Yuba City City Council
June 21, 2022

14 Benefits from Trees and Canopy
Trees in the urban forest work continuously to mitigate the effects of urbanization and development and protect and enhance lives within the community in many ways. Healthy trees are vigorous, producing more leaf surface and canopy cover area each year.

The amount and distribution of leaf surface area are the driving force behind the urban forest’s ability to produce services for the community (Clark et al, 1997). Services (i.e., benefits) include:

ENERGY SAVINGS
• Transpiration converts moisture to water vapor, thereby cooling the air by using solar energy that would otherwise result in heating of the air (Heisler, 1986; Ellison et al, 2017; Huang et al, 1990; Lyle, 1996).
• Producing shade for dwellings and hardscape reduces the energy needed to cool the building with air conditioning (Akbari et al, 1997).

URBAN HEAT ISLAND
• Shade reduces the amount of radiant energy absorbed and stored by hardscapes and other impervious surfaces, thereby reducing the heat island effect, a term that describes the increase in urban temperatures in relation to surrounding locations (Akbari et al, 1997; McDonald et al, 2016).

CARBON DIOXIDE REDUCTION
• Trees and forests directly reduce CO2 in the atmosphere through growth and sequestration of CO2 in woody and foliar biomass. • Indirectly, trees and forests reduce CO2 by lowering the demand for energy and reducing CO2 emissions from the consumption of natural gas and the generation of electric power. Reducing energy use has the added bonus of reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuel power plants.

AESTHETICS
• Provide beauty in the urban landscape, privacy to homeowners, provide a sense of comfort & place, and even contribute to increased property values (Theriault et al, 2001).

CO2
CO2

15 AIR QUALITY
• Trees protect and improve air quality by intercepting particulate matter (PM2.5), including dust, pollen, and smoke.

The particulates are filtered and held in the tree canopy until precipitation rinses the particulates harmlessly to the ground. • Trees absorb harmful gaseous pollutants like ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Shade and transpiration reduce the formation of O3, which is created at higher temperatures. Scientists are now finding that some trees may absorb more volatile organic compounds (VOCs) than previously thought (Karl, 2010; Science Now, 2010).

VOCs are carbon-based particles emitted from automobile exhaust, lawnmowers, and other human activities.
• Increasing oxygen levels through photosynthesis

STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND

WATER QUALITY
• The tree canopy creates interception, which during storm events reduces and slows runoff (Xiao et al, 1998). In addition to catching stormwater, canopy interception lessens the impact of raindrops on barren soils. Root growth and decomposition increase the capacity and rate of soil infiltration by rainfall and snow melt (McPherson et al, 2002). Each of these
processes greatly reduces the flow and volume of stormwater runoff, avoiding erosion and preventing sediments and other pollutants from entering streams, rivers, and lakes, which is a source of pollution that threatens aquatic wildlife.
• Increasing soil capacity and rate of infiltration
HEALTH
• Exposure to nature, including trees, has a positive impact on human health and wellness through improvements in mental and physical health, including lower incidence of depressive symptoms (Kuo, 2001; Sherer, 2003; Jennings et al, 2016).

PUBLIC SAFETY
• Park-like surroundings increase neighborhood safety
by relieving mental fatigue and feelings of violence and aggression that can occur as an outcome of fatigue (American Planning Association, 2003).
• Residents who live near outdoor greenery tend to be more familiar with nearby neighbors, socialize more with them, and express greater feelings of community and safety than residents lacking nearby green spaces (American Planning Association, 2003).
• 25% reduced incidence of domestic crimes when landscapes and trees are planted near their homes (Kuo, 2001).
• Correlations have been found between increased tree
coverage and decreased crime rates, even after adjusting for a number of other variables, such as median household income, level of education, and rented versus owner-occupied housing (Gilstad-Hayden et al, 2015; Troy et al, 2012).

ACADEMICS
• Positive correlations between exposure to nature and student success, and lack of views of natural features were negatively associated with student performance (Matsuoka, 2010).

ECONOMIC ACTIVITY
• Research shows that trees promote better business by
stimulating more frequent and extended shopping and
willingness to pay more for goods (Wolf, 1999).

WILDLIFE
• Wooded streets potentially function as movement corridors, allowing certain species—particularly those feeding on the ground and breeding in trees or tree holes— to fare well by supporting alternative habitat for feeding and nesting (Fernandez-Juricic, 2000).
• Greater tree density improves outcomes for birds and bats (Threlfall et al, 2016).
• Trees and forest lands provide critical habitat (for foraging, nesting, spawning, etc.) for mammals, birds, fish, and other aquatic species. Trees can offer pollinators a valuable source of flowering plants. By including an array of flowering trees that provide pollen and nectar in the urban forest, bees are provided with additional food sources. Increasing tree species diversity and richness contributes to greater numbers of bird species among urban bird communities (Pena et al, 2017). • Restoration of urban riparian corridors and their linkages to surrounding natural areas have facilitated the movement of wildlife and dispersal of flora (Dwyer et al, 1992). Usually, habitat creation and enhancement increases biodiversity and complements many other beneficial functions of the urban forest. These findings indicate an urgent need for conservation and restoration measures to improve landscape connectivity, which will reduce extinction rates and help maintain ecosystem services (Haddad et al, 2015).

Calculating Tree Benefits
Communities can calculate the benefits of their
urban forest by using a complete inventory or
sample data in conjunction with the USDA Forest
Service i-Tree software tools (itreetools.org). This
open-source, state-of-the-art, peer-reviewed
software suite considers regional environmental
data and costs to quantify the ecosystem
services unique to a given urban forest resource. Individuals can calculate the benefits of trees to their property by using i-Tree Design (www.itreetools.org/design).

CO2

16 What do we have?
Did you know?
Yuba City continues to be a community that values its trees.

An article from the Marysville Daily Appeal, published in 1919, highlights a story about George C. Roeding, a nurseryman from Fresno, who regularly harvested nuts from the “worlds’ largest walnut tree”, located on a residential property, just north of the Sutter County Courthouse (present-day Courthouse West).

Reportedly, the nurseryman used the nuts from this massive walnut tree, with a circumference of 15 feet and four inches, to produce a variety of walnut known as ‘Paradox’, a cross between a Northern California black walnut and an English walnut.

Although Yuba City’s establishment is tied to the
Gold Rush, settlers quickly discovered that the
rich soil along the riverbeds was ideal for fruit and
nut bearing trees. The river provided additional
opportunities for sub irrigating crops. Orange and
lemon trees were amongst the first fruit bearing
trees brought to the area and planted around
homes, but later stone fruits became a central crop.

Early homes were built amongst stately oaks,
mulberries, and cottonwoods. Settlers highly
regarded mature trees affronting homes,
outbuildings, and lining roads because they
created a shady refuge on hot days. One California
white mulberry, at the Gilbert M. Smith Ranch,
was recorded for its grandeur and integral role in
shading livestock and the horse trough that was
used for bathing.

Peach orchards began appearing in the early
1880s and the first cannery was established around
1886. Before the establishment of the cannery,
growers planted various varieties of fruit trees.

Later, and to the detriment of some producers, they
found out that the cannery only accepted peaches
that produced clear syrup. Fruit was pulled by two
horse teams to the cannery on wagons that had
box beds and springs. By 1918, the Harter Packing
Company opened a cannery closer to the orchards
and prided itself on canning fruit the same day it
was picked.

Horticulturist, Joseph Phillips, in partnership with A.

F. Abbott, planted 60 acres of peaches just south of
Yuba City. Three years after planting, these trees
produced 200 tons of fruit that was sold for $80/ton.

The Hull family planted peach and apricot orchards.

The flavor of their peaches was high-quality, but
they produced colored syrup when they were
canned. The Hull’s dug up their peach orchards
and replanted with varieties that the cannery would
accept. The varieties changed throughout the
years, and the Hulls planted over seven varieties
that reflected what was in demand. These varieties
were clingstone peaches, a group of peaches with
the shared characteristic that the fruit does not fall
off the pit.

To this day, clingstone peaches are consistently in
the top 5 ranking crops in Sutter County and fruit
and nut crops have the highest gross production
value. The Harter Packing Company reported
canning around 30,000 pounds of peaches in 2002.

Walnut, peaches, plums, and almonds are amongst
the leading tree fruit crops in the area. The area
around Yuba City is known for the production of
organic fruits and vegetables, with over 17,000
acres in production (California Department of
Agriculture, 2018).

In the 1980s, a developer was threatening to
remove a stand of California white oaks (Quercus
lobata) in a detention pond north of Shanghai
Garden Park (pictured on the right). But because
the community advocated on the behalf of the
trees, the trees were protected and still stand today.

History of the Urban Forest

17

18 Public Trees

21.9%
Private Trees

78.1%
Urban Forest Resource
Yuba City encompasses approximately 14.9 square
miles (9,545 acres) and includes 1,824 acres of
tree canopy for an average canopy cover of 19.1%.

The majority (78%) of tree canopy cover is on
private property (1,423.9 acres). The community
tree resource is estimated to provide 400.1 acres
of canopy1 (Figure 1). Tree canopy extends beyond
property lines and so do the benefits, which are
enjoyed by residents, neighboring communities, and
the region. The more tree canopy, the more benefits
to the community.

FIGURE 1: CANOPY COVER DISTRIBUTION

BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND
1 Yuba City, CA Resource Analysis (2020)

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF

TREE CANOPY
To better understand the distribution of tree canopy
and associated benefits, Yuba City was divided into
four quadrants. Colusa Highway was used as the
north-south boundary and Highway 99 for the eastwest boundary.

Canopy cover is highest in the northwest, at nearly
23%. Currently, northeast Yuba City has the lowest
canopy cover, at 17.6%. The northeast quadrant
of the city is characterized by older neighborhoods
with primarily older, mature private trees and
generally do not have any trees in the rights-of-way.

All areas of Yuba City have experienced an
increase in canopy. Since 2003, canopy cover has
increased 141% in the northwest from 417.4 acres to
558.1 acres (Table 3). Most notably, the southeast,
which had the lowest canopy cover in 2003 (12%)
saw the greatest increase in canopy acres (47.5
acres) and the greatest increase in canopy cover
(currently 17.7%).

Throughout Yuba City, trees have a lot of
competition for space. Development pressures are
particularly strong in the southwest part of the city
and could result in a loss of canopy in the future if
protection measures are not provided.

TABLE 3: CANOPY COVER BY QUADRANT
Quadrant Acres
Canopy
Acres
Canopy
%
Impervious
Acres
Impervious
%
Canopy Acres
2003
Canopy %
2003
Difference in
Acres 2003-2018
% Change
2003-2018
Absolute
Change
Yuba City Southwest 2,548 462.13 18.14 1,338 52.51 414.81 16.28 11.41 47.31 1.86 Yuba City Southeast 2,893 511.51 17.68 1,5 1,570 70 54.28 346.68 11.98 47.54 164.81 5.70 Yuba City Northwest 2,438 558.09 22.89 1,219 50.01 417.36 17.12 33.72 140.72 5.77 Yuba City Northeast 1,665 292.40 17.56 918 55.15 221.66 13.31 31.92 70.74 4.25 The most appealing
neighborhoods and
business districts in
California are those with
mature & interesting trees.

Survey Respondent

MAP 1: OVERALL LAND COVER
19 Yuba City, CA
Land Cover Classification
Quadrants

20 TREE CANOPY BY PARKS MAP 2: YUBA CITY PARKS
Yuba City has 25 parks, which combined cover a
total of 265.5 acres (Table 4). The parks vary in
size, form, and use, where some parks provide
residents with ball fields and others have detention
ponds or open green spaces. The availability
of space to plant trees is limited by the different
land uses in parks. For example, ball fields are
unsuitable sites for tree planting. However, parks
that do have ball fields likely can still support some
tree planting. In fact, Blackburn-Talley Sports
Complex, the second largest park, currently has
nearly 12% canopy cover, but could support
additional trees, which is evident from its potential
canopy cover of nearly 23%.

Feather River Parkway, the largest park, has the
most canopy acres (172.9 acres) and nearly 30%
canopy cover with a potential canopy cover of
nearly 78%. While the land cover data suggests
that there is a large area suitable for planting
trees, Feather River Parkway is a natural area that
does not have irrigation and only trees adjacent
to trails are actively managed. Parks Maintenance
staff have planted trees in this park to promote
wildlife habitat, but the lack of irrigation provides a challenge for tree selection and establishment. With
an average canopy cover of 27.7%, almost all parks
have the space to accommodate additional tree
planting. Although all but one park has the potential
to support additional tree planting, to maximize
available planting funds and provide the greatest
benefit to the overall community, planting priority
should be considered first (Table 4).

Yuba City, CA
Parks

21 2 Approximately 30 acres of Feather River Parkway are outside of city limits, but are still maintained by Yuba City Parks Maintenance. 3 Walton Park and Geweke Field are parks managed by the local school district.

TABLE 4: CANOPY COVER BY PARKS
Park Acres Canopy
Acres Canopy % Impervious Acres
Grass/Low
Lying Veg.

Acres
Bare
Soil
Acres
Open
Water
Acres
Potential
Plantable
Acres
Potential
Canopy %
Feather River Parkway2 172.89 29.73 17.19 14.14 86.07 34.76 8.18 105.05 77.95 Blackburn-Talley Sports Complex 12.76 1.50 11.75 3.40 5.80 2.06 0.00 1.38 22.55 Gauche Aquatic Park 8.64 1.98 22.96 4.28 1.73 0.64 0.00 2.37 50.43 Sam Brannan Park 8.51 2.42 28.44 3.06 2.64 0.38 0.00 3.03 64.01 Happy Park 6.81 0.75 11.02 0.53 5.25 0.29 0.00 0.95 25.01 Hillcrest Park 6.67 1.87 28.11 0.29 4.50 0.01 0.00 0.46 35.01 Regency Park 6.29 1.04 16.57 1.76 3.20 0.30 0.00 0.01 16.71 Shanghai Garden Park 6.02 2.77 45.94 0.54 2.65 0.07 0.00 2.72 91.00 Walton Park3 5.73 0.67 11.61 2.23 1.90 0.94 0.00 0.57 21.52 Greenwood Park 5.42 1.84 33.89 0.51 3.01 0.05 0.00 0.55 43.98 Northridge Park 4.48 2.20 49.07 0.31 1.88 0.09 0.00 1.42 80.84 Kingwood Park 4.21 1.58 37.59 0.54 1.86 0.22 0.00 0.19 42.16 Geweke Field3 3.97 0.14 3.46 0.95 2.63 0.26 0.00 0.55 17.44 Holly Tree Park 3.56 0.41 11.62 0.01 2.97 0.16 0.00 0.09 14.15 Civic Center Field 3.20 0.08 2.54 0.12 0.01 2.99 0.00 3.00 96.15 Lloyd Park 1.63 0.49 30.23 0.00 0.95 0.18 0.00 1.13 99.71 Maple Park 1.05 0.87 82.36 0.11 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 89.68 Bogue Park 0.89 0.39 43.97 0.00 0.40 0.10 0.00 0.49 99.47 Town Square 0.82 0.20 24.58 0.21 0.39 0.01 0.00 0.41 74.09 Moore Park 0.69 0.00 0.68 0.03 0.49 0.16 0.00 0.66 95.61 Southside Park 0.64 0.13 20.62 0.12 0.29 0.10 0.00 0.39 81.90 Patriot Park 0.25 0.06 24.75 0.10 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 58.68 Plumas Tower 0.19 0.13 67.81 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Veterans Park 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.11 66.08 Clark-Ainsley Mini-Park 0.06 0.04 64.63 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 94.76 Our parks and parking lots
desperately need more
shade.

Survey Respondent

22 Yuba City, CA
Canopy Rights-of-way
CANOPY BY RIGHTS-OF-WAY MAP 3: CANOPY COVER BY RIGHTS-OF-WAY To better understand the canopy distribution
provided by trees that are actually maintained
by the city, canopy cover was reviewed for the
public rights-of-way (ROW). Using street segments
obtained from the USDA website and a 75-
foot buffer from road centerlines broken up by
intersections, it was estimated that Yuba City’s
public rights-of-way encompasses 5,783 acres, with
648 acres of canopy and an average canopy cover
of 11.2%.

The highest level of canopy cover in the ROW is

52.7% on Plumas Boulevard (north of C Street and
south of Franklin Avenue). The average canopy
cover on Plumas Boulevard is 37.4%. Several street
segments have no canopy cover in the ROW.

There is an estimated 74 acres of available planting
space in the ROW (Tree Canopy & Land Cover
Assessment, 2020).

23

24 F I G U R E 2 : A N N U A L B E N E F I T S S U M M A R Y

FOR YUBA CITY
ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS FIGURE 3: HISTORIC CHANGE
To date, Yuba City’s urban forest has stored
229,115 tons of carbon (CO₂) in woody biomass,
valued at over $39.0 million. Annually, this resource
provides $1.8 million in benefits to air quality,
stormwater, and carbon sequestration (Figure 2).

HISTORICAL CHANGE
Historical change in tree canopy was assessed
using a point sampling of canopy data derived from
2003 and 2018 imagery. To determine change in
canopy cover over the 15-years, land cover was
visually inspected at each point for both years
simultaneously and was identified as one of five
classes: tree canopy, impervious surfaces, grass/
shrub, bare soil, and open water. Tree canopy
cover was analyzed using a “top-down” or “birds’-
eye” approach. Therefore, where tree canopy
visibly overlapped with another land cover class,
tree canopy was recorded at the point location.

From 2003 to 2018, tree canopy cover increased
from 14.7% to 19.1%, this is a 23.1% increase over
a 15-year period. In this time period, the population
has increased by 20.1%.

14.7%

19.1%
48,998
67,010
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2003 2018
Canopy Cover
Population
Point Sample Year

25 CANOPY GOALS AND TREE

CANOPY POTENTIAL
The Tree Canopy and Land Cover Assessment
(2019) identified 1,940 acres where trees could
be planted to augment existing canopy. Of these
potential planting sites, approximately 383 acres
were considered high or very high priority (Map
4). While it is important to prioritize planting in
these areas, it is equally important to prioritize the
preservation of existing trees, too. If Yuba City
were to plant trees to cover all of this area, then the overall average tree canopy could be increased to

39.4%.

MAP 4: PLANTING PRIORITY
Yuba City, CA
Priority Planting Levels

SETTING CANOPY GOALS
Setting canopy goals is an important step in urban
forest management and can help to ensure the
quality of life and sustainability of a community.

While the tree canopy potential for Yuba City is
currently 39.4%, this value does not consider the
potential for other land cover. Agricultural land
and undeveloped areas are common in Yuba City.

Some of these areas will inevitably be developed to
include structures, roads, and parking lots that will
compete with trees for space. The population of the
community is increasing, and development will likely
continue to expand and create more competition for
trees, especially with some developers advocating
for omitting park strips in new subdivisions to allow
for the construction of larger homes. Due to current
setbacks, there would not be adequate space for a
tree in a front yard.

Considering the existing land cover and
development pressures, a goal of 25% tree canopy
cover by 2040 is likely attainable but will require the commitment and support of the community.

Canopy goals can be tailored to specific land use,
such as residential zones or parks. A determinant
for actually reaching canopy goals is dependent on
the willingness of the community to accomplish and
sustain these goals. Expansion of canopy cannot
be accomplished through planting trees on public
property alone, it also requires preservation and
conservation of existing trees and new tree planting
on private property. Approximately 78% of tree
canopy is on private property in Yuba City, which
makes tree canopy expansion on private property
especially important to reach the community’s tree
canopy goal.
26

Carbon Sequestred
$21,177 44.0%
Pollution
Removal
$19,008

39.5%
Avoided
Runoff
$7,957

16.5%
Community Tree Resource
Community trees (publicly managed trees along
streets, in parks, and at city facilities) play a
vital role in Yuba City. They provide numerous
tangible and intangible benefits to residents,
visitors, and neighboring communities. The
community recognizes that community trees are
a valued resource, a vital component of the urban
infrastructure, and part of the city’s identity.

STRUCTURE & COMPOSITION

OF THE COMMUNIT Y TREE

RESOURCE
Yuba City’s community tree inventory includes
11,846 trees and 1,320 available planting sites
(2019). Considering species composition and
diversity, age distribution, condition, canopy
coverage, and replacement value, the following
information characterizes Yuba City’s community
tree resource: • The most common species are red maple (Acer rubrum, 16.8%), crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia spp.,

7.7%), and trident maple (Acer buergerianum,

7.5%).
• 55.8% of trees are less than 8 inches in diameter
(DBH) and 4.4% of trees are larger than 24 inches
in diameter, indicating an established resource.
• 81.2% are in good condition, with 3.2% in poor or
worse condition.
• Community trees provide an estimated 400.1
acres of canopy cover, 21.9% of the overall
canopy cover, but represent less than 1% of the
total land area.
• The current stocking level for the community
tree inventory is 90.0%, based on a total 13,166
suitable planting sites, including 11,846 trees,
1,181 vacant sites, and 139 stumps.
• Replacement of the 11,846 community trees with
trees of equivalent size, species, and condition,
would cost over $33.6 million.
27 I strongly believe in maintaining and
absolutely adding more trees to the
Yuba City community. They provide
the necessary shade to balance out
the hot and long summers in this
area. They encourage people to be
outside more, improve air quality,
and beautify the area.

Survey Respondent
• Community trees store nearly 3,042 tons of
carbon (CO₂) in woody and foliar biomass
• Annually, community trees provide nearly
$48,142 to the community, an average of $4.06
per tree.

These benefits include:

A limitation of the annual benefits summary is that
it does not fully account for all benefits provided
by the community tree resource. Some benefits
could not be included in the analysis such as
reductions in energy use (electricity and natural
gas) through shading and climate effects. Other
benefits are intangible and/or difficult to quantify
such as increases in property values and impacts
on psychological and physical health, crime, and
violence.

Empirical evidence of these benefits does exist
(Wolf, 2007; Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Ulrich,
1986), but there is limited knowledge about the
physical processes at work and the complex
nature of interactions make quantification
imprecise. Tree growth and mortality rates
are highly variable. A true and full accounting
of benefits and investments must consider
variability among sites (e.g., tree species, growing
conditions, maintenance practices) throughout the
city, as well as variability in tree growth. In other
words, trees are worth far more than what
one can ever quantify!
F I G U R E 4 : A N N U A L B E N E F I T S

FROM COMMUNITY TREES

28 SPECIES DIVERSIT Y
The number of unique species (156) in the
community tree resource greatly exceeds the
mean of 53 species reported by McPherson and
Rowntree (1989) in their nationwide survey of
street tree populations in 22 US cities. The three
most predominant species represent 32.0%.

Maintaining diversity in a community tree resource
is important. Dominance of any single species or
genus can have detrimental consequences in the
event of storms, drought, disease, pests, or other
stressors that can severely affect a community
tree resource and the flow of benefits and costs
over time. Catastrophic pathogens, such as Dutch
FIGURE 5: MOST PREVALENT SPECIES
elm disease (Ophiostoma ulmi), emerald ash
borer (Agrilus planipennis), Asian longhorned
beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis), and sudden
oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) are some
examples of unexpected, devastating, and costly
pests and pathogens that highlight the importance
of diversity and the balanced distribution of
species and genera. In addition to these pests,
there is growing concern for polyphagous shot
hole borer (PSHB) (Euwallacea spp.), a new pest
complex that has devastated urban forests in
Southern California due to its wide host range
(Eskalen, 2015).

Consequences of Monocultures
Prior to the devastating impacts of Dutch elm disease, it was a common trend to design streets with a single species and therefore promote monocultures. When many individuals of a single species are concentrated in a small area, the impact of a stressor can have significant implications. Like the majority of communities, Yuba City named streets after trees and planted some streets with a continuous lining of a single tree species. It is common for a particular species to be abundant within a small area of the community. For example, Plumas Blvd. is lined with sycamores and ginkgo trees are concentrated in Veteran’s Circle, north of City Hall. This design appeals to many people because it is aesthetically pleasing and promotes the character of an area, but current industry standards do not recommend this practice.

Long term management can be achieved through successional planting and removal or replacement with a wider variety of species, which is already occurring in Yuba City. A near monoculture of tulip trees was planted in south end of town. Tulip trees are a species that has proven to be particularly susceptible to drought stress. As a result of a historic drought, Yuba City lost approximately 100 tulip trees. This significantly impacted tree canopy, but urban forest managers began replacement plantings with a wider range of species.

Many neighborhoods in Yuba City have a high density of
maple trees as street tree plantings, which can increase the implications of pests and pathogens. Boxelder bugs thrive in these neighborhoods and other areas of Yuba City that have a high proportion of maple trees. Recently, urban forest managers began requiring the incorporation of greater tree diversity in new developments. Diversity at the street level should also be considered during replacement plantings throughout Yuba City. Not only does the climate allow a broad species palette to thrive, but there is an opportunity to increase resiliency in the urban forest. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
All other species
camphor tree
white ash
black tupelo
scarlet oak
Freeman maple
California white oak
American sycamore
ginkgo
Chinese hackberry
tulip tree
northern red oak
coast redwood
London plane
Japanese zelkova
Chinese pistache
Shumard oak
trident maple
crape myrtle
red maple
% of Population
Species
28

29 In light of significant pests and diseases, many
cities are opting to increase diversity to improve
resilience. The widely used 10-20-30 rule of thumb
states that an urban tree population should consist
of no more than 10% of any one species, 20% of
any one genus, and 30% of any one family (Clark
et al, 1997; Santamour, 1990). While this rule does
ensure a minimum level of diversity, it may not
encourage enough genetic diversity to adequately
support resilience. Therefore the 10-20-30 rule
should be considered a minimum goal. Managers
should always strive to increase the range of
representation among species and genera within
an urban forest. Among Yuba City’s community
tree population, red maple (Acer rubrum) exceeds
this well-accepted rule, and the genus of maples
(Acer spp.) exceeds the 20% rule.

To increase species diversity and promote greater
resilience in the overall resource, future tree
planting should focus on increasing diversity and
reducing reliance on overused species. As overpredominant species are removed and replaced, new species should be introduced when possible.

New species should be resistant to the known pest
issues that currently pose a threat to the region. In
addition, consideration should be given to species
that withstand higher temperatures and periods of
drought.

30 TABLE 5: PLANTING CYCLE FOR RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Maples and the Boxelder bug
Boxelder bugs (Boisea trivittatus) are a seed feeding species of insect.

Boxelder (Acer negundo) is their primary host, but they are known to feed on other species of maples, ash, and fruit trees. Indeed, they can be a nuisance for residents when congregating in large numbers or entering homes during the fall and winter. In order to decrease the number of box elder bugs congregating outdoors, residents can try to manage their numbers by (1) using a forceful stream of water to knock off and drown the bugs, (2) spraying them with laundry detergent or soap (where direct contact with these chemicals kills the insect), (3) knocking or brushing them into a bucket of soapy water, (4) cleaning fallen branches and seed pods from under the female box elder trees, and (5) removing debris from around the building, particularly on the south and west sides since these places get more winter sun. If the bugs become an inconvenience inside of homes, it is best to locate indoor congregations and then block any nearby crevices and repair any damaged windows or screens. Vacuuming the insects is an effective way to remove them from homes (Peairs, 2014; Perry 2014).

Boxelder bugs do not warrant the removal of healthy trees because they cause minor damage to their host trees and are only an annoyance. Furthermore, the use of insecticides is rarely recommended because of the many alternative management options that are less toxic and, in most cases, more effective. Insecticides are toxic to humans and other animals and should not come in contact with non-target organisms (including non-target insects such as pollinators). Some life stages of the insect (larger nymphs and adults) are more tolerant to insecticides; therefore, insecticide applications may not be very effective. If insecticides are used, applications should target the insects when they are small nymphs, and more vulnerable.

Insecticide resistance can occur when applications do not target the younger, more vulnerable life stages.

Long term management can be achieved through removal/replacement of declining trees that are attractive hosts to boxelder bugs.

Replacement plantings should be with a non-host species to lessen the impact.

PLANTING PRIORITY IN THE

RIGHTS-OF-WAY
While meeting canopy goals require support
and collaboration from private property owners
to ultimately meet the need for additional tree
plantings, Yuba City can work to expand tree
canopy through increased planting in the public
rights-of-way. Considering the amount of acreage
within the public rights-of-way (74 acres), managers
have an opportunity to not only support citywide canopy goals, but also increase equitable distribution of canopy through additional tree
planting within the public rights-of-way. When areas
of lower canopy cover and household median
income were considered, approximately 46 acres
were classified as high or very high planting
priority.

While available planting areas may ultimately be
established over the next several decades, the
trees that are planted in the next several years,
should be planned for areas in most need, and
30 Existing Trees

90.0%
Vacant Sites

10.0%

STOCKING LEVEL
The stocking level is an indication of how many
planting sites within the community contain trees.

It is clear that managers have prioritized tree
planting in Yuba City, as the estimated stocking
level for the community tree resource is currently

90.0%. Yuba City’s community tree resource
contains 11,846 existing trees. The stocking rate,
calculated using the inventory’s 1,320 available
planting sites and 13,166 total sites, is quite high.

