In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35 .102.35.104 ADA Title II].
AGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 27, 2024 - 6:00 PM
CLOSED SESSION - 5:30 PM
LABOR NEGOTIATIONS — The City Council will meet in closed session with its designated representatives to discuss labor negotiations pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. The City's designated representatives are City Manager Aaron Adams, City Attorney Peter Thorson, Assistant City Manager Kevin Hawkins, Director of Finance Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Human Resources and Risk Management Isaac Garibay, Deputy City Manager Luke Watson and Senior Human Resources Analyst Becky Obmann. The employee organization is the California Teamsters Public, Professional and Medical Employees Union Local 911.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor James Stewart
INVOCATION: Pam Migliozzi of Center for Spiritual Living Temecula Valley FLAG SALUTE: Mayor James Stewart
ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart
BOARD / COMMISSION REPORTS
Community Services Commission, Planning Commission and Race, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Commission
PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT
County of Riverside, Fire Department (CAL FIRE)
PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDA ITEMS
A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited .
Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to [email protected]. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding
City Council Agenda February 27, 2024
Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten minutes will be devoted to these reports .
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on matters on the Consent Calendar .
Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca .gov.
All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.
1.Waive Reading of Title and Text of All Ordinances and Resolutions Included in the Agenda That the City Council waive the reading of the title and text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda.
Recommendation:
Agenda ReportAttachments:
2.Approve Action Minutes of February 13, 2024
That the City Council approve the action minutes of February 13, 2024.Recommendation:
Action MinutesAttachments:
3.Approve List of Demands
That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS
SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
Recommendation:
Agenda Report
Resolution
List of Demands
Attachments:
4.Approve Resolution to Adopt the Urban Forest Management Plan and Make a Finding it is Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15307 and 15061
City Council Agenda February 27, 2024
That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA TO ADOPT THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT
PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION (CAL FIRE) 2019/2020
URBAN AND COMMUNITY FOREST PROGRAM GRANT
GUIDELINES AND FINDING THAT THE URBAN FOREST
MANAGEMENT PLAN IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTION 15307 AND 15061
Recommendation:
Agenda Report
Resolution
Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP)
UFMP Technical Assessment
UFMP Appendices
Attachments:
5.Award Construction Contract to Ace Capital Engineering for the American with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW 18-16
That the City Council:
1. Award a construction contract to Ace Capital Engineering in the amount of $356,528.53 for the American with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW 18-16; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to approve contract change orders up to 15% of the contract amount, $53,479.28; and
3. Make a finding that the American with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW 18-16, project is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan fees.
Recommendation:
Agenda Report
Contract
Project Description
Project Location
Attachments:
6.Approve an Increase to the Contingency Amount for the Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing at Calle Aragon Park
That the City Council:
1. Approve an increase to the contingency amount for the Playground Recommendation:
City Council Agenda February 27, 2024
Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing at Calle Aragon Park, by $17,890; and
2. Increase the City Manager’s authority to approve additional work by $17,890.
Agenda ReportAttachments:
7.Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize the Solicitation of Construction Bids for Pickleball Courts, PW21-03
That the City Council:
1. Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Pickleball Courts, Project PW21-03; and
2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines.
Recommendation:
Agenda Report
Project Description
Project Location
Attachments:
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND/OR THE
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
City Council Agenda February 27, 2024
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: President Zak Schwank
ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart
CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDA ITEMS
A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited .
Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to [email protected]. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54.
CSD CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited .
Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to [email protected]. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54.
8.Approve Action Minutes of February 13, 2024
That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of February 13, 2024.
Recommendation:
Action MinutesAttachments:
CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT
CSD BOARD OF DIRECTOR REPORTS
CSD ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District will be held on Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
City Council Agenda February 27, 2024
SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - NO
MEETING
TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY - NO MEETING
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
CALL TO ORDER: Chair James Stewart
ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart
TPFA PUBLIC COMMENT
A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca .gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.
TPFA CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Temecula Public Financing Authority request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action . A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to [email protected]. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54.
9.Approve Joint Action Minutes of February 13, 2024
That the Board of Directors approve the joint action minutes of February 13, 2024
Recommendation:
Joint TPFA and CC Action MinutesAttachments:
TPFA PUBLIC HEARING
Any person may submit written comments to the Board of Directors before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of a project at the time of the hearing .
City Council Agenda February 27, 2024
If you challenge a project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the public hearing. For public hearings each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be included into the record. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca .gov.
Email comments on all matters, including those not on the agenda, must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. At public hearings involving land use matters, the property owner and/or applicant has the burden of proof and, therefore, shall be allowed 15 minutes for an initial presentation, and an additional 10 minutes for rebuttal by its development team following other comments on the matter. An appellant, other than the property owner and/or applicant, and the spokesperson for an organized group of residents residing within the noticed area of the property, which is the subject of the public hearing, shall be allowed 15 minutes to present the appellant’s position to the Board. The Chair may allow more time if required to provide due process for the property owner, applicant or appellant. All other members of the public may speak during the public hearing for a maximum period of 5 minutes each. Deferral of one speaker’s time to another is not permitted. In the event of a large number of speakers, the Chair may reduce the maximum time limit for members of the public to speak. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54.
10.Adopt Resolutions to Form Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado)
That the Board of Directors take the following actions :
1. That the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the “Board”) hold a public hearing regarding the formation of the proposed Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) (the “CFD”), the levy of special taxes in the CFD, and the issuance of bonds by the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”) for the CFD, and adopt the following resolutions entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. TPFA
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF FORMATION
OF TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO), AUTHORIZING THE
LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN THE DISTRICT, AND
PRELIMINARILY ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
FOR THE DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. TPFA
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DETERMINING
Recommendation:
City Council Agenda February 27, 2024
THE NECESSITY TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO)
RESOLUTION NO. TPFA
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CALLING
SPECIAL ELECTION WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
NO. 23-02 (PRADO)
2. That the Board hold an election regarding the CFD, and adopt the resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. TPFA
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DECLARING
RESULTS OF SPECIAL ELECTION AND DIRECTING RECORDING
OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN - COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO)
3. That the Board have the first reading of the ordinance entitled :
ORDINANCE NO. TPFA
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING
AUTHORITY LEVYING SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN TEMECULA
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO)
Agenda Report
TPFA Resolution - Formation
TPFA Resolution - Incur Bonded Indebtedness
TPFA Resolution - Calling Election
TPFA Resolution - Declaring Election Results
TPFA Ordinance
CFD Report
Notice of Special Tax Lien
Attachments:
TPFA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT
TPFA BOARD OF DIRECTOR REPORTS
TPFA ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Temecula Public Financing Authority will be held on Tuesday, March
City Council Agenda February 27, 2024
12, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of a project at the time of the hearing. If you challenge a project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the public hearing. For public hearings each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be included into the record. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca .gov.
Email comments on all matters, including those not on the agenda, must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. At public hearings involving land use matters, the property owner and/or applicant has the burden of proof and, therefore, shall be allowed 15 minutes for an initial presentation, and an additional 10 minutes for rebuttal by its development team following other comments on the matter. An appellant, other than the property owner and/or applicant, and the spokesperson for an organized group of residents residing within the noticed area of the property, which is the subject of the public hearing, shall be allowed 15 minutes to present the appellant’s position to the Council. The Mayor may allow more time if required to provide due process for the property owner, applicant or appellant. All other members of the public may speak during the public hearing for a maximum period of 5 minutes each. Deferral of one speaker’s time to another is not permitted. In the event of a large number of speakers, the Mayor may reduce the maximum time limit for members of the public to speak. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54.
11.Approve Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-25 User Fee Schedule That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE
USER FEE SCHEDULE AND AMENDING FEES AND CHARGES
FOR CITY SERVICES, INCLUDING BUILDING AND SAFETY,
PLANNING, LAND DEVELOPMENT, FIRE PREVENTION, POLICE,
AND OTHER CITY SERVICES AND MAKING RELATED
DETERMINATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Recommendation:
City Council Agenda February 27, 2024
Agenda Report
Resolution
Proposed User Fee Schedule
User Fee Study Fact Sheet
Final Report
Notice of Public Hearing
Attachments:
BUSINESS - JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Any member of the public may address the City Council on items that appear on the Business portion of the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited .
Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to [email protected]. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54.
12.Approve Fiscal Year 2023-24 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments That the City Council/Board of Directors adopt the following resolutions entitled:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 ANNUAL
OPERATING BUDGET
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2024-28 AND AMENDING THE
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA REVISING THE SALARY SCHEDULE
RESOLUTION NO. CSD
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 ANNUAL
OPERATING BUDGETS
Recommendation:
City Council Agenda February 27, 2024
Agenda Report
FY 2023-24 Consolidated Mid-Year Requests
Resolution - City
Exhibit A, B and C - City Fund Summaries
Resolution - CIP
Exhibit 1 - FY 2023-24 Mid-Year CIP Requests
Resolution - Salary Schedule
Salary Schedule
Resolution - TCSD
Exhibit A - TCSD Fund Summaries
Attachments:
BUSINESS - CITY COUNCIL
13.Approve Amendment No. 7 to City Manager Aaron Adams’ Employment Agreement That the City Council approve Amendment No. 7 to City Manager Aaron Adams’ Employment Agreement.
Recommendation:
Agenda Report
Amendment No. 7
Employment Agreement and Amendment Nos. 1-6
Attachments:
14.Appoint Members to the Old Town Local Advisory Committee and Ratify the Full Membership List for the Committee
That the City Council appoint members to the Old Town Local Advisory Committee and ratify the full membership list for the committee .
Recommendation:
Agenda Report
Redacted Applications
Attachments:
15.Consider the Creation of an Ad Hoc Subcommittee to Discuss Issues Related to the Acceptance of Streets into the City-Maintained Street System for Street Maintenance by the City (At the Request of Mayor Pro Tempore Kalfus)
That the City Council:
1. Consider the creation of an ad hoc subcommittee to discuss issues related to the acceptance of streets into the city-maintained street system for street maintenance by the City and City policies and standards relating to the acceptance of streets .
2. If the subcommittee is created, appoint two Council Members to the subcommittee.
3. If the subcommittee is created, authorize City staff to provide the necessary document production and research necessary for the Recommendation:
City Council Agenda February 27, 2024
subcommittee’s consideration of the issues.
Agenda ReportAttachments:
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS (RECEIVE AND FILE)
16.Community Development Department Monthly Report
Agenda Report
Planning Activity Report
Attachments:
17.Fire Department Monthly Report
Agenda Report
Fire Monthly Report
Attachments:
18.Police Department Monthly Report
Agenda ReportAttachments:
19.Public Works Department Monthly Report
Agenda Report
Project Status Report
Attachments:
ITEMS FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
Any Council Member, including the Mayor, may request an item be placed on a future agenda. Any such request will be discussed under this section. In making the request, a Council Member may briefly describe the topic of the proposed agenda item and any timing associated with the placement of the item on the agenda. This description shall not exceed 3 minutes. No substantive discussion on the subject of the motion may occur. Items may only be placed on the agenda by Council Members pursuant to policy or by the City Manager based on administrative or operational needs of the City. Public comments on the placement of these agenda items shall be limited to a maximum of 30 minutes. Individual comments shall not exceed 3 minutes. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings and Agenda Placements by Council Members adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
City Council Agenda February 27, 2024
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
The full agenda packet (including staff reports, public closed session information, and any supplemental material available after the original posting of the agenda), distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the main reception area of the Temecula Civic Center during normal business hours at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. The material will also be available on the City's website at TemeculaCa.gov. and available for review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda, please contact the City Clerk’s Department at (951) 694-6444.
Item No. 1
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk
DATE: February 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Title and Text of All Ordinances and Resolutions Included in the Agenda
______________________________________________________________________________
PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the title and text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda.
BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. In accordance with Government Code Section 34934, the title of each ordinance is included on the published agenda and a copy of the full ordinance has been available to the public online on the City’s website and will be available in print at the meeting prior to the introduction or passage of the ordinance. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the title and text of all ordinances and resolutions is waived.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS: None
Item No. 2
1 ACTION MINUTES
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 13, 2024 - 6:00 PM
CLOSED SESSION - 4:30 PM
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. The City Council convened in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding the acquisition of certain property interests, including permanent easements and temporary construction easements on five properties described below in connection with the public improvements required for the Altair Specific Plan Community (“Project”). The negotiators for the City are Patrick Thomas and Ron Moreno. The negotiators for the respective real property interests are set forth below.
(i) The acquisition of certain property interests from the real property located at 28481 Rancho California Road in the City of Temecula (APN 921-281-011). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 5,487 square foot permanent easement and an approximate 3,757 square foot temporary construction easement. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owner GGG Partnership, LP. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests.
(ii) The acquisition of certain property interests from the real property located in the City of Temecula (No Situs Address) (APN 921-280-002). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 1,016 square foot permanent easement and an approximate 427 square foot temporary construction easement.
The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owner SPX Investment, LLC. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests.
(iii) The acquisition of certain property interests from the real property located at 28751 Rancho California Road in the City of Temecula (APN 921-280-003). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 414 square foot permanent easement and an approximate 396 square foot temporary construction easement. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owner First & Center, LLC. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests.
(iv) The acquisition of certain property interests from the real property located at 28545 Felix Valdez Avenue in the City of Temecula (APN 921-281-006). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 402 square foot temporary construction easement. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owners Richard M. Alvarez and Linda Lopez-Alvarez. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests.
(v) The acquisition of certain property interests from the real property located at 28381 Vincent Moraga in the City of Temecula (APN 921-281-021). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 4,237 square foot permanent easement and an approximate 16,335 square foot temporary construction easement. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owner Westcore Gem ini VM, LLC. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests.
2 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – INITIATION OF LITIGATION. The City Council convened in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) with respect to two matters of potential litigation. A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Attorney, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City and the City Council will decide whether to initiate litigation.
LABOR NEGOTIATIONS — The City Council convened in closed session with its designated representatives to discuss labor negotiations pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. The City's designated representatives are City Manager Aaron Adams, City Attorney Peter Thorson, Assistant City Manager Kevin Hawkins, Director of Finance Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Human Resources and Risk Management Isaac Garibay, Deputy City Manager Luke Watson and Senior Human Resources Analyst Becky Obmann. The employee organization is the California Teamsters Public, P rofessional and Medical Employees Union Local 911.
CITY MANAGER ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. The City Council convened in closed session pursuant to Government Code Sections 54957 and 54957.6 to evaluate the performance of the City Manager and establish goals and performance objectives for the next year as required by the City Manager’s Employment Agreement.
CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 PM: Mayor James Stewart
INVOCATION: Bishop Terrence Hundley of The Place City of Miracles
FLAG SALUTE: Mayor James Stewart
ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart
PRESENTATIONS
Presentation of 2024 Community Leader Award of Distinction for Ed Morel Presentation by Gillian Larson Regarding Reality Rally
BOARD / COMMISSION REPORTS
Planning Commission and Traffic Safety Commission
PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT
County of Riverside, Riverside County Sheriff's Department
PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDA ITEMS
The following individual(s) addressed the City Council:
• Mark Swearingin • Tammy Marine
• Arch Aitcheson • Laurel LaMont
• Bernard Budney • Melissa Bourbonnais
PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS
The following individual(s) addressed the City Council:
• Pam Nelson (Item #4)
3 All electronic comments received were made a part of the record of the meeting.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
CONSENT CALENDAR
Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar.
Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-0): Motion by Schwank, Second by Kalfus. The vote reflected unanimous approval.
1. Waive Reading of Title and Text of All Ordinances and Resolutions Included in the Agenda
Recommendation: That the City Council waive the reading of the title and text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda.
2. Approve Action Minutes of January 23, 2024 and February 6, 2024
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the action minutes of January 23, 2024 and February 6, 2024.
3. Approve List of Demands
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS
SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4. Adopt Resolution Approving Agreement Pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5 Between City of Temecula and SB Altair, LLC and Brookfield Temecula, LLC Regarding Acquisition of Property Interests in Connection with Vincent Moraga Improvements
Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions:
1. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66462.5 BETWEEN SB ALTAIR,
LLC, AND BROOKFIELD TEMECULA, LLC AND CITY OF
TEMECULA FOR ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY
INTERESTS (VINCENT MORAGA IMPROVEMENTS)
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents and take all steps necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Agreement.
4 5. Approve Landscape Maintenance Agreement with State of California Department of Transportation for Maintenance of I-15/SR-79 South Interchange Enhanced Landscaping, PW17-19
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF
TEMECULA FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE I-15/SR-79
SOUTH INTERCHANGE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING
6. Approve Grant of Easement on Portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 921-020-079, Field Operations Center, to Southern California Edison for Electric Vehicles Charging Station Project, PW21-09
Recommendation: That the City Council:
1. Approve a Grant of Easement on a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 921-020-079, Field Operations Center, to Southern California Edison; and
2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Grant of Easement.
7. Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Southside Parking Lot Reconfiguration, PW15-07
Recommendation: That the City Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Southside Parking Lot Reconfiguration, PW15-07.
8. Establish All-Way Stop Control at the Intersection of Camino Piedra Rojo and Parown Drive/Avenida Bicicleta
Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, ESTABLISHING AN ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL AT
THE INTERSECTION OF CAMINO PIEDRA ROJO AND PAROWN
DRIVE/AVENIDA BICICLETA AND FINDING THAT THE ACTION
IS EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) UNDER SECTION 15301(C) OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES
5 9. Receive and File Temporary Road Closure and Detour for Nicolas Road at Calle Girasol
Recommendation: That the City Council receive and file the temporary road closure and detour for Nicolas Road at Calle Girasol.
10. Receive and File Temporary Street Closures for Temecula Sunset Market
Recommendation: That the City Council receive and file the temporary closure of certain streets for the Temecula Sunset Market.
RECESS:
At 7:11 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting and Joint Temecula Public Financing Authority and City Council Meeting. At 7 :23 PM the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda.
RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS (RECEIVE AND FILE)
15. City Council Travel/Conference Report
ITEMS FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS
The City Council approved the placement of the following topic on a future agenda:
1. Creation of Ad Hoc Subcommittee to discuss private street maintenance
(3-1): Motion by Kalfus, Second by Alexander. The vote reflected unanimous approval with Schwank opposing.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
During the closed session the City Council by a vote of 4 -0 authorized the City Attorney’s Office to initiate litigation against the property owners of 42191 6th Street and 28434 Pujol Street to enforce the affordable housing restrictions on the properties.
6 ADJOURNMENT
At 7:26 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 27, 2024, at 5:00 PM for Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
James Stewart, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
Item No. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance
DATE: February 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Approve List of Demands
______________________________________________________________________________
PREPARED BY: Tricia Hawk, Finance Manager
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City’s policies and procedures.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution
2. List of Demands
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the office of the City Clerk, has been reviewed by the City Manager’s Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $17,292,363.78.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 27th day of February, 2024.
James Stewart, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
1/29/2024 - 2/9/2024 TOTAL CHECK RUN:16,492,112.63
2/1/2024 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN:800,251.15
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 2/27/2024 COUNCIL MEETING: 17,292,363.78$
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
Check#Check Date Vendor #Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 301377 02/01/2024 1288 2 HOT UNIFORMS INC 7099 UNIFORMS: EM $209.34 601481 02/08/2024 3518 ACROVISTA LLC 2526 MULTICAST SOFTWARE: LIBRARY: IT $148.50 301378 02/01/2024 1772 ADAME LANDSCAPE INC S25230 PARKING GARAGE SWEEPING/CLEANING: PW $540.00 301439 02/08/2024 1236 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT 1172373 ASPHALT SUPPLIES, PW STREET MAINTENANCE $503.28 301439 02/08/2024 1236 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT 1172225 ASPHALT SUPPLIES, PW STREET MAINTENANCE $356.47 601482 02/08/2024 1512 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES INC 27304 PIANO SVCS:THEATER:TCSD $280.00 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 161X-3WMG-YNG4 MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD $2,201.08 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1GJ9-GMYM-JTDF MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD $1,641.23 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1FHF-H4V7-7GQL MISC SUPPLIES: TVM: TCSD $851.97 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1CJM-9GPY-LMN6 SUPPLIES: AQUATICS $687.20 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1DLC-DTY3-1NTQ OFFICE SUPPLIES: EM $609.51 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1H3Y-W17D-1GCC MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD $453.55 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1LHL-T3GR-1MWL SMALL TOOLS/EQUIPMENT: FOC $269.60 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1PDH-HQ1M-99YN MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD $238.55 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1TJF-3WCL-9YC4 MISC SUPPLIES: TVM $137.46 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1YYM-WHMJ-DMN7 MISC SUPPLIES: FINANCE $115.11 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1RD1-QRC4-46MG MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CITY MGR $108.40 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1KYX-1NNQ-6CYL MISC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD $98.37 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 193D-DMQ6-3LPP MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CITY CLERK $86.43 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1X4H-FTP9-PYVH MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CIP: PW $82.21 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1CW1-YCCM-V7YV MISC SUPPLIES: TVM $76.34 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1TNW-QW73-FHXG MISC OFC SUPPLIES: COM DEV $70.66 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 17G4-CFWX-7JJR MISC OFC SUPPLIES: COM DEV $69.48 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1GHC-RHPW-L44Y SUPPLIES: HR $65.18 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1XMG-3C3H-YQRJ MISC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD $61.98 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1MWY-6Q4R-FRN4 MISC SUPPLIES: COM DEV $52.78 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1CRJ-R119-NCFT MISC SUPPLIES: TVM $43.49 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1WMY-FYT7-CVYC MISC SUPPLIES: INFO TECH $41.08 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1VWN-WRJQ-R6W6 MISC SUPPLIES: POLICE $40.93 601485 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 19DT-CK73-4WLW MISC SUPPLIES: FINANCE $25.98 601485 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1RHM-L6PK-H4XX MISC SUPPLIES: OPERATIONS: TCSD $17.39 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1W6L-Q3R4-3GQD SMALL TOOLS & EQUIPMENT: FIRE $17.38 601485 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 14HN-NYTY-13GV MISC SUPPLIES: WORKFORCE DEV $17.10 601485 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1LK3-4QV7-9VRV MISC OFC SUPPLIES: COMSP $9.75 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1Y6H-JPX6-F4LX MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD ($326.20) 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1KT1-YHK3-FLCQ MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD ($326.20) 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1V47-RQ4D-FWND MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD ($326.20) 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 19JM-YK33-QHG4 MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD ($370.59) 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1NG7-1J6L-QKDP MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD ($370.59) 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 16M4-NQLX-4YHM MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD ($370.59) 601486 02/08/2024 1261 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES 78486 MAR STAND BY FEE: POLICE $1,485.90 601486 02/08/2024 1261 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES 78445 DRUG ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: PD $359.75 601487 02/08/2024 2485 AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION INC SCPR156456 CPR PROGRAM SUPPLIES: MEDIC $955.60 601488 02/08/2024 1080 AMERICAN RED CROSS 22656646 STAFF/LIFEGUARDS CERTS: AQUATICS $296.40 301440 02/08/2024 3217 ANTHOLOGY INSTITUTE PERF: 02/08/24b PERFORMING ARTS AGREEMENT $6,000.00 601428 02/01/2024 1805 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO 20075786 DRINKING WATER SYSTEM MAINT: MPSC $35.89 601489 02/08/2024 1805 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO 20075784 DRINKING WATER SRVCS:IT $28.55 601490 02/08/2024 1293 AQUA SOURCE INC 404197 POOL SUPPLIES AQUATICS: TCSD $2,740.50 301441 02/08/2024 2777 ARAMARK SERVICES INC 106024944 BEVERAGE SERVICES, FACILITIES $572.51 301441 02/08/2024 2777 ARAMARK SERVICES INC 8269309 BEVERAGE SERVICES, FACILITIES $111.00 301441 02/08/2024 2777 ARAMARK SERVICES INC 3413896 BEVERAGE SERVICES, FACILITIES $89.78 601429 02/01/2024 2917 ARJONA GLORIA Sttlmnt: 01/19/24 TICKET SERVICES AGREEMENT-BRAZILIAN & JAZZ $1,124.95 301380 02/01/2024 2502 ARTHUR J GALLAGHER RISK MANAGMENT SRV 4980780 ANNUAL SERVICES AGREEMENT $7,606.00 601491 02/08/2024 3168 ASTER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC 6 MARY PHILLIPS SENIOR CENTER OUTDOOR REC AREA $34,586.00 301381 02/01/2024 2242 AT&T 491658 LOCATION/ACTIVATION FEES: POLICE $175.00 601430 02/01/2024 1170 AUTOPARTSPROS LLC 093719 AUTO PARTS FOR PW STREET MAINTENANCE $395.48 601430 02/01/2024 1170 AUTOPARTSPROS LLC 096030 AUTO PARTS FOR PW STREET MAINTENANCE $41.29 601430 02/01/2024 1170 AUTOPARTSPROS LLC 096012 AUTO PARTS FOR PW STREET MAINTENANCE $13.04 601430 02/01/2024 1170 AUTOPARTSPROS LLC 094488 AUTO PARTS FOR PW STREET MAINTENANCE ($58.73) 601431 02/01/2024 1369 AYERS DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 1940 PLASTIC EGGS FOR EASTER: TCSD $3,337.54 601492 02/08/2024 2381 AYERS WILLIAM BRIAN 2950 LIGHTING R&R: LIBRARY STORY ROOM: PW $1,600.00 601492 02/08/2024 2381 AYERS WILLIAM BRIAN 2935 ELECTRICAL SVCS: TOWN SQUARE LIGHTING SYSTEM: PW $700.00 601492 02/08/2024 2381 AYERS WILLIAM BRIAN 2947 ELECTRICAL SVCS: TOWN SQUARE LIGHTING SYSTEM: PW $350.00 601492 02/08/2024 2381 AYERS WILLIAM BRIAN 2936 ELECTRICAL SVCS: HARVESTON LAKE PUMP: PW $300.00 601495 02/08/2024 1980 B G P RECREATION INC 4005-4010 2nd half TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $3,225.60 601493 02/08/2024 1405 B&H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP 220519549 MISC AV EQUIPMENT:PEG $1,470.58 601494 02/08/2024 1717 BARRETT ENGINEERED PUMPS 131785 MISC PARTS: CITY FACILITIES: PW $5,049.85 301382 02/01/2024 2953 BDS TACTICAL GEAR 20447 UNIFORMS: TEM SHERIFF $571.35 301444 02/08/2024 2935 BETTS KENNETH 1900.101-1910.101 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $2,469.60 301445 02/08/2024 1095 BIG EAR AUDIO LLC INV-05144 PLATFORM FOR OLD TOWN CHRISTMAS TREE $3,000.00 301383 02/01/2024 1264 BIO TOX LABORATORIES 45399 PHLEBOTOMY SERVICES: PD $3,704.45 301383 02/01/2024 1264 BIO TOX LABORATORIES 45398 PHLEBOTOMY SERVICES: PD $752.80 301383 02/01/2024 1264 BIO TOX LABORATORIES 45464 PHLEBOTOMY SERVICES: PD $530.00 601496 02/08/2024 2037 BLUEBEAM INC 1802993 SOFTWARE RENEWAL: BLDG & SAFETY $6,591.00 601432 02/01/2024 1101 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC 14A0028910578 WATER DELIVERY SVCS: PW $224.14 601432 02/01/2024 1101 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC 04A6702622575 WATER DELIVERY SVCS: TVE2 $146.79
Check#Check Date Vendor #Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 601432 02/01/2024 1101 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC 04A0036263176 WATER DELIVERY SVCS: HELP CENTER $136.16 601497 02/08/2024 1101 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC 14A0028662112 WATER DELIVERY SVCS: PW $85.94 601497 02/08/2024 1101 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC 04A0035623057 WATER DELIVERY SVCS: PW $21.74 601497 02/08/2024 1101 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC 04A6705212167 WATER DELIVERY SVCS: PW $11.95 301384 02/01/2024 1631 BONCOR WATER SYSTEMS LLC 789589 01/03/24 WATER FILTER REPLACEMENT: STATION 73 $330.00 601433 02/01/2024 2415 BRAUN PETER 4118 PLANT MAINTENANCE: PW FACILITIES $200.00 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038026271 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $749.10 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038039033 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $367.08 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038018306 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $275.14 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038026270 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $231.75 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038018305 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $172.01 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038060594 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $149.73 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038036851 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $102.11 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038036853 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $59.93 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038039032 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $41.91 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038026269 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $28.56 301443 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038039031 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $21.22 301443 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038036852 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $15.90 301443 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038060595 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $10.27 601498 02/08/2024 1085 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS 17169 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: BLDG DEPT $325.00 301385 02/01/2024 1612 CALIF DEPT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS E 2025526 SB 115265 ELEVATOR INSP: 28314 MERCEDES ST $225.00 301387 02/01/2024 2465 CALIF NEWSPAPERS PARTNERSHIP 0000580158B BID ADVERTISING: PW18-16: CIP $2,976.02 301477 02/08/2024 100 CARMEN ZEPEDA 65064063 REFUND: SENIOR EXCURSION $15.00 301388 02/01/2024 2063 CASC ENGINEERING AND, CONSULTING INC 0050493 NPDES COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL $5,012.50 601499 02/08/2024 1280 CDW LLC PC93702 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP:IT $922.53 601499 02/08/2024 1280 CDW LLC PB64429 REPLACEMENT TV'S:TEM PUBLIC LIBRARY: IT $855.97 601499 02/08/2024 1280 CDW LLC PF21497 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH $830.27 601499 02/08/2024 1280 CDW LLC PH91873 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH $230.79 601499 02/08/2024 1280 CDW LLC PD94195 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH $92.00 601499 02/08/2024 1280 CDW LLC NX22795 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH $78.30 601499 02/08/2024 1280 CDW LLC NZ97479 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH $58.08 601499 02/08/2024 1280 CDW LLC NZ10956 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH $47.39 601500 02/08/2024 1100 CES HOLDINGS LLC 219550 POOL SUPPLIES: AQUATICS: PW $333.62 301446 02/08/2024 3334 CHARLES M SCHULZ MUSEUM AND RESEARCH Exhibition Rental EXHIBIT: MERRY CHRISTMAS CHARLIE BROWN $3,750.00 301447 02/08/2024 1942 CHRISTIAN STITCHERY INC COT 85 AWARDS: SPORTS DIVISION $4,455.72 301448 02/08/2024 1701 CLEAR IMAGE ENTERPRISES INC 18987 WINDOW CLEANING: TVE2: PW $600.00 301448 02/08/2024 1701 CLEAR IMAGE ENTERPRISES INC 18984 WINDOW CLEANING: CITY FACITILIES: PW $348.00 301448 02/08/2024 1701 CLEAR IMAGE ENTERPRISES INC 18989 WINDOW PAINT REMOVAL: TVM: TCSD $200.00 601501 02/08/2024 1239 COAST RECREATION INC 15546 MISC PLAYGROUND HARDWARE: VARIOUS PARKS $756.42 601502 02/08/2024 3043 COMMERCIAL CLEANING BY ROGERS 10897 JANITORIAL SERVICES: OTSF AND MALL $814.77 601503 02/08/2024 1046 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS 120032 ALARM INSTALL: MARGARITA REC CENTER, PW17-21 $5,582.00 301478 02/08/2024 100 CONNIE NEELY 65168098 REFUND: SENIOR EXCURSION $15.00 601434 02/01/2024 3130 CORTEZ GASTELUM MARIA VICTORIA 231223 NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION: MPSC: TCSD $125.00 601504 02/08/2024 1771 COSSOU, CELINE 1620.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $343.00 601435 02/01/2024 1771 COSSOU, CELINE 1630.101 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $140.00 301449 02/08/2024 1098 COSTCO TEMECULA 491 3547 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES: CIP PW $99.68 301450 02/08/2024 1268 COSTCO TEMECULA 491 3546 MISC SUPPLIES: MRC, MPSC AND SFSP $440.90 601505 02/08/2024 2004 COX KRISTI 4100.102-4150.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $1,484.00 601506 02/08/2024 1592 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC 003729 GARBAGE DISPOSAL INSTALL: SENIOR CENTER: PW $4,748.00 601436 02/01/2024 1592 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC 003805 POOL DECK SHOWER REPARIR: CRC: PW $1,947.00 601506 02/08/2024 1592 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC 003816 CONSTRUCTION SVCS: PW CIP PW22-16 $890.00 601506 02/08/2024 1592 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC 003730 PLUMBING SVCS: HARVESTON LAKE PARK: PW $690.00 301451 02/08/2024 2646 CRISP ENTERPRISES INC 457469 REPROGRAPHIC SVCS: PW CIP PW21-07 $442.94 301452 02/08/2024 2002 CRST SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION INC DU072400 SHIPPING CHARGES: EXHIBIT: TVM $727.97 301390 02/01/2024 1207 D F M ASSOCIATES '24 Electrions Code 2024 CA ELECTIONS CODE BOOK: CITY CLERK $76.13 301391 02/01/2024 3209 DATA PROCESSING DESIGN INC EGOLD-12054848 CLOUD FAXING SERVICE: INFO TECH $75.99 301391 02/01/2024 3209 DATA PROCESSING DESIGN INC EGOLD-12057110 CLOUD FAXING SERVICE:ITSS $75.99 601507 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 160628 CITATION PROCESSING: POLICE $1,525.62 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 149946 MAR '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $787.86 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 148835 FEB '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 160180 DEC '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 159818 NOV '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 157878 OCT '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 155639 AUG '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 156789 SEP '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 153318 JUN '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 151067 APR '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 152237 MAY '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601509 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 147938 JAN '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $102.83 301392 02/01/2024 1699 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC 549230 DIAZ ROAD EXPANSION $11,104.64 301453 02/08/2024 1699 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC 553831 ENG SVCS: PICKLEBALL COURTS: RRSP $966.00 301454 02/08/2024 2192 DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 4066 CEQA REVIEW: PARADISE CHEVROLET $15,275.00 601510 02/08/2024 1578 DEMCO INC 7428579 MISC SUPPLIES: RHRTPL: TCSD $132.43 301393 02/01/2024 1491 DEPT OF GENERAL SERVICES DGS 0000001552270 CASE FILINGS: MASSAGE $1,778.50 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00135501 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $9,898.00 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00138998 TRAFFIC CAMERAS:CIP PW17-01 $7,696.22
