents, community
groups, non-profits, and other private entities
in growing trees canopy in disadvantaged
communities.
Canopy expansion efforts should be focused
first on residential neighborhoods with
the lowest canopy, highest vulnerability
to extreme heat, most socio-economically
vulnerable populations, and the most
significant potential for canopy increase.
Planting in these areas can provide the
greatest marginal benefit per tree planted,
including household and community-level
resilience to climate impacts including
extreme heat, associated public health
benefits, energy bill savings, improved active
transportation conditions, and economic
benefits. Areas that meet these criteria have
been identified as “urban forest priority
intervention areas” for investment in urban
forestry programs.
These “urban forest priority intervention areas” ,
shown in Figure 12, were ranked using data
at the census tract level. Priority metrics used
to rank census tracts include state or federal
designation as a disadvantaged community57,
canopy coverage below 25%, and Day Time
Land Surface temperature greater than or
equal to 103 degrees Fahrenheit58. Census
tracts meeting all three criteria were ranked
Very High priority; census tracts meeting 2
criteria were ranked High priority; census
tracts meeting one criterion were ranked
Medium priority; and census tracts that did
not meet any criteria were ranked Low priority.
The Urban Forest Priority Intervention Areas
map will be utilized to support strengthened
interventions in areas with the highest need.
Within priority areas, program efforts will
further emphasize residential areas, corridors,
and parks with consideration to existing
infrastructure constraints.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
50 Vin
International
Airport
We Dama Mal
Fishe
w
Sacramento Urban Forest
Priority Intervention Areas
byi:�ensus Tract
Prioritization
Arcade
-
High c=J
Mediumc=J
Low
Note: Priority criteria include urban heat, CA or Federal disadvantaged community status, and low tree canopy.
All areas of the City require urban forestry efforts, but this priority map will be used to support strengthened interventions in areas with the highest need. Within priority areas, program efforts will further emphasize residential areas, corridors, and parks and consider existingJ�fr,i!mJ.,cture constraints.
Lake
B, h
Lake
Rio Linda
Florin
McClellan
Airfield
McClellan
Park
North
Highlands
Arden-Arcade
la Riviera
U ionH, (·eek
0 2
•---===::::iMiles
Very High c=J
Figure 12 Urban Forest Priority Intervention Areas Map
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
51 CITY-MANAGED TREES ANALYSIS
Within Sacramento city boundaries, there are an estimated one million trees; however, only about ten percent of those trees are managed by the City of Sacramento. The previous section, the cCity-wide Tree Canopy Assessment, focused on all one million trees. This section focuses only on the ten percent of trees managed by the City of Sacramento.
The City inventoried all City-managed street and park trees in 20108 – a total of 87,324 trees. Data collection included species, size, condition, and geographic location. Since then, the City’s public tree resource has increased in population; the City estimates that it currently manages about 100,000 trees, including trees in new parks, streets, and City-managed facilities that have not yet been inventoried. While not perfect, this inventory provides a snapshot of the type and distribution of City trees.
An Urban Forest Resource Analysis59 of City-managed trees was completed in 2018 using i-Tree Streets, a benefit-cost modeling tool. The results quantified the existing structure, function, and value of the City’s public tree resource, including examination of composition, species diversity, age distribution, condition, and performance.
Species Diversity
Species diversity is important to the biological resilience of the urban forest. Species, in this context, refer to distinct types of trees. Similar species that are genetically related are grouped into a genus, and similar genera are grouped into a common family. This means that species in a common genus or family are genetically related to each other.
Maintaining diversity in the tree canopy is important for overall resilience of the urban forest.
Dominance of any single species or genus can have detrimental consequences in the event a specific type of tree is particularly susceptible to the impacts of storms, drought, disease, pests, or other stressors. Many pests and disease-causing pathogens tend to preferentially impact a specific species of tree or group of species that are closely related genetically, while leaving other more distantly related species of trees completely unaffected. Dutch elm disease and sudden oak death disease, for example, have had catastrophic impacts on the populations of elm trees and oak trees respectively, but do not impact other types of trees. A diverse mix of trees makes it harder for diseases to spread throughout a region since the trees that are not susceptible can act as a barrier between the disease-causing pathogen and the trees that are susceptible. Additionally, a diverse mix of trees 59 https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/content/dam/portal/pw/Maintenance-Services/Urban-Forestry/Urban-Forest-Master-Plan/SacramentoCA_ ResourceAnalysis_20180522.pdf
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
52 60 Santamour, F. S. “Trees for Urban Planting: Diversity, Uniformity, and Common Sense, ” Metropolitan Tree Improvement Alliance (METRIA) Conference, 1990. 61 McPherson, E. G., & Rowntree, R. A. “Using structural measures to compare twenty-two U.S. street tree populations, ” Landscape Journal, Volume 8, 1989. 62 McPherson, e. G., van Doorn, N., & de Goede, J. “Structure, function and value of street trees in California, USA, ” Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, Volume 17, 2016. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1618866715301400) 63 In all trees except palms, the trunk diameter increases with age, so trees of the same species with smaller trunk diameters tend to be younger and those with larger trunk diameters tend to be older. Palms were not considered in this analysis because their diameters do not increase as they age. minimizes losses to the overall tree population from any particular environmental stressor by limiting the number of trees that are vulnerable to it. The “10-20-30 rule” is a widely used standard that recommends no single species represent greater than 10 percent of the total population, no single genus more than 20 percent, and no single family more than 30 percent.60 City-managed trees include a mix of 194 unique species, significantly higher than the mean of 53 species reported by a nationwide survey of street tree populations in 22 U.S. cities.61 Of the 194 species, 165 species each account for no more than one percent of the overall tree population and only two species account for more than five percent. Except for Platanus x acerfolia (London plane) at
15.5 percent, the City’s inventory meets industry recommended species diversity standards.
The overreliance on Platanus x Acerfolia in the City inventory should be minimized. There are emergent threats (e.g., Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer) that, while not yet in the Sacramento area, have the potential to cause significant die back in the species. Future planting should focus on increasing diversity and reducing reliance on this overused species. New and underutilized tree species should be considered for replanting sites left vacant by the loss of trees whose species is overrepresented in the City’s tree inventory. The City should continue to explore the use of new species that show the potential to be resistant to the known pests that currently pose a threat to the region and the potential to withstand climate impacts affecting the Sacramento region, such as extreme heat, drought, and precipitation. Tree species lists and standards for City projects and private development should be reviewed and updated to ensure adherence to current best practices regarding species diversity and selection.
Age Distribution
As trees age and increase in size, they need different management and care. The age distribution of individual trees within the urban forest influences present and future costs of maintenance as well as the flow of benefits. While large, mature trees provide the greatest level of benefits, they also cost more to maintain due to their size and need for specialized equipment. Having a large portion of mature trees in an urban forest can strain municipal budgets.62 TheAn “ideal” age distribution of trees has a high proportion of young trees to offset establishment and age-related mortality as a percentage of older trees declines over time: 40 percent immature, 30 percent young, 20 percent middle aged, and 10 percent mature. An urban forest with an ideal age distribution allows for predictable annual maintenance costs and continuity in tree canopy coverage and associated benefits.
Age distribution can be approximated by considering the range of trunk diameters within the overall inventory and of individual species.63
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
53 Actual Population
30 percent
20 percent
10 percent
0 percent
0-3 3-6 6-12 12-18 18-24 24-36 36-48 > 48
Diameter (inches)
Ideal Population
Percent
percent)
Figure 13 Age distribution of City of Sacramento trees compared to ideal population distribution The City-managed tree resource has 62.3 percent of trees with a diameter of 12 inches or less and 15.5 percent of trees with a diameter of 24 inches or more (Figure 9), although the diameter distribution—and therefore the age distribution—in the City-managed inventory varies across species.
Compared to the ideal age distribution, Sacramento’s public tree resource includes more small stature, immature, and young trees than are recommended for an urban forest. In a growing city like Sacramento, this trend is expected due to newly developed areas being more likely to have a higher proportion of younger and smaller trees. The city can expect environmental services provided by the urban forest to significantly increase as the current young tree population ages and tree size increases. Continued investment in tree planting and existing tree maintenance will be needed to ensure an ideal age distribution is achieved and retained. Additionally, young and immature trees require more frequent pruning to establish an appropriate and safe structure which should be considered in urban forest management decisions.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
54 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT
AND REGULATION
Sacramento’s vast urban forest is owned, managed, and regulated by a diverse collection of stakeholders. This section provides an overview of the primary stakeholders and details the City’s role in managing public trees, including department responsibilities, services provided, funding, regulations and policies, and the effectiveness of City Code in protecting and expanding the urban forest.
Who Manages Urban Trees?
Sacramento’s trees are owned and maintained by a mix of public agencies and private stakeholders who collectively share the responsibility of maintaining the urban forest. Each agency and property owner has different goals, priorities, and available resources, making uniform tree management and oversight that accounts for these differences a complex task. The primary agencies and groups responsible for the urban forest are described below.
City of Sacramento: Manages trees on City property and in City rights-of-way, primarily street trees, trees in City parks, and at City facilities.
Sacramento County: Manages trees on County-owned and managed property, including County facilities and County parks that are within the city limits, such as the American River Parkway.
State of California: Manages trees on State property and rights-of-way, including State parks, state- owned facilities, Cal Expo, and along state highways.
School Districts: Manages trees on school district and educational institution property, including Sacramento State University, University of California Davis, Los Rios Community College District, and multiple K-12 public school districts, various campuses and related parking lots.
Private Property Owners: Most of the land within the city is under private ownership, including commercial, industrial, and residential properties. Owners are responsible for planting and maintaining trees on private property, as well as watering city street trees unless they are a part of a tax-funded maintenance district that includes irrigation facilities for street trees.
Regulatory Agencies: Various flood control agencies manage activities on the river levees and may restrict planting activities. Public wildlife agencies enforce environmental regulations that protect certain trees, particularly in natural areas. Public and private utilities, particularly the electrical and natural gas providers, also drive tree decisions, such as removal and trimming of trees to avoid conflicts with underground and overhead utilities.
Sacramento Tree Foundation: A community benefit non-profit that advocates for and supports private planting efforts and provides public education regarding proper tree planting and maintenance.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
55 City of Sacramento – Department Roles
Within the City, staff from a variety of departments play a hand in managing the urban forest.
Urban Forestry Section of Department of Public Works (DPW): The urban forestry section is responsible for planting, maintaining, and protecting trees within the public right-of-way, advising other departments on proper tree care and compliance with city codes related to trees, and providing recommendations to the Community Development on trees in connection with proposed private development. Street trees are considered an essential element of city transportation infrastructure.
Facilities Division of Department of Public Works: The Facilities Division is responsible for planting, maintaining, and protecting trees at City facilities, including City office buildings and parking lots, libraries and community centers.
Marina Section of Department of Public Works: The Marina section manages the Sacramento Marina, which includes open space adjacent to the Sacramento River, as well as the Marina parking lot.
Department of Y outh, Parks, and Community Enrichment (YPCE): YPCE is responsible for planting, maintaining, and protecting trees within city parks and parkways.
Department of Utilities (DOU): DOU is responsible for planting, maintaining, and protecting all trees within the City water, wastewater, and drainage facilities and easements.
Community Development Department (CDD): CDD is responsible for permitting new development and enforcing city codes and ordinances regarding trees in private development projects.
This range of ownership structure results in varying levels of investment, maintenance, planting, and care. Most entities with tree management oversight have other, sometimes competing, priorities or missions beyond tree care. Public safety concerns may result in tree removals or restrictions.
Agencies with another core mission, such as public education, may have challenges devoting adequate resources to tree planting and maintenance within limited resources. Private owners may be concerned with the costs of tree care or lack the technical expertise to understand and implement proper pruning, irrigation, and other maintenance activities. Requirements for development may compete with existing trees.
Reaching canopy cover goals city-wide requires the support and investment of each of these parties.
Partnership, collaboration, education and outreach between the City, other public agencies, private businesses, non-profit urban forest organizations, and the public will be required to achieve the goals of this plan.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
56 Pruning
A pruning cycle is the number of years it takes to prune all trees managed by the City. The City strives to achieve a five-year pruning cycle, meaning that one fifth of the city’s inventory of trees are pruned every year, with each tree receiving maintenance once every 5 years. Currently, the City is on an estimated eight-year pruning cycle for street trees and ten-year pruning cycle for park trees.
The length of the pruning cycle has a significant effect on tree value. Proactive routine maintenance can identify and correct defects in trees and improve their structure which can reduce the need for additional and more costly maintenance in the future. Longer pruning cycles may require less initial financial output but any short-term savings to the Ccity isare offset by a loss in tree value and increased costs for future maintenance, with the decline in value and the increase in maintenance costs accelerating over time. While the City’s current pruning cycle is appropriate, a goal of reaching a five-year pruning cycle has the potential to save maintenance cost over time and increase tree longevity.64
Trees are pruned out of cycle only if the tree is impacting private property (building clearance), the right-of-way (road and sidewalk clearance, sign clearance), or if the tree represents an immediate danger to the safety of the public. To mitigate problematic structural defects that develop early in a tree’s life and become a greater problem as trees mature, structural pruning is used by City Arborists to develop stable trees and reduce risks to the public. 64 Miller, R. W., & Sylvester, W. A. “An Ecomonic Evaluation of the Pruning Cycle, ” Journal of Arboriculture, Volume 7, 1981.
City Services
The following general services are provided for City-managed trees:
1) Pruning of City-managed trees
2) Removals of City-managed trees
3) Planting of city-managed trees
4) Irrigation in parks and irrigated
planters and medians
5) Review, issuance, and appeals
of permits
6) Implementation of City tree
protection regulations
7) Development review
8) Response to 311 community lines
9) Emergency response
10) Biomass disposal and utilization
11) Pest management for City-managed trees
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
57 Removals
Generally, City-managed trees will only be removed for reasons of public safety. Private parties can request to remove a City tree at their own expense for reasons other than public safety (i.e., new construction, trees affecting hardscape or foundations). Applicants are required to apply for a permit to remove a City tree and provide for any required replacement or mitigation. A City Arborist will evaluate the request to determine if the impact of the proposed removal and replacement on the City's urban forest is justified for that individual case. The City has a public notification process for all tree removals that do not involve an immediate danger to the public. Public notice generally involves a notice on the tree and the City website for 15 days to allow for objections or appeals from any members of the public. If a tree is illegally removed, violators are subject to fines of up to $25,000 in addition to any civil and/or criminal penalties that may apply to the situation65.
Planting
Tree planting is part of the reforestation efforts of the Urban Forestry Section. Trees are planted on City property, within the public right of way along streets or City easements, by maintenance staff according to widely accepted best management practices for the tree care industry (ANSI A300 standards). Planting sites are evaluated for their ability to sustain a tree to maturity. Sites with irrigation are preferred over non-irrigated sites and larger planting sites are preferred over smaller sites. Volunteer tree planting events with City parks require oversight by City staff.
The City generally plants a new tree to replace each tree that has been removed unless there is an unavoidable conflict that prevents planting. As trees are removed, the City endeavors to replace that tree within two yearstypically grinds the stump within a few weeks, and trees are replaced during the next planting season (Oct–Apr). Planting typically takes place in the Spring and Fall. Planting sites are evaluated for their ability to sustain a tree to maturity. Sites with irrigation are preferred over non- irrigated sites and larger planting sites are preferred over smaller sites. Volunteer tree planting events with City parks require oversight by City staff.
Irrigation
Trees in parks and at City facilities are passively watered by turf irrigation systems. Trees within the public rights-of-way are irrigated by adjacent property owners, except in instances where they are a part of a tax-funded maintenance district that includes irrigation facilities for street trees. Non- irrigated newly planted trees may be watered by City staff with water trucks for the first three years.
The City’s Department of Utilities promotes water conservation and drought response, while valuing the importance of tree care. Trees should be watered separately from lawns and landscapes due to varying water needs. Lawns and landscapes need frequent and short watering intervals whereas trees require infrequent and long watering intervals. In addition, lawns and landscapes are both subject to the City’s watering schedule but trees watered via soaker hose or drip irrigation are not. 65 Sacramento City Code 12.56.090C (https://library.qcode.us/lib/sacramento_ca/pub/city_code/item/title_12-chapter_12_56) SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
58 Permitting
Tree permits are required for trimming and removal of City-managed trees and private protected trees. A City Arborist reviews applications for tree permits; removals are posted for 15-days and posted on the City’s web site and can be appealed by the public.
Enforcement of City Tree Protection regulations
The City’s Code Enforcement Officers have the duty to enforce all city codes and City Arborists are also authorized to enforce section 12.56 of the city code titled Tree Planting Maintenance and Conservation. City Code Enforcement Officers and City Arborists routinely respond to reports from community members about suspected violations of the city code related to trees and address violations observed during the course of their planned inspections and on-the-job observations.
Violations of the city code may be subject to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties, but they are most often addressed by the City through education and administrative penalties ranging from $250 to $25,000. The amount of the administrative penalty for any specific action is at the discretion of the person enforcing the code and may be reduced by a hearing examiner if the penalty is appealed.
Current policy requires that all monetary penalties received from enforcing the Tree Planting Maintenance and Conservation code be placed in the City’s Tree Planting and Replacement Fund and used to fund tree planting projects within the City.
Development Review
The City’s Community Development Department oversees new development and compliance with zoning regulations. The Public Works Urban Forestry section supports development review using arborists to consult and advise on critical tree decisions and consistency with City tree regulations.
Compliance with tree requirements occurs as new development project applications are submitted and on a complaint basis within the Community Development Department’s Zoning Investigation section. The City maintains lists of tree species that are suitable for parking lots and street trees.
Response to 311
The 311 24-hour call and web hotline processes requests for routine and emergency tree work involving city owned and maintained trees. Currently, the 311 service receives 500-700 calls per month for tree-related issues. Most calls are related to non-emergency service requests, and general information.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
59 Emergency Response
Every year, the City of Sacramento creates an emergency response plan. The response plan outlines procedures for city staff to respond to emergencies during and outside of normal business hours and gives guidance on how to prioritize various types of tree related issues to maximize the overall safety tof the public. The City responds to all tree emergencies that affect the public, regardless of whether the tree is a public or private tree.
Biomass Disposal and Utilization
The City provides residents with yard waste containers that are collected year-round to manage the leaf litter from publicly managed and privately managed trees. From November through January, Sacramento allows residents to put green yard waste (specifically, fallen leaves) in the street where “The Claw, ” a yard-waste pick-up machine, picks up piles of leaves. The City recycles all wood and tree related debris generated by pruning and removal activities performed by city staff and contractors.
No wood and tree related debris is ever taken to a landfill. Small tree parts are generally processed into wood chips at the work site and used as mulch within City maintained landscaped areas such as street medians and parks. Wood chip mulch can help conserve soil moisture, moderate soil temperatures, and provide additional fertilization to the soil as it slowly decomposes. Larger tree parts are generally taken to a recycling facility that is authorized by the State to receive and process recyclable materials. The fate of the wood depends on the capacity of the recycling facility, but it is not uncommon for wood that originates in Sacramento to be used to make mulch or plywood or be burned to generate electricity. Contractors performing tree care work for the City of Sacramento recycle any wood and tree related debris they generate during the course of their work in a similar manner to City staff. The City’s current tree care contractor, West Coast Arborist, also has the capacity to process larger tree parts to make usable consumer products such as lumber, and furniture through their Street Tree Revival program. The Sacramento Tree Foundation has a similar program called the Urban Wood Rescue program that also processes tree parts into usable consumer products. The City of Sacramento supports this program by donating large tree parts to STF whenever possible. These programs not only recycle the wood and prevent it from going toin a landfill, but they also create valuable and long-lasting products that maximize the carbon storage potential and benefits that Sacramento’s urban forest can provide to the public.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
60 Pest Management
The City performs pest and disease management for City-managed trees. Management includes identifying and monitoring pests and diseases and employing a broad range of techniques aimed at protecting and enhancing tree health to keep pests and diseases at a tolerable level. One notable disease found in Sacramento trees is Dutch elm disease (DED), a disease fatal to elm trees but not impacting other species of trees. DED decimated elm population across the United states and reached Sacramento in 1990. Sacramento had been anticipating its arrival since 1982 and proactively prepared a comprehensive plan to address the situation. Over the years the plans and methods used to control Dutch elm disease have been modified and adjusted to address the changing situation but always involved trained staff, early detection, swift action, reforestation and community involvement.