FIGURE 6: STOCKING LEVEL
Planting Cycle Year Number of Planting
Areas
Estimated Planting
Miles
Average Planting
Area (Acres)
Estimated Total
Planting Area (Acres)
1 8 4.47 1.29 10
2 10 6.59 0.99 10
3 26 10.20 0.58 15
4 24 7.49 0.38 9
5 47 16.01 0.24 11
6 172 45.00 0.11 19

where they will provide the most benefits and return
on investment. In order to provide the most benefits
to the community and to maximize available funds,
a planting cycle can be used to prioritize planting
of trees within the public rights-of-way. Table 5 and
Map 5 outline a six-year planting plan, to prioritize
planting in areas that currently have low canopy
and low median income. The areas indicated in red
are areas that should be planted in the first year of
the planting cycle, which include nearly 4.5 miles of
rights-of-way. Whereas areas in blue include areas
with lesser planting priority and can be delayed until
later in the cycle, or as funds become available. Not
all areas within the public rights-of-way are suitable
for planting. Areas that are too small to support
trees within the public rights-of-way included 1,779
planting areas, which on average were less than

0.05 acres in size. These planting areas were not
considered in the planting cycle and are indicated
on the map in gray.

MAP 5: PLANTING PRIORITY BY RIGHTS-OF-WAY
31

32 We need help for property
owners in choosing the right
trees and how to maintain
them in off seasons.

Survey Respondent

33 Park Maintenance–Urban Forestry Operations
Parks & Grounds Superintendent (1)
Parks Maintenance Supervisor
& City Arborist (1)
Maintenance Worker III (2)
Maintenance Worker II (4)
Maintenance Worker I (5)
The Parks and Recreation Department
maintenance staff are responsible for the
management of community trees within the
public rights-of-way, parks, and public places.

Maintenance in LLMDs is primarily conducted by
city contractors. Most of Park Maintenance staff’s
time is spent on landscaping, debris removal, and
maintenance of 16 playgrounds in 23 city parks
and 20% is spent on management of trees at
parks and facilities.

Park Maintenance staff perform the following
services:
• Tree maintenance in parks and City facilities
(planting, pruning, watering, removal, stump
grinding, and leaf/debris pick up).
• Contract monitoring (planting, grid pruning,
visibility and clearance pruning, watering,
removal, stump grinding, and leaf pick up of park
strips in LLMDs and public rights-of-way [areas
that pre-date LLMDs]).
• Responding to service requests.
• Emergency response.
• Community outreach & engagement.

Currently, the Parks Maintenance Division consists
of 13 staff, who all provide a standard level of
care to community trees. Parks Maintenance staff
maintain park trees and trees at City facilities with
a bucket truck (1999), a brush chipper (2017), and
a stump grinder (1999). Prior to the 2008 financial
crisis, the Parks Maintenance Division staffed 28
people who were responsible for the maintenance
of all community trees (including trees within
LLMDs). During this time, contractors were only
used to supplement tree maintenance. After the
recession, due to budgetary constraints, staffing
levels were reduced and the Council directed
that maintenance of trees within the 84 LLMDs
be conducted exclusively by contractors. Utility
providers are responsible for tree maintenance
around transmission lines.

The Parks Maintenance Division is led by the Parks
Maintenance Supervisor & City Arborist, who is
an ISA certified arborist, and actively encourages
all staff to acquire their arborist ISA certification.

All staff participate in weekly safety “tailgate
briefings” where they are trained in proper use
and maintenance of equipment and are expected
to inspect all equipment before each shift and log
their inspection.

While tree care is dangerous, proper training and
good safety practices can help make the work
safer. The city uses a contractor to provide safety
training and consulting for all City departments.

Parks Maintenance staff have been proactive
in ensuring that tree crew members are trained
thoroughly and are provided with all necessary
personal protective equipment (PPE). While there
are no formalized standard operating procedures
(SOP) for safety practices, the Parks Maintenance
Division sets an expectation for regular and daily
inspection of all equipment and tree pruning tools
(e.g., pole saws, hand saws, and chainsaws) which
is consistent with recommendations set by the Tree
Care Industry Association (TCIA). Additionally,
tree crews are required to assess work sites for
potential hazards, energy sources, and Personal
Protective Equipment (PPE) prior to beginning
work.

34 TREE MAINTENANCE
Approximately 8,665 trees are within 58 LLMDs
and maintained by a contractor. There are 84
LLMDs, 26 of which do not contain any community
trees. An additional 4,516 trees are outside of
LLMDs, which may include trees in older parts of
the city that were never incorporated into an LLMD.

In contrast, park trees and trees at city facilities are maintained by in-house Parks Maintenance staff,
unless a tree exceeds 50-feet in height which will
then be handled by the city contractor.

Service Requests
Residents can report tree issues through the city
YC311 app and by calling the Parks and Recreation
Department directly. Using the app, residents can
include pictures with their requests. Generally, a
representative from Parks Maintenance will review
a request within 24 hours and assign a contractor,
in-house staff, or if a request involves a lifting
sidewalk, a representative from Street Maintenance
within two to three days. Due to the volume of
open service requests (approximately 60 open
requests), issues are generally resolved within
four weeks. Ideally, Parks Maintenance staff would
provide regular routine care, but due to the volume
of service requests, Parks Maintenance staff are
largely reactive at this time.

Tree Pruning
Yuba City has longstanding and high rapport with
landscaping contractors that maintain rights-ofway trees in LLMDs and areas that were never incorporated into an LLMD. Because maintenance
for trees is largely dependent on the initiation of a
service request, there are some trees that are likely
receiving care every three to four years, while other
trees that have no service requests are likely not
receiving any care.

Residents sometimes request extensive pruning
that is not always conducive to tree health.

Currently, Municipal Code defines residents’
responsibilities for the care of street trees to
include watering and fertilizing but does not
prohibit residents from pruning trees. As a result,
some residents and businesses may prune their
own street trees. This often results in trees being
improperly pruned and, in severe cases, “topped”
meaning the tops of trees are taken off and large
branches are reduced to stubs. These pruning
practices are stressful to trees because it removes
a significant amount of foliage and causes trees
to be more prone to pests, disease, decay, and
breaking.

Clearance and Visibility
Park Staff provide clearance and visibility pruning
for all park trees as needed. In the winter months,
pruning efforts are focused on addressing higher
priority maintenance needs and parks with the
most maintenance needs are addressed first. Park
Maintenance staff estimate that park trees are
maintained on a three to four-year cycle. Removals
and stump grinds in parks are conducted by inhouse Park Maintenance staff, but large tree removals (trees greater than 50-feet in height) are
contracted out.

The utility provider, PG&E, manages trees located
under utility lines. Trees should be directionally
pruned only by authorized line clearance
personnel to provide clearance and/or reduce
height. Municipal Code requires notification and
permission for any utility work that impacts trees
in the public rights-of-way. Some removals have
occurred, and the utility provider funded tree
plantings as mitigation. Selecting small-stature tree
species that are utility friendly for planting sites in utility rights-of-way can minimize the need for these
maintenance activities or removals.

Tree Inventory Management
In the past, all city trees and associated work
orders were managed through a hand-written
system, which was alphabetically organized
by street. With the 2019 tree inventory, the city
transitioned to using TreeKeeper8. Through this
software, managers can maintain historic records
of tree maintenance, update tree data as trees
are pruned or removed, and add new trees to the
inventory as they are planted.

Trees will always filter the
air and promote a since of
comfort, health and beauty.

Survey Respondent

35 TREE PLANTING
Street trees are planted in residential areas with
park strips. If a neighborhood was built without park
strips, there are no city-owned trees. Currently,
there is not a formal process for residents to
request street trees, rather Parks Maintenance
staff evaluate requests for trees on a case-bycase basis. In instances where residents have minimal to no space in the public rights-of-way,
Park Maintenance staff consider providing a tree
to be planted elsewhere on the property, with
the understanding that the resident is taking full
responsibility for maintenance of the tree.

Annually, approximately 200 trees are planted
throughout Yuba City’s LLMDs and at park and
city facilities. Species are selected from the
Recommended Street Trees List or the Yuba
City Tree Guide. Tree planting is primarily for
replacing trees that have previously been removed
and is prioritized in LLMDs that are fully funded.

In underfunded LLMDs, tree planting is mostly
dependent on grant funding. Similarly, areas
outside of the LLMDs are also dependent grant
funding for tree planting. The 2019 tree inventory
identified 1,320 available planting sites within the
city, which provided opportunities for additional tree
planting efforts throughout the community.

Once a tree is planted, per Municipal Code,
residents are responsible for watering and
fertilizing street trees, while Parks Maintenance
staff are responsible for watering trees in parks
and at city facilities. After installation, park trees
are irrigated weekly for a period of two months.

In new construction developments, developers
are responsible for funding new tree plantings
in the rights-of-way. The success of tree
establishment after planting is largely unknown.

New tree plantings have not historically been
monitored after planting in the LLMDs, but through
expanded use of the inventory management
software, mortality rates will be easier to track
in the future. In instances where trees have died
due to lack of watering, it has been policy that
the city will not contract to replace those trees. In
future plantings, Parks Maintenance staff should
consider incorporating biochar into the soil of new
planting sites. Research in biochar is showing
many potential benefits including increased soil
fertility, increased water retention and availability,
protection against some foliar and soil borne
diseases, and carbon sequestration and mitigation
of climate change (Lehmann 2007a/b; Winsley
2007).

In the years following a new tree planting, Park
Maintenance staff provide training pruning for
young park trees. For trees planted within the
LLMDs, the landscape contractor conducts training
pruning for newly planted trees. Training provides
an opportunity to address structural issues when
trees are small. Removing undesirable branches
when they are small is better for the tree and also
more cost-efficient. Smaller cuts heal more quickly,
require less time and safety considerations for tree
crews, and reduce the need for debris disposal.

The benefits of providing training pruning now, will
result in trees with better structure and reduced
costs for maintenance in the future.

According to Municipal Code, along with irrigating,
residents are also responsible for fertilizing street
trees. In most cases, trees do not need to be
fertilized and over fertilizing trees can negatively
affect their water efficiency and growth rates
(University of Georgia, 2020). As such, residents
being responsible for fertilization is likely not
conducive to tree health. Properly diagnosing
nutrient deficiencies or toxicities requires
consultation from a well-qualified plant health care
provider and in many instances a soil test might be
required, as diagnosing these issues is challenging
due to similar symptoms of deficiency between
nutrients.

Right Tree, Right Place
The practice of installing the optimal species for
a particular planting site is known as the “Right
Tree, Right Place”. This philosophy considers
the effects of tree growth on existing and
planned utilities, existing landscape, and other
infrastructure. Factors to consider include, planter
size, soil characteristics, water needs, as well as
the intended role and characteristics of the species.

By considering the long-term consequences of
planting a particular tree in a particular place,
conflicts and premature removal of trees can be
avoided.

Proper consideration for species selection and
planting location has not always been provided.

Some species were planted heavily at different
periods in the history of Yuba City’s urban forestry
program. A few of these species are costly to
maintain, some are poorly suited to the local
climate, and others drop unwanted debris. As
such, Parks Maintenance staff are considering
the past performance of certain tree species
when determining future species selection. For
example, due to their high-water use, periods of
prolonged drought and watering restrictions, tulip
tree (Liriodendron tulipifera) and coast redwood
(Sequoia sempervirens) are no longer planted. Due
to their prevalence in the current inventory, crape
myrtle (Laegerstromia indica, 7.7%) and maple
species (Acer, 28%) are limited in future plantings.

Like many communities, Yuba City experiences
tree-hardscape conflicts. Narrow park strips and
past species selection both contribute to roots of
trees growing underneath sidewalks and cause
lifting and heaving. To avoid such conflicts in the
future, Parks Maintenance staff are recommending
that species that have a reputation for hardscape
conflicts be reserved for better suited, open areas
with adequate space for root spread and growth, as
well as advocating for widening of park strips where
possible. To address heaving/lifting sidewalks,
Parks Maintenance staff coordinate with Public
Works to conduct sidewalk repairs and perform root
pruning when needed.

Shade trees are preferred street tree plantings
because they provide greater environmental
benefits when compared to palms. While the city
has never planted palms in the public rights-ofway, residents in certain neighborhoods in Yuba City prefer palms. In some cases, residents have
removed shade trees in the public easement and
replaced them with palms. Palms are not included
in Yuba City’s street tree list due to their high
maintenance needs and limited shade production.

Unlike most trees, palms often require annual
maintenance to remove dead and dying fronds
before they are dislodged by wind or time. Neglect
can result in dead fronds and fruit stalks which
can create sidewalk hazards. Furthermore, some
species of palm can reach substantial heights and
if planted under power lines, must be removed
because they cannot be directionally pruned to
avoid contact. However, there are some smallstatured palms and trees recommended for use near and under power lines, which can result in
fewer of these conflicts (PG&E, n.d.).

Palm Species
Like many communities in the Central Valley, Yuba City has palm species in the city inventory. There are currently 79 palms planted on public property. While some might see palm trees as synonymous with California, there is only one species of palm native to California, the California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera). All other palms are imported, but popular and widely planted.

While the name “palm tree” would suggest that palms are trees, they are actually more closely related to grasses than trees. Palms are vulnerable to numerous pests, including South American palm weevil, Fusarium fungus, polyphagous shot hole borer, red ring, sudden crown drop, and pink rot.

Palms are known to be fast growing and are aesthetically pleasing, but do not provide the same environmental benefits as hardwood trees. In fact, a study comparing the effects on microclimates of three tree species (date palm, Ficus retusa, and Tipuana tipu) with different canopy characteristics determined that the date palm was ineffective at cooling (Shashua-Bar et al, 2010). In addition, palms require more frequent maintenance than hardwood trees. Neglect can result in dead fronds and fruit stalks which can create dangerous conditions.

Commonly, annual, or bi-annual maintenance is needed to remove dead and dying fronds before they are dislodged by wind or time.

Palm frond skirts can be a fire hazard and are a potential hazard to tree workers. Yuba City currently maintains palms on a 2-year cycle.

Because fronds demand more maintenance, the cost to manage palms is higher than caring for hardwood tree species.

In order to increase environmental benefits and the return on investments, Yuba City prohibits the planting of palms in the rightsof-way. Some exceptions exist for areas where palms provide “character”, such as community entrances.
36

Adapting to Climate Change
Increasingly, cities are recognizing that shifts in weather patterns are likely to alter species habitat ranges and render some species less adapted to the region. Research on climate change in complex urban ecosystems is challenging and still evolving. Although there is no clear consensus on the future outcomes, it is thought that extraordinary weather events are likely to increase in years to come. In Yuba City, regional climate projections estimate the urban forest could face significant damage due to excessive heat and flooding. By 2035, average annual daily maximum temperatures are predicted to rise by approximately 1˚C and precipitation patterns may vary 20 inches above or below average (Yuba City, CA Tree Canopy & Land Cover Assessment, 2020). As temperatures rise and precipitation patterns fluctuate from historical norms, existing trees must adapt or succumb to the changes in climate. Impacts on urban forestry programs may include:
• Health and structural impacts on tree species that are not adapted to new and changing conditions
• Increase in pests and disease as a result of changes in temperature, precipitation, and tree stress
• Additional costs for mitigation and tree removal for marginal species • Canopy loss, especially where key species (e.g., predominant species) become marginalized
Trees can adapt to climate change by changing their range (e.g., expanding northward and to a higher elevation) or contracting their range. In a study of North American tree species, more than half were contracting their ranges in response to climate change (Zhu, et al 2012). With a potential for an increase in maladapted species in the tree population and the potential for urban areas to exacerbate the stresses, it is important to incorporate plantings of promising new species and then proactively monitor and select high performing species for new plantings. Climatic events (e.g., storms, drought, wildfire), disease or pest outbreaks, land use changes, and other stressors can severely affect the urban forest and the flow of benefits and costs over time. Increasing species diversity and tracking species performance can help managers determine suitable species and lessen the detrimental consequences in the event species are susceptible to changes in climate and urbanization.
37

38 TREE REMOVALS
Residents can also submit service requests for
removals. Oftentimes, these requests for removals
are for otherwise healthy city trees. In these cases,
Park Maintenance staff follow Municipal Code tree
maintenance and removal policies. Tree removals
and stump grinds in the LLMD are also addressed
by the city contractor. Municipal Code prohibits
the removal of community trees without a permit
and mitigation planting; however, illegal removals
do occur. If a resident chose to remove a healthy
tree without a permit, the city would not replace
the tree. Because Municipal Code does not have
any fines for violations of the Tree Ordinance,
Code Enforcement has no ability to impose
consequences.

Park Maintenance staff incorporate “clean” wood
chips generated from tree maintenance at the city
water treatment facility, in open space, at ball fields, and at Feather River Parkway. In some instances,
Park Maintenance staff will divide up large trees
into firewood and residents can take the wood on a
first-come, first-served basis. But most tree debris
are sent to the local green waste program where it
is made into compost.

PEST MANAGEMENT
Parks Maintenance contracts with a landscape
company to chemically treat trees that have
historically received complaints due to pests and
nuisance insects. Complaints have primarily been
to report street trees with aphids, which exude a
sticky residue onto parked cars. In these instances,
trees are systemically treated with a neonicotinoid
class of insecticides on a bi-annual basis. The
city invests approximately $25,000 annually in
preventative applications. Insecticide resistance
can occur when insecticides with the same mode
of action are applied over subsequent years.

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) practices
should be used to address infestations and to
prevent insecticide resistance in insect populations.

Other complaints include concerns over the
boxelder bug. These insects are not harmful to
tree health but tend to congregate in homes and
vehicles. In September of 2020, applications using
an insecticide (bifethrin) and laundry detergent
were tested to decrease these pests congregating
on the trunks of maple trees in the public rights-ofway. Parks Maintenance staff determined that the insecticide and laundry detergent applications were
equally effective at reducing the insect population.

Preventing Insecticide Resistance
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) uses a variety of biological, chemical, cultural, and mechanical controls in order to lessen the selection pressure from one control tactic. The basis behind IPM should also be applied to pesticide management. The premise behind using pesticides in an integrated way is to lessen the selection pressure on the pest population, as this can lead to pesticide resistance problems in the future. Pesticides function differently inside of the organism depending on the mode of action. There are several ways to lessen the selection pressure from a single mode of action. First, if one mode of action is overused, the strong selective pressure causes resistance to evolve at an unprecedented rate. Rather, if modes of action are alternated, diverging selection pressures can help prevent resistance to the individual chemicals applied (Palumbi, 2001). There are several reasons pesticide resistance has occurred, and in many cases, it has to do with recurring suboptimal doses of the pesticide, overuse of a single mode of action, and the lack of new pesticides on the market.

The worst problem with the
city’s trees are they tear
up the sidewalks making it
hazardous to walk on.

Survey Respondent

39 Piercing Sucking Insects
and Honeydew
Shade is highly coveted during hot 100-degree days in Yuba City and residents park their cars in the shade of trees to manage the heat. It is not uncommon for car owners to return to their vehicle and find it covered in a sticky film. This substance, commonly called honeydew, is the excrement, or frass, of aphids, soft scale, or other soft-bodied insects. Other plant-feeding true bugs, such as spotted lanternfly, can also create honeydew. These insects feed on the phloem of plants (Cranshaw, 2018). The phloem is the part of the vascular system which moves sugars and other metabolites produced in the leaves down to the roots.

Because these insects are primarily consuming sugar, the waste that is produced is also mostly made up of sugars. The honeydew from these insects drips off the leaves of a tree and onto anything beneath the canopy of the tree.

Aside from the nuisance of the sticky residue, honeydew also is strongly associated with black sooty mold. When honeydew drips onto sidewalks, spores of numerous species of fungi germinate on it, producing black fungal strands (mycelial threads), which give a sooty appearance to the sidewalk or any other surfaces where the honeydew encouraged colonization (Cranshaw, 2018).

Generally, aphids and sooty mold do not harm trees, although sometimes a slight loss in tree vigor can occur. In an effort to manage the undesirable aesthetics and mess from aphids and consequently, sooty mold, the Parks Maintenance staff contract with a landscaping company to inject trees with chemicals to reduce aphid populations in street trees throughout the community. Furthermore, trees that attract higher aphid populations are being avoided for future street tree plantings.

Crapemyrtle Aphid
In general, the crape myrtle aphid (Sarucallis
kahawaluokalani) do not pose a major threat
to crape myrtle, but they can reduce vigor and
decrease flower set. It is important to note that
aphid populations fluctuate dramatically depending
on the year. Monitoring trees that have historically
experienced high levels of aphids is one way to
determine if aphids will reach populations above an
accepted threshold. In general, allowing for some
pests and promoting predatory insects is a more
sustainable and less expensive approach to aphid
management. Choosing species and varieties
that are aphid resistant is important for long
term management. Also, one of the most benign
treatments is to hose off the aphids with a stream
of water.

Insecticide control is marginally successful
because it is complicated by aphids’ high
reproductive capacity (Clemson University, 2019;
Dedryver et al, 2010). Furthermore, insecticide
applications can kill non-target pollinators and
predatory insects that feed upon aphids. The loss
of predatory insects allows any surviving aphids
to rapidly grow in population. If aphids surpass
tolerable levels, there are several alternatives that
can provide some level of control (e.g., horticultural
oils and insecticidal soaps).

It is also important to monitor for threatening
pests and diseases that may cause damage to
established trees. Pest management is especially
critical as Yuba City is in close proximity to large
urban centers (with highly mobile populations) and
agricultural lands, which increases the possibility
of pest introductions and the implications of the
spread of pests. Among the numerous potential
pest and pathogen threats, the following have the
potential to significantly impact the tree resource:

Spotted Lanternfly
The spotted lanternfly (Lycorma delicatula) was
introduced to the United States in 2014, where it
emerged as a significant pest to many species of
fruit and shade trees. Currently, spotted lanternfly is present in eastern states, including Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, Virginia, and Delaware. These insects
damage plants with their piercing mouthparts, and
cause oozing or weeping at the site of the feeding
wounds. Sooty mold is also an indication of spotted
lanternfly feeding because this fungus can colonize
the sticky fluids that result from feeding damage.

Range mapping for this pest predicts suitable
habitat in much of California, including Yuba City
(Kaplan, 2019). Maples (Acer) and oaks (Quercus)
are Yuba City’s community trees most threatened
by the spotted lanternfly (USDA APHIS, n.d.).

Invasive Shot-hole Borer and Fusarium
Dieback
The polyphagous shot hole borer and the Kuroshio
shot hole borer (Euwallacea sp.) contribute to a
disease called Fusarium dieback. The disease
is present in Southern California (Eskalen, 2015,
2019), and there is concern of its spread northward.

The invasive beetles feed on heartwood tissues
and fungi that they carry into the tree. Some of the
introduced fungi are tree pathogens that disrupt the
flow of water and nutrients. Staining and gummosis
are indications of beetle entry and exit wounds, and
typically cankers form at these sites. The damage
causes branch dieback, and over time can kill the
tree (Eskalen et al, 2017). These beetles have the
potential to colonize healthy or stressed trees and
have a large host range consisting of more than
260 plant species. Yuba City has several species of
landscape trees such as maples (Acer), plane trees
(Platanus), and oaks (Quercus) that are at risk to
polyphagous shot hole borer.

40 Citrus Greening
Citrus greening (Candidatus liberibacter asiaticus)
is a bacterial disease spread by the Asian citrus
psyllid. The disease causes bitter, hard fruit
production, and is among the most concerning
pests as it threatens the viability of California’s
citrus crop. While citrus species represent less
than 1% of the public tree population, it is fair to
assume that many residences in Yuba City grow
citrus trees. Due to quarantines in place to protect
California’s citrus crop, and the lack of effective
treatments, infected trees must be destroyed and
disposed of appropriately (Grafton-Cardwell et al,
2019). The result of citrus greening would be losses
to canopy on both public and private property.

Verticillium Wilt
Verticillium wilt is caused by several species of
fungal pathogens in the genus Verticillium. Over
400 herbaceous and woody plants are impacted
by verticillium wilt, including species commonly
found in Yuba City such as maple (Acer), Chinese
pistache (Pistachia chinensis) and hackberry
(Celtis). Several of the more susceptible trees
include catalpa (Catalpa), and ash (Fraxinus). The
pathogen can persist in a dormant state in the soil
for approximately ten years. Infected trees lack
vigor, exhibiting small leaves or sparse canopies.

Toward the end of the growing season, leaves may
become limp and fall prematurely (Berlanger and
Powelson, 2000).

Emerald Ash Borer
Another pest of concern is emerald ash borer
(Agrilus planipennis), which has rapidly and
consistently spread throughout the eastern United
States. All species of ash are susceptible to
emerald ash borer, including white ash (Fraxinus
americana), an abundant species in Yuba City. To
date, this pest has killed hundreds of millions of
ashes (Emerald Ash Borer Information Network,
2019).

Pollinators and their Threats
Limiting the use of pesticides, especially on flowering trees, is one way we can protect non-target predatory
species and pollinators. Avoiding applying pesticides to trees that are insect-pollinated, such as crape myrtle, promotes pollinator health. Pollinators are essential to plant and animal life. The pollination of landscape plants and economically important fruit and nut producing
crops results in many economic, environmental, and
socioeconomic benefits. The most abundant and common
group of pollinators are insects (US Fish & Wildlife, 2020).

Many of the pollinators in Yuba City are native insect
species, as documented by historical records of wild bees and butterflies (Thorp et al, 1983). Honeybees are also common but originate from Europe and typically receive
special recognition or appreciation for their role in the creation of beneficial products such as honey and bee’s wax. Each year, honeybees pollinate approximately $10
billion worth of crops, and many of the most relied upon foods are pollinated by wild bees (US Fish & Wildlife,
2020).

In many cases we take pollination services for granted, but because of the recent decline in pollinators, attention has shifted toward finding pest management practices that
promote pollinator health. One of the most controversial topics in the decline of pollinators is the use of pesticides.

Insect physiology is similar whether the insect is a
pest or pollinator (an insect we want to kill or protect, respectively). Therefore, the use of insecticides typically impacts species that we do not intend to harm, such as
pollinator and predator non-target insects. The side effects can be lethal or cause long-term effects. Pesticides can be present in the environment through plant exudates, dust, or water that pollinator and predatory insects come in
contact with (Johnson, 2015). Furthermore, water soluble pesticides, some of which are commonly used pesticides
for ornamental trees and plants (e.g., neonicotinoids) are present in the floral parts of plants which are frequented by pollinators (Goulson et al, 2015).

Although a contentious topic, several changes can be
made in order to decrease the impact pesticides have
on pollinator health. Limiting the use of pesticides on flowering trees and following label directions are two
most important ways we can protect pollinators. Following pesticide labels is extremely important, because the label will state when it is appropriate to treat the plant (i.e., avoiding insecticide applications when the plant is in
bloom, considering wind speed/direction, neighboring
plants in bloom) (Purdue Extension, 2016).

It is important to note that these essential, but often overlooked insects are also threatened by other causes
such as disease, habitat alteration, and fragmentation
that occurs in conjunction with “human endeavor”
(development of cities, towns, agricultural fields,
and pastures). There is not one group responsible for
management of habitat fragmentation or the use of
pesticides in our landscapes and food systems. We are all accountable and can promote the protection of pollinators.

41

42 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT &

OUTREACH
Arbor Day has been celebrated in the community
primarily through school assemblies led by
Parks Maintenance staff. Parks Maintenance
staff present on the history of Arbor Day, provide
equipment demonstrations, and plant a tree using
proper planting and maintenance procedures with
students. The crowd favorite at these events is a
demonstration of a winged seed dropped from the
bucket truck and explanation how trees reproduce
from the falling seeds. The students are then
broken up into four groups to further discuss proper
tree planting techniques. In 2019, 12 trees were
planted at King Avenue Elementary School.

Currently, there is little information about trees on
the city website. Increasingly, people look to the
city website as a resource. Parks Maintenance
staff recognize that a more robust city website for
tree-related information would be beneficial for
providing quick and accurate answers to residents.

Because residents would be able to get answers to
the most frequently asked questions, calls to Parks
Maintenance staff could foreseeably be reduced.

With reduced call volumes, Park Maintenance staff
would be able to respond to service requests for
trees that require maintenance more quickly. A
tree page could further engage and educate the
community about the urban forest. Incorporating
educational materials to the city website about the
benefits of trees, the state of the urban forest, tree
care operations, tree selection (the Recommended
Street Trees List and the Yuba City Tree Guide), or
information on how property owners can best care
for trees would provide another avenue to promote
community involvement in the urban forest. There
is opportunity to advertise outreach activities such
as the annual Arbor Day events or volunteer events
centered around urban forestry.

EMERGENCY RESPONSE
The city has an Emergency Operations Center
(EOC), which coordinates responses during
emergencies. Emergencies, such as storm events
that result in damage to trees are rare. While
typically not on-call, Parks Maintenance staff do
respond to such events and can clear blocked
roadways. If needed, the city contractor can be
called to respond to tree-related emergency, such
as trees that are blown over during business hours,
whereas in-house staff will respond during offhours. All staff participate in emergency training provided by the city safety training contractor.