Check#Check Date Vendor #Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00135500 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $4,968.00 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00135505 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $2,798.00 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00133861 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $1,965.00 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00146303 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM: IT $1,856.69 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00135782 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $1,560.00 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00139790 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $1,050.00 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00146279 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $828.88 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00135796 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $800.00 601512 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00146287 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $727.50 601512 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00135791 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $720.00 601512 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00135799 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $620.00 601437 02/01/2024 1235 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS 0005146733 PORTABLE RESTROOMS: HARMONY LN $165.88 601437 02/01/2024 1235 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS 0005111283 PORTABLE RESTROOMS: STEPHEN LINEN PARK $160.88 601437 02/01/2024 1235 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS 0005080822 PORTABLE RESTROOMS: STEPHEN LINEN PARK $160.88 601437 02/01/2024 1235 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS 0004960430 PORTABLE RESTROOM RENTAL: CITYWIDE CLEAN-UP: PW $135.20 601437 02/01/2024 1235 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS 0005166133 FENCE RENTAL: JRC: PW $95.00 301386 02/01/2024 1262 DIV. OF THE STATE ARCHITECT QE DEC 2023 AB1379 REMITTANCE OF AB1379 - QE DEC 2023 $1,362.80 601513 02/08/2024 2137 DIVERSIFIED WATERSCAPES INC 10006926 JAN WTR QUALITY MAINT: DUCK POND/HARV $7,800.00 601514 02/08/2024 2040 DOKKEN ENGINEERING 45157 DSGN SVCS: SOUTHSIDE PARKING LOT RECONFIRGURATION $5,160.00 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL23593 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: STREET MAINT: PW $1,563.16 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25032 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PARKS: PW $1,557.14 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25038 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: STREETS: PW $1,267.24 601516 02/08/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL23590 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG INSPECTORS $304.68 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25052 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC: PW $293.83 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL23607 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC $250.88 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25037 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CIP: PW $204.03 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25036 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG INSPECTORS $142.59 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL24387 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: FIRE DEPT $117.16 601516 02/08/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL26466 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: POLICE $113.91 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25033 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: LAND DEV: PW $109.63 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25035 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CODE ENFORCEMENT $95.00 601439 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25050 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: EOC $80.43 601515 02/08/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25034 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: POLICE $63.38 601439 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25053 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD $60.14 601439 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL23587 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: LAND DEV: PW $56.13 601517 02/08/2024 2258 ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVES INC 105782 WATER SYSTEMS MONITORING FOR HVAC EQUIPMENT $619.55 601440 02/01/2024 1156 ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CA 59701 ENGINEERING SVCS: CIP-PW, PW22-13, ON-CALL $1,572.50 601518 02/08/2024 1525 ENNIS PAINT INC 280008 STREET MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: PW $1,055.12 601519 02/08/2024 3515 ENSURITY MOBILE CORP 24790 GPS TRACKING DEVICES: TEM SHERIFF $6,166.20 301395 02/01/2024 3603 EE # 609 Reimb: Conf & Lodge REIMB: PARKS TRAINING CONFERENCE & LODGING $514.86 301455 02/08/2024 1004 ESGIL LLC 128354 Revised SEP PLAN REVIEW SVCS: BLDG & SAFETY $16,047.18 301456 02/08/2024 1366 EXHIBIT ENVOY 1410 NEWEST AMERICANS EXHIBIT $562.50 601520 02/08/2024 2116 FALCON ENGINEERING SERVICES 2023-9 I-15/FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS $255,571.09 301457 02/08/2024 1005 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 8-389-70511a EXPRESS MAILING SVCS: FIRE DEPT $28.57 301457 02/08/2024 1005 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 8-389-70511c EXPRESS MAILING SVCS: HR $24.14 301396 02/01/2024 1005 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 8-363-07079 EXPRESS MAIL SVCS: INFO TECH $8.31 301457 02/08/2024 1005 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 8-389-70511b EXPRESS MAILING SVCS: FINANCE $7.32 601521 02/08/2024 1109 FIELDMAN ROLAPP AND ASSOCIATES 28809 ALTAIR CFD FORMATION $4,902.00 601521 02/08/2024 1109 FIELDMAN ROLAPP AND ASSOCIATES 28922 ALTAIR CFD FORMATION $3,701.00 601521 02/08/2024 1109 FIELDMAN ROLAPP AND ASSOCIATES 28923 PRADO CFD NO 16-01 AGREEMENT NO 22217 $3,036.50 601521 02/08/2024 1109 FIELDMAN ROLAPP AND ASSOCIATES 28810 PRADO CFD NO 16-01 AGREEMENT NO 22217 $1,584.50 301397 02/01/2024 1961 FIELDTURF USA INC 709678 FIELDTURF MAINTENANCE AT VARIOUS PARKS $19,500.00 601522 02/08/2024 1871 FLATIRON WEST INC 8 I-15/ FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS $4,147,905.89 601441 02/01/2024 2582 FLOCK GROUP INC INV-28447 LICENSE PLATE RECOGINITION CAMERA $380.63 301458 02/08/2024 1497 FULL COMPASS SYSTEMS INC02467459 SOUND/LIGHTING & MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER $195.70 601442 02/01/2024 2374 GEORGE HILLS COMPANY INC INV1027352 CLAIMS TPA: RM $241.50 301398 02/01/2024 2722 GEOTAB USA INC IN368054 VEHICLE TELEMATICS: CITY FLEET: IT $1,678.75 301399 02/01/2024 3595 GFWC TEMECULA VALLEY WOMANS CLUB FY 23/24 CSF PMT 1 COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDING REINVESTMENT $16,916.21 601523 02/08/2024 3332 GIFTCRAFT INC INV13349 GIFT SHOP ITEMS: TVM: TCSD $598.87 601523 02/08/2024 3332 GIFTCRAFT INC INV20746 GIFT SHOP ITEMS: TVM: TCSD $313.01 601523 02/08/2024 3332 GIFTCRAFT INC INV17111 GIFT SHOP ITEMS: TVM: TCSD $51.21 301459 02/08/2024 1523 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC SOCIETY Sttlmnt: 1/14 & 1/28 CLASSICS @ THE MERC 1/14 & 1/28 $329.00 301467 02/08/2024 3095 GONZALEZ JAVIER I 1515 HVAC SUPPLES: FACILITY MAINT $2,421.86 301467 02/08/2024 3095 GONZALEZ JAVIER I 1511 HVAC SUPPLES: FACILITY MAINT $519.83 301467 02/08/2024 3095 GONZALEZ JAVIER I 1513 HVAC SUPPLES: FACILITY MAINT $275.14 301467 02/08/2024 3095 GONZALEZ JAVIER I 1545 HVAC SUPPLES: FACILITY MAINT $200.64 301467 02/08/2024 3095 GONZALEZ JAVIER I 1512 HVAC SUPPLES: FACILITY MAINT $48.94 301460 02/08/2024 3128 GREEN ACRES INTERACTIVE THERAPY CSF: Grant Pgm 01/29 CSF GRANT PROGRAM $2,500.00 601524 02/08/2024 1197 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INLAND VALLEY INCCSF: Reinvest in Tem COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDING REINVESTMENT IN TEMECU $45,000.00 601565 02/08/2024 1383 HANCOCK LORENA 3700.102-3710.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $756.00 301461 02/08/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2644/Jan-a SMALL TOOLS/EQUIP FACILITIES MAINT: PW $1,731.50 301400 02/01/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2644/Dec-b HARDWARE SUPPLIES, MARGARITA REC CENTER PW $848.25 301400 02/01/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2733/Dec MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: STREETS AND TRAFFIC MAINT $192.39 301461 02/08/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2644/Jan-b SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: FIRE $174.20 301461 02/08/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2634/Jan SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: FIRE $117.27 301461 02/08/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2824/Jan MISC HARDWARE SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD $93.58
Check#Check Date Vendor #Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 301400 02/01/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2664/Dec SMALL TOOLS/EQUIP FACILITIES MAINT: MPSC $67.35 301461 02/08/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2702/Jan-b SMALL TOOLS/EQUIP: TVM: TCSD $61.87 301400 02/01/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2708/Dec HARDWARE SUPPLIES, OLD TOWN MAINT PW $41.30 301401 02/01/2024 3604 EE # 624 Reimb: Conf & Lodge REIMB: PARKS TRAINING CONFERENCE & LODGING $514.86 301462 02/08/2024 2225 HASA INC 939264 POOL SANTIZING CHEMICALS: CITY POOLS $1,002.53 601443 02/01/2024 1056 HDL COREN AND CONE SIN035466 JAN-MAR FY23-24 PROPERTY TAX CONSULTING $6,859.34 301379 02/01/2024 1110 HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCE CENTER INC E0307808 EAP-HR-BENEFITS $1,517.45 301402 02/01/2024 1791 HELIXSTORM INC 14986 DATA CENTER FIREWALL REPLACEMENT: IT $40,165.56 601444 02/01/2024 2235 HICKS AND HARTWICK INC 8303 ENG PLAN CHECK SRVCS:PW - LAND DEV $906.50 301463 02/08/2024 3608 EE # 576 Reimb: Conf & Lodge REIMB: PARKS TRAINING CONFERENCE & LODGING $514.86 301403 02/01/2024 1192 HOME DEPOT 7598312 HARDWARE SUPPLIES: FACILITIES $1,086.41 301403 02/01/2024 1192 HOME DEPOT 4974996 HARDWARE SUPPLIES: MARGARITA $303.41 301403 02/01/2024 1192 HOME DEPOT 5971066 MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: FACILITIES $244.35 601445 02/01/2024 2233 HOWELL, ANN MARIE COT_ECONDEV_1123a CHRISTMAS BANNER DESIGN: ED $1,170.25 601525 02/08/2024 2564 INLAND FLEET SOLUTIONS INC 6977 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPAIR, STREET MAINTENANCE $2,699.42 601526 02/08/2024 1396 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS 256460 NOV COPIER MAINT/REPAIR/USAGE: CITYWIDE $5,113.01 601526 02/08/2024 1396 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS 257161 COPIER MAINT/REPAIR/USAGE:CITYWIDE $4,298.20 601526 02/08/2024 1396 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS 256461 NOV COPIER MAINT/REPAIR/USAGE: CITYWIDE $308.24 601526 02/08/2024 1396 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS 257162 COPIER MAINT/REPAIR/USAGE:CITYWIDE $195.24 301464 02/08/2024 3035 INTERFLEX PAYMENT LLC Ben350009 CHILD CARE REIMBURSEMENT FSA: PAYMENT $24,455.55 301465 02/08/2024 3108 INTERNATIONAL CHRISTIAN ADOPTIONS CSF: Grant Pgm 01/29 CSF GRANT PROGRAM $5,000.00 301466 02/08/2024 1398 INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL SIGNAL ASSOCIA 74977 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: TRAFFIC DIV: PW $510.00 301404 02/01/2024 1053 INTL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL CLERKS 37160 01/10/24 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: CITY CLERK $125.00 601446 02/01/2024 1719 JACOB'S HOUSE INC CSF Grant Prgm COMMUNITY SVC FUNDING GRANT PRGM $5,000.00 301468 02/08/2024 2045 JAMES ELLIOTT ENTERTAINMENT Sttlmnt: 01/10/24 STTLMNT: BRITAIN'S 1ST COMPLETE BEATLES EXPERIENCE $5,270.17 301468 02/08/2024 2045 JAMES ELLIOTT ENTERTAINMENT Sttlmnt: 01/11/24 STTLMNT: KENNY CETERA'S CHICAGO EXPERIENCE $4,948.36 301468 02/08/2024 2045 JAMES ELLIOTT ENTERTAINMENT Sttlmnt: 01/12/24 STTLMNT: NEVER A DULL MOMENT: ROD STEWART $4,781.55 601528 02/08/2024 2475 JP HANDMADE CORP 68598 PRINTING SERVICES: TEM SHERIFF $196.17 601447 02/01/2024 2475 JP HANDMADE CORP 68601 PRINTING SERVICES: ECO DEV $87.14 601447 02/01/2024 2475 JP HANDMADE CORP 68602 BUSINESS CARDS: BUILDING AND SAFETY $87.14 301469 02/08/2024 1933 KELLY SPICERS INC 11502728 WHITE COPY PAPER:CENTRAL SERVICES $2,650.78 301469 02/08/2024 1933 KELLY SPICERS INC 11504911 MISC PAPER SUPPLIES:CENTRAL SERVICES $2,234.60 301405 02/01/2024 3304 KOSMONT REAL ESTATE SERVICES 2308.2-003 SURPLUS LAND ACT CONSULTING SV $1,183.00 301405 02/01/2024 3304 KOSMONT REAL ESTATE SERVICES 2308.2-002 SURPLUS LAND ACT CONSULTING SVCS LR23-0225 $416.00 601448 02/01/2024 1975 KRACH BREE B 200132 RECOGNITION AWARDS: TCC $343.65 601448 02/01/2024 1975 KRACH BREE B 200133 RECOGNITION AWARDS: TCC $249.04 601529 02/08/2024 1975 KRACH BREE B 200148 PLAQUE: PLANNING COMMISSION $112.01 301406 02/01/2024 1136 LAKE ELSINORE ANIMAL FRIENDS Jan '24 JAN '24 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES $10,762.50 601530 02/08/2024 1930 LDCO INC 6 PW20-13 MARY PHILLIPS SENIOR CENTER ENHANCEMENT $246,065.89 601530 02/08/2024 1930 LDCO INC 5 PW20-13 MARY PHILLIPS SENIOR CENTER ENHANCEMENT $101,587.60 601530 02/08/2024 1930 LDCO INC 7 PW20-13 MARY PHILLIPS SENIOR CENTER ENHANCEMENT $57,944.75 601449 02/01/2024 1930 LDCO INC 3400 FABRICATE AND INSTALL SIGN: MRC $12,364.28 601449 02/01/2024 1930 LDCO INC 3398 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES: TVE2: PW $1,480.00 301407 02/01/2024 1014 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES SACRAM INV-12046-R1R8J7 '24 MEMBERSHIP DUES: CITY MGR $30,959.00 601450 02/01/2024 2278 LESO PAMELA 8894 CRIME PREVENTION MATERIALS: PD $775.15 601531 02/08/2024 1320 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 256981 LEGAL SERVICES $8,939.50 601531 02/08/2024 1320 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 256321 LEGAL SERVICES $5,992.00 301479 02/08/2024 100 LILIANA VARGAS 01/31/24 REFUND: DUPLICATE PAYMENT $39.00 301470 02/08/2024 3198 LOOMIS ARMORED US LLC 13282682 ARMORED CAR SVCS: FINANCE $1,124.51 301408 02/01/2024 1806 M C I COMM SERVICE JAN 7DK89878 JAN 7DK89878 XXX-0714 USAGE MALL PD $37.77 301408 02/01/2024 1806 M C I COMM SERVICE JAN 7DK90589 JAN 7DK90589 XXX-3046 GEN USAGE $36.13 301471 02/08/2024 1224 MAIN STREET SIGNS 43700 SIGNS & SUPPLIES: PARKS $851.99 301471 02/08/2024 1224 MAIN STREET SIGNS 43709 VARIOUS SUPPLIES AND SIGNS: PW PARKS $83.20 301409 02/01/2024 1039 MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT ASSOCIATIOMembership Renewal MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: STREETS: PW $180.00 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3274 TREE TRIMMING: HARVESTON SLOPE: PW $39,918.52 601452 02/01/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3233 ANNUAL RIGHT OF WAY TREE TRIMMING, REMOVALS & PLAN $15,746.66 601452 02/01/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3225 TREE TRIMMING: VILLAGES SLOPE: PW $10,995.61 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3275 EMERGENCY SLOPE TREE SERVICES $7,589.40 601451 02/01/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3280 TREE TRIMMING: RANCHO HIGHLANDS: PW $4,976.90 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3283 ANNUAL TREE TRIMMING,REMOVALS & PLANTING AT PARKS $2,433.12 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3273 EMERGENCY SLOPE TREE SERVICES $1,824.66 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3277 ANNUAL RIGHT OF WAY TREE TRIMMING, REMOVALS & PLAN $1,726.72 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3284 ANNUAL TREE TRIMMING,REMOVALS & PLANTING AT PARKS $1,723.33 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3282 EMERGENCY SLOPE TREE SERVICES $1,363.20 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3287 TREE TRIMMING: VILLAGES SLOPE: PW $946.12 601451 02/01/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3281 TREE TRIMMING: VINTAGE HILLS: PW $625.70 601451 02/01/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3285 TREE TRIMMING: VAIL RANCH SLOPE: PW $608.28 601451 02/01/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3278 TREE TRIMMING: CROWNE HILL SLOPE: PW $408.96 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3272 ANNUAL TREE TRIMMING,REMOVALS & PLANTING AT PARKS $405.52 601451 02/01/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3286 ANNUAL TREE TRIMMING,REMOVALS & PLANTING AT PARKS $202.76 601533 02/08/2024 2376 MARK THOMAS AND COMPANY INC 49835 CHERRY STREET EXTENSION & MURRIETA CREEK LOW FLO $5,109.00 601533 02/08/2024 2376 MARK THOMAS AND COMPANY INC 49867 I-15 CONGENSTION RELIEF $1,339.50 301472 02/08/2024 1996 MATCHETT VIVIAN 1320.101-1320.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $798.00 601534 02/08/2024 2057 MDG ASSOCIATES INC 18167 CDBG ADMINISTRATION SVCS: COMM DEV $5,668.00 601535 02/08/2024 2057 MDG ASSOCIATES INC 18170 MPSC OUTDOOR RECREATION AREA PROJECT $1,401.89 601536 02/08/2024 2042 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL 1201949 I-15/STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH INTERCHANGE $13,704.00
Check#Check Date Vendor #Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 601453 02/01/2024 2042 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL 1200590 CONSULTANT & SURVEY SVCS: PW-CIP $3,800.00 601537 02/08/2024 2259 MICHELLE MEDINA 1040.101 2nd half TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $1,483.49 301410 02/01/2024 1354 MICHELLES PLACE CANCER RESOURCE CENTERCSF Grant Pgm COMMUNITY SRVC FUNDING GRANT PRGM $5,000.00 301473 02/08/2024 1934 MID AMERICA ARTS ALLIANCE BK-060056 EXHIBIT- ALIENTO A TEQUILA $1,387.50 301474 02/08/2024 1777 MIDWEST TAPE LLC 504900689 BOOKS ON TAPE $390.92 601538 02/08/2024 1327 MIKES PRECISION WELDING INC 407838 TRASH SCREEN COVERS: MRC: PW $150.00 601454 02/01/2024 1795 MIKO MOUNTAINLION INC 1183-130 EXCAVATION SVCS: VALLEJO & YNEZ: PW $19,510.00 601539 02/08/2024 1795 MIKO MOUNTAINLION INC 1183-131 REPLACE GUARD RAIL: HWY 79 S: PW $19,144.00 601540 02/08/2024 1681 MIRANDA JULIO C 3600.102-3605.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $1,332.80 601541 02/08/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519533-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $2,075.42 601541 02/08/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519467-01 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: DUCK POND: PW $1,798.01 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 518568-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: FIRE LANE $1,783.66 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519140-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $731.32 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519264-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR $706.53 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519734-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR $526.35 601457 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519586-00 LED LIGHT FIXTURES: PARKS: PW $446.44 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 515530-01 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $413.25 601541 02/08/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519853-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: TPL $403.95 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519198-01 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $385.47 601541 02/08/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519873-01 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $297.63 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519114-01 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $232.67 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 518774-01 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CHILDREN'S MUSEUM $229.13 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519198-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $97.42 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 520024-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $61.55 601541 02/08/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519734-02 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CITY HALL $55.59 601456 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 520034-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $30.94 601456 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519991-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR $29.28 601456 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519694-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $22.88 601541 02/08/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 520072-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $22.62 601456 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 518902-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $11.42 601541 02/08/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519630-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: OLD TOWN $8.78 601541 02/08/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519734-01 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CITY HALL $6.95 601456 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519061-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $5.59 601456 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 520009-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR $3.05 601542 02/08/2024 1240 MORAMARCO ANTHONY J 01/15/24 ART EVENTS & MURALS: TVM $750.00 601458 02/01/2024 1240 MORAMARCO ANTHONY J 2047.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $88.20 301475 02/08/2024 2489 EE # 540 Reimb: 01/22/24 REIMB: LAND DEV MTG $127.67 601543 02/08/2024 3475 MSW CONSULTANTS INC 779 SB 1383 SUPPORT SERVICES $8,400.00 601544 02/08/2024 2081 MUSIC CONNECTION LLC Sttlmnt: 01/13/24 SPEAKEASY @ THE MERC: 01/13/24 $641.20 301411 02/01/2024 1071 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 187396 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: CITY COUNCIL $9,988.00 601545 02/08/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76687 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SVCS: FACILITIES: PW $11,245.00 601545 02/08/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76690 LANDSCAPE SVCS: HARVESTON LAKE $4,031.00 601545 02/08/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76686 LANDSCAPE SVCS: FIRE STATIONS $2,068.00 601545 02/08/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76692 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES LEVEL C SLOPES: PW $106.00 301476 02/08/2024 1013 NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC 53237457 EQUIPMENT REPAIR SUPPLIES: FIRE STATIONS $126.14 301421 02/01/2024 1807 OFFICE OF ECON DEVELOPMENT LIBRARY DIV 2024-111 BOOTH SPACE - ICSC CONFERENCE $4,000.00 601547 02/08/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73890 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE: PARKS: PW $831.42 601459 02/01/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73872 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE: TCC: FIRE $523.67 601459 02/01/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73884 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - PARKS & FACILITIES $503.66 601459 02/01/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73834 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - PARKS & FACILITIES $458.26 601459 02/01/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73786 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE: PW - CIP $329.02 601547 02/08/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73899 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE: PARKS: PW $274.50 601546 02/08/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73833 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - STREET MAINTENANCE $174.82 601547 02/08/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73783 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - HOMELESS OUTREACH $77.33 601459 02/01/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73797 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - PARKS & FACILITIES $53.99 601547 02/08/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73836 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE: CM $51.81 601459 02/01/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73893 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - PARKS & FACILITIES $48.78 301480 02/08/2024 2048 PACIFIC PRODUCTS & SERVICE LLC 33208 STREET MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: PW $4,501.66 601548 02/08/2024 1922 PASTPERFECT SOFTWARE INC 2024PPWE-40376 SFTWR SUPPORT RENEWAL: TVM: TCSD $1,245.00 301412 02/01/2024 2155 PECHANGA BAND LUISENO MISSION 0733 EDUCATIONAL BOOKS: CITY COUNCIL $166.69 301413 02/01/2024 1214 PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIA20947 I-15/ FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENT: PW $751.80 301481 02/08/2024 3462 PECHANGA RESORTS INCORPORATED 1700.102-1705.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $1,190.00 601549 02/08/2024 2468 PLACEWORKS INC 82995 OLD TOWN PARKLETS PROGRAM: PLANNING $2,140.51 601460 02/01/2024 3271 POWERSPORTS UNLIMITED INC 46897 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT: TEM SHERIFF $1,782.24 601460 02/01/2024 3271 POWERSPORTS UNLIMITED INC 46630 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT: TEM SHERIFF $1,412.83 601460 02/01/2024 3271 POWERSPORTS UNLIMITED INC 47016 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT: TEM SHERIFF $606.00 601460 02/01/2024 3271 POWERSPORTS UNLIMITED INC 47053 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT: TEM SHERIFF $259.20 601460 02/01/2024 3271 POWERSPORTS UNLIMITED INC 47084 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT: TEM SHERIFF $249.11 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132231730 UNIFORMS: STREET MAINTENANCE $68.83 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132234218 UNIFORMS: STREET MAINTENANCE $68.83 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132235501 UNIFORMS: STREET MAINTENANCE $68.83 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132231728A UNIFORMS: PARKS AND FACILITIES $65.64 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132232987A UNIFORMS: PARKS AND FACILITIES $65.64 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132234217A UNIFORMS: PARKS AND FACILITIES $65.64 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132235500A UNIFORMS: PARKS AND FACILITIES $63.21 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132232265 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $31.45
Check#Check Date Vendor #Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132233526 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $31.45 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132232247 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $24.52 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132231003 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $19.88 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132231001 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $14.32 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132232264 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $14.32 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132233525 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $14.32 601462 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132232253 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $12.74 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132233512 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $12.74 601462 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132232989 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $10.28 601462 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132231731 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $10.28 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132234219 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $10.28 601462 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132232254 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $9.89 601462 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132233513 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $9.89 601462 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132231728B UNIFORMS: STREET MAINTENANCE $5.67 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132232987B UNIFORMS: STREET MAINTENANCE $5.67 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132234217B UNIFORMS: STREET MAINTENANCE $5.67 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132235500B UNIFORMS: STREET MAINTENANCE $5.67 301415 02/01/2024 2727 QUADIENT FINANCE USA INC PPLN01 01/09/24 POSTAGE SERVICES: PD $257.48 301482 02/08/2024 2169 QUINN COMPANY WOG00018720 GENERATOR MAINT SVCS: FACILITIES: PW $1,668.23 301482 02/08/2024 2169 QUINN COMPANY WOF00018718 GENERATOR MAINT SVCS: FACILITIES: PW $1,318.94 301482 02/08/2024 2169 QUINN COMPANY WOG00018695 GENERATOR MAINT SVCS: FACILITIES: PW $1,120.46 301482 02/08/2024 2169 QUINN COMPANY WOG00018719 GENERATOR MAINT SVCS: FACILITIES: PW $1,033.37 301482 02/08/2024 2169 QUINN COMPANY WOG00018694 GENERATOR MAINT SVCS: FACILITIES: PW $986.08 301416 02/01/2024 2169 QUINN COMPANY WOG00018696 GENERATOR MAINT: FIRE STATIONS $895.68 301416 02/01/2024 2169 QUINN COMPANY WOG00018697 GENERATOR MAINT: FIRE STATIONS $666.93 301483 02/08/2024 1847 R AND R CONTROLS INC 24893 MISC SUPPLIES: FACILITIES: PW $610.00 301483 02/08/2024 1847 R AND R CONTROLS INC 24899 MISC SUPPLIES: FACILITIES: PW $375.00 301417 02/01/2024 1473 R M F CONTRACTING INC RM5065 SECURITY LIGHT FIXTURES: RR SPORTS PARK: PW $33,250.00 301484 02/08/2024 2535 RANCHO RUNNERS INC 99179 EXP MAIL DLVY SVCS: HR $45.00 601551 02/08/2024 3514 REEP FIRE PROTECTION INC 2998 FIRE SPRINKLER SVCS: CIVIC CENTER: PW $3,800.00 601552 02/08/2024 2552 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES, DISTRIBUTOR 60172564-00 MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: TVE: PW $1,337.08 601552 02/08/2024 2552 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES, DISTRIBUTOR 60172590-00 MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: TVE: PW $23.88 601552 02/08/2024 2552 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES, DISTRIBUTOR 60172981-00 MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: TVE: PW ($447.26) 301418 02/01/2024 2532 REVZILLA MOTORSPORTS LLC 44376634 UNIFORMS: TEM SHERIFF $749.12 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245909 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $20,185.74 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245904 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $16,397.08 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245905 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $8,327.00 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245924 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $8,322.50 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245925 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $7,608.35 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245927 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $6,150.00 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245468 NOV 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $4,513.61 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245469 NOV 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $4,510.11 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245037 OCT 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $4,160.60 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245926 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $4,128.00 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245928 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $3,975.00 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245912 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $3,827.00 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245027 OCT 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $3,726.60 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245450 NOV 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $3,133.00 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245893 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $3,031.00 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245914 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $2,405.00 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245919 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $2,000.73 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245922 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $1,902.01 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245910 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $1,519.50 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245915 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $1,413.13 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245923 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $1,371.39 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245457 NOV 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $1,296.00 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245907 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $1,098.85 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245906 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $1,058.00 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245899 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $1,050.00 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245447 NOV 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $900.00 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245902 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $600.00 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245911 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $511.30 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245908 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $408.00 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245894 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $360.00 601466 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245918 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $327.50 601466 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245913 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $279.50 601466 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245903 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $216.00 601466 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245921 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $94.50 601466 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245446 NOV 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $60.00 601466 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245920 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $8.42 301389 02/01/2024 1045 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK & RECORDER OFFICE 23-336872 CEQA FILING: PLANNING $50.00 601553 02/08/2024 1022 RIVERSIDE CO FIRE DEPARTMENT 235240 FPARC-TM: FY 23/24 JUL-SEP Q1 $2,045,099.21 601553 02/08/2024 1022 RIVERSIDE CO FIRE DEPARTMENT 235215 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE: LADDER TRUCK $6,984.17 301420 02/01/2024 1042 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT SH0000044844 11/16/23-12/13/23 LAW ENFORCEMENT $2,940,448.86 301419 02/01/2024 1042 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT SH0000044832 11/01-12/31 YOUTH COURT SVCS $460.51 301420 02/01/2024 1042 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT SH0000044292 EXPRESS MAILING SVCS: TEM SHERIFF $82.67
Check#Check Date Vendor #Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 301414 02/01/2024 2635 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PE0000001486 EMERGENCY RADIO RENTAL: PD $1,122.01 301414 02/01/2024 2635 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PE0000001487A EMERGENCY RADIO RENTAL: CODE ENF $513.10 301414 02/01/2024 2635 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PE0000001487B EMERGENCY RADIO RENTAL: EOC $102.62 301394 02/01/2024 1104 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF ENVIRON.IN0500949 PERMIT RENEWAL: FOC $1,838.00 301394 02/01/2024 1104 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF ENVIRON.IN0500574 PERMIT RENEWAL: MARG SPLASH PAD: PW $422.00 301394 02/01/2024 1104 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF ENVIRON.IN0497290 PERMIT RENEWAL: SPORTS RANCH CONCESSION BLDG: PW $156.00 301422 02/01/2024 1304 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 87221 TROLLEY ROUTE 55 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES $2,375.80 601554 02/08/2024 2005 ROSEN AND ROSEN INDUSTRIES INC 661075 STREET MAINTENANCE UNIFORMS: PW $2,865.27 301423 02/01/2024 1941 ROTARY CLUB OF TEMECULA FOUNDATION FY 23/24 CSF FY 23/24 COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDING $5,000.00 301485 02/08/2024 2487 RUSSELL SIGLER INC INV-SDG24001115 HVAC SUPPLIES: VARIOUS FACILITIES: PW $137.72 301486 02/08/2024 1769 EE # 474 Reimb: Team Bldg REIMB: TCSD TEAM BLDG EVENT: 12/08/23 $1,460.00 601556 02/08/2024 1552 SANBORN GWYNETH A CO TEMECULA MUSIC PERF: 01/20/24 COUNTRY LIVE 01/20/24 $1,221.75 601557 02/08/2024 2008 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA PRESTON 101012024 PHOTOGRAPHY: THEATER: TCSD $1,520.00 601468 02/01/2024 2008 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA PRESTON 01242024 MISC PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES: ECO DEV $400.00 601468 02/01/2024 2008 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA PRESTON 01112024 MPSC/HUMAN SERVICES PHOTOGRAPHY: TCSD $275.00 601557 02/08/2024 2008 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA PRESTON 02022024 MUSEUM/ACE PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: TCSD $275.00 301487 02/08/2024 3600 SAVAGE TUKKIE 64669184 REFUND: SWIM LESSONS: TCSD $55.00 301488 02/08/2024 2360 SB&O INC 124015 ENGINEERING & SURVEY SVCS: PW-CIP, PW22-16 $4,032.00 301488 02/08/2024 2360 SB&O INC 124017 ENGINEERING & SURVEY SVCS: PW-CIP, PW23-24 $1,249.00 301488 02/08/2024 2360 SB&O INC 124020 ENGINEEIRNG & SURVEY SVCS: PWSW02-02 $740.00 301488 02/08/2024 2360 SB&O INC 124019 DESIGN, ENVIRO & SURVEY SVS: PW22-05: CIP $681.00 301489 02/08/2024 3563 EE # 642 Reimb: Education REIMB: CIVIL WATER RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL CLASS $2,398.75 301490 02/08/2024 1920 SESAC 10704576 BROADCAST MUSIC LIC FEE: OLD TOWN: TCSD $131.00 601558 02/08/2024 1509 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Perf: 01/27/24 PERF: STAND UP COMEDY: 01/27/24 $1,860.00 601558 02/08/2024 1509 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Perf: 01/25/24 PERF: JAZZ @ THE MERC 01/25/24 $700.00 601469 02/01/2024 1509 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC PERF: 01/11/24 TICKET SERVICES AGREEMENT: JAZZ@THE MERC 1/11/24 $550.00 601469 02/01/2024 1509 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC PERF: 01/18/24 TICKET SERVICES AGREEMENT: JAZZ@THE MERC 01/18/24 $332.50 301424 02/01/2024 1787 SHRED IT US JV LLC 8005936552 SHRED SERVICES: CITYWIDE $150.02 301491 02/08/2024 1787 SHRED IT US JV LLC 8005936712 DOCUMENT SHREDDING: PD $69.87 601470 02/01/2024 2617 SIDI SEBASTIAN 12424 VIDEOGRAPHY SERVICES: TVE2 $900.00 601559 02/08/2024 1061 SMART & FINAL INC 01/30/24 MISC SUPPLIES: MRC: TCSD $309.26 601560 02/08/2024 3170 SMER RESEARCH 1 LLC 50030 JAN SOLAR GENERATION: VARI LOCATIONS $17,552.07 301492 02/08/2024 1153 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT D 4288505 FY 23/24 I C E ELEC GEN DIESEL: TVE2 $504.91 301492 02/08/2024 1153 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT D 4290885 FY 23/24 FLAT EMISSION FEE: TVE2 $160.35 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291172 PEST CONTROL SVCS: PARKS: PW $95.00 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0290693 EMERGENCY PEST CONTROL SVCS: PARKS: PW $94.00 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0290744 BEE SERVICE: CIVIC CENTER: PW $94.00 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291047 ROUTINE PEST CONTROL: FACILITIES: PW $90.00 601561 02/08/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291247 ROUTINE PEST CONTROL: FACILITIES: PW $90.00 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291123 PEST CONTROL SVCS: FIRE STATIONS $80.00 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291031 ROUTINE PEST CONTROL: FACILITIES: PW $56.00 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291078 PEST CONTROL SVCS: PARKS: PW $49.00 601561 02/08/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291370 PEST CONTROL SVCS: PARKS: PW $49.00 601561 02/08/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291125 PEST CONTROL SERVICES: FIRE STATIONS $42.00 601561 02/08/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291274 ROUTINE PEST CONTROL: FACILITIES: PW $40.00 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291030 ROUTINE PEST CONTROL: FACILITIES: PW $36.00 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291427 ROUTINE PEST CONTROL: FACILITIES: PW $29.00 15983 01/31/2024 1800 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO VAR SCE DEC VAR SCE DEC $151,692.06 301493 02/08/2024 1028 STADIUM PIZZA INC 01/24/24 RFRSHMNTS: WORKFORCE DEV: TCSD $127.74 301425 02/01/2024 1708 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY Ben349995 VOLUNTARY SUPP LIFE INSURANCE: PAYMENT $2,006.63 301494 02/08/2024 1452 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT 7624572801-0-1 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: OPERATIONS: TCSD $96.66 301426 02/01/2024 1452 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT 7622984571-0-1 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: OPERATIONS: TCSD $95.38 301494 02/08/2024 1452 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT 7905504122-0-1 MISC SUPPLIES: RHRTPL: TCSD $90.92 301426 02/01/2024 1452 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT 7624234276-0-1 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: OPERATIONS: TCSD $69.03 301426 02/01/2024 1452 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT 7622992398-0-1 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: OPERATIONS: TCSD $41.28 301494 02/08/2024 1452 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT 7624572801-0-2 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: OPERATIONS: TCSD $10.59 601562 02/08/2024 1263 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTI 710465 BLOOD / ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: POLICE $1,085.00 301495 02/08/2024 2299 STATE STREET BALLET PERF: 04/27/24 PERFORMANCE: THEATER: TCSD $5,000.00 301427 02/01/2024 1179 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD WD-0263261 STORM WATER PERMIT: PW $399.00 301428 02/01/2024 2016 STC TRAFFIC INC 6695 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SVCS: TRAFFIC: PW $16,000.00 601472 02/01/2024 1146 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET CLEANING 11790 CARPET CLEANING: CITY FACILITIES: PW $1,375.00 601472 02/01/2024 1146 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET CLEANING 11791 CARPET CLEANING: CITY FACILITIES: PW $825.00 601563 02/08/2024 1146 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET CLEANING 11793 CARPET CLEANING: CITY FACILITIES: PW $775.00 601472 02/01/2024 1146 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET CLEANING 11786 CARPET CLEANING: CITY FACILITIES: PW $250.00 601564 02/08/2024 1747 STOVER JEFFREY PERF: 01/14/24 PERFORMING ARTS AGREEMENT: RAT PACK 01/14/24 $7,837.17 301429 02/01/2024 1763 STUDENT OF THE MONTH PRGM INC 01/18/24 FY 23/24 COMMUNITY SERVICE GRANT PRGM $1,000.00 301430 02/01/2024 2261 T MOBILE USA INC 9557994696 TIMING ADVANCE: TEM SHERIFF $25.00 301430 02/01/2024 2261 T MOBILE USA INC 9557994694 TIMING ADVANCE: TEM SHERIFF $25.00 301430 02/01/2024 2261 T MOBILE USA INC 9557994695 TIMING ADVANCE: TEM SHERIFF $25.00 301496 02/08/2024 2261 T MOBILE USA INC 9558634069 TIMING ADVANCE: TEM SHERIFF $25.00 301497 02/08/2024 1212 T Y LIN INTERNATIONAL 102401175 I-15/ FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS $46,581.72 301431 02/01/2024 1877 TEMECULA CATERING LLC E06074 TEMECULA CITIZEN CORPS RECOGNITION: FIRE $4,189.05 15982 01/30/2024 1084 TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL CR&R Jul - Dec '23 JUL - DEC '23 $5,162,721.12 601566 02/08/2024 1914 TEMECULA VALLEY BACKFLOW INC 46919 BACKFLOW SVCS: PW PARKS $4,062.00 601566 02/08/2024 1914 TEMECULA VALLEY BACKFLOW INC 46920 BACKFLOW SVCS: PW PARKS $2,975.50 601566 02/08/2024 1914 TEMECULA VALLEY BACKFLOW INC 46916 BACKFLOW TESTING: VARIOUS FACILITIES: PW $630.00
Check#Check Date Vendor #Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 601566 02/08/2024 1914 TEMECULA VALLEY BACKFLOW INC 46918 BACKFLOW TESTING: VARIOUS PARKS: PW $480.00 601567 02/08/2024 1054 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1043 FY 23-24 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPONSORSHIP FUNDING $50,000.00 601467 02/01/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54740 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: FACILITY MAINTENANCE: CITY HAL $677.50 601467 02/01/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54798 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: VARIOUS LOCATIONS: PARKS $148.93 601467 02/01/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54807 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: VARIOUS PARK LOCATIONS: PW $61.46 601555 02/08/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54880 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: VARIOUS PARKS LOCATIONS: PW $60.36 601555 02/08/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54884 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: FACILITY MAINTENANCE $36.89 601467 02/01/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54799 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: FACILITY MAINTENANCE: CITY HAL $32.36 601555 02/08/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54806 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: FACILITY MAINTENANCE: PW $21.37 601467 02/01/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54805 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: VARIOUS PARK LOCATIONS: PW $16.20 601555 02/08/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54589 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: STATION 92 $8.80 301498 02/08/2024 1234 TEMECULA WINNELSON COMPANY 302193 01 PLUMBING SUPPLIES: PARKS $136.33 301498 02/08/2024 1234 TEMECULA WINNELSON COMPANY 301881 01 PLUMBING SUPPLIES: PW FACILITIES $74.98 301498 02/08/2024 1234 TEMECULA WINNELSON COMPANY 302604 01 PLUMBING SUPPLIES: PW FACILITIES $71.89 601473 02/01/2024 1232 TERRYBERRY COMPANY P92970 SERVICE RECOGNITION: HR $239.42 601568 02/08/2024 1232 TERRYBERRY COMPANY P99409 SERVICE RECOGNITION: HR $198.80 601473 02/01/2024 1232 TERRYBERRY COMPANY P92971 SERVICE RECOGNITION: HR $139.82 601473 02/01/2024 1232 TERRYBERRY COMPANY P92969 SERVICE RECOGNITION: HR $79.64 601569 02/08/2024 1936 TIERCE NICHOLAS NTOTTCT-2024-02 GRAPHIC DESIGN: THEATER: TCSD $5,160.00 601570 02/08/2024 3135 TK CONSULTING INC 7 YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS-PHASE IMPROV $18,793.05 601570 02/08/2024 3135 TK CONSULTING INC 6 YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS-PHASE IMPROV $10,884.06 601474 02/01/2024 2410 EE # 534 01/24/24 REIMB: TEAM PACE $150.00 601475 02/01/2024 2413 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS INC 20947 CONSULTING/GRANT WRITING SVCS: CITY CLERK $6,000.00 601571 02/08/2024 2375 TR DESIGN GROUP INC 4803 ARCHITECTURAL SVCS: PW19-13: CIP: PW $50,551.20 301499 02/08/2024 2006 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT INC 1067798 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND CONTROL PLAN: TCSD $7,063.63 601476 02/01/2024 2249 TVEYES INC 2024-L1164 MEDIA MONITORING: 3/1/24-2/28/25 $1,500.00 601572 02/08/2024 2340 TWOS COMPANY INC 2413732 SUPPLIES: GIFT SHOP: TCSD $117.56 601572 02/08/2024 2340 TWOS COMPANY INC 7805415 SUPPLIES FOR GIFT SHOP: TCSD ($108.00) 301432 02/01/2024 1350 U S BANK CM-9690 7172207 TRUSTEE ADMIN FEES: CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL $3,830.00 301500 02/08/2024 3222 ULTRA SHINE INC 1814B JANITORIAL SVCS MAINT: PD $881.21 601573 02/08/2024 1432 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF SOUTHER 120240737 JAN DIG SAFE BRD BILLABLE TIX: PW $270.75 601573 02/08/2024 1432 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF SOUTHER 23-2424474 JAN DIG SAFE BILLABLE TIX: PW $87.04 301433 02/01/2024 1131 UNITED RENTALS NORTH AMERICA INC 228816566-001 TRENCHER RENTAL: PENNYPICKLE LIGHT POLE: PW $295.92 601574 02/08/2024 3526 UNITED TOWING SERVICE INC 63179 TOWING SVCS: PARKS: PW $125.00 601477 02/01/2024 2142 URBANE CAFE OPERATIONS LLC 110082 TVE2 ORDERS FOR WORKSHOPS/MEETINGS $126.15 301434 02/01/2024 1163 USPC - POC DEC '23 DEC '23 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT $2,288.85 301434 02/01/2024 1163 USPC - POC OCT '23 OCT '23 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT $2,187.57 301434 02/01/2024 1163 USPC - POC AUG '23 AUG '23 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT $1,970.77 301434 02/01/2024 1163 USPC - POC NOV '23 NOV '23 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT $1,868.49 301434 02/01/2024 1163 USPC - POC SEP '23 SEP '23 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT $1,700.89 301434 02/01/2024 1163 USPC - POC JUL '23 JUL '23 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT $1,416.31 301435 02/01/2024 1845 VERIZON WIRELESS 9953884147 12/11-01/10 TASK FORCE TABLETS: POLICE $418.50 601575 02/08/2024 1498 VISION ONE, INC.INV-74897 TICKETING SERVICES: THEATER: TCSD $7,000.20 601478 02/01/2024 1498 VISION ONE, INC.INV-75003 TICKETING SERVICES EQUIPMENT: THEATER: TCSD $2,781.35 301501 02/08/2024 1439 WALMART 02/01/24 MISC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD $443.72 301501 02/08/2024 1439 WALMART 01/25/24 MISC SUPPLIES: RESPONSIBLE COMPASSION $209.77 301501 02/08/2024 1439 WALMART 02/02/24 MISC SUPPLIES: MRC: TCSD $164.55 301436 02/01/2024 1439 WALMART 01/24/24 MISC SUPPLIES: TCC: TCSD $163.36 301501 02/08/2024 1439 WALMART 01/22/24 BUILDING SUPPLIES: CLASSES: TCSD $56.14 301502 02/08/2024 1102 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC 82250489 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: PARKS: PW $5,328.78 301502 02/08/2024 1102 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC 82207050 JANITORIAL SVCS FACILITY MAINT: PW $5,240.01 301502 02/08/2024 1102 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC 82256742 RESTROOM CLEANING EQUIPMENT: PARKS: PW $4,513.06 301503 02/08/2024 2230 WEBB MUNICIPAL FINANCE LLC ARIV0000105 QTR 2 FY 23/24 CFD ADMIN SVCS $13,415.86 601576 02/08/2024 3318 WEILAND DESIGN GROUP INC 23-050 #4 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN/DESIGN: PARKS: PW $92.20 301504 02/08/2024 1033 WEST PUBLISHING CORPORATION 849669853 SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTION: PD $1,179.86 601527 02/08/2024 1757 WEST SAFETY SERVICES, INC.6081666 NOV ENTERPRISES 911 SVC: INFO TECH $300.00 601479 02/01/2024 1358 WESTERN EAGLE FOUNDATION FY 23/24 CSF FY 23/24 COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDING $5,000.00 301505 02/08/2024 2175 WHITE CAP LP 50025069419 ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT PW $227.23 301437 02/01/2024 2175 WHITE CAP LP 50025162498 ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PW $117.44 301437 02/01/2024 2175 WHITE CAP LP 50024998509 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: TCSD FACILITIES: PW $18.81 601480 02/01/2024 1069 WINCHAK KRIS R 24.01 ENG PLAN CHECK & REVIEW: PW LAND DEV $1,190.00 301438 02/01/2024 1991 WOMEN ORGANIZING WOMEN INC FY 23/24 CSF FY 23/24 COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDING GRANT $5,000.00 601577 02/08/2024 1178 WSP USA INC 1389991 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN LR23-0083 $74.83 601578 02/08/2024 2289 YANES BLANCA A 0203.01 LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION SERVICES $13,905.00 601578 02/08/2024 2289 YANES BLANCA A 0204.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION SERVICES $7,730.00 601578 02/08/2024 2289 YANES BLANCA A 0202.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION SERVICES $5,950.00 301506 02/08/2024 2477 ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS INC Q2394655 ZOOM PHONE CONNECTION FOR SOUND SYSTEM:IT $118.52 Total $16,492,112.63
Item No. 4
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: February 27, 2024
SUBJECT: Approve Resolution to Adopt the Urban Forest Management Plan and Make a Finding it is Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15307 and 15061
______________________________________________________________________________
PREPARED BY: Julie Tarrant, Principal Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA TO ADOPT THE URBAN FOREST
MANAGEMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE
PROTECTION (CAL FIRE) 2019/2020 URBAN AND
COMMUNITY FOREST PROGRAM GRANT GUIDELINES
AND FINDING THAT THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT
PLAN IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO
CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15307 AND 15061
BACKGROUND: On March 15, 2019, the Department of Public Works applied to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire), for the Temecula Urban Forest Management Plan and Inventory project, for consideration of grant funding from the 2019/20 CAL Fire Urban and Community Forestry Program. On March 20, 2019, we were notified that we had been awarded grant funding in the amount of $323,930 for our project.
The project included the planting of approximately 300 trees, developing a tree inventory and canopy assessment, preparing an Urban Forest Management Plan, ordinance, and policy updates, and providing tree-planting events for community input. In addition, as part of the grant program guidelines and overall project close out requirements, the City is to formally adopt the Urban Forest Management Plan.
The Public Works Department staff, along with Dudek, a consulting services firm, developed and completed the City of Temecula’s Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). The UFMP provides an outline of Temecula’s urban forest that will be implemented over the next 40 years, including a strategic plan with goals, objectives, and actions based on identified needs. The UFMP incorporates our current Street Tree Master Plan, the City’s existing tree inventory and canopy analysis, and key findings as to current practices, plans, policies, and ordinances.