Today Sacramento still has approximately 2,000 elm trees with approximately 200 estimated to be over a hundred years old. It is rare to see so many mature elms in any city in the United States. This tremendous success can serve as an example of what is possible when the City makes a dedicated effort to provide pest and disease management care for trees. The City continues to stay informed about many pests and diseases that pose new threats to our urban forest. Emerald Ash Borer and Polyphagous Shot Hole Borer are two notable examples of pests that pose a potential threat to our urban forest if they were to be introduced to Sacramento. Emerald Ash Borer is an insect that can fatally injure ash trees. It has decimated ash trees across the country and is approaching California.
The polyphagous shot hole borer is an insect that can fatally injure a wide variety of species but is known to impact London plane trees preferentially;. I it is already in California. The loss of significant amounts of ash trees and/or London plane trees in Sacramento would be catastrophic. Efforts to minimize the impacts of these pests will once again require proactive planning, trained staff, early detection, swift action, reforestation and community involvement.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
61 Funding
Proactive and professional management of any public infrastructure asset requires sufficient funding to maintain the asset at industry and community standards, and the urban forest is no different.
Stable and predictable funding is critical to effective and efficient management of the urban forest as well as the urban forest program’s viability and sustainability.
Table 5 City funding for City-managed trees
Investments
Urban Forestry Division Operations $6,600,000
Park Trees $800,000
Other Landscaping Costs (City facilities) $300,000
Total Investments $7, 700,000
Note that this does not include costs associated with collection and disposal of leaves, estimated at nearly $2 million annually but primarily covered through ratepayer green waste collection and disposal, or emergency response for major storm events, which are unplanned, and costs can be substantial, as was evidenced in the early 2023 storms. In fiscal year 2022/2023, the City’s total budget for urban forest maintenance activities across departments was approximately $7.7 million, or $14.80/capita. Urban forestry program funding comes from several sources and varies by department, as described below.
Public Works Urban Forestry Section
Virtually all funding for the City’s Urban Forestry section is through proceeds from the City-wide Landscaping and Lighting District (L&L), enacted in 1989. This special assessment district raises funds for installing, maintaining, and servicing public lighting, landscaping, and park facilities through special assessments on the property tax bill of all parcels within the city.
The portion of the annual L&L assessment applied for Street Trees is about $25 per single family home , with commensurate rates for other types of land use. In 2023, this funding source is estimated to contribute approximately $6.6 million annually. This funding is used for urban forestry staff salaries, contracted maintenance work, equipment, vehicles and fuel, responding to customer inquiries through 311, and trees for planting and other equipment. Based on approved staffing levels, the current practice is for the Urban Forestry section to contract out about half of its routine tree maintenance. The use of L&L is limited to planting and maintenance of City trees and landscaping.
L&L funding is not eligible for programs, planting, or maintenance of trees on private property or property owned by other agencies or for educational programs or materials.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
62 Y outh Parks and Community Enrichment
Youth Parks and Community Enrichment (YPCE) dedicates approximately $800,000 annually from L&L funding for tree maintenance in City parks and parkways, including scheduled maintenance and emergency removalsemergency pruning and on-demand tree work. YPCE does not include any City tree maintenance staff, so all maintenance work is performed by third party contractors. YPCE also supports community tree planting efforts in City parks. YPCE does have a dedicated arborist position.
Public Works Facilities Division & Department of Utilities Both the Public Works Facilities Division and the Department of Utilities utilize third party contractors to perform emergency maintenance and hazard management work on trees located at facilities within their purview, but they do not have dedicated budgets, programs, or staff to perform routine maintenance.
Tree Planting and Replacement Fund
On August 4, 2016, the City Council added Chapter 12.56 to the City Code, which among other things, allows in-lieu fees and civil penalties for tree removals to be deposited into the Tree Planting and Replacement Fund. This Fund is used for tree planting projects for City trees on City property and restricts plantings on private property.
Assessment of Funding
The City’s urban forest budget per capita ($14.80) is considerably higher than the nationwide average ($7.37) and exceeds the minimum $2 per capita required by the Arbor Day Foundation as one condition of Tree City USA recognition.66 It must be noted, while the City investment exceeds these two metrics, neither are tied to tree canopy goals, local labor markets, or other issues unique to individual communities.
Current funding streams are insufficient to achieve the goals of the Urban Forest Plan. Increased funding is needed for urban forestry efforts to continue operating at current program capacity and maintenance levels, such as pruning existing inventory, service requests, and emergency response, because existing funding levels have not grown at the rate of either inflation or tree inventory expansion.
In addition to the funding needed to maintain current operations, supplemental funding will be required to implement the Urban Forest Plan. The goal of the Urban Forest Plan is to achieve 35 percent tree canopy by 2045, which would essentially double the number of trees in the city. To implement the Urban Forest Plan, including equity policies and programs to increase tree canopy levels in low-canopy disadvantaged communities, will require a comparable budget increase, doubling the City budget for urban forestry. This increased funding is needed to 1) increase the frequency of maintenance levels generally from current practice, 2) increase tree planting in parks and streets, 3) increase maintenance capacity to care for new trees added to the inventory from increased planting levels, and 4) implement new programs to support tree planting and care on private property. The City would likely need an additional approximately $12–13M annually to fully implement the Urban Forest Plan, which will require the identification of new revenue streams.
66 Arbor Day Foundation. “Economics of Urban Forestry, ” Arbor Day Foundation, 2023. (https://www.arborday.org/urban-forestry-economic) SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
63 67 https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-development/planning/long-range/general-plan 68 https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-development/planning/long-range/climate-and-sustainability-planning 69 http://www.cityofsacramento.org/ParksPlan
Tree Regulations & Policies
The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan builds on several City documents focused on improving the city’s design, mobility, and ecological resilience. The City’s tree regulations and policies establish the regulatory framework for the protection and preservation of the urban forest. Below is a summary of the most significant existing policy documents, plans, and codes that affect our urban forest. 1) Adopted 2024 Sacramento General Plan67: The General Plan’s Environmental Resources & Constraints Element provides the policy frameworks that support urban forestry and landscaping on City’s streets, open space, and development projects.
a) Community Plans: Community Plans are a portion of the General Plan prepared for a specific area or community within the city – allowing the City to guide investment and development decisions by community. As a part of the General Plan, Community Plans include policies that supplement city-wide urban forest policies to address specific community forest needs.
2) Adopted 2024 Climate Action & Adaptation Plan (CAAP)68: The Climate Action & Adaption Plan includes an inventory of Sacramento’s greenhouse gases (GHGs) and sets goals for GHG reduction for the city to meet. The CAAP also includes a Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment that evaluates projected climate impacts in Sacramento through the end of the 21st Century, and an Adaptation chapter that identifies six primary adaptation goals and a range of supporting policies and actions intended to guide City efforts to mitigate the effects of projected climate change impacts. Expanding the urban forest to 35 percent by 2045 to sequester carbon is one of twelve CAAP measures that have been identified to reduce GHG emissions. The adaptation chapter also includes a variety of policies and actions intended to support urban forest expansion as a key approach to mitigate projected significant increases in extreme heat impacts and heat island impact over the course of the 21st Century.
3) Urban Forest Plan: This plan, the Urban Forest Plan, will provide the policy framework, goals, and implementation actions for maintaining, expanding, and sustaining the urban forest in Sacramento.
4) Parks Plan 204069: The Draft Parks Plan 2040 provides a guideline for maintaining, improving, and expanding City parks. City parks represent an opportunity to protect the existing urban forest, expand the City-owned urban forest, and provide access to green space in disadvantaged communities. Strategies to support the expansion and enhancement of the urban forest program shall be included in the Parks Plan 2040. Adoptedion of the Parks Plan is expected in 2024.
Prepared by:
Prepared for:
SACR AMENTO 2 040
GENER AL PLAN
ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 27, 2024
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
64 5) Active Transportation Plan70: The City’s Bicycle Master Plan (2016) and Pedestrian Master Plan (2006) identify plans for improving walking and bicycling on city streets and on off-street shared- use paths. Street trees have been proven to have traffic calming, urban heat, and air quality benefits and should be employed as part of strategies to create more bikeable and walkable streets and paths. These two plans will be updated and integrated into one Streets For People active transportation plan, which will include assessment and recommendations for tree shading for walking and bicycling infrastructure. Adoption of the plan is anticipated by 2025. 6) Sacramento City Code71: The City Code includes standards and ordinances needed to implement the urban forestry policies and goals of the general plan and other plans. It includes the Planning and Development Code (Title 17) that guides requirements for trees in new development. The General Plan 2040 and CAAP include policy direction to update the City Code to support urban forest expansion. Important existing standards and ordinances related to the urban forest include the following:
a) Chapter 12.56 Tree Planting Maintenance and Conservation b) Chapter 15 Street Design Standards
c) Chapter 17.612 Landscaping and Paving Regulations
7) Specific Plans72: Specific Plans are comprehensive planning and zoning documents for a defined geographic region of the City. They implement the General Plan by providing a special set of development standards, including related to trees. Specific Plans can either be adopted by ordinance, which allows it to supersede the zoning code, or adopted by resolution, so that it is treated as a City policy.
8) Planned Unit Developments73: Planned Unit Development, or PUD, is a flexible zoning device that redefines the land uses allowed within a stated land area. PUD’s promote large scale, site-specific, mixed-use land development. PUDs are subject to the requirements of the schematic plan and development guidelines adopted for the PUD, in addition to the planned unit development. This allows PUDs to follow unique guidelines specific to that area, which may deviate from cCity-wide design guidelines.
9) Urban Design Guidelines74: The Urban Design Guidelines provide site design guidance by project type and area. Design Guidelines important to the urban forest include the Parking Lot Tree Shading Design and Maintenance Guidelines which provides standards and guidance for the planting, maintenance, protection, removal, and replacement of parking lot trees with the purpose of achieving the 50 percent shading requirement in parking facilities. Street Standards are another set of design guidelines, which provide guidelines for the design and planting of trees along streets.
70 https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/public-works/transportation/current_transportation_efforts/streets_for_people_sacramento_active_transportation_plan 71 https://library.qcode.us/lib/sacramento_ca/pub/city_code 72 https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-development/planning/long-range/specific-plans 73 https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-development/planning/long-range 74 https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/community-development/planning/site-plan-and-design-review SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
65 Figure 14 Heierarchy of policies, plans, and codes that effect and regulate trees in the City of Sacramento General Plan
+ Community Plans
Climate Action
& Adaptation Plan
Parks Plan
Specific Plans
Urban Design
Guidelines
Urban Forest
Plan
City Code
Active
Transportation Plan
Planned Unit
Development
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
66 Sacramento City Code –
Tree Ordinances and Standards
The previous sections outline the regulatory framework that governs the City’s urban forest. Building on this review, the following sections evaluate the efficacy of the tree regulations found in the Sacramento City Code in greater detail. Outlining the specific tree regulations allows for determining if they are sufficient to reach the canopy cover goals of the City and what changes are necessary.
Chapter 12 .56 Tree Planting Maintenance and Conservation The Tree Planting Maintenance and Conservation Ordinance requires a permit for pruning and removal of any City tree (any tree on City-managed right-of-way) and regulates private protected trees. Private protected trees are defined as:
1) A tree that is designated by city council resolution to have special historical value, special environmental value, or significant community benefit, and is located on private property; 2) Any native Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii), Interior Live Oak (Quercus wislizenii), Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), California Buckeye (Aesculus californica), or California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), that has a Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) of 12 inches or more and is located on private property;
3) A tree that has a DSH of 24 inches or more located on an undeveloped lot or a lot that does not include any single unit or duplex dwellings; or
4) A tree that has a DSH of 32 inches or more located on private property that includes any single unit or duplex dwellings.
Unless the tree is deemed to be an immediate threat, any removal of City trees must be posted for 15 days prior to removal, allowing any person to file a written objection. Removal of City trees in connection with public projects must be approved by the City Council. If the Community Development Department determines that tree removal is necessary for a discretionary development application, the approval shall occur with the body that approves the development application with the same appeal process. This process gives a high level of oversight, transparency, and community input on tree removal decision making.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
67 75 https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/public-works/maintenance-services/urban-forestry/urban-forestry-tree-permits/street-treet-list- 76 Narrow spaces include areas where there are restriction on side-to-side canopy growth such as buildings or powerlines. Trees that grow tall and narrow are most appropriate in these areas.
77 Nowak, D. J. (2017). Urban Trees Save Billions of Dollars Through Reduced Energy Costs. New York: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Chapter 15 Street Design Standards
The City’s Street Design Standards require newly developed streets to include landscape buffers (planter strips) between curbs and sidewalks. The standards require a 6-foot minimum planter. Where existing streets do not comply with these standards, individual standards are established when the City conducts complete street projects to retrofit existing corridors. When infill development is proposed, projects are typically required to match the existing conditions.
A 6-foot minimum width for medians and planting strips allow for small and medium stature trees according to the City’s recommended street tree list75. This City list includes approved tree species with minimum spacing recommendations based on the tree size at maturity. By exploring opportunities to increase the minimum median and planter strip width, the City can provide space for more medium and large size trees which will in turn increase potential canopy cover and species diversity.
Planter Width (ft) Tree Height (ft) # of species on City list Small Trees 4' 15-25' 15
Medium Trees 6' 25-35' 14
Medium-Large Trees 8' 36-50' 21
Very Large Trees 10' >50' 6
Trees for Narrow spaces76 8-10' 18-45' 11
Table 6 Shade trees approved for use as street trees on the City of Sacramento Street Tree List The street design standards support utilizing trees to improve walking safety and comfort and as traffic calming devices, but no other standards or codes require maximizing other benefits of trees in development projects.
Standards or design guidelines providing guidance on how to maximize cooling benefits would be beneficial to reaching canopy goals and increasing community climate resilience. Buildings and landscaping should be planned to provide cooling benefits for buildings by providing summer shade. In addition to providing shade for the pedestrian environment along streets, trees can also be strategically planted around buildings to yield energy cost savings and keep indoor spaces cooler.
Tree shade can contribute to reducing energy needs by 30 percent for air conditioning and 20-50 percent for heating77. Trees should be planted to shade east- and west-facing walls to maximize these benefits and should also be planted to shade heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) units to increase efficiency. For buildings with solar panels, tree selection and solar panel placement should be planned and designed to the extent feasible in a manner that allows panels to operate with the existing and expected conditions of trees.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
68 Chapter 17 .612 Landscaping and Paving Regulations
The City’s existing guidelines for parking lot shading requirements call for 50 percent of the total parking lot area to be covered by tree canopies within 15 years after establishment of the parking facility. The natural growth rate of the tree, establishment care and maintenance provided, spacing between trees, planter size and soil structure all impact the growth of the tree canopy and timeline of when and if 50 percent canopy cover is achieved.
Currently, the City does not have a program to inspect parking lots after completion to ensure ongoing compliance with tree shading plan approved with the project, and has not identified a process for parking lot owners to replace trees if they die or are removed. As property changes hands, parking lot owners may not be aware that the trees were a condition of approval. As a result, ongoing compliance is not guaranteed and many parking lots do not achieve the stated goal.
Other Considerations Related to Tree Ordinances and Standards One of the extraordinary elements of Sacramento’s urban forest is that most of the trees were not planted due to City requirements, but in recognition of the inherent benefits of trees. While the City’s Street Standards include trees for some of its history, most requirements were added beginning in the 1980s (e.g., the Parking Lot Shading Ordinance). While design standards and other guidelines may suggest inclusion of trees, the City’s standard zoning does not require that lots include trees in front yards; there are not requirements for back yard trees, and tree placement and recommendations are only examined when new development or redevelopment requires discretionary approvals.
In areas with a greater levels of rented homesmore rental properties and for residents with concerns over water and maintenance costsuse increasing due to recent droughts and installation of water meters, there are more barriers to voluntary planting of trees and preservation of trees. Establishing Some basic zoning requirements willmay assist in supporting trees where there are barriers to voluntary plantings.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
69 78 Originally called the Stakeholder Representative Group or SRG. 78 www.cityofsacramento.org/sactreeplan
Community Priorities
Partnership and Engagement is a guiding principle utilized in the formation of this plan. To establish this principle of collaboration and shared responsibility, the development of the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan (SUFP) included significant community engagement. Community engagement efforts included two phases.
Phase one took place during the development of the Draft SUFP and included the formation of a Partners Advisory Committee (PAC)78, a digital survey, numerous public meetings and workshops, and a series of pop-up booths at community events. Through these activities, participants shared their values, priorities, and recommendations. The results of the community engagement activities are summarized in this section and were utilized to inform the urban forest vision, guiding principles, policy framework, and key recommendations. Detailed summaries can be found in Appendices C, D, and E.
Phase two consisted of a two-month public review period of the Draft SUFP , where community members were asked to provide feedback and edits on the proposed policy document. Staff reviewed and considered all public comments received, revised the Draft SUFP based on the feedback, and responded to comments. This final version of the SUFP incorporated the revisions made because of the public review. A detailed summary of the phase two outreach conducted can be found on the project website78.
Partner Advisory Committee (PAC)
Developing an urban forest plan not only involves technical analysis and data that can be researched, gathered, and analyzed. Additional information rests in the firsthand knowledge and experience of various groups and individuals that directly manage trees, engage the community, and complete projects that impact trees. To ascertain this information the City invited leaders from the following 30 groups to participate in a Partner Advisory Committee (PAC):
> 350 Sacramento
> Asian Resources Inc.
> Avondale/Glen Elder Neighborhood
Association
> California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection
> California Strategic Growth Council
> City of Sacramento Youth Commission
> Council Member District 3 Jeff Harris
> Elmhurst Neighborhood Association
> Explore Midtown
> Friends of Capitol Mansions
> Hagginwood Neighborhood Association
> Historic Monterey Trail District
> Hodgson and Company
> Hollywood Park Communi-Tree Committee
> LDK Ventures, LLC
> Meadowview Urban Tree Project
> Midtown Association
> North Natomas community representative
> North State BIA
> Preservation Sacramento
> Public Health Institute
> River Park Neighborhood Association
> Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates
> Sacramento Area Council of Government
> Sacramento City Unified School District
> Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District
> Sacramento Municipal Utility District
> Sacramento Tree Foundation
> South Natomas community representative
> Trees4Sacramento
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
70 City staff convened two meetings with the PAC in the begginning stages of the project development process in 2018 and twice more after development of the administrative draft plan in 2023. The PAC provided review and feedback of the findings from the Urban Tree Canopy Assessment and Resource Analysis as well as the SUFP goals, policy and program framework, and implementation strategy.
A full summary of the meetings is available in Appendix C.
Highlights from SRG input include:
• Unanimous agreement that the cCity is not appropriately shaded at the current tree canopy level and there is a need for an ambitious tree canopy goal in the SUFP . • Concern with lack of canopy cover in low canopy residential neighborhoods and parking lots. • Recommendations to prioritize low-income and disadvantaged neighborhoods, commercial corridors, and streets (to promote walking and biking) as the highest priority planting areas. • Importance of stronger policies and enforcement mechanisms to achieve increased canopy cover of the urban forest.
• Education for homeowners is a helpful strategy to increase canopy cover, such as resources for tree planting, species selection, tree maintenance, and the benefits of trees.