Historically, most trees impacted by storms are
private trees, as most city trees are smaller and do
not cause as much damage. Parks Maintenance
staff will chip or cut private trees and leave the
debris in a property owners’ yard. City trees will
be chipped and stored at the wood bin at the
Corporate Yard and later diverted to green waste.

Involving young children in
planting and education of
importance of trees is huge.

Survey Respondent

43 FUNDING
Stable and predictable funding is critical to effective and efficient management of the urban forest.

Trees are living organisms, constantly growing,
and changing over time and in response to their
environment. There are a number of factors that
affect tree health and structure, including nutrition,
available water, pests, disease, wind, and humidity.

While it might seem like most changes to trees take
a long time to occur, some specific maintenance is
critical at certain stages of life. For instance, young trees benefit greatly from early structural pruning
and training. Minor corrections that are simple can
be applied with low costs when a tree is
young. However, if left unattended they can evolve
into very expensive structural issues and increase
liability as trees mature (at which point it may be
impossible to correct the issue without causing
greater harm). Over mature trees often require
more frequent inspection and removal of dead or
dying limbs to reduce the risk of unexpected failure.

A stable budget allows urban forest managers to
program the necessary tree care at the appropriate
life stage when it is most beneficial and cost
effective. Currently, the average annual cost to
maintain a community tree in Yuba City is $31.66
(Yuba City Urban Forest Resource Analysis, 2020).

TA B L E 6 : A N N U A L I N V E S T M E N T S I N T H E

COMMUNITY TREE RESOURCE
Investments Total ($) $/tree $/capita
Purchasing Trees & Planting 4,000 0.34 0.06
Pruning 270,000 22.79 4.16
Removal 10,000 0.84 0.15
Pest and Disease Control 25,000 2.11 0.39
Irrigation 1,000 0.08 0.02
Litter clean-up 5,000 0.42 0.08
Repair/Mitigation of Infrastructure Damage 60,000 5.07 0.92 Total Investment $375,000 $31.66 $5.78

SUMMARY OF ANNUAL FUNDING
Trees in parks and at city facilities are maintained
using funding from the General Fund. In total, less
than 1% of the annual budget is allotted to the care
of community trees in park and facility properties
(Figure 7).

Other community trees in Yuba City are maintained
through Lighting and Landscape Maintenance
Districts (LLMDs) where residents pay a fee to
support a higher level of tree care along with other
amenities (e.g., streetlights). In total there are 84
LLMDs that comprise 1,849 acres with an average
of 11.4% tree canopy cover (Yuba City, CA Tree
Canopy and Land Cover Assessment, 2020).

Trees that are not located within city parks, at city
facilities or an LLMD are funded through the Street
Tree Fund. The Street Tree Fund is supported
through a gas tax, which provides approximately
$80,000 annually for contractor services.

F I G U R E 7 : A N N U A L G E N E R A L

FUND BUDGET
Legislative &
Administrative
$1,217,926

2.7%
Finance/IT
$2,748,877

6.1%
Human Resources
$1,003,801

2.2%
Development Services
$1,471,118

3.3%
Police
$17,312,456

38.5%
Fire
$11,094,807

24.6%
Public Works
$4,648,199

10.3%
Community Tree
Resource
$375,000
Non Departmental <1%
$383,500
<1%
Community
Services
$4,764,297

10.6%
Ask residents to serve
the community by helping
plant trees. We would be
happy to!
Survey Respondent

44 INTERNAL PARTNERS
While the maintenance and care of community
trees is primarily the responsibility of the Parks
Maintenance Division, other internal departments
and teams share responsibility for tree management,
regulation, advocacy, and planning.

Public Works—Street Maintenance
Public Works is responsible for maintaining the
streets, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. The Municipal
Code calls for collaboration between Public
Works and the Parks and Recreation Department
when improvement projects impact street trees.

Street Maintenance and Parks Maintenance
staff coordinate and work together to resolve
conflicts around trees, which may result in root
pruning or rerouting of sidewalks as alternatives to
removal. Additionally, Public Works notifies Parks
Maintenance staff when any improvement projects
occur in close proximity to established street trees.

However, Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) are not
required, which may result in accidental damage
to trees that are recommended to be preserved.

Adjacent property owners are required to maintain
the public rights-of-way per Title 6 of Municipal
Code. Residents can conduct repairs to sidewalks
and curbs after acquiring encroachment permits with
the city prior to completing work.

Public Works—Engineering
Engineering is responsible for Capital Improvement
Projects (CIP). While most CIPs are small
projects that do not typically involve street trees,
in the instances where street trees are impacted,
Engineering coordinates with Parks Maintenance
staff to provide protection during construction.

Public Works—Water Distribution
Waterlines are located under streets in
neighborhoods with park strips and in
neighborhoods with no park strips, water lines
are located in the front yards. Street trees mostly
grow under water lines and cause breaks from
underneath. Street trees have impacted water
mains, but this is likely a result of sandy soils.

Development Services—Planning
Development Services oversees building permit
issuance and land entitlement processes where
staff work to implement city standards, including
irrigation, landscaping, and shading requirements.

Parks Maintenance staff review permits and
designs and can make recommendations
for species selection and changes in design,
especially for the expansion for the width of park
strips. The Recommended Street Trees List and
the Yuba City Tree Guide presents a challenge
for the development of parking lots, as the canopy
cover that species will achieve within 15 years is
not apparent.

Community Services—Parks Division
Community Services oversees parks and LLMDs.

Community Services and Parks Maintenance
collaborate to provide maintenance to street and
park trees.

Development Services—Code Enforcement
Code Enforcement frequently responds to
complaints regarding trees on private property
which are obstructing public elements such lights
and signage. Parks Maintenance and Code
Enforcement primarily coordinate on addressing
clearance and visibility concerns for private trees.

Although property owners are provided notice and
timelines requiring that these issues be addressed,
response is often slow and Parks Maintenance staff
are unable to assist, due to lack of ability to charge
the property owner for the work performed.

45 PARTNERS
Pacific Gas and Electric
Tree and utility conflicts are a common source
of concern for electric providers. Trees that grow
into power lines can cause electrical outages and
fires. They can even conduct an electric shock to
someone who comes into contact with a tree that is
contacting a high-voltage line.

In California, all utility providers are subject to
General Order 95; Rule 35 Vegetation Management
(California Public Utilities Commission, revised
2012) and FAC-003-2 Transmission Vegetation
Management (NERC), which outline requirements
for vegetation management in utility easements.

These requirements include clearance tolerances
for trees and other vegetation growing in proximity
to overhead utilities.

Many street trees located under power lines are
too large for the site, requiring extreme pruning to
maintain clearance. Selecting small-stature tree
species that are utility friendly for planting sites in utility rights-of-way can minimize the need for these
maintenance activities.

CAL FIRE
Under the authority of the Urban Forestry Act (PRC
4799.06 - 4799.12), the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection’s Urban & Community
Forestry Program works to expand and improve
the management of trees and related vegetation in
communities throughout California.

The mission of the California Department of Forestry
and Fire Protection’s Urban Forestry Program
is to lead the effort to advance the development
of sustainable urban and community forests in
California. Trees provide energy conservation,
reduction of storm-water runoff, extend the life of
surface streets, improve local air, soil, and water
quality, reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide, improve
public health, provide wildlife habitat, and increase
property values. In short, they improve the quality
of life in urban environments, which, increasingly,
are where Californians live, work, and play. The
program also administers State and Federal grants
throughout California communities to advance urban
forestry efforts (fire.ca.gov).

Yuba City Tree Advisory Group
In 1999, to satisfy the requirements for Tree City
USA, the Tree Advisory Group was created. The
Tree Advisory Group is made up of members of
the Parks and Recreation Commission. Agenda
items regarding Tree Advisory Group interests
are included in the overall Parks and Recreation
Commission Meeting, which occurs quarterly.

The Tree Advisory Board helps determine the
type of trees recommended for public plantings,
disseminate tree-related information, and serve as
advocates for tree-related activities.

Youth Commission
The Yuba City Youth Commission is an active
group that advises the City Council, City Manager,
and Parks and Recreation Department on policies
involving youth recreational programs. This group
not only promotes increased youth involvement in
municipal government, but also aids in identifying
solutions to problems, addressing youth’s
concerns, and promoting youth activities and
community involvement.

Friends of Yuba City Parks and Recreation
The mission of Friends of Yuba City Parks and
Recreation is to raise, distribute, and assist in the
management of public and private sector funds for
enhancements to the city of Yuba City park facilities
and Parks and Recreation program.

Yuba City Unified School District
The Yuba City Unified School District has a strong
relationship with the city. Parks Maintenance staff
coordinate with schools to host Arbor Day events.

Yuba City Summer at City Hall
Yuba City Summer at City Hall is a program for
high school students to shadow professionals
for two weeks in the summer to explore a
career interest. Through the program there
have been students with an interest in Parks
and Recreation who have shadowed Parks
Maintenance staff and learned about tree care
in Yuba City’s parks (Yuba City Summer at City
Hall Job Shadow Brochure, 2016).

Shady Creek Summer Camp
Sixth graders, as part of their curriculum,
participate in an environmental camp through
the Shady Creek Outdoor School every year.

Students learn about the environment through
this summer program and the city is interested
in expanded partnership with the local schools
to support this and other environmental
programming and education.

46 Policy and Regulation
Urban forest management operations are
influenced by and subject to regulations,
policies, and guidance from federal, state, and
local direction. The following section provides a
summary of the regulatory and guiding policies
explored during the development of this Plan.

Additional regulations and policies may also apply.

FEDERAL AND STATE LAW
Endangered Species Act
Signed in 1973, the Endangered Species Act
provides for the conservation of species that are
endangered or threatened throughout all or within
a significant portion of their range, as well as the
conservation of the ecosystems on which they
depend. The listing of a species as endangered
makes it illegal to “take” (i.e., harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or
attempt to do these things) that species. Similar
prohibitions usually extend to threatened species.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
Passed by Congress in 1918, this Act defines that
it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill,
possess, sell, purchase, barter, import, export, or
transport any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or
egg of any such bird, unless authorized under a
permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act can impact forestry
operations during times when birds are nesting,
which may delay work in order to avoid violating the
MBTA.

California Urban Forestry Act
Section 4799.06-4799.12 of the California Public
Resources Code defines a chapter known as the
California Urban Forestry Act. The Act defines
trees as a “vital resource in the urban environment
and as an important psychological link with nature
for the urban dweller.” The Act also enumerates the
many environmental, energy, economic, and health
benefits that urban forests provide to communities.

The purpose of the Act is to promote urban forest
resources and minimize the decline of urban
forests in the state of California. To this end, the Act facilitates the creation of permanent jobs related
to urban forestry, encourages the coordination of
state and local agencies, reduces, or eliminates
tree loss, and prevents the introduction and
spread of pests. The Act grants the authority to
create agencies and mandates that urban forestry
departments shall provide technical assistance to
urban areas across many disciplines (while also
recommending numerous funding tools to achieve
these goals).

Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(MWELO)
To promote the conservation and efficient use of
water and to prevent the waste of water, a Model
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO)
was adopted in 2009 and later revised in 2015. The
Ordinance requires increases in water efficiency
standards for new and retrofitted landscapes
through the use of more efficient irrigation systems,
greywater usage, and onsite stormwater capture.

It also limits the portion of landscapes that can be
covered in turf.

California Global Warming Solutions Act
In 2006, the California Global Warming Solutions
Act (Assembly Bill 32) was implemented to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions. Through this Act,
California was the first state in the nation to initiate long term measures to help mitigate the effects of
climate change through improved energy efficiency
and renewable technology. California approached
the goal to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by
2020 through direct regulations, market-based
approaches, voluntary measures, policies, and
programs. The 2015 update set targets to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions to 40 percent below
1990 levels by 2030.

California Solar Shade Control Act
Passed in 1978, California’s Solar Shade Control
Act supported alternative energy devices, such as
solar collectors, and required specific and limited
controls on trees and shrubs. Revised in 2009,
the Act restricted the placement of trees or shrubs
that cast a shadow greater than ten percent of an
adjacent existing solar collector’s absorption area
upon the solar collector surface at any one time
between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 p.m.

The Act exempts trees or shrubs that were:
• Planted prior to the installation of a solar collector. • On land dedicated to commercial agricultural
crops.
• Replacement trees or shrubs that were planted
prior to the installation of a solar collector and
subsequently died or were removed (for the
protection of public health, safety, and the
environment) after the installation of a solar
collector.
• Subject to city and county ordinance.

Yuba City Municipal Code
Yuba City Municipal Code has six Titles that
include provisions that impact trees, tree care, or
the urban forest:

Title 3 Finance
Discourages the use of parking or business
improvement area revenues to offset capital
improvement projects, some of which may include
tree maintenance.

Title 4 Public Safety
Outlines visibility requirements and tree
obstructions along streets, intersections, and
alleys. Prohibits overgrown, diseased, dead, or
decayed trees on private property that create an
unsightly appearance or are dangerous to public
safety and welfare. Defines rubbish to include tree
parts.

Title 5 Public Welfare, Morals, and Conduct
Requires notice and authorization for any tree
maintenance around wires, facilities, or cable
equipment.

Title 6 Public Works
Requires residents to acquire a permit with
Public Works to complete any construction,
reconstruction, removal, or demolition of curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, or driveways in the public rightsof-way. Defines when tree branches are acceptable in refuse. Prohibits tree or shrub trimmings in the
public rights-of-way. Describes circumstances that
justify water restrictions.

City has [to] strike a balance
between solar and trees.

Survey Respondent

47 Title 8 Planning and Zoning
Planning: Outlines landscape plan requirements for
projects. Encourages the preservation of healthy
existing trees in lieu of planting new trees. Presents
report and map requirements for subdivision
developers, which include trees.

Landscape design standards that relate to trees
follow:
• Minimum clearance for tree visibility obstructions.
• Type of tree and spacing for public trees.
• Tree and plant material standards.
• Parking lot canopy and design standards.

Allows the city Attorney to enforce tree height,
safety, or nuisance violations and designates
responsibility for amending the situation.

Addresses tree installation and maintenance
requirements for street trees and trees used for
screening. Designates property owners responsible
for the care of trees in rights-of-way adjacent to
private property. Defines required tree maintenance
and protection. Recognizes that removal and
replacement may be necessary. Prohibits any
person from posting signs or posters on trees.

Zoning: Regulates the presence and size of trees
around airport approach zones and tree ratios in
land designated for parking.

Title 9 Parks and Recreation
Explains the structure and duties of the city’s Tree
Advisory Board. Defines tree-related terms as they
apply to the ordinance.

Designates the responsibility of the city,
developers, and property owners for maintenance
of rights-of-way trees.

Requires a comprehensive street tree plan.

Provides safety and visibility requirements relating
to trees. Allows the Director to enter private
property to inspect or require the removal of
nuisance trees.

Provides tree protections for physical damage and
removal. Requires notification and permission for
utility work that impacts trees. Explains the permit
process and mitigation responsibilities for the
removal of street trees adjacent to private property.

Outlines the permit requirements to install aboveground containers with tree plantings in the public rights-of-way. Requires plans and permits for
rights-of-way trees in new developments.

YUBA CITY RESOURCE

EFFICIENCY PLAN
The Resource Efficiency Plan is a document
meant to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
the community and municipal operators in Yuba
City. It identifies ten goals to decrease greenhouse
gas emissions. Goals 3 and 6 emphasize the
importance of the community forest in cooling
the urban environment through shading and
evapotranspiration, and include the following:

Goal 3: Increase Efficiency in Community
Buildings and Infrastructure
Measure 3.3, Plant Trees for Shade and Carbon
Sequestration, recommends the strategic
placement of trees around buildings to provide
reduced interior temperatures through tree shading
effects. Acknowledges the benefit trees provide by
sequestering carbon. Realizes that planting new
trees, in addition to replacement plantings, will
support this goal.

Goal 6: Decrease Energy Demand through
Reducing Urban Heat Island Effect
Measure 6.1, Tree Planting for Shading and Energy
Efficiency, recommends the use of vegetation to
increase shading in parking lots. Calls to create
a community group involved in tree planting and
developing a city tree planting program.

Includes an environmental checklist and impact
evaluation for discretionary, proposed projects.

Calls for the preservation of heritage oak trees
and other native trees of substantial size, as
well as restrictions on planting trees to protect
archaeologically relevant sites.

Sutter County Climate Action Plan
Similar to the Yuba City Resource Efficiency
Plan, the Sutter County Climate Action Plan
aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the
community with the end goals of having a more
livable community and helping Sutter County
reach the emission targets set by the State in the
California Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly
Bill 32).

Section 3: Emissions Inventory considers the
greenhouse gases emitted as a result of the use
of landscape equipment, planting, and fertilizing
community trees.

Section 4: GHG Emissions Reduction
Programs and Regulations provides measures
meant to decrease energy consumption. Trees
are encouraged to reduce energy consumption
through shading and evapotranspiration. The plan
calls for strategic tree plantings to harness the
cooling effects of trees along pedestrian routes and
alongside residential and commercial buildings.

Requires new developments to follow Sutter
Pointe water conservation measures by planting
drought tolerant plants and implementing efficient
watering systems. Encourages new developments
to implement landscape strategies that reduce
the heat island effect, including the incorporation
of ornamental shade trees and the deliberate
placement of trees for optimal shading of parking
lots and buildings.

Evaluates increasing tree planting efforts within
the County and the implementation of a forestry
program. The forestry program is judged on
greenhouse gas reduction criteria. A program
would be supported if the net emissions decrease
upon the implementation of a program. The
emissions associated with tree management and
irrigation are taken into consideration. Watering Your City Tree Newly planted trees need to be watered more often than mature trees; two to four times per week in the summer depending on the soil type (sandy soils require more frequent watering than clay soils). Every time a newly planted tree is watered, it should receive 10-20 gallons of water depending on the size of the root ball.

48 YUBA CITY GENERAL PLAN
The Yuba City General Plan is a document adopted
by the city Council that provides the following:
• Visions for Yuba City’s future physical and
economic development
• Strategies and specific actions that will allow this
vision to be accomplished
• Bases for judging whether specific development
proposals and public projects are in harmony with
community goals
• Authorizes the design of projects that will enhance
the character and safety of the community and
preserve environmental resources
• Guides planning and implementing programs
(e.g., the Zoning Code, specific plans, impact fee
studies, and the Capital Improvements Program)
The General Plan has ten chapters, seven of which
pertain to the urban forest, including the following:

Chapter 3 Land Use Recommends the
development of new parks with increased
connectivity to open spaces.

Chapter 4 Community Design Encourages
and recommends the use of trees and other
landscaping be incorporated into designs in public
areas to help accomplish the following:
• Distinguish entries into the city and delineate the
urban rural edge.
• Enhance community character and delineate
themes within the city.
• Provide shade to parking areas with pedestrian
walkways, streets, and sidewalks to make
roadways and corridors more pedestrian friendly.
• Provide visual buffers from non-residential
buildings (e.g., industrial, and commercial
developments) and fencing.

Chapter 5 Transportation advises the use of tree
lined parkways and landscaping as part of frontage
improvements in the rights-of-way.

Chapter 6 Parks, Schools, and Community
Facilities aims for ample parkland with lush
landscaping that still maintains visual permeability.

Chapter 7 Public Utilities Proposes public
education on woody waste recycling.

Chapter 8 Environmental Conservation identifies
trees as important habitat for wildlife in natural
areas. Specifies threats to historic vegetation,
including oak woodlands. Provides guidelines to
conserve heritage oak trees and other native trees
of significant size in specified areas of Feather
River habitat. Promotes drought tolerant plants and
the use of urban trees to reduce air pollutant levels.

Chapter 9 Noise and Safety suggests buffering
noise levels through design and landscaping
features. Indicates trees can be used to control
erosion, as they add structure to the soil and take
up moisture.

Sutter County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
According to a 2007 Sutter County Multi-hazard
Mitigation Plan, river bottom areas along the
Feather River (approximately 790 acres of land
along a six-mile stretch) are the most vulnerable
to wildfire. Wildfires have devastated many
communities across California, and this is
especially true for Yuba City. With the 2018 Camp
Fire, which is the deadliest and most destructive
wildfire in California history and devastated the
neighboring towns of Paradise and Concow,
Sutter County and Yuba City are looking for ways
to mitigate the risks associated with living in the
wildland urban interface (WUI).

49 Analysis of Sustainability Indicators
The Sustainability Indicators is a tool based on TABLE 7: YUBA CITY SUSTAINABILITY INDICATORS SCORE CARD the Characteristics of Urban Forest Sustainability
as defined in the 1997 Journal of Arboriculture
article “A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability”,
which describes specific criteria that can be used
in conjunction with measurable indicators to
evaluate sustainability (Clark et al). Having been
designated as a Tree City USA for the last 20
years and with a Parks and Recreation Department
responsible for the care and maintenance of park
and neighborhood trees in the public rights-ofway, Yuba City has built a strong foundation for an exceptional urban forestry program.

To identify goals and areas where the urban
forestry program can be improved, managers can
regularly assess, evaluate, and indicate the current
performance levels of the urban forest through the
Sustainability Indicators. While the Sustainability
Indicators is a useful tool for assessing the current
status of an urban forest program, it does not
necessarily provide a comprehensive review of all
the areas in which a program could be improved.

The Sustainability Indicators does provide an
opportunity for managers to benchmark their
current conditions and understand how they can
be improved to meet industry recommendations
and then establish performance measures to
improve the effectiveness of their management
approach (Kenney, et al 2011). The criteria for the
Sustainability Indicators were used as a reference
to assess the current urban forestry practices in
the city and provided the framework for describing
what current urban forest management looks like
and steps to advance urban forest management.

Overall, Yuba City’s urban forest program is
performing at a medium level and a detailed report
of the results of the assessment can be found in
Appendix I.

Indicators of a Sustainable Urban Forest
Assessed
Performance Level
Low Medium High
The
Trees
Urban Tree Canopy X
Equitable Distribution X
Size/Age Distribution X
Condition of Public Trees - Streets, Parks X
Condition of Public Trees - Natural Areas X
Trees on Private Property X
Species Diversity X
Suitability X
Soil Volume X
The
Players
Neighborhood Action X
Large Private & Institutional Landholder Involvement X
Green Industry Involvement X
City Department/Agency Cooperation X
Funder Engagement X
Utility Engagement X
Developer Engagement X
Public Awareness X
Regional Collaboration X
The
Mgmt
Approach
Tree Inventory X
Canopy Assessment X
Management Plan X
Risk Management Program X
Maintenance of Publicly-Owned Trees (ROWs) X
Maintenance of Publicly-Owned Natural Areas X
Planting Program X
Tree Protection Policy X
City Staffing and Equipment X
Funding X
Disaster Preparedness & Response X
Communications X
Totals 3 23 4

50 THE TREES
Among the three assessment categories, The
Trees is the strongest performance area, with most
criteria meeting the medium level of performance.

The 2020 Tree Canopy and Land Cover
Assessment revealed that currently the community
has 19.1% canopy cover, which is an increase
from 14.7% canopy cover in 2003, despite ongoing
developmental pressures. Like many California
communities, development will continue to put
pressure on urban forest growth and result in
additional competition for space for trees. Some
developers are advocating for omitting the use of
park strips in new neighborhoods, which would
allow for more space for homes, yet, with current
set-backs, the amount of space available for a
tree in a front yard as an alternative is limited and
would likely not support large-stature mature trees.

Coupled with potential pest threats and changes
in climate, without proactive management existing
canopy cover may be greatly reduced.

Community engagement and discussions with
city staff resulted in identifying a canopy goal of
25% by 2040. To meet this goal, the city will need
to prioritize tree planting and maintaining the
current tree canopy throughout the city, both on
public and private property. The development and
implementation of planting plans will maximize
the amount of planting space and funds on public
property, as well as target areas with the greatest
need for canopy benefits. Whereas targeted
engagement will support canopy growth on private
property. Furthermore, new and redevelopment
projects should emphasize that trees are essential
and thereby must be included in landscape
plans and replaced if damaged or removed. By
conducting a land cover assessment every 10
years, managers can understand the trends in
canopy loss and expansion and measure progress
on canopy goals.

A review of the community tree resource
determined that 16.8% of public trees are
represented by red maple (Acer rubrum), with

27.6% of all trees being a member of the maple
genus (Acer). To increase resiliency to both pests
and potential changes in climate, managers should
work to meet the minimum species rule-of-thumb
by increasing diversity over time so that no species
represents more than 10% of the overall inventory
and no genus represents more than 20%.

THE PLAYERS
Of the assessment categories, The Players is
perhaps the area with the greatest opportunity
for improvement, as this is the only category
determined to have low performance levels.

As a whole, the community has a great
appreciation for trees. Most notably, as determined
by an online survey, residents value trees’
contributions to improving air quality and reducing
energy costs. Yet, there is very little community
involvement or neighborhood action. While the
Parks and Recreation Department engages school
children with outreach and education events
each Arbor Day, there is an opportunity for the
Department to provide additional avenues of
community engagement that would benefit both
the community and the urban forest. Community
members have expressed a desire for a variety
of outreach and engagement methods. Because
many residents are unaware of the issues and
potential influence they have on the success of the
urban forest, the incorporation of online resources
to the city’s website is a clear way to move forward
and provide educational materials and engage the
community in urban forest stewardship. This would
allow collaboration with residents, neighborhoods,
large landowners, and community groups to
advance for urban forestry.

Among other criteria, the urban forest program is
performing at a medium level when it comes to
City Department Agency Cooperation. The Parks
and Recreation Department collaborates with
other city departments on projects that impact the
urban forest, but could expand collaborations to
state departments, neighboring communities, and
regional groups. Further collaboration with the
community and external partners on urban forestry
efforts would bring management to the next level.

THE MANAGEMENT APPROACH
Finally, The Management Approach is the area
identified by the assessment to have the most
criteria where the urban forestry program is
performing at a high level.

Because the urban forest program has a
comprehensive and complete GIS-based
community tree inventory, an urban forest canopy
assessment based on high-resolution tree
canopy imagery, and an urban forest planning
document, managers have a strong understanding
of the current status of the urban forest and a
plan to move forward. Maintaining the inventory,
completing a land cover assessment within the next
10 years, and regular review of management goals
will be critical to sustaining these high-performance
levels.

Currently, approximately 200 trees are planted each
year. These plantings are primarily to replace trees
that have been removed. Principles of right tree,
right place are practiced, and managers continue
to explore modifications to the tree planting palette
to avoid planting species that require substantial
amounts of water and to incorporate a greater
variety of species, some of which may be better
suited for the current and predicted climate. To
further improve planting, managers should take
advantage of the 1,181 available planting sites as
determined by the 2019 tree inventory, as well as
increase species diversity and reduce reliance on
overrepresented tree species.

A medium level of performance for Tree Protection
Policy was assigned based on the adoption of a
tree protection ordinance that was enacted in 1968.

To move to the next level, updates to the ordinance
are needed to ensure adequate protections for
community trees and allow for enforcement to
protect the resource and the benefits derived from
these trees.

While the current funding level allows for service
requests to be resolved within two to eight weeks,
dynamic funding that allows for the proactive
management of trees is critical to advancing
the urban forestry program and allow for the
Department to address outstanding service
requests and allow staff to conduct proactive
annual inspections to assess, document, and abate
risks more promptly.

51 Conclusions
Yuba City has developed a strong foundation to
build upon to establish a robust urban forestry
program, considering:
• Level of performance in meeting Sustainability
Indicators.
• An established tree protection ordinance.
• A comprehensive tree inventory and inventory
management system that tracks urban forest
assets.
• A Land Cover Assessment that includes GIS
mapping of the location and extent of Yuba City’s
entire tree canopy (public and private).
• A Resource Analysis that benchmarks the
composition, benefits, value of the community tree
resource.

The Parks and Recreation Department is
responsible for the maintenance of 11,846
community trees within the public rights-of-way,
parks, and public places. Currently, pruning is
complaint driven, and the level of care can vary
greatly based on the individual tree. Responding
to tree maintenance needs in the LLMD are where
the city struggles the most. In some instances,
complaints are for private trees, particularly around
clearance and visibility, and it would be beneficial
for Parks Maintenance staff to be able to address
property owner complaints and bill the property
owner for the service after. While not specifically
tracked previously, it is estimated that the majority
of community trees are on a 3- to 4-year pruning
cycle. This exceeds the industry recommendations
for a 5- to 7-year cycle. Extending the current
pruning cycles may provide an opportunity to
address outstanding service requests in a timelier
manner.

Current streetscape designs do consider species
selection but may not have always adequately
accounted for the mature size of trees. Historically,
this has resulted in conflicts between trees and
other infrastructure. The city frequently experiences
hardscape damage in some of the smaller park
strips where surface roots lift the concrete. It is
important to recognize that impervious surfaces
and canopy cover can co-exist in many instances,
especially with appropriate design standards.