In accordance with the Urban and Community Forestry Program Grant Guidelines, applicants must agree to officially adopt the Urban Forest Management Plan as a guiding policy document in an ordinance, a general plan element, or other binding, enforceable way as approved by CAL Fire. In addition to the adoption of the UFMP, staff intends to bring forth to City Council for consideration to amend the Temecula Municipal Code tree ordinance to align with policies and ordinance updates, as identified in the UFMP.
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council finds, determines and declares that the adoption of the Urban Forest Management Plan is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15307, 15061(b)(3), and 15378(b)(5) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. CEQA Guidelines Section 15307 exempts from CEQA actions taken by agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3) where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council finds determines and declares that adoption of the Urban Forest Management Plan is an action of the City Council specifically designed to and does assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource, in this case the urban forest, where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. The Urban Forest Management Plan has been prepared in accordance with State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regulations. Additionally, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action will have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
In this case the Urban Forest Management Plan will enhance the environment and mitigate several existing adverse conditions affecting the environment. Therefore, City Council of the City of Temecula will therefore adopt a Notice of Exemption for the Ordinance and direct the City Manager or his designee to file it as required by law.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to Adopt the Urban Forest Management Plan.
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution
2. Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP)
3. UFMP Technical Assessment
4. UFMP Appendices
1 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA TO ADOPT THE URBAN FOREST
MANAGEMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE
PROTECTION (CAL FIRE) 2019/2020 URBAN AND
COMMUNITY FOREST PROGRAM GRANT GUIDELINES
AND FINDING THAT THE URBAN FOREST
MANAGEMENT PLAN IS EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15307 AND
15061
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that:
A. The Governor of the State of California in cooperation with the California State Legislature has enacted the California Proposition 68 Bond Fund, which provide funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for Urban and Community Forestry Program.
B. The State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire) has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures governing application by local agencies and non-profit organization under the program.
C. Said procedures established by the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire) require the applicant to officially adopt the Urban Forest Management Plan as a guiding policy document in an ordinance, a general plan element, or other binding, enforceable way as approved by CAL Fire.
Section 2. California Environmental Quality Act Findings. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council finds, determines and declares that the adoption of the Urban Forest Management Plan is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15307, 15061(b)(3), and 15378(b)(5) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. CEQA Guidelines Section 15307 exempts from CEQA actions taken by agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3) where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council finds determines and declares that adoption of the Urban Forest Management Plan is an action of the City Council specifically designed to and does assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource, in this case the urban
2 forest, where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment . The Urban Forest Management Plan has been prepared in accordance with State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regulations. Additionally, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. In this case the Urban Forest Management Plan will enhance the environment and mitigate several existing adverse conditions affecting the environment. Therefore, City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts a Notice of Exemption for the Ordinance and directs the City Manager or his designee to file it as required by law.
Section 3. Adoption. The City Council hereby adopts the Urban Forest Management Plan in accordance with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire) 2019/2020 Urban and Community Forestry Program Grant Guidelines, which Plan is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 27th day of February, 2024.
James Stewart, Mayor
ATTEST:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
[SEAL]
3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February, 2024, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Randi Johl, City Clerk
Urban Forest Management Plan
PREPARED BY
April 2023
URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
OPTION A
ii | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................................................v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................vii VISION .....................................................................................................................................................ix 1 | INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1
1.1 | Historical and Environmental Context .......................................................1
1.2 | Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Management Plan ......4
1.3 | Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan ..........................................8
1.4 | Developing the Temecula Urban Forest Management Plan ...16
1.5 | Key Findings .......................................................................................................................18
1.5.1 | Urban Forest Inventory and Analysis ..................................................18
1.5.2 | Analysis of Current Practices, Plans,
Policies, and Ordinances ..................................................................................20
1.5.3 | Departmental and Stakeholder Interviews ...................................22
1.5.4 | Community Engagement ................................................................................23 2 | CANOPY COVER.............................................................................................................24
2.1 | Canopy Cover ..................................................................................................................25
2.2 | Increasing Canopy Cover ....................................................................................27
2.3 | Canopy Equity ..................................................................................................................31
2.4 | Priority and Opportunity Areas ....................................................................32 3 | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST ...............................................................34
3.1 | Environmental Services/Economic Benefits ....................................35
3.2 | Species Diversity Summary ................................................................................36
3.3 | Diameter at Standard Height Distribution Summary ..............41
3.4 | Tree Condition .................................................................................................................42
3.5 | Relative Performance Index Summary ....................................................43
3.6 | Importance Values Summary ............................................................................44
3.7 | Street Tree Master Plan ..........................................................................................45
3.8 | City Management of the Tree Program .................................................46
3.8.1 | Budget and Funding .............................................................................................46
3.8.2 | Staffing and Contractors .................................................................................48
3.8.3 | Annual Service Data ..............................................................................................50
3.8.4 | Tree Responsibility .................................................................................................50
4.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT .......................................................................53
4.1 | Community Tabling Events .................................................................................53
4.2 | Working Group ................................................................................................................54
4.3 | Public Survey .....................................................................................................................55
4.4 | Urban Forest Summit ................................................................................................57
4.4.1 | Urban Forest Summit Results ......................................................................58
4.5 | Arbor Day Tree Planting Event ......................................................................60
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
iv | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5 | STRATEGIC PLAN ..........................................................................................................63
5.1 | Vision Statement ..........................................................................................................63
5.2 | Strategic Plan ....................................................................................................................33
5.3 | Guiding Principles ........................................................................................................33 6 | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .....................................................................................75
6.1 | Ongoing Actions ................................................................................75
6.2 | Short Term Actions 1-5 Years ........................................................76
6.3 | Medium Term Actions 5-10 Years ...............................................78
6.4 | Long Term Actions 10 Years+ .......................................................81 7 | MONITORING PLAN ...................................................................................................83 7 | Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment ............................................................................83 8 | REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................91 TABLES
1. Quality-of-Life Master Plan Core Values
Relationship to the Urban Forest Management Plan ........................9
2. Stakeholder Interview Participants ..................................................................22
3. Land Cover Classification...........................................................................................25
4. Total Number of Trees Needed to
Increase Canopy Cover Above 11% ...............................................................28
5. T otal Number of Trees Needed to
Plant per Year for 40 Years to Increase Canopy Cover ............28
6. Annual Environmental Services and
Benefits Provided by City-Managed Trees ...............................................35
7. Financial Value of City-Managed Trees ........................................................35
8. Top 10 Tree Families in the City Inventory ...............................................36
9. Tree Species in the City Inventory that
are Predicted to be Heat or Water Sensitive ..........................................40
10. Tree Condition Ratings of the City Inventory ....................................42
11. Relative Performance Index
of the Top 10 Species in the Inventory......................................................43
12. Ten Species with the Highest
Importance Values in the City’s Inventory .............................................44
13. City of Temecula Annual
Tree Management Budget 2016–2021 ..................................................46
14. Estimated Contractor Funding
Needed to Achieve Best Management Practices ..........................47
15. Temecula Tree-Related In-House Staff Positions ...........................48
16. Annual Service Data ......................................................................................................50
17. Temecula’s Urban Forest
Master Plan Working Group Members .....................................................54
18. Summary of Online Survey Responses .....................................................55
19. Vision Statement Results .........................................................................................58
20. Group Discussion Activity Themes ...............................................................59
21. Tree Canopy Goal Summary.................................................................................84
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FIGURES
1. Urban Heat Island Effect ..................................................................................................6
2. Quality-of-Life Master Plan .........................................................................................8
3. Canopy Cover Acres Provided by Public vs Private Tree ..........19
4. City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis .......................................................26
5. The Benefits of Trees .......................................................................................................29
6. Priority Planting Score by Census Tract ......................................................33
7. Top 10 Genera in the City Inventory ...............................................................38
8. Top 10 Species in the City Inventory ..............................................................39
9. Diameter at Standard Height Distribution ................................................41
10. Temecula’s Urban Forest Funding Sources ...........................................47
11. Contractor’s Allocated Time Spent on Tree Activities ..............48
12. Organizational Chart ...................................................................................................49
13. Tree Responsibility Along Average Streets ...............................51
APPENDIX
A | Recommended Tree
Species Palette
B | Sidewalk Solutions
C1 | Establishment
Care Guidelines
C2 | Tree Protection Guidelines
C3 | Tree Protection Detail
C4 | Root Pruning Detail
C5 | Irrigation Detail
D | Nursery Stock Standards
E | Highly Flammable Plant List
F | Public Survey Results
G | Funding Opportunities
CAL FIRE California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection
City City of Temecula
PPS Priority Planting Score
QLMP Quality-of-Life Master Plan
RPI Relative Performance Index
UFMP Urban Forest Management Plan
ACRONYMS
vi | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CITY OF TEMECULA STAFF
Department of Public Works
Patrick Thomas, Director/City Engineer
Julie Tarrant, Senior Principal Management Analyst
Stacy Fox, Park and Landscape Superintendent
CITY OF TEMECULA COUNCILMEMBERS
Mayor Zak Schwank
Mayor Pro Tem James “Stew” Stewart
Council Member Jessica Alexander
Council Member Curtis Brown
Council Member Brenden Kalfus
COMMUNITY MEMBERS
TEMECULA UFMP WORKING GROUP
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION (CAL FIRE)
Greg Dion
FUNDING PROVIDED BY
CAL FIRE/Prop 68
PREPARED BY
Dudek – Urban Forestry Division
Abby Beissinger
Dana Link-Herrera
Ryan Allen
Kalie Ortiz
Chris Kallstrand
Funding for this project is provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as part of the California Climate Investments Program. The City of Temecula Urban Forestry Program is part of California Climate Investments, a statewide program that puts billions of Cap-and-Trade dollars to work reducing GHG emissions, strengthening the economy, and improving public health and the environment– particularly in disadvantaged communities. The Cap-and-Trade program also creates a financial incentive for to invest in clean technologies and develop innovative ways to reduce pollution. California Climate Investments projects include affordable housing, renewable energy, public transportation, zero-emission vehicles, environmental restoration, more sustainable agriculture, recycling, and much more. At least 35 percent of these investments are located within and benefiting residents of disadvantaged communities, low- income communities, and low-income households across California. For more information, visit the California Climate Investments website at: www.caclimateinvestments.ca.gov .
viii | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
VISION
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | ix
VISION
Temecula will preserve and expand a sustainable
urban forest that embraces our shared history
and enhances the quality of life by improving the
health, safety, connectivity, economy, and resilience
of our community.
VISION
x | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | xi
INTRODUCTION
URBAN FOREST
MANAGEMENT PLAN
xii | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
1 INTRODUCTION
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 1
1.1 HISTORICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT
The City of Temecula (City) is well known for its beautiful landscapes, mild climate, and rich history. The rolling hillsides were originally inhabited by the Temecula Indians, commonly known as Luiseños, whose ancestors lived in the area as hunters and gatherers since 900 AD (Barnett and Farnbach 2006). The native people from Temecula to the coast who shared the same language and culture became known as the Luiseños, as many of their villages were under the influence of Mission San Luis Rey (City of Temecula n.d.). The name Temecula comes from the Luiseño word “Temecunga,” with “temet” meaning “sun” and “-ngna” which means “place of.” The Spanish interpreted and spelled the word as “Temecula” and was translated to mean “where the sun breaks through the mist.” Temecula is the only city in California that preserved its indigenous name.
The Luiseños lived on the land when the first Spanish padre, Father Juan Norberto de Santiago, arrived in the Temecula Valley in 1797. The Spanish padres found and claimed Temecula’s rich pastureland and the people dwelling on it for the expansion of the church and Spain. By the mid-1800s, Mexico’s power over California shifted, and ranchos that were owned by the mission system and the Mexican government, became land for private ownership granted by governors of the province (Bliss 2017).
LUISEÑOS
Temecula was originally
inhabited by the Temecula
Indians, commonly known as
Luiseños, whose ancestors
lived in the area as hunters
and gatherers since 900 AD
(Barnett and Farnbach 2006)
WHERE THE
SUN BREAKS
THROUGH
THE MIST.
“Temecula” was translated to
mean “where the sun breaks
through the mist.” Temecula is
the only city in California that
preserved its indigenous name.
2 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Historical and Environmental Context
The growth of the City was ignited as Temecula became a stop on the famous Butterfield Overland stage route in the vicinity of present-day Margarita Road and the Temecula Parkway. The stage routes brought new settlers to the area, establishing the City as a flourishing hub for commerce (Miller 2021). Waterman Hornsby, a reporter at the New York Herald Newspaper wrote about his travels through the Temecula area in his series of mail dispatches. “Our road lay through delightful oak groves lined with prosperous ranches- while the cool, delicious springs of water were most acceptable” (Preimsberger 2009). In 1859, the Temecula Post Office was established as the first post office in inland Southern California (Brigandi 1998).
During the post-Civil War, a rail line service was built to provide access to and from San Diego, and a second wave of business boomed in Temecula. The transportation system led to the opening of several new stores and opportunities to garner trade and the City became an important location for shipping grain and cattle. In 1904, the Vail family who immigrated from Nova Scotia bought vast acreages of ranch land and large tracts of property in Temecula. Throughout the 1900s, the stimuli for the economy continued to center around the cattle business and agriculture owned by the Vail Family Ranch (City of Temecula 2021). The old western lifestyle of Temecula eventually came to an end, and the Vail Family Ranch was sold to Kaiser Development Company in 1964. The total acreage of land sold was 97,500, and Temecula was renamed “Rancho California.”
RAILWAY
During the post-Civil War, a
rail line service was built to
provide access to and from San
Diego, and a second wave of
business boomed in Temecula.
The transportation system led
to the opening of several new
stores and opportunities to
garner trade and the City be-
came an important location for
shipping grain and cattle.
Historical and Environmental Context | INTRODUCTION
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 32 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN The area became known for
its high-profile real estate and
the value of land suitable for
avocado groves and grape
vineyards skyrocketed. Growth
was invigorated by residential
neighborhoods, shopping
centers, restaurants, and
transportation corridors. The I-15
corridor between Los Angeles
County and San Diego was
finished in the 1980s, and Rancho
California became incorporated
in December 1989. The citizens
voted to change the name
Rancho California and officially
name their city, “Temecula.”
Today, Temecula is home to
approximately 115,055 residents
(World Population Review
2021). Despite rapid growth and
evolution, the City of Temecula
takes pride in preserving the
bountiful valley and its rich
connection to California history.
4 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Management Plan +19°
difference
The Riverside-San Bernardino region contains
the highest urban heat island impacts (Figure 1
1) in California, with average differences of 19°F
between urban and non-urban areas (EPA 2015).
West Riverside will experience frequent extreme
heat days, warmer summer evenings, and warmer
average annual temperatures throughout the next
three decades (CEC 2006).
The projected increase in average annual
temperature in Riverside County is 63.5°F to 70°F
by 2099 (PIER Program 2011).
Lowest water percipitation in11,,200200YEARS
In Riverside County, the third driest February
in 127 years occurred in 2021 (NOAA and NIDIS
2021).
Riverside County has been added to the
emergency drought declaration since October
2021 (Rancho California Water District 2021).
Between Fall 2013 and Spring 2014, Southern
California experienced the lowest water year
precipitation totals in at least 1,200 years (Griffin
and Anchukaitis 2014).
1.2 WHY THE CITY NEEDS AN
URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
EXTREME HEAT DROUGHT
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 5
Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Management Plan | INTRODUCTION HIGH
Environmental Vulnerability Score
Riverside County residents are
exposed to health risks from
auto air pollution transported
by prevailing winds from Los
Angeles and Orange County
(City of Temecula 2021).
Riverside County has a high
environmental vulnerability
score caused by air pollution
from trucks servicing increasing
warehouses within the county
(OEHHA 2021).
Riverside County received
failing grades for smog and
ozone levels (American Lung
Association 2022).
66FEET
In 1993, a severe
flood event resulted in
approximately 6 feet of
sediment deposited into
Old Town Temecula and
resulted in a Presidential
Disaster Proclamation
(Riverside County Flood
Control District 2009).
Sixteen percent of all
properties in Temecula
have greater than 26%
chance of being severely
affected by flooding within
the next 30 years (Risk
Factor n.d.).
TOP 5
Temecula ranked in the
top five western US Cities
with the most exposed
communities that will
be impacted by future
wildfires (Ager et al. 2019).
Temecula contains and
is surrounded by land
ranked as “Very High Fire
Hazard Severity Zone” by
the California Department
of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE
2021)
Southern California fall
fire weather days will
increase by 40% by 2065
(Goss et al. 2020).
FIRE AIR POLLUTION FLOODING
6 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Management Plan Figure 1. Urban Heat Island Effect
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 7
Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Management Plan | INTRODUCTION
8 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan
1.3 RELATION TO THE
QUALITY-OF-LIFE
MASTER PLAN
Temecula’s QLMP (Figure 2) reflects the
vision and long-term goals of the City
and is crucial to maintaining the quality of
life in Temecula. The QLMP provides a
proactive approach to identifying community
needs, goals, and improvements, and was
developed through an inclusive engagement
process with residents, businesses, local
institutions, and regional partners. The
2040 QLMP was adopted by City Council
on November 15, 2022. The 2040 QLMP
identifies seven Core Values that provide
the roadmap for the future of the City. The
QLMP is organized into seven chapters, one
for each Core Value, and identifies detailed
goals and recommendations to maintain
and enhance the quality of life in Temecula.
The 2030 QLMP was reviewed during
development of this UFMP, and our review
was updated to include the 2040 QLMP to
ensure that the UFMP reflects and supports
the Core Values identified in the 2040
QLMP, as discussed below (Table 1).
COREVALUES
OUR 7
ACCOUNTABLE &
RESPONSIVE CITY
GOVERNMENT
Meeting requisite health
and public safety needs
while proactively seeking
to enhance service
delivery to the community
and maintaining fiscal
transparency and
prudent stewardship of
local resources.
EQUITY
Equity values help remove
barriers to ensure opportunities
for all to prosper through
datadriven
decisions personalized to
residents of the City.
SAFE & PREPARED
COMMUNITY
Public safety is the foundation
of Temecula and the most
basic service for which the
City is responsible.
TRANSPORTATION
MOBILITY &
CONNECTIVITY
Transportation mobility,
street maintenance
and sanitation are basic
but essential functions
deemed highly important
by residents.
HEALTHY &
LIVABLE CITY
Opportunities for parks,
recreation,
cultural arts, programs and
events for civic engagement
help to define the great quality
of life in Temecula.ECONOMIC
PROSPERITY
A business-friendly local
economy providing diverse
opportunities to live, work and
play in Temecula.
SUSTAINABLE &
RESILIENT CITY
Sustainable City values help
plan for the future by meeting
present needs without
compromising the resources
needed for future generations.
Figure 2. Quality-of-Life Master Plan
Quality-of-Life Master Plan
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 9
Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan | INTRODUCTION Table 1. Quality-of-Life Master Plan Core Values Relationship to the Urban Forest Management Plan 7 CORE VALUES | HEALTHY & LIVABLE CITY
A healthy and livable city is characterized by high levels of civic pride and community engagement, a strong
sense of place, and is a place where people desire
to live and work. Throughout the QLMP planning
process, Temecula residents expressed numerous goals
related to health and livability. Healthy and Livable City accomplishments identified in the QLMP made thus
far related to trees include “Desirable master planned
neighborhoods connected by landscaped boulevards
and bike trails” and “Trees for Temecula” program has
planted approximately 1,000 new trees since 2001.”
The UFMP supports the Healthy and Livable City goals
of protecting the natural environment, promoting
recreation programs, parks, trails, and facilities, and respecting and remembering the local culture and
history. The analysis and recommendations contained
in this UFMP promote these goals through sustainable
tree management and maintenance practices, tree
protection ordinances, as well as growing the urban
forest and expanding canopy cover.
A robust urban forest helps to create more desirable
parks and recreational facilities, which promote healthy and active lifestyles and community engagement.
Trees contribute to the overall character and aesthetic of the City and help to create a sense of place. Lastly, the history and culture of Temecula, from the first
inhabitants through development of a modern City,
were considered during the process of creating this
UFMP. Additional tree plantings and maintaining a
healthy and robust urban forest will help progress the
City toward its Healthy and Livable City goals.
10 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan 7 CORE
VALUES | ECONOMIC PROSPERITY
During development of the QLMP community members
expressed a desire to be able to live and work in
Temecula. The Economic Prosperity goals in the QLMP
that relate to trees call for continued protection of
Temecula’s natural resources, increased urban amenities, revitalizing the City’s aging commercial corridors, and providing a diverse range of employment opportunities.
The UFMP directly relates to economic prosperity
through the jobs that are created in the urban forest
management sector, as well as the positive influence the trees have on the economy and commercial areas. Trees
are an important part of a City’s infrastructure and help to create a sense of place and influence shopping behaviors to boost economic prosperity. Revitalizing commercial
corridors should include tree planting efforts to ensure that these areas have adequate canopy cover, which
creates a more desirable and walkable commercial area.
Studies have explored the psychosocial response of
shoppers to outdoor environments in commercial areas,
revealing consistently positive associations between
streetscapes with trees and consumer preferences,
perceptions, and behavior. Surveys conducted in cities
of varying sizes across the United States revealed that shoppers positively associated commercial areas with
trees as having higher visual quality and an improved
sense of place. Shoppers also indicated an increased
willingness to drive farther and pay for parking and,
perhaps most notable, a willingness to pay higher prices for goods and services in consumer environments
with trees. Survey respondents indicated that they
would spend 9% to 12% more for goods and services
in commercial districts with a high-quality tree canopy (Wolf 2005). .
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 11
Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan | INTRODUCTION 7 CORE
VALUES | SAFE & PREPARED COMMUNITY
Maintaining a safe community is one of the City’s most
important obligations and directly affects the quality
of life. Studies have shown that strategically planted
vegetation may reduce crime by creating a sense of
place, influencing how people interact with outdoor
spaces, and attracting people into public spaces
(American Forests 2022).
The strategic priorities identified in the QLMP include maintaining safe and attractive parks, public facilities, public rights-of-way, trails, and open spaces. Trees
contribute to the attractiveness and safety of these
spaces throughout communities.
Not only are low crime rates an important part of
maintaining a safe community, but the City must also
stay prepared for natural occurrences, such as extreme
weather, drought, flooding, and fire. Temecula Fire
Department was consulted during development of this
UFMP, and the Recommended Species List included
as part of this UFMP includes species that are climate
adapted and predicted to do well in Temecula and
includes fire hazard ratings for each species. Proper
tree management also helps ensure the safety of trees
by evaluating tree health and conducting appropriate
maintenance practices to remove potential safety
hazards. Trees can also be used as a tool for improved
stormwater and flood infrastructure.
12 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan 7 CORE
VALUES | TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY & CONNECTIVITY
Transportation mobility and connectivity are an
important aspect of maintaining a high quality of life
in Temecula. This refers to the efficient movement of
people and goods as well as providing residents with
equal access to housing choices and neighborhoods,
quality schools, services, places of employment,
shopping and restaurants, recreational areas and
more. Trees directly contribute to the connectivity
of a community through the provision of shade along
active transportation routes and transit stops as well as creating more desirable public spaces.
Trees also provide an added safety benefit along
transportation routes by calming traffic or serving as a buffer between vehicles and bicycles or pedestrians.
Not only are cities with well-landscaped roads perceived more positively, but studies have shown that inclusion
of trees and other landscaping in the streetscape may
impact route choice, reduce stress, and increase safety on urban roadways (Wolf 2010). Appropriately placed
trees in the streetscape can contribute to traffic calming.
One study found a significant drop in travel speeds (an average decrease of approximately 3 miles per hour) on
roads where trees are present, as well as an increased
perception of safety (Topp 1990). Other studies
analyzing vehicle accidents on urban roads have found
that vehicle crashes were reduced by as much as 67%
on road segments with street trees and traffic calming
treatments as opposed to roads without improvements
(Dumbaugh 2005, 2006). Consequently, roads with
street trees and landscaping also increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety by influencing safer driving practices and by providing a buffer between vehicles and other modes
of travel if these elements are appropriately placed.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 13
Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan | INTRODUCTION 7 CORE
VALUES | SUSTAINABLE & RESILIENT CITY
A sustainable community is one that uses its resources
to meet current needs while ensuring that adequate
resources are available for future generations.
Sustainability is dependent on the interconnectedness
of a prosperous economy, a healthy environment, and
an equitable community. Trees contribute to many
of the goals, progress indicators, accomplishments,
and strategic priorities related to creating a more
sustainable Temecula. The QLMP specifically identifies
maintaining and enhancing the City’s tree canopy and
urban forest as a strategic priority. The many ways in
which trees make the community more sustainable
are discussed throughout this UFMP, such as the
ability to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse
gas emissions; provide shade, cooler temperatures
and conserve energy; improve water quality, capture
stormwater, and reduce urban runoff; contribute to
the beauty and comfort of parks, open space, natural
habitat, and recreational areas; and implement low
impact development concepts.
14 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan 7 CORE VALUES | ACCOUNTABLE & RESPONSIVE CITY GOVERNMENT An accountable and responsive City government is one
that embodies a culture of leadership that is accessible to residents, businesses and employees; transparent
in its decision making; committed to the effective and
efficient delivery of services that the community values the most; and is a steward of the City’s human and fiscal resources. It also provides an opportunity for residents to be engaged and involved in their community. This
UFMP analyzes Temecula’s urban forest program and
its governance and provides recommendations for
more efficiencies, funding, or expansion of the program.
Additionally, the UFMP was development with community
engagement at the forefront. The goal of this UFMP is
to guide management of Temecula’s urban forest and
ensure the urban forest program is sustainably financed.
Success of the urban forest program is dependent
on community stewardship, clear management and
maintenance strategies, and financial support.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 15
Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan | INTRODUCTION 7 CORE
VALUES | EQUITY
The 2040 QLMP adds Equity as a seventh core value,
and identifies an equitable community as one that
listens with empathy, and understands with compassion,
that different barriers impact the lives of its residents in a variety of ways. One measurement of equity, as it
relates to the urban forest, is access to green space
and trees. As discussed throughout this UFMP, trees
provide multiple environmental and social benefits to a community, such as such as shade, cooler temperatures,
improved air quality, improved stormwater quality,
enhanced community character, mental and physical
health benefits, and overall quality of life. This UFMP includes an analysis of canopy cover equity, compared
to social, demographic, and pollution burden statistics.
This UFMP identifies strategies to increase tree equity throughout Temecula by increasing canopy cover in
areas where it is needed most.
INTRODUCTION | Developing the Temecula Urban Forest Management Plan 16 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
DEVELOPING THE TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.4 DEVELOPING THE TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN The City of Temecula was awarded a grant from the CAL FIRE Prop 68 Fund Grants Urban and Community Forestry to complete the Temecula UFMP and Tree Inventory Update. The City’s Public Works Department and Park and Landscape Division are the main City entities that are responsible for overseeing the UFMP’s development and implementation, and provided key insights into City practices, coordination with internal and external stakeholders, and co-hosted community engagement events. The Park and Landscape Superintendent provided City standard documents, City plans, GIS data, and other data sets for analysis. The following sections present key findings of the urban forest analyses and community engagement activities and describes the process taken in developing the UFMP. 1 CAL FIRE Grant Awarded
URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
OPTION A
2 Urban forest
inventory and
canopy analysis
3 Analysis of plans,
policies, and
ordinances
5 Draft UFMP, Technical Assessment, and Street Tree Master Plan 6 Public Review of Draft UFMP, Technical Assessment, and Street Tree Master Plan 4 Community engagement
7 Final UFMP, Technical Assessment, and Street Tree Master Plan
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 17
Developing the Temecula Urban Forest Management Plan | INTRODUCTION
18 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Key Findings
1.5.1 URBAN FOREST
INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS
Public Tree Inventory
ArborPro Inc. conducted an inventory of City-managed trees between January 2021 and June 2021 that included collecting tree location and arboricultural attribute information of City- owned trees on public sidewalks, parkway strips, street medians, rights-of-way, parks, and other accessible City-owned property.
The inventory was then analyzed by Dudek using sustainability metrics to determine the condition of trees and to understand what management practices will need to be improved to have the most meaningful impact on tree health and safety.
Canopy Cover Analysis
Dudek conducted an analysis of canopy cover for Temecula, which included trees on private and public property. Analysis of the City's tree canopy cover was conducted using high- resolution satellite imagery. The analysis provides insight into areas where trees are needed to give the most significant community benefit. The results of the analysis revealed that Temecula has 10.9% tree canopy cover. This canopy cover is relatively low.
30,715
CITY-OWNED TREES
87 %
IMMATURE/YOUNG
1,796,073
GALLONS OF STORMWATER RUNOFF
CAPTURE ANNUALLY
262 TONS OF CO2
SEQUESTERED ANNUALLY
9.33 TONS
OF AIR POLLUTION REMOVAL ANNUALLY
Public Tree Inventory
1.5 KEY FINDINGS
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 19
Urban Forest Inventory and Analysis | INTRODUCTION
18 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
However, the inventory analysis revealed that the majority of Temecula’s city-managed trees are young, indicating that canopy cover will increase in the City as these trees mature. It is important to note that total canopy cover in the City consists of approximately 1,928 acres of tree canopy, while the public tree inventory makes up 188 acres of the total tree canopy (Figure 3). Therefore, approximately 10% of canopy cover is city managed and the remaining 90% is on private property.
Canopy Cover Acres Provided
by Public vs Private Trees
2000
1000
500
1500
0 188 acres
1928 acres
Public Private Trees
Temecula’s city-wide canopy cover is approximately 11% Figure 3. Canopy Cover Acres Provided
by Public vs Private Trees
20 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Key Findings
1.5.2 ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PRACTICES,
PLANS, POLICIES, AND ORDINANCES
A comprehensive review of the status of Temecula’s urban forestry program and related plans, policies, and ordinances provides a baseline for understanding the effectiveness of City tree management. This review included analyses of urban forest funding, staffing policy and procedure manuals, municipal plans and contracts, public education programs, tree ordinances, design guidelines, and long-range planning documents. Knowing and understanding the baseline conditions provides a guide for monitoring present achievements to compare to future urban forestry practices and goals.
Funding and Staffing
The City uses a combination of in-house staff from the Public Works Division and external contractors. The bulk of tree maintenance activities in Temecula is performed by external contractors. Tree pruning and trimming is the most frequent service conducted by contractors for Temecula’s city-managed trees and requires 75% of work time. The City desires to maintain park and median trees on a 3- to 4-year trim cycle but is unable to do so with current funding. City staff expressed that an additional $40,000 towards the park and median tree budget would be sufficient to increase tree trimming capacity.
Contracted pruning costs for trees on slopes can be up to 3 or 4 times more expensive than pruning street trees.
When comparing Temecula’s contract services budget to
national averages, Temecula has a higher-than-average annual budget. City-managed trees in Temecula are primarily young and immature and therefore do not yet have the same maintenance needs as mature trees which are more costly (McPherson 2003).
For these reasons, the City’s per tree spending of $18.62 currently provides an adequate level of funding to sustainably manage the City’s tree inventory. As the City’s trees age, their maintenance needs will increase, and the City’s maintenance funds will need to increase to ensure continued sustainable management.
Policies and Ordinances
Review of tree related ordinances and policies included review of Municipal Code chapters 8.48 Heritage Tree Ordinance,
8.49 Tree Care and Preservation, and 17.32, Water Efficiency and Landscape Design. The review process revealed that the City’s ordinances are in need of updating to align with ISA best management practices. An update of these ordinances has been included as part of the UFMP process.
Planning
The following planning documents were reviewed during the UFMP process: Quality of Life Master Plan, General Plan, Multi- use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, Uptown Temecula Specific Plan, and Temecula Best Management Practices Manual. These comprehensive planning documents contain many policies, goals, or actions that relate to trees. The UFMP directly supports implementation of these and provides updated information that should be incorporated as these plans are updated.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 21
Key Findings | INTRODUCTION
22 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION | Key Findings
1.5.3 DEPARTMENTAL AND
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Stakeholders including City staff, elected officials,
community leaders, and members of an HOA were
interviewed to further inform the analysis. The City
departments and stakeholders who participated in the
UFMP interview process are noted in Table 2.
Table 2. Stakeholder Interview Participants
Department Interviewee
Public Works
Director
Superintendent
Senior Landscape Inspector
Community
Development
Principal Planner
Principal Planner
Stormwater Development Manager
Elected Officials Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Community Member Resident of Temecula
Departmental and Stakeholder Interview
Questions:
• How do you envision Temecula’s
urban forest in the next 40 years?
• Do you have suggestions/thoughts
for improving your department’s
role regarding tree management?
• Are existing policies considered
appropriate for efficient tree
management?
• Are there specific locations that
need to be prioritized for tree
planting?
• What are the biggest challenges
facing the expansion of the urban
forest?
Gathering input from diverse
groups illuminated the core values
of the community and informed key
development processes of the UFMP.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 23
Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan | INTRODUCTION 22 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
1.5.4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Community outreach was a key step in the development process of the UFMP to understand and amplify the voices of Temecula’s community. Kicking off in the Spring of 2021, community members were engaged in outreach efforts that included the following activities and educational materials:
• Online Temecula Tree Survey in English and Spanish (702 responses)
• Educational pamphlets describing tree benefits and
tree maintenance resources for homeowners, landscape
professionals, and business owners
• Temecula UFMP website, detailing project updates,
educational materials, public meeting notifications,
community resources, and the City’s tree inventory tree inventory
• Online community meeting introducing the UFMP (1 virtual community meeting)
• Presentations to City of Temecula department commission meetings (3 meetings)
• Tabling at community events including the ‘Chilled in the Park’ holiday event, Old Town Farmers Market, and Vail
Headquarters Farmers Market (5 pop up tabling events)
• Social media outreach through the City of Temecula channels (e-newsletters, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter)
• Local outreach and presentations to community-based
organizations (CBOs) and nonprofits such as the Sierra Club, Temecula Valley Garden Club, and Kiwanis Club (3 CBOs
engaged)
• Arbor Day Tree Planting Event held on April 25, 2022
(Planted 300 trees in 3 parks with over 400 volunteers) • Urban Forest Summit (36 attendees)
• Working Group (4 meetings, 8 members)
OVER 1,000
community members were engaged
during development of the CWPP
through a public survey and in-
person outreach events, plus many
more through social media, the
website, and other online platforms!
24 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
URBAN FOREST DATA
2 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 25
2.1 CANOPY COVER
T ree canopy cover can have a positive impact on communities as it provides many environmental benefits and services (Figure 5), such as shade, cooler temperatures, improved air quality, improved stormwater quality, enhanced community character, improved mental and physical health, as well as an overall improved quality of life. A citywide canopy cover assessment was conducted for Temecula using satellite imagery and spatial analysis (see the technical assessment for methodology details).
Figure 4 City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis, depicts the results of the canopy cover assessment. The canopy cover assessment revealed that Temecula has an existing canopy cover of approximately 11% (Table 3).
Table 3. Land Cover Classification
Land Cover Type Canopy Cover Assessment
Acres Canopy Cover (%)
Tree 1,928 10.9
Other Vegetation 4,159 23.5
Impervious Surfaces 8,194 46.3
Bare Ground 3,371 19.1
Water 36 0.2
Canopy cover refers to the layer of leaves,
branches, and stems that provide tree coverage
of the ground when viewed from above.
26 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
URBAN FOREST DATA | Canopy Cover
Da
t
e
:
9 /
2 2
/
2 0
2 1
-
L
a
s
t
s
a
v
e
d
b
y
:
h
m
c
o
m
b
e
r
-
P
a
t
h
:
Z
:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
j
1 3
0 4
7 0
1 \
M
A
P
D
O
C
\
D
O
C
U
M
E
N
T
\
T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a
T
r
e
e
C
a
n
o
p
y
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
_
R
e
s
u
l
t
s
.
m
xd
City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis
Urban Forest Management Plan
SOURCE: NAIP 2020
0 4,2002,100 Feet
FIGURE 4
Temecula
BlytheMurrieta
BlytheCanyon
Lake
Coachella
La Quinta
IndianWellsHemet
Hemet Rancho MirageNorco
Desert HotSpringsBanning
Jurupa Valley
Imperial
County
Riverside
County
San
Bernardino
County
San Diego
County
395
95 18
71 247
60 74
94 91
241
54 206
195
56 330
2 115
173
67 243
177
58 138
38 76
79 98
86 111
78 78
215
10 15
5 15
40 405
8805
210
City of Temecula
City of Temecula Urban Lands
Land Cover
Impervious (46.32 %)
Bare Ground (19.06 %)
Low Vegetation (23.51 %)
Tree/Canopy (10.90 %)
Water (0.21%)
Figure 4. City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 27
Canopy Cover | URBAN FOREST DATA DATA
2.2 INCREASING CANOPY COVER
Table 4 below presents the total number of new
trees that would need to be planted each year
over the next 40 years to increase canopy cover.
For example, planting 937 trees with a potential
50-foot canopy spread per year over the next 40
years would put the City on track to achieve a 20%
Citywide canopy cover. In reality, it is anticipated
that the City would plant a combination of various
tree sizes over the next 40 years.
The planting calculations presented indicate
the number of trees with 20-, 35-, 50- or 75-foot
canopy spread that would be needed, if the
City planted all trees from one size category. In
reality, it is anticipated that the City would plant
a combination of various tree sizes, which can be
tracked and monitored to determine progress
toward reaching canopy cover goals. Prioritizing
areas of with low canopy cover and available
planting locations will help to develop an equitable
canopy cover for those communities in most need
of trees.
Goal for Temecula
citywide to be achieved over the next 40 years
CANOPY COVER20%
28 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
URBAN FOREST DATA | Increasing Canopy Cover
Table 4 presents the total number of new trees that would need to be planted to increase canopy cover above the existing 11% canopy cover.
Table 4. Total Number of Trees Needed to Increase Canopy Cover Above 11% Total
Canopy
(%)
Total Number of Trees by Canopy Spread
20 feet 35 feet 50 feet 75 feet
12 26,949 8,796 4,311 1,915
15 100,563 32,824 16,086 7,147
18 174,177 56,852 27,861 12,379
19 198,716 64,861 31,786 14,123
20 223,254 72,871 35,711 15,867
25 345,944 112,917 55,337 24,587
Note: Darker green highlighting indicates the Citywide canopy cover goal of 20%.
Table 5 presents the total number of trees needed to plant per year for the next 40 years to increase canopy cover above the existing 11% canopy cover.
Table 5. Total Number of Trees Needed to Plant per Year for 40 Years to Increase Canopy Cover Total
Canopy (%)
Total Number of Trees by Canopy Spread
20 feet 35 feet 50 feet 75 feet
12 707 231 113 50
15 2,640 862 422 188
18 4,572 1,492 731 325
19 5,216 1,703 834 371
20 5,860 1,913 937 417
25 9,081 2,964 1,453 645
Notes: A 5% mortality rate has been added to the planting scenarios presented in this table. Green highlighting indicates the Citywide canopy cover goal of 20%.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 29
Increasing Canopy Cover | URBAN FOREST DATA
Figure 5. The Benefits of Trees
30 | URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
URBAN FOREST DATA
Implementing a tree planting
strategy to achieve a 20%
citywide canopy cover goal
would also contribute to
reaching greenhouse gas
reduction goals established
in the Climate Action Plan.
CAL FIRE has developed a
method for estimating the
carbon storage potential of
a tree planting project over
a 40-year timeframe that is
required for all California
Climate Investment Act
grant applications. Using
this method, and with an
assumption of planting
36,000 trees that are an
equal mix of small, medium,
and large stature, the City
has the potential to sequester
approximately 91,000 tons of
carbon over a 40-year period. 36,000 TREES
over the next 40 years toward the City’s 20%
canopy goal has the potential to sequester
approximately 91,000 tons of carbon!
Planting
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 31
Canopy Equity | URBAN FOREST DATA
2.3 CANOPY EQUITY
The technical assessment includes a breakdown of canopy cover by land use type, parks, council districts, and schools, as well as an analysis of tree equity using CalEnviroScreen data, American Forests tree equity scoring tool, and city data, to guide the City in identifying priority and opportunity areas for tree planting efforts and increasing canopy cover.
Findings from the canopy analysis and equity analysis revealed the following:. • Census tract 6065051200 has
the highest CalEnviroScreen
score (65%) and one of the lowest
canopy cover percentages (4.6%).
Approximately 3% of Temecula’s
residents live in this census tract, and
approximately 61% of the population
of this census tract are people of
color.
• Census block groups with the
lowest Tree Equity Scores are
60650512002 and 60650512001
(both located with census tract
6065051200, which as the highest
pollution burden/CalEnviroScreen
score).
• Eight census tracts have
the highest concentrations
of urban heat islands:
606504324, 6065051200,
6065043244, 6065043217,
6065043256, 6065043250,
6065049600,6065043222.
• Parks (non-Sports Parks) with
the lowest canopy cover include
Skyview Park, John Magee Park
Harveston Community Park,
Voorburg Park, Long Canyon
Creek Park, Michael “Mike” Naggar
Community Park, Wolf Creek Park,
Veteran’s Park, all of which have a
canopy cover less than 10%.
• Schools with the lowest canopy
cover include Temecula Christian
School, Great Oak High School,
Chaparral High School, Vail Ranch
Middle School, Rancho Christian
School, Temecula Valley High
School, Erle Stanley Gardner Middle
School, Crowne Hill Elementary
School, Luiseño Elementary School,
Temecula Middle School, Rancho
Elementary School, and Vintage Hills
Elementary School, all of which have
a canopy cover less than 5%.