Survey
To understand how the Sacramento community thinks and feels about trees, and how these perceptions affect the urban forest, an online survey was utilized to reach a wide array of community members. The survey was available on the Urban Forest webpage section, emailed out via local media, social media, and available at public workshops. The survey was open for 15 weeks, beginning July 26, 2018, and closing November 1, 2018; in total 1,699 people responded.
The survey included a series of 13 questions, including questions about public views of the benefits of trees, awareness of the urban forest program, expectations for public tree maintenance and planting, perception of strategies to increase planting trees on private property, and tree education topics. For the complete survey and results, see Appendix D.
Major themes of the survey results included:
Question 1: “Trees are important to
the quality of life in Sacramento”
> Respondents overwhelmingly agreed
that trees were important to the
quality of life in Sacramento, 99.5
percent of respondents responded
“true” or “very true” .
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
71 Question 8: “Where does Sacramento need to
plant more trees?”
> Nearly 83% of respondents identified
neighborhoods lacking trees as highly important
and 51% said along public streets
> Common comments included:
• Concerns about the cost of maintenance of
trees on private property
• Cost of watering trees and lack of knowledge
on how to effectively water trees
• Lack of understanding regarding who is
responsible for the care of street trees
• Lack of understanding around identifying
which trees are owned by the City
Question 4: “Are there enough
trees throughout the City?”
> Most respondents believed
that there are not enough trees
throughout Sacramento.
Question 2: “I value trees for the following reasons: (select your top five)” > Respondents identified shade and cooling, air quality, and beautification as the main reason they value trees.
Pop-up Workshops
To ensure that the perspectives of residents from around to city were captured, at least one pop-up workshop was held in each of the eight city council districts. The project team, with support from the Sacramento Tree Foundation, hosted 13 pop-up workshops in 2018. 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 PAC, through community partner networks, and council members community events and mailing lists.
Questions presented at each pop-up workshop were geared toward neighborhood preferences. The results from the pop-up workshops showed that participants were interested in all types of trees and would primarily like to see large and medium trees that provide air quality, shade, and health benefits in their neighborhoods. Participants were also asked where they would like to see more trees planted in their neighborhoods. Most of the locations were on streets, in parks, and at schools. The complete list of pop-up events and a list of responses with specific locations can be found in Appendix E. • 76.5% identified that trees “shade
streets, sidewalks, and bike trails”
• 70.7% identified that “they clean the air”
• 70.2% of respondents identified “their
beauty”
• 46.6% responded, “they bring birds and
wildlife”
• 46.14% responded, “they save energy”
• 41.4% responded, “they support
human health”
• 37.4% responded, “they reduce
greenhouse gases”
• 35.3% responded, “they define my
neighborhood”
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
72 Sacramento City Hall
Policy and
Program Framework
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
73 The Sacramento Urban Forest Plan outlines a comprehensive framework to align urban forestry policies and programs with the City’s land use, climate, health, transportation, and equity goals.
Based on assessment of the urban forest and professional and community input, the goals, policies, and implementation strategies identified in this Policy and Program Framework are grounded in the following vision and guiding principles.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
74 VISION
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,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.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
75 GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Identified with collaborative input from community
stakeholders, the following guiding principles established the foundation on which all Goals, Strategies, Policies, and Implementation Actions included in the SUFP were developed. > Civic Pride and Community Health:
Sacramento’s urban forest is essential to the city’s identity, livability, and community and environmental health.
> Resilience to Climate Change:
Preserving, strengthening, expanding and adapting the urban forest is a critical strategy in responding to climate change.
> Equity:
All communities are entitled to the same access to tree canopy and its benefits. Inequities in tree canopy must be addressed.
> Partnership and Engagement:
The urban forest is a community resourceasset, and urban forest programs and priorities need to be achieved through collaboration and shared responsibility between the City, community members, and external partners.
> Planned-for Trees:
Incorporating tree canopy intonew trees and protecting existing trees within planned development is a priority, to allow trees to grow to maturity without interfering with adjacent infrastructure and contribute to canopy cover goals.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
76 GOALS & STRATEGIES
The Policy and Program Framework and Implementation Strategy are both based on the following five goals for the urban forest. Each goal is accompanied by a series of strategies, which are required to achieve it.
Goal 1: GROW
Grow the urban forest through new
plantings to support livable neighborhoods,
mitigate the impacts of climate change and
reinforce the City’s legacy as the “City of Trees. ”
Strategies:
1. Expand Canopy
2. Plan for Trees
3. Canopy Equity
Goal 3: MANAGE
Manage the urban forest through coordinated
planning, design, and maintenance to ensure
its long-term health and sustainability.
Strategies:
1. Organizational Best Practices
2. Manage Risk
3. Regular Maintenance
4. Enforce Standards
5. Manage for Co-benefits
Goal 5: SUSTAIN
Sustain the growth, development, and
continuity of city urban forest programs
through dedicated funding and innovation.
Strategies:
1. Program Funding
2. Incentive Programs
3. Innovation
Goal 2: STEWARD
Steward the City’s existing trees to preserve
canopy and protect the urban forest from
biological and cultural threats and loss.
Strategies:
1. Canopy Resilience
2. Native Forest Resilience
3. Tree Protection
Goal 4: ENGAGE
Engage, educate, and coordinate with
community members, public agencies,
partners, and private businesses to care for
and grow the urban forest.
Strategies:
1. Community Engagement
2. Partner Coordination
3. Youth Engagement
4. Workforce Development
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
77 Strategy 1 .1 Expand Canopy
Increase the current levels of canopy to maximize the benefits of the urban forest.
Policies + Implementation Actions
1 .1 .1 The City shall strive to achieve a minimum average City-wide tree canopy of 25 percent by 2030 and 35 percent by 2045 .
A. To this end, the City shall aim for the following minimum City-wide 2045 canopy coverage goals in its planning, restoration, and urban forest implementation efforts. • Residential neighborhoods: 40 percent
• Streets and sidewalks and shared use paths: 50 percent • Parking lots: 50 percent 79
• Commercial and mixed-use areas: 25 percent
• Industrial areas: 20 percent
• Public facilities and parks: maximize tree canopy based on usable space.
B. These goals will help drive land use and planning standards and decisions. The City will prioritize efforts and programs for more tree planting in those areas substantially below these goals, particularly in disadvantaged communities, and where heat island effects are greatest.
1 .1 .2 Establish a parks tree planting program .Continue to perform volunteer initiated tree planting operations in parks .
A. Maximize trees canopy cover within new parks’ plans to the extent feasible while providing for other desired recreational amenities.
B. Increase tree planting in passive recreation and landscape areas within existing parks that can accommodate more new trees.
C. Prioritize tree plantings and installingwith appropriate irrigation in parks and public spaces in communities where tree canopy coverage is low to provide greater access to greenery and shade.
D. Identify and pursue new sources of funding to establish a consistentincrease tree planting, irrigation, and tree replacement program formaintenance operations in parks. 79 In some instances, shading may be accomplished through installation of carports and/or overhead solar arrays or other efforts that have sustainability benefits.
Grow
Goal 1: Grow the urban forest through new plantings to support livable neighborhoods, protect residents and visitors from the impact of climate change, and reinforce the City’s legacy as the “City of Trees .” SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
78 1 .1 .3 Continue to operate a street tree planting program .
A. Maintain optimum stocking density alongMinimize vacant planting sites within City right- of-way.
B. Strive to replace removed trees within a maximum of two yearsin the next available planting season.
C. Incorporate street tree plantings into new development.
D. Where feasible, incorporate street tree planting into complete street transformations for corridors developed without planting strips.
Strategy 1 .2 Plan for Trees
Incorporate trees into all levels of planning and development to ensure existing trees are preserved, an adequate number of new trees are planted to reach canopy goals, that new trees maximize cooling benefits for the public realm, and that trees can grow to maturity without interfering with adjacent infrastructure.
Policies + Implementation Actions
1 .2 .1 Amend Sacramento City Code80 as necessary to improve tree canopy inclusion and require minimum levels of tree planting in development projects . Review the following topics at a minimum:
A. Review City Code and Planned Unit Development Guidelines for opportunities to add requirements for trees in setback areas, particularly located to shade sidewalks, bikeways and streets based on minimum canopy goals, particularly in new single-unit dwelling developments/subdivisions
B. Opportunities to provide incentives or requirements for inclusion of trees in front, back, and side yards, particularly when sited to provide shade for sidewalks and bikeways; C. Requiring consideration of tree placement in site plan and design review to maximize passive cooling and energy conservation;
D. Guidance on solar panel installation requirements to minimize potential conflicts with tree plantings;
E. Guidance defining how tree permits for ministerial development project reviews are processed, including timing of tree removal permit application processing and approved tree removals within the review, and permitting process; F. Guidance on tree selection, prioritizing City-approved tree species that are climate- appropriate and more likely to survive projected climatic changes in the Sacramento Valley; and
G. Identify types of commercial and industrial developments with space appropriate for large trees and consider applying a higher level of specificity of tree-related requirements, including but not limited to trees species, mature canopy diameter, and post-construction inspection.
80 Review and amendment of Sacramento City Code shall include Title 17 Planning and Development Code and Title 12 Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places code. (https://library.qcode.us/lib/sacramento_ca/pub/city_code) SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
79 1 .2 .2 Review and update design guidelines and development standards to support achievement of minimum canopy goals, outlined in strategy 1 .1 .1, and maximize benefits .
A. Trees should be provided with adequate growing space, aligned to reduce building heat and to shade public walkways to the extent feasible. Update standards to prioritize tree placement that shades buildings and the public realm to the extent feasible.
B. Require adequate soil treatment and space in plantings to ensure long term success.
Identify minimum requirements for the growing space necessary to support trees, including soil volume by tree size and soil treatment.
C. Identify appropriate long-term irrigation solutions. Where appropriate, safe, and feasible, include water re-use into irrigation practices. Include tertiary treated water and/or water re-use for new plantings on city property where feasible.
D. Plant the right tree, in the right place, for the right reason. When planting trees or preparing or approving tree plans, require adequate space and appropriate species for the location. Incorporate large canopy shade trees as street trees to the extent feasible.
E. Identify appropriate recommendations for tree height and placement to avoid conflicts with pedestrian scale lighting, and signage, and utilities. 1 .2 .3 Encourage development plans to meet minimum canopy goals, identified in strategy 1 .1 .1, within 15 years .
A. Identify and implement methods to include tree canopy assessment and recommendationsrequirements in the development review process. If necessary, identify new review fees or revenue streams to address this requirement. Enact new review fees as necessary to address this requirement.
B. Trees should be incorporated in private setback areas to the extent feasible. In development plans where there is not adequate space to allow for trees on individual lots, addition to trees in setback areas, strategies such as plazas, paseos, parks, and robust street tree programs should be utilized to meet canopy goals.
C. When development is proposed with no or limited trees canopy potential below target canopy goals, due to the level of lot coverage or other conditions, identify how and where occupants or users will access trees or other shading and employ adequate shading mitigations.
D. Develop a calculator tool to help determine canopy potential for development projects.
E. Identify and establish metrics, processes, and fees to begin monitoring, tracking, and reporting on number of trees planted in new development, average future canopy predicted, and trees removed.
1 .2 .4 Develop mechanisms that require or incentivize preservation of existing trees during site development when feasible .
A. Provide maximum flexibility in development standards to preserve existing trees and promote improvedmaximize future tree canopy levels, especially for residential urban infill projects.
B. Continue to ensure Chapter 12.56 of City Code is enforced for all tree removals associated with development projects requiring ministerial review.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
80 1 .2 .5 Identify strategies to strengthen implementation of the Parking Lot Shading Ordinance and Parking Lot Shading Design and Maintenance Guidelines to support achievement of a minimum of 50 percent shading within 15 yearsand ensure long-term parking lot tree canopy success .
A. Review and amend Chapter 17.612.040 of City Code Tree Shading Requirements for Parking Lots and the Parking Lot Shading Design and Maintenance Guidelines to ease compliance, improve site plan review, support climate-resilient tree selection, improve inspection, and monitoring, and strengthen requirements for ongoing maintenance and replacement of parking lot trees.
B. Identify when and how shading requirements may be satisfied through alternate methods such as canopies and solar arrays.
C. Develop resources to strengthen monitoring and guidelines to support enforcement of the Parking Lot Shade Ordinance after parking lots are completed.
D. Develop an inventory of parking lots that are subject to the parking lot shade ordinance to aid in monitoring and enforcement efforts.
E. Explore amending Chapter 12.56 of City Code to include required parking lot trees under the definition of private protected trees.
F. Pursue opportunities, including grant funding and partnerships, to add trees in existing parking lots that have no or limited tree canopy. These efforts shallshould focus on disadvantaged neighborhoods, particularly those with the greatest heat island impacts. 1 .2 .6 Support the achievement of 50 percent tree shading over streets and sidewalks and shared use paths .
A. Incorporate tree canopy strategies in the Streets for People active transportation plan.
B. Update street standards81 to optimize tree canopy and provide solutions for various street functions and conditions.
C. Require street trees on approved private streets unless clearly infeasible. Develop specific conditions under which trees on private streets may be deemed infeasible and plans approved without the inclusion of street trees. If street trees are infeasible, locations within the development shall should be identified for inclusion of green space and tree canopy.
D. When planning and implementing complete streets projects, the City will incorporate tree planting with adequate planter space and irrigation as an essential infrastructure element to the extent feasible given physical conditions. Emphasis will be placed on shading sidewalks, and bikeways, and shared use paths.
E. Partner with Sacramento Regional Transit to incorporate tree shading around transit stops and passenger waiting areas when feasible.
F. Support conversion of paved areas to accommodate trees through implementation of complete streets projects, restoration of planter strips where they have been converted to hardscape, and other strategies as appropriate.
81 The Street Design Standards are a portion of the City’s Design and Procedures Manual – Section 15: Street Design Standards.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
81 G. Encourage property owners without front yard trees to plant trees that can shade the sidewalks and streets in front of their property.
1 .2 .7 Ensure Provide for the successful establishment of trees incorporated into withinin new development and redevelopment projectsdevelopment .
A. Include a requirement for sSuccessful establishment of trees into conditions of approval for development projects.
B. Developers will be responsible for planting required trees and ensuringProvide for the health and survival for thoseof required trees using landscape warranty conditions where feasible and identifying the party responsible for tree maintenance and establishment when theirwarranty obligation ends.
B. Developers shall use healthy trees and responsible irrigation practices in planting efforts to promote success and reduce young tree mortality.
C. Trees that are not healthy shall be replaced prior to the completion of the building permit.
Explore options to provide for tree warranties on private property after the building permit is completed.
D. Develop resources to broaden the inspections of development projects to include review of compliance with approved landscaping plans, technical planting requirements, and tree health.
C. Improve guidelines and training for building inspectors and public works inspectors that inspect landscaping to include proper tree establishment.
Strategy 1 .3 Canopy Equity
Prioritize Seek to addressing historic inequities, removeing barriers to tree adoption, and ensureing the urban forest is shared equitably81 across all communities82.
Policies + Implementation Actions
1 .3 .1 Support Prioritize City planting efforts and implementation of urban forest programs in priority communities83 .
1 .3 .2 Support and facilitate canopy expansion efforts on private property across the City with focus in priority communities .
A. Take action to support equitable urban forestry canopy expansion, maintenance, and benefits on private property across all communities and ensure programs are informed by diverse perspectives and focused to address those communities in greatest need.
B. Maximize involvement in urban forestry programs from residents in disadvantaged neighborhoods by enhancing community engagement and available urban forestry programs and resources.
C. Address financial barriers to tree planting and care for low-income residents.
D. Explore the feasibility of programs to require or encourage landlords to include trees on rental properties.81 Because equity is a guiding principle of the SUFP , equity-centered policies and implementation actions are also embedded into the other goals and strategies in this plan.
82 Priority communities for urban forestry programming will be identified through regular assessment of Disadvantaged Community status, urban heat indices, tree canopy percentage, air quality indices, and public health concerns. Refer to Figure 12. Urban Forest Priority Intervention Areas Map. 83 Priority communities are identifies in Figure 12. Urban Forest Priority Intervention Areas Map.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
82 Strategy 2 .1 Canopy Resilience
Ensure Sacramento’s urban forest is resilient and prepared for the biotic and abiotic83 impacts of climate change necessary forto support the longevity and success of the city’s trees.
Policies + Implementation Actions
2 .1 .1 Promote biological diversity in tree species and age for the city’s urban forest to maintain resilience .
A. Strive to ensure that overall City tree planting efforts, including trees planted by the City and trees associated with approved development projects, follow the 10/20/30“10-20-30 rule”84 for species diversity, except in instances when planting native trees for native forest enhancement or reforestation.
2 .1 .2 Update Create a master comprehensive recommended tree list to ensure that all trees planted by the City or associated with approved development projects are suitable for changing climate conditions in Sacramento .
A. Recommended trees shall should be used to guide public and private plantings. This list will be modified as conditions change and will identify how trees not on this list will be evaluated for inclusion in City approvals.
B. Continue to support research and partnerships with research institutions to identify tree species that demonstrate substantial adaptability to the impacts of climate change expected in the Sacramento area.
C. Update the recommended tree list to include identifying information about each species to assist in proper tree selection;, include characteristics such as amount of shade cover providedcanopy cover, size of planter needed minimum growing space, soil conditions needed, water use needs, and carbon sequestration capabilities.
D. Include native trees on the mastercomprehensive recommended tree list and identify appropriate use cases.
2 .1 .3 Continue to monitor and identify pest threats and take preventative actions to anticipate threats and minimize potential impacts .
83 Biotic factors are living things with an ecosystem (ex: plants, animals, bacteria); Abiotic factors are non-living components in an ecosystem (ex. water, soil, atmosphere).
84 The “10-20-30 rule” is a widely used standard that recommends no single species represent greater than 10 percent of the total population, no single genus more than 20 percent, and no single family more than 30 percent.
Steward
Goal 2: Steward the City’s existing trees to preserve canopy and protect the urban forest from biological and cultural threats and loss .
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
83 Strategy 2 .2 Native Forest Resilience
Conserve native oaks and woodlands as a valuable tool for climate adaptation that can address the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss.
Policies + Implementation Actions
2 .2 .1 Preserve native trees, woodlands, native species, and riparian areas to the extent feasible in recognition of their ties to the area’s natural and cultural history, ability to sustain ecosystems, and adaptation to Sacramento’s hot and dry climate . 2 .2 .2 Incorporate native plantings into the urban forest and parks when appropriate and to the extent feasible .
A. When planting native trees for native forest enhancement or reforestation, select species based on ecological appropriateness instead of adhering to the 10/20/30“10-20-30 rule”84 for species diversity.
2 .2 .3 Advocate for regional forest corridors to facilitate adaptation and migration of native tree species and wildlife .
A. Explore developing and adopting a natural area plan in coordination with other agencies in the region.
Strategy 2 .3 Tree Protection
Preserve existing tree canopy and healthy mature trees84 as vital for maintaining current canopy levels, meeting canopy goals, and adapting to climate change. Enforce tree protection standards to better protect the urban forest from loss of existing trees.
Policies + Implementation Actions
2 .3 .1 Preserve mature trees in development on public and private property to the extent feasible .
A. Support preservation of healthy trees in the City’s regulations and discretionary decisions for new development and redevelopment.
B. Require development projects proposals to consider alternatives to removal of healthy trees and only consider removals of healthy, mature trees when alternatives to removal prove infeasible.
C. Consider long-term energy and economic benefits of tree inclusion against reductions in initial development costs when assessing development proposals.
D. Design public projects to avoid the removal of or damage to city trees to the extent feasible.
84 For this policy document, mature trees are defined using the definition of private protected trees within Chapter 12.56 of City Code. 84 The “10-20-30 rule” is a widely used standard that recommends no single species represent greater than 10 percent of the total population, no single genus more than 20 percent, and no single family more than 30 percent.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
84 2 .3 .2 Protect existing trees during construction .
A. Require adequate protection during construction to protect existing tree roots and structure.
B. Develop a tree protection manual for construction projects. 2 .3 .3 Require mitigation for tree removal to include onsite or offsite plantings and/or tree removal fees .