Canopy that extends over hardscape features,
including parking lots, streets, and structures
can add to the overall amount of canopy cover
and reduce the ratio between canopy cover and
impervious surfaces. While historical planting of
some species in inappropriate sites has resulted
in conflicts with hardscape and other infrastructure
and contributed to high maintenance costs, when
the right tree species are planted in the right
place, the shade provided by tree canopy can
demonstrably extend the lifespan of materials
used in the construction of hardscape features
(McPherson and Muchnick, 2005).

Overall, the community values its trees. In fact,
through an online survey, community members
expressed a desire for additional tree planting
throughout the community. By the same token,
requests for the removal of otherwise healthy street
trees are common. When requests for removals
are denied, it is not uncommon for the resident to
remove the tree anyway. Managers estimate that
there is one removal per day on average, despite a
Municipal Code that prohibits the removal of street
trees without a permit. In some instances, street
trees that have been illegally removed are replaced
by the resident with palms, which are not included
in the city’s Recommended Street Trees List or
the Yuba City Tree Guide list due to maintenance
concerns. Community trees are also commonly
removed due to a lack of irrigation. Per Municipal
Code, adjacent property owners are responsible
for irrigating street trees, but many are likely
unaware of these responsibilities, which results in
tree mortality. Unfortunately, in both instances, the
community is losing a resource. To mitigate these
losses and support maintenance and tree planting,
fines for violations and replacement fees can be
deposited into a Tree Fund.

Along with the responsibility to irrigate adjacent
street trees, the current Municipal Code defines
resident’s responsibilities to include pruning and
fertilization. While these responsibilities may
seem reasonable, improper fertilizing and pruning
practices (e.g., “topping”) can damage trees
beyond repair and result in death and removal.

Amending the Municipal Code to clearly define
acceptable maintenance tasks for property owners,
outlining consequences for harming street trees,
intentionally or accidentally, and requiring the
replacement of trees will greatly enhance the
protection of this community resource.

Pest management is primarily dictated by
complaints. In most instances, concerns could
be addressed through education and some
level of tolerance for issues that do not actually
affect tree health. Community complaints about
nuisance pests that rarely cause plant damage to
have historically initiated the use of pesticides. A
class of insecticides known to be harmful to nontarget insects (e.g., pollinators) has been used as a preventative measure, and is sometimes
applied to species of flowering trees. These
preventative treatments are not warranted. Rather,
the department should begin an integrated pest
management program to monitor insect populations
before treatments. If populations become
problematic, then a toolbox of control tactics can
be considered to ensure the best treatment options
are chosen. Sometimes alternative products,
such as those that are less harmful to pollinators,
and natural enemies are similar or more effective
than insecticides. It is important for the city and
the community to understand that wherever trees
are planted, wildlife such as insects, birds, and
mammals are soon to follow. The products are
used for the control of nuisance pests have a
cascading effect and potential impacts to all of the
organisms associated with the trees.

As the community grows, the city should begin
an in-depth discussion with the community on the
preservation of significant trees in areas at risk for
development or redevelopment. The General Plan
has a goal to preserve and enhance heritage oaks,
but Yuba City does not currently have a Heritage
Tree Ordinance. A Heritage Tree Ordinance
can define what a Heritage Tree is (i.e., specific
species, large trees, historically significant) and
provide protections for such trees, including during
development. A Heritage Tree Ordinance would
be an important step in recognizing iconic oaks
and riparian tree species in the area and help to
mitigate the effects of tree removal.

52 To better understand how the community values
the benefits of the urban forest resource and
to provide residents and other stakeholders
an opportunity to express their views about
management policy and priorities, the plan
development process included an electronic
stakeholder survey, in person interviews, a
community meeting, and community outreach
events.

Managing Partners
While awareness may vary, many individuals and
departments within the city share some level of
responsibility for the community urban forest,
including planning for, caring for, and/or affecting
the policy of urban forest assets. City partners were
invited to participate in an interview and discussion
about their role and perspective for the urban forest
as well as their views, concerns, and ideas for the
plan. The input from the surveys and meetings
will provide vision and direction for managing
community trees.

STAKEHOLDER INPUT
Yuba City stakeholders were asked to
communicate their thoughts about management
policy and priorities, the development process for
the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) included
virtual interviews and electronic surveys.

Ten stakeholders were identified by city staff as
valuable contacts for the development process
of the UFMP. These stakeholders included city
contractors, city staff, and a member of the local
Tree Board. Beginning in June 2020, a survey
was sent to each of the stakeholders. The survey
contained ten questions. Virtual meetings with
stakeholders allowed for a more nuanced and indepth discussion of the urban forest and the urban forest master plan. These interviews provided
important information about the current function of
the Parks Maintenance program and potential for
improvement. Concerns, requests, and suggestions
from all stakeholders were of primary interest and
were provided full consideration in the development
of the plan.

1. There is a need for more education regarding
the care of trees planted in the public rights-ofway within residential areas. Not all homeowners realize their responsibility to care for these
trees or understand the needs of the tree. As a
result, not all trees are receiving adequate care,
especially when it comes to proper pruning and
watering.

2. Illegal removal of trees in the park strip are
common. In some neighborhoods, shade trees
are being replaced with palms. Palms are not on
the recommended street trees list due to the high
maintenance costs and because palms do not
provide the same benefits as shade trees.

3. Some of the community’s large, iconic trees are
aging and becoming public safety concerns.

The removal of such trees has triggered a
strong response from the community, as many
residents are nostalgic for these trees.

4. There are cases of root and grey infrastructure
(e.g., hardscape or waterline) conflicts
throughout Yuba City. In neighborhoods where
trees were planted prior to building, they are
competing with utility easements, and are often
too close to water meters, fire hydrants, and
other infrastructure.

5. Trees have a lot of competition for space.

Developers are advocating for the discontinued
use of park strips to allow for more space
for homes. In areas with existing park strips,
some residents request to remove trees to
accommodate pavement for additional parking
and RV access.

6. Overall, the community appreciates trees and
primarily values them for environmental benefits,
specifically shade and property value increases.

The community would welcome further education
on the benefits trees provide, especially air
quality improvements.

7. The city has long-standing relationships and
high rapport with contractors that provide tree
maintenance in LLMDs.

8. Funding shortfalls in LLMD’s cause some
community trees to receive minimal or no
maintenance. There is a strong desire for more
proactive tree maintenance and long-term
planning to ensure community trees obtain the
ideal level of maintenance and are included in
cyclical/block maintenance.

9. Updates to street tree ordinance could better
define expectations around watering, pruning,
and nuisance trees, as well as allow the city to
impose enforcement for violations.

What do we want?
Managing Partners
● Public Works Department
o Engineering
o Street Maintenance
o Water Distribution
● Development Services
o Planning
o Code Enforcement
o Community Services
● City Contractors

Community Engagement
On August 12th and 15th, September 19th, and
September 26th, 2020, a canopy tent was set up at
the Yuba City Farmers Market to increase public
awareness and gain community prospective and
input for the development of the plan. DRG and city
staff were present to give community members a
platform to express what they appreciate about the
urban forest and what they would like to see in the
future.

Community members were able to access the
online survey at the farmers market in several
ways including verbally to DRG or city staff, via a
personal phone or tablet, or by using the provided
tablets.

ONLINE COMMUNITY SURVEY
An online survey, available from July 24 to
December 3, 2020 provided additional opportunity
for public input into the UFMP development. The
survey was available, via a link on Yuba City’s
website, and promoted at community engagement
events such as the Farmers Market. The survey
included a series of 18 questions, including
questions about views on tree benefits, education
and outreach, urban forestry operations, protection
of trees on private property, and collaboration
activities. In total, 249 people responded to the
survey. The majority of participants (88.4%) were
Yuba City residents, but all other participants
were frequent visitors of Yuba City and community
stakeholders. The complete survey and results
(including comments received) are presented in
Appendix G.

When asked if trees are important to the quality
of life in Yuba City, respondents primarily strongly
agree (87.6%). Understanding which benefits are
appreciated most by residents can help guide
long-term management strategies. In Yuba City,
community participants place the most value on
the environmental benefits to air quality, wildlife
habitat, and energy savings (Figure 8). In addition,
the economic, aesthetic and quality of life benefits
most appreciated were shaded trails and sidewalks
and increased beauty. Also, most respondents
(73.5%) were concerned about climate change.

FIGURE 8: TOP 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS APPRECIATED BY YUBA CITY RESIDENTS

84.7%

57.8% 56.6%

36.1%

27.7%

14.1%
0 50
100
150
200
250
Air quality
improvements
Wildlife habitat Energy savings Carbon storage Stormwater interception
Other (please
specify)
Number of Responses
Benefit
53

54 Awareness of the city’s urban forest operations
varied, where approximately half were not
aware that the city provides care to public trees.

Approximately half of participants were satisfied
with the current level of maintenance for public
trees and preferred the best possible level of
maintenance for public trees.

Overall, respondents strongly believe that Yuba
City needs more public trees and were supportive
of tree planting in all locations (along streets and
paths, in parking lots, commercial areas, parks, and
open spaces or natural areas).

Survey respondents were interested in a variety of
education and public outreach initiatives that could
potentially be offered by the urban forest program
or volunteer groups, ranging from individual
engagement through self-guided nature walks
and interpretive displays to in person and online
informational programming. When asked about
education and outreach events to promote tree
planting on private property, respondents indicated
that tree giveaways and neighborhood tree planting
events were the most appealing, but information
resources would also be important.

The top concerns for Yuba City’s trees were
largely related to canopy loss and the resulting
loss of wildlife habitat that could result from the
removal of trees for development or other reasons.

Participants were also concerned about additional
threats (Figure 9).

Currently, city ordinance does not protect trees
on private property, except during development.

When asked about the potential to develop a
city ordinance to encourage protection for oak
species or other large or significant trees on private
property, more respondents supported the idea
(45.2%) than those that did not (23.8%), but 31.1%
were neutral or unsure.

Most respondents (82.2%) have at least one tree
on their property, but those that did not were largely
limited by the amount of space available or are not
responsible for maintaining the property.

FIGURE 9: YUBA CITY RESIDENTS’ TOP CONCERNS FOR THE URBAN FOREST FIGURE 10: YUBA CITY RESIDENTS’ OPINIONS ON TREE PROTECTION FOR LARGE OR SIGNIFICANT TREES ON PRIVATE PROPERT Y

55.7%

38.4% 35.6% 35.6% 32.9%

13.2% 12.8%

3.7%
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
Healthy
mature trees
being
removed for
development
or other
reasons
Loss of
wildlife
habitat
Canopy loss Pests or
diseases
Tree debris in
my yard
and/or on the
sidewalk
Other
Concerns
(please
specify)
Trees blocking
my view
Trees
providing
unwanted
shade in my
yard
Number of Responses
Top Canopy Concerns

31.1%

23.7%

16.9%

13.7%

10.1%

4.6%
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Neutral/Not Sure Support Strongly Support Oppose Strongly Oppose Other (please specify)
Number of Responses
Top Canopy Concerns
Retail has cut down many
trees due to the crows and
chickens making a mess.

This should not be allowed.
there are other ways to deal
with the birds.

Survey Respondent

55 If you build the trees and enhance
the outdoors, they will come!
Survey Respondent
To plant trees is to give body and life
to one’s dreams of a better world.

Russell Page

56 • 38 priority 3 removals
• 39 stump grinds
• 2,748 routine prunes
• 111 routine prunes (palms)
• 328 plantings
Annual
Inspection
Year 2
• 37 priority 1 & 2 removals
• 21 trees priority 3 removals
• 47 trees stump grinds
• 570 priority 1 & 2 prunes
• 1,286 trees structural prunes
• 2,200 routine prunes
• 101 routine & 10 priority prunes (palms)
• 1, 274 plantings (vacant sites & replacement trees)
• 26 priority 3 removals
• 25 stump grinds
• 2,542 routine prunes
• 111 routine prunes (palms)
• 520 training prunes (year 1 plantings)
• 357 plantings
• 26 priority 3 removals
• 16 stump grinds
• 2,153 routine prunes
• 111 routine prunes (palms)
• 328 training prunes (year 2 plantings)
• 238 plantings
Maintenance
needs may
change as
trees grow
Year 1
Reduce the
need for future
city-wide
updates to the
inventory
Update the
inventory as
maintenance
occurs
Cycle
begins
again
Year 3
Year 4
Review species
performance to
identify highperforming species
and illuminate
inappropriate
species for the local
climate
Priority 1 Removal – These trees have defects
that cannot be cost-effectively or practically
treated, have a high amount of deadwood, and
pose an immediate hazard to property or person.

The arborist recommends they be removed as
soon as possible.

Priority 2 and 3 Removal – These trees are not
as great a liability as priority 1 Removals, being
smaller and/or far less hazardous, although they
are also recommended for removal. Smaller dead
trees and failed transplants are in this category.

Large trees in this category are generally poorly
suited, of inferior quality, and pose little to no threat to the community. Priority 2 Removals should be
removed prior to Priority 3 Removals.

Priority 1 Pruning – Trees in this category need
pruning to remove hazardous deadwood limbs
greater than four inches in diameter and/or have
broken, hanging, or diseased scaffold limbs.

Priority 2 Pruning – These trees need pruning to
remove hazardous deadwood limbs greater than
two, but less than four inches in diameter.

Routine Prune – These trees require routine
horticultural pruning to correct structural problems
or growth patterns that would eventually obstruct
traffic or interfere with signs or buildings.

Structural Prune – Trees in this category are
young trees that require pruning to aid in the
development of proper structure and form.

Stump Removal – These sites have stumps
which need to be removed before a new tree
can be planted.

Four-Year Work Plan
To efficiently address maintenance needs of all
city-managed trees, over the next four years
Parks Maintenance staff will first address priority
maintenance needs. Once a priority maintenance
task has been addressed, the tree, with the
exception of removals, will be reassigned to the
applicable maintenance cycle zone rotation (Table
9). During the first years of the 4-year work plan,
cycle pruning may be delayed. In fact, in the first
two years all zones will require visitation to address
higher priority maintenance. All priority work
should be complete after four years and all trees
should be programmed into a 4-year maintenance
cycle, which will ensure all trees receive regular
routine care and inspection. Inspections and
service requests may warrant heightened
maintenance priority, lesser priorities should be
organized accordingly. The plan does not include
outstanding service requests, although most
open service requests correlate with maintenance
recommendations identified during the tree
inventory. When routine maintenance occurs, the
Maintenance Zone Map should be published on the
city website to communicate to residents when to
expect tree maintenance.

Shaded walkable parks and
paths will improve yuba city
for residents and visitors.

Survey Respondent

57 TABLE 8: 4-YEAR MAINTENANCE PLAN TABLE 9: MAINTENANCE ZONES Estimated Costs for Each Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Maintenance Activity Diameter Class
(inches) Cost/tree # of Trees Total Cost Cost/tree # of Trees Total Cost Cost/tree # of Trees Total Cost Cost/tree # of Trees Total Cost Priority Pruning (Priority 1 & 2)
0 ˗ 3 $40 4 $160 $40 0 $0 $40 0 $0 $40 0 $0
4 ˗ 6 $40 14 $560 $40 0 $0 $40 0 $0 $40 0 $0
7 ˗ 12 $100 117 $11,700 $100 0 $0 $100 0 $0 $100 0 $0
13 ˗ 18 $300 163 $48,900 $300 0 $0 $300 0 $0 $300 0 $0
19 - 24 $300 130 $39,000 $300 0 $0 $300 0 $0 $300 0 $0
25 - 32 $400 90 $36,000 $400 0 $0 $400 0 $0 $400 0 $0
33 - 36 $400 24 $9,600 $400 0 $0 $400 0 $0 $400 0 $0
37 - 42 $400 22 $8,800 $400 0 $0 $400 0 $0 $400 0 $0
43 + $400 10 $4,000 $400 0 $0 $400 0 $0 $400 0 $0
Activity Total(s) 574 $158,720 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0
Priority Removals & Stump Grinding
0 - 3 $100 11 $1,100 $100 18 $1,800 $100 10 $1,000 $100 15 $1,500 4- 6 $200 30 $6,000 $200 22 $4,400 $200 18 $3,600 $200 7 $1,400 7 - 12 $400 34 $13,600 $400 25 $10,000 $400 10 $4,000 $400 14 $5,600 13 - 18 $1,000 14 $14,000 $1,000 10 $10,000 $1,000 5 $5,000 $1,000 2 $2,000 19 - 24 $1,500 10 $15,000 $1,500 2 $3,000 $1,500 5 $7,500 $1,500 2 $3,000 25 - 32 $1,900 5 $9,500 $1,900 0 $0 $1,900 2 $3,800 $1,900 1 $1,900 33 - 36 $2,000 1 $2,000 $2,000 0 $0 $2,000 0 $0 $2,000 0 $0 37 - 42 $2,200 0 $0 $2,200 0 $0 $2,200 0 $0 $2,200 0 $0 43 + $2,500 0 $0 $2,500 0 $0 $2,500 1 $2,500 $2,500 1 $2,500 Activity Total(s) 105 $61,200 77 $29,200 51 $27,400 42 $17,900 Routine Pruning 4-Year Cycle
0 - 3 $40 442 $17,680 $40 128 $5,120 $40 166 $6,640 $40 132 $5,280 4 - 6 $40 489 $19,560 $40 537 $21,480 $40 774 $30,960 $40 547 $21,880 7 - 12 $100 649 $64,900 $100 1,368 $136,800 $100 1,324 $132,400 $100 1,030 $103,000 13 - 18 $300 325 $97,500 $300 455 $136,500 $300 226 $67,800 $300 332 $99,600 19 - 24 $300 169 $50,700 $300 145 $43,500 $300 34 $10,200 $300 70 $21,000 25 - 32 $400 91 $36,400 $400 86 $34,400 $400 17 $6,800 $400 29 $11,600 33 - 36 $400 19 $7,600 $400 15 $6,000 $400 0 $0 $400 9 $3,600 37 - 42 $400 8 $3,200 $400 9 $3,600 $400 0 $0 $400 4 $1,600 43 + $400 8 $3,200 $400 5 $2,000 $400 1 $400 $400 0 $0
Activity Total(s) 2,200 $300,740 2,748 $389,400 2,542 $255,200 2,153 $267,560 Routine Pruning Palms n/a $500 101 $50,500 $500 111 $55,500 $500 111 $55,500 $500 111 $55,500 Activity Total(s) 101 $50,500 111 $55,500 111 $55,500 111 $55,500 Training Pruning
0 - 3 $60 955 $57,300 $60 0 $0 $60 520 $31,200 $60 328 $19,680 4 - 6 $60 292 $17,520 $60 0 $0 $60 0 $0 $60 0 $0
7 - 12 $60 36 $2,160 $60 0 $0 $60 0 $0 $60 0 $0
13 - 18 $100 3 $300 $100 0 $0 $100 0 $0 $100 0 $0
Activity Total(s) 1,286 $2,460 0 $0 520 $0 328 $0
Tree Planting 0 - 6 $160 520 $83,200 $160 328 $52,480 $160 357 $57,120 $160 238 $38,080 Activity Total(s) 520 $83,200 328 $52,480 357 $57,120 238 $38,080 All Maintenance Activity Total 4,786 3,264 3,581 2,872
Annual Maintenance Cost $656,820 $526,580 $395,220 $379,040 Annual Budget $375,000 $375,000 $375,000 $375,000
Annual Budget Shortfall -$281,820 -$151,580 -$20,220 -$4,040 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4
Boundaries North of B Street, East
of Hwy 99
South of B Street, East
of Hwy 99
West of Hwy 99,
South of Colusa Hwy
with the exception of
along and West of Royo
Ranchero Drive
West of Hwy 99,
East of Royo
Ranchero Drive,
North of Coulsa Hwy
Total Sites 3,006 3,715 3,168 3,172
Total Trees 2,544 3,370 2,947 2,906
Priority 1 Removal 0 5 1 0
Priority 2 Removal 6 17 6 2
Priority 3 Removal 21 26 38 26
Priority 1 Prune 54 29 3 7
Priority 2 Prune 149 250 34 54
Total Priority Maintenance
Tasks 230 327 82 89

58 Plan Goals
Based upon a review of the current Parks
Maintenance Division program, resources, and
collaborative input from the community and other
stakeholders, the UFMP identifies 16 goals that
support and represent what Yuba City residents,
stakeholders, and staff want for the future of the
urban forest. These goals, and the strategies
that support them, are intended to optimize the
management of the city’s community forest in
an efficient, cost-effective, sustainable, and safe
manner. The plan identifies four major areas of
focus:

MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING
This focus area aims to increase cost-efficiency
for managing the resource through efficient record
keeping and planning. The urban forest provides
numerous benefits to the community. Although
it might be tempting to plant as many trees as
possible, it is important to ensure they can be
maintained throughout their lifetimes. Proactive and
consistent management of this resource will ensure
sustainability, safety, and a stable flow of benefits
now and for future generations.

Goal 1: Consider trees as integral
infrastructure
When proper consideration is given to planting
trees, future removals are potentially avoided.

Selecting the right tree for the right place and
considering trees as green infrastructure increases
the ability for a tree to reach maturity and ensure
that it has ample space for canopy and root growth.

Objectives for this goal include planting the right
tree in the right place and mitigating conflicts
between trees and other utilities.

Goal 2: Promote the efficient use of
planting funds
Funding for trees is often limited. Thoughtful
planning for where trees will be placed and how
many will be planted can maximize available
funding to address areas of greatest need and
support a greater return on investment.

Objectives for this goal involve creating and
following planting plans.

Goal 3: Provide proactive maintenance for
the community tree resource to reduce
costs and promote efficiency
When trees are well-maintained throughout their
lifetimes, the risks trees pose to the public are
reduced. Promoting tree health and good structure
decreases the chances of having hazardous trees
in the community and decreases the demand for
reactive and emergency tree care.

Objectives for this goal include providing proactive
management of the community tree resource that
aligns with industry standards and creating a risk
management policy.

Goal 4: Promote the safe management of
the community tree resource
When all City staff share core values and behaviors
that promote safety related to trees, everyone,
including the community, is safer.

Objectives for this goal are to continue prioritizing
safety.

Goal 5: Predictable and stable funding for
the community tree resource
Parks Maintenance staff are responsible for
providing quality, efficient, and cost-effective
services for community trees. This level of service
is influenced by available funding. Currently,
funding for the maintenance of community trees
along streets (through LLMDs and the Street Tree
Fund) is variable and some LLMDs are consistently
underfunded.

Objectives for this goal focus on attaining adequate
funding in LLMDs to ensure the care of all
community trees.

Goal 6: Enhance the livability and character
of the community
Trees enhance the aesthetics of the community
and improve the urban environment for the
residents and visitors. Furthermore, tree-lined
streets encourage greater economic development
and business success.

Objectives for this goal include sustaining
or growing tree canopy to achieve greater
environmental benefits.

Goal 7: Follow integrative pest management
(IPM) protocols and best management
practices when addressing pests and
diseases
Pests and disease will always be a threat to the
urban forest. Implementing a pest management
strategy that incorporates the use of multiple tools
will make the urban forest more resilient and able to
withstand pest pressures.

Objectives for this goal include implementing a
variety of pest control strategies in order to reduce
pest pressures.

PROTECTION AND REGULATION
The community tree resource is a publicly owned
asset that provides critical benefits to health,
economic, social, aesthetic, and quality of life for
residents and visitors. The replacement value of the
existing resource is nearly $33.6 million. Annually,
the community tree resource provides $1.8 million
in benefits to Yuba City. Protecting this resource
ensures the community will continue to receive
these benefits and more from the urban forest.

Goal 8: Promote tree preservation and
protection
It is important to promote the protection of
community trees. In addition to updating the
current tree removal and protection guidelines, the
Municipal Code should be periodically reviewed
and revised to refine and identify requirements to
support the urban forest and canopy cover goals.

Objectives for this goal focus on amending and
clarifying language in existing Municipal Code and
exploring community values on the addition of an
ordinance that protects significant or large trees on
private property.

Goal 9: Support consistency in guiding
documents
Uniformity across guiding documents promotes
strong and efficient policy that aligns with
community expectations.

Objectives for this goal include further unifying
guiding documents.

59 RESILIENCE AND

SUSTAINABILITY
This focus area aims to promote management
strategies that increase the resiliency of the urban
forest. Many stressors can negatively impact
trees, therefore working toward a diverse, climateready tree resource will help to preserve the environmental, social, economic, and public health
benefits provided by trees.

Goal 10: Promote species diversity in the
urban forest
Currently, Yuba City relies heavily on several maple
species (Acer spp.), increasing vulnerability to
pests, diseases, and other stressors. Striving to
meet or exceed industry accepted tree diversity
rules can increase resilience in the urban forest.

Objectives for this goal include setting species
diversity goals for the community tree resource.

Goal 11: Expand canopy cover and the
resulting environmental benefits
Yuba City’s current canopy cover is 19.1% and
there is potential for increased canopy cover.

Community members and urban forest managers
support increasing canopy cover and identified a
goal of 25% canopy cover by 2040.

Objectives for this goal include increasing the
canopy cover and tree planting efforts within Yuba
City.

Goal 12: Establish a more water-wise urban
forest
All trees, especially newly planted trees, need
water to thrive. As Yuba City experiences droughts,
it is important that tree species are adapted, and
irrigation systems are in place to withstand dry
periods.

Objectives for this goal include ensuring water
limitations are considered in new tree plantings.

Goal 13: Repurpose woody materials
resulting from removals whenever possible
Using woody materials that result from tree
removals reduces waste and allows managers
to recover value from felled community trees.

Repurposing woody material into wood products
and mulch can provide revenue and prevent the
need to purchase wood mulch used to care for the
urban forest.

Objectives for this goal include expanding upon the
current wood utilization efforts.

Goal 14: Reduce the risk of wildfire in
Feather River Parkway
Over the last decade, California has experienced
catastrophic losses as a result of wildfire. With
prolonged periods of drought and a changing
climate, wildfire is likely to continue to be a threat
to communities that neighbor the wildland urban
interface.

Objectives of this goal are to reduce the risk of
living in a fire prone area through wildfire mitigation strategies.

EDUCATION AND ENGAGEMENT
This focus area aims to foster a greater connection
between the urban forest and the community.

The urban forest is more likely to be preserved,
maintained, and promoted by an engaged
community that understands the benefits it
provides.

Goal 15: Engage community members in
stewardship of the urban forest
Education and outreach can encourage community
members to recognize the value of trees and learn
the best management practices to support the
wellness and benefits of the urban forest. Building
partnerships with community organizations gives
the urban forest a voice, greater capacity to care for
trees, and a broader audience. Partners can help
plant, maintain, and advocate for the urban forest.

Objectives for this goal include developing
materials for urban forest outreach and education
and providing opportunities for the community to
become involved.

Goal 16: Celebrate the importance of urban
trees
Activities recognizing and celebrating the
community’s commitment to the care of trees help
promote the urban forest.

Objectives for this goal include maintaining Tree
City USA designation and continuing to recognize
the urban forest.

I would love a tree in my
backyard. We had a mulberry
we had to remove and it’s so
hot and dry so no one wants
to use our backyard
Survey respondent
I wish properties had more
room to have trees planted,
for shade, and health benefits.
-Survey respondent

60 The goals and existing policies and actions
proposed by the Urban Forest Master Plan are
organized by four focus areas:

1. Management and Planning

2. Protection and Regulation

3. Resilience and Sustainability

4. Education and Engagement
Each area of focus is supported by measurable
goals and specific actions that are intended to
guide Yuba City’s urban forest programming over
the next 40 years, providing the foundation for
annual work plans and budget forecasts. Many
goals and actions support more than one focus
area.

For each action, the UFMP identifies a priority, a
suggested timeframe for accomplishing the action,
an estimated cost range, and potential partners.

Priority is identified as: • High: An action that is critical to protecting existing community assets, reducing/managing
risk, or requires minimal resources to accomplish
• Medium: An action that further aligns programming
and resource improvements that have been
identified as desirable by the community,
partners, and/or urban forest managers, but that
may require additional investment and financial
resources over and above existing levels
• Low: An action that is visionary, represents an
increase in current service levels, or requires
significant investment
The estimated cost is categorized in the following
ranges: • $ (<$25,000) • $$ ($25,000-$50,000) • $$$ (>$50,000) The UFMP is intended to be a dynamic tool
that can and should be adjusted in response to
accomplishments, new information and changes in
community expectations, and available resources.

In addition to serving as a day-to-day guide for
planning and policy making, the UFMP should be
reviewed regularly for progress and to ensure that
the actions and sub actions are integrated into the
annual work plan.

With appropriate care and planning, the urban
forest is an asset that has the potential to increase
in value over time. As young trees mature and their
leaf surface and canopies grow, so too will the
overall benefits and value from the community’s
urban forest. The objectives and strategies of
the UFMP are intended to support this process
in an appropriate manner that encourages the
sustainable stewardship of community trees
with consideration for safety, cost efficiency, and
community values. The UFMP includes strategies
for measuring the success of the UFMP over time.