• Vineyards/Agricultural, Tribal
Trust Lands, Specific Plan, and
Commercial land use types have
the lowest canopy cover
URBAN FOREST DATA
2.4 PRIORITY AND
OPPORTUNITY AREAS
The Priority Planting Score (PPS)
prioritizes where the City should focus
tree planting efforts by census tract for
a more equitably distributed canopy
cover, presented in Figure 6. The
study area for developing the PPS
was limited to the canopy analysis
study area. A higher PPS indicates
a higher priority for focused tree
planting efforts. PPS considers
current canopy cover, distribution
of land use type, total recorded
City-managed vacant planting sites,
pollution burden and equity, and
relative population and acreage.
The PPS multiplies a canopy gap
index by a priority equity index for
each census tract to calculate the
relative tree planting needs within
the study area. A canopy goal is
Low canopy cover in multiple parks and schools
present an opportunity to increase canopy cover
through partnerships with the school district,
volunteer groups, and community organizations.
32 | URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 33
Priority and Opportunity Areas | URBAN FOREST DATA
Planting Pr iority Score
50 to 60
40 to 50
30 to 40
20 to 30
10 to 20
0 to 10
Figure 6. Priority Planting Score by Census Tract
calculated for each census tract
based on the current canopy as well
as distribution of land use types
and vacant planting sites relative to
other census tracts. The canopy gap
index is then calculated based on
the difference between the current
canopy and the goal for each
census tract. The canopy gap index
is a number between 0 and 100,
with a higher number indicating a
greater gap between the current
canopy cover and the goal. A
priority equity index is calculated
for each census tract based on
CalEnviroScreen, an equity-focused
metric of pollution vulnerability and
burden, and relative population and
acreage sizes. The priority equity
index is a number between 0 and
1, with a higher number indicating
a higher need for trees based on
equity metrics.
34 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
3 STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 35
Environmental Services/Economic Benefits | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/ECONOMIC BENEFITS
Temecula’s tree inventory provides the annual environmental services and benefits presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Annual Environmental Services and Benefits Provided by City-Managed Trees Service
Annual
Environmental
Benefit
Annual
Environmental
Impact
Annual
Economic
Value
Carbon Sequestration
(carbon dioxide removed from air by trees)262 tons
The carbon removed from the City’s air by
the urban forest is equivalent to an average
passenger vehicle driving 589,977 miles.
$44,800
Avoided Runoff (rainwater diverted from stormwater
management system by trees)1,796,073 gallons This benefit is equivalent to the average annual water usage of 16 American homes.$16,000
Air Pollution Removal
(ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon
monoxide, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns)
9.33 tons
The pollution removed by the City’s tree
inventory is equivalent to the carbon dioxide
emissions of 9,365 pounds of burned coal.
$55,500
Sources: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and i-Tree Analysis (USFS 2020).
Table 7 presents Temecula’s tree inventory financial value.
Table 7. Financial Value of City-Managed Trees
Value Description Asset Amount Per-Tree Value
Carbon Storage (7,546 Tons)Amount of carbon held in trees $1,290,000 $42.00 Structural Tree replacement cost $86.9 million $2,892.24 Functional Value based on the services trees perform $116,300 $2.46 Sources: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and i-Tree Analysis (USFS 2020).
36 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Species Diversity Summary
3.2 SPECIES DIVERSITY SUMMARY
Temecula’s tree inventory consists of 30,715 trees, composed of 36 families, 89 genera, and 170 species, with 1,859 stumps and 3,691 vacant sites.
The top 10 families in Temecula’s tree inventory are shown in Table 8. Figures 7 and 8 on the following pages depict the top 10 genera and top 10 species in the Temecula tree inventory, respectively.
Table 8. Top 10 Tree Families in the City Inventory
Family Diversity
Sustainability Goal: No Family Represents More Than 20% of the Inventory Rank Family Number of Trees % of Inventory
1 Pinaceae 5,433 18
2 Platanaceae 4,553 15
3 Anacardiaceae 2,981 10
4 Lythraceae 2,677 9
5 Myrtaceae 2,351 8
6 Sapindaceae 1,688 5
7 Rosaceae 1,573 5
8 Fabaceae 1,533 5
9 Fagaceae 1,366 4
10 Hamamelidaceae 995 3
Total 25,150 82
Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021).
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 37
Species Diversity Summary | STATUS OF THE URBAN FORESTA
38 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
TOP 10 Genera in the City Inventory
1. Pinus 2. Platanus 3. Lagerstroemia 4. Eucalyptus 5. Koelreuteria
6. Quercus 7. Pistacia 8. Pyrus 9. Liquidambar 10. Schinus 17%
4%
15%
4%
9%
4%
6%
3%
5%
3%
Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021).
Meets Goal Does Not Meet GoalSustainability Goal: No genus represents greater than 10% of Inventory STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Top Ten Genera Genus Diversity Figure 7. Top 10 Genera in the City Inventory
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 39CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 39 Top Ten Species | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021).
1. Mondell pine
Pinus eldarica
6. Chinese flame tree
Koelreuteria bipinnata
2. London plane
Platanus x hispanica
7. American sweet gum
Liquidambar styraciflua
3. Crape myrtle
Lagerstroemia indica
8. California sycamore
Platanus racemosa
4. Chinese pistache
Pistacia chinensis
9. California pepper
Schinus molle
5. Red ironbark
Eucalyptus sideroxylon
10. Camphor
Cinnamomum camphora
12%
3%
12%
3%
9%
3%
4%
3%
4%
3%
Meets Goal Does Not Meet Goal
TOP 10 Species in the City Inventory
Sustainability Goal: No species represents greater than 5% of Inventory STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Top Ten GeneraSpecies Diversity Figure 8. Top 10 Species in the City Inventory
40 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Species Diversity Summary
Table 9. Tree Species in the City Inventory that are Predicted to be Heat or Water Sensitive Botanical Name Common Name Number of
Trees
Platanus x hispanica London plane 3,644
Lagerstroemia indica Crape myrtle 2,666
Platanus racemosa California sycamore 882
Liquidambar styraciflua American sweetgum 781
Ulmus parvifolia Chinese elm 584
Magnolia grandiflora Southern magnolia 538
Brachychiton populneus Kurrajong 365
Prunus cerasifera Purple-leaf plum 311
Koelreuteria paniculata Goldenrain tree 307
Populus fremontii Fremont poplar 195
Pyrus calleryana Bradford pear 172
Gleditsia triacanthos Thornless honey locust 207
Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda 131
Betula pendula European white birch 79
Cedrus deodara Deodar cedar 74
Botanical Name Common Name Number of
Trees
Morus alba White mulberry 66
Fraxinus uhdei Evergreen ash 64
Quercus rubra Red oak 59
Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair tree 48
Prunus cerasifera Cherry plum 12
Cercis canadensis Eastern redbud 27
Corymbia citriodora Lemon-scented gum 19
Lophostemon confertus Brisbane box 19
Cercis occidentalis Common hackberry 15
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip tree 7
Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood 7
Acer saccharinum Sugar maple 6
Pinus radiata Monterrey pine 4
Total number of trees 11,289
% of inventory 37
HEATHEAT & WATERWATER
Temecula has 28 species in its
inventory that are predicted to
be heat and/or water sensitive
in the future (Table 9).28 \11,289SpeciesTrees
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 41
Diameter at Standard Height Distribution Summary | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
3.3 DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY
The age distribution of Temecula’s tree
inventory can be estimated by examining
trees diameter at standard height. Temecula’s
diameter at standard height distribution is
presented in Figure 9. Based on urban forestry
research (Richards 1983), there are more young
trees, and fewer immature, middle-aged,
and mature trees than are recommended to
maintain a sustainable urban forest. This age
distribution reflects an urban forest that was
relatively recently planted, which is consistent
with the age and development of the City.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Mature
Middle
Aged
Young
Immature
Recommended age distribution of trees.
25+ in
6 in
7-18 in
19-24 in
Age Distribution of the
Temecula Tree Inventory
28%59%
9%
4%
60%
Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021); Richards 1983.
Figure 9. Diameter at Standard Height Distribution
DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION
42 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Tree Condition
3.4 TREE CONDITION
The health composition of Temecula’s tree inventory
is presented in Table 10.
Table 10. Tree Condition Ratings of the City Inventory
Condition Number of
Trees
% of 2021
Inventory
Excellent 8 0.04
Very good 10 0.05
Good 11,433 53.33
Fair 8,151 38.02
Poor 1,719 8.02
Dead 117 0.55
Total*21,438 100
Source: City of Temecula Inventory (City of Temecula 2021).
Note: *Approximately 9,277 trees from a previous inventory were combined with the 2021 inventory but were not assessed for tree condition. As such, these trees are excluded from the table.
OVER 50%
of Temecula’s inventoried trees are
rated as good condition or better
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 43
Relative Performance Index Summary | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST 42 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.5 RELATIVE PERFORMANCE INDEX SUMMARY
The relative performance index (RPI) identifies which species are doing well and which many be having issues. Trees with an RPI of 1.0 or higher are performing as well or better than the average tree in the inventory. The RPIs of the top 10 species in Temecula’s inventory are shown in Table 11.
Table 11. Relative Performance Index of the Top 10 Species in the Inventory Relative Performance Index (RPI)
Goal: Top 6 Species Have an RPI Score of 1.0 or Higher
Rank Botanical name Common name RPI
City Inventory 0.53
1 Pinus eldarica Mondell pine 1.1
2 Platanus x hispanica London plane 0.91
3 Lagerstroemia indica Crape myrtle 1.43
4 Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache 1.21
5 Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red ironbark 0.48
6 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese flame tree 0.84
7 Liquidambar styraciflua American sweet gum 0.36
8 Platanus racemosa California sycamore 0.78
9 Schinus molle California pepper 0.95
10 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor 0.97
Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and I-Tree (USFS 2020).
Note: Approximately 9,277 trees were not assigned a condition in the inventory (30.20%). As such, these trees were excluded from the RPI analysis.
Sustainability Goal:Meets Goal Does Not Meet Goal
3.6 IMPORTANCE VALUES SUMMARY
The importance value of tree species combines the percentage of the species in the population of City-owned trees with its corresponding percentage of leaf area.
The top 10 species with the highest importance values are shown in Table 12.
Table 12. Ten Species with the Highest Importance Values in the City’s Inventory
Botanical name Common Name Importance Value
Pinus eldarica Mondell pine 27.9
Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red ironbark 22.4
Platanus x hispanica London plane 22.1
Lagerstroemia indica Crape myrtle 9.6
Platanus racemosa California sycamore 7.3
Pyrus calleryana Callery pear 6.6
Acacia stenophylla Shoestring acacia 6.1
Schinus mole California pepper 6.0
Pinus canariensis Canary Island pine 5.8
Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache 5.7
Source: City of Temecula Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and i-Tree (USFS 2020). 44 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Importance Values Summary
44 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
3.7 STREET TREE MASTER PLAN
The street tree master plan was created to consider diversity standards and parkway sizes to provide recommended trees to be planted in the 5 council district areas. A palette of 10 tree species was created for each council district, offering a range of parkway sizes tailored to the vacant sites in each council district. The tree species selected were determined by Temecula’s current tree inventory, ensuring that a single species was not overrepresented as well as the overall performance in Temecula’s environment. The street tree master plan provides a detailed guideline for planting and tree care management in the City’s future initiatives toward the urban forest. The street tree master plan is presented in the Street Tree Master Plan companion document.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 45
Street Tree Master Plan | URBAN FOREST DATA
46 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Budget and Funding
3.8 CITY MANAGEMENT OF THE TREE PROGRAM
3.8.1 BUDGET AND FUNDING
The City annual budget related to tree management between FY 16/17 and FY 20/21 is shown in Table 13.
Table 13. City of Temecula Annual Tree Management Budget 2016–2021 Budget Line Items FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 Average Contractor Services Budget
Street/Right-of-Way Trees $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Parks and Median Trees $60,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $76,000 City Facility Trees $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 City Trees on Slopes $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 Total Contractor Services Budget $480,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $496,000 City Staff Salary Budget*
Maintenance Superintendent $20,300 $20,300 $20,300 $20,300 $20,300 $20,300 Senior Landscape Inspector $30,700 $30,700 $30,700 $30,700 $30,700 $30,700 Landscape Inspector II $25,100 $25,100 $25,100 $25,100 $25,100 $25,100 Total City Staff Salary Budget $76,100 $76,100 $76,100 $76,100 $76,100 $76,100 Total (Contractor Services Budget + City Staff Salary Budget)$556,100 $576,100 $576,100 $576,100 $576,100 $572,100 Note: *Annual staff salaries are calculated based on the percentage of time overseeing all landscape and tree maintenance throughout the city.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 47
Budget and Funding | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Table 14 shows the estimated increases needed for contractor funding to achieve best management practices as Temecula’s immature and young tree inventory matures. Additionally, annual increases in funding are needed to achieve best
management practices, as contractor fees continue to
increase. In addition to pursuing grant funding, the City will need to allocate additional funds to tree management to reach these funding targets.
Table 14. Estimated Contractor Funding Needed to Achieve Best Management Practices
Best Management Practice
(BMP)
Current
Funding
Funding
Needed to
Achieve BMPs
Tree Planting –100% Stocking $4,800 $34,905
3-Years Establishment Care $0 $118,590
3-4 Year Pruning Cycle $465,200 $580,200
Tree and Stump Removal $10,000 $10,000
Totals $480,000 $743,695
Annual Funding Increases*
Fiscal Year 2024-2025 $480,000 $788,316
Fiscal Year 2025-2026 $480,000 $835,615
Fiscal Year 2026-2027 $480,000 $885,752
Fiscal Year 2027-2028 $480,000 $938,897
Note: * Annual funding increase is based on a 6% annual increase in contractor fees Figure 10 shows funding sources that contribute to the
City’s urban forest budget.
50%
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
40%
GENERAL FUND
10%
ROAD USE TAX
FUNDING
Figure 10. Temecula’s Urban Forest Funding Sources
48 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Staffing and Contractors
3.8.2 STAFFING AND CONTRACTORS
The City uses a combination of in-house staff from the Public Works Park Division to oversee and external contractors tree maintenance city wide.
Table 15 shows the City of Temecula tree-related in-house staff positions.
Table 15. Temecula Tree-Related In-House Staff
Positions
Type Number of
Positions
Number of
FTEs
Management
Director/Supervisor 1 0.10
Senior
Landscape Inspector 1 0.2
Field Inspector 1 0.2
Total 3 0.50
Note: FTE = Full-Time Equivalent.
75%
TREE PRUNING& TRIMMING
$$
$
Figure 11. Contractor’s Allocated Time Spent on Tree Activities Figure 11 shows the distribution of tree maintenance
activities performed by contractors. Figure 12 depicts the organizational chart for all city staff and departments that play a role in tree maintenance and operations.
1%
TREE PLANTING
24%
TREE AND STUMPREMOVAL
MAINTENANCEALLOCATION
CITYWIDE TREE MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS
TREE REMOVAL REQUEST/APPEALS
Community Service Park and Recreation Commission
URBAN FOREST TREE PLANTING PROGRAMS
Stacy Fox
PW Parks Superintendent
City Arborist
Tracy Courts
Community Services Coordinator
Figure 12. Organizational Chart
Staffing and Contractors | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 49
PUBLIC WORKS
Patrick Thomas
Director of Public Works,
Rodney Tidwell
PW Operations Manager,
Stacy Fox
PW Parks Superintendent / City Arborist
Mariposa Tree Management
Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance Services Contractor
LAND DEVELOPMENT
Ron Moreno
Principle Engineer
Annie Bostre-Le
Development Manager
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS
Amer Attar
Engineering Manager
Nick Minicilli
Senior Traffic Engineer
PLANNING
Luke Watson
Director of Community Development
Stuart Fisk / Matt Peters
Planning Manager
50 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
URBAN FOREST DATA | Annual Service Data
3.8.3 ANNUAL SERVICE DATA
Table 16. Annual Service Data
Tree Planting Establishment Care Tree Pruning Tree Removal Urban Wood Reuse Right-of-Way Tree
Replacement Program,
Remembrance Tree Planting
Program
Newly planted trees in the ROW
are receive establishment care by
the adjacent homeowner
Annual aesthetic and
clearance pruning
Approximately 100
trees and stumps are
removed per year
City tree trimming
materials are mulched,
5k–10k yards per year
Typically, 5–10 trees are
planted annually to replace
removals
Care is inconsistent and irrigation
not always provided; a watering
agreement would be helpful
Approximately 1,000
trees are pruned per
year
Tree removals are due
to diseased, damaged,
poor location, or other
hazards
Wood mulch is recycled
into city parks and median
landscapes
Special events such as
Arbor Day may result in high
volume tree planting by
volunteers
The City does not have a formal
establishment care program
Estimated pruning
cycle of 3–5 years,
depending on tree
species
Removed tree and
stump locations
are identified for
replacement trees
Wood mulch helps
regulate soil temperature
and retains moisture
3.8.4 TREE RESPONSIBILITY
Staff interviews identified confusion over maintenance responsibility regarding street trees planted in parkway strip, rights-of- way, and private property front yards. The following graphic (Figure 13) depicts tree responsibility along an average street in Temecula. For trees within HOAs or other special cases, tree responsibility should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 51
Annual Service Data | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
PP
par
k
w
a
y
sid
e
w
a
l
k
City
CC CC
SS
PP
PP
PPSS
Right-of-Way
Right-of-Way
Tree Responsibility
Pruning and Watering
P = Private Property — The property owner's responsibility for watering and pruning.
C = City Property — The City's responsibility for watering and pruning.
S = Shared Right-of-way—Shared City and Property Owner Responsibility* * Trees planted on private property within any easement retained by the city on a public street are added to the City's pruning cycle.
Property owners provide regular watering, care and maintenance, and may request an encroachment permit from the City to prune these trees.
n Property Owner Responsibility n City Responsibility Figure 13. Tree responsibility along average streets
PP
52 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
4 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 53
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
4.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Community engagement occurred throughout the UFMP
process, including in-person and virtual outreach activities.
In-person activities included an interactive booth at six public events and the Temecula Urban Forest Summit
held in March 2022. Virtual outreach took place via video conference interviews with City staff, a virtual community meeting, social media campaigns, e-newsletters, a public survey, presentations about the UFMP to local organizations, and monthly working group meetings with key stakeholders.
4.1 COMMUNITY TABLING EVENTS
The consultant team, in collaboration with the City, tabled at five community events, from December 2021 through
March 2022. Tabling events included interactive boards used to gather information and perspectives from participants, handouts providing information about Temecula’s urban forest, and flyers promoting the urban forest summit event and public survey, and hard copies of the Temecula tree survey.
54 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT | Working Group
4.2 WORKING GROUP
The City’s UFMP working group was formed to bring together key personnel heavily involved in the urban forest program to help advise the UFMP’s developmental process. A list of the Working Group members is included in Table 17. Four working group meetings were held between February 2022 and January 2023, facilitated by Dudek. During the working group meetings, members generated a draft UFMP vision statement, played an integral role in developing the guiding principles, goals, and strategies that are discussed throughout the UFMP, and reviewed the draft of the UFMP. Each working group member brought a unique perspective to the group, providing the context for City policy, regulatory perspectives, community challenges, and safety considerations.
Table 17. Temecula’s Urban Forest Master Plan Working Group Members Name City Department Title
Stacy Fox Public Works Parks Maintenance Superintendent Patrick Thomas Public Works Director of Public Works/City Engineer Matt Hayes Fire Temecula Fire Captain
Nicole Flores Risk Risk Management Analyst
Tom Cole Code Enforcement Field Supervisor Code Enforcement Kathy Sizemore Community Services Chair, Community Services Commissioner Abigail Srader California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Urban Forester Mark Collins Planning Temecula Planner
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 55
Public Survey | COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
4.3 PUBLIC SURVEY
An online bilingual survey was created to identify the public’s perception and understanding of the City’s trees, and to offer an open forum for public feedback as the City developed its UFMP. The 19-question survey was open between February 2021 and April 2022 and was disseminated through various outreach outlets, such as social media posts, e-newsletters, farmers markets, community events, and the Urban Forest Summit. In total, 702 survey responses were recorded, including 688 English respondents and 14 Spanish respondents. The results of the survey are summarized in Table 18 below.
Table 18. Summary of Online Survey Responses
Topic Responses
Trees as a City asset
• 97% view trees as a valuable community asset that contribute to the quality of life in Temecula • 75% view trees as more important than or equally as important as other City-maintained infrastructure • 67% believe City-maintained trees are in good or excellent condition Priorities, benefits,
and challenges
• 24% believe that maintaining existing trees is the top priority of the Temecula Urban Forest Management Plan • 28% believe improving the environment (i.e., air quality, storing carbon) is the most important benefit trees provide in Temecula
• 24% are reluctant to plant trees due to damage to sewer pipes/sidewalks 97% of survey respondents view trees as a valuable community asset that contribute to the quality of life in Temecula
56 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT | Public Survey
Topic Responses
Opinions on tree
protection ordinances
• 66% agree that the City should have ordinances to protect trees on private property in the same way they protect trees in the public space
Cost of tree-related
maintenance/repairs
• 32% have had no expenses related to preventative tree care or maintenance over the past 5 years • 24% have spent $100–$499 on expenses related to preventative tree care or maintenance over the past 5 years Opportunities for
community involvement
• 32% are willing to plant a tree on their private property • 30% are willing to participate in a community tree planting event Trees on private property • 48% believe the City should provide “How-To” information on planting, watering, and trimming • 45% believe the City should provide financial support for tree trimming Additional comments/
open forum
• 9% believe a free shade/fruit tree citywide program would be the most effective way to increase canopy on private property
• 6% would like to see a more diverse variety of tree species planted throughout the city while including native trees where feasible
• 6% would like educational materials about the urban forest that are easy to comprehend and accessible to all community members
48% of survey respondents believe the City should provide “How-To” information on planting, watering, and trimming
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 57
Working Group | COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
4.4 URBAN FOREST SUMMIT
The Temecula Urban Forest Summit was a 2.5-hour
community event held at the Temecula Conference Center
on March 16, 2022. The summit event served as an open
forum for community members to share their thoughts
about the opportunities, challenges, and ideas relating to Temecula’s trees through interactive activities and group discussions. The summit provided community members with a formal introduction to the UFMP, preliminary inventory and survey data analysis, and opportunities to stay involved with the City’s urban forest. The summit was an engaging event for all in attendance and included food, refreshments, prizes, and goodie bags.
58 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT | Public Survey
4.4.1 URBAN FOREST SUMMIT RESULTS
General themes about the status of the urban forest were identified by the consultant team and working group volunteers and were used to create the vision statement and goals of the UFMP. Community members were led through guided idea-
generating exercises to identify critical successes, barriers, and desires for the City’s urban forest.
Tables 19 and 20 show the ideas and opinions shared by
attendees.
Table 19. Vision Statement Results
What words/phrases
describe Temecula’s
urban forest
What do you value most
about living in Temecula?
• Variety of tree species
• Shade corridors
• Dense, forested areas
• Peaceful sanctuary
• Native tree gardens
• Food providing
• Model urban forest
• Serving wildlife habitat
• Hilly terrain and beauty
• Open spaces
• Family oriented
• Small town charm
• Walkability
• Safety
• Growing ethnic diversity
• Green belts and mountains
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 59
Public Survey | COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Table 20. Group Discussion Activity Themes
How do we get
more residents involved
with the urban forest?
How can we help preserve/
maintain the existing
urban forest?
How can we get more
trees planted on
non-city-owned property?
• Monthly tabling at farmers
markets/community events
• Incorporate tree education in
school curriculums
• City-sponsored tree training
workshops and classes
• Involve homeowners
association management to
be on the same page as the
City to achieve canopy cover
goals
• Create and promote a
citywide drought-tolerant
tree species palette for
homeowners
• Develop canopy cover goals
that Temecula residents are
made aware of
• Enforce the following:
protection of heritage
trees, tree replacement
requirements, and violations/
penalties of illegal tree removal
• Provide a breakdown of
tree maintenance costs to
homeowners to encourage
them to invest/take care of
trees
• Hire more city staff involved in
the urban forest program
• Citywide campaigns: drought
tolerant trees in Temecula
• Provide financial incentives
for more trees (i.e., contests,
giveaways, rebate programs)
• Free fruit/shade tree
programs
• Install community tree
information boards in parks/
trailheads
• Revive Remembrance Tree
Program
• Seek more grant opportunities
for City and park tree
planting/care
60 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
TREE PLANTING
4.5 ARBOR DAY TREE PLANTING EVENT
Dudek assisted the City with an Arbor Day
tree planting event held on April 23, 2022.
Approximately 400 volunteers were engaged and
300 trees planted in Vail Ranch Park, Sunset Park,
Redhawk Community Park, Mike Naggar Park and
Murrieta Creek Trail along Diaz Road.
April 23, 2022
Saturday | 9:00 am
Vail Ranch Park
TemeculaCA.gov/TCSD
@TemeculaParksAndRec
Join us as we celebrate A
r
b
o
r
D
a
y
!
T
h
i
s
y
e
a
r
m
a
r
k
s
t
h
e
1 5
0 t
h
a
n
n
i
v
e
r
s
a
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
t
r
e
e
p
l
a
n
t
e
r
’
s
holiday and we’re excited
t
o
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
u
r
b
a
n
f
o
r
e
s
t
b
y
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
m
o
r
e
t
r
e
e
s
i
n
h
o
n
o
r
of this special day. Enjoy
l
i
g
h
t
r
e
f
r
e
s
h
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
a
p
l
a
n
t
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
c
r
a
f
t
t
o
t
a
k
e
h
o
m
e
.
For information about th
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
T
e
m
e
c
u
l
a
’
s
U
r
b
a
n
F
o
r
e
s
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
,
please visit TemeculaCA.
g
o
v
/
T
r
e
e
s
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 61
Urban Forest Summit | COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
60 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
400 volunteers planted
300 trees in April 2022!
62 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
STRATEGIC PLAN
5 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 63
Vision Statement | STRATEGIC PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 63
Temecula will preserve and expand a sustainable urban
forest that embraces our shared history and enhances
the quality of life by improving the health, safety,
connectivity, economy, and resilience of our community.
5.1 VISION STATEMENT
64 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRATEGIC PLAN | Strategic Plan
5.2 STRATEGIC PLAN
Guiding Principle Strategy
A welcoming and equitable City The urban forest is a vital component of our community character and is equitably distributed to create inviting spaces throughout Temecula.
Healthy, safe, and connected
neighborhoods
Parks, trails, pathways, and open spaces will have an abundance of trees contributing to the safety and connectivity of our community.
Sustainable and resilient urban forest A thriving urban forest that will result in reduced urban heat islands, increased energy efficiency, resilience to pests and diseases, and landscapes that conserve water.
Enhance the quality of life and the
environment
The quality of life in Temecula and its environs is further enhanced by the benefits and services of our urban forest.
Preserve mature and historic trees Heritage trees are protected for their significant environmental and historic value.
Balance nature and development Trees are included in the beginning of the planning process to provide landscaped settings and habitat, maximize environmental benefits, and reduce infrastructure conflicts.
Sufficient resources and funding The urban forest will be sustainably managed through financial investment and staffing.
Expand canopy cover Existing trees will be maintained, and new trees will be strategically planted to increase canopy cover equitably across Temecula and to ensure no net loss of canopy cover.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 65
Guiding Principles | STRATEGIC PLAN
5.3GUIDING PRINCIPLES
GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 1: A Welcoming and Equitable City STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame
The urban forest is a
vital component of our
community character
and is equitably
distributed to create
inviting spaces
throughout Temecula.
1A
Explore opportunities for hosting community tree planting events to involve and educate community members in tree planting. Partner with community groups for volunteers.
Ongoing
1B Prioritize tree plantings in land uses and communities with low canopy cover. Ongoing
1C Continue outreach efforts to underrepresented populations. Ongoing 1D Explore opportunities to plant trees in public spaces to create tree- dense gathering spaces.Medium/Ongoing
1E
Fill all vacant planting sites and identify new planting sites, especially street trees to create tree-lined streets throughout Temecula.
Medium
1F Maintain the “Tree City USA” designation.Ongoing
1G Continue to celebrate Arbor Day with community events and tree plantings.Ongoing
66 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRATEGIC PLAN | Guiding Principles
GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 2: Healthy, Safe, and Connected Neighborhood STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame
Parks, trails, pathways,
and open spaces will
have an abundance
of trees contributing
to the safety and
connectivity of our
community.
2A Ensure active transportation routes are densely planted to increase safety and shade along these routes. Medium–Long
2B Identify safe routes to school, bicycle routes, walking trails, routes to parks and recreational areas for tree planting.Short
2C Plant street trees according to the street tree master plan and Recommended Species List.Ongoing
2D
Identify streets where trees are lacking and pursue tree planting opportunities along these routes, beginning with areas identified by community members during public input, which include Winchester Road, Nicolas Road, Pechanga Parkway, Temecula Parkway, Pauba Road, and in public rights-of-way within residential communities.
Medium
2E Plant trees in Temecula’s parks, prioritizing those with low Priority Planting Scores per Table 4-11 in the technical assessment. Medium
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 67
Guiding Principles | STRATEGIC PLAN
GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 3: Sustainable and Resilient Urban Forest STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame
A thriving urban forest
prepared to achieve
outcomes of the City
Climate Action Plan
will result in reduced
urban heat islands,
increased energy
efficiency, resilience
to pests and diseases,
and landscapes that
conserve water.
3A Develop a system to track and monitor tree plantings and calculate greenhouse gas reduction attributed to tree plantings. Medium 3B
Update the City of Temecula Tree Policy and standard details to incorporate the recommendations in Section 1.2.1 of the technical assessment.
Short
3C
Implement phased removal and replacement of undesirable species. As trees age and require replacement, replace with appropriate species identified by the street tree master plan and Recommended Species List.
Ongoing
3D Plant trees in City-maintained vacant planting sites at a rate of 179 trees per year over the next 20 years (see Table 1-6 of the technical assessment). Ongoing 3E Implement a formative pruning program for young and newly planted trees to mitigate potential tree structure and safety issues. Short 3F
Explore partnerships for developing an urban wood reuse program, such as programs for tree removal and milling to turn removed trees into useable lumber, or promote the use of on-demand mulch drop programs.
Medium
3G Adopt the Street Tree Master Plan and Recommended Species List (Appendix A) as the guiding standard for street tree selection.. Short 3H Monitor trees rated as poor or dead in the City’s tree inventory to determine appropriate management actions.Short
68 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRATEGIC PLAN | Guiding Principles
GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 4: Enhance the Quality of Life and the Environment STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame
The quality of life
in Temecula and its
environs is further
enhanced by the
benefits and services
of our urban forest.
4A
Provide guidance and educational materials to property owners regarding responsibility for maintaining trees in the public right-of- way and how to properly care for and water trees.
Short
4B
Develop guidelines and educational materials for planting and siting of trees to reduce energy costs in support of the General Plan Air Quality Element.
Short
4C Develop an “Adopt a Tree” program to increase stewardship of trees on public and private property. Medium
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 69
Guiding Principles | STRATEGIC PLAN
GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 5: Preserve Mature and Historic Trees STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame
Heritage trees
are protected for
their significant
environmental and
historic value.
5A Update the Chapter 8.48 Heritage Tree Ordinance per Table 2-2 of the technical assessment.Short
5B Create a performance bond requirement for replacement trees to ensure long-term successful establishment of replacement trees.Medium 5C Create a map that identifies the heritage trees throughout the City.Medium 5D Develop a program to increase funding for ongoing maintenance of heritage trees, similar to an “Adopt a Tree” program.Medium
70 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRATEGIC PLAN | Guiding Principles
GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 6: Balance Nature and Development STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame
Trees are included in
the beginning of the
planning process to
provide landscaped
settings and
habitat, maximize
environmental
benefits, and reduce
infrastructure
conflicts.
6A
Update Municipal Code Chapter 8.49 Tree Care and Preservation per recommendations in Table 2-1 of the technical assessment. Include requirements and guidelines for tree protection during construction.
Short
6B Update Municipal Code Chapter 17.32 Water Efficiency and Landscape Design per Table 2-3 of the technical assessment.Short
6C
Update the Municipal Code and the General Plan to identify “landmark” trees that warrant special protections, per the Open Space Element of the General Plan.
Medium
6D
Update the Citywide Design Guidelines to reflect the urban forest management plan recommendations and street tree master plan/Recommended Tree Species List, which identify planter space requirements, utility compatibility, and tree spacing needs that vary by species.
Medium
6E
Update Municipal Code Section 17.24.505.H and the Citywide Design Guidelines to include more prescriptive requirements for parking lot trees and planter space.
Medium
6F
Update Municipal Code Section 17.22 to ensure minimum tree planting requirements are established for all Planned Development Overlay Zoning Districts (PDOs). Plant palette proposed for PDOs should be updated according to the Recommended Species List and the street tree master plan.
Medium
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 71
Guiding Principles | STRATEGIC PLAN
GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 6: Balance Nature and Development STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame
Trees are included in
the beginning of the
planning process to
provide landscaped
settings and
habitat, maximize
environmental
benefits, and reduce
infrastructure
conflicts
6G
Update the Bikeways and Trails Master Plan to include guidelines for planting trees to increase bicyclist and pedestrian safety, as well as to 6reflect standard arboriculture practice to measure trees by diameter at standard height, which is measured at 4.5 feet above the ground, for a more accurate depiction of tree size and maturity. This guideline should also be updated to reflect the Municipal Code definition of a protected tree, or heritage tree.
Medium
6H
Update the Uptown Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards to reflect the updated Recommended Species List and the street tree master plan, and identify alternative options for tree and sidewalk conflict resolution (see Appendix C, Sidewalk Solutions).
Medium
6I
Update the Best Management Practices Design Manual to reflect tree spacing requirements as identified in the Recommended Species List, the street tree master plan, and tree protection requirements in the Municipal Code.
Medium
(continued)
72 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRATEGIC PLAN | Guiding Principles
GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 7: Sufficient Resources and Funding STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame
The urban forest
will be sustainably
managed through
financial investment
and staffing.
7A
Pursue tree planting opportunities through community volunteer events or collaborating with local organizations to reduce the cost of tree planting.
Ongoing
7B
Increase annual city wide tree maintenance funding so it will be sufficient to maintain trees on a 3- to 4-year pruning cycle. Table 14 depicts annual funding increases needed.
Medium
7C
Update the service level C district funding mechanism for contractor services on slopes to ensure adequate funding is available for tree maintenance.
Medium–Long
7D Communicate the economic value of trees to decision makers.Short 7E
Pursue opportunities to increase tree maintenance funds, such as grants, integrating funding into new development plans and implementing a Citywide fee program.
Medium
7F Develop a strategy to increase tree maintenance funds as the City’s trees age and require increased maintenance costs. Long 7G Pursue CAL FIRE grant funding to develop and urban wood reuse program.Short
7H
Increase funding for establishment care by 27% ($153,495) above current levels to account for new tree plantings in City-maintained vacant planting sites. Pursue grants.
Short
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 73
Guiding Principles | STRATEGIC PLAN
GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 8: Expand Canopy Cover
STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame
Existing trees will
be maintained, and
new trees will be
strategically planted
to increase canopy
cover equitably across
Temecula.
8A Increase Citywide canopy cover to 20% over the next 40 years.Long 8B
Develop a system to track annual tree plantings to ensure progress toward achieving a 20% canopy cover. Adjust annual tree planting goals based on Table 5 of the urban forest management plan.
Short, Ongoing
8C Develop minimum tree planting requirements for commercial and retail land uses. Medium
8D
Provide educational information to commercial property owners on the benefits of trees for businesses to encourage commercial property owners to plant and maintain trees.
Short
8E Implement a rewards program or acknowledgement program for commercial properties with exemplary tree cover. Short 8F
Pursue partnerships with Temecula Valley Unified School District to plant trees on school property and increase public school education about trees.
Medium
8G
Prioritize tree planting in portions of the City most in need of tree cover, based on the Priority Planting Scores identified in Section 2.4 of the urban forest management plan.
Ongoing
74 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
6 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 75
Ongoing Actions | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
ACTION NO.ACTION RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST
1A Explore opportunities for hosting community tree planting events to involve and educate community members in tree planting. Partner with community groups for volunteers.
PW, TCSD,
CD $
1B Prioritize tree plantings in land uses and communities with low canopy cover. PW, CD, P $$$ 1C Continue outreach efforts to underrepresented populations. PW, CD $ 1D Explore opportunities to plant trees in public spaces to create tree-dense gathering spaces.PW, CD, P $
1F Maintain the “Tree City USA” designation.PW $
1G Continue to celebrate Arbor Day with community events and tree plantings.PW, TCSD $ 2C Plant street trees according to the street tree master plan and Recommended Species List.PW, CD, P, LD $$$
3C
Implement phased removal and replacement of undesirable species. As trees age and require replacement, replace with appropriate species identified by the street tree master plan and Recommended Species List.
PW P $$
3D Plant trees in City-maintained vacant planting sites at a rate of 179 trees per year over the next 20 years (see Table 1-6 of the technical assessment). PW, CD $$ 7A Pursue tree planting opportunities through community volunteer events or collaborating with local organizations to reduce the cost of tree planting. PW, TCSD $ 8G Prioritize tree planting in portions of the City most in need of tree cover, based on the Priority Planting Scores identified in Section 2.4 of the urban forest management plan.PW, CD, P $$$ RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required
COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000)
6.1ONGOING ACTIONS
76 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN | Short Term Actions 1-5 Years
ACTION NO.ACTION RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST
2B Identify safe routes to school, bicycle routes, walking trails, routes to parks and recreational areas for tree planting.PW, CD, P $$
3B Update the City of Temecula Tree Policy and standard details to incorporate the recommendations in Section 1.2.1 of the technical assessment.PW $ 3E Implement a formative pruning program for young and newly planted trees to mitigate potential tree structure and safety issues.PW $
3G Adopt the Street Tree Master Plan and Recommended Species List (Appendix A) as the guiding standard for street tree selection.
PW, CD, P,
City $
3H Monitor trees rated as poor or dead in the City’s tree inventory to determine appropriate management actions.PW $
4A Provide guidance and educational materials to property owners regarding responsibility for maintaining trees in the public right-of-way and how to properly care for and water trees.
PW, TCSD,
CD $
4B Develop guidelines and educational materials for planting and siting of trees to reduce energy costs in support of the General Plan Air Quality Element. PW, CD $ 4C Develop an “Adopt a Tree” program to increase stewardship of trees on public and private property. PW, TCSD $ 5A Update the Chapter 8.48 Heritage Tree Ordinance per Table 2-2 of the technical assessment.PW, City $ 6A
Update Municipal Code Chapter 8.49 Tree Care and Preservation per recommendations in Table 2-1 of the technical assessment. Include requirements and guidelines for tree protection during construction.
PW, City $
6B Update Municipal Code Chapter 17.32 Water Efficiency and Landscape Design per Table 2-3 of the technical assessment.PW, City $
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required
COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000)
6.2SHORT TERM ACTIONS 1-5 YEARS
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 77
Short Term Actions 1-5 Years | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
ACTION NO.ACTION RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST
7a Pursue tree planting opportunities through community volunteer events or collaborating with local organizations to reduce the cost of tree planting. PW, TCSD $ 7g Pursue CAL FIRE grant funding to develop and urban wood reuse program.PW, P $ 7h Increase funding for establishment care by 27% ($153,495) above current levels to account for new tree plantings in City-maintained vacant planting sites. Pursue grants.PW $$$$ 7b
Increase funds available for the park and median tree budget so it will be sufficient to increase tree trimming capacity and maintain park and median trees on a 3- to 4-year pruning cycle.
PW $$$
7c Update the service level C district funding mechanism for contractor services on slopes to ensure adequate funding is available for tree maintenance.PW $$$ 7d Communicate the economic value of trees to decision makers.PW $ 8b
Develop a system to track annual tree plantings to ensure progress toward achieving a 20% canopy cover. Adjust annual tree planting goals based on Table 5 of the urban forest management plan.
PW $
8d Provide educational information to commercial property owners on the benefits of trees for businesses to encourage commercial property owners to plant and maintain trees.PW, CD $ 8e Implement a rewards program or acknowledgement program for commercial properties with exemplary tree cover. PW, CD $
8g Prioritize tree planting in portions of the City most in need of tree cover, based on the Priority Planting Scores identified in Section 2.4 of the urban forest management plan.PW, CD, P $$ SHORT TERM ACTIONS 1-5 YEARS (CONTINUED)
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required
COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000)
78 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN | Medium Term Actions 5-10 Years
ACTION NO.ACTION RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST
1E Fill all vacant planting sites and identify new planting sites, especially street trees to create tree-lined streets throughout Temecula.PW $$
2A
Ensure active transportation routes are densely planted to increase safety and shade along these routes. Identify safe routes to school, bicycle routes, walking trails, and routes to parks and recreational areas for tree planting.
PW $$
2D
Identify streets where trees are lacking and pursue tree planting opportunities along these routes, beginning with areas identified by community members during public input, which include Winchester Road, Nicolas Road, Pechanga Parkway, Temecula Parkway, Pauba Road, and in public rights-of-way within residential communities.