A. Support opportunities to allow for mitigation in priority communities. 2 .3 .43 Encourage appropriate watering and irrigation practices to minimize water use while supporting healthy tree growth .
A. Support initiatives that encourage other entities and private property owners to practice responsible tree irrigation during droughts to minimize tree stress and loss.
B. Upgrade or supplement irrigation in parks and streetscapes where needed to support appropriate tree watering practices.
2 .3 .54 Assess the success of objectives and enforcement of the City’s Tree Ordinance (City Code Chapter 12 .56) to encourage the preservation and care of private protected trees .
A. Take action as necessary to sStrengthen enforcement of tree regulations and requirements as necessary.
B. Regularly assess fines for violations, especially for repeat offenders.
C. Develop educational materials to promote tree protection ordinance and increase community awareness about tree protection requirements, particularly to landscape and tree care companies.
D. When necessary for the project to be constructed as designed, continue to require tree removal permits to be approved as part of project approval for proposed private development and City projects.Require tree removals that are a part of private development projects or City projects be approved by the hearing body as a part of project approval.
E. Continue to require replacement for the removal of City trees and private protected trees, including options for onsite, or offsite planting, and tree replacement fees. 2 .3 .65 Support the use of proper pruning techniques on privately maintained trees .
A. Provide education to support appropriate pruning practices on privately maintained trees and trees maintained by other agencies.
B. Encourage use of certified arborists for guidance on tree care and maintenance.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
85 Strategy 3 .1 Organizational Best Practices
Seek to include necessary resources to manage city trees at a sustainable level.
Policies + Implementation Actions
3 .1 .1 Employ professional urban forest staff and rely on urban forestry best management practices .
A. Seek to maintain adequate and qualified urban forestry staffing and supporting contracts to appropriately maintain City trees and provide high levels of customer service.
B. Continue to mMaintain a high level of professionalism by requiring certified arborists and adherence to professional standards and best urban forest management practices for decision making, maintenance, care, and planting of trees under City authority. 3 .1 .2 Strengthen collaboration and support between all City departments that manage trees .
A. Coordinate an internal working group with key staff from relevant departments and divisions.
3 .1 .3 Conduct annual reporting on the urban forest plan to ensure progress toward goals and appropriate resource allocation .
A. Assess the urban forest program staffing levels, funding allocation and utilization, status of SUFP objectives, and tree planting and removal activities.
B. Provide an annual update to the City Council, in conjunction with annual reporting on the implementation of the Climate Action and Adaption Plan. 3 .1 .4 Strive to pPerform regular 5-year updates to the Urban Forest Plan and canopy cover assessment and analysis reports .
A. Strive to perform a canopy cover assessment aligned with the CAAP update greenhouse gas inventory every five years.
B. Explore funding to support SUFP and canopy cover assessment and analysis report updates.
Manage
Goal 3: Manage the urban forest through coordinated planning, design, and maintenance to ensure its long-term health and sustainability .
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
86 Strategy 3 .2 Manage Risk
Utilize tree risk management policies, procedures, and practices to minimize the risk of injury and property damage.
Policies + Implementation Actions
3 .2 .1 Rely on industry best management practices for pest control, disease prevention, and hazard mitigation measures in urban environments in treatment of City-managed trees .
A. Require regular disease and pest training for City urban forestry staff.
B. Continue to monitor City-managed trees for signs of emergent pests and diseases and take proactive measures to address threats.
C. Continue to monitor and address as necessary City-managed trees that have structural deficiencies, disease, or may cause harm.
3 .2 .2 Maintain and implement emergency response plans for storm events that result in tree loss and damage .
3 .2 .3 Minimize future damage or conflict by planning for trees as a part of infrastructure .
A. Require proper planting space and tree selections to minimize conflicts and damage to infrastructure assets, including sidewalks, overhead lines, underground utilities, and solar panels.
Strategy 3 .3 Regular Maintenance
Perform regular maintenance on City trees to improve the health, longevity, safety, and functional capacity of the urban forest.
Policies + Implementation Actions
3 .3 .1 Continue to operate a proactive tree maintenance program to preserve and protect City-managed trees .
A. Strive to achieve a 5five-year maintenance pruning cycle. 3 .3 .2 Update and regularly maintain a comprehensive inventory of all City-managed trees .
A. Integrate inventories across City departments into one central inventory.
B. Perform a comprehensive inventory update to capture all street trees, park trees, trees on City-managed facilities, and vacant planting stalls.
C. Implement procedures to regularly incorporate new plantings, tree removals, and tree maintenance into the inventory on an on-going basis.
D. Explore coordination and integration of inventories with other public agencies with land in the city limits, including but not limited to the State of California, County of Sacramento, UC Davis, Sacramento State, Los Rios Community College District, public school districts, and public utilities.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
87 Strategy 3 .4 Manage for Co-benefits
Plan to maximize the co-benefits of the urban forest throughout trees’ full life cycle.
Policies + Implementation Actions
3 .4 .1 Support tree reuse efforts within the City to extend the life cycle of trees .
A. When large trees need to be removed as a part of a Capital Improvement Project or private development, identify options for the highest and best use of the wood, including urban lumber or mulching programs.
3 .4 .2 Explore opportunities to leverage the benefits of trees to retain stormwater runoff .
A. Identify opportunities to incorporate trees as a central green stormwater infrastructure element in stormwater master planninginto stormwater runoff systems.
B. Explore opportunities to encourage tree planting through existing city water efficiency programs.
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, and shared use paths .
A. When conducting active transportation audits, identify opportunities to add shade trees on public and private land.
B. Review procedures to ensure that inclusion and preservation of trees are part of transportation planning and projects.
C. To the extent feasible require the inclusion of trees and irrigation in all road diets, transportation Capital Improvement Projects, and private development projects altering the roadway. Identify irrigation or ongoing water solutions for all included trees.
D. When conducting active transportation audits, identify opportunities to add shade trees on public and private land.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
88 Strategy 4 .1 Community Engagement
Support community advocacy for and involvement in the urban forest.
Policies + Implementation Actions
4 .1 .1 Recognize and promote the city’s urban forest .
A. Annually celebrate Arbor Day to promote awareness of the city’s tree canopy and benefits.
B. Annually maintain the City’s status as a Tree City USA85.
C. Promote the City of Sacramento’s urban forest nationally and internationally to encourage visitors and tourism.
4 .1 .2 Conduct City-wide urban forest public outreach and education .
A. Inform and educate residents about the urban forest, City-maintained tree operations and maintenance, available tree planting and water-wise irrigation programs, and opportunities to support the urban forest.
B. Develop informational materials to provide to homeowners, tenants, and business owners to support tree canopy, including but not limited to the following topics:
• Information on tree benefits, planting and tree maintenance guidance, tree selection and care, available programs, and water-wise irrigation. • Information about tree species that are adapted to Sacramento’s climate and resilient to drought and climate change.
• Guidance on tree planting to maximize building energy conservation. • Guidance to plant and maintain healthy trees in parking lots. • Options and strategies to convert paved areas to tree planting areas. • Shared responsibility between City and property owners for street trees. • How to identify and report public tree issues or violations.
C. Update the City’s urban forestry website to improve available information and references to tree partners and opportunities.
D. PrioritizeTarget public outreach and tree programs in disadvantaged, high heat, and low- canopy neighborhoods.
85 Tree City USA is a recognition earned from the Arbor Day Foundation through demonstrated commitment to trees. (https://www.arborday.org/programs/ treecityusa/)
Engage
Goal 4: Engage, educate, and coordinate with community members, public agencies, partners, and private businesses to care for and grow the urban forest .
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
89 E. Identify opportunities to provide translated and/or bilingual outreach and education materials.
F. Develop partnerships with community-based organizations to strengthen multi-lingual and culturally appropriate engagement.
4 .1 .3 Encourage active participation by residents in the development and promotion of a sustainable urban forest .
A. Establish a tree ambassador program.
B. Provide and support educational events about the benefits of trees, proper irrigation and water use, and tree care and pruning.
C. Encourage and support community tree planting, volunteer, and community forestry efforts of other agencies and partners.
D. PrioritizeTarget City-led community tree planting events and volunteer opportunities in disadvantaged, high heat, and low-canopy neighborhoods.
Strategy 4 .2 Partner Coordination
Facilitate coordination, involvement, and commitment from all entities that own, control, regulate, or affect the urban forest.
Policies + Implementation Actions
4 .2 .1 Continue existing partnerships and establish new partnerships .
A. Strengthen partnerships with other agencies, organizations, contractors, and public utilities whose activities impact trees through regular dialogue and project coordination.
B. Establish new partnerships and memoranda of understanding with partners to deliver tree planting, maintenance, and education projects and reach City tree program goals.
C. Collaborate with groups such as the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Sacramento Municipal Utility District, State of California, Sacramento County, Los Rios Community College District, K-12 school districts, Tribes, Sacramento Tree Foundation, environmental groups, community and neighborhood associations, business and property improvement districts, and other agencies and organizations to expand tree planting, preservation, and care programs throughout the city.
D. Explore partnerships to support landlords to plant, retain, and maintain trees on private property.
4 .2 .2 Support and encourage businesses to increase tree canopy .
A. Work with businesses and property improvement districts to incorporate and add trees to business corridors, streets, and parking lots.
B. Explore incentives and other programs to encourage the addition of trees to commercial properties and parking lots.
C. Develop and implement a pilot program to retrofit existing low canopy parking lots to increase tree canopy and reduce urban heat.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
90 4 .2 .3 Strengthen partnerships with entities in disadvantaged and low tree canopy neighborhoods .
A. Build and strengthen partnerships with community-based organizations, businesses, non-profits, neighborhood groups, faith-based organizations, and other entities within or that serve disadvantaged, low tree canopy, and high heat neighborhoods to promote and expand access to urban forest programs.
4 .2 .4 Support science-based urban forest decision making among partners .
A. Encourage other agencies and utilities that govern tree removal, maintenance, policies, and/or restrictions to ensure these decisions are based in ecological and science-based information and balance decisions for tree removal or restrictions with longer-term environmental consequences.
Strategy 4 .3 Y outh Engagement
Cultivate youth engagement in the urban forest to continue Sacramento’s legacy of tree stewardship.
Policies + Implementation Actions
4 .3 .1 Support opportunities for youth leadership in urban forest programs .
A. Sponsor and support youth leadership efforts and programs around tree planting and care.
B. Partner with the Youth Commission and YPCE Youth Division to take a leadership role in promoting planting programs, developing efforts to increase access to trees in disadvantaged communities, and training youth “tree stewards” within the community.
C. Provide seed funding as needed to support urban forest youth leadership programs. 4 .3 .2 Increase youth tree literacy and access to trees .
A. Partner with schools to increase trees, tree maintenance, and irrigation on school grounds.
B. Partner with schools to offer tree care curriculum and programs.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
91 Strategy 4 .4 Workforce Development
Advance career pathways in urban forestry.
Policies + Implementation Actions
4 .4 .1 Promote workforce development programs for tree care professions as a critical component of green industry .
A. Explore developing and facilitating tree care apprenticeship programs in the city with local tree care companies, certified arborists, workforce development organizations, and educational institutions.
B. Coordinate with the Landscape and Learning program86, local high schools, and community colleges to promote careers in tree care and provide basic urban forestry and arboriculture skills training as resources and funding allow.
C. Identify opportunities to utilize workforce development programs, such as the regional and state conservation corps, in City urban forest efforts. 4 .4 .2 Build workforce pipelines from Sacramento’s historically under-employed and low- income neighborhoods into the City’s urban forest workforce .
A. Strengthen partnerships and training opportunities to offer for pre-employment training, job placement support, and advertisement to increase awareness about career pathways into urban forestry.
B. Prioritize outreach for workforce development programs to Sacramento’s historically under-employed and low-income neighborhoods to facilitate entry into well-paying urban forestry careers.
86 https://www.cityofsacramento.org/ParksandRec/Youth-Division/Youth-Employment/LandscapeAndLearning SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
92 Strategy 5 .1 Program Funding
Pursue sustainable funding to support the ambitious canopy and program goals within this Plan.
Policies + Implementation Actions
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 .
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 .
A. Provide information on the level of funding and staff needed to 1) increase the frequency of maintenance levels for City-managed trees, 2) increase tree planting in parks and along streets, 3) increase maintenance capacity to care for new trees added to the inventory from increased planting levels, and 4) implement new programs to support tree planting and care on private propertyensure adequate maintenance of City-managed trees to meet professional standards, including five-year maintenance cycle for all City trees and regular maintenance of the City inventory and to address additional trees and canopy levels.
B. Develop a cohesive funding program for tree planting and irrigation within City parks. 5 .1 .32 Pursue grant funding to promote tree planting and partner engagement .
A. Whenever feasible, sSeek grant funding for programs to promote tree planting and maintenance efforts, public-private partnerships, workforce development, community education, street tree expansion, and parking lot greening. 5 .1 .43 Optimize existing funding sources to meet canopy and management goals .
A. Assess current processes and fees to identify improvements to better achieve objectives. 5 .1 .54 Explore new funding sources .
A. Explore opportunities to utilize taxes, special assessments, and special tax districts to receive dedicated program funding.
B. Explore non-traditional and technology-driven funding techniques, such as donation and gifting programs.
Sustain
Goal 5: Sustain the growth, development, and continuity of City urban forest programs through dedicated funding and innovation .
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
93 Strategy 5 .2 Incentive Programs
Explore incentive programs to reduce barriers to tree planting and care on private property.
Policies + Implementation Actions
5 .2 .1 Explore providing financial support to low-income residents in disadvantaged communities for tree planting and care .
A. Identify funding sources options or incentives to support mature tree care, including water use and maintenance costs related to trees.
B. Identify funding options or incentives to reduce barriers to tree planting, including education, support for irrigation installation, and support for maintenance costs. 5 .2 .2 Explore financial incentives to support residents with private protectedmature trees maintenance .
A. Investigate potential tax breakincentives for properties with private City-protected and registered trees.
Strategy 5 .3 Innovation
Advance innovative technologies and approaches to support the urban forest.
Policies + Implementation Actions
5 .3 .1 Support new technologies for tree canopy assessment and planning .
A. Utilize technology that allows for public access to urban forest data and can be easily used by residents and other organizations.
B. Identify innovative tools that allow for improved assessment of urban forest resources and utilize that data to improve program and project planning.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
94 North Sacramento
Implementation
Strategy
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
95 Implementation of the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan will require participation from multiple departments across the City, other agencies, and key partners. The following section assigns responsibility and a suggested timeframe for implementing the SUFP’s strategies, policies, and implementation actions.
Department Key
PW Department of Public Works
YPCE Department of Youth, Parks, and Community Enrichment CDD Community Development Department
DOU Department of Utilities
OIED Office of Innovation and Economic Development
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
96 GROW
Grow the urban forest through new plantings to support livable neighborhoods, protect residents and visitors from the impact of climate change, and reinforce the City’s legacy as the “City of Trees. ” Strategies Policies + Implementation Actions Lead Support Timeframe 1 .1 Expand Canopy:
Increase the current
levels of canopy to
maximize the benefits
of the urban forest.
1 .1 .1 The City shall strive to achieve
a minimum average City-wide tree
canopy of 35 percent by 2045.
PW CDD,
YPCE
15–20 years
1 .1 .2 Establish a parks tree planting
program Continue to perform
volunteer initiated tree planting
operations in parks.
YPCE PW 0–5 years
1 .1 .3 Continue to operate a street tree
planting program.
PW Ongoing
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
97 1 .2 Plan for Trees:
Incorporate trees into
all levels of planning
and development to
ensure existing trees
are preserved, an
adequate number of
new trees are planted
to reach canopy
goals, that new trees
maximize cooling
benefits for the public
realm, and that trees
can grow to maturity
without interfering
with adjacent
infrastructure.
1 .2 .1 Amend Sacramento City Code
as necessary to improve tree canopy
inclusion and require minimum levels
of tree planting in development
projects.
PW,
CDD
0–5 years
1 .2 .2 Review and update design
guidelines and development
standards to support achievement of
minimum canopy goals and maximize
benefits.
CDD PW 0–5 years
1 .2 .3 Encourage development plans
to meet minimum canopy goals
within 15 years.
CDD PW 0–5 years
1 .2 .4 Develop mechanisms that
require or incentivize preservation of
existing trees during site development
when feasible.
CDD PW 0–5 years
1 .2 .5 Identify strategies to strengthen
implementation of the Parking Lot
Shading Ordinance and Parking Lot
Shading Design and Maintenance
Guidelines to support achievement of
a minimum of 50 percent tree shading
and ensure long-term parking lot tree
canopy successwithin 15 years.
PW CDD 0–5 years
1 .2 .6 Support the achievement of 50
percent tree shading over streets, and
sidewalks, and share use paths.
PW CDD 0–5 years
1 .2 .7 Provide for the successful
Ensure the establishment of trees
incorporated into development and
redevelopment projects.
PW CDD,
DOU
0–5 years
1 .3 Canopy Equity:
Seek toPrioritize
addressing
historic inequities,
removeing barriers
to tree adoption,
and ensureing the
urban forest is shared
equitably across all
communities.
1 .3 .1 Prioritize Support City planting
efforts and implementation of
urban forest programs in priority
communities.
PW YPCE 0–5 years
1 .3 .2 Support and facilitate canopy
expansion efforts on private property
across the City with focus in priority
communities.
PW CDD 15–20 years
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
98 STEWARD
Steward the City’s existing trees to preserve canopy and protect the urban forest from biological and cultural threats and loss.
Strategies Policies + Implementation Actions Lead Support Timeframe 2 .1 Canopy
Resilience: Ensure
Sacramento’s urban
forest is resilient and
prepared for the biotic
and abiotic impacts
of climate change
necessary for to
support the longevity
and success of the
city’s trees.
2 .1 .1 Promote biological diversity
in tree species and age for the city’s
urban forest to maintain resilience.
PW YPCE,
CDD
0–5 years
2 .1 .2 Create Update a master
comprehensive recommended tree
list to ensure all trees planted by the
City or associated with approved
development projects are suitable
for changing climate conditions in
Sacramento.
PW CDD,
YPCE
0–5 years
2 .1 .3 Continue to monitor and
identify pest threats and take
preventative actions to anticipate
threats and minimize potential
impacts.
PW Ongoing
2 .2 Native Forest
Resilience: Conserve
native oaks and
woodlands as a
valuable tool for
climate adaptation
that can address
the twin crises of
climate change and
biodiversity loss.
2 .2 .1 Preserve native trees,
woodlands, native species, and
riparian areas to the extent feasible in
recognition of their ties to the area’s
natural and cultural history, ability
to sustain ecosystems, and natural
climate adaptation to Sacramento’s
hot and dry climate.
PW YPCE,
CDD
Ongoing
2 .2 .2 Incorporate native plantings
into the urban forest and parks when
appropriate and to the extent feasible.
YPCE PW Ongoing
2 .2 .3 Advocate for regional forested
corridors to facilitate adaptation and
migration of native tree species and
wildlife.
PW,
YPCE
CDD 5–10 years
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
99 2 .3 Tree Protection:
Preserve existing tree
canopy and healthy
mature trees as vital
for maintaining
current canopy levels,
meeting canopy
goals, and adapting
to climate change.
Enforce tree protection
standards to better
protect the urban
forest from loss of
existing trees.
2 .3 .1 Preserve mature trees in
development on public and private
property to the extent feasible.
CDD PW Ongoing
2 .3 .2 Protect existing trees during
construction.
PW CDD 0–5 years
2 .3 .3 Require mitigation for tree
removal to include onsite or offsite
plantings and/or tree removal fees.
PW CDD Ongoing
2 .3 .43 Encourage appropriate
water and irrigation practices to
minimize needed water use and while
supporting healthy tree growth.