How do we get there?

61 FOCUS AREA: MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING
Goal: Consider trees as integral green
infrastructure
Performance Measure: Greater health and
longevity of individual trees, as measured through
condition and reduced mortality/tree removals and
level of maintenance.

Rationale: If a tree is planted in a space that is
not conducive or the species is not well suited for
the local climate and soil conditions, the potential
benefits that the tree could have provided to the
community are lost.

Risk: Trees and other infrastructure conflicts may
result in undesirable pruning or tree removals and
therefore premature death.

Benefit: Fewer removals resulting in greater
benefits.
• Review and update Yuba City Tree Guide as needed every five years • Revise/expand list to incorporate recommendations for:
a. Native and well-adapted tree species
i. Species that mitigate flooding issues
ii. Species with minimal leaf drop and litter creation
iii. Species and varieties that are pest and disease resistant, and avoid planting species with similar vulnerabilities to existing trees b. Define sites the trees are most suitable for:
i. Rights-of-way
ii. Flood zones
iii. Parking lots
• Provide consideration for the following:
a. Soil and water conditions
b. Planter size and intended use
c. Mature crown spread
• Optimize shade and environmental benefits by planting large stature trees where feasible
• Revise Title 9 of Municipal Code to prohibit the planting of palm tree species in the public rights-of-way
• Ensure planters have adequate space for trees
a. Establish standards for minimum site and soil volumes for planters b. Reduce hardscape and utility conflicts
i. Provide recommendations for small stature tree species that can be planted under utility lines to prevent future conflicts ii. Formalize planting distances from above ground utilities (water meters, fire hydrants, etc.)
iii. Define minimum distances from underground utilities (water, electric, sewer, etc.)
iv. Consider moving overhead utilities to underground and placing them to avoid conflicts with trees
v. Evaluate planter and pavement design options to reduce conflicts between trees and infrastructure
vi. Avoid planting species of trees that have historically resulted in hardscape damage or whose debris create a slipping hazard vii.Plant small-statured species under utility lines
Cost: $-$$ Timeframe: Ongoing Priority: High
• Revise Title 9 of Municipal Code to designate trees as green infrastructure • Prohibit the encroachment of other utilities to prevent future conflict a. Consider tree-utility conflicts when installing utilities and other infrastructure
b. Develop tree removal policies around conflicts with sewer and water lines
c. Consider the use of shared neighborhood solar gardens to allow for greater tree planting on individual parcels
Cost: $ Timeframe: 1-5 Years Priority: High
Objective: Set emphasis on planting the right tree in the right place.

Actions:

Objective: Recognize trees as green infrastructure to mitigate conflicts between trees and other utilities and promote tree longevity.

Actions:

62 FOCUS AREA: MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING
Goal: Promote the efficient use of tree
planting funds
Performance Measure: A planting plan.

Rationale: Planting plans allow for a better
understanding of planting needs, provide direction
for maintenance, and allow managers to track
canopy goals.

Risk: Although tree plantings would still occur,
efforts may not be focused on areas that would
provide the most benefits to the community.

Benefit: Planting plans optimize available
resources and planting space to provide the most
benefit to the community.
• Determine a planting plan as called for in the Yuba City Resource Efficiency Plan
• Use planting priority analyses to determine potential planting sites that provide the maximum benefit
a. Prioritize planting sites that would have the greatest impact of reducing urban heat islands and stormwater runoff
b. Prioritize planting sites that would provide more equitable distribution of tree canopy cover
c. Plant trees in parks based on planting priority
• Implement rights-of-way planting cycles to prioritize tree planting a. Promote the use of large and medium statured trees in rights-of-way wherever possible in order to maximize the benefits
b. Include potential tree planting sites to guide and prioritize new tree plantings
c. Prioritize available planting sites based on:
i. Trees that have been removed
ii. Space and minimum planting setbacks
iii. Soil characteristics
iv. Irrigation infrastructure
v. Landscape goals and tree density
vi. Site constraints
• Use available planting sites to increase species and genus diversity • Use available planting sites to incorporate well adapted and low water use species and use biochar to improve soil fertility, infiltration, and water retention
• Consider successional plantings of species with high relative performance, as identified in the Resource Analysis
• Monitor trees for successful establishment after planting • Maintain inventory data and change trees that have been removed to potential planting sites
• Explore grant opportunities to fund tree planting in LLMDs with inadequate funding
• Organize neighborhood tree planting events
Cost: $ Timeframe: 10 Years, Ongoing Priority: High
Objective: Create and follow planting plans to allow for increased impact and success of tree plantings.

Actions:

63 Goal: Provide proactive maintenance for the
community tree resource to reduce costs and
promote efficiency
Performance Measure: Known duration between
maintenance activities for every tree in the
inventory.

Rationale: The community tree resource is made
up of living organisms, and therefore a dynamic
asset. The community tree resource requires
mechanisms in place to track maintenance needs
and provide direction to ensure all trees are given
adequate care.

Risk: Although preventative maintenance and
tree plantings would still occur, efforts may not
be targeted to areas that would provide the
community with the maximum benefits.

Benefit: A better understanding of the planting
and maintenance needs of the community tree
resource enables staff caring for trees to prioritize
tasks and improve efficiency.

Actions:
• Develop an annual work plan
a. Include estimated number of the following:
i. Removals
ii. Priority Pruning
iii. Routine Pruning
iv. Training Pruning
v. Stump Grinding
vi. Planting
b. Establish pruning grids to efficiently group routine maintenance i. Publish grid pruning map and schedule on city-website to provide residents with information on when to expect routine service ii. Expand contracted tree work to include grid pruning • Revise contractor agreements for tree maintenance
a. Require adherence to ANSI Standards and Best Management Practices
b. Include cost per tree projections for performing routine maintenance by grid
c. Consider requiring contractor to be a Certified ISA Arborist d. Require contractor to regularly update inventory records in TreeKeeper 8 as work is performed
• Maintain and regularly update inventory of all trees in parks, open space, trails, city facilities, and public rights-of-way as work occurs a. After trees are removed, convert sites to potential planting sites to guide future planting plans
b. Consider updating tree inventory data specification to include tree distance and direction from buildings in order to project energy benefits in a future Resource Analysis
c. Update diameter measurements and tree condition
• Consider redistributing funds to address outstanding service requests and shift more promptly to proactive maintenance rather than retroactive • Continue to provide training pruning to young trees through landscape contractor
• Evaluate the feasibility of restructuring and condensing the current 84 LLMDs into 12-16 geographic areas
• Annually review progress on goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan Cost: $ Timeframe: 1-5 Years, Ongoing Priority: High
Objective: Develop maintenance cycles and work plans to guide the care of the community tree resource.

Objective: Establish a risk management policy.

Actions:
• Develop a Risk Management Plan
a. Regularly inspect trees to identify and mitigate structural and agerelated defects to manage risk and reduce the likelihood of tree and branch failure
i. Train all Parks Maintenance staff to recognize common tree issues and communicate those concerns so they can be addressed. b. Set risk tolerance thresholds for trees where the risk cannot be mitigated
c. Consider having a Certified Arborist with a Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (TRAQ) Certification assess risk and recommend mitigation measures
d. Coordinate inspection of all trees with pruning cycles e. Update inventory accordingly
f. Train staff on how to complete limited visual assessments g. Familiarize staff on tree defects and conditions that affect likelihood of failure
h. Establish a reporting protocol for staff to report recognized and observed hazards
i. Implement mitigation options based on level of risk and conditions present
j. Removals should be prioritized and performed as soon as possible k. Consider moving targets (e.g., tables, benches, etc.) to reduce risk l. Consider diverting use around trees identified with risk m. Install structural support systems where recommended n. Retain and monitor trees identified for moderate to low risk Cost: $ Timeframe: 1-5 Years, Ongoing Priority: High

64 FOCUS AREA: MANAGEMENT AND PLANNING
Goal: Promote the safe management of the
community tree resource
Performance Measure: Reduction in tree-related
claims against the city.

Rationale: When all City staff share values and
behaviors that promote safety, there are fewer
workplace related accidents.

Risk: Tree work is dangerous, but this risk is
exacerbated if unsafe practices are used, or safety
policies are not fully understood.

Benefit: Fewer accidents and claims against the
city, resulting from improved public safety.
• Provide updated materials in safety training
a. Use current ANSI and BMPs
b. Formalize an emergency response plan to standardize procedures/ policies around responding to tree emergencies
• Consider the city becoming a member of Tree Care Industry Association (TCIA) • Provide training for staff to help recognize/report hazards, along with basic pruning/proper maintenance
• Continue to encourage employees to engage in professional development a. Continue to promote, support employee ISA certified arborist credentials and other professional development opportunities Cost: $$-$$ Timeframe: 1-5 Years Priority: High
Objective: Implement policies and procedures that make tree work as safe as possible.

Actions:

Goal: Predictable and stable funding for the
community tree resource
Performance Measure: Sustainable and
adequate funding to sustain the street tree
resource.

Rationale: An appropriate level of funding allows
managers to implement more proactive and
holistic tree maintenance.

Risk: If minimum funding levels are not met, the
services needed cannot be performed or are
delayed which can result in more costly fixes.

Benefit: Appropriate funding allows managers
to perform the maintenance needs of the
urban forest in a way that meets community
expectations.
• Strive to obtain stable and sustainable funding for all LLMDs a. Audit the LLMDs to analyze the cost per tree
b. Explore inequities and opportunities to equalize funding levels • Establish a Tree Fund
a. Clearly define the intent and purpose of the use of funds b. Divert fines for violations of Title 9, Chapter 3: Street Trees of Municipal Code and replacement fees to the Tree Fund
Cost: $$-$$$ Timeframe: Ongoing Priority: Medium
Objective: Secure funding for the care of all community trees.

Actions:

65 • Plant trees to promote wildlife habitat along the Feather River (per General Plan, Chapter 8)
a. Support land use that increases connectivity between parks, urban centers, and neighborhoods to decrease habitat fragmentation and promote wildlife corridors
• Incorporate trees along streetscapes to reduce air pollutant levels and buffer noise (per General Plan, Chapters 8 and 9)
• Promote the planting of trees to shade buildings to reduce energy consumption (per Yuba City Resource Efficiency Plan and Sutter County Climate Action Plan)
• Reduce the effects of urban heat islands and enhance air quality by planting trees in parking lots (per Yuba City Resource Efficiency Plan and Sutter County Climate Action Plan)
• Encourage the inclusion of trees in development and improvement projects a. Implement tree-lined parkways and landscaping as part of frontage improvements in the rights-of-way (General Plan, Chapter 5) b. Plant trees alongside other vegetation to decrease erosion following construction (per General Plan, Chapter 9)
• Promote landscaping to provide visual buffers from non-residential buildings (per General Plan Chapter 4)
• Expand the use of alternative sidewalk designs to minimize tree stress from hardscapes
a. See Appendix E
• Implement alternative planter designs when feasible
a. See Appendix E
Cost: $ Timeframe: Ongoing Priority: High
• Place a greater emphasis on monitoring for population thresholds and threshold-based treatments
a. Set up a monitoring program and ensure population thresholds are met before chemical treatments are used to manage pests b. Choose plants that are resistant to pests of concern • Implement strategies such as biological control and cultural control a. Expand IPM for boxelder bugs to include cultural control tactics b. Expand IPM for aphids to include biological and cultural control tactics
• Explore the use of less toxic products
• Consider creating habitats attractive to the beneficial predatory insects near routinely infested trees to help control pests
• Engage in educational programs on integrated pest management of key pests
• Prevent dense plantings of host species for known pests a. Explore implementing species diversity standards for neighborhoods • Use best management practices if pesticides are used
a. Always follow label directions
b. Avoid using pesticides on flowering plants
c. Prevent the recurring use of the same pesticide and mode of action to control pest issues
d. Monitor weather conditions to avoid impacts from drifting chemicals e. Monitor environmental conditions and match them to the product guidelines to maximize efficacy
• Publish articles and fact sheets about common pest issues in the community on the city website
Cost: $ Timeframe: Ongoing Priority: High
Objective: Plant and retain trees to sustain environmental benefits.

Actions:

Objective: Use integrated pest management practices (IPM) when controlling pests.

Actions:

Goal: Enhance the livability and character of
the community
Performance Measure: Increased number of
environmental benefits.

Rationale: Aesthetically pleasing environments,
with sufficient canopy cover, are valued by
community members and result in increased
activity and pride.

Risk: Less tree canopy as a result of removals
or a lack of planted trees, which could have been
avoided through alternative design and planning.

Benefit: Aesthetically pleasing atmospheres
foster livelier and more engaged communities.

Goal: Follow integrative pest management
(IPM) protocols and best management
practices when addressing pests and
diseases
Performance Measure: Reduced impact from
pests and pathogens.

Rationale: Being aware of and able to identify
pests and diseases allows managers to approach
management and prevention in a way that fits the
community’s resources.

Risk: Pest and pathogen management activities
can harm non-target organisms and can leave
toxins in the environment.

Benefit: Using comprehensive information to
outline best management strategies to manage
pest species can lessen the detrimental impacts
they have on the urban forest and allow managers
to choose the most suitable options for the
situation.

66 FOCUS AREA: PROTECTION AND REGULATION
Goal: Promote tree preservation and
protection
Performance Measure: Reduction in removals
and no net loss of canopy.

Rationale: Trees take a long time to grow.

Preserving and protecting existing trees ensures
that the stream of benefits provided by community
trees is not lost or disrupted and has the
opportunity to increase this stream of benefits over
time.

Risk: Loss of tree canopy cover, the investment
made in the community tree resource, and the
associated environmental benefits.

Benefit: Preservation of community trees ensures
the environmental benefits are sustained and the
trees have potential to provide more benefits to
the community over the course of their lifetimes.
• Amend Municipal Code as it pertains to tree removal
a. Require written application to and obtainment of permission from the Parks Director or the Director of Community Services to remove or perform any work that may impact public trees
i. Consider a general fee for tree removal applications b. Prohibit the removal of trees due to inconvenience or hardship c. Prohibit the removal of trees due to nuisance pests that do not negatively impact tree health
d. Require homeowners to pay for the removal of trees that die from lack of watering
e. Create a Tree Fund for tree removal mitigation
• Amend Municipal Code to provide more clear direction on penalties/fines for harming/poor pruning, or otherwise damaging trees in park strips a. Divert penalties or fines collected to the Tree Fund b. Define and prohibit “topping”
c. Remove property owner responsibilities to fertilize trees d. Clarify that property owners need permission to prune trees • Amend Municipal Code to designate property owner responsibility in maintaining the planting strip and cleaning up leaf litter or other debris • Amend Municipal Code to require application for a tree planting permit to ensure trees planted in the rights-of-way comply with the Yuba City Tree Guide and best management practices
• Amend Municipal Code to reference the Yuba City Tree Guide to allow for regular review and revisions of species
a. Allow to exceptions to the Yuba City Tree Guide if the species promote the desired character (e.g., palms)
• Make desired changes in other sections of Municipal Code that crossreference Chapter 3 Street Trees • Amend the parking lot shade ordinance to reference the Yuba City Tree Guide to provide clear direction on tree species that will provide the amount of shade required
a. Include shade calculator to assist developers with selecting the appropriate statured species that will provide the required 50% shade requirement
Cost: $ Timeframe: 1-5 Years Priority: High
Objective: Revise and amend Municipal Code to promote the protection of community trees.

Actions:

67 a
• Engage the community in the development of the ordinance to encourage compliance and support
a. Define heritage tree
i. Consider existing guidelines to conserve and heritage oak trees and other native trees of significant size in specified areas of Feather River habitat (Yuba City General Plan, Chapter 8)
ii. Consider including significant tree species other than oaks or native species
iii. Set a minimum diameter
b. Outline protections for heritage trees
i. Require the acquisition of tree permits to perform work on Heritage Trees
c. Develop a process for applications for tree permits and review i. Consider the requirement for Tree Protection Plans
d. Require the review of a Tree Protection Plan by Parks Maintenance staff
e. Include provision for the retention of the services of a certified arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of protected trees
i. Include other provisions as deemed necessary by the city Arborist to preserve the protected tree and ensure compliance with those provisions

1. Set fines for violations of the Heritage Tree Ordinance f. Define mitigation in the event a Tree Permit is not acquired g. Consider a public notification and review period for tree removals h. Develop an Appeals Process for Tree Permit denials
Cost: $ Timeframe: 1-5 Years Priority: High
• Enhanced enforcement and mitigation measures for trees that are removed without a permit
• Explore an alternative tree removal appraisal value process • Explore altering the fee increments
• Enforce mitigation when trees are harmed from poor pruning, or otherwise damaged
Cost: $ Timeframe: 1-5 Years Priority: High
Objective: Preserve heritage oak trees and other native trees of substantial size through the development of a Heritage Tree Ordinance (per Yuba City Resource Efficiency Plan, Goal 6).

Actions:

Objective: Enhance methods for cost recovery in the case of tree removals or improper tree maintenance.

Actions:

68 FOCUS AREA: PROTECTION AND REGULATION
Goal: Support consistency in guiding
documents
Performance Measure: Number of policies,
documents, and departments that cross reference
the UFMP and BMPs for tree care.

Rationale: Uniform policies reduce confusion
between departments and community members
and transcend departmental changes.

Risk: When policies have inconsistencies, setting
a high standard of care is difficult.

Benefit: Strong and efficient policy that aligns
expectations.
• Continue to communicate and coordinate with other departments in the development of City policies and guiding documents
• Update guiding documents to provide uniformity and clarity a. Ensure UFMP goals are considered in overarching planning and visionary documents as revisions and updates occur
• Review Urban Forest Master Plan goals every 5 to 10 years, and report progress via The State of the Urban Forest Report
Cost: $ Timeframe: Ongoing Priority: High
Objective: Strive for uniformity between city policies, guiding documents, and departments.

Actions:

69

70 FOCUS AREA: RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
Goal: Promote species diversity in the urban
forest
Performance Measure: Increased tree diversity
at the species and genus levels.

Rationale: Increasing genus and species diversity
in new and replacement tree plantings will reduce
reliance on abundant groups and make the urban
forest more resilient to changes in the climate or
pest and disease pressures.

Risk: A high reliance on certain species or genera
creates challenges in responding to pests and
pathogens and likely increases the costs and
implications.

Benefit: Diversity allows for greater adaptability
and response to changes in the environment,
increasing the chances of sustaining the current
tree resource.
• At a minimum, pursue species diversity goals that meet the 10-20-30 rule, but strive for even greater diversity among genera
• Revise and consolidate the Recommended Street Trees and the Yuba City Tree Guide lists into the Yuba City Tree Guide, which would include a broader range of species and define appropriate planting sites for each species (i.e., street trees, under utilities, etc.)
a. Consider incorporating language that prohibits the planting of palms in the rights-of-way
b. Introduce tree species that are suitable for the current and predicted future climatic condition
c. Monitor and phase out species that are poorly adapted • Reduce monoculture plantings in neighborhoods and along main corridors a. Adopt designs that promote tree diversity
• Select species which are not hosts for major pests and diseases • Conduct a Resource Analysis every 5-10 years to monitor progress on diversity goals
• Use pest and disease resistant species and cultivars when available Cost: $ Timeframe: 1-5 Years, Ongoing Priority: High
Objective: Set species diversity goals for the community tree resource.

Actions:

71 • Define sustainable annual planting goals and the necessary funding required to achieve desired levels of planting on public property and promote planting of trees on private property
• Establish a formal request channel for residents to request trees to be planted in park strips, or alternatively (in areas with no park strip or large enough rights-of-way) to plant a tree elsewhere on a property a. Explore creating or designating an account for tree donations i. Allow donors to have input in the species or location of tree plantings
• Promote tree planting efforts throughout the community a. Consider providing trees to residents in neighborhoods where there is no park strip and/or there is limited space in the rights-of-way to support a tree, so that property owner may plant a tree elsewhere on the property
b. Consider a program that would provide reduced cost trees for private property owners to plant trees on their property
c. Conduct a Land Cover Assessment every 10 years to review and report progress toward meeting canopy goals
• Revisit the tree canopy cover goal after 2040
• Revise Title 8 of Municipal Code
a. Include requirements for developers to demonstrate how design will support 50% canopy cover goal after 15 years
b. Include a calculator for developers to estimate canopy cover for the installation of trees in parking lots to reach 50% canopy cover after 15 years (See Appendix J for sample canopy calculator)
c. Include standards for maintenance, including prohibiting topping d. Include replacement requirements for trees that are removed/die e. Allow for solar or solar gardens in parking lot in lieu of trees f. Require a minimum canopy cover for different zoning classifications to maintain existing canopy
Cost: $ Timeframe: 20 Years Priority: High
• Promote tree planting to reach community canopy goals a. Encourage the expansion of the urban forest through tree plantings on private property
b. Expand the urban forest through extensive tree plantings on public property (per General Plan)
• Promote tree planting in new development projects
a. Subdivisions
b. New parks (per General Plan Chapter 3)
c. New Activity Centers (per General Plan Chapter 4)
Cost: $ Timeframe: Ongoing Priority: High
Objective: Achieve 25% canopy cover by 2040.

Actions:

Objective: Help to increase tree planting efforts within the County (per Sutter County Climate Action Plan).

Actions:

Goal: Expand canopy cover and the resulting
environmental benefits
Performance Measure: Increased canopy cover.

Rationale: The benefits that the urban forest
provides are directly related to the amount of tree
canopy cover and leaf surface area.

Risk: No net loss or reduction in canopy cover.

Benefit: Increased canopy cover results in greater
benefits.
71

72 FOCUS AREA: RESILIENCE AND SUSTAINABILITY
Goal: Establish a more water-wise urban forest
Performance Measure: Minimized tree losses
following periods of drought.

Rationale: Yuba City is located in a naturally arid
environment where droughts are known to occur.

With climate change, periods of drought are likely
to be more frequent and severe.

Risk: If a tree is not well suited for the local
environment or not given adequate water, it may
require more resources to sustain long-term
health.

Benefit: Fewer tree removals and maximized
benefits from community trees.
• Continue to choose species suited to the local climate • Incorporate native species into planting palettes
• Select drought tolerant species (per General Plan)
• Promote drought tolerant species in addition to shade trees for new developments (per Sutter County Climate Action Plan)
• Promote efficient irrigation systems (per Sutter County Climate Action Plan)
• Ensure trees receive adequate water even during periods of drought a. Increase awareness of property owner responsibilities for watering street trees per Municipal Code
Cost: $ Timeframe: Ongoing Priority: High
Objective: Ensure tree plantings are climate adapted and low water use species.

Actions:

Goal: Repurpose woody materials resulting
from removals whenever possible
Performance Measure: Reduced amount of
woody material entering the waste management
center.

Rationale: Tree removals result in woody
materials that are composted at the city waste
management center. Alternatively, woody
materials can be repurposed into wood products
and wood mulch.

Risk: Tree removals generate a substantial
amount of woody material that could be treated as
waste.

Benefit: Repurposing felled trees is one way to
recover the costs of removal and divert woody
material from the landfill.
• Identify wood utilization needs
• Continue to partner with contracting arborists to recycle/reuse wood from large removals
• Expand partnerships
• Expand the practice of generating and using wood chips from tree removals
a. Use wood chips in tree plantings and park maintenance projects b. Provide the community with an opportunity to pick up wood chips for landscaping needs
• Plan for wood waste material storage
a. Determine the capacity for wood mulch storage in the Yuba City Corporation Yard
b. Explore partnerships for wood mulch storage
Cost: $ Timeframe: 10 Years Priority: Low-Moderate
Objective: Identify a wood reutilization policy.

Actions:

73 • Reduce the risk of fire in the wildland urban interface as identified in the Sutter County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
a. Mitigate the potential fire hazards that exist
i. Reduce ladder fuels and create defensible space in proximity to structures
ii. Ensure clearance standards are met where trees are planted near utility poles and powerlines
iii. Plant trees to not interfere with emergency response, such as, planting too close to fire hydrants and too close to fire escapes b. Develop a Community Wildfire Protection Plan
Cost: $ Timeframe: Ongoing Priority: High
Objective: Become a more wildfire-prepared community.

Actions:

Goal: Reduce the risk of wildfire in the Feather
River Parkway
Performance Measure: Improved defensible
spaces around structures and reduction in ladder
fuels.

Rationale: Wildfires are a naturally occurring
phenomenon, but the community can play a role
in mitigating the risks associated with living in the
Wildland Urban Interface.

Risk: Wildfires can result in the loss of property
and life. Recovery from wildfires can have
negative economic impacts for years following fire.

Benefit: Talking steps to mitigate the spread of
fire reduces the likelihood of losses to property
and life.

74 FOCUS AREA: EDUCATION AND ENGAGEMENT
Goal: Engage community members in
stewardship of the urban forest
Performance Measure: Participation in urban
forestry programming.

Rationale: An educated community is more likely
to support and advocate for the urban forest.

Risk: Apathy toward the urban forest may result in
less care and support for the urban forest resulting
in fewer benefits provided by the urban forest.

Benefit: A community that supports the urban
forest protects the urban forest and therefore, the
benefits that it provides.
• Provide targeted education to residents about the watering needs of trees and their responsibilities for watering city trees
a. Present the true cost of watering trees
i. Provide calculations for watering based on current watering rates and fees
• Increase engagement with external partners/stakeholders that play a role in urban forest
a. Explore partnerships with local nonprofit organizations and environmental advocacy groups to distribute urban forestry educational materials and promote urban forestry events b. Engage green industry members, state agencies, and utility providers • Interact with community members through a variety of outlets a. Create a community group to help with tree planting and developing a city tree planting program (per Yuba City Resource Efficiency Plan) b. Engage the Yuba City Tree Advisory Board on key issues impacting the urban forest
• Update the city website to have a dedicated page for tree information a. Provide and regularly update responses to Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
b. Summarize relevant Municipal Code
c. Provide important tree-related information in multiple languages d. Summarize maintenance responsibilities of adjacent property owners for city-planted trees
i. Provide links for proper tree-care resources

1. How to plant a tree

2. How to prune a tree

3. How to fertilize and mulch

4. How to irrigate

5. How to hire an arborist or tree care company
e. Share the Urban Forest Master Plan and Story map through the city website
f. Provide downloadable fact sheets such as the boxelder bug homeowners guide and guides for other common pests
g. Share and maintain the Yuba City Tree Guide
h. Communicate the benefits of trees and tree canopy including environmental, social, and economic
i. Publish grid pruning maps and schedules (when available) on the website
j. Host neighborhood tree planting events and tree giveaways Cost: $ Timeframe: 1-5 Years, Ongoing Priority: High
Objective: Support community engagement and stewardship of the urban forest.

Actions:

Goal: Celebrate the importance of urban trees
Performance Measure: Number of years
recognizing the importance of the urban forest.

Rationale: Observing and recognizing the benefits
provided by the urban forest encourages community
engagement and promotes appreciation for trees.

Risk: When community members are unaware of
the benefits of the urban forest, people are likely
going to be less supportive of programming and the
resources needed to care for it.

Benefit: Community awareness and appreciation of
the urban forest promotes support for the necessary
resources to maintain it.
● Continue to meet all requirements to maintain Tree City USA designation ● Continue to celebrate Arbor Day
Cost: $ Timeframe: Ongoing Priority: High
Objective: Maintain Tree City USA status.

Actions:

75

76 With appropriate care and planning, the urban
forest is an asset that has the potential to increase
in value over time. As young trees mature and their
leaf surface and canopy grow, so too will the overall
benefits and value of the community’s urban forest.

The objectives and strategies of the UFMP are
intended to support this process in an appropriate
manner that encourages the sustainable
stewardship of community trees with consideration
for safety, cost efficiency, and community values.

The UFMP includes strategies for measuring the
success of the plan over time.

Monitoring and Measuring
Results
Through talking with community partners and
those within the urban forestry program, a set of
goals were created to meet the strong demand
for protecting and enhancing the urban forest.

The success of these goals is largely dependent
on creating objectives and strategies to meet the
targets outlined in the UFMP as well as monitor the
progress of these action steps.

ANNUAL REVIEW
The UFMP is an active tool that will guide
management and planning decisions over the next
40 years. Its goals and actions will be reviewed
annually for progress and integration into an
internal work plan. The UFMP presents a longrange vision and target dates are intended to be flexible in response to emerging opportunities,
available resources, and changes in community
expectations. Therefore, each year, specific areas
of focus should be identified, which can inform
budget and time requirements for urban forest
managers.

RESOURCE ANALYSIS
With a Resource Analysis, Yuba City can identify
quantitatively the value of the composition of
public trees, the annual benefit provided to the
community, replacement value, and benefit versus
investment ratios. With this information, Yuba City
can improve health (condition), species diversity,
annual benefits, and overall resource value of
its tree resource. When a resource analysis is
conducted every five years, the city can illustrate
progress and success towards plan goals. A fiveyear Resource Analysis review is a possible way to monitor progress on efforts to increase diversity
through a list of tree species appropriate for a
variety of different spaces and landscapes.