PW $$
2F Plant trees in Temecula’s parks, prioritizing those with low Priority Planting Scores per Table 4-11 in the technical assessment. PW $$$
3A Develop a system to track and monitor tree plantings and calculate greenhouse gas reduction attributed to tree plantings. PW $
3F
Explore partnerships for developing an urban wood reuse program, such as programs for tree removal and milling to turn removed trees into useable lumber, or promote the use of on-demand mulch drop programs.
PW, CD, P $
5B Create a performance bond requirement for replacement trees to ensure long-term successful establishment of replacement trees.PW, City $
6.3MEDIUM TERM ACTIONS 5-10 YEARS
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required
COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000)
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 79
Medium Term Actions 5-10 Years | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
ACTION NO.ACTION RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST
5C Create a map that identifies the heritage trees throughout the City.PW, P $ 5D Develop a program to increase funding for ongoing maintenance of heritage trees, similar to an “Adopt a Tree” program.PW $$
6C Update the Municipal Code and the General Plan to identify “landmark” trees that warrant special protections, per the Open Space Element of the General Plan. PW, City $ 6D
Update the Citywide Design Guidelines to reflect the urban forest management plan recommendations and street tree master plan/Recommended Tree Species List, which identify planter space requirements, utility compatibility, and tree spacing needs that vary by species.
PW, City $$
6e Update Municipal Code Section 17.24.505.H and the Citywide Design Guidelines to include more prescriptive requirements for parking lot trees and planter space. PW, City $ 6f
Update Municipal Code Section 17.22 to ensure minimum tree planting requirements are established for all Planned Development Overlay Zoning Districts (PDOs). Plant palette proposed for PDOs should be updated according to the Recommended Species List and the street tree master plan.
PW, City $
6g
Update the Bikeways and Trails Master Plan to include guidelines for planting trees to increase bicyclist and pedestrian safety, as well as to reflect standard arboriculture practice to measure trees by diameter at standard height, which is measured at 4.5 feet above the ground, for a more accurate depiction of tree size and maturity. This guideline should also be updated to reflect the Municipal Code definition of a protected tree, or heritage tree.
PW, P $
MEDIUM TERM ACTIONS 5-10 YEARS (CONTINUED)
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required
COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000)
80 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN | Medium Term Actions 5-10 Years
ACTION NO.ACTION RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST
6h
Update the Old Town and Uptown Specific Plan (SPA) Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards to reflect the updated Recommended Species List and the street tree master plan, and identify alternative options for tree and sidewalk conflict resolution (see Appendix C, Sidewalk Solutions).
PW, P, LD $
6i
Update the Best Management Practices Design Manual to reflect tree spacing requirements as identified in the Recommended Species List, the street tree master plan, and tree protection requirements in the Municipal Code.
PW, P $
7e Pursue opportunities to increase tree maintenance funds, such as grants, integrating funding into new development plans and implementing a Citywide fee program.
PW, CD, P,
City $
8c Develop minimum tree planting requirements for commercial and retail land uses. PW, CD, P, City $
8f Pursue partnerships with Temecula Valley Unified School District to plant trees on school property and increase public school education about trees. PW $$ 8f Pursue partnerships with Temecula Valley Unified School District to plant trees on school property and increase public school education about trees. PW $$ MEDIUM TERM ACTIONS 5-10 YEARS (CONTINUED)
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required
COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000)
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 81
Long Term Actions 10 Years+ | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
ACTION NO.ACTION RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST
7F Develop a strategy to increase tree maintenance funds as the City’s trees age and require increased maintenance costs. PW $$
8A Increase Citywide canopy cover to 20% over the next 40 years.PW $$$$
6.4LONG TERM ACTIONS 10 YEARS+
RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required
COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000)
82 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
MONITORING PLAN
7 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 83
VIBRANT CITIES LAB ASSESSMENT
The City can use the Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal- Setting Tool to monitor the implementation of the UFMP. The tool is used as an assessment to define the City’s current state of a specific area of urban forest sustainability. The user decides what the City’s current state of the metric is, and then sets where the goal metric should be. Each metric is assigned a point value, and the City is assigned a “Total Current Score” and a “Gap Score”, or how far off the current state is from the desired goal. A city that has a gap score between 20 to 40 is not far from achieving the goals of its urban forest program. Conversely, gap scores of 40+ indicates that a City is still implementing programs and policies to close the gap and develop a sustainable urban forest.
Temecula’s first assessment Willits’ first assessment was conducted on August 18, 2021, by the Parks and Landscape Maintenance Superintendent and the consultant team. Table 24 reflects the results from the first assessment, which set the baseline for the City’s “Total Current Score” at its pre-UFMP metrics.
Based on the first assessment, the City has a current rating of 13, with a gap score of 85. The City’s UFMP monitoring plan should be based around the Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal Setting Tool and be retaken each year to track, measure, and highlight progress. The assessment can also be used to demonstrate successes and justify additional funding asks to City Council. Since the City first took the assessment, several of the responses that had significant gaps such as the lack of a UFMP (5) and an urban tree canopy assessment (5), have already been achieved.
84 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
MONITORING PLAN | Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment
Table 21. Tree Canopy Goal Summary (1 of 5) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Canopy cover
The existing canopy cover for entire
municipality is 50%-75% of the desired
canopy.
1 The existing canopy is >75%-100% of desired.2 1
Inventory and
assessment
methodology
Inventory guides planning, management
decisions 2
Systematic comprehensive inventory system of
entire urban forest – with information tailored to
users and supported by mapping in municipality-
wide GIS
system. Provides for change analysis.
4 2
No urban tree canopy assessment.-1
Urban tree canopy assessment utilized
effectively to drive urban forest and green
infrastructure policy and practice municipality-
wide and at neighborhood or similar
management level
4 5
Publicly owned
trees
Complete tree inventory that includes
detailed tree condition ratings.2 Complete GIS tree inventory that includes detailed tree condition and risk ratings.4 2
Publicly owned
natural areas
Ecological structure and function of all
natural areas assessed and documented.3
Management plan focused on sustaining and,
where possible, improving overall ecological
structure and function while facilitating
appropriate public use. Plan should consider
impacts on contiguous natural areas [open space
corridors] outside the community’s borders
4 1
Private property
trees No information.-1 Bottom-up sample-based assessment, as well as basic aerial view 4 5
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 85CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 85 Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment | MONITORING PLAN
(2 of 5)
Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Relative
performance
index by species
No information.-1
All of the six most common species have higher
RPI scores than the average of all species in the
community
4 5
Use of native
vegetation
No coordinated focus on native
vegetation.-1
Use of native species is encouraged on a project-
appropriate basis in all areas;
invasive species are recognized and discouraged
on public and private lands
2 3
Align municipal
departments
Municipal departments/agencies take
actions impacting urban forest with
no cross-departmental coordination
or consideration of the urban forest
resource.
-1
Municipal policy implemented by formal
interdepartmental/ interagency working teams
on all municipal projects.
4 5
Engage residents
in planning and
implementation
Little or no citizen involvement or
neighborhood action.-1
Proactive outreach and coordination efforts
by municipality and NGO partners resulting in
widespread citizen involvement and structured
engagement among diverse neighborhood
groups.
4 5
Environmental
equity
Planting and outreach includes attention
to low canopy neighborhoods or areas.1
Equitable planting and outreach at the
neighborhood level is guided by strong
resident involvement in low canopy/high need
areas. Residents participate actively in
identifying needs for their neighborhoods,
planning, implementation and monitoring
4 3
Trees
acknowledged as
vital community
resource
Trees generally recognized as important
and beneficial.1
Urban forest recognized as vital to the
community’s environmental, social, and economic
well-being.
4 3
86 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
MONITORING PLAN | Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment
(3 of 5)
Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Engage
large private
landowners and
institutions
Municipality educates landowners,
provides technical assistance, sets goals
and provides incentives for managing
resources in accordance with plan.
1 Tree management plans developed with input
from community, and public access to the
property’s forest resource.
4 3
All utilities work
with municipality,
employ best
management
practices
Utilities take actions impacting urban
forest with no municipal coordination.1
Utilities are included in informal municipal teams
that communicate regularly and
collaborate on a project-specific basis.
3 2
Green industry
embraces goals,
high standards
Little or no cooperation among segments
of green industry or awareness of
municipality-wide urban forest goals and
objectives.
-1
Shared vision and goals and extensive committed
partnerships in place. Solid adherence to high
professional standards, and commitment to
credentialing and continuing education.
4 5
Develop
urban forest
management plan
No urban forest management plan -1
New or recent urban forest and green
infrastructure management plan which targets
public tree planting sites, protection and
maintenance based on assessment of anticipated
benefits ranging from stormwater to heat island
mitigation, public health, etc.
3 4
Cooperative
planning
with other
municipalities
Municipalities have no interaction with
each other or the broader region. No
regional planning or coordination on
urban forestry.
-1 Some urban forest planning and cooperation
across municipalities and regional agencies.2 3
Forestry plan
integrated into
other municipal
plans
Urban forestry plan mentions how it
could meet other municipal objectives or
inform other planning efforts.
-1
Once completed, urban forestry planning team
works with other agencies to align
current and future objectives.
2 3
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 87CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 87 Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment | MONITORING PLAN
(4 of 5)
Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Urban forestry
program capacity
Team has capacity in terms of trained
staff and equipment to achieve many
of the goals of the urban forest
management plan.
2 Team has capacity and will in the future
to achieve all goals of the urban forest
management plan, to maintain the resource over
time, and adapt management as circumstances
change.
4 2
Municipality-wide
urban forestry
funding
Funding sufficient for some proactive
management based on urban forest
management plan.
2 Sustained, long-term funding from multiple
municipal, regional, and/or state agencies,
along with private sources to implement a
comprehensive urban forest management plan
and provide for maintenance and adaptive
management as circumstances change.
4 2
Growing site
suitability
Appropriate tree species are considered
in site selection 1
Municipality-wide guidelines for the
improvement of planting site conditions and
selection of suitable species.
2 1
Tree
establishment
and maintenance
Some tree planting and establishment
occurs, but with limited overall
municipality-wide planning and post-
planting care.
-1
Comprehensive tree establishment plan
provides concrete guidance on most of the
following criteria: site selection, size, age class,
diversity of species, native plant choice, planting
protocols, and young tree care.
4 5
Management of
publicly owned
natural areas
No natural areas management plans or
implementation in effect.-1
Management plan in place for each publicly
owned natural area to facilitate appropriate
public use.
2 3
Policies that
foster good
urban forestry on
private lands
Strong tree protection ordinance
focused on maintaining mature trees with
effective procedures.
1 Policies regarding stormwater, site and
subdivision planning, zoning and other issues
that affect private forests are included in
management plan.
2 1
88 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
MONITORING PLAN | Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment
(5 of 5)
Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap
Tree protection
policy and
enforcement
Policies include construction standards
for on-site tree protection, establishment
and maintenance. Conforms to
and references ANSI Standards for
arboricultural practices (A300), safety
(Z133), and nursery stock (Z60.1), as well
as applicable ISA BMPs.
3 Integrated municipality-wide policies and
practices to protect public and private trees,
consistently enforced and with penalties
sufficient to deter violations.
4 1
Monitoring
Monitoring on a regular basis with
rotating schedule for each area. Monitors
are professionals or volunteers trained
to collect specific data required by
municipality. Multi-year data available for
trend analyses.
2 Monitoring adheres to the standards and
protocols established by the Urban Tree Growth
and Longevity network.
4 2
Tree risk
management
Citizens and city staff report tree safety
issues to the forestry department or
manager (e.g., 3-1-1 system, online form,
etc.). System tracks the time between
damage report and mitigation action.
1 Policies and ordinances in place to minimize
tree damage and removal on commercial
developments, and public capital. Protection
measures conform to ANSI A300 standards and
ISA BMPs.
3 2
Urban wood and
green waste
utilization
The majority of green waste is reused or
recycled – for energy, products, and other
purposes beyond chips or mulch.
2 Comprehensive plan and processes in place to
utilize all green waste one way or another, to the
fullest extent possible.
4 2
Total Current Score 13 Total Goal Rating 95
82 Total Gap Score
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 89CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 89 Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment | MONITORING PLAN
90 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
REFERENCES
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 91
REFERENCES
Ager, I.A., P. Palaiologos, C.R. Evers, M.A. Day, C. Ringo, and K. Short. 2019. Wildfire exposure to the wildland urban interface in the western US, Applied Geography, Volume
111: 102059, ISSN 0143-6228, https://doi.org/10.1016/
japgeog.2019.102059.
American Forests. 2022. Tree Equity Score Methodology.
Accessed May 20, 2022. https://treeequityscore.org/
methodology/.
American Lung Association. 2022. “Report Card: California” State of the Air. Riverside County. https://www.lung.org/ research/sota/city-rankings/states/california. Accessed December 9, 2022.
Barnett, L. and R. Farnbach. 2006. Temecula. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing.
Bliss, S. 2017. “Temecula Valley Museum.” History in the Making:
Vol. 10, Article 18. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=History-in-the-
Making.
Brigandi, P. 1998. Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation.
CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2021. “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local
Responsibility Zones as Recommended by CAL FIRE.”
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5924temecula.pdf . Accessed January 16, 2022.
CEC (California Energy Commission).2005. Our Changing
Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. CEC-500- 2006- 077. Accessed May 20, 2022. http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/ pdffiles/CA_climate_Scenarios.pdf.
City of Temecula. n.d. History of Temecula. https://www . temeculaca.gov/150/History-of-Temecula.
City of Temecula. 2021. City of Temecula Tree Inventory Data.
Conducted by ArborPro.
Dumbaugh, E. and J. L. Gattis. 2005. “Safe Streets, Livable Streets.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 71:(3), 283– 300, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976699 .
Dumbaugh, E. 2006. “Design of Safe Urban Roadsides: An
Empirical Analysis.” Transportation Research Record, 1961(1), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198106196100109 .
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2015. “First-of-Its-Kind Index Quantifies Urban Heat Islands.” Accessed May 20,
2022. https://calepa.ca.gov/2015/09/16/urbanheat/ .
Goss, M., D. Swain, J. Abatzoglou, A. Sarhadi, C. Kolden, P.
Williams, and N. Diffenbauh, 2020. “Climate change is
increasing the likelihood of extreme autumn wildfire
conditions across California.” Environmental Research
Letters. 15, 094016.
Griffin, D. and K.J. Anchukaitis. 2014. “How unusual is the 2012-2014 California drought?” Geophysical Research Letters. 41(24).
REFERENCES
92 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
REFERENCES
McPherson, E.G. 2003. “A benefit-cost analysis of ten street tree species in Modesto, California.” U.S. Journal of
Arboriculture 29(1): 1–9.
Miller, A. 2021. Historical Trails Through Temecula. https://www . temeculaca.gov/151/Historical-Trails-through-Temecula.
NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and NIDIS (National Integrated Drought Information System). 2021. “2021 National Integrated Drought Information System Annual Report.” https://www.drought.gov/documents/2021- national-integrated-drought-information-system-annual-
report.
OEHHA (California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment). 2021. CalEnviroScreen 4.0: 2021 Assessment. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen . Accessed January 16, 2022.
PIER Program (Public Interest Energy Research Program). 2011. Cal-Adapt: Exploring California's Climate Change
Research. Sacramento: California Energy Commission.
Accessed May 20, 2022. https://cal-adapt.org/ .
Preimsberger, D. 2009. Postmark Temecula. https://www.temecula . gov/154/150th-Anniversary-of-Temeculas-1st-Post.
Rancho California Water District. Drought Update. Accessed May 20, 2022. https://www.ranchowater.com/266/Drought-
Update.
Richards, N.A. 1983. “Diversity and Stability in a Street Tree Population.” Urban Ecology 7(2): 159–171.
Riverside County Flood Control District. 2009. “Flood Control District History.” https://rcflood.org/About-the-District/ Distric-History. Accessed January 16, 2022.
Risk Factor. n.d. “Flood Risk Overview: Does Temecula Have Risk?” https://riskfactor.com/city/Temecula-California/678120_fsid/ flood. Accessed January 16, 2022.
Topp, H.H. 1990. “Traffic Safety, Usability and Streetscape Effects of New Design Principles for Major Urban Roads.”
Transportation 16:297-310.
USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2020. I-Tree Eco: Software Package.
Wolf, K.L. 2005. “Business District Streetscapes, Trees, and Consumer Response.” Journal of Forestry 103(8): 396–400. https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2005_
wolf001.pdf.
Wolf, K.L. 2010. "Safe Streets – A Literature Review.” In Green Cities: Good Health ( www.greenhealth.washington.edu) .
College of the Environment, University of Washington.
World Population Review. 2021. Temecula, California. https:// worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/temecula-ca-
population.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 93
REFERENCES
94 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
INTRODUCTION
APPENDICES
A | RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIES PALETTE
B | SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS
C1 | ESTABLISHMENT CARE GUIDELINES
C2 | TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES
C3 | TREE PROTECTION DETAIL
C4 | ROOT PRUNING DETAIL
C5 | IRRIGATION DETAIL
D | NURSERY STOCK STANDARDS
E | HIGHLY FLAMMABLE PLANT LIST
F | PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS
G | FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
APPENDICES
TABLE OF
CONTENTS
APPENDIX
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 95
96 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX B | Recommended Tree Species Palette
Genus Species Common Name
Evergreen,
Deciduous,
Conifer
Size
Classification
Height
(Feet)
Crown
Spread
(Feet)
Spacing
between
trees
(Feet)
Minimum
Parkway
Width
(Feet)
Utility
Friendly
Water Use
Classification of
Landscape Species
(WUCOLS) rating
Fire
Hazard
Rating
Regionally
Native
Bioretention
Planter
Flow-Through
Planter
Tree Well
Filter
Afrocarpus falcatus fern pine E. Large 65 30-50 30-35 6 to 8 No Moderate/Medium Low No Agonis flexuosa peppermint tree E. Medium 35 15-30 20-30 5 to 10 No Moderate/Medium Low No Angophora costata Sydney red gum E. Large 65 30-50 30-35 6 to 8 No Low Low No Arbutus marina' marina madrone E. Medium 40-50 40 30-35 6 to 8 No Low Low No X X X Bauhinia variegata purple orchid tree D. Medium 35 20-35 15-20 5 to 10 No Moderate/Medium Low No Callistemon citrinus lemon bottle brush E. Medium 25 25 15-25 5 to 10 No Low Low No Callistemon viminalis weeping bottlebrush E. Small 20 15-20 15-20 2 to 5 Yes Low Low No Cassia leptophylla gold medallion tree D. Small 25 30 20-25 5 to 10 No Moderate/Medium Low No Casuarina cunninghamiana river she-oak E. Large 70 30 20-30 >10 No Low Low No Celtis
laevigata var.
reticulata netleaf hackberry
D. Medium 35 25-30 15-20 5 to 10 No Low Low No X
Cercis candensis Eastern Redbud D. Small -20 -20 20-25 3 to 4 Yes Moderate/Medium Low No X X X Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud D. Small -20 -20 20-25 3 to 4 Yes Low Low Yes X X X Chilopsis linearis desert willow D. Medium 20-40 20-40 20-25 3 to 4 No Very low Low Yes Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 3 to 4 Yes Low Low Yes Cordia boissieri Texas olive E. Small 20 10-15 10-15 2 to 5 Yes Low Low No Corymbia papuana Ghost Gum E. Medium 30-50 20-35 30-35 4 to 6 No Low Low No Dalbergia sissoo indian rosewood D. Large 60 30-40 25-30 >10 No Low Low No Ebenopsis ebano Texas ebony E. Medium 40 30-40 15-40 >10 No Low Low No Fraxinus greggi Gregg ash E. Small 20 15 15-20 4 to 6 Yes Unknown Low No Fraxinus griffithii Griffith ash E. Medium 45 25 20-25 6 to 8 No Unknown Low No Geijera parviflora Austrailian willow E. Medium 35 20 15-20 5 to 10 No Low Low No X Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese flame D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 6 to 8 Yes Moderate/Medium Low No X Koelreuteria paniculata Golden rain D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 4 to 6 Yes Low Low No X Laurus nobilis sweet bay E. Medium 15-40 15-30 20-25 3 to 4 No Low Low Yes X X X Lophostemon conferta Brisbane box E. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 4 to 6 No Moderate/Medium Low No Melaleuca linariifolia flaxleaf paperbark
E. Medium 30 20-25 15-20 5 to 10 No Moderate/
Medium Low No
Melaleuca styphelioides prickly melaleuca E. Medium 40 10-20 15-20 5 to 10 No Low Low No Parkinsonia praecox Sonoran palo verde D. Small 20 20 15-20 2 to 5 Yes Low Low No Parkinsonia x 'Desert Museum' desert museum palo verde D. Small 20 20-25 15-20 2 to 5 Yes Very Low Low No Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache D. Medium 40+ 40+ 30-35 6 to 8 No Low Low No Prosopis
glandulosa
'Maverick' thornless honey mesquite
D. Medium 35 25-35 15-25 5 to 10 No Low Low No
Prunus ilicifolia ssp. Lyonii Catalina cherry E. Medium 35 20-30 15-20 5 to 10 No Low Low Yes X X X Quercus agrifolia coast live oak E. Large 40+ 40+ 30-35 6 to 8 No Very Low Low Yes X Quercus engelmannii Engelmann oak D. Large 65 80-120 15-65 >10 No Very Low Low Yes Quercus fusiformis escarpment oak E. Medium 50 20-40 25-30 6 to 8 No Unknown Low No Quercus ilex holly oak E. Medium 30-60 30-60 30-35 6 to 8 No Low Low No X Quercus rubra red oak D. Large 80 50-70 30-35 >10 No Moderate/Medium Low No Quercus shumardii Shumard red oak D. Large 70 40 30-35 >10 No Inappropriate Low No Quercus suber cork oak E. Medium 20-40 20-40 20-25 3 to 4 No Low Low No X Searsia lancea African sumac E. Medium 30 20-35 20-25 5 to 10 No Low Low No Tristaniopsos laurina water gum
E. Small 35 15-30 20-25 4 to 6 Yes Moderate/
Medium Low No X X
Vachellia farnesiana sweet acacia D. Medium 25 15-25 15-25 5 to 10 Yes Very Low Low No
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 97
Sidewalk Solutions | APPENDIX C
SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS
1 TTrreeee aanndd SSiiddeewwaallkk CCoonnfflliicctt SSoolluuttiioonnss Trees and sidewalks are both key pieces of urban infrastructure that contribute to the pedestrian environment. Both contribut e to the character and sense of place in a community as well as provide health and economic benefits while offering a means for comfortable active transportation.
However, these two elements of the public streetscape are often in conflict with one another. Sidewalks and other hardscapes can preclude healthy tree growth and canopy development by limiting available soil volume, while tree roots often cause damage to sidewalks resulting in uplif t and fall and trip hazards which can be costly to repair. These conflicts and the associated costs often overshadow the benefits provided by trees in the urban landscape, resulting in the removal of trees or the decision to avoid planting trees altogether. In reality, tree and infrastructure conflicts are due to inadequate site design and exacerbated by planting the wrong tree species for the allotted space. The cost of sidewalk repairs or removing and replacing trees is a significant investment that can be avoided with proper site design and species selection. T here are a number of strategies for minimizing, avoiding or eliminating tree and sidewalk conflicts that can be employed by local or regional governments. Table 1 outlines tree and sidewalk conflict resolution tactics and design solutions that can be employed when replacing damaged sidew alks or installing new sidewalks. Employing these strategies is dependent upon policies, standards and design requirements, clear processes for implementation, and funding.
Local jurisdictions are required to abide by federal and state policies governing sidewalk design, such as the US Access B oard Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the California Building Code (CBC). Additionally, local jurisdictions can adopt local policies, standards, and plans that guide the management of trees and sidewalks. Examples include tree protection ordinances, street tree and sidewalk design requirements, tree planting standards and specifications, street tree lists, and long -range plans, such as urban forest management plans, bicycle and pedestrian plans/active transportation plans, the General Plan, and specific plans.
In order to successfully implement tree and sidewalk policies and standards, cities must have processes in place for implemen tation and maintenance, including review of development plans and strict code enforcement. If not managed within the same department, city departments managing street trees and sidewalks must maintain clear lines of communication and collaborate regularly. Approaching management of street trees and sidewalks within the same department can prove successful, as collaboration is easily facilitated. Forestry staff and engineers can jointly inspect conflicts or conduct plan review and work together to identify solutions. A formalized process will help guide these actions, such as outlined in the City of Seattle’s; many of the solutions provided in Table 1 are based on the Toolkit included in Trees and Sidewalks Operations.
Cities must have reliable funding for management and oversight of its tree and sidewalk programs in order to successfully resolve or avoid conflicts. This includes funding for staff, tree planting, plan review, inspection and code enforcement, and maintenance and repairs. Examples of possible revenue streams to fund forestry and sidewalk programs include allocations from the general fund, partnering with nonprofit organizations, or allocations from taxes or fees, such as a gas tax, utility tax or development impact fees. Additional funding may also come from less traditional approaches, such as establishing a City nursery or composting program and offering these products for sale.
98 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX C | Sidewalk Solutions
SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS
2 TTaabbllee 11.. TTrreeee aanndd SSiiddeewwaallkk CCoonnfflliicctt SSoolluuttiioonnss SSoolluuttiioonn TTyyppee PPrrooss CCoonnss
EEssttiimmaatteedd
CCoosstt
(($$––$$$$$$$$))
UUsseeffuull LLiiffee
((YYeeaarrss--
DDeeccaaddeess--
CCeennttuurriieess)) EExxaammppllee IImmaaggee
MMaatteerriiaallss
TThhee ffoolllloowwiinngg ssiiddeewwaallkk ssoolluuttiioonnss pprreesseenntt vvaarriioouuss mmaatteerriiaallss ffoorr rreeppllaacceemmeenntt//rreeppaaiirr ooff aa ddaammaaggeedd ssiiddeewwaallkk tthhaatt mmaayy bbee uusseedd iinnsstteeaadd ooff ccoonnccrreettee..
Asphalt • Short-term to medium-
term solution
• Low initial cost
• More flexible than
concrete
• May be used as a
repair/replacement or for
new sidewalks
• Easily repaired
• Not widely used,
creating conflicts with
appearance and visual
character
• Useful life can vary
greatly
• Useful life shorter than
that concrete
$$
($22 per
linear foot)
Decades
Image Source: Seattle Department of
Transportation
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 99
Sidewalk Solutions | APPENDIX C
SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS
3 Pavers • Many types, materials,
and colors available
• More flexible than
concrete, providing room
for continued tree root
growth
• May be used as
temporary repair or
replacement, or when
installing new sidewalk at
the same time as trees
• Requires cutting to fit
around other
infrastructure (e.g.,
utilities, etc.)
• Not all available types
and materials are
suitable for all
locations, as required
depth of excavation
may vary
• Durability varies by type
$$–$$$
($10 to $50
per square
foot)
Decades
Image Source: Carroll’s Building Materials n.d.
Pervious
Concrete
• Allows air and water to
reach soil
• May encourage deeper
root growth and deter
shallow root growth,
reducing root damage to
sidewalks
• Provides better growing
conditions
• Requires deeper
excavation for
installation of subbase
layers
• Requires more
maintenance than
standard concrete
$$$–$$$$
($35 per
linear foot)
Decades
Image Source: Bay Area Pervious Concrete
100 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX C | Sidewalk Solutions
SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS
4 Porous Asphalt • Allows water to pass
through to soil
• May be used for
replacement of large
segments of sidewalk or
installation of new
sidewalks where
infiltration is desirable
(e.g., adjacent to
bioretention)
• Cannot be produced in
small quantities and
should only be used
when long sidewalk
segments are being
installed (e.g., multiple
blocks)
$–$$$
($30 per
linear foot)
Decades
Image Source: Porous Pave
Decomposed
Granite
• May be used as a
pathway or walkway
surface, or as a finished
surface on top of planting
soil in tree pits rather
than mulch
• Provides flexible but
walkable surface near
tree roots
• Best used in parks on
walking and cycling
paths, or similar settings
• May be used as a
temporary repair near
root zones or for
installation of new
pathways or walkways
• Not recommended for
busy pedestrian routes
(best in residential
areas)
• Requires more
maintenance than
asphalt or concrete, as
uneven settling can
occur
• Americans with
Disabilities Act
compliance may require
binders and regular
maintenance
$–$$
($12 per
linear foot)
Years
Image Source: Bike Orlando
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 101
Sidewalk Solutions | APPENDIX C
SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS
5 AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee SSiiddeewwaallkk DDeessiiggnn CCoonnssttrruuccttiioonn MMeetthhooddss TThhee ffoolllloowwiinngg ssiiddeewwaallkk ssoolluuttiioonnss pprreesseenntt aalltteerrnnaattiivvee ssiiddeewwaallkk ddeessiiggnn aanndd ccoonnssttrruuccttiioonn mmeetthhooddss ttoo bbeetttteerr aaccccoommmmooddaattee ttrreeeess aanndd rreessiisstt ddaammaaggee ttoo ssiiddeewwaallkkss..
Reinforced or
Thicker Slab
• Reinforcing concrete with
steel rebar or wire mesh
and/or using a thicker
slab helps resist uplift of
tree roots
• May be used to correct
uplift after other
corrective actions have
been taken
• May not be compatible
with future utility
installation
• Should not be used
where additional root
growth is anticipated
(i.e., sufficient soil
volume should be
provided)
$$–$$$
($60 per
linear foot
for
reinforced
slab and
$40 per
linear foot
for 4-inch
thickness)
Decades
Image Source: E. F. Gilman
Expansion Joints • Allow for some movement
of concrete
• Used to control the
location of cracking
• May be used as repair or
replacement or for new
sidewalks near existing
trees (where roots may
be pruned prior to
installation and
substantial root growth is
not anticipated)
• Should not be used
where significant
additional root growth is
anticipated (i.e.,
sufficient soil volume
should be provided)
• Short term solution
$
(varies)
Decades
Image Source: S. Kubiak and V. Kubiak
102 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX C | Sidewalk SolutionsSIDEWALK SOLUTIONS
6 Monolithic
Sidewalk
• The continuous
installation of concrete
with no grade change
between sidewalk and
street has greater weight
(mass) to resist tree root
uplift
• Reduces potential for
future weakness in
pavement infrastructure
• May be used in new
development and in
redevelopment
• Consideration must be
given to impacts related
to stormwater runoff
and drainage patterns
• Not ideal for areas
where new root growth
is expected (new
plantings or continued
growth)
$$$
($60 per
linear foot)
Century
Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation
Tree
Pits/Expanded
Tree Pits
• Alternative to planting
strips where maintaining
sidewalk width is
important (e.g., business
districts)
• May be used in new
development where tree
pit sizing and tree
selection are coordinated
(“right tree, right place”)
or in existing
development where
sufficient space is
available to expand
existing tree pits
• Must establish
minimum sizing
requirements to ensure
adequate soil volume
• Continuous planter
strips are preferred
where feasible
$
($15 per
square yard
for widening
existing tree
pits.
No
additional
cost if
implemente
d in new
developmen
t design)
Decades
Image Source: Morristown Shade Commission
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 103
Sidewalk Solutions | APPENDIX CSIDEWALK SOLUTIONS
7 Bridging • Provides grade
separation between tree
root zone and sidewalk
• Does not require
compacted subgrade
allowing tree roots to
grow in soil
• Variety of materials can
be used such as concrete
or steel panels
• May be used as repair or
replacement of damaged
sidewalk or to preserve a
high value tree
• Site specific grading
requirements may
prevent use of this
technique
• A nonslip surface
treatment is required
for metal/steel
materials
• Additional Americans
with Disabilities Act
requirements related to
grade differentials
greater than 18 inches
$$$$
($225 per
linear foot)
Decades
Image Source: E. Gilman
Curb Extensions
(Bulb-Outs)
• Increases pedestrian
safety through traffic
calming and shortening
the crossing distance for
pedestrians
• Provides additional root
growth area reducing
likelihood of root damage
to sidewalks
• Provides flexibility for tree
species selection
• May be used in new
development or as
expansion of sidewalks
and planting space in
redevelopment
• Must consider impacts
to drainage and existing
utilities
• Must consider site
specific transportation
conditions or impacts,
including driver sight
lines as well as bicycle
and pedestrian facilities
$$$–$$$$
($50 per
linear foot
excluding
drainage
and ramps)
Century
Image Source: Dylan Passmore
104 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX C | Sidewalk SolutionsSIDEWALK SOLUTIONS
8 Curb
Realignment
• Shifts curb location to
widen the planting strip
• May be used for new
development or
redevelopment to provide
additional space for new
or existing trees
• Requires sufficient
street widths
• Must consider impacts
to other infrastructure
and utilities
• Must consider site
specific transportation
conditions or impacts
$$$–$$$$
($50 per
linear foot
excluding
drainage
modification
and ramps
Minimal
additional
cost if part
of new
developmen
t design)
Century
Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation
Curving or Offset
Sidewalk
• Allows for walkways that
meander around planting
areas, allowing trees
more grow space
• Increases pedestrian
safety by separating
sidewalks from vehicular
traffic
• May be used in new
development or
redevelopment to
preserve existing trees or
to provide sufficient grow
space for new plantings
• Requires adequate
space in the right of
way
• May require easement
for use of private
property
$$–$$$
($38 per
linear foot)
Image Source: Bartlett Tree Care
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 105
Sidewalk Solutions | APPENDIX C
SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS
9 Easement • May allow for use of
private property where
additional space is
needed
• Provides larger planting
area for new or existing
trees
• Requires coordination
with property owner
$–$$$
(Varies
based on
market
value or
dedication
from
property
owner)
Century
Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation
Suspended
Pavement
Systems
• Provides space and soil
volume for new tree
plantings in areas that
could not have supported
tree root growth
• Prevents root damage to
pavement if implemented
at the correct time
• Involves removing and
repaving sidewalks if
they already exist in the
areas
• Site specific grading
requirements need to
be taken into
consideration
$$$–$$$$
(15-
$25/cubic
foot)
Decades
Image Source: DeepRoot
106 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX C | Sidewalk Solutions
SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS
10 Lowered Tree
Sites
• Can help prevent soil
compaction due to
pedestrian traffic
• Can bring trees to streets
with limited planting
space and few
underground
infrastructure conflicts
• Can conflict with
underground
infrastructure; can only
be implemented in
areas that have limited
potential for conflict
• Lowered sites tend to
accumulate trash and
other debris, presenting
a maintenance issue
• Design must include a
drainage plan because
soil can be easily
oversaturated
$$$–$$$$ Decades
Image Source: Storm Tree
RRoooott
TThhee ffoolllloowwiinngg ssiiddeewwaallkk ssoolluuttiioonnss pprreesseenntt ddeessiiggnn ssoolluuttiioonnss tthhaatt ssppeecciiffiiccaallllyy aaddddrreessss ttrreeee rroooottss..
Root Barriers • Deters root growth to
limit damage to
pavement
• May be added after tree
planting to retrofit or
address root issues
• Will not address all
issues from tree roots,
but will help deter
$
($8 per
linear foot)
Decades
Image Source: Green Tech
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 107
Sidewalk Solutions | APPENDIX C
SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS
11 Foam Underlay • Provides a foam layer of
support between
pavement and tree roots
to help prevent damage
• Can offer an alternative
to root pruning when a
sidewalk needs to be
replaced but root pruning
would severely damage
the tree
• Best used to repair
damage caused by
mature tree roots
• Short term solution
• Not a good option for
tree species that have
rapid root growth
$–$$
($150 to
$250 per
location)
Years
Image Source: Costello and Jones
Modified Gravel
Layer
• Suppressed root growth
• More longevity than foam
underlay and serves the
same purpose
• Thickness of gravel
around roots can be
adjusted to
accommodate size
• Could wound tree roots
making the trees more
susceptible to soilborne
pathogens
• 4 inches of gravel is
needed, if excavation
would damage critical
existing roots
• Modified Gravel Layer
may not be an option
$
($0.70 per
square foot
at depth of 4
inches)
Decades
Image Source: E. Gilman
108 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX C | Sidewalk Solutions
SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS
12 Root Paths • Can proactively direct
paths for roots to grow,
when designed at the
beginning of planting
• Help direct roots around
utilities when planting
space is limited
• Drainage away from or
out of root path will
need to be considered
$–$$
($600 to
$800 per
tree)
Decades
Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation
Steel Plates • Can be used as an
alternative to root
pruning
• Can be used to help
mitigate issues with roots
that have already
developed (reactionary)
• Can conflict with
underground utilities
• Requires sidewalk to be
removed and replaced
for installation
$$–$$$
($500 to
$1,000
per site)
Decades
Image Source: Gordan Mann
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 109
Sidewalk Solutions | APPENDIX C
SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS
13 SSoouurrcceess::
American Planning Association. 2009. Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community Development. Planning Advisor y Service Report Number 555.
Bassuk et al. 2015; Bike Orlando 2020; Casey Trees 2008; Costello and Jones 2003; Elmendorf 2008; City of New York Parks & Recreation 2014; City of Seattle 2011; City of Seattle Department of Transportation 2014, 2015; City of Seattle Public Utilities 2015; Mann n.d.; Smiley 2008 Bassuk, N., Denig, B., Haffner, T. Grabosky, J., and Trowbridge, P. 2015. CU-Structural Soil ®: A Comprehensive Guide. Urban Horticulture Institute, Cornell University. http://www.hort.cornell.edu/uhi/outreach/pdfs/CU-Structural%20Soil%20-%20A%20Comprehensive%20Guide.pdf .
Bike Orlando. 2020. Ward Park, Winter Park, FL Biking, Hiking. E-Z Map, 35+ Photos. Accessed May 2021. https://www.bikeorlando.net/ward-park-winter-park.htm .
Casey Trees. 2008. Tree Space Design: Growing the Tree Out of The Box. Accessed May 2021. http://caseytrees.org/resources/publications/treespacedesign/ .
Carroll’s Building Materials. n.d. “Classic Hexagon Pavers.” Accessed May 2021. https://carrollsbuildingmaterials.com/landscape-products/pavers-profiles-finishes/classic- hexagon-pavers/.
Costello, L. R. and K. S. Jones. 2003. Reducing Infrastructure Damage By Tree Roots: A Compendium of Strategies. Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture.
City of New York Parks & Recreation. February 2014. Tree Planting Standards. Accessed May 2021. http://www.nycgovparks.org/pagefiles/53/Tree-Planting-Standards.pdf .
City of Seattle. 2011. Seattle Right-of-Way Improvements Manual. https://www.seattle.gov/rowmanual/manual/ .
City of Seattle Department of Transportation. 2014. Street Tree Manual. Accessed May 2021. http://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/sdot/about/documentlibrary /streettreemanualweb.pdf.
City of Seattle Department of Transportation. 2015. Tree Sidewalks Operations Plan. City of Seattle Public Utilities. 2015. Standard Specifications of Municipal Construction. Plans 100a, 421, 424, 425, 430.
Elmendorf, W. 2008. Planting and Aftercare of Community Trees. Penn State University Extension.
Green Tech. 2021. Ribbed Root Barrier Panels. https://www.green-tech.co.uk/hard-landscaping/tree-pit-root-barriers/ribbed-root-barrier-panels Mann, Gordon. N.d. Sidewalk and Root Conflicts: Mitigating the Conflict - An Overview. Accessed May 2021, on Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) website at:
http://mrsc.org/getmedia/4DD1A628-BD5A-49E3-B1EE-3D09525F63BE/m58mannmade.asp .
Martin, Justin. 2017. Trees and Sidewalks: A Strategic Approach to Conflicts. Green Infrastructure for Your Community. https://www.deeproot.com/blog/blog-entries/trees-and- sidewalks-a-strategic-approach-to-conflicts
Smiley, E. Thomas. 2008. “Comparison of Methods to Reduce Sidewalk Damage from Tree Roots,” inArboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(3):179 -183.
110 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX D1 | Establishment Care Guidelines
Weeding
■Remove all the grass and
weeds growing in the tree
basin or tree well by hand.
■To avoid root damage, do not
dig into the soil with a shovel
or hoe.
■To avoid trunk damage, do not
use a weed whacker or
lawnmower for weed removal.
Pruning
■Newly planted trees may require minor pruning to
remove branches damaged during the planting
process and/or dead branches.
■Trees should be pruned sparingly. All other pruning
should be withheld until the second or third growing
season following tree planting.
■Sucker growth (sprouts from the base of the plant or
from roots) should be removed.
■All pruning should be conducted in accordance with
ANSI A 300 pruning standards.
Repair and extend berms
■Newly planted trees should have a 4”- 6” high berm just outside the root ball to direct water to where it is needed.
■As a tree grows and matures, extend the berm to the drip line.
Ensure proper tree support
■Tree stakes should be firmly secured 2’ deep
vertically in the soil.
■Leaning or loose stakes should be re-installed
and secured in the soil.
■Tree ties should be placed in the middle to
lower portion of the tree and allow tree move-
ment 3”- 4” in each direction.
■If the roots of the tree are established, remove
the stakes and tree ties. This typically occurs
two – three years after planting.
Dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
Dr
i
p
l
i
n
e
Mulch
■Use only organic materials such as chipped trees for mulch. ■Apply a layer 2”- 3” thick inside the tree basin and covering the berm. ■Keep mulch 4” away from the trunk of the tree to avoid moisture building on the trunk, which can lead to rot and fungal growth.