PW YPCE,
DOU
Ongoing
2 .3 .54 Assess the success of
objective and enforcement of the
City’s Tree Ordinance to encourage
the preservation and care of private
protected trees.
PW CDD 0–5 years
2 .3 .65 Support the use of proper
pruning techniques on privately
maintained trees.
PW 0–5 years
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
100
MANAGE
Manage the urban forest through coordinated planning, design, and maintenance to ensure its long-term health and sustainability.
Strategies Policies + Implementation Actions Lead Support Timeframe 3 .1 Organizational
Best Practices: Seek
to include necessary
resources to manage
City trees at a
sustainable level.
3 .1 .1 Employ professional urban
forest staff and rely on urban forestry
best management practices.
PW CC Ongoing
3 .1 .32 Strengthen collaboration and
support between all City departments
that manage trees.
PW CDD,
DOU,
YPCE
Ongoing
3 .1 .43 Conduct annual reporting
on the urban forest plan to ensure
progress towards goals and
appropriate resource allocation.
PW YPCE,
CDD,
DOU
Annually
3 .1 .54 Strive to pPerform regular
5-year updates to the Urban Forest
Plan and canopy cover assessment
and analysis reports.
PW CDD,
YPCE
Every 5
years,
aligned
with CAAP
3 .2 Manage Risk:
Utilize tree risk
management policies,
procedures, and
practices to minimize
risk of injury and
property damage.
3 .2 .1 Rely on industry best
management practices for pest
control, disease prevention, and
hazard mitigation measures in urban
environments in treatment of City-
managed trees.
PW Ongoing
3 .2 .2 Maintain and implement
emergency response plans for storm
events that result in tree loss and
damage.
PW Ongoing
3 .2 .3 Minimize future damage or
conflict by planning for trees as a part
of infrastructure.
PW,
CDD,
YPCE
0–5 years
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
101
3 .3 Regular
Maintenance: Perform
regular maintenance
on City trees to
improve the health,
longevity, safety, and
functional capacity of
the urban forest.
3 .3 .1 Continue to operate a proactive
tree maintenance program to
preserve and protect City-managed
trees.
PW Ongoing
3 .3 .2 Update and regularly maintain a
comprehensive inventory of all City-
managed trees.
PW YPCE,
DOU
0–5 years,
Ongoing
once
updated
3 .4 Manage for
Co-benefits: Plan to
maximize the co-
benefits of the urban
forest throughout
trees’ full life cycle.
3 .4 .1 Support tree reuse efforts within
the City to extend the life cycle of
trees.
PW YPCE 5–10 years
3 .4 .2 Explore opportunities to
leverage the benefits of trees to retain
stormwater runoff.
DOU PW 0–5 years
3 .4 .3 When designing transportation
improvements, support inclusion
of adequate tree canopy to provide
substantial shade for active
transportation infrastructure and
support achievement of 50 percent
shading on street, and sidewalks, and
shared use paths.
PW 0–5 years
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
102
ENGAGE
Engage, educate, and coordinate with community members, public agencies, partners, and private businesses to care for and grow the urban forest.
Strategies Policies + Implementation Actions Lead Support Timeframe 4 .1 Community
Engagement: Support
community advocacy
for and involvement in
the urban forest.
4 .1 .1 Recognize and promote the
city’s urban forest.
PW Annually
4 .1 .2 Conduct a City-wide urban
forest public outreach and education.
PW 0–5 years
4 .1 .3 Encourage active participation
by residents in the development and
promotion of a sustainable urban
forest.
PW YPCE,
DOU
Ongoing
4 .2 Partner
Coordination:
Facilitate coordination,
involvement, and
commitment from
all entities that own,
control, regulate, or
affect the urban forest.
4 .2 .1 Continue existing partnerships
and establish new partnerships.
PW Ongoing
4 .2 .2 Support and encourage
businesses to increase tree canopy.
PW 0–5 years
4 .2 .3 Strengthen partnerships with
entities in disadvantaged and low tree
canopy neighborhoods.
PW 0–5 years
4 .2 .4 Support science-based urban
forest decision making among
partners.
PW Ongoing
4 .3 Y outh
Engagement:
Cultivate youth
engagement in
the urban forest to
continue Sacramento’s
legacy of tree
stewardship.
4 .3 .1 Support opportunities for youth
leadership in urban forest programs.
PW YPCE 0–5 years
4 .3 .2 Increase youth tree literacy and
access to trees.
PW 5–10 years
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
103
4 .4 Workforce
Development:
Advance career
pathways in urban
forestry.
4 .4 .1 Promote workforce
development programs for tree care
professions as a critical component of
green industry.
PW YPCE 0–5 years
4 .4 .2 Build workforce pipelines
from Sacramento’s historically
under-employed and low-income
neighborhoods into the City’s urban
forest work force.
PW OIED,
YPCE
5 years
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
104
SUSTAIN
Sustain the growth, development, and continuity of City urban forest programs through dedicated funding and innovation.
Strategies Policies + Implementation Actions Lead Support Timeframe 5 .1 Program Funding:
Pursue sustainable
funding to support the
ambitious canopy and
program goals within
this Plan.
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.
PW CDD,
DOU,
YPCE
0–5 years
5 .1 .21 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.
PW YPCE 0–5 years
5 .1 .32 Pursue grant funding to
promote tree planting and partner
engagement.
PW Ongoing
5 .1 .43 Optimize existing funding
sources to meet canopy and
management goals.
PW YPCE,
DOU
0–5 years
5 .1 .54 Explore new funding sources. PW 0–5 years
5 .2 Incentive
Programs: Identify
Explore incentive
programs to reduce
barriers to tree
planting and care on
private property.
5 .2 .1 Explore providing financial
support to low-income residents in
disadvantaged communities for tree
planting and care.
PW PW 5–10 years
5 .2 .2 Explore financial incentives to
support residents with mature private
protected trees maintenance.
PW 5–10 years
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
105
5 .3 Innovation:
Advance innovative
technologies and
approaches to support
the urban forest.
5 .3 .1 Support new technologies for
tree canopy assessment and planning.
PW 5–10 years
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
106
Appendices
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
107
APPENDIX A: TREE CANOPY BY NEIGHBORHOOD
Neighborhood Acres Canopy
Acres
Canopy
%
Impervious
Acres
Grass/
Low Veg.
Acres
Bare
Soil
Acres
Water
Acres
Airport 851.97 96.55 11.33 290.73 138.27 326.41 0.00
Alhambra Triangle 88.92 14.31 16.10 64.86 4.04 5.71 0.00 Alkali Flat 89.25 27.77 31.11 49.66 7.71 4.11 0.00
American River
Parkway 1,041.94 362.76 34.82 96.30 387.00 30.60 165.28 Arden Fair 78.45 4.95 6.30 71.13 1.78 0.60 0.00
Avondale 307.59 43.89 14.27 146.94 96.58 20.19 0.00
Belvedere 315.25 10.17 3.23 236.33 15.43 53.31 0.00
Ben Ali 242.87 40.11 16.52 151.58 38.40 12.78 0.00
Boulevard Park 154.68 68.34 44.18 72.86 13.07 0.41 0.00 Brentwood 201.29 29.19 14.50 128.09 29.25 14.75 0.00
Cal Expo 846.21 168.71 19.94 226.27 291.19 80.95 79.09
Campus Commons 404.83 177.69 43.89 159.22 53.93 9.99 4.01 Cannon Industrial
Park 195.24 15.93 8.16 128.39 22.54 28.38 0.00
Carleton Tract 120.18 24.37 20.28 77.23 17.22 1.36 0.00 Central Oak Park 396.90 126.69 31.92 202.32 58.80 9.10 0.00 College Town 200.43 48.65 24.27 95.97 22.09 10.69 23.03 College/Glen 964.87 232.26 24.07 550.42 153.53 28.59 0.08 Colonial Heights 178.45 61.46 34.44 90.12 24.99 1.88 0.00 Colonial Manor 346.01 71.71 20.72 187.07 73.76 13.47 0.00 Colonial Village 214.21 45.77 21.37 124.16 43.96 0.33 0.00 Creekside 489.26 25.21 5.15 172.04 56.46 235.55 0.00
CSUS 402.11 104.70 26.04 207.74 62.85 11.76 15.07
Curtis Park 658.83 216.59 32.88 317.99 69.75 54.49 0.00 Del Paso Heights 407.48 64.67 15.87 200.49 108.71 33.61 0.00 Del Paso Park 820.42 235.57 28.71 170.26 303.10 109.86 1.63 Depot Park 496.67 21.03 4.23 306.33 37.80 128.67 2.84
Dos Rios Triangle 52.12 8.57 16.44 30.86 12.47 0.21 0.00 Downtown 530.44 123.40 23.26 355.21 48.32 3.50 0.00
East Del Paso
Heights 550.07 117.24 21.31 266.24 116.55 50.03 0.00
East Sacramento 2,148.80 710.91 33.08 1,050.12 313.45 73.54 0.78 Elder Creek 146.33 4.78 3.27 125.82 6.39 8.76 0.58
Elmhurst 225.29 91.40 40.57 107.55 25.20 1.14 0.00
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
108
Neighborhood Acres Canopy
Acres
Canopy
%
Impervious
Acres
Grass/
Low Veg.
Acres
Bare
Soil
Acres
Water
Acres
Erikson Industrial
Park 270.15 13.80 5.11 213.22 18.74 24.39 0.00
Fairgrounds 151.58 32.10 21.18 87.25 23.63 8.60 0.00
Florin Fruitridge
Industrial Park 757.71 42.63 5.63 544.08 37.69 130.19 3.12 Freeport Manor 177.27 25.76 14.53 119.56 24.46 7.49 0.00 Fruitridge Manor 453.19 71.28 15.73 268.26 91.16 22.49 0.00 Gardenland 389.13 82.09 21.10 162.41 118.81 25.81 0.00
Gateway Center 134.20 42.78 31.88 56.12 19.24 16.07 0.00 Gateway West 762.85 77.00 10.09 359.75 146.94 161.07 18.09 Glen Elder 269.58 44.19 16.39 128.58 92.16 4.03 0.62
Glenwood
Meadows 343.50 53.62 15.61 179.78 85.49 24.60 0.00
Golf Course Terrace 388.42 89.96 23.16 209.94 83.88 4.63 0.00 Granite Regional
Park 320.67 82.68 25.78 77.90 63.48 87.53 9.08
Greenbriar 640.58 2.84 0.44 25.99 1.69 608.02 2.03
Greenhaven 1,014.76 213.79 21.07 529.37 165.90 9.95 95.74 Hagginwood 595.60 203.66 34.19 217.58 132.26 40.51 1.59 Hansen Park Golf
Course Site 288.34 19.01 6.59 3.04 35.73 223.04 7.53
Heritage Park 294.92 46.38 15.73 166.23 34.21 44.12 3.97 Hollywood Park 268.10 66.05 24.64 148.09 50.49 3.47 0.00 Johnson Business
Park 188.83 28.03 14.84 111.19 22.61 25.20 1.80
Johnson Heights 141.22 20.43 14.47 22.74 33.33 64.72 0.00 Land Park 1,137.38 486.88 42.81 423.56 192.83 19.37 14.73 Lawrence Park 163.11 31.66 19.41 103.11 24.11 4.23 0.00 Little Pocket 273.85 89.84 32.81 95.18 40.14 3.77 44.92 Mangan Park 105.83 21.21 20.04 66.90 17.67 0.05 0.00
Mansion Flats 132.41 43.76 33.05 77.35 10.86 0.44 0.00
Marshall School 108.27 55.37 51.14 44.81 8.09 0.00 0.00 Meadowview 3,495.54 432.87 12.38 1,231.78 685.30 1,124.48 21.11 Med Center 230.19 51.26 22.27 145.65 27.94 5.35 0.00
Metro Center 185.46 63.35 34.16 86.54 19.37 15.33 0.87
Midtown / Winn
Park / Capital Ave 422.38 122.52 29.01 262.87 33.93 2.81 0.24 Morrison Creek 671.80 26.31 3.92 390.70 61.17 193.62 0.00 Natomas Corporate
Center 160.77 65.04 40.45 64.04 31.45 0.24 0.00
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
109
Neighborhood Acres Canopy
Acres
Canopy
%
Impervious
Acres
Grass/
Low Veg.
Acres
Bare
Soil
Acres
Water
Acres
Erikson Industrial
Park 270.15 13.80 5.11 213.22 18.74 24.39 0.00
Fairgrounds 151.58 32.10 21.18 87.25 23.63 8.60 0.00
Florin Fruitridge
Industrial Park 757.71 42.63 5.63 544.08 37.69 130.19 3.12 Freeport Manor 177.27 25.76 14.53 119.56 24.46 7.49 0.00 Fruitridge Manor 453.19 71.28 15.73 268.26 91.16 22.49 0.00 Gardenland 389.13 82.09 21.10 162.41 118.81 25.81 0.00
Gateway Center 134.20 42.78 31.88 56.12 19.24 16.07 0.00 Gateway West 762.85 77.00 10.09 359.75 146.94 161.07 18.09 Glen Elder 269.58 44.19 16.39 128.58 92.16 4.03 0.62
Glenwood
Meadows 343.50 53.62 15.61 179.78 85.49 24.60 0.00
Golf Course Terrace 388.42 89.96 23.16 209.94 83.88 4.63 0.00 Granite Regional
Park 320.67 82.68 25.78 77.90 63.48 87.53 9.08
Greenbriar 640.58 2.84 0.44 25.99 1.69 608.02 2.03
Greenhaven 1,014.76 213.79 21.07 529.37 165.90 9.95 95.74 Hagginwood 595.60 203.66 34.19 217.58 132.26 40.51 1.59 Hansen Park Golf
Course Site 288.34 19.01 6.59 3.04 35.73 223.04 7.53
Heritage Park 294.92 46.38 15.73 166.23 34.21 44.12 3.97 Hollywood Park 268.10 66.05 24.64 148.09 50.49 3.47 0.00 Johnson Business
Park 188.83 28.03 14.84 111.19 22.61 25.20 1.80
Johnson Heights 141.22 20.43 14.47 22.74 33.33 64.72 0.00 Land Park 1,137.38 486.88 42.81 423.56 192.83 19.37 14.73 Lawrence Park 163.11 31.66 19.41 103.11 24.11 4.23 0.00 Little Pocket 273.85 89.84 32.81 95.18 40.14 3.77 44.92 Mangan Park 105.83 21.21 20.04 66.90 17.67 0.05 0.00
Mansion Flats 132.41 43.76 33.05 77.35 10.86 0.44 0.00
Marshall School 108.27 55.37 51.14 44.81 8.09 0.00 0.00 Meadowview 3,495.54 432.87 12.38 1,231.78 685.30 1,124.48 21.11 Med Center 230.19 51.26 22.27 145.65 27.94 5.35 0.00
Metro Center 185.46 63.35 34.16 86.54 19.37 15.33 0.87
Midtown / Winn
Park / Capital Ave 422.38 122.52 29.01 262.87 33.93 2.81 0.24 Morrison Creek 671.80 26.31 3.92 390.70 61.17 193.62 0.00 Natomas Corporate
Center 160.77 65.04 40.45 64.04 31.45 0.24 0.00
Neighborhood Acres Canopy
Acres
Canopy
%
Impervious
Acres
Grass/
Low Veg.
Acres
Bare
Soil
Acres
Water
Acres
Natomas Creek 312.92 23.73 7.58 161.74 34.08 93.38 0.00 Natomas Crossing 673.40 44.24 6.57 273.50 114.05 218.97 22.64 Natomas Park 1,029.16 225.73 21.93 588.84 158.98 46.40 9.21 New Brighton 748.71 24.99 3.34 145.62 53.21 524.27 0.62 New Era Park 168.15 65.25 38.80 83.36 18.40 1.15 0.00
Newton Booth 234.68 64.34 27.42 147.66 17.36 5.31 0.00
Noralto 292.52 57.23 19.56 109.24 68.92 57.13 0.00
North City Farms 406.22 82.28 20.26 230.89 56.35 36.70 0.00 North Oak Park 348.98 116.50 33.38 186.65 37.70 8.12 0.00 Northgate 340.18 60.08 17.66 174.74 91.06 13.86 0.43
Northpointe 122.82 19.48 15.86 69.56 25.64 8.15 0.00
Norwood I-80 45.42 3.83 8.43 29.79 5.68 5.13 1.00
Norwood Tech 68.09 9.94 14.60 47.56 8.84 1.04 0.71
Oak Knoll 161.31 15.01 9.30 63.23 31.19 50.98 0.89
Old North
Sacramento 436.87 62.30 14.26 289.22 59.94 25.42 0.00
Old Sacramento 139.38 16.32 11.71 76.50 7.91 8.79 29.85 Parker Homes 43.81 12.42 28.36 20.45 6.51 4.42 0.00
Parkway 1,371.93 220.15 16.05 824.23 209.69 111.80 6.06 Pell/Main Industrial
Park 227.01 11.40 5.02 178.11 24.92 12.58 0.00
Pocket 2,850.30 628.63 22.05 1,403.10 513.50 60.34 244.73 Point West 390.56 77.02 19.72 225.26 74.68 10.28 3.33
Power Ridge 323.83 9.67 2.99 246.25 17.94 49.96 0.00
Raley Industrial Park 1,070.83 66.11 6.17 316.44 61.88 616.54 9.84 Ramona Village 326.58 18.75 5.74 231.21 30.31 46.30 0.00 Regency Park 362.95 46.68 12.86 198.16 78.90 29.18 10.03 Richardson Village 139.31 17.07 12.26 58.99 48.17 15.06 0.01 Richmond Grove 143.32 50.10 34.96 79.00 12.25 1.97 0.00 River Gardens 173.71 42.61 24.53 77.13 49.51 4.46 0.00
River Park 491.99 176.37 35.85 181.76 96.01 12.91 24.94 Robla 1,481.68 192.32 12.98 360.65 230.78 687.81 10.12
RP - Sports Complex 931.99 84.72 9.09 355.36 104.35 372.24 15.32 SCC 71.85 7.77 10.81 50.97 11.14 1.97 0.00
Sierra Oaks 248.55 77.71 31.26 142.82 26.04 1.99 0.00
South City Farms 132.99 32.03 24.09 67.71 27.06 6.18 0.00 SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
110
Neighborhood Acres Canopy
Acres
Canopy
%
Impervious
Acres
Grass/
Low Veg.
Acres
Bare
Soil
Acres
Water
Acres
South Hagginwood 435.83 105.85 24.29 196.07 91.77 41.40 0.73 South Land Park 1,810.41 481.22 26.58 971.27 307.15 38.70 12.07 South Natomas 1,903.27 409.12 21.50 862.77 375.83 251.14 4.41 South Oak Park 367.94 80.92 21.99 187.78 76.25 22.98 0.00 Southeast Village 338.31 43.56 12.88 187.93 85.35 20.26 1.21 Southern Pacific /
Richards 789.88 79.28 10.04 418.39 81.43 169.85 40.92
Southside Park 214.16 76.23 35.60 108.05 24.47 1.34 4.06 Strawberry Manor 231.68 28.64 12.36 96.35 67.71 35.51 3.48 Sundance Lake 796.26 50.00 6.28 359.57 93.35 241.43 51.91 Swanston Estates 301.21 55.06 18.28 187.52 49.64 8.99 0.00 Tahoe Park 409.35 128.10 31.29 197.60 81.84 1.82 0.00
Tahoe Park East 171.76 20.30 11.82 111.10 29.94 10.42 0.00 Tahoe Park South 201.75 60.90 30.18 94.36 45.62 0.87 0.00 Tallac Village 183.16 43.83 23.93 92.72 39.94 6.67 0.00 Upper Land Park 643.75 179.18 27.83 269.60 97.87 26.91 70.18 Valley Hi / North
Laguna 3,533.70 578.83 16.38 1,887.42 623.27 431.73 12.45 Valleyview Acres 145.01 11.12 7.67 13.12 34.21 86.50 0.05 Village 12 121.15 17.83 14.72 77.83 18.20 7.29 0.00
Village 14 121.29 32.92 27.14 22.43 30.88 35.07 0.00
Village 5 313.11 27.60 8.81 111.28 26.37 127.23 20.63
Village 7 162.74 4.75 2.92 71.29 44.83 41.88 0.00
Village Green 51.84 9.80 18.91 28.51 11.30 2.23 0.00
West Del Paso
Heights 322.90 60.60 18.77 121.03 91.71 49.10 0.47
West Tahoe Park 136.05 39.11 28.74 76.88 18.91 1.16 0.00 Westlake 446.27 44.93 10.07 214.36 61.53 107.27 18.18
Willowcreek 597.13 109.75 18.38 240.93 75.34 139.33 31.80 Wills Acres 119.66 19.31 16.14 51.89 42.65 5.80 0.00
Woodbine 346.74 47.27 13.63 187.34 62.89 49.24 0.00
Woodlake 230.76 71.67 31.06 94.29 42.73 21.55 0.51
Youngs Heights 44.81 8.23 18.37 22.02 8.21 6.36 0.00
Z'berg Park 314.20 69.38 22.08 137.09 63.13 44.07 0.52
Neighborhood Total 61,223.08 11,801.65 19.28% 28,478.39 10,306.59 9,455.28 1,181.17 SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
111
Neighborhood Acres Canopy
Acres
Canopy
%
Impervious
Acres
Grass/
Low Veg.