CANOPY ASSESSMENT
With the recent Tree Canopy & Land Cover
Assessment, Yuba City has a baseline tree
canopy for the entire urban forest, which allows for
continued monitoring of trends in the canopy cover
on private property.

COMMUNITY SATISFACTION
Plan results will be measurable through increased
benefits and value in the community tree resource
and the preservation and eventual increase
in canopy cover over time. Attainment of the
objectives and strategies will support better
tree health, greater longevity, and a reduction
in tree failures. However, one of the greatest
measurements of success for the UFMP will be its
level of success in meeting community expectations
for the care and preservation of the community
tree resource. Community satisfaction can be
measured through surveys and will be evidenced
by public support for realizing the objectives of the
plan. Community satisfaction can also be gauged
by the level of engagement and support for forestry
programs.

Reporting
Completion of this plan is the first step towards
achieving the vision for Yuba City’s urban forest.

Continual monitoring, analysis, and revisions
will help forest managers keep stakeholders
informed and engaged. By organizing data into
specific components (for example, Urban Forest
Reports, Community Satisfaction Surveys), it will
be possible to revise specific areas of weakness
and buttress areas of strength. Revisions to the
plan should occur with major events, such as newly
discovered pests or diseases, or significant policy
and regulation changes. A complete formal revision
should occur in unison with major municipal
projects, such as the comprehensive Master Plan. It
is important to remember that the Yuba City Urban
Forest Master Plan is a living document that should
adapt to new conditions.

STATE OF THE COMMUNITY FOR-

EST REPORT
The purpose of the report is to provide structural
and functional information about the urban forest
(including the municipal forest) and recommend
strategies for its proactive management, protection,
and growth.

How are we doing?
I love trees because they
give me air and fruit
Gaberial
7 1/2 years

77

78 Appendix A: Dictionary

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
A framework commonly used for resource planning and
management, which follows the process of What do we
have, What do we want, How do we get there, and How
are we doing.

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE (ANSI)
A Federation of United States industry sectors
(e.g., businesses, professional societies and trade
associations, standards developers, government
agencies, institutes, and consumer / labor interest
groups) that coordinates the development of the
voluntary consensus standards system.

AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS

ASSOCIATION (APWA)
An organization that supports professionals who
operate, improve, or maintain public works infrastructure by advocating to increase awareness, and providing
education, credentialing, as well as other professional development opportunities.

ARBORICULTURE
The science, art, technology, and business of tree care.

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP)
Management practices and processes used when
conducting forestry operations, implemented to promote
environmental integrity.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT

PROJECTS (CIP)
Infrastructure projects and equipment purchases
identified by a government in order to maintain
or improve public resources. Projects such as (1)
constructing a facility, (2) expanding, renovating,
replacing, or rehabilitating an existing facility, or (3) purchasing major equipment are identified, and then
purchasing plans and development schedules are
developed.

CLIMATE ACTION PLAN (CAP)
Government lead initiatives to decrease greenhouse
gas emissions and prepare for the impacts of climate
change.

COMMUNITY URBAN FOREST
The collection of publicly owned trees within an urban
area, including street trees and trees in parks and other public facilities.

DRIP LINE AREA
The area measured from the trunk of the tree outward
to a point at the perimeter of the outermost branch
structure of the tree.

DUTCH ELM DISEASE (DED)
A wilt disease of elm trees caused by plant pathogenic
fungi. The disease is either spread by bark beetles or
tree root grafts.

EMERALD ASH BORER (EAB)
The common name for Agrilus planipennis, an
emerald green wood boring beetle native to
northeastern Asia and invasive to North America.

It feeds on all species of ash.

GREENHOUSE GAS (GHG)
A gas that traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere.

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM
(GIS)
Computer-based tools designed to increase the
organization and understanding of spatial or geographic data. Many different kinds of data can be displayed on
one map for visualization and interpretation.

HEAT ISLAND EFFECT
A phenomenon where temperatures in urban areas are
higher than that of their surrounding rural areas due to human activities.

HONEYDEW
A sweet sticky substance, high in sugars and amino
acids, that is excreted by various insects.

INTEGRATED PEST

MANAGEMENT (IPM)
Using pest and environmental information to determine
if pest control actions are warranted. Pest control
methods (e.g., biological control, habitat manipulation, cultural control, plant resistance, and chemical
control) are chosen based on economic and safety
considerations.

I -TREE
A computer program with tools used to determine the
costs and benefits of urban trees based on inventory
data, operations costs, and other factors.

INTERCEPTION
Refers to the precipitation that does not reach the soil, but instead is intercepted or stopped by the leaves,
branches, and bark of trees.

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE (ISA)
An international nonprofit organization that supports
professionals in the field of arboriculture by providing professional development opportunities, disseminating
applicable research findings, and promoting the
profession.

INVENTORIED TREES
Includes all public trees collected in the inventory as well as trees that have since been collected by city staff.

MAJOR MAINTENANCE
Includes major trimming or pruning or cabling, and
any other similar act, which promotes the life, growth, health, or beauty of trees, excepting watering and minor pruning.

MAJOR TRIMMING AND PRUNING
The removal of branches of three inches in diameter or
greater.

MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT (MBTA)
A United States federal law adopted to protect migratory birds.

NATURAL AREA
A defined area where native trees and vegetation are
allowed to grow and reproduce naturally with little or
no management except for control of undesirable and
invasive species.

OPEN SPACE
A defined area of undeveloped land that is open to the
public. The land can include native or naturalized trees and vegetation.

PLANT HEALTH CARE (PHC)
A program that consists of (1) routinely monitoring
landscape plant health and (2) individualized plant
management recommendations in order to maintain or
improve the vitality, appearance, and safety of trees and other plants.

PERSONAL PROTECTIVE

EQUIPMENT (PPE)
Equipment worn to enhance workplace safety and
minimize the risk to physical hazards (e.g., gloves, hard hats, bodysuits, and foot, eye, or ear protection).

PRIVATE TREE
Any tree located on private property, including
residential and commercial parcels.

PUBLIC TREE
Any tree located in the public ROW, city park,
and/or city facility.

79 RIGHT TREE RIGHT PLACE
The practice of installing the optimal species for a
particular planting site. Considerations include existing and planned utilities and other infrastructure, planter size, soil characteristics, water needs as well as the
intended role and characteristics of the species.

STREET TREE
Any tree growing within the tree maintenance strip
whether or not planted by the city.

STRUCTURAL AND TRAINING PRUNING
Pruning to develop a sound and desirable scaffold
branch structure in a tree and to reduce the likelihood of branch failure.

TRANSPIRATION
The process of water movement through a plant and its
evaporation through its leaves.

TREE
Any live woody plant having one or more well-defined
perennial stems with a diameter at maturity of six inches or more measured at fifty-four inches above ground
level (breast height).

TREE CANOPY
The layer of leaves, branches, and stems of trees that
cover the ground when viewed from above.

TREE CITY USA
A program through the Arbor Day Foundation that
advocates for green urban areas through enhanced
tree planting and care

TREE IN PROXIMITY TO

TRAILS/FACILITIES
A tree that, as a result of size and location, has the
potential to impact or interfere with the use, safety,
and/or condition of a defined trail, structure, or
facility (e.g., picnic table, bench, parking area, etc.)

TREE RISK ASSESSMENT

QUALIFIED (TRAQ)
An International Society of Arboriculture
qualification. Upon completion of this training,
tree care professionals demonstrate proficiency
in assessing tree risk.

URBAN FOREST
The collection of privately owned and publicly
owned trees and woody shrubs that grow within
an urban area.

URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN (UFMP)
A document that provides comprehensive
information, recommendations, and timelines
to guide for the efficient and safe management
of a city’s tree canopy. The plan uses adaptive
management model to provide reasoned and
transparent calls to action from an inventory of
existing resources.

URBAN FORESTRY
The cultivation and management of native or
introduced trees and related vegetation in urban
areas for their present and potential contribution
to the economic, physiological, sociological, and
ecological well-being of urban society.

URBAN TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT
(UTC)
A document based off of GIS mapping data that
provides a birds-eye view of the entire urban forest and establishes a tree canopy baseline of known accuracy.

The UTC helps managers understand the quantity and
distribution of existing tree canopy, potential impacts of tree planting and removal, quantified annual benefits
trees provide to the community, and benchmark canopy
percent values.

WILDFIRE URBAN INTERFACE (WUI)
A transition zone where homes are located on the
edge of fire prone areas and are at an increased risk
of personal injury or property damage resulting from a
wildfire.
10-20-30 RULE
A well accepted rule that states that no species should represent more than 10%, no genus represent more
than 20%, and no family should represent more than
30% of a population.

I knew trees were important
to our town and that there
are public trees that are
maintained.

Survey Respondent

80 Appendix B: References
Akbari, H., D. Kurn, et al. 1997. “Peak power and cooling energy savings of shade trees.” Energy and Buildings 25:139–148.
[ARB] California Air Resource Board. 2011. “US Forest Projects” – October 20, 2011. Retrieved from https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/compliance-offset-program/compliance-offset-protocols/usforest-projects/2011 Atkinson, T.H., J.L. Foltz, R.C. Wilkinson, and R.F. Mizell. 2000. “Florida Insect Management Guide for insect borers of trees and shrubs.” University of Florida. Entomology Circular 310. http://entnemdept.ufl. edu/creatures/trees/asian_ambrosia_beetle.htm
American Planning Association. 2003. Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community Development. 2009. American Planning Association. Edited by Schwab, James.

Berlanger, I. and M.L. Powelson. 2005. “Verticillium wilt” The Plant Health Instructor. https://www. apsnet.org/edcenter/disandpath/fungalasco/pdlessons/Pages/VerticilliumWilt.aspx “Buys Walnuts from Largest Tree in World”. 1919. Marysville Daily Appeal, V. CXVIII, no. 3. Retrieved from California Digital Newspaper Collection. Retrieved on 23 October 2020.

California Department of Agriculture. 2018. “2019 Crop Report.” Sutter County. Retrieved from https:// www.suttercounty.org/doc/government/depts/ag/ag_crop_reports California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2019 https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Lands/Places-to-Visit/ Sutter-Bypass-WA
Clark, J.R., Matheny, N.P., Cross, G., Wake, V. 1997. “A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability.” J Arbor 23(1):17-30.

Clemson University. 2019. “Crape myrtle diseases and insect pests.” Cooperative Extension Services.

Retrieved from https://hgic.clemson.edu/factsheet/crape-myrtle-diseases-insect-pests/ Cole, K.W. 2008. “Granulate Ambrosia Beetle.” Indiana Department of Natural Resources. http://www. in.gov/dnr/entomolo/files/ep-GranulateAmbrosiaBeetleFactsheet.pdf Cranshaw, Dr. Whitney. 2018. “Quality Time with Scale Insects (and Spider Mites?).” Colorado State University. 63rd Annual Shade Tree Conference, Topeka, KS Presentation. Retrieved from https:// webdoc.agsci.colostate.edu/bspm/InsectInformation/Talks2018/QTScaleInsects.pdf Dedryver, C.A., Le Ralec, A., & Fabre, F. 2010. “The conflicting relationships between aphids and men:
a review of aphid damage and control strategies.” Comptes rendus biologies, 333(6-7), 539-553.

Dwyer, J.F, McPherson, E.G., Schroeder, H.W., and Rowntree, R.A. 1992. “Assessing the Benefits and Costs of the Urban Forest.” Journal of Arboriculture 18(5): 227-234.

Ellison, D., Morris, C.E., Locatelli, B., Sheil, D., Cohen, J., Murdiyarso, D., Gutierrez, V., Van Noordwijk, M., Creed, I.F., Pokorny, J. and Gaveau, D., 2017. “Trees, forests, and water: Cool insights for a hot world.” Global Environmental Change, 43: 51-61.

Emerald Ash Borer Information Network. 2019. http://www.emeraldashborer.info/ Eskalen, A. 2015. “Polyphagous and Kuroshio Shot Hole Borers.” http://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/ postdetail.cfm?postnum=19197
Eskalen, A. 2019. “Invasive Shot Hole Borers.” University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. Retrieved November 27, 2019 from https://ucanr.edu/sites/eskalenlab/?file=index.html Eskalen, A. Kabashima, J., and Dimson, M. 2017. “Invasive Shot Hole Borer and Fusarium Dieback Field Guide. Identifying signs and symptoms of the Polyphagous and Kuroshio Shot Hole Borer.” University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources. Retrieved from https://ucanr.edu/sites/ eskalenlab/files/290780.pdf
Fontana, B. L. (1956). “Three Ethnohistoric References to the Maidu.” Ethnohistory, 3(1), 34-45.

Fernández-Juricic, E. 2001. “Avifaunal use of wooded streets in an urban landscape.” Conservation Biology. 14(2): 513-521.

Gilstad-Hayden, K., Wallace, L.R., Carroll-Scott, A., Meyer, S.R., Barbo, S., Murphy-Dunning, C., and Ickovics, J.R. 2015. “Research note: Greater tree canopy cover is associated with lower rates of both violent and property crime in New Haven, CT.” Landscape and Urban Planning, 143, 248-253.

Grafton-Cardwel, Dr., Daugherty, Dr., Jetter, Dr., & Johnson, R. 2019. ACP/HLB Distribution and Management. University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Retrieved from https://ucanr.edu/sites/ACP/
Goulson, D., Nicholls, E., Botías, C., & Rotheray, E. L. 2015. “Bee declines driven by combined stress from parasites, pesticides, and lack of flowers.” Science, 347(6229).

Haddad, N.M., Brudvig, L.A., Clobert, J., Davies, K.F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R.D., Lovejoy, T.E., Sexton, J.O., Austin, M.P., Collins, C.D. and Cook, W.M., 2015. “Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems.” Science Advances, 1(2), p.e1500052.

Heisler G.M. 1986. “Energy Savings with Trees.” J Arbor 12(5):113–125.

Huang, Y. J., Akbari, H., and Taha, H. 1990. “The wind-shielding and shading effects of trees on residential heating and cooling requirements.” ASHRAE Winter Meeting, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. Atlanta, Georgia. ASHRAE proceedings, 96(1).

Threlfall, C.G., Nicholas S.G. Williams, Amy K. Hahs, Stephen J. Livesley. Approaches to urban vegetation management and the impacts on urban bird and bat assemblages, Landscape and Urban Planning, Volume 153, 2016, Pages 28-39.

81 Jennings, V.; Gaither, C.J. 2015. “Approaching Environmental Health Disparities and Green Spaces: An Ecosystem Services Perspective.” Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 12, 1952-1968.

Johnson, R. M. (2015). “Honeybee toxicology.” Annual Review of Entomology, 60.

Karl, Tom, P. Harley, L. Emmons, B. Thornton, A. Guenther, C. Basu, A. Turnipseed, K. Jardine. “Efficient Atmospheric Cleansing of Oxidized Organic Trace Gases by Vegetation.” October 2010.

Retrieved on 11/9/2010 from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/330/6005/816> Kuo, F.E. and Sullivan, W.C., 2001. “Environment and crime in the inner city: Does vegetation reduce crime?” Environment and Behavior, 33(3), pp.343-367.

Lyle, J.T., 1996. Regenerative Design for Sustainable Development. John Wiley & Sons.

Matsuoka, R. 2010. “Student performance and high school landscapes: Examining the links.” Landscape and Urban Planning. 97. 273-282.

McDonald et al. 2016. “Planting Healthy Air: A global analysis of the role of urban trees in addressing particulate matter pollution and extreme heat.” The Nature Conservancy. Retrieved from https:// thought-leadership-production.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/10/28/17/17/50/0615788b-8eaf-4b4f-a02a8819c68278ef/20160825_PHA_Report_FINAL.pdf McPherson, EG., Xiao, Xl, Maco, S.E., Van Der Zanden, A., Simpson, J.R., Bell, N., Peper, P.J. 2002 Western Washington and Oregon Community Tree Guide: Benefits, Costs and Strategic Planting.

Center for Urban Forest Research Pacific Southwest Research Station. https://www.fs.fed.us/psw/ topics/urban_forestry/products/5/CUFR_164_Western_WA_OR_Tree_Guide.pdf McPherson, E. G., and Rowntree, R. A. 1989. “Using structural measures to compare twenty-two US street tree populations.” Landscape Journal, 8(1):13-23.

Kaplan R., and Kaplan S. 1989. The Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press.

Kaplan, K. 2019. “Scientists Release First Map of Areas Suitable for Spotted Lanternfly’s Establishment in US and World.” Retrieved January 8, 2019 from https://www.ars.usda.gov/news-events/news/ research-news/2019/scientists-release-first-map-of-areas-suitable-for-spotted-lanternflys-establishmentin-us-and-world/ Kenney, W. A., van Wassenaer, P. J., & Satel, A. L. (2011). “Criteria and indicators for strategic urban forest planning and management.” Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, 37(3), 108-117.

Lehmann, J.; Gaunt, John; Rondon, Marco; et al. (2006). “Bio-char Sequestration in Terrestrial Ecosystems – A Review” (PDF). Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change. 11 (2): 395– 427. doi:10.1007/s11027-005-9006-5.

Lehmann, Johannes (2007a). “Bio-energy in the black” (PDF). Front Ecol Environ. 5 (7). Retrieved 1 October 2011.

Lehmann, Johannes (2007b). “A handful of carbon.” Nature. 447 (7141). Bibcode:2007Natur.447. 143L. doi:10.1038/447143a. Retrieved 11 January 2008.

Palumbi, S. R. (2001). “Humans as the world’s greatest evolutionary force.” Science, 293(5536), 1786- 1790.

Peairs, F.B. 2014. “Boxelder bugs.” Colorado State University Extension. Fact Sheet 5.522. Retrieved from https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/insects/boxelder-bugs-5-522/ Pena, JCdC, Martello, F., Ribeiro, M.C., Armitage, R.A., Young, R.J., and Rodrigues, M. 2017. “Street trees reduce the negative effects of urbanization on birds.” PLOS ONE 12(3): e0174484.

Perry, E.J. 2014. “Pest notes: Boxelder Bugs.” University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources Publication 74114. Retrieved from http://ipm.ucanr.edu/PMG/PESTNOTES/pn74114.html Purdue Extension. 2016. Protecting pollinators. Retrieved from https://extension.entm.purdue.edu/ publications/POL-4/POL-4.html
Science Now. 2010. “Tree Leaves Fight Pollution.” sciencemag.org. Retrieved 11/05/2010 from http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/tree-leaves-fight-pollution.html Shashua‐Bar, L., Potchter, O., Bitan, A., Boltansky, D. and Yaakov, Y. (2010), Microclimate modelling of street tree species effects within the varied urban morphology in the Mediterranean city of Tel Aviv, Israel. Int. J. Climatol., 30: 44-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1869 Sherer, P.M., 2003. “Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space.” San Francisco: The Trust for Public Land. Retrieved from http://www.tpl.org/content_documents/parks_for_people_Jan2004.pdf Sperling’s, 2018 https://www.bestplaces.net/climate/city/california/yuba_city Sunsweet. 2019 https://www.sunsweet.com/sunsweet-story/ Thériault, Marius; Kestens, Yan; and Des Rosiers, François, “The Impact of Mature Trees -on House Values and on Residential Location Choices in Quebec City” (2002). International Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software. 137. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/iemssconference/2002 /all/137
Thorp, R.W., Horning, D.S. Jr., and L.L. Dunning. 1983. “Bumble bees and cuckoo bumble bees of California (Hymenoptera, Apidae).” Bulletin of the California Insect Survey. 23. Retrieved from https:// essig.berkeley.edu/documents/cis/cis23.pdf
Troy, Austin; Grove, J. Morgan; O’Neil-Dunne, Jarlath. 2012. “The relationship between tree canopy and crime rates across an urban rural gradient in the greater Baltimore region.” Landscape and Urban Planning. 106: 262-270.

Ulrich, R.S. 1986. “Human Responses to Vegetation and Landscapes.” Landscape and Urban Planning, 13, 29-44.

82 University of Georgia. 2020. “Best Management Practices in the Landscape.” Retrieved from https:// extension.uga.edu/
Urban and Community Forestry program Quantification Methodology. California Air Resource Board. 2020. Retrieved from: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic//cc/capandtrade/auctionproceeds/ calfire_ucf_finalqm_012820.pdf
US Fish & Wildlife. 2020. “Pollinators.” Retrieved from https://www.fws.gov/pollinators/PollinatorPages/ AboutPollinators.html#:~:text=Insects%20(bees%2C%20wasps%2C%20moths,et%20al.%2C%201996).

USDA APHIS, n.d. “Spotted Lanternfly.” Retrieved January 8, 2019 from https://www.aphis.usda.gov/ aphis/resources/pests-diseases/hungry-pests/the-threat/spotted-lanternfly/spotted-lanternfly USDA, APHIS, n.d. “Asian longhorned beetle.” Retrieved from https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ resources/pests-diseases/hungry-pests/the-threat/asian-longhorned-beetle/asian-longhorned-beetle U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2020. Energy and the environment explained: Greenhouse gasses and the climate. Retrieved from: https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/energy-and-theenvironment/greenhouse-gases-and-the-climate.php Williams E, Lotstein R, Galik C, Knuffman H. 2007. A Convenient Guide to Climate Change Policy and Technology. Vol2: 134 p
Winsley, Peter (2007). “Biochar and Bioenergy Production for Climate Change Mitigation.” (PDF) New Zealand Science Review. 64 (5): 5.

Wolf, K.L. 2007. “City trees and property values.” Arborist News. 16(4):34-36.

Xiao, Q., McPherson, E.G., Simpson, J.R., Ustin, S.L. 1998. “Rainfall Interception by Sacramento’s Urban Forest.” Journal of Arboriculture. 24(4): 235-244.

Yuba Sutter Arts. 2019. https://yubasutterarts.org/event/yuba-sutter-cultural-celebration-2/ Yuba City. 2019. https://www.yubacity.net/
Yuba City, CA Tree Canopy & Land Cover Assessment. 2020.

Yuba City, CA Resource Analysis. 2020.

Yuba City Summer at City Hall Job Shadow Brochure. 2016. https://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/2016_sach_yuba_city_job_shadow_brochurefinal_draft.docx?1499108158 Yuba City General Plan, 2004.

Zhu, K., Woodall, C. W., & Clark, J. S. (2012). Failure to migrate: lack of tree range expansion in response to climate change. Global Change Biology, 18(3), 1042-1052.

I would love to see more
native species such as
oaks and other trees that
are expected to do well with
climate change.

Survey Respondent

83

84 ANSI Z133 Safety Standard, 2017
Reviews general safety, electrical hazards, use of vehicles and mobile equipment, portable power hand tools, hand tools and ladders, climbing, and work procedures.

ANSI A300
ANSI A300 standards represent the industry consensus on performing tree care operations. The standards can be used to prepare tree care contract specifications.

ANSI A300 Pruning Standard-Part 1, 2017
ANSI A300 Soil Management-Part 2, 2011
ANSI A300 Support Systems Standard-Part 3, 2013
ANSI A300 Construction Management Standard-Part 5, 2012 ANSI A300 Transplanting Standard-Part 6, 2012
ANSI A300 Integrated Vegetation Management Standard-Part 7,2012 ANSI A300 Root Management Standard-Part 8, 2013
ANSI A300 Tree Risk Assessment Standard a Tree Failure-Part 9, 2017 ANSI A300 Integrated Pest Management-Part 10, 2016
Includes guidelines for implementing IPM programs, including standards for Integrated Pest Management, IPM Practices, tools and equipment, and definition.

Best Management Practices (BMPs)
Integrated Pest Management, Second Edition, P. Eric Wiseman, and Michael J. Raupp, 2016
Provides a comprehensive overview of the basic definitions, concepts, and practices that pertain to landscape Integrated Pest Management (IPM). The publication provides specific information for designing, planning, and implementing an IPM program as part of a comprehensive Plant Health Care (PHC) management system, including topics such as:
• IPM Concepts and Definitions
• Action Thresholds
• Monitoring Tools and Techniques
• Preventive Tactics
• Control Tactics
• Documentation and Recordkeeping
Integrated Vegetation Management, Second Edition, Randall H. Miller, 2014 A guide to the selection and application of methods and techniques for vegetation control for electric rights-of-way projects and gas pipeline rights-of-way. Topics included: safety, site evaluations, action thresholds, evaluation, and selection of control methods, implementing control methods, monitoring treatment and quality assurance, environmental protection, tree pruning and removal, and a glossary of terms.

Managing Trees During Construction, Second Edition, Kelby Fite and E. Thomas Smiley, 2016
Describes tree conservation and preservation practices that help to protect selected trees throughout the construction planning and development process so that they will continue to provide benefits for decades after site disturbance, including planning phase, design phase, pre-construction phase, construction phase, and post-construction phase.

Root Management, Larry Costello, Gary Watson, and Tom Smiley, 2017 Recommended practices for inspecting, pruning, and directing the roots of trees in urban environments to promote their longevity, while minimizing infrastructure conflicts.

Special companion publication to the ANSI A300 Part 8: Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management–Standard Practices (Root Management)
Appendix C: Industry Standards

85 Tree Planting, Second Edition, Gary Watson, 2014
Provides processes for tree planting, including site and species selection, planting practices, postplanting pruning, and early tree care. Other topics included are time of planting, nursery stock: types, selection, and handling, preparing the planting hole, planting practices, root loss and new root growth, redevelopment of root structure, pruning, palms, after planting, final inspection, and a glossary of terms.

Tree Inventories, Second Edition, Jerry Bond, 2013
Provides considerations for managing large numbers of trees considered as individuals rather than groups and serves as a guide for making informed decisions that align with inventory goals with needs and resources, including inventory goals and objectives, benefits and costs, types, work specifications, and maintaining inventory quality.

Tree Risk Assessment, Second Edition, E. Thomas Smiley, Nelda Matheny, and Sharon Lilly, 2017
A guide for assessing tree risk as accurately and consistently as possible, to evaluate that risk, and to recommend measures that achieve an acceptable level of risk, including topics: risk assessment basics, levels and scope of tree risk assessment, assessing targets, sites, and trees, tree risk categorization, risk mitigation: preventive and remedial actions, risk reporting, tree related conflicts that can be a source of risk, loads on trees, structural defects and conditions that affect likelihood of failure, response growth, description of selected types of advanced tree risk assessments.

Tree Shrub Fertilization, Third Edition, E. Thomas Smiley, Sharon Lilly, and Patrick Kelsey, 2013
Aides in the selection and application of fertilizers for trees and shrubs, including: Essential elements, determining goals and objectives of fertilization, soil testing and plan analysis, fertilizer selection, timing, application, application area, rates, storage and handling of fertilizer, sample fertilizer contract for commercial/ municipal clients.

Soil Management, Bryant Scharenbroch, E. Thomas Smiley, and Wes Kocher, 2014 Focuses on the protection and restoration of soil quality that support trees and shrubs in the urban environment, including goals of soil management, assessment, sampling, and analysis, modifications and amendments, tillage, conservation, and a glossary of terms.

Utility Pruning of Trees, Geoffrey P. Kempter, 2004
Describes the current best practices in utility tree pruning based on scientific research and proven methodology for the safe and reliable delivery of utility services, while preventing unnecessary injury to trees. An overview of safety, tools, and equipment, pruning methods and practices, and emergency restoration are included.

A tree has roots in the soil yet reaches
to the sky. It tells us that in order to
aspire we need to be grounded an that
no matter how high we go it is from our
roots that we draw sustenance.

Wangari Maathai

86 Tree growth is limited by soil volume. Larger stature trees require larger volumes of uncompacted soil to reach mature size and canopy spread (Casey Trees, 2008).

Appendix D: Soil Volume and Tree Stature

87 Appendix E: Alternative Planter Designs
Above: Bioswales are landscaped drainage areas with gently sloped sides designed to provide temporary storage while runoff infiltrates the soil. They reduce off-site runoff and trap pollutants and silt.

Above: Stormwater tree pits are designed to collect runoff from streets, parking lots, and other impervious areas. Stormwater is directed into scuppers that flow into below-grade planters that then allow stormwater to infiltrate soils to supplement irrigation.

88 Above: Structural soil is a highly porous, engineered aggregate mix, designed for use under asphalt and concrete as a load-bearing and leveling layer. The created spaces allow for water infiltration and storage, in addition to root growth.

Above: Suspended sidewalks use pillars or structured cell systems to support reinforced concrete, increasing the volume of uncompacted soil in subsurface planting areas and enhancing both root growth and stormwater storage.

89 Above: Permeable pavements allow stormwater and oxygen to infiltrate the surface, promoting tree health and groundwater recharge.

I have spent time in many nearby cities
and see how areas such as Chico have
worked so hard to incorporate many
trees into much of their town. It relaxes
me and puts me in a more positive
headspace. And I can’t understate their
many more practical applications, like
helping save residents from the often
dangerous heat levels.