Establishment CareGuidelines
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 111
Tree Protection Guidelines | APPENDIX D2
Appendix D – Tree Protection Measures
The following sections are included as general guidelines for tree protection from construction impacts. The measures presented should be monitored by arborists and enforced by contractors and developers for maximum benefit to the trees.
Tree Protection Measures Prior to Construction
Fencing: All remaining trees that will not be relocated or removed should be preserved and protected in place. Trees within approximately 15 feet of proposed construction activity should be temporarily fenced with chain link or other material satisfactory to City planning staff throughout grading and construction activities. The fencing should be installed 3 feet outside of the dripline of each tree (or edge of canopy for cluster of trees), be 4 feet tall, and staked every 6 feet. The fenced area should be considered the tree protection zone (TPZ) unless proximate construction required temporary removal.
Pre-Construction Meeting: A pre-construction meeting should be held between all contractors (including grading, tree removal/pruning, builders, etc.) and the arborist. The arborist will instruct the contractors on tree protection practices and answer any questions. All equipment operators and spotters, assistants, or those directing operators from the ground, should provide written acknowledgement of their receiving tree protection training. This training should include information on the location and marking of protected trees, the necessity of preventing damage, and the discussion of work practices that will accomplish such.
Protection and Maintenance During Construction
Once construction activities have begun the following measures should be adhered to:
Equipment Operation and Storage: Avoid heavy equipment operation around the trees. Operating heavy machinery around the root zones of trees will increase soil compaction, which decreases soil aeration and subsequently reduces water penetration in the soil. All heavy equipment and vehicles should, at minimum, stay out of the fenced TPZ, unless where specifically approved in writing and under the supervision of a Certified Arborist or as provided by the approved landscape plan.
Storage and Disposal: Do not store or discard any supply or material, including paint, lumber, concrete overflow, etc. within the protection zone. Remove all foreign debris within the protection zone; it is important to leave the duff, mulch, chips, and leaves around the retained trees for water retention and nutrients. Avoid draining or leakage of equipment fluids near retained trees. Fluids such as gasoline, diesel, oils, hydraulics, brake and transmission fluids, paint, paint thinners, and glycol (anti-freeze) should be disposed of properly. Keep equipment parked at least 50 feet away from retained trees to avoid the possibility of leakage of equipment fluids into the soil. The effect of toxic equipment fluids on the retained trees could lead to decline and death.
Grade Changes: Grade changes, including adding fill, are not permitted within the TPZ without special written authorization and under the supervision of a Certified Arborist or as provided by the approved landscape plan. Lowering the grade within this area will necessitate cutting main support and feeder roots, jeopardizing the health and structural integrity of the tree(s). Adding soil, even temporarily, on top of the existing grade will compact the soil further, and decrease both water and air availability to the trees’ roots.
112 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX D2 | Tree Protection Guidelines
Tree Protection Measures Page 2
Moving Construction Materials: Care will be taken when moving equipment or supplies near the trees, especially overhead. Avoid damaging the tree(s) when transporting or moving construction materials and working around the tree (even outside of the fenced tree protection zone). Above ground tree parts that could be damaged (e.g., low limbs, trunks) should be flagged with red ribbon. If contact with the tree crown is unavoidable, prune the conflicting branch(es) using International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards.
Root Pruning: Except where specifically approved in writing or as provided in Attachment 3, all trenching should be outside of the fenced protection zone. Roots primarily extend in a horizontal direction forming a support base to the tree similar to the base of a wineglass. Where trenching is necessary in areas that contain tree roots, prune the roots using a Dosko root pruner or equivalent. All cuts should be clean and sharp, to minimize ripping, tearing, and fracturing of the root system. The trench should be made no deeper than necessary.
Irrigation: Trees that have been substantially root pruned (30% or more of their root zone) will require irrigation for the first 12 months. The first irrigation should be within 48 hours of root pruning. They should be deep watered every 2 to 4 weeks during the summer and once a month during the winter (adjust accordingly with rainfall). One irrigation cycle should thoroughly soak the root zones of the trees to a depth of 3 feet. The soil should dry out between watering; avoid keeping a consistently wet soil. Designate one person to be responsible for irrigating (deep watering) the trees.
Check soil moisture with a soil probe before irrigating. Irrigation is best accomplished by installing a temporary above ground micro-spray system that will distribute water slowly (to avoid runoff) and evenly throughout the fenced protection zone but never soaking the area located within 6 feet of the tree trunk, especially during warmer months.
Pruning: Do not prune any of the trees until all construction is completed. This will help protect the tree canopies from damage. All pruning should be completed under the direction of an ISA Certified Arborist and using ISA guidelines. Only dead wood should be removed from tree canopies.
Washing: During construction in summer and autumn months, wash foliage of trees adjacent to the construction sites with a strong water stream every two weeks in early hours before 10:00 a.m. to control mite and insect populations.
Inspection: An ISA Certified Arborist should inspect the impacted preserved trees on a monthly basis during construction. A report comparing tree health and condition to the original, pre-construction baseline should be submitted following each inspection. Photographs of representative trees are to be included in the report on a minimum annual basis.
Maintenance After Construction
Once construction is complete the fencing may be removed and the following measures performed to sustain and enhance the vigor of the preserved trees.
Mulch: Provide a 4-inch mulch layer under the canopy of trees. Mulch should include clean, organic mulch that will provide long-term soil conditioning, soil moisture retention, and soil temperature control.
Pruning: The trees will not require regular pruning. Pruning should only be done to maintain clearance and remove broken, dead or diseased branches. Pruning should only take place following a recommendation by an ISA Certified Arborist and performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist. No more than 20% of the canopy should be removed at any one time. All pruning should conform to ISA standards.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 113
Tree Protection Guidelines | APPENDIX D2
Tree Protection Measures Page 3
Watering: The natural trees that are not disturbed should not require regular irrigation, other than the 12 months following substantial root pruning. However, soil probing will be necessary to accurately monitor moisture levels. Especially in years with low winter rainfall, supplemental irrigation for the trees that sustained root pruning and any newly planted trees may be necessary. The trees should be irrigated only during the winter and spring months.
Watering Adjacent Plant Material: All plants near the trees should be compatible with water requirements of said trees. The surrounding plants should be watered infrequently with deep soaks and allowed to dry out in-between, rather than frequent light irrigation. The soil should not be allowed to become saturated or stay continually wet. Irrigation spray should not hit the trunk of any tree. A 60-inch dry-zone should be maintained around all tree trunks. An aboveground micro-spray irrigation system is recommended over typical underground pop-up sprays.
Washing: Periodic washing of the foliage is recommended during construction but no more than once every 2 weeks. Washing should include the upper and lower leaf surfaces and the tree bark. This should continue beyond the construction period at a less frequent rate with a high-powered hose only in the early morning hours. Washing will help control dirt/dust buildup that can lead to mite and insect infestations.
Spraying: If the trees are maintained in a healthy state, regular spraying for insect or disease control should not be necessary. If a problem does develop, an ISA Certified Arborist should be consulted; the trees may require application of insecticides to prevent the intrusion of bark-boring beetles and other invading pests. All chemical spraying should be performed by a licensed applicator under the direction of a licensed pest control advisor.
Inspection: All trees that were impacted during construction within the TPZ should be monitored by an ISA Certified Arborist for the first 5 years after construction completion. The Arborist should submit an annual report, photograph each tree and compare tree health and condition to the original, pre-construction baseline.
114 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX D3 | Tree Protection Detail
TREE PROTECTION
Crown drip line or other limit of Tree Protection area. See tree preservation plan for fence alignment.
4'
-
0 "
Maintain existing
grade with the tree
protection fence
unless otherwise
indicated on the
plans.
2" x 6' steel posts
or approved equal.
Tree Protection
fence: High density
polyethylene fencing
with 3.5" x 1.5"
openings; Color-
orange. Steel posts
installed at 8' o.c.
5" thick
layer of mulch.
Notes:
1- See specifications for additional tree
protection requirements.
2- If there is no existing irrigation, see
specifications for watering requirements.
3- No pruning shall be performed except
by approved arborist.
4- No equipment shall operate inside the
protective fencing including during fence
installation and removal.
5- See site preparation plan for any
modifications with the Tree Protection
area.
SECTION VIEW
KEEP OUT
TREE
PROTECTION
AREA
8.5" x 11"
sign
laminated in
plastic spaced
every 50'
along the
fence.
URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014
OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 115
Root Pruning Detail | APPENDIX D2
116 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX D5 | Irrigation Detail
IRRIGATION BUBBLER (2) W/ LAYOUT
18 "
m
i
n
.
PLAN VIEW
SECTION VIEW
Pressure compensating bubbler shall be
set 1" above finished grade. (See
irrigation legend for make and model).
Swing joint. See detail.
Finished grade.
Sch. 40 PVC 90° elbow slip to thread.
Lateral line irrigation. (See irrigation
plans for sizing).
Sch. 40 PVC 90° elbow slip to thread.
Sch. 40 PVC Tee or 90° elbow.
Edge of root ball.
Existing or modified soil. (See
specifications for soil modification).
Lateral line irrigation. (See irrigation
plans for sizing).
Notes:
1- All irrigation fittings shall be Sch.
40 PVC unless specified otherwise.
2- All threaded connections from
Sch. 40 to Sch. 80 PVC shall be
made using teflon tape.
3- Contractor shall settle the area
around the bubbler and edge of the
root ball so that all irrigation flows
through the root ball.
Edge of root ball. Settle backfill so that
irrigation flows through the root ball.
Swing joint. See detail.
URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014
OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
Example
A B Aspect
Ratio
2.50"1.80"0.72
2.0"2.0"1.0
2.50"2.0"0.80
4.0"3.0"0.75
CROWN OBSERVATIONS - HIGH BRANCHED
A
B
A B
Notes:
1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected.
Example
A B Aspect
Ratio
1.50"0.50"0.33
2.50"0.90"0.36
2.0"1.00"0.50
2.50"1.60"0.64
One central leader
(No codominant
leaders)
Aspect ratio is less
than 0.66.
Aspect ratio is
greater than 0.66.
Multiple leaders
(Several codominant
leaders)
ACCEPTABLE
REJECTABLE
A
BA
B
A
B B
Aspect ratio of B:A less than 0.66
as measured 1" above the top of
the branch union.
Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union.
URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014
OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 117
Nursery Stock Standards | APPENDIX E
Example
A B Aspect
Ratio
2.50"1.80"0.72
2.0"2.0"1.0
2.50"2.0"0.80
4.0"3.0"0.75
CROWN OBSERVATIONS - HIGH BRANCHED
A
B
A B
Notes:
1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected.
Example
A B Aspect
Ratio
1.50"0.50"0.33
2.50"0.90"0.36
2.0"1.00"0.50
2.50"1.60"0.64
One central leader
(No codominant
leaders)
Aspect ratio is less
than 0.66.
Aspect ratio is
greater than 0.66.
Multiple leaders
(Several codominant
leaders)
ACCEPTABLE
REJECTABLE
A
BA
B
A
B B
Aspect ratio of B:A less than 0.66
as measured 1" above the top of
the branch union.
Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union.
URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014
OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
118 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX E | Nursery Stock Standards
Example
A B Aspect
Ratio
2.50"1.80"0.72
2.0"2.0"1.0
2.50"2.0"0.80
4.0"3.0"0.75
CROWN OBSERVATIONS - LOW BRANCHED
A
B
A B
Example
A B Aspect
Ratio
1.50"0.50"0.33
2.50"0.90"0.36
2.0"1.00"0.50
2.50"1.60"0.64
Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66
One central leader
(No codominant
leaders)
Aspect ratio is less
than 0.66.
Aspect ratio is
greater than 0.66.
Multiple leaders
(Several codominant
leaders)
ACCEPTABLE
REJECTABLE
A
B
B
A
Aspect ratio of B:A less than 0.66
as measured 1" above the top of
the branch union.
A
B B
Notes:
1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected.
URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014
OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 119
Nursery Stock Standards | APPENDIX E
CROWN OBSERVATION DETAIL - MULTI
ACCEPTABLE
REJECTABLE
Aspect ratio is greater
than 0.66.
Aspect ratio is
less than 0.66.
Example
A B Aspect
Ratio
2.50"1.80"0.72
2.0"2.0"1.0
2.50"2.0"0.80
4.0"3.0"0.75
A
B
A B
Example
A B Aspect
Ratio
1.50"0.50"0.33
2.50"0.90"0.36
2.0"1.00"0.50
2.50"1.60"0.64
A
BA
B
A
B B
Aspect ratio of B:A less than 0.66
as measured 1" above the top of
the branch union.
Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union.Notes:
1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected.
URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014
OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
120 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX F | Highly Flammable Plant List
UNDESIRABLE PLANT LIST
The following species are highly flammable and should be avoided when planting within the first 50 feet adjacent to a structure. The plants listed below are more susceptible to burning, due to rough or peeling bark, production of large amounts of litter, vegetation that contains oils, resin, wax, or pitch, large amounts of dead material in the plant, or plantings with a high dead to live fuel ratio. Many of these species, if existing on the property and adequately maintained (pruning, thinning, irrigation, litter removal, and weeding), may remain as long as the potential for spreading a fire has been reduced or eliminated.
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Abies species
Acacia species
Adenostoma sparsifolium**
Adenostoma fasciculatum**
Agonis juniperina
Araucaria species
Artemesia californica**
Bambusa species
Cedrus species
Chamaecyparis species
Coprosma pumila
Cryptomeria japonica
Cupressocyparis leylandii
Cupressus forbesii**
Cupressus glabra
Cupressus sempervirens
Dodonea viscosa
Eriogonum fasciculatum**
Eucalyptus species
Heterotheca grandiflora**
Juniperus species
Larix species
Lonicera japonica
Miscanthus species
Muehlenbergia species**
Palmae species
Picea species
Pickeringia Montana**
Pinus species
Podocarpus species
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Rosmarinus species
Salvia mellifera**
Taxodium species
Taxus species
Thuja species
Tsuga species
Urtica urens**
Fir Trees
Acacia (trees, shrubs, groundcovers)
Red Shanks
Chamise
Juniper Myrtle
Monkey Puzzle, Norfolk Island Pine
California Sagebrush
Bamboo
Cedar
False Cypress
Prostrate Coprosma
Japanese Cryptomeria
Leylandii Cypress
Tecate Cypress
Arizona Cypress
Italian Cypress
Hopseed Bush
Common Buckwheat
Eucalyptus
Telegraph Plant
Junipers
Larch
Japanese Honeysuckle
Eulalia Grass
Deer Grass
Palms
Spruce Trees
Chaparral Pea
Pines
Fern Pine
Douglas Fir
Rosemary
Black Sage
Cypress
Yew
Arborvitae
Hemlock
Burning Nettle
** San Diego County native species
References: Gordon, H. White, T.C. 1994. Ecological Guide to Southern California Chaparral Plant Series. Cleveland National Forest.
Willis, E. 1997. San Diego County Fire
Interface Development Standards
City of Oceanside, California. 1995. Vegetation Management. Landscape Development Manual. Community Services Department, Engineering Division.
City of Vista, California 1997. Undesirable Plants. Section 18.56.999.
Landscaping Design, Development and Maintenance Standards. www.bewaterwise.com . 2004. Fire-resistant California Friendly Plants.
www.ucfpl.ucop.edu . 2004. University of California, Berkeley, Forest Products Laboratory, College of Natural Resources. Defensible Space Landscaping in the Urban/Wildland Interface. A Compilation of Fire Performance Ratings of Residential Landscape Plants.
County of Los Angeles Fire Department. 1998. Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines. Appendix I, Undesirable Plant List, and Appendix II, Undesirable Plant List.
** San Diego County native species
References: Gordon, H. White, T.C. 1994. Ecological Guide to Southern California Chaparral Plant Series. Cleveland National Forest.
Willis, E. 1997. San Diego County Fire
Interface Development Standards
City of Oceanside, California. 1995. Vegetation Management. Landscape Development Manual. Community Services Department, Engineering Division.
City of Vista, California 1997. Undesirable Plants. Section 18.56.999.
Landscaping Design, Development and Maintenance Standards. www.bewaterwise.com . 2004. Fire-resistant California Friendly Plants.
www.ucfpl.ucop.edu . 2004. University of California, Berkeley, Forest Products Laboratory, College of Natural Resources. Defensible Space Landscaping in the Urban/Wildland Interface. A Compilation of Fire Performance Ratings of Residential Landscape Plants.
County of Los Angeles Fire Department. 1998. Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines. Appendix I, Undesirable Plant List, and Appendix II, Undesirable Plant List.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 121
Public Survey Results | APPENDIX G
Appendix G
Public Survey Results
Temec ula Tree Survey
1 / 20
97.08%666
2.62%18
0.29%2
Q1 Do you consider neighborhood trees a valuable community asset that contribute to your quality of life in Temecula?
Answered: 686 Sk ipped: 2
TOTAL 686
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
Definit ely
So mew hat
Not at all
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Definit ely
Somewhat
Not at all
122 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temec ula Tree Survey 2 / 20
15.57%107
74.82%514
9.61%66
Q2 Trees are considered part of the City’s infrastructure. How important do you think trees are compared to other infrastructure like streets, sidewalks, water, sewer, traffic signals, lighting, etc)? Answered: 687 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 687
0%1 0%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100%
Trees are more
impor tant th...
Tr ees ar e
equally as...
Trees are not
as impor tant...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Trees are more important than other inf ras truct ure
Trees are equally as important as other infrastructure Trees are not as important as other infras tructure
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 123
Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GTemecula Tree Survey
3 / 20
23.07%158
53.58%367
21.61%148
1.75%12
Q3 What rating would you give the condition of public space street trees in Temecula?
Answered: 685 Skipped: 3
TOTAL 685
0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
124 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results
Temec ula Tree Survey
4 / 20
Q4 What should be the top two goals of the City of Temecula Urban Forest Management Plan? (select top TWO choices)
Answered: 687 Skipped: 1
67.15%
325
32.85%
159
484
1.33 62.41%
254
37.59%
153
407
1.38 50.42%
120
49.58%
118
238
1.50 66.08%
298
33.92%
153
451
1.34 65.01%
275
34.99%
148
423
1.35 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
1st Priority 2nd Priority
Maintaining
the existing...
Removing dead,
dying or...
Reducing the
number of tr...
Increase the
number of tr...
Planting new
species to...
1ST
PRIORITY
2ND
PRIORITY
TOTAL WEIGHTED
AVERAGE
Maintaining the existing trees
Removing dead, dying or otherwise hazardous trees
Reducing the number of trees removed every year
Increase the number of trees planted every year
Planting new species to increase species diversity and to protect against climate change
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 125
Public Survey Results | APPENDIX G
Temecula Tree Survey
5 / 20
Q5 Of the following options, select the top 2 most important benefit trees provide in your neighborhood.
Answered: 687 Skipped: 1
80.00%
428
20.00%
107
535
1.20 60.76%
223
39.24%
144
367
1.39 65.42%
157
34.58%
83 240
1.35 58.03%
206
41.97%
149
355
1.42 52.45%
203
47.55%
184
387
1.48 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
1st Priority 2nd Priority
Improving the
environment...
Cooling
neighborhood...
Protecting
human health
Aesthetics or
appearance
Psychological/E
motional...
1ST PRIORITY 2ND PRIORITY TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE
Improving the environment (like air quality, storing carbon) Cooling neighborhoods and homes
Protecting human health
Aesthetics or appearance
Psychological/Emotional benefits
126 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results
Temecula Tree Survey
6 / 20
Q6 What factors would make you reluctant to have a tree on your property? (Select Your Top Two)
Answered: 687 Skipped: 1
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
1st Priority 2nd Priority
Cost to tr im
trees
Cost to water
tr ees
Mess/leaf
litter
Damage to
sewer...
Risk of damage
by falling...
No issues
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 127
Public Survey Results | APPENDIX G
Temec ula Tree Survey
7 / 20
39.16%
112
60.84%
174
286
1.61 48.40%
106
51.60%
113
219
1.52 38.80%
97 61.20%
153
250
1.61 65.33%
277
34.67%
147
424
1.35 40.81%
91 59.19%
132
223
1.59 70.59%
252
29.41%
105
357
1.29 1ST PRIORITY 2ND PRIORITY TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE
Cost to trim trees
Cost to water trees
Mess/leaf litter
Damage to s ewer pipes/s idewalks
Risk of damage by falling branches
No issues
128 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temec ula Tree Survey 8 / 20
21.64%148
20.32%139
25.88%177
19.44%133
12.72%87
Q7 The City should have ordinances to protect trees on private property in the same way they protect trees in the public space.
Answered: 684 Skipped: 4
TOTAL 684
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Strongly agree
Agr ee
Somewhat agree
Disagr ee
Strongly
disagr ee
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 129
Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GTemecula Tree Survey
9 / 20
32.41%222
23.50%161
18.25%125
13.72%94
12.12%83
Q8 Approximately how much have you spent on maintenance or repairs related to trees or tree root damage over the past 5 years? Ans wered: 685 Sk ipped: 3
TOTAL 685
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
No expenses
r elated to...
$100-$499
$5 00 - $999
$1000-$1 999
More than $2000
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
No expenses related to prev entativ e tree care or maintenance $100-$499
$500 - $999
$1000-$1999
More than $2000
130 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results
Temec ula Tree Survey
10 / 20
63.36%422
36.19%241
68.47%456
17.12%114
23.12%154
8.41%56
Q9 Which of the following activities would you be willing to participate in to support the City’s tree planting efforts? (Select all that apply) Answered: 666 Sk ipped: 22
Total Respondents: 666
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Volunteer at a
community tr...
Attend an
educational...
Planting a
tree on your...
Volunteer to
provide basi...
Help organize
a neighborho...
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Volunteer at a community tree planting
Attend an educational work shop
Planting a tree on y our private property
Volunteer to provide bas ic tree c are on a regular basis Help organize a neighborhood tree planting
Other (pleas e specify )
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 131
Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GTemecula Tree Survey
11 / 20
34.83%233
31.84%213
45.59%305
48.43%324
12.26%82
Q10 How can the City best help you plant and/or care for a tree in your yard?
Answered: 669 Skipped: 19
Total Respondents: 669
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Pr ovide an
expert answ e...
Labor to do
the work
F inancial
suppor t for...
Provide
‘How -to’...
Other (pl ease
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Prov ide an ex pert answer ques tions about t ree health Labor to do the work
Financ ial s upport for tree trimming
Provide ‘How-to’ information on planting, watering, and trimming Other (pleas e s pecify )
132 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temec ula Tree Survey 12 / 20
Q11 Additional comments.
Answered: 218 Skipped: 470
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 133
Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GTemecula Tree Survey
13 / 20
91.69%596
8.31%54
Q12 Do you live in Temecula?
Answered: 650 Sk ipped: 38
TOTAL 650
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
134 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temec ula Tree Survey 14 / 20
57.12%369
42.88%277
Q13 Do you work in Temecula?
Ans wered: 646 Sk ipped: 42
TOTAL 646
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 135
Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GTemecula Tree Survey
15 / 20
2.32%15
26.74%173
58.89%381
3.09%20
1.24%8
4.79%31
2.94%19
Q14 What zip code do you live in?
Answered: 647 Sk ipped: 41
TOTAL 647
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
92590
92591
92592
92596
925 62
925 63
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
92590
92591
92592
92596
92562
92563
Other (please specify)
136 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temec ula Tree Survey 16 / 20
2.79%18
91.78%592
0.31%2
3.26%21
1.86%12
Q15 What best describes your housing situation?
Answered: 645 Sk ipped: 43
TOTAL 645
0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100%
Apartment
Singl e family
home
Dupl ex
Condominium
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Apartment
Single family home
Duplex
Condominium
Other (please spec ify)
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 137
Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GTemecula Tree Survey
17 / 20
82.71%531
11.99%77
3.58%23
1.71%11
Q16 Which of the following best describes your current housing situation? Answered: 642 Skipped: 46
TOTAL 642
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Homeowner
Renter
Living with
other s but n...
Living with
ot her s and...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Homeowner
Renter
Living with others but not paying rent or mort gage
Liv ing with others and assis t ing with pay ing rent or mortgage
138 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temecula Tree Survey 18 / 20
96.73%621
1.87%12
0.31%2
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
1.09%7
Q17 What is the primary language spoken in your home?
Answered: 642 Skipped: 46
TOTAL 642
0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100%
English
Spanish
Russian
Vietnamese
Tagalog
Mandar in
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
English
Spanish
Russian
Vietnamese
Tagalog
Mandarin
Other (please s pecify)
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 139
Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GTemecula Tree Survey
19 / 20
1.25%8
3.13%20
16.41%105
28.59%183
20.63%132
15.63%100
14.37%92
Q18 Which category below includes your age?
Answered: 640 Skipped: 48
TOTAL 640
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
140 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temecula Tree Survey 20 / 20
1.11%7
3.16%20
23.58%149
11.55%73
36.87%233
23.73%150
Q19 What is the highest level of education you have attained? Answered: 632 Skipped: 56
TOTAL 632
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
No high school
diploma
High school
diploma or...
Some college
but no degree
Associate
degree
Bachelor degree
Graduate degree
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
No high school diploma
High sc hool diploma or equivalent (e.g., GED)
Some college but no degree
Associate degree
Bac helor degree
Graduate degree
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 141
Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 1 / 18
100.00%13
0.00%0
0.00%0
Q1 ¿Considera que los árboles de su vecindario son importantes para la comunidad y que contribuyen a la calidad de su vida?
Answered: 13 Sk ipped: 1
TOTAL 13
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
Sí
Un tanto
No
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Sí
Un tanto
No
142 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G | Public Survey ResultsCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 2 / 18
84.62%11
15.38%2
0.00%0
Q2 Los árboles son parte de la infraestructura de la ciudad. En comparación con los otros elementos de la infraestructura de la ciudad (por ejemplo: las calles, las aceras, las farolas, las señales de tráfico, infraestructura hídrica/alcantarillado), ¿Qué tan importante considera los árboles?
Answered: 13 Sk ipped: 1
TOTAL 13
0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100%
Los ár boles
son más...
Lo s árbol es
son tan...
Los árbol es no
son tan...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Los árboles son más importantes que los otros elementos de la inf raestruc tura de la ciudad.
Los árboles s on tan importantes que los ot ros elementos de la infraestruc tura de la ciudad.
Los árboles no s on tan importantes que los otros elementos de la infraestruc tura de la ciudad.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 143
Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 3 / 18
0.00%0
91.67%11
0.00%0
8.33%1
Q3 ¿De qué calidad considera los árboles en los espacios públicos en la ciudad de Temecula?
Answered: 12 Sk ipped: 2
TOTAL 12
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Excel ente
Buena
Regular
Pobre/Deficient
e
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Excelente
Buena
Regular
Pobre/Deficiente
144 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Cuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 4 / 18
8.33%1
16.67%2
0.00%0
25.00%3
50.00%6
Q4 ¿Cuáles deben ser los dos objetivos más importantes del Manejo del Bosque Comunitario?
Answered: 12 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 12
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Mantener los
árboles...
Quitar los
ár boles...
Quitar menos
árboles cada...
Pl antar/sembr ar
más árbol es...
Pl antar/sembrar
árboles de...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Mantener los árboles ex istentes
Quitar los árboles muertos, enfermos o peligrosos
Quitar menos árboles cada año
Plantar/sembrar más árboles cada año
Plantar/sembrar árboles de es pecies diferentes para aumentar la diversidad y proteger la c iudad contra los cambi os climáticos
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 145
Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 5 / 18
83.33%10
91.67%11
75.00%9
83.33%10
16.67%2
Q5 ¿Cuáles son los beneficios más importantes de los árboles en su vecindario? Escoge dos:
Ans wered: 12 Sk ipped: 2
Total Res pondents : 12
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
Mejorar el
medioambient...
Enfriar el
barr io y su...
Proteger l a
sal ud de l os...
Estética o
aspecto
Beneficios
psicológicos...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Mejorar el medioambiente (por ejemplo: la c alidad del aire, cargar c arbono) Enfriar el barrio y su hogar c on la sombra
Proteger la s alud de los humanos
Estética o aspecto
Benefic ios ps ic ológicos/emoc ionales
146 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G | Public Survey ResultsCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temecula 6 / 18
8.33%1
0.00%0
0.00%0
0.00%0
8.33%1
91.67%11
0.00%0
Q6 Decirnos las razones por que no querría un árbol en su propiedad.
Escoge dos:
Answered: 12 Skipped: 2
Total Res pondents: 12
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Los gastos de
l a poda de l...
Los gastos del
agua que...
Hojarasca/desor
den en la...
El daño a las
aceras o...
El r iesgo de
caída de ramas
Ninguna r azón
Otra r azón
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Los gas tos de la poda de los árboles
Los gastos del agua que necesitan los árboles
Hojarasca/desorden en la tierra
El daño a las aceras o tuberías subterráneas
El riesgo de caída de ramas
Ninguna razón
Otra razón
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 147
Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 7 / 18
83.33%10
0.00%0
0.00%0
8.33%1
8.33%1
Q7 La ciudad debe tener ordenanzas que protegen los árboles en la propiedad privada, similar a las ordenanzas sobre los árboles en los espacios públicos. ¿Está de acuerdo?
Answered: 12 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 12
0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Estoy
totalmente d...
Estoy de
acuerdo
Un poco de
acuerdo
Estoy de
desacuerdo
Estoy
totalmente d...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Es toy totalmente de ac uerdo
Es toy de ac uerdo
Un poco de acuerdo
Estoy de desacuerdo
Estoy totalmente de des acuerdo
148 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G | Public Survey ResultsCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 8 / 18
0.00%0
16.67%2
16.67%2
25.00%3
41.67%5
Q8 En los 5 años pasados, ¿cuánto ha gastado para mantener los árboles o en las reparaciones relacionadas con los árboles? (en $US) Ans wered: 12 Skipped: 2
TOTAL 12
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00%
$0
$1 00-$499
$500 - $999
$1000-$1999
Más que $2000
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
$0
$100-$499
$500 - $999
$1000-$1999
Más que $2000
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 149
Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 9 / 18
41.67%5
8.33%1
83.33%10
33.33%4
16.67%2
0.00%0
Q9 ¿En qué actividades participaría para apoyar los esfuerzos de la siembra de árboles en la ciudad? (Escoge todo lo que se aplica.) Answered: 12 Skipped: 2
Total Respondents : 12
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Voluntario(a)
en un evento...
Inscribir en
un taller...
Plantar/sembrar
un árbol en ...
Voluntar io(a)
por cuidar se...
Ayudar a
or ganizar un...
Otra actividad
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Voluntario(a) en un evento de la siembra de los árboles Inscribir en un taller educativ o
Plantar/sembrar un árbol en su propiedad
Voluntario(a) por cuidarse a los árboles en la ciudad en una forma regular Ayudar a organizar una siembra de árboles en su vecindario Otra ac tiv idad
150 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
APPENDIX G | Public Survey ResultsCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 10 / 18
7.14%1
7.14%1
78.57%11
7.14%1
0.00%0
Q10 ¿Cómo puede la ciudad ayudarte a plantar y/o cuidar un árbol en tu propiedad?
Ans wered: 14 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 14
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Un exper to
quien puede...
Alguien para
hacer el...
Apoyo
financier o p...
Guías con
infor mación...
Ot ro
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Un experto quien puede res ponder a las preguntas sobre la salud de los árboles Alguien para hac er el trabajo
Apoyo financ iero para la poda de árboles
Guías con informac ión sobre la s iembra, poda y riego de árboles Otro
Si
No
ANSWER CHOICES
Si
No
TOTAL
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G
Q11 6Vive en Temecula?
Answered: 13 Skipped:1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
100.00%
0.00%
13 0
13 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 151
APPENDIX G I Public Survey Results
Si
No
ANSWER CHOICES
Si
No
TOTAL
Q12 �,Trabaja en Temecula?
Answered:13 Skipped:1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
46.15%
53.85%
7 13
152 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G
Q13 �,En que codigo postal vive?
Answered:13 Skipped:1
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 153
APPENDIX G I Public Survey Results
Q14 �,Cual describe su situacion de vivienda?
Answered:13 Skipped:1
Apartamiento
Casa
unifamiliar
Duplex
Condominio
Otro
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Apartamiento
0.00%
Casa unifamiliar
100.00%
Duplex
0.00%
Condominio
0.00%
Otro
0.00%
TOTAL
0 r
0 13
1541 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G
Q15 �,Cual describe su situacion de vivienda?
Answered:13 Skipped:I
i
ir
Propietano(a)
Alquilado(a)/Re
ntado(a)
Vivir con
otras person...
Vivir con
otras person...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Propietario(a)
Alquilado(a)/Rentado(a)
Vivir con otras personas sin pagar de alquiler o renta
Vivir con otras personas y ayudar a pagar el pago de alquiler o renta TOTAL
RESPONSES
92.31%
12 7.69%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 13
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 155
APPENDIX G I Public Survey Results
Q16 �, Cual es el primer idioma en su hogar?
Answered:13 Skipped:1
Ingles
Espanol
Ruso
Vietnamita
Tagalo
Mandarin
Otro idioma
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Ingles
M-A-1
Huso
Vietnamita
Tagalo
Mandarin
Otro idioma
TOTAL
I
RESPONSES
84.62%
7.69%
7.69%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
11 1
1 0
0 0
0 13
156 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Menores de 13
anos
14 -20 anos
21-29 anos
30-39 anos
40-49 anos
50-59 anos
Mayores de 60
anos
0%
ANSWER CHOICES
Menores de 13 anos
14 -20 anos
21-29 anos
30-39 anos
40-49 anos
50-59 anos
Mayores de 60 anos
TOTAL
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G
Q17 �,Cuantos anos tiene?
Answered: 13 Skipped:I
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
0.00%
7.69%
0.00%
46.15%
23.08%
7.69%
15.38%
0 0
0 6
3 1
2 13
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 157
APPENDIX G I Public Survey Results
Q18 �,Cual es el nivel mas alto de educacion que has alcanzado? Answered:13 Skipped:I
Sin diploma de
escuela...
Diploma de
escuela...
Cierta
educacion...
Titulo asociado
Licenciatura
Titulo de
posgrado
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Sin diploma de escuela secundaria
Diploma de escuela secundaria o to igual (por ejemplo: GED) Cierta educacion universitaria, pero sin titulo
Titulo asociado
Licenciatura
Titulo de posgrado
TOTAL
. RESPONSES
0.00%
0 7.69%
1 15.38%
2 0.00%
0 23.08%
3 53.85%
7 13
158 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Funding Opportunities I APPENDIX H
Funding Opportunities
Grants
Environmental
With approximately $13.4 million for the 2021-2023 funding cycle, this Enhancement Mitigation
program encourages projects that produce multiple benefits that reduce Program (California Natural
greenhouse gas emissions; increase water use efficiency; reduce risks from Resources Agency)
climate change impacts; and demonstrate collaboration with local, state, and community entities. Eligible projects like tree planting and habitat restoration, must be directly or indirectly related to the environmental impact of the modification of an existing transportation facility or construction of a new transportation facility.
Urban Flood Protection Grant
The Urban Flood Protection Program was created by Proposition 68 for the purpose Program (California Natural
of multi -benefit projects in urbanized areas to address flooding. Projects must Resources Agency)
provide multi -benefit solutions to address flooding in urban areas, protect people, and protect property from flood damage. Examples of eligible projects include tree planting and establishment care and creating native landscapes with stormwater capture features like bioswales. There was one funding cycle for fiscal year 2020- 2021 totaling $92.5 million.
Urban and Community
Multiple grant programs supported by the Urban and Community Forestry Program Forestry Program
will fund tree planting, tree inventories, urban wood and biomass utilization, (CAL FIRE)
blighted urban lands improvements, and leading edge work that advances the goals and objectives of supporting healthy urban forests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There was an estimated $10 million available to fund a variety of urban forestry projects in fiscal year 2019-2020.
Urban Greening Grant
Consistent with Assembly Bill 32 (2006), the Urban Greening Program will fund Program (California Natural
projects that reduce greenhouse gases by sequestering carbon, decreasing Resources Agency)
energy consumption, and reducing vehicles miles traveled, while also transforming the built environment into places that are more sustainable, enjoyable, and effective in creating healthy and vibrant communities. During the 2019-2020 fiscal year, there was approximately $28.5 million available for selected project applicants, which included public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and qualifying districts.
Active Transportation
This program provides fundingto encourage increased use of active modes of Program (California
transportation, such as biking and walking. Trees and other vegetation are significant Department of
components of several eligible projects underthe Active Transportation Program, Transportation)
including parks, trails, and safe routes to schools. $440 million will be distributed to project applicants over fiscal years 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023. Applicants include public agencies, transit agencies, school districts, tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations.
Affordable Housing and
The Strategic Growth Council is authorized to fund land use, housing, transportation, Sustainable Communities
and land preservation projects to support infill and compact developmentthat (California Strategic Growth
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Urban Greening is a threshold requirementfor all Council)
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities funded projects. Eligible urban greening projects include, but are not limited to, rainwater recycling; flow and filtration systems including rain gardens, stormwater planters, and filters; vegetated swales; bioretention basins; infiltration trenches; and integration with riparian buffers, shade trees, community gardens, and parks and open space. Fundingfor 2021 is estimated at $452 million and will be available to locality (e.g., local agencies), developer (entity responsible for project construction), or program operator (day -today operational project administrator) project applicants.
Storm Water Grant Program
—
(California State Water
Resources Control Board
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 159
APPENDIX H I Funding Opportunities
*Fees, Assessments, Taxes
Parcel Tax
A parcel tax is a special tax levied for the provision of special benefits. Revenues from special taxes must be used for the specific purpose for which they are intended, so a parcel tax would create a dedicated funding stream for street trees. Similar to a special assessment, a parcel tax cannot be based on the value of property; however, the amount levied on each parcel need not be directly related to the benefits provided (ILG 2008). Cities have the flexibility to levy parcel taxes as they see fit, but they are typically based on lot square footage or levied as a flat tax, with the same amount per parcel (CTD 2012a). Parcel taxes are designed to encompass entire cities and therefore, are good candidates for a citywide street tree program, as opposed to the district -level approach that often occurs under special assessments.
Landscape and Lighting
LLADs are a form of special assessment that finance improvements to Assessment Districts
landscaping, lighting and open space, along with open space acquisition. The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 authorizes municipal agencies in California to initiate and administer LLADs. The creation of a LLAD, as with any special assessment, requires the preparation of an Engineer's Report that demonstrates the nexus between fees assessed and benefits provided, followed by majority (50 percent plus one) approval via a special ballot, pursuant to Proposition 218.
LLADs are widely used throughout California to fund a range of public realm improvements and services related to street trees, streetscape improvements, street and traffic lights, and recreational facilities, among others. As with parcel taxes, LLADs typically fund more than just street tree planting, establishment and maintenance. While a LLAD could be designed for street trees alone, the process may attract other agencies in need of additional revenue and interested in expanding the scope to services such as park and recreation maintenance. One caution would be to avoid setting the assessment so high as to generate voter backlash. Local municipalities have often convened focus groups to determine the appropriate assessment level.
General Obligation Bonds
Local governments commonly use General Obligation (GO) bonds to fund the construction and improvement of projects involving real property (e.g., buildings, infrastructure and parks). GO bonds typically carry low interest rates, making them attractive for capital projects, which may include tree planting. However, funding is available for discrete projects, often over a limited time rather than an extended period. In addition, ongoing maintenance is ineligible for GO bond funding pursuant to federal tax law. California cities pay debt service from GO bonds through ad valorem property taxes, where assessments are based on property value. As a result, the issuance of GO bonds requires two-thirds voter approval (State Treasurer 2008).
Maintenance Assessment
The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 authorizes Maintenance Assessment Districts
Districts (MADs), which are closely related to LLADs. The key difference is that charter cities, can create MADs for the provision of services not specifically authorized under state law, thereby broadening their use (Griffin, pers. comm., 2012). MADs may be used to finance street tree care, but as with a LLAD, a MAD intended for street trees alone could also attract the attention of other agencies interested in funding the provision of additional non -related services.
Community Benefit
Community Benefit Districts (CBDs) are used to finance neighborhood Districts
revitalization, commonly in commercial areas. Special benefits typically include public safety, economic development, beautification, and streetscape improvements. Formation of a CBD requires property owners to petition the appropriate local agency and demonstrate an interest in paying for additional services. A non-profit Board of Directors typically comprised of property owners, businesses, and government representatives administers a CBD.
While CBDs may include street tree planting and maintenance, this is rarely the focus.