Acres
Bare
Soil
Acres
Water
Acres
South Hagginwood 435.83 105.85 24.29 196.07 91.77 41.40 0.73 South Land Park 1,810.41 481.22 26.58 971.27 307.15 38.70 12.07 South Natomas 1,903.27 409.12 21.50 862.77 375.83 251.14 4.41 South Oak Park 367.94 80.92 21.99 187.78 76.25 22.98 0.00 Southeast Village 338.31 43.56 12.88 187.93 85.35 20.26 1.21 Southern Pacific /
Richards 789.88 79.28 10.04 418.39 81.43 169.85 40.92
Southside Park 214.16 76.23 35.60 108.05 24.47 1.34 4.06 Strawberry Manor 231.68 28.64 12.36 96.35 67.71 35.51 3.48 Sundance Lake 796.26 50.00 6.28 359.57 93.35 241.43 51.91 Swanston Estates 301.21 55.06 18.28 187.52 49.64 8.99 0.00 Tahoe Park 409.35 128.10 31.29 197.60 81.84 1.82 0.00
Tahoe Park East 171.76 20.30 11.82 111.10 29.94 10.42 0.00 Tahoe Park South 201.75 60.90 30.18 94.36 45.62 0.87 0.00 Tallac Village 183.16 43.83 23.93 92.72 39.94 6.67 0.00 Upper Land Park 643.75 179.18 27.83 269.60 97.87 26.91 70.18 Valley Hi / North
Laguna 3,533.70 578.83 16.38 1,887.42 623.27 431.73 12.45 Valleyview Acres 145.01 11.12 7.67 13.12 34.21 86.50 0.05 Village 12 121.15 17.83 14.72 77.83 18.20 7.29 0.00
Village 14 121.29 32.92 27.14 22.43 30.88 35.07 0.00
Village 5 313.11 27.60 8.81 111.28 26.37 127.23 20.63
Village 7 162.74 4.75 2.92 71.29 44.83 41.88 0.00
Village Green 51.84 9.80 18.91 28.51 11.30 2.23 0.00
West Del Paso
Heights 322.90 60.60 18.77 121.03 91.71 49.10 0.47
West Tahoe Park 136.05 39.11 28.74 76.88 18.91 1.16 0.00 Westlake 446.27 44.93 10.07 214.36 61.53 107.27 18.18
Willowcreek 597.13 109.75 18.38 240.93 75.34 139.33 31.80 Wills Acres 119.66 19.31 16.14 51.89 42.65 5.80 0.00
Woodbine 346.74 47.27 13.63 187.34 62.89 49.24 0.00
Woodlake 230.76 71.67 31.06 94.29 42.73 21.55 0.51
Youngs Heights 44.81 8.23 18.37 22.02 8.21 6.36 0.00
Z'berg Park 314.20 69.38 22.08 137.09 63.13 44.07 0.52
Neighborhood Total 61,223.08 11,801.65 19.28% 28,478.39 10,306.59 9,455.28 1,181.17 APPENDIX B: TREE CANOPY IN CITY PARKS
Park Acres Canopy
Acres
%
Canopy
Impervious
Acres
Pervious
Acres
Water
Acres
Bare
Soil
Acres
24th Street Bypass
Park 7.41 0.39 5.27 0.52 2.48 0.00 4.02
4-Way Parklets 2.89 0.19 6.56 0.00 0.40 0.00 2.29
7th Street
Promenade 1.07 0.26 24.51 0.73 0.07 0.00 0.00
Adventure Park Site 3.51 0.01 0.36 0.00 0.05 0.00 3.44
Airfield Park Site 9.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.19
Airport Little League
Park 10.02 0.52 5.22 1.31 3.90 0.00 4.28
Alan And Helen Post
Park 0.69 0.05 7.31 0.28 0.07 0.00 0.28
Albert Winn Park 2.56 1.48 57.67 0.25 0.83 0.00 0.00
Alder Park 2.03 0.44 21.74 0.18 1.21 0.00 0.20
American River
Parkway 1,459.16 541.56 37.11 89.25 636.85 94.47 97.04
Anthony Park 1.66 0.41 24.85 0.10 0.61 0.00 0.54
Argonaut Park 8.57 0.98 11.45 3.63 3.86 0.00 0.09
Army Depot Park 19.50 0.24 1.24 2.70 3.61 0.24 12.70
Artivio Guerrero Park 2.51 0.04 1.62 1.09 1.38 0.00 0.00 Autumn Meadow
Park 6.07 0.23 3.73 0.85 5.00 0.00 0.00
Bannon Creek Park &
Parkway 18.94 16.17 85.41 0.48 2.24 0.00 0.05
Bannon Creek
Preserve 5.52 5.36 97.11 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00
Bartley Cavanaugh
Golf Course 0.11 0.08 75.75 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00
Belle Cooledge
Community Center
Park
10.20 3.37 33.04 1.30 5.53 0.00 0.00
Belle Cooledge Park 8.68 4.09 47.09 1.37 3.14 0.00 0.08 Bercut Richards Plaza
Site 0.21 0.13 60.81 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00
Bertha Henschel Park 2.55 0.82 32.08 0.31 1.33 0.00 0.09 Bicycle Easement 1.04 0.01 1.17 0.28 0.11 0.00 0.64
Bill Bean Jr Memorial
Park at Colonial
Manor
4.33 0.96 22.24 0.48 2.83 0.00 0.07
Bill Conlin Youth
Sports Complex 21.63 1.94 8.96 2.58 10.48 0.00 6.64
Bing Maloney Golf
Course 175.31 49.95 28.49 8.32 102.06 0.00 14.98
Blackbird Park Site 10.18 0.09 0.84 0.37 0.99 0.00 8.74 Blue Oak Park 0.98 0.36 37.06 0.12 0.50 0.00 0.00
Brockway Park 0.93 0.91 98.17 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
Brooks Truitt Park 0.89 0.01 1.64 0.11 0.21 0.00 0.56
Burberry Community
Park 11.76 1.48 12.60 1.72 8.43 0.00 0.13
C.K. McClatchy Park 15.41 6.61 42.86 2.89 5.10 0.00 0.82 SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
112
Park Acres Canopy
Acres
%
Canopy
Impervious
Acres
Pervious
Acres
Water
Acres
Bare
Soil
Acres
California Lilac Park 3.23 0.77 23.71 0.50 1.54 0.00 0.43 Camellia Park 2.01 0.47 23.33 0.35 1.19 0.00 0.00
Campus Commons
Golf Course 23.36 4.59 19.67 0.84 17.85 0.01 0.08
Cannery Plaza 0.22 0.01 6.04 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Capitol Park 36.01 20.28 56.31 7.05 8.66 0.00 0.03
Carl Johnston Park 24.28 3.10 12.78 1.62 17.41 0.00 2.14 Central Shops Plaza 3.04 0.00 0.14 2.26 0.15 0.00 0.63
Cesar E. Chavez Plaza 2.54 1.59 62.59 0.52 0.43 0.00 0.00 Charles Robertson
Park 9.05 2.11 23.27 2.38 3.95 0.00 0.62
Charlie Jensen Park 2.81 1.02 36.26 0.28 1.33 0.00 0.17 Charter Pointe Park 4.89 2.68 54.73 0.08 2.04 0.01 0.08 Chicory Bend Park 11.01 8.44 76.65 1.29 0.91 0.19 0.19
Chuckwagon Park 1.80 0.72 40.29 0.00 1.07 0.00 0.00
Coloma Park 3.04 1.09 35.73 1.61 0.35 0.00 0.00
Colonial Park 2.15 0.60 27.96 0.22 1.08 0.00 0.24
Commerce Station
Park Site 4.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.02
Cool Wind Way Park 1.15 0.48 41.22 0.04 0.64 0.00 0.00
Cosumnes River
College Park 8.09 0.02 0.31 1.24 6.82 0.00 0.00
Cottonwood Park 4.99 1.04 20.89 0.26 3.50 0.00 0.19
Crocker Park 2.58 1.93 74.82 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00
Danny Nunn Park 12.34 2.25 18.26 1.81 8.28 0.00 0.00
Del Paso Regional
Park 596.43 195.15 32.72 36.23 270.22 1.63 93.21
Depot Park 1.49 0.06 3.94 0.22 0.71 0.00 0.49
Discovery Park 55.64 33.04 59.38 7.52 11.93 3.15 0.00
Dixieanne Tot Lot 0.15 0.11 69.71 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00
Dogwood Park 3.02 0.00 0.00 0.64 2.32 0.00 0.07
Earl Warren Park 5.02 0.87 17.34 0.60 3.55 0.00 0.00
East Lawn Children’s
Park 0.33 0.22 65.56 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00
East Portal Park 7.35 3.19 43.36 0.17 3.76 0.00 0.24
Edward Kemble Park 1.74 0.14 7.86 0.27 1.32 0.00 0.01
Edwin Z'berg Park 2.48 0.60 24.37 0.31 1.56 0.00 0.00
Egret Park 4.93 0.50 10.08 0.54 3.89 0.00 0.00
Egret Park Open
Space 3.59 0.40 11.25 0.38 2.75 0.00 0.06
Eileen Dutra Park 0.41 0.31 76.66 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00
Elderberry Park 2.19 0.24 10.95 0.40 1.56 0.00 0.00
Emil Bahnfleth Park 6.33 1.67 26.44 0.04 4.62 0.00 0.00 Emiliano Zapata Park 0.95 0.54 56.94 0.11 0.29 0.00 0.01 Fisherman's Lake
Parkway & Open
Space
33.39 2.16 6.47 4.76 3.48 0.04 22.95
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
113
Park Acres Canopy
Acres
%
Canopy
Impervious
Acres
Pervious
Acres
Water
Acres
Bare
Soil
Acres
California Lilac Park 3.23 0.77 23.71 0.50 1.54 0.00 0.43 Camellia Park 2.01 0.47 23.33 0.35 1.19 0.00 0.00
Campus Commons
Golf Course 23.36 4.59 19.67 0.84 17.85 0.01 0.08
Cannery Plaza 0.22 0.01 6.04 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00
Capitol Park 36.01 20.28 56.31 7.05 8.66 0.00 0.03
Carl Johnston Park 24.28 3.10 12.78 1.62 17.41 0.00 2.14 Central Shops Plaza 3.04 0.00 0.14 2.26 0.15 0.00 0.63
Cesar E. Chavez Plaza 2.54 1.59 62.59 0.52 0.43 0.00 0.00 Charles Robertson
Park 9.05 2.11 23.27 2.38 3.95 0.00 0.62
Charlie Jensen Park 2.81 1.02 36.26 0.28 1.33 0.00 0.17 Charter Pointe Park 4.89 2.68 54.73 0.08 2.04 0.01 0.08 Chicory Bend Park 11.01 8.44 76.65 1.29 0.91 0.19 0.19
Chuckwagon Park 1.80 0.72 40.29 0.00 1.07 0.00 0.00
Coloma Park 3.04 1.09 35.73 1.61 0.35 0.00 0.00
Colonial Park 2.15 0.60 27.96 0.22 1.08 0.00 0.24
Commerce Station
Park Site 4.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.02
Cool Wind Way Park 1.15 0.48 41.22 0.04 0.64 0.00 0.00
Cosumnes River
College Park 8.09 0.02 0.31 1.24 6.82 0.00 0.00
Cottonwood Park 4.99 1.04 20.89 0.26 3.50 0.00 0.19
Crocker Park 2.58 1.93 74.82 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00
Danny Nunn Park 12.34 2.25 18.26 1.81 8.28 0.00 0.00
Del Paso Regional
Park 596.43 195.15 32.72 36.23 270.22 1.63 93.21
Depot Park 1.49 0.06 3.94 0.22 0.71 0.00 0.49
Discovery Park 55.64 33.04 59.38 7.52 11.93 3.15 0.00
Dixieanne Tot Lot 0.15 0.11 69.71 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00
Dogwood Park 3.02 0.00 0.00 0.64 2.32 0.00 0.07
Earl Warren Park 5.02 0.87 17.34 0.60 3.55 0.00 0.00
East Lawn Children’s
Park 0.33 0.22 65.56 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00
East Portal Park 7.35 3.19 43.36 0.17 3.76 0.00 0.24
Edward Kemble Park 1.74 0.14 7.86 0.27 1.32 0.00 0.01
Edwin Z'berg Park 2.48 0.60 24.37 0.31 1.56 0.00 0.00
Egret Park 4.93 0.50 10.08 0.54 3.89 0.00 0.00
Egret Park Open
Space 3.59 0.40 11.25 0.38 2.75 0.00 0.06
Eileen Dutra Park 0.41 0.31 76.66 0.01 0.09 0.00 0.00
Elderberry Park 2.19 0.24 10.95 0.40 1.56 0.00 0.00
Emil Bahnfleth Park 6.33 1.67 26.44 0.04 4.62 0.00 0.00 Emiliano Zapata Park 0.95 0.54 56.94 0.11 0.29 0.00 0.01 Fisherman's Lake
Parkway & Open
Space
33.39 2.16 6.47 4.76 3.48 0.04 22.95
Park Acres Canopy
Acres
%
Canopy
Impervious
Acres
Pervious
Acres
Water
Acres
Bare
Soil
Acres
Five Star Park 0.35 0.03 8.57 0.12 0.21 0.00 0.00
Fourth Avenue Park 1.07 0.33 30.35 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.71
Frank Seymour Park 43.60 26.82 61.51 2.27 14.43 0.00 0.09 Franklin Boyce
Community Park 9.80 0.06 0.65 0.71 3.91 0.21 4.91
Fredrick Miller
Regional Park 38.68 19.54 50.52 12.03 5.85 0.48 0.79
Freeport Park 3.96 0.97 24.37 0.03 1.98 0.00 0.99
Fremont Community
Garden 0.46 0.04 9.16 0.23 0.18 0.00 0.00
Garcia Bend Park 19.71 6.25 31.69 3.74 8.04 0.95 0.73
Garden Highway
Bikeway 24.41 18.82 77.08 1.79 1.42 2.08 0.30
Gardenland Park 6.03 1.64 27.14 0.66 3.59 0.00 0.15
Gateway Park 5.02 0.75 14.90 0.00 3.97 0.00 0.30
George Sim Park 13.92 1.71 12.26 4.45 7.03 0.11 0.62
Glenbrook Park 17.64 3.94 22.34 1.10 11.47 0.00 1.13
Glenbrook River
Access 4.03 0.52 12.86 0.46 0.27 0.00 2.78
Glenn Hall Park 8.13 2.55 31.43 1.62 3.91 0.00 0.04
Golden Poppy Park 2.03 0.28 13.86 0.72 1.03 0.00 0.00
Governor's Mansion 0.79 0.36 46.07 0.29 0.13 0.00 0.00
Granite Regional Park 83.70 19.95 23.83 7.79 26.14 2.07 27.75 Greenfair Park 0.61 0.48 78.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00
Hagginwood Park 15.43 4.95 32.05 2.81 7.50 0.00 0.17
Hampton Park 6.16 0.48 7.81 0.88 3.06 0.00 1.73
Hansen Ranch
Regional Park Site 265.95 13.24 4.98 1.94 32.34 7.21 211.23 Harrier Park 0.74 0.19 25.72 0.22 0.28 0.00 0.04
Heron Park 3.95 1.12 28.24 0.12 2.72 0.00 0.00
Hite Park 4.99 0.97 19.38 0.19 3.73 0.00 0.11
Hummingbird Park 4.32 0.37 8.47 0.50 2.21 0.00 1.25
J. Neely Johnson Park 0.97 0.74 76.45 0.09 0.14 0.00 0.00 Jacinto Creek Park 11.74 1.73 14.70 1.42 7.82 0.00 0.77 Jacinto Creek
Parkway 14.62 1.74 11.91 1.97 3.24 0.04 7.62
Jack Rea Park 0.34 0.09 26.52 0.06 0.19 0.00 0.00
James Mangan Park 8.19 2.19 26.74 1.03 4.73 0.00 0.24
James W. Marshall
Park 2.51 1.47 58.55 0.55 0.49 0.00 0.00
John Cabrillo Park 5.63 0.90 15.92 1.03 3.63 0.00 0.07
John Fremont Park 2.57 1.23 47.68 0.21 1.13 0.00 0.00
John Mackey
Memorial Park at
Kenwood Oaks
11.56 1.03 8.92 0.04 7.33 0.00 3.16
John Muir Children's
Park 2.50 1.48 59.34 0.07 0.94 0.00 0.01
John Reith Park 1.27 0.29 22.78 0.06 0.92 0.00 0.00
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
114
Park Acres Canopy
Acres
%
Canopy
Impervious
Acres
Pervious
Acres
Water
Acres
Joseph Reichmuth
Park 43.49 27.26 62.69 1.97 13.53 0.00
Kaiser Promenade 0.77 0.04 4.88 0.01 0.00 0.00
Kokomo Park 7.01 0.48 6.85 0.81 5.72 0.00
Lawrence Park 5.08 1.76 34.57 0.21 2.42 0.00
Leland Stanford
Mansion State
Historic Park
0.60 0.20 33.17 0.27 0.13 0.00
Leland Stanford Park 2.76 0.46 16.80 0.05 2.25 0.00
Lewis Park 3.31 1.69 51.06 0.32 1.16 0.00
Linden Park 4.91 1.47 29.92 0.22 3.11 0.00
Mae Fong Park 8.26 0.26 3.20 1.17 1.17 0.00
Magnolia Park 6.42 0.40 6.28 1.13 4.15 0.00
Magoichi Oki Park 15.04 3.64 24.21 0.58 5.77 0.00
Manuel Barandas
Park 13.02 2.67 20.52 0.28 3.15 0.00
Manuel E. Silva Park 3.15 0.11 3.62 0.58 1.79 0.00
Maple Park 1.07 0.19 17.51 0.47 0.26 0.00
Margarette "Mama"
Marks Park 4.80 0.94 19.70 0.51 3.24 0.00
Mark Hopkins Park 6.36 0.59 9.26 0.65 4.78 0.00
Market Plaza 0.65 0.00 0.08 0.57 0.00 0.00
Martin Luther King Jr
Community Garden 0.30 0.08 27.79 0.06 0.14 0.00
Martin Luther King,
Jr. Park 1.49 0.32 21.25 0.33 0.75 0.00
Matsui Waterfront
Park (Robert T.) 6.79 0.54 7.95 2.04 4.05 0.05
Max Baer Park 4.10 0.79 19.21 0.52 2.80 0.00
Meadows
Community Park Site 11.15 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00
Meadowview Park 8.26 1.49 17.99 0.31 5.73 0.00
Mesa Grande Park 6.30 1.44 22.79 0.59 4.14 0.00
Michael Himovitz
Park 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00
Mls Promenade 0.68 0.01 1.81 0.00 0.40 0.00
Museum Plaza 5.65 0.01 0.24 4.54 0.18 0.00
Natomas Oaks Park 13.02 10.15 77.97 0.31 2.56 0.00
Ninos Park 4.20 1.10 26.19 0.22 2.88 0.00
Ninos Parkway 46.73 3.72 7.96 3.22 14.50 0.24
North Laguna Creek
Park 21.45 5.43 25.29 2.96 12.50 0.44
North Laguna Creek
Wildlife Area 120.82 19.52 16.16 3.67 28.44 5.76
North Natomas
Community Park 35.33 3.41 9.65 3.67 23.66 0.00
North Natomas Park
Nature Area 7.09 1.82 25.62 0.73 0.42 1.10
North Natomas
Regional Park 212.82 6.45 3.03 12.33 32.90 12.72
Bare
Soil
Acres
0.73 0.73
0.00 0.69
0.00 0.00
0.14 0.12
5.65 0.74
5.05 6.91
0.67 0.15
0.10 0.35
0.08 0.01
0.08 0.10
0.00 11.12
0.74 0.14
0.07 0.27
0.92 0.00
0.00 25.05
0.13 63.44
4.59 3.02
148.41
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
115
Park Acres Canopy
Acres
%
Canopy
Impervious
Acres
Pervious
Acres
Water
Acres
Joseph Reichmuth
Park 43.49 27.26 62.69 1.97 13.53 0.00
Kaiser Promenade 0.77 0.04 4.88 0.01 0.00 0.00
Kokomo Park 7.01 0.48 6.85 0.81 5.72 0.00
Lawrence Park 5.08 1.76 34.57 0.21 2.42 0.00
Leland Stanford
Mansion State
Historic Park
0.60 0.20 33.17 0.27 0.13 0.00
Leland Stanford Park 2.76 0.46 16.80 0.05 2.25 0.00
Lewis Park 3.31 1.69 51.06 0.32 1.16 0.00
Linden Park 4.91 1.47 29.92 0.22 3.11 0.00
Mae Fong Park 8.26 0.26 3.20 1.17 1.17 0.00
Magnolia Park 6.42 0.40 6.28 1.13 4.15 0.00
Magoichi Oki Park 15.04 3.64 24.21 0.58 5.77 0.00