Survey Respondent

90 Appendix F: Tree Protection Zones

91 Yuba City needs to become
more about “outdoor spaces” -
things like outdoor dining and
entertainment not only attract
tourism and business, but it also
provides a reason to stay local
–Survey respondent
Love note to trees. How do I love
trees let me count the ways: your
varieties from fruit to palm. What
you provide to all creatures great
and small. Your beauty is pleasing
to the sighted and comfort to the
blind and sight impaired. How do I
love thee (trees), I can’t count the
ways. The ways are innumerable
but just know this: I love you.

Survey respondent

92

93

94 Appendix G: Community Survey

1. Trees are important to the quality of life in
Yuba City.

Response % Response Count
Strongly Agree 87.55 218
Agree 11.24 28
Disagree 0 0
Strongly Disagree 0.4 1
Not Sure 0.8 2
Other (please specify) 0 0
Total 249 (0 skipped)

2. Understanding which benefits are most appreciated by residents can help guide long-term management strategies. Please select your top 3.

Response % Response Count
Carbon storage 36.14 90
Energy savings 56.63 141
Air quality improvements 84.74 211
Stormwater interception 27.71 69
Wildlife habitat 57.83 144
Other (please specify) 14.06 35
a sense of place - restoration of the native plants that were originally here
Aesthetics
Beautification
Beautification Efforts
Beautification/Aesthetics
Beauty
beauty
beauty
Beauty
Beauty
Beauty scenery
Creates a more "Hometown America" feel
General appearance
Get rid of the homeless
Helping the people more
Maintenance
Mental health and joy
Mood and general aid to mental well-being. No one wants a bleak concrete wasteland.

More Controlled burns!!! The problem with all these fires is we aren’t burning anymore!
N/A
Nice wide roads
prevents urban heat effect (higher temps from infrastructure) Reducing urban heat island
Regenerative farming
Religious together eco system
Safe evacuation plans
security, maintenance, laundry room, forest fires, sanitation, rodent shade
Shade
Shade
Shade
Shade
Shade, aesthetics
Shade, temperature control.

Tourism
Total

3. Trees also provide economic, aesthetic, and quality of life benefits. Please select your top 3.

Response % Response Count
Increased property value 19.28 48
Beauty/Aesthetics 59.84 149
Supports human health 49 122
Promotes a walkable community 46.18 115
Shaded trails, sidewalks, and
bike trails 68.27 170
Shaded parking lots 24.9 62
Improve retail areas and
neighborhoods 19.28 48
Passive recreation 8.43 21
Total 249 (0 skipped)

4. How concerned are you about climate change?
Response % Response Count
Very concerned 49.8 124
Slightly concerned 23.69 59
Unsure 10.04 25
Not concerned 9.64 24
Not concerned at all 6.83 17
Total 249 (0 skipped)

95 5. Optional. Use this space to provide additional
comments on the benefits of Yuba City’s trees.
• Clean up the city from homelessness and their garbage, especially along Highway 20. Trees are definitely needed but are going to do no good when the city is being rundown from abandoned buildings and the growing homeless population leaving trash everywhere.
• Come up with a solution for the “parkway” trees in front of people’s homes. If they are forced to have the trees by the city, then the city needs to be responsible for the broken water and sewer pipes caused by the city’s trees. If the city won’t pay for the repairs, the don’t force or fine residents for removing trees causing damage.
• Great opportunity to fill in useless lawn areas with trees and low growing native ground cover to conserve water
and highlight the local flora. Trees along areas known for speeding can slow traffic (as well as times lights, but that’s a different subject). Having shaded shared spaces makes it a welcoming community environment.
• I am deeply appreciate this being brought up! I have spent time in many nearby cities and see how areas such as Chico have worked so hard to incorporate many trees into much of their town. It relaxes me and puts me in a more positive headspace. And I can’t understate their many more practical applications, like helping save residents from the often dangerous heat levels.
• I believe trees are one of the most important things on our planet and I’ve always appreciated the large amount and variety of beautiful trees in this town.
• I enjoy trees, thought that Yuba City was a Tree City through Arbor Day Society. It’s hot here, trees provide shade. Birds love them, too! Good for us, good for the environment!
• I grew up in Paradise CA, and know, despite the dangers of forests and tons of trees, there are so many benefits.

The quality of air Paradise had compared to Yuba City was noticeable just by getting out of your car and taking a breath.

With more trees, we have more fresh oxygen, better physical AND mental states of health. We feel better throughout the day and it’s much more pleasant to look at, if you want to get into cosmetics. I grew up watching all the Dogwoods bloom each year, rose bushes, pine trees, oaks, and so many more I don’t even know the name of. It was so beautiful and refreshing to see and smell. Trees are essential to human life, not concrete, not oil. Mother nature tells us each year that we need to help her, not destroy her, and the Camp Fire was the final straw for me. I cannot just sit and watch all these warning signs of climate change happening. Please, plant the trees and let them grow into what was here before.
• I hope you protect trees, not like what city has handled COVID! City has strike a balance between Solar & Trees....

Remember how the city dragged its feet with Solar projects.... • I know they are messy but incorporating edibles and
encouraging the community to pick and eat ripe fruit would have the added benefit/output of providing nutrition
• I love that YC is making this a beautiful city.
• I loved Chico for all of its trees and love that Yuba City is thinking about a future with more trees!
• I strongly believe in maintaining and absolutely adding more trees to the Yuba City community. They provide the necessary shade to balance out the hot and long summers in this area. They encourage people to be outside more, improve air quality, and beautify the area. Ask residents to serve the community by helping plant trees. We would be happy to!
• I would love to see more native species such as oaks and other trees that are expected to do well with climate change. • I’ve always wondered why Yuba City looks like a giant parking lot. It’s all concrete, asphalt, and some shrubs here and there. Meanwhile an hour south is Sacramento, “The City of Trees,” and an hour north is Chico, with one of the country’s largest city parks. Not to mention YC sits at the intersection of two rivers and rests atop fertile farmland. Where are all the trees????
• In an area that becomes hot during the summertime, trees provide welcome shade. That is more important as the
effects of climate change become more pronounced.
• In scheme of things, trees are important to creatures big and small
• Make sure it can be properly maintained from fire, homeless encampments, and vandalism.
• Male trees are major pollen producing trees and contribute to allergies, unlike female trees. Sycamores would not be my choice for a park tree because of the “leaf fuzz” and the summer blight they get that disfigures the leaves. Trees are essential for our city and our health, especially shade produced in our 100+ degree summers.
• More trees and bike paths please our town is so small I can bike across town fast than I can drive. Due to limited bike space and heavy traffic i am unable to bike as often. Let’s making biking safe and fun and not just for homeless people. • More trees in public places are better.
• More trees make a better community
• N/A
• Nasty trees in parking lots drip on cars. Use correct trees • Native oaks are best trees!
• No Thanks
• plant more, cut fewer down!! Little stick trees that don’t develop a large crown are not worth having. Crepe Myrtle trees are decorative, but don’t provide shade or the energy saving qualities needed for neighborhoods.
• Please add lots of native trees
• Please consider planting trees and additional plants on Tulley Parkway.
• Please don’t take down trees, they help with my anxiety and feel very down in places where there are few trees. Please plant more and ask the community to volunteer. I would love to volunteer in this task.
• Please keep street trees and not eliminate them due to developers not wanting to pay or maintain them.
• Please plant more around the city!! They really help in the beauty of the city and also the very got summers
• Please plant more trees where appropriate, but make sure you use a tree that uproot sidewalks, parking areas, etc. • Shade
• Shade from tree canopies significantly lowers the average temperature compared to non-tree lined cities
• Street trees are great for the city but must have a well-trained staff of arborists to properly maintain the trees. This is currently not the case and it shows.
• The city is focusing on trees in the wrong areas. Trees in row as by stabler and hwy 20 looks terrible. Just west if that spot on the 20 where cool hand Luke’s is at has so many trees you can’t see any of the businesses. 4 sites have never been filled there because you can’t see anything. Trees down Plumas is good and also on Bridge would be fantastic. Having trees along franklin would be great as well to hide some of the trashy houses in the area as well
• The city should have a unique look , something beautiful where other cities would follow
• The city would be a lot better if the people in charge weren’t so determined to rip them out.
• The most appealing neighborhoods and business districts in California are those with mature & interesting trees. Carmel, Calif, Colusa Ca, 2nd St in Yuba City, Parts of Hillcrest in Yuba City, etc.
• The trees in Yuba City are beautiful. The more there are the better!
• The trees make the city beautiful, and cooler. Just take a walk down Plumas St. on a summer afternoon and you will see
the benefit. Just, PLEASE manage them better than the state does in the forests!
• The trees you take away the more DESOLATE everything
looks! Like It’s Dieing! We all need TREES to SURVIVE!
• The worst problem with the city’s trees are they tear up the sidewalks making it hazardous to walk on. They are filthy and shed stuff 3 times a year. They harbor flying beetle like bugs by the thousands. Homeowners are not permitted to remove the trees as they belong to the city yet are responsible for the clean-up of the horrific mess they create. I am talking about the trees on Mariposa Dr, Arbor, Courtyard and Twins streets. Go look for yourself at the sidewalk issue alone! I dare you! These are extremely messy trees with very invasive roots! Why would anyone plant those type trees is beyond comprehension! Please go look for yourself, take a stroll down those sidewalks They are Dangerous!! Also, they have destroyed countless sprinkler lines costing the homeowner hundreds to repair!! Will the city reimburse us for that?? • This state is in serious trouble. The governor ignores the safety and needs of California residents. I fear the only thing left to do is move. Northern California used to be primarily Republican. It seems we are becoming more and more like LA, San Francisco, etc. God help California...
• Trees also absorb sound waves which can create a more relaxing environment
• Trees are critical to Yuba City. Not only do they provide shade in the devastating heat, they improve air quality and the beauty of this town, which will improve tourism.
• Trees are important everywhere. Climate change is happening quickly and we need to do something.
• Trees are key ingredient to fight climate change. They are not only beautiful but are the solution
• Trees are such a vital way to welcome people to our
community.
• Trees are the lungs of our planet. Not only do they improve air quality but they also create new habitats for wildlife and provide shade & beauty for members of the community.
• Trees are very important but understanding the difficulties regarding the crows is also important. Detering the crows would be helpful while still maintaining as many trees, especially large trees, as possible.
• Trees will always benefit the area greatly in numerous ways, this area has pretty hot summers and it’s not close to cheap to air condition homes here so more shaded communities are a big help. I am from South Carolina originally where people complain about a $100 utility bill. I’d throw a party if I got a bill that low from PG&E during the summer. Without trees we’ll also see drastic effects of increased greenhouse gases and climate change. Trees are essentially keeping us alive, no doubt about it.
• Trees will always filter the air and promote a since of comfort, health, and beauty. It promotes curiosity and education.

Shade and coolness.
• Tuba City has beautiful trees. Don’t change
• Until we are able to have reliable, cost effective,
CONSISTENT ENERGY sources, promoting ample space for
drought resistant trees and vegetation should at least help with the increased heat temperatures that impact the valley. • We dont need an urban forest For when it comes to
maintaining and long-term windy days safty hazard. But let’s keep min amount of trees
• We need tree in front of my house on B St and Robinson yc • We need a resource to go to for suggested trees for our see to meet area goals. What trees are best and where to buy maybe at a discount and when to plant. A youth organization could provide planting help for senior.
• We need more trees to shade bike routes and walking paths. • We need to diversify the type of trees being planted that will provide shade, not make a mess, and survive for at least fifty years.
• We need to move away from the strip mall, bedroom
community for Sacramento mentality and make nice outdoor spaces to enjoy instead of having to drive everywhere and only have indoor dining and entertainment
• We need trees that don’t damage sidewalks, and don’t block views of oncoming traffic.
• We need an overall plan to save the trees that would normally be cut down by PG&E because they are in the way of the
power lines. Put the lines underground!
• Yuba City could benefit greatly from incorporating more native plants into its residential, commercial, and street plantings. • Yuba City needs to become more about “outdoor spaces” - things like outdoor dining and entertainment not only attract tourism and business, but it also provides a reason to stay local

96 6. What is your current awareness of the city’s urban forest operations? Please check all that apply.

Response % Response Count
I was not aware that the city provides care to public trees 51.93 121 I have visited the city’s website for information about public tree and/or the urban forest 16.31 38
I have read a newspaper article that discussed public trees and/or Yuba City’s urban forest 14.59 34
I have participated/volunteered at tree related events in Yuba City 3.43 8 Other (please specify) 19.31 45
Aware
Aware not interacted
Aware that Yuba City is a designated Tree City USA community Aware, but not active
City is involved with nuisance tree removal, to my understanding City maintains trees in public right of way
Did not know
Have witnessed Park employees grooming park areas
I am aware but don't hear any details about it
I am new to the area and am not aware of the city's urban forest operations, but am learning.

I am not aware of any tree-related events in the city
I did not know.

I do not live in the vicinity of Yuba City
I expect pit city should have more trees and trails since we lived several cities in the past.

I have developed MWELO landscape required plans for residential development I have planted trees at schools to enhance shade and aesthetics I just graduated with a 4 year degree from Humboldt State University with a BS in Forestry restoration.

I just know
I knew trees were important to our town and that there are public trees that are maintained.

I know every city has a plan for trees
I know that the city provides care to public trees, but I was not aware that there was an Urban Master Plan.

Response % Response Count
I know the city cares little for the damage their tress due to the streets and sidewalks
I know the city provides care to public trees
I know the city prunes street trees
I know the city sends out professionals to tend to trees because they do not coordinate well with the residents. They send people out to trim trees and block them in driveways and remove our garbage bins from the street so we miss pick ups
I live close to Bogue Park and saw city workers managing trees, trimming, and cutting them.

I live close to public park and saw city workers managing trees, trimming, and cutting down the trees.

I see the trees planted along Franklin Ave years ago and they are now an eye sore. They don't get water or any care. Most have died. Between Wilbur and Garden Hwy.

I was aware
I was aware of city care but have not researched
I was aware that the city provided care to public trees I was aware that the city provides care to public trees I’m aware
Live north Yuba City Regency Park area where city maintains .

None
None
none . didn't know there was a master plan of course you care for them None of the above
Spoken to park maintenance and watched tree trimming events by city employees.

Talked to a City employee
The trees on south Walton need care and are left to die if a neighborhood needs trees, it’s that one
They can choose better looking trees
They maintain trees on my street
Tree maintenance needs improvement.

Wasn’t aware of this plan
Total 233 (16 skipped)

97 7. What is your satisfaction with the current level of maintenance provided for public trees?
Response % Response Count
Completely satisfied 13.30 31
Somewhat satisfied 39.06 91
Neutral 36.91 86
Somewhat dissatisfied 9.01 21
Completely dissatisfied 1.72 4
Total 233 (16 skipped)

8. What level of maintenance do you prefer for public trees? Response % Response Count
None - Keep them natural 2.15 5
Best possible care 50.21 117
Clearance only - for pedestrians and
vehicles 6.01 14
As needed - manage hazardous
conditions only 22.32 52
Holistic Plant Health Care - Improve the
overall urban forest but not necessarily
every tree 19.31 45
Total 233 (16 skipped)

9. Yuba City needs more public trees.

Response % Response Count
Strongly agree 62.66 146
Agree 26.61 62
Disagree 3.86 9
Strongly disagree 1.29 3
Not sure 5.58 13
Total 233 (16 skipped)

10. Where would you like to see more public trees planted? Please check as many as apply.

Response % Response Count
Parks 72.1 168
Open spaces and/or natural areas 70.82 165
Streetscapes 71.24 166
Commercial areas 55.36 129
Paths 59.66 139
Parking lots 57.08 133
Yuba City has enough public trees 4.29 10
Other (please specify) 6.44 15
40+ years of crow roosting along all Colusa Ave. at a great cost to remediate.

A bike path with trees through the city! More along the river Along residential streets
Anywhere and everywhere!! Retail has cut down many trees due to the crows and chickens making a mess. This should not be allowed. There are other ways to deal with the birds.

Cemeteries
Everywhere
Fine people who top trees
Houses backyards around firehouses there should be victory gardens I am not familiar with the area
I would love to see many more trees planted along the Yuba-Sutter bike path, especially on the south side. Also at other outdoor recreation areas where there isn't much shade. If you build the trees and enhance the outdoors, they will come! My house
Our parks and parking lots desperately need more shade.

Surrounding downtown area, side, and adjoining streets.

The empty lots owned by the city in Tierra Buena on Jefferson wherever water is already available.

Total 233 (16 skipped)

98 11. What types of education and public outreach would you like to see offered by the urban forest program or volunteer groups? Please check all that apply.

Response % Response Count
Seminars and workshops 33.05 77
Interpretive trails and displays 53.22 124
Website resources 47.21 110
Online videos (e.g., YouTube) 27.47 64
Self-guided nature/tree walks 65.24 152
Informational brochures 23.61 55
Collaboration with schools for volunteer drives 55.36 129 Other (please specify) 4.29 10
4H
AmeriCorps programs
better education for property owners who have trees
Coordination with residents that will be affected, as well as listening to those residents. Stop giving fires more kindling
just get it done and stop talking about it
N/A
None
none
reforestation campaign; interpretive trail, but where?
WE need our own nonprofit similar to Roseville, Chico, and Sacramento Total 233 (16 skipped)

12. Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about the care of public trees. • don’t get fancy with ideas that will not be maintained when the money runs out. be sensible. Add them to what you’ve already got going
• Funds must be allocated for an adequate budget for the trees, as well as ongoing maintenance and public education. • I think more care needs to be taken into placement and choice of trees, especially in relation to sitting areas and pathways. I see a lot of parks where trees are planted along the exterior perimeter, leaving a large grassy area that’s exposed to the sun.

It’s nice to have a handful of parks like that, but it would also be nice to have a handful of parks where there are lots of trees and paths criss-crossing through them with sitting nooks. • I think there should be more information given to the youths about trees they should be given more knowledge • Long term cost benefit? Trees become a big problem if not properly maintained. • Long term, permaculture practices should be embraced. Food forests in particular are great for our community and wildlife residents when proper volunteer or paid groups are planned well. Even small food forests with the option for advertising for sponsorship could be a self-maintained opportunity for a community gathering area, and a learning opportunity for local children.
• More trees in areas that’ll provide shade, habitat
• N/A
• No trees in commercial areas. It is blocks opportunities for marketing • Not fond of the trees that line Plumas St. The city does not do enough to keep sidewalks and gutters free of leaves when they start falling, they also clog storm drains
• Plant fruit trees around public schools for children and teachers to take advantage of kids can also learn tree care and maintenance by taking care of their schools’ trees. Fruit trees can also be planted in out of the way areas for the homeless to eat. You can hire homeless like a temp job to clean up the trees area. Planting more trees should create jobs , any leaking tress like the ones on plumas near the old hospital should be cleaned up around on the sidewalks. • Please fine people who top trees
• Please remove the trees on Arbor,Courtyard,twins, and mariposa they are a hazard • Shaded walkable parks and paths will improve yuba city for residents and visitors. • State funding reduction has definitively affected tree care. City tree and landscape care could definitely be improved. Railroad Avenue needs attention, as does Bogue Road east of 99.
• Thank you
• This would be a great fresh look that our community could use greatly. It would be much better than trash and needles. Thank you :)
• Trees in Yuba city make our town look green and pleasing g to the eye. Bringing in nature into our daily lives • Trees need water most of all, so the city needs a plan to keep them watered so they stay healthy. There must be a way to water trees with gray water, or recycled water, so as to not impact our drinking water so much • Trees provide a more welcoming and calming effect. They aid in cleaner air and help wildlife flourish. • We need help for property owners in choosing the right trees and how to maintain them in off seasons. • We need trees. Please do this. Especially along the bike trail in Tierra Buena • What this city is lacking is an urban park like the ones along the Sac river in Sacramento or Bidwell Park in Chico • without trees we won’t be able to breath so get it done let’s make this city beautiful • You can never have enough trees :)

99 13. What is/are your top concerns for Yuba City’s trees? Choose all that apply.

Response % Response Count
Trees blocking my view 12.79 28
Trees providing unwanted shade in my yard 3.65 8
Tree debris in my yard and/or on the sidewalk 32.88 72
Healthy mature trees being removed for development or other reasons 55.71 122 Canopy loss 35.62 78
Loss of wildlife habitat 38.36 84
Pests/disease 35.62 78
Other Concerns (please specify) 13.24 29
Neighbors not addressing tree issues on their property
Deferred maintenance or poor maintenance
Dropping trees
Fire hazards!
Fire or electrical hazards if not tended properly
Hazardous tree removal, even on private property.

Improper/lack of pruning of young trees to develop structure Left
Maintenance of trees that have been neglected
N/a
N/a
No concerns
No concerns
None
None
none
None
None
None
None
Only a couple of concerns, would there be lack of upkeep? The other concern, will the drug users trash them?
Road safety issues and the negative impact on trees from "topping" root systems messing with sidewalks
roots breaking through sidewalks etc.

Shade available for the heat
Shading solar
Topping
Tree debris on the road; trees blocking the road or road signs Trees coming in contact with power lines
Total 219 (30 skipped)

14. Currently, city ordinance does not protect trees on private property, except during development. Do you support the adoption of tree protection for oak species or other large or significant trees on private property?
Response % Response Count
Strongly support 16.89 37
Support 23.74 52
Neutral/Not sure 31.05 68
Oppose 13.7 30
Strongly oppose 10.05 22
Other (please specify) 4.57 10
During development or private land purchase process, this should be discussed and agreed upon prior to completion of sale/development (whether it's keep certain significant trees, a certain percentage, etc.). Once an owner owns a property privately, I am not sure the city should have a say as to what the owner does with the property.

I support it but I’m county
I’m
Left
Only if tree maintenance is performed by certified arborists or under the supervision of an arborist.

Reasonable
Support for mature oak trees only.

Support with certain criteria being allowed for removal Support, but only when intervention is needed for health of significant trees or to prevent hazards.

Support, with the understanding that if protected, city will assist with maintenance of desired.

Total 219 (30 skipped)

100

15. What types of education and outreach are most effective at encouraging tree preservation and tree planting on private property? Please select all that apply.

Response % Response Count
Seminars and workshops 30.59 67
Interpretive trails and displays 29.22 64
Website resources 48.86 107
Online videos (e.g., YouTube) 33.33 73
Guided nature/tree walks 31.96 70
Informational brochures 33.33 73
Collaboration with schools for volunteer drives 36.07 79 Tree giveaways 58.9 129
Neighborhood tree planting projects 63.47 139
Other (please specify) 5.02 11
A list of trees that are good for the area and non-aggressive Explanation of what grows better in the area and how much debris a tree makes I would love a tree in my backyard. We had a mulberry we had to remove and it’s so hot and dry, so no one wants to use our backyard (tear emoji) Involving young children in planting and education of importance of trees is huge.

It used to be that the city planted (I'm from Bay Area) a tree in the park strip in front of every house in a development. That meant that after a few years, all streets were tree lined. Does that happen here?
Left
N/a
None. Waste of money
Private property should be determined by the owner of the property. It’s ridiculous to even ask this question because private property is controlled(as it should be) by the owner
require ISA cer for all tree and landscape maintenance business prior to granting business licenses
SMUD has provided free trees for decades, (sunglass emjoi) Total 219 (30 skipped)

16. If you don't have at least 1 tree on your property, what is the reason? Please select as many as apply.

Response % Response Count
Not enough room 7.76 17
Damage to sidewalk/driveway 2.28 5
Obstruction from underground/overhead utilities 1.83 4
I don’t want large trees on my property 0.91 2
Drought/irrigation limitations 1.83 4
Unsure how to provide tree care 3.65 8
Does not apply, I have at least one tree on my property 82.19 180 Other (please specify) 9.59 21
Currently renting.

Have lots
How do I choose a replacement tree for a 50-year-old tree? It is a big job to dig up roots. stump and then dig a new hole for replacement. ITrees are important but not sure how to chose and replace old trees on my property.

I am a renter and have no yard space.

I have 30 healthy trees on my property .

I have at least one tree this does not apply
I have lots of trees
I have tree want more
I just bought a house and haven't planted any yet. I will be planting many. i live in mobile home park and have two trees
I rent, no control of landscape
Left
N/A
N/A
Old trees, took them down, will replant
Trees were diseased and had to remove them
Upstairs apartment
We bought it that way and septic lines prohibit.

We have a large one in front but would love one for our backyard We have several mature trees. We are completely shaded, to the point that the solar guys said they all had to come down so we can get solar. We opted for the trees. That is another thing, if new homes have to have solar panels, then they are discouraged from having large trees. They are made to fear the shade. That shouldn't be. The tree gives more to the home and environment than the panel does.

We live in a condo
Total 219 (30 skipped)

101

17. Optional. Please use this space for any additional comments about trees on private property. • Educational material given to all owners or prospective buyers of options for tree care. • fruit trees for homeless to grab
• I used to have trees in my yard, but they grew too large for my yard. Backyard tree had bugs that weakened it, had to remove all of them. Wish I had more space. I have no shade
• I wish properties had more room to have trees planted, for shade, and health benefits. • I’ve always loved trees and honestly wondered why Yuba City doesn’t have many. I’m very glad to be filling out this survey, at least it’s on your radar.
• It would be great for care of oak trees on private property would be help maintain them if seniors live in the home • Large branches hanging out on my property that need to be cut but are too high to reach. Nervous about. Them breaking and falling
• My parents are approaching sixty. They have lived in their home for 30 years. New neighbors moved in behind them and cut down a tree that had been providing shade for their yard and house for :0 years. Now they have to re insulate their roof, replace their overloaded air conditioner, replant their landscape, and their back yard is unusable during the afternoon on the summer just because their neighbors wanted a “new tree” that they “liked better”. Do something about this please. • N/A
• please lets plant trees everywhere
• Some trees need to be replaced like palms. They spread so much damage and seed everywhere • Streetscape planning! Please! General public is unaware of the importance and need for native trees, and when planted hapazardly among other plantings in the area, it can cause long term visually displeasing views, if not destruction. Guidance is needed.
• Suggestions are fine, but do not “require” anything. Private property rights are a real thing • We specifically bought our property with trees on it and refused other properties. We love our trees! • What to do if there is an extremely large tree that is a danger to the neighborhood by very large limbs falling, but it is on neighbor’s property being unmanaged?
• When they are planted on the property line they intrude into neighbor’s property. The city needs to enforce the ability for such neighbor to have said trees completely removed

18. Please provide any additional comments or feedback (Optional) • I appreciate that YC is reaching out to the end user to help create the vision for our future. • I live in Marysville and do almost all of my shopping in Yuba City. • I need a tree planted in the front of my sidewalk B st and Robinson st • I would like to volunteer and help the tree project
• Thank you for creating this study and considering our trees. • Please be much wiser about the type of tree you force people to take care of by planting them on their front yard next to the street. They are destroying the sidewalks and sprinkler lines! • The Sacramento Tree Foundation has an excellent urban tree program and educates homeowners before they select and plant residential trees there.
• This is great. I love being a part of this.
• Thx for the info
• we have told our neighbor to trim his trees because the branches are damaging my house... he doesn’t care.... more neighbor options for neighbors that don’t listen...
• Yuba City would benefit with a mandatory weed abatement program enforced annually. General appearance and fire management would benefit the city and general public.

Walking on willow tree roads by a river dappled
with peach blossoms, I look for spring light, but am
everywhere lost. Birds fly up and scatter floating catkins.

A ponderous wave of flowers sags the branches.

Wang Wei

102
City of Yuba City
1201 Civic Center Blvd., Yuba City, CA, 95993
Parks Maintenance Division (530) 822-5330 | yubacity.net Tree Removal Request
Permit #________________

INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION

1. The City of Yuba City Municipal Code Title 9 Parks and Recreation regulates the removal of a publicly owned trees. Valid reasons for tree removal may include, but are not limited to the list in the request justification below.

2. Parks Maintenance may inspect the tree(s). By requesting a removal, you are consenting to an on-site inspection.

REQUEST JUSTIFICATION

REQUEST DETAILS
State the number of trees and species requested for removal Signature of Applicant: ____________________________________________________________________ Printed Name: ________________________________________________________________

FOR DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION USE ONLY
Approval Signature:_________________________________________________________________ Date:______________________________ Approval Signature:_________________________________________________________________ Date:______________________________ Time:____________________________ Fee:$________________________________ APPROVAL STAMP Mark the reason for your tree removal request:

Species:__________________________________________________________________________ Number:__________________________________________________________ Species:__________________________________________________________________________ Number:__________________________________________________________ Concern for public safety that cannot be mitigated by other means Poor health, including disease and/or decay
Structural issues that cannot be corrected
Invasive species
Other, please justify:________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Arborist Report (attach if available) Yes: No:

PROJECT INFORMATION
Tree Site Address:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittal Date:_________________________________________ Owner Name:___________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #:________________________________________________ Mailing Address:_____________________________________________________________________________ City:_______________________________________________ State/Zip:____________________ Applicant Name:________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Phone #:________________________________________________ Mailing Address:_____________________________________________________________________________ City:_______________________________________________ State/Zip:___________________ Email (Optional):____________________________________________________ Save Form Reset Form Print Form
Appendix H: Tree Applications

103

104
Appendix I: Indicators of a Sustainable Urban Forest

THE TREES
Indicators of a
Sustainable
Urban Forest
Overall Objective or Industry Standard
Performance Levels
Low Medium High
Urban Tree Canopy
Achieve the desired tree canopy cover according to goals set for the entire city and neighborhoods.