* Source: City of San Francisco, Financing San Francisco's Urban Forest 2013 160 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
REFERENCES
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 161
PUR�BpNFORESTMANpGEMENTPIAN //��
�✓ _ �l
April 2023
Technical Assessment
THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (UFMP) TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT PROVIDES THE FRAMEWORK, METHODOLOGY, AND DATA TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS IN THE UFMP. "fit►
,.,.
dog—
JM
- b .ter _
[ t� o a
� 9
s�
F/RE68
PROP
¢
1;�5
sixce
vC
tees
'�
i Ij �y y
s aie ai ro.ma
ra��a;'ifF
INTRODUCTION
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
ACRONYMS................................................................................vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................ix 1 I CITY TREE MANAGEMENT..................................................1
1.1 1 City Resources...................................................................................... 1
1.1 1 City Resources............................................................................. 1 1.1.1 1 Budget........................................................................................ 2 1.1.2 1 Funding Sources.....................................................................4
1.1.3 1 City Staff.................................................................................... 5 1.1.4 1 Contract Labor........................................................................ 6 1.1.5 1 Comparison to Other Municipalities .............................. 7 1.2 1 Life Cycle Management Actions .................................................... 9 1.2.1 1 Tree Policy.................................................................................9
1.2.2 1 Tree Planting..........................................................................14
1.2.3 1 Establishment Care.............................................................15
1.2.4 1 Tree Pruning...........................................................................16
1.2.5 1 Tree Removal and Replacement......................................18
1.2.6 1 Urban Wood Reuse..............................................................18
1.2.7 1 Recommended Species Palette......................................19 2 1 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.....................................21
2.1 1 Tree Policies and Ordinances.......................................................21
2.1.1 1 Municipal Code and Ordinance Review......................21
2.2 1 City Planning Documents...............................................................26
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2.2.1 1 Quality -of -Life Master Plan(2009)...............................28
2.2.2 1 General Plan...........................................................................30
2.2.3 1 Citywide Design Guidelines.............................................32
2.2.4 1 Municipal Code/Zoning Code........................................34
2.2.5 1 Multi -use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan .................36
2.2.6 1 City of Temecula Uptown Temecula
Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards ............38
2.2.7 1 Temecula Community Services Master Plan..............38
2.2.8 1 City of Temecula
Best Management PracticesDesign Manual ............................40 31 CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY..........................................43
3.1 1 Why Canopy Cover Matters.........................................................43
3.2 1 Historical Canopy Cover................................................................44
3.3 1 Tree Canopy Assessment...............................................................45
3.3.1 1 Methodology.........................................................................45
3.3.2 1 Results.......................................................................................45
3.3.3 1 Tree Equity..............................................................................54
3.3.4 1 Increasing Canopy Cover..................................................64 41 STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST......................................69
4.1 1 City Tree Inventory Methodology...............................................69
4.1.1 1 Environmental Services/Economic Benefits..............69
4.1.2 1 Species Diversity...................................................................70
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4.1.3 1 Diameter at Standard Height Distribution ..................75
4.1.4 1 Tree Condition.......................................................................77
4.1.5 1 Relative Performance Index.............................................77
4.1.6 1 Importance Value..................................................................79
4.1.7 1 Park Tree Planting Priorities.............................................81 5 1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT..............................................88
5.1 1 Online Survey......................................................................................90
5.1.1 1 Demographic Results..........................................................90
5.1.2 1 Survey Results........................................................................91
5.2 1 Working Group...................................................................................92
5.3 1 Stakeholder Interviews....................................................................94
5.4 1 Community Tabling Events............................................................97
5.5 1 Urban Forest Summit.......................................................................97
5.5.1 1 Urban Forest Summit Results...........................................98
5.6 1 Arbor Day Tree Planting Event..................................................104 6 1 REFERENCES.....................................................................107
EXHIBITS
1-1. Temecula's Urban Forest Funding Sources ................................ 4 3-1. Race and Ethnicity Profile of Census Tract
with Highest CalEnviroScreen Score...................................................61 3-2. Race and Ethnicity Profile
of Census Tract with Lowest CalEnviroScreen Score ...................62 4-1. Age Distribution of Temecula's
Top 10 Inventory Species.........................................................................76 5-1. "Where Do We Need More Trees"
Categorical Graphic Board Results...................................................100 5-2. "What Do You Love Most About Trees"
Categorical Graphic Board Results...................................................101 5-3. "Where Are Trees Needed Most"
Map of Temecula Activity Results.......................................................102
FIGURES
1-2. Contractor's Allocated
Time Spent on Tree Activities................................................................... 6 3-1. City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis....................................46 3-2. Urban Heat Island and Canopy Cover.......................................58 3-3. City of Temecula CalEnviroScreen Results..............................60 TABLES
1-1. City of Temecula Annual Tree Management
Budget2016-2021..................................................................................... 2 1-2. Estimated Contractor Funding Needed to
Achieve Best Management Practices .................................................... 3 1-3. Temecula Tree -Related In -House Staff Positions ..................... 5 1-4. Comparison of Municipal Urban
Forest Management Funding................................................................... 7
IV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1-5. Tree Policy Review..............................................................................10 1-6. Trees to Plant Annually to Reach
Full Stocking Goal over 20 Years...........................................................14 1-7. Annual Tree Planting Costs to Reach Stocking Goal ............ 15 1-8. Annual Tree Planting and Establishment
Care Costs to Reach Stocking Goal.....................................................15 1-9. Average per Tree Spending on a 4-Year Trim Cycle..............17 1-10. Tree Removals from 2015 to 2020.........................................18 2-1. Chapter 8.49 Tree Care and Preservation...............................21 2-2. Chapter 8.48 Heritage Tree Ordinance....................................23 2-3. Water Efficiency and Landscape Design..................................25 2-4. How the Quality -of -Life Master Plan Addresses Trees .......29 2-5. How the General Plan Addresses Trees....................................30 2-6. How the Citywide Design Guidelines Address Trees ........... 32 2-7. How the Municipal Code/Zoning Code Address Trees ...... 35 2-8. How the Multi -use Trails and Bikeways
Master Plan Addresses Trees.................................................................36 2-9. How the Uptown Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk
Improvement Standards Address Trees..............................................38 2-10. How the Community Services
Master Plan Addresses Trees..................................................................39 2-1 1. How the Best Management Practices
Design Manual Addresses Trees............................................................41 3-1. Land Cover Classification...............................................................45 3-2. Canopy Cover by Land Use Type.................................................47
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I V
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3-3. Park Canopy Cover...........................................................................49 3-4. Canopy Cover by Council District...............................................52 3-5. Canopy Cover in Schools................................................................53 3-6. Census Tracts with High Concentrations
of Urban Heat Islands.................................................................................55 3-7. Canopy Cover and CalEnviroScreen
Score by Census Tract...............................................................................56 3-8. Tree Equity Scores below 75 by Census Block
Group and Canopy Cover Percentage...............................................63 3-9. Total Number of Trees Needed to Increase
Canopy Cover Above 11 %......................................................................66 3-10. Total Number of Trees Needed to Plant per Year for 40 Years to Increase Canopy Cover..........................................................66 4-1. Annual Environmental Services
and Benefits Provided byCity-Managed Trees................................69 4-2. Financial Value of City -Managed Trees.....................................70 4-3. Top 10 Tree Families in the City Inventory...............................71 4-4. Top 10 Tree Genera in the City Inventory................................72 4-5. Top 10 Species in the City Inventory..........................................73 4-6. Tree Species in the City Inventory
that are Predicted to be Heat or Water Sensitive ...........................75 4-7. Diameter at Standard Height
Distribution of the City's Tree Inventory.............................................75 4-8. Tree Condition Ratings of the City Inventory .........................77 4-9. Relative Performance Index of the
Top 10 Species in the Inventory.............................................................78 4-10. Ten Species with the Highest Importance
Values in the City's Inventory..................................................................79 4-1 1. Park Tree Priority Planting Scores............................................82 4-12. Top 10 Tree Genera in the City's Park Trees .........................84 4-13. Top 10 Tree Species in the City Inventory .............................85 4-14. Tree Condition Ratings of the City Inventory .......................85 4-15. DSH Distribution of the City's Park Trees..............................86 5-1. Demographics of Survey Respondents
Compared to Demographics of the City of Temecula...................90 5-2. Summary of Online Survey Responses......................................91 5-3. Temecula's Urban Forest Master Plan
Working Group Members........................................................................92 5-4. Working Group Key Insights..........................................................93 5-5. Stakeholder Interview Participants.............................................94 5-6. Summary of Stakeholder Interview Responses ......................95 5-7. Urban Forest Summit Attendee Demographics
Compared to City Demographics.........................................................98 5-8. Vision Statement Results.................................................................99 5-8. "Where Do We Need More Trees"
Categorical Graphic Board Results...................................................100 5-9. "What Do You Love Most About Trees"
Categorical Graphic Board Results...................................................101 5-10. "Where Are Trees Needed Most"
Top 8 Location Results............................................................................102 5-1 1. Group Discussion Activity Themes........................................103
VI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX
A I Recommended Tree
Species Palette
B I Sidewalk Solutions
C1 I Establishment
Care Guidelines
C2 I Tree Protection Guidelines
C3 I Tree Protection Detail
C4 I Root Pruning Detail
C5 I Irrigation Detail
D I Nursery Stock Standards
E I Highly Flammable Plant List
F I Public Survey Results
G I Funding Opportunities
TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I VII
INTRODUCTION
VI I I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
CITY OF TEMECULA STAFF
Department of Public Works
Patrick Thomas, Director/City Engineer
Julie Tarrant, Senior Principal Management Analyst
Stacy Fox, Park and Landscape Superintendent
CITY OF TEMECULA COUNCILMEMBERS
Mayor Zak Schwank
Mayor Pro Tem James "Stew" Stewart
Council Member Jessica Alexander
Council Member Curtis Brown
Council Member Brenden Kalfus
COMMUNITY MEMBERS
TEMECULA UFMP WORKING GROUP
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY
AND FIRE PROTECTION (CAL FIRE)
Greg Dion
FUNDING PROVIDED BY
CAL FIRE/Prop 68
PREPARED BY
Dudek - Urban Forestry Division
Abby Beissinger
Dana Link -Herrera
Ryan Allen
Kalie Ortiz
Chris Kallstrand
Funding for this project is provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as part of the California Climate Investments Program. The City of Temecula Urban Forestry Program is part of California Climate Investments, a statewide program that puts billions of Cap -and -Trade dollars to work reducing GHG emissions, strengthening the economy, and improving public health and the environment- particularly in disadvantaged communities. The Cap -and -Trade program also creates a financial incentive for to invest in clean technologies and develop innovative ways to reduce pollution. California Climate Investments projects include affordable housing, renewable energy, public transportation, zero -emission vehicles, environmental restoration, more sustainable agriculture, recycling, and much more. At least 35 percent of these investments are located within and benefiting residents of disadvantaged communities, low- income communities, and low-income households across California. For more information, visit the California Climate Investments website at: www.caclimateinvestments.ca.gov .
PROP
68 F,RE
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I IX
INTRODUCTION
X CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
he City of Temecula (City) was officially incorporated in 1989 and is moving from building a city to sustaining a city (quality -of -life master plan [QLMP]).
The same movement is true of the urban forest program and the management actions it will need to prioritize to grow and maintain citywide canopy cover. Over the last 30 years, the urban forest program was built as trees were planted with the construction of each new housing development, shopping center, road, and park.
A majority of this tree planting activity has occurred in the last 10-15 years, which is reflected in the inventory data that shows 87% of city -managed trees are classified as young or immature. The surge of tree planting within a short time frame was essential to developing canopy cover as soon as possible and required the City to prioritize tree planting, establishment care, and structural pruning. Over the next 20 years as City trees grow and approach maturity, management priorities will need to shift to mature tree pruning, risk assessment, and tree removal and replacement planning. This analysis is the foundation for the following sections of the urban forest management plan (UFMP) that address the City's urban forest management practices, budget needs, and staffing levels.
13 CITY RESOURCES
For trees to remain an integral asset that increases in value overtime, investments in tree management, planting, and maintenance are required. Section 1.1, City Resources, explains how the City is allocating their budget for tree management and how their urban forestry operations are staffed and funded. Appendix H presents funding opportunities the City may wish to pursue to acquire additional resources for the urban forest program.
1MOM ■
■■■■■
■ NNW ■
■ MEN ■
CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 1
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
1.1.1 BUDGET
The overview of the City's urban forest program between 2016 and 2021 reflects an annual average of $572,100. (Table 1-1). Of this funding, $500,000 was allocated for tree management work conducted by contractor services, and $76,1oo for City staff salaries.
Annual staff salaries are calculated based on the percentage of time overseeing all landscape and tree maintenance throughout the city.
Table 1-1. Ci
1 T ,
Budqet 2016-2021
Street/Right-of-Way Trees $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Parks and Median Trees $6o,000 $8o,000 $8o,000 $8o,000 $8o,000 $76,000 City Facility Trees
$45,000
$45,000
$45,000
$45,000
$45,000
$45,000
City Trees on Slopes
$275,000
$275,000
$275,000
$275,000
$275,000
$275,000
Total Contractor Services Budget
$48o,000
$5oo,000
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$496,000
City Staff Salary Budget*
Maintenance Superintendent
$20,300
$20,300
$20,300
$20,300
$20,300
$20,300
Senior Landscape Inspector
$30,700
$30,700
$30,700
$30,700
$30,700
$30,700
Landscape Ins ecto
$25,100
$25,100
$25,100
$25,100
$25,100
$25,100
Total City Staff Salary Budget
$76,10o
$76,100
$76,1oo
$76,100
$76,100
$76,1oo
Contractor Services Budget + City Staff Salary Budget)
$556,100 11
$576,100
$576,100
$576,100
$576,100
$572,100
Note: * Annual staff salaries are calculated based on the percentage of time overseeing all landscape and tree maintenance throughout the city The City's tree management budget has largely remained constant over the past 5 years, except for a $2o,000 budget increase allocated to park and median trees beginning in fiscal year 2017-2018. The City desires to maintain park and median trees on a 3- to 4-year trim cycle but is unable to do so with current funding. City staff expressed that an additional $40,000 towards the park and median tree budget would be sufficient to increase tree trimming capacity. 2 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
The amount allocated for City trees on slopes is more than double other areas of the contractor budget. There are 13,000 City - managed trees on slopes that represent approximately 36% of the total inventory, but management of these trees requires 57% of the contracted services budget. This difference is accounted for as contracted pruning costs for trees on slopes can be up to three or four times more expensive than pruning street trees.
As a result of increased tax revenue generated by Measure S, City staff anticipate the annual budget to increase in the subsequent year. City staff also mentioned that this increase would significantly help the overall maintenance of City -managed trees. Section 1.2, Life Cycle Management Actions, outlines specific areas where City tree management can be improved and the costs associated with the program changes. Table 1-2 below represents an estimate of potential increases in contractor funding needed to implement those changes, as well as approximate annual funding increases needed each year to keep up with increases in contractor fees.
Table 1-2. Estimated Contractor Fundi
n . A A
ement Practices
Tree Planting - 100% Stocking Rate $4,800 $30,105 $34,905 3-Years of Establishment Care of Newly Planted Trees
3-4 Year Pruning Cycle
Tree and Stump Removal
$0
$118,590
$118,590
$465,200
$115,000
$580,200
$10,000
$o
$10,000
2023-2024 Totals $480,000
$263,695
$743,695
Annual Funding Increases*
MML $480,000
Fiscal Year 2024-2025
$308,316
$788,316
Fiscal Year 2025-2026
$480,000
$355,615
$835,615
Fiscal Year 2026-2027
$480,000
$405,752
$885,752
Fiscal Year 2027-2028
$480,000
$458,897
$938,897
Note: * Annual funding increase is based on a 6% annual increase in contractor fees CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 3
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
Exhibit 1 -1. Temecula's Urban Forest Funding Sources
40%
GENERAL
FUND
FUNDING SOURCES
1.1.2 FUNDING SOURCES
The City uses a variety of funding sources
O for the current tree management budget,
1 0 /Q primarily from the Service Level C
ROAD assessment districts, general fund, and road -
USE TAX use tax (Exhibit 1-1). Contractor services
ASSESSMENT
DISTRICT
performed on slopes are funded by the
subsequent zone of each slope through
property owners' annual tax assessments that
City staff mentioned have not been increased
in over 30 years. Contractor services
performed on parks and median trees stem
from the road -use tax. All other areas are
funded primarily by the general fund.
City staff have expressed a need to explore
other funding sources to meet the current
deficit in City -funded tree maintenance, such
as utilizing grants, integrating funding into
new development plans, and implementing
a citywide fee program. Communicating to
decision makers about the economic value of
trees as a community asset with a significant
return on investment is a strong foundation
when requesting a budget increase for the
urban forest program.
4 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
'v - ' ; � ' �' � f ^ i4�Y• ?¢`!: oa.�i " jam. 4
i
,..�c A � a` � !•Ldx } ,� 1"�� e a .,�.✓' 1. �=`��' c
171,
1. 19
1.1.3 CITY STAFF -��-
The City uses a combination of three in-house employees from the Public Works Park Division and external contractors to manage and maintain the City's urban forest. Collectively, Table 1-3. Temecula Tree Related In House Staff Positions in-house staff oversee all landscape and tree maintenance.
In-house staff include a maintenance superintendent, a senior landscape inspector, and a field inspector, two of whom are International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborists. Management Director/Supervisor Full -Time Equivalents (FTEs) represent the percentage of Senior Landscape Inspector
staff time for staff who are involved with the municipal tree management program based on a 40-hour work week. The Field Inspector total number of in-house FTEs involved with tree management for Temecula is 0.50 (Table 1-3), where 20% of the senior landscape inspector's and field inspector's time and lo% of the superintendent's time, is dedicated to tree -related management. Note: FTE = Full Time Equivalent. 1 0.10
1 0.2
J1
0.2 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT i 5
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
13.4 CONTRACT LABOR
The bulk of tree maintenance activities
in Temecula is performed by external
contractors. These activities include
tree pruning, tree and stump removal,
pest management, tree planting, and
establishment care. Tree pruning
and trimming is the most frequent
service conducted by contractors for
Temecula's City -managed trees and
requires 75% of work time (Exhibit 1-2).
Tree and stump removal require 24%
of the contractors' time, and less than
1% of the contractors' time is dedicated
to tree planting. Because contractors
spend a significantly low amount of
time towards the City's tree -planting
initiatives, tree -planting opportunities
through community volunteer events or
collaborating with local organizations is an
option worth exploring. When comparing
the City's contract services budget to
national averages, the City's higher -than -
average annual budget highlights the
City's reliance on contractors as a key
component of the tree program.
Figure 1-2. Contractor's Allocated Time Spent on Tree Activities I o�
TREE
PLAN
MAINTENANCE
ALLOCATION
24%
'REE AND
JUMP
ZEMOVAL
75%
TREE PRUNING
& TRIMMING
6 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
13.5 COMPARISON TO OTHER MUNICIPALITIES
The City's tree -management -by -contractor strategy can keep tree maintenance costs low because the City does not need to pay overhead, salary, fringe benefits, or equipment costs for City staff to complete this work. And, because trees are primarily young and immature in the City (see Section
4.1.3, Diameter at Standard Height Distribution), they do not yet have the same maintenance needs as mature trees, which are more costly (McPherson 2003). For these reasons, the City's per tree spending of $18.62 currently provides an adequate level of funding to sustainably manage the City's tree inventory.
Table 1-4. Comparison of Municipal Urban Forest Management F
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
As the City's trees age, their maintenance needs will increase, and the City's maintenance funds will need to increase to ensure continued sustainable management. Table 1-4 provides a comparison to the cities of Irvine, Downey, and Burbank.
Each of these cities were incorporated prior to Temecula and have robust mature tree canopies that result in higher -cost maintenance needs. The cities have established pruning cycles between 2 and 5 years (City of Pasadena 2015; Dudek 2021), and a combination of in-house staff and contractors carry out management activities. Their per -tree spending costs range from $23.07 to $67.37 and come from a variety of internal sources. The tree budgets of these cities should be considered as Temecula considers allocating funds for the future.
Temecula 1989 115,202 $572,100 30,715 $18.62
Irvine 1971 281,707 $1,500,000 65,000 $23.07
Downey L 1956 111,263 $1,000,000 18,399 $54.35
Burbank 1911 103,695 $2,223,389 33,000 $67.37
ja
Sources: City of Burbank 2021; City of Pasadena 2015; Dudek 2021; U.S. Census Bureau 2021.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 7
.... ..... .
I MEN
Somme
MFj
,T 7
a
-�-.
-. :A - A_m_.. .. .. .. r.: _... - .. _ _
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
1.2 LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS
The following section addresses the management actions that occur from the time a tree is planted through removal. The analysis in this section presents a review of current management actions and if they are helping to progress the City towards sustainable urban forest management. It also discusses how tree management actions may need to change to address the aging of the City inventory and changing climate conditions. Appendices D1 through D4 contain establishment care guidelines, tree protection guidelines, tree protection details, root pruning details, and irrigation details that represent best management practices and standards and are reflected in this review.
The guidelines, details, and standards found in Appendices D1 through D4 should be integrated into the City's tree management actions. Additionally, Appendix E presents nursery stock standards that can be referenced to help guide the City's tree selection when purchasing trees from nurseries.
1.2.1 TREE POLICY
The City of Temecula Tree Policy is used by several City departments and contractors to select, maintain, and remove trees within City -owned properties. Since all tree management work is completed by contracted labor, it is important to review the guidelines and ensure the standards reflect current ISA and American National Standards Institute best management practices. Table 1-5 provides a line -by-line review of the tree policy and provides suggestions for standards to create, update, or remove to ensure guidelines and specifications are reflective of current ISA and American National Standards Institute practices.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 9 VF
62 CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
Table 1-5.Tree Policy Review
Introduction
This section should be updated with current approximate number of trees within the City of Temecula (City) right-of-way. Consider revising the definition of the City's urban forest to include trees on private and commercial property.
I. C. Tree Pruning
Under tree pruning guidelines, aside from health, strength, and attractiveness (general appearance) of the Guidelines
tree, adding other pruning objectives, such as safety, clearance, and damage repair, will further define the various reasons for pruning and demonstrate that the pruning objective needs to be appropriate to the species and the tree/site conditions.
I. C. Tree Pruning
Under the nine listed guidelines, the list can be augmented to include American National Standards Guidelines
Institute (ANSI) A300 Pruning Standards guidelines and the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) best management practices. The ISA and ANSI standards to consider include making the smallest possible cuts necessary to meet pruning objectives, making cuts outside the branch collar, avoiding unnecessary heading cuts, avoiding topping and lion's tailing (stripping a branch from the inside, leaving foliage just at the ends), not using wound paint, and not climbing with spikes.
I. C. Tree Pruning
The recommended amount of pruning should be updated to reflect the current standard of removing no more Guidelines
than 25% of the foliage from a single branch and no more than 25% of the total tree foliage in a single year.
The percentage of foliage removed should be adjusted according to age, health, and species considerations.
Stressed trees and mature trees are less tolerant of pruning, and leaf area removal should be minimal.
I. E. Emergency Tree The list of emergency pruning situations can be augmented to reflect increasing concerns about tree risk from Pruning
wildfires, storm and wind damage, and unpredictable health conditions like sudden limb drop and others.
II. Tree Removals
The policy states that when a tree must be removed the property owner should make every attempt to replace it. This could be updated for adherence with the Heritage Tree Ordinance where appropriate.
II. A. Diseased/Insect
The determination of a tree being determined to be diseased or infested by insects should be made by an Infested Trees
ISA Certified Arborist.
II. B. Hazardous
Update the numbered list of hazardous conditions to include other common reasons such as storm or fire Condition Removal
damage.
10 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
Table 1-5.Tree Policy Review
Section/
age
II. C. Hardscape
Add further clarification to this section that severe root damage is defined within the root pruning Damage
guidelines. Tree removal should only be approved after determining if alternative site design or materials are not appropriate to address the conflict.
II. D. Building Structure
Add further clarification to this section that the tree should be evaluated through the root pruning or Maintenance
guidelines. Tree removal should only be approved after determining if alternative site design or materials are not appropriate to address the conflict.
II. E. Construction
Tree removal should only be approved after determining if alternative site design or materials are not appropriate to address the conflict.
II. F. Sewer Lateral and
Clarify the language that a tree can be removed if it is not possible to repair the damage and maintain tree Main Line Damage
safety or if it is likely the tree will continue to cause damage to the sewer/main line.
II. G. Reasons That
Under Number 3, a reasonable solution should be better defined. Consider adding examples and Are Not Valid for Tree
alternatives to reduce tree root and hardscape conflicts such as pop -outs, meandering sidewalks, use of Removal
structural soils, bridging, ramping, and others.
III. C. Tree
Low and very low water use should be added to the list of the nine tree characteristics.
Characteristics
III. D. Approved Street
Update the approved street trees list with the recommendations of the urban forest management plan.
Trees
III. D. Approved Street
The concept of consistent predominant species on a street should be carefully balanced with the idea Trees
of creating a resilient urban forest that represents species diversity and various age classes. It may be appropriate to limit the extent with which a street or block is planted with a monoculture tree species.
III. E. Root Barriers
The use of root barriers should be further defined as to when it is appropriate, where the root barriers will be installed, and on how many sides of the tree.
IV. Tree Spraying
This section would benefit from development of an integrated pest management approach and not be limited to one form of pest/disease management like tree spraying.
V. Root Pruning
This section needs further clarification and definition to ensure it preserves trees in a safe manner.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 11
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
TREE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
In addition to the recommendations provided in Table 1-5, general summary recommendations/key findings of the review are listed below.
UPDATE STANDARD DETAILS
Several areas of the tree policy are outdated or lack detail. While the intent of the tree policy is to guide the care of City -owned trees, with some revision and updating this policy document, it could become a collection of standards that governs the care of trees throughout the City.
1. Specific standards that should be updated include the following:
a. Tree Pruning
This section covers in detail pruning objectives, pruning practices, and the amount of pruning. One area to consider adding to this section is when to prune. While generally trees can be pruned throughout the year, there are times when pruning may need to be avoided due to a tree's phenology, pest problems, and other wildlife considerations (i.e., bird nesting season), among others. In addition, guidance for pruning palms would also be helpful as they have a different anatomy and have unique and specialized needs re- garding pruning and disease reduction.
b. Tree Removal
This section covers the various reasons a tree may be removed. One consideration to add would be the phased removal and replacement of undesirable species for a variety of rea- sons including excessive water use or invasive spread into wildland. Consider creating a specific standard or guidance of techniques to reduce tree and hardscape conflicts. This could include a variety of techniques aside from removal that can be utilized to avoid tree removals such as curved sidewalks, structural soils, bridges and ramps, and pop -outs. 12 1 CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
c. Tree Planting
The tree planting section addresses suitability of a tree, planting standards, tree characteristics, and approved species. Consider creating a standard for soil volume and spacing to aid in selecting the right tree for the right place. Root guards and barriers are addressed in the policy. This is another case where creating a standard for the use and proper installation of root barriers would standardize and improve the protection of hardscapes or structures.
d. Tree Spraying
Consider revising this section of the tree policy to outline an integrated pest management strategy.
This should include language that shows a commitment to approaching pest management with the least toxic method that is effective and feasible.
e. Root Pruning
This section should be revised to include guidance on the proximity of the cuts to the trunk of the tree, limits to the overall percent of the root system impacted by the root disturbance, the size and number of roots, and other site- and species -specific considerations. Also, add that all root pruning should be overseen by a Certified Arborist. Additionally, this section should be augmented to provide alternatives to root pruning that can be used in the landscape.
2. Specific standards that should be created include the following:
a. Nursery stock specifications
b. Tree protection during construction
c. Approved irrigation systems
d. Tree watering and establishment care
e. Root pruning
f. Updated tree protection ordinance
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 13
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
1.2.2 TREE PLANTING
Historically, the main avenue for new tree plantings
throughout the City has been as a requirement for a
residential or commercial development, which has largely occurred over the last 15-20 years. As such, tree planting efforts have been directed through a planning and
development process as opposed to needing to plant trees in neighborhoods that are underserved and lack canopy
cover. This is evident in City inventory data that reflects 9i% of available planting sites are filled. While there is already a high number of trees planted in City -maintained locations, it is important to continue to fill vacant sites to maximize the City's ability to increase canopy cover. This sentiment was also conveyed by City staff and elected officials during the department interview process. Table 16 reflects how many trees the City will annually need to plant over a 20-year time frame to fill all vacant sties.
Continuing to plant new trees will be important for the City to develop a more sustainable and resilient tree population.
Section 4.1.2, Species Diversity, of this technical assessment for the UFMP reflects that overall, the City -managed tree inventory is sufficiently diverse to be resilient to an emerging threat. Continuing to plant a wider diversity of tree species will help to provide further protection and resiliency against a pest or disease that could result in losing a significant portion of the tree population. Section 4.1.2 of this technical assessment for UFMP also highlights that the City tree
population is highly skewed toward being young and
immature. This means that most City trees will begin to reach a period of senescence and require removal within a relatively similar time frame. Gradually planting more trees over a 20- year time frame will help to ensure that as City trees age and require removal, there will be spectrum of younger trees to maintain canopy cover.
Table 1-6. Trees to Plant Annually to Reach Full Stocking Goal over 20 Years Planting Sites Trees to Plant per Year Over 20 Years (Gross) Annual Removals 3,�K_ M
169 10
Source: Miller et al. 2015• Note:* Adjusted for tree removals.
Trees to Plant per Year (Net)
179
14 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
1.2.3 ESTABLISHMENT CARE
One of the main tenants of urban forest sustainability is that they require human intervention (Clark et al. 1997). Since urban trees are planted and not naturally regenerating, they require ongoing care to ensure they successfully establish in the landscape. Establishment care is used to describe the period after a tree is planted and will need supplemental watering and maintenance to establish roots. The level of care and consistency of watering is the main factor in whether newly Table 1-7. Annual Tree Plantinq C
Goal
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
planted trees fail or do not grow at a rate to their full potential.
As such, the cost to establish newly planted trees must be considered along with the cost to plant a tree.
Table 1-7 provides the estimated total cost to annually plant 179 trees towards filling all vacant tree planting sites. Table 1-8 reflects the annual planting costs and establishment care costs to maintain all newly planted trees for a 3-year period. After year 3, the level of trees needing establishment care would remain constant at 537.
k 4)1y5 �- 4)64,YUb '05y,b6U 4,/4,455
Note: * Cost to install a 15-gallon-size tree with root barrier. ** Assumes watering each tree once a week and i day of a contracted watering crew per 179 trees for the first year.
Table 1-8. Annual Tree Plantina and Establishment Care Costs to Reach Stockina Goal 179
$34,905
$39,530
358 $34,905 1 $79,o6o
537 $34,905 `L— $118,590
Note: *Assumes watering each tree once a week and 1 day of a contracted watering crew per 179 trees. $74,435
$113,965
$153,495
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 15
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
Based on these assumptions, the City would potentially need to increase funding for tree planting by $153,495, or 27% above current levels, to fill all vacant tree planting sites over a 20-year period. It may be prudent to first explore whether the City can receive grant funding to implement this program based on the number of trees and level of funding that is needed.
Grants have the potential to accelerate the time frame to fill all vacant sites by securing funding for a large number of trees at one time, allowing the City to implement the program without waiting for an annual budget allocation. It could also potentially be used to fund watering and establishment care for the first three years, further reducing the need for City funding.
However, the City will also need to allocate additional funding to the tree program to support new tree plantings, as well as maintain the existing tree inventory (see Table 2-1).
Additionally, when residential property owners request a tree to be planted within the public right-of-way, they are responsible to water and maintain the tree. This model benefits the City in reducing the need for contracted labor to water newly planted trees but does require community education and engagement.
City staff reported that there is some confusion with property owners over who is responsible for maintaining trees in the public right-of-way. It is also not known if property owners understand how to properly care for and water trees. These two factors are key educational opportunities for the City to address if it continues with this model.
So far, the need for this education campaign has been low as only a handful of residents have asked to have a tree planted in their parkway, but it will be important if the City is going to increase tree planting activities. Inventory data shows that 8% of trees with a diameter at standard height (DSH) of 0-6 inches are in a poor condition and 1% are dead. This indicates that while there is some confusion over maintenance
responsibilities, trees are being properly cared for.
1.2.4 TREE PRUNING
Tree pruning differs from other maintenance actions in that the need may vary depending on the desired outcome, like removing hazards, road clearance, or correcting a defective branch. Whatever the pruning need though, the result of all pruning should be to improve the structure and safety of a tree. One aspect of maintaining trees in a safe condition is to prune and inspect trees on a regular basis. Five to seven years is a commonly accepted standard for a municipal tree management program to cost effectively maintain trees in a safe condition (Miller and Sylvester 1981). Temecula has established that they desire to maintain all trees on a 3- to 4-year pruning cycle and is not able to accomplish this for most trees in the City. City staff estimate that $40,000 in additional funding would be needed to maintain park and right-of-way trees on a 3- to 4-year cycle, which is approximately 55% of the tree inventory.
16 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
Given that most trees are accessible from an aerial lift truck, it is likely that more trees would require aerial unit pricing, and the gap in funding would be closer to $75,000 per year than $600,000. Increasing funding may
be difficult as it is assessed directly to property owners and is not an allocation from the general fund.
As previously noted, 87% of the City tree inventory has DSH of 18 inches or smaller, which has two important
implications for tree management. First, the City can
mitigate potential tree structure and safety issues by
implementing a robust formative pruning program. This
type of pruning helps to remove structural defects while they are small and easy to manage, eliminating the need for more costly pruning of a mature tree later. By eliminating the defect, it also helps to ensure the tree grows with a structurally sound crown that would be less prone to
failure. Second, it also indicates that the City will need to invest more resources into the tree pruning program over the next 20 years as pruning young and immature trees is typically less expensive than pruning mature trees.
The remaining 15,337 trees fall under service level C
districts, which are service districts created to pay for the costs of ongoing maintenance of public landscaping
that provides special benefits to parcels in given areas of the City. The 29 service level C districts work by
assessing fees to property owners that fund City
services that solely benefit parcels located within each zone. The original fee structure for the districts was
established 30 years ago, and it has not been updated
since. As such, the funding provided by the fees does not sufficiently cover the costs to maintain trees on a 3- to 4-year cycle.
Almost all trees identified on a slope in the City inventory exist in the service level C districts, which consists of 13,865 trees. Table 1-9 presents the average per tree
spending based on a 4-year trim cycle against the
contractor -listed pricing for aerial unit and climbing tree pruning on slopes.
Table 1-9. Avera
le
Cost per Tree $79.34 $101 $255
Total $275,000 $350,091 $883,894 $75,000-$600,000
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 17
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
1.2.5 TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT
Tree removal and replacement is an important component of ensuring public safety and can be accomplished by ensuring all dead trees identified in the inventory are removed in a calendar year. Table 1-lo reflects tree removals from 2015 to 202o and demonstrates that the City has successfully addressed the backlog of identified tree removals and is maintaining the City -managed tree population in a safe manner. This is further evident in current inventory data that reflects only 10 dead trees with a DSH of 16 inches or larger.
Table 1-10. Tree Removals from 2015 to 2020
2015
43 2o16
96 2017
49 2o18
53 2019
56 2020
=M
7 1.2.6 URBAN WOOD REUSE
An urban wood reuse program involves creating avenues for removed trees to continue to support a sustainable urban forest beyond their use in the landscape. These programs divert wood that would otherwise populate landfills and produce greenhouse gas emissions during traditional
disposal processes. Urban wood reuse programs can
benefit communities by providing a source of local lumber for residents, wood for artisans, and iconic design features adding to the character of the community.
Based on inventory data, the City has a limited backlog of tree removals, but that does not mean it would not benefit from a more robust urban wood reuse program. One possible avenue to increase its urban wood reuse is through a partnership with its primary tree maintenance contractor West Coast Arborists.
West Coast Arborists operates an urban wood reuse program called "Street Tree Revival," which includes programs for tree removal and milling, to turn removed trees into useable lumber.
Another option could be to promote the use of programs
like ChipDrop, which allow individuals to request mulch to be delivered to their property from a tree removal company. This type of service would provide an avenue for mulch to be reused in urban landscapes, but it also comes with caveats. Primarily, the individual requesting mulch cannot specify the amount of mulch or when it will be delivered.
18 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has a grant assistance program that awards
funding for cities and non-profit organizations to develop an urban wood reuse program. In Northern California, the Sacramento Tree Foundation received CAL FIRE funding
to begin the "Urban Wood Rescue" program (https://
www.urbanwoodrescue.com) . Through this program, the
Sacramento Tree Foundation can run a mill that provides lumber and other wood products to local makers and
artisans, generating funding to support its operations and contributing to local markets. This successful program
provides an example of how the City may approach creating an urban wood reuse program in the future.
1.2.7 RECOMMENDED SPECIES PALETTE
With shifting environmental conditions such as prolonged droughts and periods of extreme heat, it is important to ensure that the tree species selected to be planted now will be adapted to future climate conditions and will thrive over the next 50-100 years. To accomplish this, the current City -recommended species list was reviewed against several factors including tree inventory data, Water Use Classification of Landscape Species, climate change research, and a
comparison of City tree inventories with anticipated future annual temperatures of Temecula. An updated recommended species list has been created and is included in Appendix B.
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
The final list of trees included in the recommended species list are based on the following characteristics:
■ Appropriateness of the type of tree by location ("right tree, right place")
■ Appropriateness for future climate conditions
■ Low water use
■ Pest and disease vulnerability
■ Appropriate planting of numbers of species to achieve species diversity goals of UFMP
In addition, the recommended species list includes spacing requirements to assist in selecting trees for specific locations to help avoid tree and infrastructure conflicts. Finally, the list includes additional information on a tree Is fire hazard rating and ability to be planted in stormwater retention basins.
CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 19
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
23 TREE POLICIES AND ORDINANCES
23.1 MUNICIPAL CODE AND ORDINANCE REVIEW
The City provides a Tree Care and Preservation Ordinance, a Heritage Tree Ordinance, and Water Efficiency in Landscape Design that provide the landscape and streetscape standard plans for tree planting, protection, preservation, and landscape design. The following section highlights specific aspects of each ordinance with recommendations to update the standards to align with ISA best management practices (Tables 2-1 and 2-2).
Table 2-1. Chapter 8.49 Tree Care and Preservation
8.49.020
Update the definitions to add specificity, such as what constitutes a "City tree", "City right of way", "Street tree", as well Definitions
as other details related to tree protection, and adoption of the Street Tree Master Plan and UFMP.
8.49.030
Update and add new sections to detail the duties of the public works director, commission oversight, the purpose of the .
UFMP, maintaining of the City tree inventory, approved tree palettes, and maintenance and preservation of city trees.
8.49.050
Update this section to include additional protections for city trees, such as prohibiting defacing any city tree, prohibiting attaching objects to any city tree, prohibiting placement of stone, cement or other substance around trees/tree roots, and protection of trees during construction activities.
8.49.o6
Specificity should be added to indicate that an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist may be hired to perform tree care on City trees located on private and nonresidential properties.
8.49.o6o E
The referenced City tree policy contains standards and procedures that are not current with ISA and American National Standards Institute standards. This statement should be revised to allow the person performing the tree care to provide the best standard of care based on both the City's tree policy and most current industry standards.
8.49.070
Revise this section to include requirements for private property owners to obtain a permit to plant, cut down, prune, remove, or in any way interfere with a city tree. Include requirements for pruning and maintaining trees in accordance with ISA and ANSI A300 standards. Reference the UFMP recommended species list for replacement tree selection. Clarify responsibilities of private property owners.
8.49.090
Chapter 1.20 defines the penalty as a misdemeanor, which is a common practice in many cities but does not account for Violations and
the full loss of the tree as City infrastructure or the environmental services provided.
Penalties
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 21
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
CHAPTER 8.49 RECOMMENDATIONS
ADD LANGUAGE REQUIRING
A CERTIFIED ARBORIST
In the tree care authorization and standards,
it mentions that a private contractor may be
hired to perform tree care on City trees. All
decisions regarding tree maintenance and care
should only be made by a Certified Arborist
who is qualified to work with the City. If private
contractors are hired to care for City trees, there
is great liability from improper care and higher
risk of damage to City trees from contractors
who lack expertise in tree care.
UPDATE THE PENALTY FOR VIOLATION
Chapter 1.2o defines the penalty as a misdemeanor,
which is a common practice in many cities.
However, this does not account for the full loss of
the tree as City infrastructure or the environmental
services provided. The penalty should be updated
for illegal tree removal, or in the case when illegal
tree pruning damages the tree to a point that it
must be replaced. The penalty could be based on
a value per inch of DSH, Council for Landscape
Appraisal, or other practice that considers the
entire value of the tree.
22 1 CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Table 2-2. Chapter 8.48 Heritage Tree Ordinance
8.48.110 After the common names of the species listed to protect and preserve, add the Latin name to be specific and clear about which species this ordinance applies. Further clarify that mature trees of valuable ecological and environmental significance are protected by ordinance. Update this ordinance throughout such that it applies generally to "protected" trees, rather than defined "heritage" trees.
8.48.120 Revise applicability of this ordinance to any protected tree located between the city right-of-way and an adjacent 4 residence.
8.48.130 Update definitions to add specificity and align with ISA and ANSI A300 standards, such as definitions for "Certified arborist", "Drip line", "Excessive pruning", "Hazard/hazardous tree",
8.48.150 1. Add to the required conceptual landscape plans and tree species and location that the plans also show the tree sizes to aid in determining if they are heritage -size trees.
2. Removing the option for the applicant to hire a landscape architect or adhere to the preservation standards on their own without a Certified Arborist preparing a preservation and protection plan would strengthen the City's ability to meet the purpose of this ordinance.
8.48.16o A.1 The list of oaks contains both tree and shrub forms of oaks that are native to California. The size requirements to meet heritage status should be tailored to the mature size for the given oak species. Shrub forms of the oaks would need different metrics to determine heritage status.