Manuel Barandas
Park 13.02 2.67 20.52 0.28 3.15 0.00
Manuel E. Silva Park 3.15 0.11 3.62 0.58 1.79 0.00
Maple Park 1.07 0.19 17.51 0.47 0.26 0.00
Margarette "Mama"
Marks Park 4.80 0.94 19.70 0.51 3.24 0.00
Mark Hopkins Park 6.36 0.59 9.26 0.65 4.78 0.00
Market Plaza 0.65 0.00 0.08 0.57 0.00 0.00
Martin Luther King Jr
Community Garden 0.30 0.08 27.79 0.06 0.14 0.00
Martin Luther King,
Jr. Park 1.49 0.32 21.25 0.33 0.75 0.00
Matsui Waterfront
Park (Robert T.) 6.79 0.54 7.95 2.04 4.05 0.05
Max Baer Park 4.10 0.79 19.21 0.52 2.80 0.00
Meadows
Community Park Site 11.15 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00
Meadowview Park 8.26 1.49 17.99 0.31 5.73 0.00
Mesa Grande Park 6.30 1.44 22.79 0.59 4.14 0.00
Michael Himovitz
Park 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00
Mls Promenade 0.68 0.01 1.81 0.00 0.40 0.00
Museum Plaza 5.65 0.01 0.24 4.54 0.18 0.00
Natomas Oaks Park 13.02 10.15 77.97 0.31 2.56 0.00
Ninos Park 4.20 1.10 26.19 0.22 2.88 0.00
Ninos Parkway 46.73 3.72 7.96 3.22 14.50 0.24
North Laguna Creek
Park 21.45 5.43 25.29 2.96 12.50 0.44
North Laguna Creek
Wildlife Area 120.82 19.52 16.16 3.67 28.44 5.76
North Natomas
Community Park 35.33 3.41 9.65 3.67 23.66 0.00
North Natomas Park
Nature Area 7.09 1.82 25.62 0.73 0.42 1.10
North Natomas
Regional Park 212.82 6.45 3.03 12.33 32.90 12.72
Bare
Soil
Acres
0.73 0.73
0.00 0.69
0.00 0.00
0.14 0.12
5.65 0.74
5.05 6.91
0.67 0.15
0.10 0.35
0.08 0.01
0.08 0.10
0.00 11.12
0.74 0.14
0.07 0.27
0.92 0.00
0.00 25.05
0.13 63.44
4.59 3.02
148.41
Park Acres Canopy
Acres
%
Canopy
Impervious
Acres
Pervious
Acres
Water
Acres
Bare
Soil
Acres
North Point Way
River Access 5.10 1.70 33.30 1.31 0.91 0.05 1.13
North Pointe Park 1.73 0.63 36.27 0.07 1.03 0.00 0.00
Northborough Park 4.01 0.84 20.98 0.58 2.48 0.00 0.12
Northgate Park 15.88 4.75 29.90 1.23 9.64 0.00 0.26
Nuevo Park 6.80 1.00 14.65 0.36 5.08 0.00 0.36
Oak Park 8.45 2.40 28.36 3.70 2.21 0.00 0.14
Oak Park Open Space 1.95 0.10 4.95 0.59 1.08 0.00 0.18
Oakbrook Park 4.75 0.24 4.98 0.04 0.20 0.00 4.27
Old Sacramento State
Historic Park 6.24 0.53 8.52 4.64 0.38 0.05 0.65
O'Neil Field 5.44 0.83 15.19 0.50 3.98 0.00 0.14
Orchard Park 11.91 2.09 17.58 1.01 8.67 0.00 0.13
Pannell/Meadowview
Community Center
Park
11.92 1.85 15.55 4.46 5.05 0.00 0.56
Park Es 3 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.07 0.00 0.08
Park Es 4 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13
Park Plaza 1.62 0.82 50.60 0.15 0.65 0.00 0.00
Park Site 15a 22.50 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.50
Park Site 15b 10.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.11
Park Site 15c 2.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.53
Park Site 15d 3.00 0.01 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.99
Park Site 2d (Basin
8b) 5.07 0.04 0.84 0.32 0.06 0.00 4.65
Park Site Ns1 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50
Park Site Ns2 5.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.16
Park Site P1 2.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 2.89
Park Site P2 5.96 0.85 14.23 0.15 2.60 0.00 2.37
Park Site P3 5.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.10
Park Site P4 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.07
Park Site P5 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 1.86
Park Site P6 4.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.80
Park Site P7 4.25 0.01 0.22 0.55 0.05 0.00 3.64
Park Site P8 5.32 0.08 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.24
Park Site P9 26.59 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.79 0.00 25.68
Park Site Sn2 3.93 0.38 9.72 0.15 1.28 0.00 2.12
Park Site Sn4 0.23 0.11 47.25 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.08
Parkway Oaks Park 8.98 5.29 58.95 0.17 3.52 0.00 0.00
Peach Paseo 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50
Pear Paseo 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42
Peregrine Park 8.23 1.13 13.68 1.48 4.64 0.00 0.99
Persimmon Paseo
Site 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19
Phoenix Green 1.78 0.44 24.96 0.16 1.09 0.00 0.08
Pioneer Landing Park 1.49 0.03 1.97 1.13 0.20 0.00 0.13 SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
116
Park Acres Canopy
Acres
%
Canopy
Impervious
Acres
Pervious
Acres
Water
Acres
Bare
Soil
Acres
Plaza Cervantes 0.64 0.28 44.01 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00
Plover School Park 0.52 0.05 9.22 0.27 0.20 0.00 0.00
Pocket Canal
Parkway 52.06 10.12 19.45 14.21 6.70 20.52 0.51
Pollack Ranch Park 7.17 2.14 29.84 0.34 4.68 0.00 0.01
Portuguese
Community Park 3.19 1.51 47.21 0.12 1.57 0.00 0.00
Quail Park 5.21 0.56 10.70 0.57 4.08 0.00 0.00
R. Burnett Miller Park 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.87 Red Tail Hawk Park 5.00 0.56 11.28 0.57 3.77 0.00 0.11
Redbud Park 1.38 0.28 20.70 0.18 0.85 0.00 0.06
Redwood Park 3.61 0.54 14.92 0.75 2.03 0.00 0.29
Regency Community
Park 42.06 3.39 8.07 4.84 32.61 0.00 1.22
Reginald Renfree
Park 6.69 2.71 40.55 0.08 3.75 0.00 0.14
Richard Marriott Park 7.58 5.44 71.74 0.12 2.02 0.00 0.00 Richardson Village
Park 8.88 0.39 4.41 0.25 6.79 0.00 1.45
Richfield Park 3.15 0.19 5.95 0.37 1.79 0.00 0.81
River Birch Park Site 20.54 1.31 6.36 1.73 4.25 8.00 5.25 River Otter Park 2.10 0.31 14.57 0.19 1.26 0.00 0.35
River Park 1.58 0.49 31.21 0.16 0.82 0.00 0.10
River View Park 5.19 1.10 21.25 0.29 3.74 0.00 0.06
Riverfront Park 1.07 0.03 2.43 0.51 0.53 0.00 0.00
Robla Community
Park 17.82 1.31 7.34 1.81 12.15 0.00 2.55
Rocket Park Site 5.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.09
Roy Nielsen Park 8.09 2.43 30.09 0.56 4.82 0.00 0.28
Sacramento Historic
Old City Cemetery 31.29 10.69 34.15 2.63 17.97 0.00 0.00 Sacramento Northern
Parkway 60.04 17.47 29.10 10.43 17.72 0.04 14.37
Sacramento River
Parkway (Central
Area)
11.52 3.75 32.54 2.60 2.94 1.22 1.01
Sacramento River
Parkway (Future) 100.03 34.38 34.37 16.12 17.31 6.16 26.06 Sacramento River
Parkway (Land Park
Area)
39.41 13.34 33.84 9.08 1.70 3.14 12.15
Sacramento River
Parkway (Pocket
Area)
7.70 2.51 32.59 1.42 1.10 1.12 1.55
Saint Rose of Lima
Park 0.51 0.24 46.16 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00
Sally Hudson Park 0.61 0.50 81.70 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.06
San Juan Reservoir
Park 32.86 1.93 5.87 2.70 3.27 2.26 22.70
Sand Cove Park 9.39 6.90 73.45 0.54 1.80 0.00 0.16
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
117
Park Acres Canopy
Acres
%
Canopy
Impervious
Acres
Pervious
Acres
Water
Acres
Bare
Soil
Acres
Plaza Cervantes 0.64 0.28 44.01 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00
Plover School Park 0.52 0.05 9.22 0.27 0.20 0.00 0.00
Pocket Canal
Parkway 52.06 10.12 19.45 14.21 6.70 20.52 0.51
Pollack Ranch Park 7.17 2.14 29.84 0.34 4.68 0.00 0.01
Portuguese
Community Park 3.19 1.51 47.21 0.12 1.57 0.00 0.00
Quail Park 5.21 0.56 10.70 0.57 4.08 0.00 0.00
R. Burnett Miller Park 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.87 Red Tail Hawk Park 5.00 0.56 11.28 0.57 3.77 0.00 0.11
Redbud Park 1.38 0.28 20.70 0.18 0.85 0.00 0.06
Redwood Park 3.61 0.54 14.92 0.75 2.03 0.00 0.29
Regency Community
Park 42.06 3.39 8.07 4.84 32.61 0.00 1.22
Reginald Renfree
Park 6.69 2.71 40.55 0.08 3.75 0.00 0.14
Richard Marriott Park 7.58 5.44 71.74 0.12 2.02 0.00 0.00 Richardson Village
Park 8.88 0.39 4.41 0.25 6.79 0.00 1.45
Richfield Park 3.15 0.19 5.95 0.37 1.79 0.00 0.81
River Birch Park Site 20.54 1.31 6.36 1.73 4.25 8.00 5.25 River Otter Park 2.10 0.31 14.57 0.19 1.26 0.00 0.35
River Park 1.58 0.49 31.21 0.16 0.82 0.00 0.10
River View Park 5.19 1.10 21.25 0.29 3.74 0.00 0.06
Riverfront Park 1.07 0.03 2.43 0.51 0.53 0.00 0.00
Robla Community
Park 17.82 1.31 7.34 1.81 12.15 0.00 2.55
Rocket Park Site 5.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.09
Roy Nielsen Park 8.09 2.43 30.09 0.56 4.82 0.00 0.28
Sacramento Historic
Old City Cemetery 31.29 10.69 34.15 2.63 17.97 0.00 0.00 Sacramento Northern
Parkway 60.04 17.47 29.10 10.43 17.72 0.04 14.37
Sacramento River
Parkway (Central
Area)
11.52 3.75 32.54 2.60 2.94 1.22 1.01
Sacramento River
Parkway (Future) 100.03 34.38 34.37 16.12 17.31 6.16 26.06 Sacramento River
Parkway (Land Park
Area)
39.41 13.34 33.84 9.08 1.70 3.14 12.15
Sacramento River
Parkway (Pocket
Area)
7.70 2.51 32.59 1.42 1.10 1.12 1.55
Saint Rose of Lima
Park 0.51 0.24 46.16 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00
Sally Hudson Park 0.61 0.50 81.70 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.06
San Juan Reservoir
Park 32.86 1.93 5.87 2.70 3.27 2.26 22.70
Sand Cove Park 9.39 6.90 73.45 0.54 1.80 0.00 0.16
Park Acres Canopy
Acres
%
Canopy
Impervious
Acres
Pervious
Acres
Water
Acres
Bare
Soil
Acres
Shasta Community
Park 18.68 2.28 12.23 5.85 9.99 0.00 0.56
Shore Park 2.37 1.34 56.44 0.05 0.98 0.00 0.00
Shorebird Park 2.35 0.62 26.37 0.35 1.20 0.00 0.18
Sierra 2 Park 2.67 1.31 48.84 0.05 1.31 0.00 0.00
Skylark Park 2.53 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 2.41
Sojourner Truth Park 6.04 0.60 9.89 0.17 5.27 0.00 0.00 South Natomas
Community Park 24.19 5.44 22.49 4.24 13.24 0.00 1.27
Southside
Community Garden 0.79 0.29 36.83 0.04 0.46 0.00 0.00
Southside Park 19.53 9.36 47.92 1.85 3.92 4.06 0.34
Sparrow Community
Garden 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00
Sparrow Park 1.75 0.27 15.52 0.13 1.04 0.00 0.31
Steve Jones Park 6.73 0.26 3.88 0.63 5.64 0.00 0.20
Strauch Park 3.21 0.91 28.34 0.14 2.16 0.00 0.00
Strawberry Manor
Park 1.29 0.14 10.92 0.46 0.69 0.00 0.00
Sundance Park 2.01 0.20 10.14 0.46 1.34 0.00 0.00
Sutter's Fort & State
Indian Museum 6.15 2.04 33.27 1.64 2.22 0.24 0.00
Sutter's Landing
Regional Park 161.43 2.96 1.83 35.30 15.95 0.00 107.22
Swainson's Hawk
Park 5.71 0.28 4.90 1.30 4.05 0.02 0.06
Sycamore Park 5.29 0.51 9.63 1.02 3.54 0.00 0.23
Tahoe Park 17.92 6.12 34.18 1.29 9.81 0.00 0.69
Tahoe Tallac Park 6.78 0.91 13.45 0.56 4.66 0.00 0.65
Tanzanite
Community Park
(Basin 6a)
31.90 3.50 10.97 3.09 13.17 7.32 4.82
Tbd 27.05 5.66 20.93 11.86 6.19 0.17 3.16
Temple Avenue Park 1.03 0.42 41.16 0.11 0.45 0.00 0.05
Theodore Roosevelt
Park 2.55 0.51 19.89 0.21 1.66 0.00 0.17
Thomas Jefferson
Park 5.67 2.16 38.13 0.41 2.95 0.00 0.15
Tiscornia Park 14.36 1.95 13.56 1.18 2.18 8.52 0.53
Tony Court Park 0.89 0.41 46.65 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00
Township 9 Park Site 15.27 3.93 25.71 2.44 1.72 4.52 2.67 Triangle Park 1.20 0.02 1.69 0.01 1.04 0.00 0.14
Two Rivers Park 3.03 0.55 18.08 0.17 2.28 0.00 0.03
Ulysses S. Grant Park 2.34 0.53 22.54 0.18 1.38 0.00 0.25 Under I-5 Experience 2.70 0.00 0.00 1.91 0.39 0.00 0.40 University Park 3.72 1.33 35.72 0.11 2.28 0.00 0.00
Valley Hi Community
Park 16.19 4.45 27.47 1.56 9.70 0.00 0.48
Valley Oak Park 8.69 0.17 2.00 1.42 6.67 0.00 0.43
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
118
Park Acres Canopy
Acres
%
Canopy
Impervious
Acres
Pervious
Acres
Water
Acres
Bare
Soil
Acres
Victory Park 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.36
Victory Promenade 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.24
Victory Promenade
Site 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.47
Vista Connector To 4-
Way 0.42 0.01 3.52 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.11
Vista Park 9.27 0.22 2.33 0.01 0.79 0.00 8.26
Walter S. Ueda
Parkway 454.76 74.59 16.40 44.81 147.98 20.86 166.52
Washington Park 1.58 0.52 32.94 0.12 0.94 0.00 0.00
Westhampton Park 4.31 0.49 11.33 0.70 3.12 0.00 0.01
Westlake Community
Park 10.35 1.25 12.06 1.60 5.68 0.00 1.82
Wild Rose Park 8.63 0.51 5.92 1.67 5.90 0.00 0.56
William Chorley Park 31.18 17. 54 56.26 0.87 8.83 0.00 3.94 William Curtis Park 18.80 12.11 64.43 0.68 5.97 0.00 0.04 William Land Golf
Course 91.06 43.77 48.07 1.55 42.80 2.46 0.49
William Land
Regional Park 115.27 77.32 67.08 6.25 30.10 0.15 1.45
William McKinley
Park 31.09 15.20 48.89 3.75 11.35 0.78 0.00
Willow Park 2.50 0.49 19.79 0.48 1.53 0.00 0.00
Winner's Circle Park 1.87 0.28 14.81 0.38 1.18 0.00 0.03 Witter Ranch Park 9.01 1.30 14.45 0.68 6.79 0.00 0.25
Witter Ranch State
Historic Park 24.09 0.24 0.99 0.48 0.01 0.00 23.37
Wood Park 5.56 1.85 33.35 0.53 3.10 0.00 0.08
Woodbine Park 6.48 2.60 40.08 0.37 3.37 0.00 0.15
Woodlake Park 6.16 2.57 41.79 0.72 2.87 0.00 0.00
Zacharias Park 6.12 2.58 42.15 0.29 3.06 0.00 0.18
Grand Total 5,993.23 1,639.07 27.35% 536.62 2,202.35 224.87 1,390.33 SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
119
APPENDIX C: PARTNER ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SUMMARY
To support preparation of the Sacramento Urban Forest Plan, City staff convened a Partner Advisory Committee (PAC) to solicit firsthand knowledge and guidance from key groups and individuals directly involved in the management, community engagement, and project implementation work related to trees in Sacramento. The PAC met four times during the SUFP development, twice during the initial research and analysis phase in 2018 and twice during the development of the public review draft in 2023. Participants from the following 30 groups were involved in providing feedback via the PAC:
> Meadowview Urban Tree Project
> Midtown Association
> North Natomas community representative
> North State BIA
> Preservation Sacramento
> Public Health Institute
> River Park Neighborhood Association
> Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates
> Sacramento Area Council of Government
> Sacramento City Unified School District
> Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District
> Sacramento Municipal Utility District
> Sacramento Tree Foundation
> South Natomas community representative
> Trees4Sacramento
Meetings #1 and #4 functioned as workshops, with substantial group feedback; whereas meetings #2 and #3 were primarily focused on information sharing with the PAC. PowerPoint presentations for each meeting can be found on the project website (www.cityofsacramento.gov/sactreeplan) and summaries of meetings #1 and #4 are provided below.