Alternatively, achieve 75% of the total canopy possible for the entire city and in each neighborhood.

Canopy is decreasing.
- and/or -
No canopy goals have been set.

Canopy is not dropping, but not on a trajectory
to achieve the established goal.

Canopy goal is achieved, or well on
the way to achievement.

Location of
Canopy (Equitable
Distribution)
Achieve low variation between tree canopy and equity factors citywide by neighborhood. Ensure that the benefits of tree canopy are available to all, especially for those most affected by these benefits.

Tree planting and public outreach and
education is not determined by tree
canopy cover or benefits.

Tree planting and public outreach and education is
focused on neighborhoods with low tree canopy.

Tree planting and public outreach and education
is focused in neighborhoods with low tree
canopy and a high need for tree benefits.

Age of Trees
(Size and Age
Distribution)
Establish a diverse-aged population of public trees across the entire city and for each neighborhood. Ideal standard:
0-8” DBH: 40%
9-17” DBH: 30%
18-24” DBH: 20%
Over 24” DBH: 10%
No current information is available on size.
- OR -
Age distribution is not proportionally distributed
across size classes at the city level.

Size classes are evenly distributed at the city level,
though unevenly distributed at the neighborhood level.

Age distribution is generally aligned with
the ideal standard diameter classes at the
neighborhood level.

Condition of Publicly
Owned Trees (trees
managed intensively)
Possess a detailed understanding of tree condition and potential risk of all intensively-managed, publicly-owned trees. This information is used to direct maintenance actions.

No current information is available on tree
condition or risk.

Information from a partial or sample or inventory
is used to assess tree condition and risk.

Information from a current, GIS-based,
100% complete public tree inventory is
used to indicate tree condition and risk.

Condition of
Publicly-Owned
Natural Areas (trees
managed extensively)
Possess a detailed understanding of the ecological structure and function of all publicly-owned natural areas (such as woodlands, ravines, stream corridors, etc.), as well as usage patterns.

No current information is available on tree
condition or risk.

Publicly-owned natural areas are identified in a
sample-based “natural areas survey” or similar data.

Information from a current, GIS-based,
100% complete natural areas survey is
utilized to document ecological structure a
nd function, as well as usage patterns.

Trees on Private
Property
Possess a solid understanding of the extent, location and general condition of trees on private lands. No data is available on private trees.

Current tree canopy assessment reflects basic
information (location) of both public and
private canopy combined.

Detailed information available on private trees.

Ex. bottom-up sample-based assessment of trees.

Diversity
Establish a genetically diverse population of publicly-owned trees across the entire city and for each neighborhood. Tree populations should be comprised of no more than 30% of
any family, 20% of any genus, or 10% of any species.

No current information is available on species.
- OR -
Fewer than five species dominate the entire
tree population citywide.

No species represents more than 20% of the
entire tree population citywide.

No species represents more than 10% of
the entire tree population citywide.

Climate
Resilience/Suitability
Establish a tree population suited to the urban environment and adapted to the overall region. Suitable species are gauged by exposure to imminent threats, considering the “Right Tree for the Right Place” concept and invasive species.

No current information is available on species
suitability.
- OR -
Less than 50% of trees are considered
suitable for the site.
50% to 75% of trees are considered suitable for the site. More than 75% of trees are considered suitable for the site.

Space and
Soil Volume
Establish minimum street tree soil volume requirements to ensure there is adequate space and soil for street trees to thrive. Minimum soil volumes by mature size: 1000 cubic feet for large trees; 600 cubic feet for medium trees; 300 cubic feet for small trees.

Minimum street tree soil volumes
have not been established.

Minimum street tree soil volume has been
established based on mature size of tree.

Minimum street tree soil volumes have been
established and are required to be adhered
to for all new street tree planting projects.

105

THE PLAYERS
Indicators of a Sustainable Urban Forest
Overall Objective or Industry Standard
Performance Levels
Low Medium High
Neighborhood
Action
Citizens understand, cooperate, and participate in urban forest management at the neighborhood level. Urban forestry is a neighborhood-scale issue.

Little or no citizen involvement or
neighborhood action.

Some active groups are engaged in
advancing urban forestry activity, but with
no unified set of goals or priorities.

The majority of all neighborhoods are organized, connected, and working towards a unified set
of goals and priorities.

Large Private
& Institutional Landholder
Involvement
Large, private, and institutional landholders embrace citywide goals and objectives through targeted resource management plans.

Large private land holders are unaware of issues
and potential influence in the urban forest. No
large private land management plans are
currently in place.

Education materials and advice is available to
large private landholders. Few large private
landholders or institutions have management
plans in place.

Clear and concise goals are established for large private land holders through direct education and assistance programs. Key landholders and institutions have management plans in place.

Green Industry Involvement
The green industry works together to advance citywide urban forest goals and objectives. The city and its partners capitalize on local green industry expertise and innovation.

Little or no involvement from green
industry leaders to advance local urban forestry
goals.

Some partnerships are in place to advance local
urban forestry goals, but more often
for the short-term.

Long-term committed partnerships are working to advance local urban forestry goals.

City Department
and
Agency Cooperation
All city departments and agencies cooperate to advance
citywide urban forestry goals and objectives.

Conflicting goals and/or actions among city
departments and agencies.

Informal teams among departments
and agencies are communicating
and implementing common goals on
a project-specific basis.

Common goals and collaboration occur across all departments and agencies. City policy and actions
are implemented by formal interdepartmental and interagency working teams on all city projects.

Funder Engagement
Local funders are engaged and invested in urban forestry initiatives. Funding is adequate to implement citywide urban forest management plan.

Little or no funders are engaged in urban forestry
initiatives.

Funders are engaged in urban
forestry initiatives at minimal levels
for short-term projects.

Multiple funders are fully engaged and active in
urban forestry initiatives for short-term projects
and long-term goals.

Utility Engagement
All utilities are aware of and vested in the urban forest and cooperates to advance citywide urban forest goals and
objectives.

Utilities and city agencies act
independently of urban forestry efforts.

No coordination exists.

Utilities and city agencies have engaged
in dialogues about urban forestry efforts
with respect to capital improvement
and infrastructure projects.

Utilities, city agencies, and other stakeholders integrate and collaborate on all urban forestry efforts, including planning, site work, and outreach/education.

State Engagement
State departments/agencies are aware of and vested in the urban forest and cooperates to advance citywide urban forest goals and objectives.

State departments/agencies and City agencies
act independently of urban forestry efforts. No
coordination exists.

State department/agencies and City
agencies have engaged in dialogues about urban
forestry efforts with respect to capital improvement
and infrastructure projects.

State departments/agencies, City agencies, and other stakeholders integrate and collaborate on all urban forestry efforts, including planning, site work, and outreach/education.

Public Awareness The general public understands the benefits of trees and advocates for the role and importance of the urban forest.

Trees are generally seen as a nuisance, and thus,
a drain on city budgets and personal paychecks.

Trees are generally recognized as important and
beneficial.

Trees are seen as valuable infrastructure and vital to the community’s well-being. The urban forest is recognized for the unique environmental, economic, and social services its provides to the community.

Regional
Collaboration
Neighboring communities and regional groups are actively cooperating and interacting to advance the region’s stake in the city’s urban forest.

Little or no interaction between neighboring
communities and regional groups.

Neighboring communities and regional groups
share similar goals and policy vehicles related to
trees and the
urban forest.

Regional urban forestry planning, coordination, and
management is widespread.

106

THE MANAGEMENT
Indicators of a
Sustainable Urban Forest
THE MGMT APPROACH Overall Objective or Industry Standard Performance Levels
Low Medium High
Tree Inventory
Comprehensive, GIS-based, current inventory of all intensively-managed public trees to guide management, with mechanisms in place to keep data current and available for use. Data allows for analysis of age distribution, condition, risk, diversity, and suitability.

No inventory or out-of-date inventory of
publicly-owned trees.

Partial or sample-based inventory of
publicly-owned trees, inconsistently
updated.

Complete, GIS-based inventory of publicly-owned
trees, updated on a regular, systematic basis.

Canopy Assessment
Accurate, high-resolution, and recent assessment of existing and potential city-wide tree canopy cover that is regularly updated and available for use across various departments, agencies, and/or disciplines.No tree canopy assessment.

Sample-based canopy cover assessment,
or dated (over 10 years old) high resolution canopy assessment.

High-resolution tree canopy assessment using aerial
photographs or satellite imagery.

Management Plan Existence and buy-in of a comprehensive urban forest management plan to achieve city-wide goals. Re-evaluation is conducted every 5 to 10 years.

No urban forest management plan
exists.

A plan for the publicly-owned forest
resource exists but is limited in scope,
acceptance, and implementation.

A comprehensive plan for the publicly owned forest
resource exists and is accepted and implemented.

Risk Management
Program
All publicly-owned trees are managed for maximum public safety by way of maintaining a city-wide inventory, conducting proactive annual inspections, and eliminating hazards within a set timeframe based on risk level. Risk management program is outlined in the management plan.

Request-based, reactive system. The
condition of publicly-owned trees is
unknown.

There is some degree of risk abatement
thanks to knowledge of condition of
publicly-owned trees, though generally still
managed as a request-based reactive
system.

There is a complete tree inventory with risk assesment data and a risk abatement program in effect.

Hazards are eliminated within a set time period
depending on the level of risk.

Maintenance Program
of Publicly-Owned
Trees
(trees managed intensively)
All intensively-managed, publicly-owned trees are well maintained for optimal health and condition in order to extend longevity and maximize benefits. A reasonable cyclical pruning program is in place, generally targeting 5 to 7 year cycles. The maintenance program is outlined in the management plan.

Request-based, reactive system. No
systematic pruning program is in place
for publicly-owned trees.

All publicly-owned trees are systematically
maintained, but pruning cycle is inadequate.

All publicly-owned trees are proactively and systematically maintained and adequately pruned on a cyclical basis.

Maintenance Program
of Publicly-Owned
Natural Areas
(trees managed extensively)
The ecological structure and function of all publicly-owned natural areas are protected and enhanced while accommodating public use where appropriate.

No natural areas management plans
are in effect.

Only reactive management efforts to
facilitate public use (risk abatement).

Management plans are in place for each publicly-owned natural area focused on managing ecological structure and function and facilitating public use.

Planting Program
Comprehensive and effective tree planting and establishment program is driven by canopy cover goals, equity considerations, and other priorities according to the plan.

Tree planting and establishment is outlined in the management plan.

Tree establishment is ad hoc. Tree establishment is consistently funded and occurs on an annual basis.

Tree establishment is directed by needs derived
from a tree inventory and other community plans
and is sufficient in meeting canopy cover objectives.

Tree Protection Policy
Comprehensive and regularly updated tree protection ordinance with enforcement ability is based on community goals. The benefits derived from trees on public and private property are ensured by the enforcement of existing policies.

No tree protection policy.

Policies are in place to protect trees, but
the policies are not well-enforced or
ineffective.

Protections policies ensure the safety of trees on
public and private land. The policies are enforced
and supported by significant deterrents and shared
ownership of city goals.

City Staffing and Equipment
Adequate staff and access to the equipment and vehicles to implement the management plan. A high level urban forester or planning professional, strong operations staff, and solid certified arborist technicians.

Insufficient staffing levels, insufficiently-trained staff, and/or inadequate equipment and vehicle availability.

Certified arborists and professional urban
foresters on staff have some professional
development, but are lacking adequate
staff levels or adequate equipment.

Multi-disciplinary team within the urban forestry unit, including an urban forestry professional, operations
manager, and arborist technicians. Vehicles and
equipment are sufficient to complete required work.

Funding Appropriate funding in place to fully implement both proactive and reactive needs based on a comprehensive urban forest management plan.

Funding comes from the public sector
only, and covers only reactive work.

Funding levels (public and private) generally cover mostly reactive work. Low levels of risk management and planting in place.

Dynamic, active funding from engaged private
partners and adequate public funding are used to
proactively manage and expand the urban forest.

Disaster Preparedness
& Response
A disaster management plan is in place related to the city’s urban forest. The plan includes staff roles, contracts, response priorities, debris management and a crisis communication plan. Staff are regularly trained and/or updated.

No disaster response plan is in place.

A disaster plan is in place, but pieces are
missing and/or staff are not regularly
trained or updated.

A robust disaster management plan is in place,
regularly updated and staff is fully trained on roles
and processes.

Communication Effective avenues of two-way communication exist between the city departments and between city and its citizens. Messaging is consistent and coordinated, when feasible.

No avenues are in place. City departments and public determine on an ad-hoc basis the best messages and
avenues to communicate.

Avenues are in place, but used sporadically
and without coordination or only on a
one-way basis.

Avenues are in place for two way communication,
are well-used with targeted, coordinated messages.

107
Appendix J: Gantt Chart
Cost 2020–2024 2025–2029 2030–2034 2035–2039 2040–2044 2045–2049 2050–2054 2055–2060 Timeframe Priority Management & Planning
Consider trees as integral infrastructure
Set emphasis on planting the right tree in the right place. $ Ongoing High Recognize trees as green infrastructure to mitigate conflicts between trees and other utilities and promote tree longevity. $–$$ 1–5 Years High Provide proactive maintenance for the community tree resource to reduce costs and promote efficiency Create and follow planting plans to allow for increased impact and success of tree plantings. $ High Medium Promote the safe management of the community tree resource Develop maintenance cycles and work plans to guide the care of the community tree resource. $ 1–5 Years, Ongoing High Establish a risk management policy. $ 1–5 Years, Ongoing High Implement policies and procedures that make tree work as safe as possible. $ 1–5 Years High Predictable and stable funding for the community tree resource Secure funding for the care of all community trees. $$–$$$ Ongoing Medium Enhance the livability and character of the community
Plant and retain trees to sustain environmental benefits. $ Ongoing High Follow integrative pest management (IPM) protocols and best management practices when addressing pests and diseases Use integrated pest management practices (IPM) when controlling pests. $ Ongoing High Protection & Regulation
Promote tree preservation and protection
Revise and amend Municipal Code to promote the protection of community trees. $ 1–5 Years High Preserve heritage oak trees and other native trees of substantial size through the development of a Heritage Tree Ordinance (per Yuba City Resource Efficiency Plan, Goal 6). $ 1–5 Years High Enhance methods for cost recovery in the case of tree removals or improper tree maintenance. $ 1–5 Years High Support consistency in guiding documents
Strive for uniformity between city policies, guiding documents, and departments.

Resiliency & Sustainability
Promote species diversity in the urban forest
Set species diversity goals for the community tree resource. $ Ongoing High Expand canopy cover and the resulting environmental benefits Achieve 25% canopy cover by 2040. $ 20 Years High
Help to increase tree planting efforts within the County (per Sutter County Climate Action Plan). $ Ongoing High Establish a more water-wise urban forest
Ensure tree plantings are climate adapted and low water use species. $ Ongoing High Repurpose woody materials resulting from removals whenever possible Identify a wood reutilization policy. $ 10 Years Medium–Low Reduce the risk of wildfire in the Feather River Parkway Become a more wildfire-prepared community. $ Ongoing High Education & Engagement
Engage community members in stewardship of the urban forest.

Support community engagement and stewardship of the urban forest. $ Ongoing High Celebrate the importance of urban trees
Maintain Tree City USA status. $ Ongoing High

Appendix K: Sample Canopy Cover Calculator for Parking Lots Crape myrtle trees are decorative,
but don’t provide shade or the
energy saving qualities needed
for neighborhoods
Survey Respondent.

Tree Type Mature Crown Width
(diameter)
Mature Crown Estimated Area
(ft²) Number of Trees Estimated Tree Canopy Coverage (ft²) Small-stature 15 175 2 350
Medium-stature 30 700 3 2,100
Large-stature 40 1,260 6 7,560
Total Tree Canopy Area at Crown Maturity (ft²) 10,010
Surfaced Area:

Parking Lot 20,000 Total Surfaced Area
Covered Stalls 0 (ft²)= 20,000
Shade Area Required (50% by 15 years post parking lot construction) 10,000 Total Auxiliary Shade (shade provided by covered stalls) 0 Total Shade Provided 10,010
Estimated % Shade at Crown Maturity (%) 50%
108

109
Appendix L: Photo Contest Credits
As part of the development of the UFMP, the city organized the “Tree Photo Contest” to highlight the different ways that Yuba City’s community celebrates the city’s urban forest. In total, 60 photo entries were submitted to the photo contest by 10 participants. These photos are included in this document.

PAGE 2
Manual Cook
PAGE 3
Manual Cook
PAGE 5
Corrina LaBonte
PAGE 5
Manual Cook
PAGE 6
Miranda Rolfe
PAGE 8
Olivia Salle Jennifer
PAGE 1 0
Manual Cook
PAGE 1 0
Manual Cook
PAGE 1 0
Miranda Rolfe
PAGE 11
Rhonda Cuddy
PAGE 1 2
Manual Cook
PAGE 13
Jen Mcfall
PAGE 17
Miranda Rolfe
PAGE 1 8
Manual Cook
PAGE 19
Amber
PAGE 21
Corrina LaBonte
PAGE 23
Manual Cook
PAGE 24
Manual Cook
PAGE 25
Rhonda Cuddy
PAGE 26
Manual Cook
PAGE 31
Rhonda Cuddy
PAGE 34
Manual Cook
PAGE 36
Miranda Rolfe
PAGE 3 7
Manual Cook
PAGE 37
Manual Cook
PAGE 38
Glynis Buschman
PAGE 44
Maria Gonzales
PAGE 44
Manual Cook
PAGE 44
Rhonda Cuddy
PAGE 45
Miranda Rolfe
PAGE 45
Krista Higdon
PAGE 48
Jasmine Sawyer
PAGE 48
Manual Cook
PAGE 49
Rhonda Cuddy
PAGE 50
Corrina LaBonte
PAGE 53
Miranda Rolfe
PAGE 58
Manual Cook
PAGE 60
Manual Cook
PAGE 69
Manual Cook
PAGE 69
Corrina LaBonte
PAGE 69
Rhonda Cuddy
PAGE 75
Manual Cook
PAGE 75
Manual Cook
PAGE 75
Corrina LaBonte
PAGE 76
Miranda Rolfe
PAGE 77
Corrina LaBonte
PAGE 79
Rhonda Cuddy
PAGE 79
Corrina LaBonte
PAGE 83
Manual Cook
PAGE 8 5
Manual Cook
PAGE 94
Rhonda Cuddy
PAGE 98
Rhonda Cuddy
PAGE 101
Manual Cook
PAGE 102
Manual Cook
PAGE 102
Manual Cook
PAGE 103
Manual Cook
PAGE 108
Brooklyn Martin
PAGE 108
Rhonda Cuddy
PAGE 45
Miranda Rolfe

URBAN FOREST MASTER PLAN
1

Agenda Item 12

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: June 21, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council
From: Police Department
Presentation By: Brian Baker, Police Chief
Summary
Subject: Accept Grant Funding and Expenditure Recommendations for the California Citizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS) Grant of $100,000 Recommendation: A. Conduct a Public Hearing and after consideration; B. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Chief of Police to accept the FY 2021/2022 California Citizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS) funding and approve expenditure recommendations
C. Authorize the Finance Director to make a supplemental budget appropriation for grant revenues to Account No. 100-43117 and grant expenditures to Account No. 2180-69201
Fiscal Impact: $100,000 (approximate) account 2180-69201 (State Grant Law Enforcement - Equipment). No City match required.

Council Priority:

Public Safety
Purpose:

To secure additional funding to be used toward the prevention and reduction of crime and violence.

Background:

Each year, dependent upon State Budget priorities, funds may be allocated to law enforcement agencies to assist in carrying out priorities as established by the Chief of Police (or the Sheriff in unincorporated areas or contract cities). Over the last several years, monies have been made available through the State of California to local law enforcement entities in the form of Citizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS) grant.

This year the Yuba City Police Department will receive approximately $100,000. The State Government Code restricts the money to be used for front line law enforcement purposes and may not be used to supplant any existing law enforcement services provided by the City. The funds from this grant are not required to be utilized in full each year. As a result, there is a fund balance of $298,261 as of June 7,

2022.

Analysis:

The Police Department has traditionally utilized funding obtained in this grant for the major approval expenditure category of technology advancements, critical patrol safety equipment and infrastructure improvements for the benefit of frontline law enforcement delivery to the citizens of our community.

Funding directions are based upon needs assessments from the Department management group in consultation with the rank and file employees and input from the City’s IT staff and our Research and Development Unit. Prior years expenditures have been for such items as: Complete infrastructure upgrade of the police radio system inclusive of acquisition of a secondary repeater radio frequency and related equipment, the Sutter Buttes Radio Interoperability Project Phase One, Emergency Operations Center retrofit, a total service weapon upgrade for all officers, equipping all patrol vehicles with mobile data terminals integrated with the Police Communications Center, required upgrades in the Fire/Police Computer Aided Dispatching System, installation of secure video conferencing capabilities, acquisition of satellite emergency communications capabilities with the California Office of Emergency Services (California Warning Center) and FEMA. We would suggest a continuation along this path of technology evaluation and implementation, along with some much-needed patrol staffing equipment upgrades, which has served us very well over the last 10 years and gained the City both State and National recognition as a technological leader in law enforcement.

Due to the large fund balance currently on hand, the department recommends making the following purchases:

Patrol Related Items
 Individual first aid kits for staff and additional first aid supplies for patrol units. $5100  (1) Autel Robotics EVO II Dual 640R Bundle. This will allow for night flying operations. Drones have been utilized on patrol to help apprehend fleeing suspects safely and can be used during search and rescue operations. $10,500
 (12) Mats for defensive tactics instruction. These mats can be utilized during defensive tactics training to prevent injury while enhancing the type of training officers receive. $3400  Neese waterproof raincoats for staff, ensure compliance with visibility standards. $5100  Level IV ballistic trauma plates for officers. $6000
Investigations
 (5) Laptop computers for investigations. $7,500
Technology

 Data Pilot-prescreens cellular phones for child pornography and other evidence. $5,700 SWAT
 (10) Dual Fuel Scout Light Pro rifle lights. $3600
 Vulcan Munitions Pole, $1800
 (2) Sniper Rifles with necessary equipment. $11,000
 1 Lenco Bearcat SWAT vehicle. $160,000 (this will be a shared portion with VRF monies of $155,000 total cost of vehicle is $315,000)
Recruitment
 Community engagement supplies for the recruitment of all staff positions in the police department $20,000
TOTAL: $239,700
Any remaining money can be used as a contingency since these are approximate numbers and not based on competitive bids, at this time, or additional items that are identified at a later date for use by the department.

Fiscal Impact:
$100,000 Account No. 2180-69201 (State Grant Law Enforcement-Equipment). Authorize the Finance Director to make a supplemental budget appropriation for grant revenues to Account No. 100-43117 and grant expenditures to Account No. 2180-69201.

Alternatives:

Provide staff with alternative spending paths which will not supplant routine expenditures in the general fund.

Recommendation:

1. Conduct a public hearing and after consideration;

2. Adopt a Resolution authorizing the Chief of Police to accept the FY 2021/2022 California Citizens’ Option for Public Safety (COPS) funding and approve expenditure recommendations

3. Authorize the Chief Financial Officer to make budget adjustments as necessary.

Note: Public Hearing notification requirements have been met.

Attachments:

1. ATTACHMENT A 2021-2022 COPS Grant
Prepared By: Submitted By:

Brian Baker
Chief of Police
Diana Langley
City Manager

ATTACHMENT A

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY

AUTHORIZING RECEIPT, ALLOCATION AND EXPENDITURE, OF
THE FY 2021-2022 STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITIZENS’ OPTION

FOR PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT (COPS GRANT)

BE IT RESOLVED AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUBA CITY AS FOLLOWS:

That the City, through the Chief Financial Officer and the Chief of Police, accept, account for, track, allocate and expend as directed the FY 21/22 California Citizens’ Option for Public Safety Grant. It is acknowledged the Citizens’ Option funding would be in the amount of approximately $100,000. It is recognized there is no cash match requirement.

That said expenditures be in accordance with grant guidelines, specifically in the area of frontline law enforcement uses and related infrastructure/technology improvements as might be deemed appropriate by the Chief of Police consistent with the practice and Council policy of this and previous years.

That said purchases be in accordance with State of California and City of Yuba City purchasing guidelines.

That the Chief Financial Officer be given authority to adjust the budget as required for grant purposes.

The foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Yuba City at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of June 2022.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ATTEST:

Dave Shaw, Mayor
Ciara Wakefield, Deputy City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
Shannon L. Chaffin, City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP

Agenda Item 13

CITY OF YUBA CITY

STAFF REPORT
Date: June 21, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council
From: Public Works Department
Presentation By: Ben Moody, Public Works & Development Services Director Summary
Subject: Small Wireless Telecommunication Facilities within the City’s Right-of-Way Recommendation: A. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City adding Chapter 8 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in the Public Right of Way to Title 6 of the Yuba City Municipal Code by title only and waive the first reading

B. Adopt a Resolution to revise the corresponding City Policy for design standards applicable to Small Wireless Facilities (SWF) in the public right-of-way Fiscal Impact: Minimal fiscal impact is anticipated with the implementation of the ordinance.

Installation of wireless facilities would be subject to permit and inspection fees to offset administrative costs with potential lease revenue in the future. Staff will bring to City Council a proposed Master License Agreement for use of City infrastructure in the ROW and a Fee Resolution for any fees associated with these applications at the time of the second reading.

Purpose:

To provide regulatory framework and standards for permitting the installation of small wireless facilities within the City’s right-of-way.

Council’s Strategic Goals:

The ordinance addresses the City Council’s Strategic Goals of Improving Public Safety, be Business Friendly, and regulate infrastructure in the City’s Right-of-Way.

Background:

In recent years wireless telecommunication facilities have evolved into various types of facilities, two types of which are administrative wireless telecommunication facilities and major wireless telecommunication facilities. Major wireless telecommunication facilities are known as “macro-cells”, while the administrative wireless telecommunication facilities are known as “small wireless facilities” (SWFs).

Wireless telecommunication carriers increasingly seek to place SWFs in the City’s public right-of-way on utility poles, streetlights, and new poles. The demand for such wireless installations, particularly

SWFs, is expected to grow exponentially over the next several years given the expansion of home streaming video, social media, drones, self-driving cars, and the Internet of Things (IoT) serving homes and businesses. To accommodate this expansion, the telecommunications industry seeks to implement small cell facilities by installing them onto street light poles and other utility poles in the public right-ofway that are well-suited for limited range SWFs.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a Declaratory Ruling and Third Report and Order (FCC Order) significantly limiting state and local management of SWFs in the public right-of-way.

In short, the FCC Order defines SWFs as follows:
 No more than 28 cubic feet in volume for all associated wireless equipment on one structure.  Antennas for SWFs shall be no more than 3 cubic feet in volume.  Total height cannot be greater than 50 feet or extend higher than 10% above the height of adjacent structures, whichever is greater.

The FCC Order also has caps for all fees that local governments can charge to the actual and reasonable cost of providing service, imposed a review timeline know as a “shot clock” of 60 days for SWFs added to existing structures or 90 days for SWFs proposing a new structure, and FCC preempts all aesthetic requirements for SWFs in the public right-of-way, unless they are feasible, no more burdensome than those applied to other types of infrastructure deployments, and published in advanced.

Analysis:

The attached ordinance provides the regulatory framework and standards for permitting the installation of SWFs within the City’s right-of-way. The proposed ordinance and corresponding design standards have been revised in response to the FCC Order. The proposed ordinance also addresses “eligible facilities requests”— a category of “by-right” installations that were established by the FCC several years ago, but never acknowledged in the City’s current version of Municipal Code. The “eligible facilities request” means any request for modification to an existing eligible support structure that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such structure.

Permitting for macro and small wireless telecommunication facilities will require a new type of permit, titled a Wireless Telecommunication Facility (WTF) Permit. To address the difference between macro and small wireless telecommunication facilities, the WTF permit will have a supplemental application to classify the facility.

Fiscal Impact:

Minimal fiscal impact is anticipated with the implementation of the ordinance. Installation of wireless facilities would be subject to permit and inspection fees to offset administrative costs. There may also be the potential for lease revenue at some future date. Staff will bring to City Council a proposed Master License Agreement for use of City infrastructure in the ROW and a fee resolution for any fees associated with these applications at the time of the second reading.

Alternatives:

Direct staff to modify the ordinance language or do not move forward with an ordinance at this time, resulting in the City of Yuba City restricting its rights to enforce standards and regulations for wireless telecommunication facilities and structures in the public right-of-way.

Recommendation:

A. Introduce an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Yuba City adding Chapter 8 Wireless Telecommunications Facilities in the Public Right of Way to Title 6 of the Yuba City Municipal Code by title