> 350 Sacramento
> Asian Resources Inc.
> Avondale/Glen Elder Neighborhood
Association
> California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection
> California Strategic Growth Council
> City of Sacramento Youth Commission
> Council Member District 3 Jeff Harris
> Elmhurst Neighborhood Association
> Explore Midtown
> Friends of Capitol Mansions
> Hagginwood Neighborhood Association
> Historic Monterey Trail District
> Hodgson and Company
> Hollywood Park Communi-Tree Committee
> LDK Ventures, LLC
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
120
Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Meeting #1
5.9.2018
SUMMARY
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
121
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Summary
On Wednesday, May 9, 2018, the City of Sacramento held the first of three Stakeholder Representative Group meetings (SRG) for the Urban Forest Master Plan. The meeting took place from 4:00 – 6:00 p.m. at Sacramento City Hall, located at 915 I Street, in Sacramento.
The following project team members attended the meeting:
City of Sacramento Davey Resource Group AIM Consulting Lucinda Willcox Tina McKeand Gladys Cornell
Kevin Hocker Nicole Porter
Jennifer Venema Katie Durham
Stacia Cosgrove
Kevin McClain
Eugene Loew
Jesus Munoz
Kevin Wasson
19 stakeholder representatives attended the meeting, representing the following organizations:
• 350 Sacramento
• Asian Resource Center
• California Strategic Growth Council
Public Health Institute
• Elmhurst Neighborhood Association
• Friends of Capitol Mansions
• LDK Ventures, LLC
• Midtown Association
• North State BIA
• Preservation Sacramento
• River Park Neighborhood Association
• Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Management District (SMAQMD)
• Sacramento Municipal Utilities District
(SMUD)
• Sacramento Tree Foundation
• The Historic Monterey Trail District
• Trees4Sacramento
• U.S. Forest Service
• WALK Sacramento
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
122
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
The meeting objectives included:
• Introduce the project background and goals
• Outline the project process and timeline
• Review updates from the City’s 2016 Tree
Ordinance
• Present key findings from the Urban Tree
Canopy and iTree reports
• Discuss the vision for Sacramento’s urban
tree canopy and potential strategies to
achieve the vision
• Identify next steps for the project
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 the late 1970s and the 1980s, Sacramento’s urban forestry program was recognized for its beautiful tree canopy and partnerships; today, our urban forest is rated as one of the top ten in the country.
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.
Lucinda Wilcox, City of Sacramento, presenting the
project background and goals.
Stakeholder representatives discussing the
Urban Forest Master Plan.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
123
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
Meeting Format & Presentation
The first SRG meeting included a presentation and
large group discussion. The project team
presented on the project’s goals and background,
the process and timeline, updates from the 2016
Tree Ordinance, and key findings from the Urban
Tree Canopy Assessment and public tree Resource
Analysis. Throughout the presentation,
stakeholder representatives asked questions.
Following the presentation, stakeholder
representatives participated in a group discussion
and were encouraged to provide additional input
through feedback forms. Below is an overview of the
presentation.
P
roject Background, Goals, & Process
Lucinda Willcox, Project Manager from the City of Sacramento, introduced the Urban Forest Master Plan and its goals. Building upon community interest and priorities identified in the 2016 Tree Ordinance update, the Urban Forest Master Plan development process will assess the City’s existing tree canopy through resource and historic analyses.
The process includes collaboration with internal partners, stakeholder groups, and the community-at- large to help inform the goals the City sets for Sacramento’s tree canopy. The Urban Forest Master Plan will include an action plan for how to achieve the goals, as well as a plan to monitor the tree canopy regularly in the future and evaluate if and how the goals are being achieved.
• Q
uestion: Will the project timeline be available online? o Project team response: Yes, the timeline is available on the project webpage.
Updates from the 2016 Tree Ordinance
Kevin Hocker, Urban Forest Manager at the City of
Sacramento, provided a brief overview of some of
the updates to City code that resulted from the
2016 Tree Ordinance. The ordinance aimed to
consolidate three previous ordinances into one,
clarify confusing language, and protect more trees
when possible. Effective in September 2016, the
ordinance accomplishes the following:
• Protects all City trees
Councilmember Jeff Harris discussing the importance of
the Urban Forest Master Plan.
Gladys Cornell, AIM Consulting, welcoming stakeholder
representatives to the meeting.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
124
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
• Identifies “private protected trees” as private trees with diameters larger than 30-inches; native oak trees are classified in this category if their diameters are larger than 12-inches • Created a tree removal public notice process and procedure through the City website • Created a Tree Mitigation Fund dedicated towards replacing trees and creating more space to plant trees
Additional issues not addressed by the ordinance were specifically identified as issues to be discussed and addressed during the Urban Forest Master Plan development process. These additional issues include:
• Trees located on public land, excluding
the public right-of-way
• Concerns about parking lot shade
• Formation of an urban forestry citizen
advisory group
• Tree planting
• Monitoring, evaluating, and reporting,
by community plan area and citywide
• Tree Preservation Funds
• Tree Protection Standards
• Incentive programs
• Canopy coverage goals
• Q
uestion: Does the 2016 Tree Ordinance prohibit tree-topping? o Project team response: Yes; tree-topping is not a routine or acceptable practice. There will be rare times where tree-topping is preferable to removing a tree, and in those circumstances, you would need special permission from the City. • Question: Does this ordinance only apply to City trees and private protected trees? o Project team response: Yes. City code only regulates City trees and private protected trees. There are some trees that are not regulated by the ordinance, and City code does not apply to them.
• Comment: Species diversity is an important topic that should be discussed in the Urban Forest Master Plan.
R
esource Analysis and Key Findings
Tina McKeand, Project Manager with Davey
Resource Group, presented key findings about the
urban forest identified by the Urban Tree Canopy
Assessment and the public tree Resource Analysis.
This information provides the foundation for the
Urban Forest Master Plan. The Urban Tree Canopy
assessment considers all public and private trees
in the City from a bird-eye view, and the public
tree Resource Analysis evaluates all public trees in
the City’s inventory and the benefits they provide.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
125
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
Urban Tree Canopy Assessment
The Urban Tree Canopy Assessment was
conducted as a top down assessment using high-
resolution aerial imagery and infrared
photography to determine the coverage and
health of the City’s urban tree canopy.
Sacramento has 19 square miles (12,198 acres) of
tree canopy. Today, 77% of the trees in
Sacramento are in fair or better condition. Land
cover in the City can be identified as one of five
classifications:
• Tree canopy
• Impervious surface (e.g. buildings, streets,
and parking lots)
• Low lying vegetation (e.g. shrubs, grasses)
• Open water
• Bare soils
On average, the City has a 19% tree canopy cover. Based upon the area’s current land cover, Sacramento has the potential to support a tree canopy of 45%. However, it may not be possible to reach this full potential due to areas that are undeveloped where other uses, such as buildings and housing developments, may be built.
• Q
uestion: How do you assess the health of the tree canopy? o Project team response: You can assess canopy health through infrared imagery. The reflection of light off a tree’s leaves can help us detect if a tree is “stressed” or not.
However, it is important to note that stress does not automatically mean a tree is dying; it could just be going through a period of stress (e.g. aphids). The only way to fully determine what is causing stress on a tree is to physically inspect it.
Parking Lots
Parking lots developed after 1983 are required to have a 50% tree canopy cover within 15-years of construction. From a sample of 648 parking lots throughout the City, the average tree canopy cover is 15%. While the project team cannot identify which parking lots, if any, were built after 1983, it is important to note that only 6% of the parking lots assessed are currently meeting the shade standards; 94% are not.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
126
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
Tree Canopy Benefits
Sacramento’s tree canopy is currently storing
1.5 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2).
Annually, this resource provides an added
$4.5 million in annual benefits, including:
removing 392 tons of air pollutants, reducing
storm water runoff by 58 million gallons, and
sequestering an additional 73,541 tons of CO2.
• Question: Have you done any quality
assessment for the aerial measuring
you’ve done?
o Project team response: Yes.
DRG uses iTree Canopy
(itreetools.org) to cross check
the results of the GIS land
cover analysis. iTree Canopy uses randomly generated points which are manually evaluated for land cover type. Points are sampled until an acceptable standard error is achieved, (typically <+/- 2%). The results confirm the overall percentage of land cover type found by the GIS analysis.
• Question: What are the dates from this data?
o The Resource Analysis utilized current data provided by the City. The Urban Tree Canopy assessment imagery was from 2016.
• Question: If a vacant parcel of land has a specific zoning already identified, does the Urban Tree Canopy assessment consider this information?
o Project team response: No, it does not take that into consideration. • Question: Are there energy savings from the benefits of the tree canopy? o Project team response: The Resource Analysis concluded that public trees provide an estimated $1.2 million in benefits annually.
• Question: How do these assessments measure and take into consideration air pollutants that are emitted from certain tree species? Are their effects included in this data? o Project team response: That is an important factor to consider. We will check the methodology of the assessment and get back to you. This assessment is based on the overall tree canopy and there is no way to identify species specifically as it relates to benefits.
• Comment: I think it is important to be candid; everyone loves trees, but there are important characteristics and impacts of certain tree species that affect tree selection and public health. • Comment: There are also costs associated with the urban tree canopy, due to property damage and injuries. We and the community will need to consider this as well.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
127
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
Public Trees
Public trees in Sacramento are comprised of
87,324 trees with 194 unique species. Some
species of trees represent a greater part of
the inventory; for example, the Londonplane
tree represents 15% of the City’s entire urban
tree canopy. Best urban forest practices
dictate that no single tree species should
represent more than 10% of the entire tree
population and no tree genus should
represent more than 20% of the population.
• C
omment: While London Plane trees
represent a large portion of the tree
canopy in older neighborhoods such
as East Sacramento, I am not seeing a
lot of them being planted now. We should consider the different ages of tree species. o P
roject team response: The Urban Tree Canopy Assessment presents more detail about the age of Sacramento’s trees.
• Question: Is the total number of trees in Sacramento (87,324) based on street trees as well as park trees?
o Project team response: Yes, both are included in the inventory. However, street and park trees that are in bicycle paths are not included. There are potentially thousands of trees that have not been added to the inventory.
• Question: Are the 87,324 public trees the only street trees the City recognizes to maintain? o Project team response: This inventory lists trees on City-managed public right-of-way; primarily street trees and tree in public parks. It does not include public trees in areas managed by other agencies (e.g., County in Sacramento River Parkway, State Parks, public schools). The inventory is not completely up to date; many newly planted trees are not yet entered so the actual inventory of City-maintained trees is closer to 100,000.
While trees on private properties may also provide tree shading, unless it is in a City- owned easement, then these trees are not reflected in the public inventory.
P
ublic Tree Benefits & Investment
The values of public and private trees are determined by the U.S. Forest Service. The annual benefits of Sacramento’s tree canopy total about $10.5 million. The average tree provides $120.06 in benefits; smaller trees provide fewer benefits and larger trees provide more.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
128
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
A rough estimate of the City of Sacramento’s public costs for trees is approximately $8.2 million annually; about $6 million for urban forestry staff and contracts and the rest for green waste disposal. The net benefits, after the $8.2 million investment, are $2.3 million. This means that for each $1 spent, Sacramento received $1.28 in benefits from the tree canopy.
With $6.0 million in urban forestry operations, the City conducts the following operations: tree maintenance, tree removal, development review, tree species protection, permitting, emergency response, and outreach and engagement.
Discussion Summary
Below is a summary of the large group discussion that followed the meeting presentation.
Sacramento’s current tree canopy is at 19%. The Greenprint sets an average 35% shade canopy goal for our region based on the best available science. What percentage should the City aim for? • Comment: I live in one of the denser-canopied neighborhoods, but we don’t think it is enough. It is clear to me that we live in an area of “surplus” but there are other areas that are still under- canopied. In my opinion, the only way to increase those areas is to have a higher City-wide goal.
We need to increase the entire City’s canopy to increase livability. If you set it the goal too low, then it will be too easy for some areas to achieve. We should set it high. o Project team response: Thank you for your input. Keep in mind that this is a 20-year plan.
While the City is not opposed to setting the goal high, it is important that we as a group do not set the goal too high and we see no progress within the next 20 years. • Comment: In thinking about areas that are under-canopied, we need to look at how to funnel resources to help them achieve a higher tree canopy. Maintenance is quite expensive and is an important piece of this effort. It is so important to think about goals and resources; but how do we pair them while focusing on those underserved areas? • Comment: The topic of injustice is very important. However, we do need to make the goal reasonable so citizens, as well as developers, don’t oppose it. • Comment: We talk about planting trees, but when California was in a drought and the Governor’s office encouraged people to stop watering parks, many trees became stressed. We cannot plant a huge number of trees and not take care of them – we need to worry about the health of trees. o Project team response: That is a good point. There is an annual cost to taking care of trees, in addition to the issue of water restrictions during drought years. Based on the Resource Analysis, the City pays an average of $94 annually per tree. • Comment: What we are experiencing in the Central City is a dramatic increase in density; I don’t see any of this study addressing population density as it relates to the tree canopy. Density will be a pressure over time to consider. This also doesn’t consider the cost to the public. For example, recently my car was parked on the street and the tree caused $1,700 in damage to my car. There is a cost to the public that hasn’t been considered in this resource analysis. I would like to see a SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
129
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
program that addresses the replacement planting of certain trees that are not contributing to the overall canopy’s benefits.
o Project team response: These assessments are based upon the data we have. They can be used as a management tool and contribute to the Urban Forest Master Plan, but they are not only sources of input and/or data. The issues you bring up today are good considerations.
• Comment: I would like to see if there is a correlation between income levels and canopy levels. • Comment: There is a soil-type correlation to consider; soils change dramatically from area to area in Sacramento, so it is hard to establish tree canopies in some places. To achieve a higher percentage of tree canopy in some areas, it is not a social just issue but a soil-type issue. For example, a lot of trees aged out and died in South Natomas due to bad soil. • Comment: The Energy Commission, today, adopted a new building standard for all construction after 2020 – solar panels need to cover 20% of all new housing developments. • Comment: With California now requiring solar to be built on all new developments’ roofs after 2020, I see a natural competition between tree canopy and solar need. Are there other communities with similar predicaments?
o Project team response: Some communities look at walk-in gardens or look for a centralized place to put solar panels. With this new requirement, the City will have to examine its effects on tree planting and consider where to place solar panels in relation to planting trees.
• Comment: Regarding neighborhoods we want the City’s tree canopy to resemble, Land Park has a tree canopy that covers the streets and helps shade homes, reduce energy costs, increase property values, and reduce the cost of maintaining streets. I think all neighborhoods should look like Land Park.
• Comment: In 100 years, the climate of Sacramento will be more like the climate of Tucson, Arizona. At the current rate of climate change, it is important that we plan for tree species in the future that are heat and drought resilient. There will be more swings between heavy storms and dry winters. This is something that will be very important to consider. However, this shouldn’t be a discouragement to planting more trees. More trees will help make summers more pleasant and cool, and trees also encourage people to walk and bike outside and enjoy the outdoors.
Factoring in the urban heat island effect, which is a growing problem for region, I think a higher tree canopy would be better. Plus, trees can also encourage more rainfall. • Comment: I think at least a 35% canopy goal is good; the City of Citrus Heights has this goal. For a 20-year time frame, it is important to set an ambitious goal. • Comment: How do we motivate property owners to plant and maintain a tree? If a tree causes damage to a sidewalk, who is responsible for fixing it and how will the City address it? o Project team response: In general, for smaller trees, planting, maintenance, and removal is not regulated by the City. If a tree is larger than a certain size, then it is the property owners’ responsibility to apply for a permit and requires City approval to remove the SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
130
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
tree. Sidewalk repairs are the property owners’ responsibility, regardless of the cause of damage.
• Comment: To reach a 35% canopy goal, would we have to plant all of the trees necessary within in next 5 years so that we reach the goal within the 20-year time-frame? o Project team response: No. The canopy goal does not have to be set as a 20-year goal. • Comment: Ignoring the cost, I’d want 45% or an even higher canopy. But cost is an important factor.
• Comment: Since most trees are smaller than 12-inches in diameter, is there a way to see what kind of benefits we can expect from those?
• Comment: The City should look at the canopy cover over trails, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and sidewalks to see where we can plant trees. If we see what space would be needed to plant trees there, then you can use that information to inform the City’s canopy goal. Shade over streets and bike trails is desirable, especially where it is exceptionally hot in the summer. Also, shade over streets would encourage pedestrian and bike activity.
Is 50% a reasonable goal for shade required in parking lots? Do we want to adjust that? How can the City make this goal more successful and increase compliance? How should the City factor in solar with these requirements?
• Comment: Build less parking and require less parking. For existing parking lots, the City should implement a pilot program aimed towards finding a balance between solar panels and trees. This is an important question about infrastructure that needs to be handled. • Comment: We need more outreach and education of the rules around tree planting and maintenance. At the Cannery, people are complaining because the property owner recently cut down some of the trees in the parking lot. The trees were not large enough to be privately protected, but they provided significant shade. It is important to keep private property owners aware of what they are supposed to be doing. People break rules all the time without knowing it. • Comment: We do not have strong enough language to enforce parking lot shade requirements.
The City should reshape the Urban Forest Master Plan so there is a focus on air quality, water quality, and urban heat ordinances.
• Comment: A bare parking lot is the best place to plant a tree, in terms of the water quality benefits it provides, because of all the oil that is left at the lot. • Comment: Suburban parking lots should have different requirements than urban parking lots. • Comment: The City should consider different requirements for different land uses and conditional use permits. For example, new cannabis operations in warehouse districts have a tremendous opportunity for additional trees around their buildings and in their parking lots. • Comment: There must be enforcement.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
131
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
• Question: Giving more spaces for trees only applies to new parking lots. To my understanding, older or retro-fitted parking lots do not have to comply, correct? o Project team response: If a parking lot was built before 1983, and expands by less than 50%, they are only required to meet the 50% shade goal on the newer portion of the lot.
However, if the lot expands by more than 50%, the shade goal must be met for the entire lot.
• Comment: Property owners of spaces that stress open air could explore community solar benefits. If a space cannot have trees, then there should at least be a requirement for solar panels on parking lot roofs, so the lot provides some type of positive benefit to communities.
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
132
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.
Feedback Forms
Below is a summary of all the input obtained from stakeholder representatives through feedback forms.
1a. Is the City appropriately shaded at the current tree canopy level?
No
• Sacramento’s tree canopy is specifically lacking in underrepresented neighborhoods. • The city’s canopy coverage is uneven and often sparse in lower-income areas. • The parking lot ordinance needs to be enforced.
• For an example of a "good feeling" shaded street, see Stacia Way in Hollywood Park. • In particular, low-income and communities of color in Sacramento have less access to the benefits of the urban forest.
• The City needs more trees, especially in currently under-shaded communities, for the benefits: air quality, aesthetics, storm water, and cooling to mitigate heat islands and extreme heat. • It's great, but surrounding neighborhoods could be much better. • Many neighborhoods need trees for shade; all neighborhoods should be 40%. • Even the Midtown / East Sacramento areas have gaps, and certain neighborhoods are very canopy deprived.
0%
100%
Yes
No
SACRAMENTO URBAN FOREST PLAN – PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
133
City of Sacramento – Urban Forest Master Plan
Stakeholder Representative Group Meeting #1
May 9, 2018 | 4:00 – 6:00 p.m.