8.48.16o A 1-5 The diameter at standard height (DSH) measurement taken for identifying heritage trees should be changed to comply with the industry standard for measuring DSH, which is 4.5 feet above grade.
8.48.2oo B Recreational and resort uses need to be better defined to say which uses specifically are exempt from obtaining permits, as this statement allows them immunity for complying with the ordinance.
8.48.210 B.1 , Add specificity on pruning and routine maintenance that would be appropriate for mature trees.
8.48.210 B.214 The determination that the tree is dead or diseased should be made by a Certified Arborist.
8.48.210 B.3 , The determination that a tree poses an imminent danger to the public or to property should be made by a Certified Arborist.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 23
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
T_1.1_ A A /�I � n n I I . T /l I•
8.48.23o A
8.48.23o A.3
8.48.23o B.5
Recreational and resort uses need to be better defined to say which uses specifically are exempt from obtaining permits, as this statement allows them immunity for complying with the ordinance.
Add detail about the permit review process such as needing an arborist preservation and protection plan and if site visits are conducted as part of the review and how much time it takes for a permit to be reviewed. "Decision maker" appears in this section of the ordinance. It is unclear who this refers to and should be added to the definitions. Previously in this ordinance section, the "planning director" is referenced as the person responsible for reviewing applications. It is unclear if this also included the planning commission or both.
Define the reasonable and conforming use of property. This language is vague.
Licensed landscape architects are not experts in heritage tree care. This statement should be revised to remove them from having the authority to provide other factors influencing the permit decision -making.
8.48.230 C.1 Relocation of a mature heritage tree is likely to have a very low success and establishment rate. If this is the condition for a permit approval, additional monitoring and care should be required over a 5-year period. If the tree does not successfully become established, the applicant would be required to pay a fee equal to the appraised value of the tree based on the conditions and factors prior to relocation. A performance bond should be established and applied to ensure the best possible care for relocated heritage trees.
8.48.230 C.2 Most nurseries do not grow trees to the size requirements of a heritage tree. Trees grown under nursery conditions to very large sizes can develop structural and health -related issues that make them less than optimal as replacement trees. This option should be omitted from the ordinance.
8.48.230 C.3 The replacement of heritage trees at a 2:1 ratio with a 48-inch-box-sized tree does not ensure a successful replacement tree is established. A performance bond would help ensure the long-term successful establishment.
8.48.32o A.1 A performance bond should be established and applied to ensure the best possible care and long-term success for replacement trees.
24 1 CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
CREATE A PERFORMANCE BOND REQUIREMENT FOR REPLACEMENT TREES A performance bond would require any project to meet a City standard and conditions of the permit in establishing replacement trees that are equivalent to the ones that have been removed or damaged. A bond performance period of 5 years gives sufficient time to determine if a newly planted tree has been adequately provided establishment care, including watering, weeding, formative pruning, and general maintenance. It will ensure trees are cared for long enough to be given a reasonable chance to survive and thrive if supplemental watering and care is stopped.
2.1.1.1 CHAPTER 17.32 WATER EFFICIENCY AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN Table 2-3 highlights specific aspects of Municipal Code Chapter 17.32 and provides recommendations for updating the code.
Table 2-3. Water Efficiency and Landscape Design
'=1"r i
17.32.06o L
Specify pedestrian areas where protective tree grates are required. Lower traffic pedestrian areas may not require this design feature. Tree grates, if left unmonitored on a regular basis, tend to cause girdling if not maintained as the tree grows.
17.32.060 M
This design requirement is inconsistent with the City's tree policy, which states that root barriers shall be placed when planting within 10 feet of any hardscape elements or buildings.
17.32.090 Q
Add specifics to the placement of the irrigation bubblers within the root zone of the tree away from the root collar.
17.32.110 A.1
This stipulates that street trees must be planted but does not provide guidelines for street tree selection or size and other requirements for nursery stock.
17.32.110 A.2
Aside from the landscaping requirements that shrubs and ground covers be drought tolerant, this should specify that the water use needs of the shrubs and ground covers are consistent with the water use needs of the trees selected for the site.
17.32.110 A.5
Add appropriate species selection to this requirement. The selection of trees and shrubs is as important as the placement.
17.32.12o B
This stipulates that street trees must be planted but does not provide guidelines for street tree selection or size and other requirements for nursery stock.
17.32.12o H
Add appropriate species selection to this requirement. The selection of trees and shrubs is as important as the placement.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 25
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
CREATE A STANDARD FOR CITY STREET TREE SELECTION
Several references are made to planting street trees, but guidance is not provided on the species that are appropriate for Temecula or the standards the City uses to select tree species. Species selection should be based on the following minimum standards:
1. Trees known to be adapted to the expected changes
to the local climate, which will be hotter and drier
2. Prioritize trees categorized as very low or low water use trees by the Water Use Classification of Landscape
Species
a. Minimize use of trees categorized as medium
water use
b. Do not allow high water use trees
3. Species with fewer ecological benefits (such as palms) should only be used in areas where heat mitigation and
shade are not a concern
CREATE A SINGLE TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE
In addition to the previously discussed recommended updates, combining the Tree Care and Preservation Ordinance (Chapter
8.49) and the Heritage Tree Ordinance (Chapter 8.48) into a single ordinance would further streamline the City's approach to tree protection. By combining these into a single tree protection ordinance, duplicative tree protections that may cause confusion would be avoided.
2.2 CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Including trees in the early stages of the planning process allows for informed tree selection, siting, and increased benefits received from trees as they grow to maturity.
The UFMP is intended to be an adaptive management
plan, and regular updates may be warranted. As new
comprehensive planning efforts that may affect the urban forest are undertaken by the City, those plans should
reference the UFMP for guidance in tree -related issues and goals. Likewise, the UFMP may need to be updated to ensure planning efforts are aligned. For example, the City is currently undertaking significant wildfire planning efforts, and the UFMP should be updated to reflect those efforts and provide information on best practices for tree selection, siting, and maintenance in fire -prone landscapes. Appendix F has been included, which includes a highly flammable
plant list, identifying species that should be avoided in fire hazard areas. The following sections present a review of existing comprehensive planning efforts and plans that have been prepared by the City, how they address trees, and
how the UFMP relates to such plans. This UFMP intends
to complement and enhance existing planning efforts, and in some instances recommendations for updating existing plans to align with the UFMP may be warranted.
26 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
t r�
i 7a�
� .����;:•fir f cr}ll9a: a �:.4 T�+'
rr � �•
rii � r � f_ ,Y � �•
d � •
fir_ _ __ t _. __ . ,• 1j � 1
`
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
2.23 QUALITY -OF -LIFE MASTER PLAN (2009)
'
Temecula's QLMP reflects the vision and long-term goals of the City and is crucial to maintaining the quality of life in Temecula. The QLMP provides a proactive approach to identifying community needs, goals, and improvements. The Temecula � r
2030 QLMP is the current QLMP, and the City is in the process of updating and developing the 2040 QLMP. The 2030 QLMP provides a 20-year outlook to achieve the community vision for the City. The QLMP was developed through an inclusive engagement process with residents, businesses, local institutions, and regional partners. The QLMP identifies six core values that guide the City toward its vision and is organized into six chapters, one for each core value. The QLMP identifies goals, key accomplishments, key findings, metrics of progress, and strategic priorities specific to each core value. Livability, prosperity, and sustainability are the overall themes of the Temecula 2030 QLMP. These themes are reflected and connected in ~� r
the goals and recommendations contained in each core value. The overarching goals of the QLMP include strategic priorities that will meet the expressed aspirations of residents for Temecula to be a place where they can live for their entire lives. The UFMP is reflective of each of these core values, as discussed in Section 1.3 of the UFMP (Table 2-4).
- ! -
The QLMP core values are as follows:
■ Healthy and Livable City
■ Economic Prosperity
■ A Safe and Prepared Community
■ Transportation Mobility and Connectivity
■ A Sustainable City
■ Accountable and Responsive City Government
jM 28 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Table 2-4. How the Quality -of -Life Master Plan Addresses Trees Healthy and Livable City, Healthy and Livable City accomplishments ■ Accomplishments
identified in the quality -of -life master
plan (QLMP) made thus far related to
trees include having master planned
neighborhoods connected by landscaped
boulevards and bike trails and planting
approximately 1,000 new trees since 2001.
A Sustainable City
A Sustainable City accomplishment
■ Accomplishments
identified in the QLMP related to trees
is the planting of 1,000 new trees since
■ Indicators
2001. The QLMP also identifies indicators
and strategic priorities to measure
■ Strategic Priorities
success toward reaching sustainability
goals. The QLMP suggests the following
indicators: maintaining a healthy tree
canopy, establishing an urban forestry
program by 2015, and increasing tree
canopy. A strategic priority for reaching
the City's sustainability goals is to
maintain and enhance the City's tree
canopy and urban forest.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Tree -lined streets are more desirable in many ways and help to create a healthy and livable city, as trees increase property values, provide shade to pedestrians and parked cars, increase safety, and create a sense of place. New tree plantings help to ensure a diversity of tree ages and species in Temecula's urban forest. Continuing to maintain its landscaped boulevards by preserving existing trees
and through new plantings and using the guidance and
recommendations provided the UFMP, including the street tree master plan and Recommended Species List, will help to ensure a sustainable urban forest.
As discussed, continually planting new trees will ensure a diverse and more sustainable urban forest. Proper tree management and maintenance practices as provided in
the UFMP and planting new trees to increase tree canopy based on the canopy cover goals established in the UFMP will help to maintain and expand a healthy urban forest and tree canopy. The City has an existing urban forestry program, and the UFMP supports the continued funding
of and provides guidance and strategic planning for the urban forest program. Additional ways in which the UFMP, and trees in general, help support the QLMP sustainability goals is through greenhouse gas reduction. Trees should be identified as a possible strategic priority for reducing greenhouse gases and the effects of climate change.
CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT i 29
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
2.2.2 GENERAL PLAN
The City's General Plan was originally created in 1993 and updated in 2005. The General Plan provides long-term policy guidance for development, resource management, public safety, public services, and the overall quality of the City. It reflects the vision, values, and planning goals of Temecula's residents, business owners, and public officials. Table 2-5 presents the specific sections of the General Plan that address trees and a discussion of the relationship to the UFMP.
Table 2-5. How the General Plan Addresses Trees
Air Quality Element The Air Quality Element identifies methods for energy conservation, one of which is to optimize
■ Energy
building sites and orientation to take advantage
Conservation
of shade and windbreaks provided by trees.
■ AQ-15 Energy
Implementation programs are identified to provide
Efficient Design
actions to implement the Air Quality Element policies.
Implementation Program AQ-15 calls for energy
efficient design elements in residential, commercial,
light industrial, and mixed -use development
projects, including building orientation strategies
that use shade and windbreak trees to reduce fuel
consumption for heating and cooling.
The Air Quality Element accurately
indicates that trees can be used to reduce
building energy demand through the
provision of shade and windbreaks. Further
details regarding appropriate building
orientation to maximize benefits should be
included to provide guidance to developers
and plan reviewers. Appropriately sited
trees can reduce summer air conditioning
costs by up to 35% (Arbor Day Foundation
2021a, 2021b, 2022).
30 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Table 2-5. How the General Plan Addresses Trees
Open Space The Open Space and Conservation Element identifies Conservation Element goals, policies, and implementation strategies for the ■ Policy 3.4
conservation of open space and important biological
habitats and species. Policy 3.4 supports the goal
■ Policy 6.9
of protecting important biological habitats, plant
and animal species of concern, wildlife corridors
■ OS-22 Land
and biodiversity. This policy calls for encouraging
Development
developers to incorporate drought -resistant
Regulations
vegetation, mature trees, and other significant
■ OS-32 Oak Tree
vegetation into site and landscape design for
Protection
proposed projects.
Policy 6.9 supports the goal of preserving historic
and cultural resources and calls for encouraging the
preservation and re -use of landmark trees.
Implementation Program OS-22 calls for preservation
of open space through land development regulations,
which may include conserving mature trees.
Implementation Program OS-32 requires developers
to retain coast live oak woodland and calls for
implementation of oak tree protection guidelines
adapted from the Riverside County Oak Tree
Management Guidelines.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
The Open Space and Conservation
Element appropriately identifies goals,
policies, and implementation strategies for
the protection of trees. In particular, the
Open Space and Conservation Element
calls for protection of mature trees,
landmark trees, and oak trees during
development projects. Tree protection is
codified in the Municipal Code. Chapter
8.48 outlines protections for heritage trees,
and Chapter 8.49 outlines protections
for City trees; however, "landmark trees"
are not defined, and further details
should be included for tree protection
during development/construction. The
next update of the General Plan would
be an opportunity to provide further
details regarding the protection of trees
in Temecula to provide guidance on what
constitutes a protected tree.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 31
individual project. The Guidelines include single-family residential (Chapter 2), multifamily residential (Chapter 3), commercial (Chapter 4), industrial (Chapter 5), and special standards (Chapter 6), and each chapter addresses design guidelines related to site planning, landscaping, building design, and utilitarian aspects.
Table 2-6 presents a summary of the main tree -related conditions included in the Guidelines and how they relate to the UFMP.
Additional tree -related conditions discussed in the Guidelines, but not included in this section, encourage the use of trees as an important design feature and support the goals of the UFMP.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
2.2.3 CITYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES
The City of Temecula's Citywide Design Guidelines (Guidelines) provide recommendations for the design, construction, review, and approval of commercial, industrial, and residential development in Temecula. Developers and designers are encouraged to familiarize with the Guidelines and incorporate them into project design to ensure the highest quality of development in the City. Some of the Guidelines are mandatory and must be included in project design, while others are encouraged and alternative design standards may be considered that meet or exceed the intent of the Guidelines, recognizing that not all design criteria are appropriate for each Table 2-6. How the Ci
n Guidelines Address Trees
Tree Spacing The Guidelines provide multiple Determining the appropriate spacing to plant a tree in Guidelines requirements for where trees can be an urban environment should adhere to some general ■ Chapter 2:
Landscaping
D., F., J., I.
Chapter 3:
Planting Areas
D., E.
Chapter 4:
Planting Areas
E., F., I., J.
planted in relationship to other existing guidelines outlined in these recommendations, specifically, infrastructure on streets and in commercial the recommended distances to plant when near water/ and industrial areas. The main components
of the requirements include the following:
■ Spacing between trees and
infrastructure
■ 5-foot minimum parkway width
■ Planting to minimize root problems
gas meters, overhead lines, driveways, utility poles, and fire hydrants. Other items, like mandating 30 feet of spacing between evergreen trees, may not be appropriate for all species and could impact achieving higher canopy cover
levels. Finally, a 5-foot minimum parkway is not enough space to accommodate many medium- to large -stature trees.
Increasing the minimum parkway size would allow for larger trees to be planted and increase the canopy cover.
32 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Table 2-6. How the Citywide Design Guidelines Address Trees Tree Species Selection The Guidelines emphasize the use of deciduous, evergreen, and flowering tree
■ Chapter species depending on the location and
Landscaping desired result. These recommendations
H. include the following:
■ Chapter 3:
Planting Areas
■ Use of flowering trees for aesthetic
I., J. K., L. M.
value
■ Chapter 4:
■ Avoiding the use of flowering and fruit -
Planting Areas
bearing trees near pedestrian walkways
and paths of travel
■ Planting deciduous trees for the
aesthetic value of seasonal changes in
leaf appearance
■ Use of evergreen trees to soften
hardscape and provide visual screening
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
The Guidelines primarily focus on the aesthetic value of trees and limiting their impact on safe paths of travel. Trees provide numerous environmental services and economic values to
the City that can be further incorporated into Guideline recommendations. This may include stormwater capture,
energy reduction, reduction of heat island and surface level ozone, and creation of a more pedestrian -friendly area in business corridors.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT i 33
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Table 2-6. How the Citywide Design Guidelines Address Trees Trees in Parking Lots The trees in parking lot directions in The Municipal Code has since been updated to include ■ Chapter 3: Parking
the Guidelines are to follow Chapter parking requirements in Section 17.24.05o. The Guidelines
17.22.188 of the City Municipal Code for should be updated to reflect this change. This section of the Areas
C.
the standards for locations and quantities Municipal Code includes requirements for landscaping in of trees required in parking lots. It also Section 17.24.o5o.H, including the following requirement for ■ Chapter 4: Parking
provides guidelines that trees should have trees: "A minimum of one tree per four parking spaces shall be Areas
minimal canopy potentials that range from provided. Each tree shall be at least a fifteen -gallon container J., Q., R.
25 feet to 40 feet. and shall be of a species that provides a broad canopy. The trees may be clustered, but a minimum of one cluster per ■ Chapter 5: Parking
ten parking spaces shall be provided." Additionally, the code Areas
identifies a minimum planter size of 5 feet. The code should N.
include more descriptive requirements for tree species
and size. Additionally, planter sizes must be sufficient to accommodate trees of "broad canopy," which would include medium to large stature trees. This requirement could be updated to a percent canopy cover over parking lots rather than a required number of trees to better support canopy cover goals. This section of the Municipal Code is further discussed below in Section 2.2.4.
2.2.4 MUNICIPAL CODE/ZONING CODE
The City's Municipal Code contains the ordinances that govern development and zoning the City. In addition to the tree policies and ordinances discussed in Section 2.1, Tree Policies and Ordinances, the Municipal Code contains additional policies and ordinances that relate to trees (Table 2.7).
34 1 CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT
Table 2-7. How the Munici
I Code/Zoning Code Address Trees
17.24.050: Parking This section of the Municipal Code identifies Facility Layout and parking facility requirements, including landscaping Dimensions requirements and specific requirements for trees in parking lot landscaping. For example, the code requires a minimum of one tree per four parking spaces.
17.22: Planned
This section of the Municipal Code outlines various
Development
requirements for PDOs. Each PDO has unique
Overlay Zoning
requirements related to trees. For example, PDO-3
District (PDO)
includes a nondescript requirement to use trees in
setback landscaping when adjacent to residential uses
to create screening buffers, whereas PDO-» includes
specific tree sizing, spacing, and minimum planting
requirements along major streets, entry streets,
slopes, recreational areas, and front yard landscaping.
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
The minimum number of trees per parking space
requirement should be updated to a minimum
potential canopy cover requirement. For example, a
50% parking lot shade requirement, calculated based
on the anticipated canopy at tree maturity, is a typical requirement found across municipalities. This would
allow for flexibility in the location and species of trees that can be planted. In some instances, fewer large
canopy trees may be a better approach than multiple
small trees, depending on the available planter space.
Additionally, the code should encourage trees to be
spaced out throughout parking lots to provide shade
to more cars and people, rather than clustered or
found at the ends of parking rows only. For example,
in lieu of landscape planters between the parking
spaces, a continuous planter at the head of the
parking rows should be allowed.
The Municipal Code should be updated to ensure
minimum tree planting requirements are established
for all PDOs. Plant palette proposed for PDOs
should be updated according to the Recommended
Species List and the street tree master plan included
in the UFMP.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 35
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
2.2.5 MULTI -USE TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN
The trails and bikeways master plan provides a comprehensive update of the 2002 plan and is intended to guide the City's future trail and bicycle facility implementation. Existing and newly proposed trails and on -street bicycle facilities were evaluated through field inspections, geographic information system analysis, and public input via community meetings, walking/biking events, and online surveys. Table 2-8 presents a review of the trails and bikeways master plan and the relationship to the UFMP.
Table 2-8. How the Multi -use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Addresses Trees Chapter 3:
The On -Street Facility Maintenance and Operations
Recommended
section discusses regular maintenance and
Trails and
performance monitoring of active transportation
Bikeways
routes. Debris in travel lanes was identified as a
key issue during public engagement. As such,
Street
this section discusses the need for regular (twice
Facility
Facility
monthly) sweeping of trails/bikeways and keeping
Maintenance
shrubs and trees trimmed to prevent encroachment
and Operations
into the pathway or obstruction of bicyclists' views.
Asphalt Multi-
..__ ni........
The Asphalt and Multi -use Pathways section
discusses pavement design and the potential
for damage to asphalt by vehicles, tree roots, or
improper soil compaction. For pathways built along
riparian corridors or in wooded areas, methods for
Regular trail maintenance and reducing damage to asphalt along active transportation routes encourages use of these routes and promotes safety. Regular trimming of vegetation to maintain lines of sight and reduce leaf litter on trails is necessary to maintain safe and clean pathways. It is also important to note the benefits of trees located along active transportation routes. Trees provide shade and increased safety to cyclists and pedestrians.
Shade and cooler temperatures along these routes encourage trail use by creating a more comfortable environment. Trees increase safety by acting as buffers and producing traffic calming elements. Tree removal should be considered a last resort when tree and asphalt conflicts occur. The use of root barriers prior to installment of trails or trees is an appropriate method for reducing or avoiding asphalt damage. If root pruning is required, it should be done under the direction of a Certified Arborist preventing root damage are identified, including
and according to the standard details included in Appendix D vegetation removal, path alignment away from trees,
Additionally, Appendix C of the UFMP provides additional tree and root barrier placement along the path edge
and sidewalk conflict resolution and avoidance tactics that can be when it must come within io feet of existing trees.
considered by the City when establishing trails and bikeways. 36 1 CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT
Table 2-8. How the Multi -use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Addresses Trees Appendix
A: Toolbox
- Design
Guidelines
Local
Neighborhood
Accessways
Bikeway
Maintenance
and Operations
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
The Local Neighborhood Accessways section The trails and bikeways master plan design guidelines provides guidance for development of pathways/ protect trees from potential impacts from trail construction trails that provide residential areas with bicycle by allowing for narrower trails where there are mature and pedestrian access and connectivity to parks,
trails, green spaces, and other recreational
areas. Guidance for development of these trails
indicates that trail widths should be no less than
8 feet and should be designed to be less than 8
feet wide only when necessary to protect large
mature native trees over 18 inches in caliper,
wetlands, or other ecologically sensitive areas.
The Bikeway Maintenance and Operations
section reiterates the need for regular sweeping
and keeping trails clear of trees and shrubs.
native trees with over 18 inches in caliper. Measuring a tree by caliper is common practice in nurseries and refers to the diameter of the tree at 12 inches above the ground. However, it is standard arboriculture practice to measure trees by diameter at standard height, which is measured at 4.5 feet above the ground, for a more accurate depiction of tree size and maturity. This guideline should be updated to reflect the Municipal Code definition of a protected tree, or heritage tree.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT l 37
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
2.2.6 CITY OF TEMECULA UPTOWN TEMECULA STREETSCAPE AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT
STANDARDS
The recently adopted Uptown Temecula Specific Plan establishes a vision and framework for the development of new bicycle - and pedestrian -friendly urban neighborhoods, with opportunities for living, working, and shopping and a wide range of recreational activities. The following summary of this document addresses the main components of design intent and species selection for the various neighborhoods identified (Table 2-9).
Table 2-9. How the U
Design Intent
Species Selection
win Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Imarovement Standards Address Trees The document identifies various
neighborhoods and provides
recommended tree species to
match the historical land use
of that area. For example, tree
species to be planted in the
Murrieta Creek area should
reflect riparian habitat trees.
The document makes tree
species recommendations for
individual streets within each of
the neighborhoods.
Recognizing the historical land use of an area is one consideration to determine if a tree species is appropriate for that location. It should also consider that trees once suited for the natural area may not be adapted to future climate conditions of extended periods of drought and extreme heat events. The species recommended in this document need to be reviewed against the recommended tree species list of the UFMP and street tree master plan, which are created to ensure sustainability of the urban forest through selecting climate -appropriate species and maintaining species diversity.
2.2.7 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES MASTER PLAN
The community services master plan was developed to update the original parks and recreation master plan and address the long- term community service needs of Temecula residents for City parks, programs, recreation facilities, bicycle routes, and trail systems.
The planning document has few, but important, recommendations for considering the urban forest, with most recommendations currently in progress or having been established by the City. Those specific items are identified below (Table 2-10). 38 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
Table 2-10. How the Community Services Master Plan Addresses Trees
4.4: Develop an Develop an urban forestry management plan that includes goals to (1) maximize These recommendations Urban Forestry the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the urban forest, (2) prevent are being implemented Management Plan: conflicts between City interest and other vital infrastructure while protecting through development of both, (3) encourage public partnerships related to the urban forest (4) ensure the UFMP. adequate funding to prune, maintain, and replant the urban forest, and (5) protect native trees and mature forest in City -maintained areas.
4.16: Park Trees and Develop annual cost estimates for a tree -pruning program based on a 5-7-year These recommendations Landscaping interval between pruning. The City should continue to monitor the spread of the are being implemented
polyphagous shot hole borer beetle (Euwaffacea fornicates) in California and through development of
take the appropriate steps in conjunction with California Department of Food the UFMP.
and Agriculture to reduce the spread of this pest.
4.10: Shaded Areas Promote urban forests by planting trees that provide shade where needed These recommendations
in new and existing parks and facilities. Trees provide a number of benefits, are being implemented
including improving public health, providing economic opportunities and through development of
advantages, and supporting a healthy environment that makes all of our lives the UFMP.
better.
4.10: Shaded Areas Implement an in -memorial or tree dedication program whereby residents could The City has implemented purchase a tree through the City's website and the City plants the trees. this recommendation.
4.10: Shaded Areas Inventory the existing irrigation system and identify a tree planting program/ The City has implemented landscape plan at the sports parks for the purpose of providing shade and this recommendation. increasing the tree canopy as long as the plantings do not interfere with or compromise the safety of the sports facility.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 39
L
' i
X
l
Y�.. , �p P!s
. ;�ii
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
2.2.8 CITY OF TEMECULA BEST
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
DESIGN MANUAL
The California Regional Water Quality
Control Board for the San Diego Region
issued a municipal stormwater, National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
(Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
[MS4] Permit) that covered its region.
The Regional MS4 Permit updates and
expands stormwater requirements for new
developments and redevelopment projects.
In February 2015, the Regional MS4 Permit
was amended by Order Rq-2015-000l and
again in November 2015 by Order R9-2015-
o1oo. As required by the Regional MS4
Permit, the City prepared a best management
practices design manual, also referred to as
the standard stormwater mitigation plan/
water quality management plan (hereafter
referred to as the "manual"), to replace the
current 2014 water quality management plan,
dated July 11, 2014, which was based on the
requirements of the 2010 Santa Margarita
Region MS4 Permit. The effective date of the
manual is July 5, 2018 (Table 2-11).
40 1 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Table 2-11. How the Best Mana
vent Practices Design Manual Addresses Trees
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
2.1.1.2: Site Design Buffer zones for natural water bodies (where buffer zones are Requirements technically infeasible, require project applicant to include other buffers such as trees, restrict access, etc.).
Conservation of natural areas within the project footprint including existing trees, other vegetation, and soils.
4.3.1: Maintain Natural
Buffer zones for natural water bodies (where buffer zones are Drainage Pathways and
technically infeasible, require project applicant to include other Hydrologic Features
buffers such as trees, restrict access, etc.).
4.3.2: Conserve Natural
Buffer zones for natural water bodies (where buffer zones are Areas, Soils and
technically infeasible, require project applicant to include other Vegetation
buffers such as trees, restrict access, etc.).
Projects can incorporate Section 4.3.2 by implementing the following:
Preserve trees, especially native trees and shrubs, and identify locations for planting additional native or drought -tolerant trees and large shrubs.
Using trees in buffer zones is an
appropriate strategy for protecting
natural water bodies, as trees help
intercept and filter stormwater.
Additionally, conservation of natural
areas and existing trees within
development footprints is encouraged.
Tree preservation is an important
consideration as the City aims to achieve
a citywide canopy cover goal. Preserving
trees when feasible, and especially
native trees, provides a continuum of
environmental services and habitat value
that would otherwise take years to regain.
These requirements could be updated to
reflect tree protection requirements in
the Municipal Code.
Appendix B: Design This provides a list of minimum distances that tree wells would be These criteria should be consistent with Criteria and Conditions installed in relationship to existing infrastructure. spacing guidelines of other City planning of Tree Wells documents and recommendations of the
UFMP.
Appendix B, Section 2: This provides a maintenance schedule for newly planted trees over The schedule is in line with International Maintenance Schedule the first 3 years after planting and covers various tasks like watering, Society of Arboriculture best management weed abatement, stake and tie adjustment, and mulching. practices for establishment care and can serve as a guide for establishment care on
other tree planting projects.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT i 41
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
33 WHY CANOPY COVER MATTERS
Canopy cover refers to the layer of leaves, branches, and stems that provide tree coverage of the ground when viewed from above. The urban tree canopy provides multiple environmental services and economic value to the surrounding community. A robust tree canopy that is equitably distributed helps to create a healthier, more resilient community, and the environmental benefits and services received from the urban forest increase as tree canopy increases (Clark et al. 1997)• Likewise, low canopy cover can result in increased vulnerability to pollution, extreme heat, and associated health issues. Residents who live beneath dense tree canopy experience greater tree benefits than residents who live in areas of low tree canopy. For example, low canopy cover may be an indicator of a community's
vulnerability to pollution, extreme heat, and associated potential health issues (Wolf et al. 202o). Trees contribute to cleaner, healthier air in urban environments through direct pollution
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
removal (e.g., uptake via leaf stomata or intercepting airborne particles); air temperature reductions (e.g., transpiration); and reduction of urban heat islands, building energy consumption, and consequent energy emissions (e.g., temperature reductions provided by tree shade). These community enhancements
provided by tree canopy cover improve the quality of life for residents and businesses.
This section of the technical assessment for the UFMP provides a review of the historical and existing canopy cover and identifies priority areas for increasing tree canopy by evaluating the distribution of the tree canopy across the City. The canopy cover analysis establishes the baseline condition from which to develop short- and long-term goals and objectives for maintaining and growing healthy and large trees and increasing tree canopy to maximize resident enjoyment of the environmental services provided by trees.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT i 43
i
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
3.2 HISTORICAL CANOPY COVER
Temecula is located in the Temecula Valley, which is characterized by a mild climate and rolling hills. Historically, vegetation in the Temecula Valley primarily consisted of scrub, chapparal, riparian, and woodland communities. Prior to human settlement, natural tree canopy cover was concentrated in riparian and woodland habitats.
Many of Temecula's parks, open space areas, and surrounding hillsides boast natural habitat areas with native tree species.
However, Temecula's urban forest was primarily planted as the City developed. As a young city (incorporated in 1989), many of the trees that make up Temecula's urban forest have yet to reach full maturity.
Native vegetation communities in Temecula include the following (City of Temecula 2005)-
■ Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub
■ Riversidian Sage Scrub
■ Riversidian Alluvial Fan
Sage Scrub
■ Disturbed Alluvial
■ Chaparral
■ Vernal Pool
■ Southern Cottonwood -
Willow Riparian
■ Southern Sycamore -Alder
Riparian Woodland
■ Riparian Scrub
■ Mule Fat Scrub
■ Southern Willow Scrub
■ Oak Woodland
■ Non-native Grassland
44 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
3.3 TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT
3.3.1 METHODOLOGY
The City's existing canopy cover was determined by analyzing aerial imagery and spatial data to create an updated map of tree canopy and other land cover classes in Temecula. The tree canopy analysis was developed using aerial imagery, height data, and machine learning. Three critical data types were collected: 0) aerial imagery, (2) a digital surface model indicating the elevation of all features within the area of interest, and (3) a digital terrain model that represents bare ground elevations within the area of interest. This data was used to classify land cover types throughout the City including (1) tree, (2) impervious surface (e.g., roads, buildings), (3) bare ground/dead vegetation, (4) low/medium height
vegetation, and (5) water.
The tree canopy analysis utilizes four -band multispectral National Agriculture Imaging Program imagery that is
freely available from the United States Geological Survey, as well as tree height information derived using bare
ground and top -of -surface (e.g., top of trees, buildings) elevation products purchased from Nearmap. The combined multispectral imagery and feature height products were
used to map canopy cover within the City, using both
multispectral analysis approaches and machine learning
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
image classification. A single scene was collected during the growing season, which had o% cloud cover. The heights of various features in the scene (e.g., trees, buildings) were determined by subtracting the digital terrain model elevation values from digital surface model elevation values to achieve a normalized digital surface model. Ultimately, the machine learning classification process utilized multispectral imagery and normalized digital surface model height values for the image -based land cover classification process.
3.3.2 RESULTS
The canopy cover assessment revealed that Temecula has
an existing tree canopy cover of approximately 10.9%, as presented in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1, City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis.
Table 3-1. Land Cover Classification
Tree 1,928 10.9
Other Vegetation 4,159 23.5
Impervious Surfaces 8,194 46.3
Bare Ground 3,371 19.1
Water 36 0.2
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT i 45
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
Figure 3-1. City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis
SOURCE: NAIP 2020
FIGURE 3.1
D U D E K ® 50 0E- City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis Urban Forest Management Plan Project
46 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Table 3-2 presents the canopy cover across different land use types in Temecula. As shown, residential areas have the highest canopy cover (ranging from 9.5% to 14%), and vineyards/ agricultural areas have the lowest canopy cover (less than 10Q. Low canopy cover would be expected in vineyards/agricultural areas as land use is designated for crop production, and trees may not be warranted or desired. Other specific areas with low canopy cover that would benefit from increased tree planting activities include tribal trust lands, Specific Plan areas, and commercial corridors. Increasing canopy cover in tribal trust lands would require coordination with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians to identify where trees would best benefit the community. Areas of the City that are not yet developed, and fall under a Specific Plan, provide an opportunity for the City to require tree planting activities to achieve City canopy cover goals, which can be accomplished with development regulations. Commercial areas have canopy cover ranging from 4.1% to 5.1-/. and are key areas for the City to increase canopy cover, as both businesses and patrons would benefit. Studies have explored the psychosocial response of shoppers to outdoor environments in commercial areas, revealing consistently positive associations between streetscapes with trees and consumer preferences, perceptions, and behavior. Surveys conducted in cities of varying sizes across the United States revealed that shoppers positively associated commercial areas with trees as having higher visual quality and an improved sense of place. Shoppers also indicated an increased willingness to drive farther and pay for parking and, perhaps most
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
notable, a willingness to pay higher prices for goods and services in consumer environments with trees, indicating that they would spend 9% to 12% more for goods and services in commercial districts with a high -quality tree canopy (Wolf 2005).
Table 3-2. Cano
Tribal Trust Lands
Specific Plan
Open Space
Service Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Highway Tourist Commercial
Public Institutional Facilities
Industrial Park
Community Commercial
Professional Office
0 150 1.2
Low Residential (0.5-2 DU/ac max)
Medium Residential (7-12 DU/ac max)
Very Low Residential (0.2-0.4 DU/ac max)
High Residential (13-2o DU/ac max)
ILov.&d�esident3-6 DU/ac max)
Note: DU/ac = dwelling units per acre.
1,674
6,682
181
538
170
76o
935
�e
21 394
536
2,511
343
4,845
2.5 2.9
4.1 4.7
5.1 5.4
5.7 6.8
6.9 9.5
9.7 11.6
13.6 01
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 47
-
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
Table 3-3 presents the canopy cover in
Temecula's parks. City parks account for
0 12 �o of the City's canopy cover and have
an average canopy cover of 16%. While
rr. .
average canopy cover across parks (16%)
is higher than the citywide canopy cover
(1o.9 /o), as shown in Table 3-1, the canopy
P'
cover in City parks ranges from a low of
i
0.4% in Skyview Park to a high of 39.3%in
{ ��' _'•a
�'`' `a 1- ,.:,��
Loma Linda Park. With a wide variability
in canopy cover, the City can look to
w �!"
increase canopy cover by targeting parks
+ 4
with low canopy for tree planting efforts.
Parks also present the opportunity to
plant large canopy trees that require more
+
growing space, which is generally not
available in a parkway strip or tree well
along a City street. One large shade tree
not only increases shading and cooling
under its canopy,but also provides more
benefits to the surrounding community
than multiple smaller trees. Park use
P /
type must be considered when planning
for park trees and setting individual park
canopy cover goals. Section 4.1.7, Park
Tree Planting Priorities, provides further
analysis of park trees.
49 1 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Table 3-3. Park Canopy Cover
Park Name
Skyview Park
John Magee Park
Paloma Del Sol Park
Harveston Community Park
Voorburg Park
Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park
Long Canyon Creek Park
Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park
Eagle Soar Playground and Splash Pad
Naggar Park (formerly Margarita Community Park)
Wolf Creek Park
Veteran's Park
Temecula Skate Park
Sunset Park
Temeku Hills Park
Vail Ranch Park
ommunity ark
Ronald Reagan Sports Park
Pablo Apis Park
Crowne Hill Park
Park
Park
Sports Park
Park
Park
Sports Park
Park
Sports Park
Park
Sports Park
Park
Park
Park
Park
Sports Park
Park
Sports Park
Sports Park
Park
Park
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
6.65 1.00
9.50 19.73
0.73 43.19
4.71 1o.61
20.34 20.34
6.o1
13.78 3.46
1.62 11.48
16.31 6.19
52.42 2.29
3.53 0.4
2.9 4.3
4.4 5.0
5.8 7.0
7.1 8.1
8.1 8.3
9.2 10.1
12.0 12.7
13.0 13.2
13.3 13.4
14.4 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 49
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
7ParkNam7e7 Park/Sports Park Canopy Cover Assessment
Park Acres Canopy Cover (%)
Butterfield Stage Park
Paseo Gallante Park
Redhawk Community Park
Harveston Lake Park
Pauba Ridge Park
Meadows Park
Temecula Creek Trail Park
Nakayama Park
Town Square Park
Wolf Creek Trail Park
Serena Hills Park
Sam Hicks Monument Park
Temecula Duck Pond
Nicolas Road Park
Calle Aragon Park
Winchester Creek Park
Stephen Linen Jr. Memorial Park
Rotary Park
Bahia Vista Park
Riverton Park
Loma Linda Park
Park
2.8o
14.9 Park
1.82 15.0
Park
14.62 15.6
Sports Park
15.92 16.2
Park
5.16 16.4
Park
5.01 16.5
Park
4.35 16.6
Park
0.27 18.2
Park
0.29 20.7
Park
5.38 21.0
Park
2.25 21.7
Park
2.55 22.6
Park
7.51 23.1
Park
2.93 24.1
Park
0.52 25.8
Park
4.50 26.o
Park
2.19 26.1
Park
0.77 3o.8
_ Park
0.46 37.2
Park
4.98 37.3
Park
2.81 39.3
50 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
Table 3-4 presents the canopy cover across Temecula's five Council Districts.
Table 3-4. Canopy Cover by Council District
CanopyCouncil District Canopy Cover Assessment
-
1 7,707.5 2.7
2 3,962.5 10.3
3 2,411 12.7
4,755 8.8
4,958 7.4 A
Table 3-5 presents the canopy cover in schools throughout Temecula. As shown, canopy cover ranges from 0.5% to 23.1%. The mean canopy cover in Temecula's schools is 8.2% and the median is 8.0%, indicating that schools in Temecula have a lower canopy cover than the Citywide canopy. Only 7 of the 33 schools listed below have a canopy cover that is greater than the Citywide canopy cover of 11%. Schools present an opportunity for the City to increase canopy cover by partnering with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. It was expressed during community outreach that additional public education about trees, including public school education, would benefit the community. Tree plantings at schools paired with an educational component for school -aged children could be a creative and beneficial opportunity to include trees in public school curriculum while increasing canopy cover and achieving a more equitable canopy cover across Temecula's school grounds.
52 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Table 3-5. Canopy Cover in Schools
Temecula Christian School
Great Oak High School
Chaparral High School
Vail Ranch Middle School
Rancho Christian School
Temecula Valley High School
Erle Stanley Gardner Middle School
Crowne Hill Elementary School
Luiseno Elementary School
Temecula Middle School
Rancho Elementary School
Vintage Hills Elementary School
Margarita Middle School
Oakhill Academy
Pauba Valley Elementary School
Abby Reinke Elementary School
Redhawk Elementary School
Paloma Elementary School
Ysabel Barnett Elementary School
Temecula Elementary School
Linfield Christian School
The Learning Choice Academy
Vail Elementary School
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
3.66 0.5
51.45 1.4
49.93 1.7
21.40 2.9
33.17 3.2
65.43 3.3
2o.62
4.3 1 o.85
4.3 11.93
4.6 20.01
4.9 1 o.96
5.0 10.91
5.0 24.97
6.1 4.71
7.0 13.28
7.6 11.63
8.o
9.09 8.2
10.23 8.6
12.11 8.7
13.49 9.2
95.81 9.6
2.93 9.7
10.01 10.3
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 53
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
Table 3-5. Canopy Cover in Schools
6"r-
Park Name
Rancho Vista High School
River Springs Charter School
Van Avery Prep Elementary School
Julian Charter School
Helen Hunt Jackson Elementary School
Temecula Montessori Academy
Southern California Lutheran Elementary School
James Day Middle School
3.3.3 TREE EQUITY
3.3.3.1 URBAN HEAT ISLANDS
As temperatures increase, heat is absorbed and re -emitted by buildings, roads, and other hardscape and infrastructure in the urban landscape, causing temperatures in the urbanized area to increase. This occurrence, known as the "urban
heat island effect," results in urbanized areas experiencing higher temperatures relative to surrounding natural or rural areas. Elevated temperatures in urban areas contribute to compromised human health and comfort, which can result
in heat -related illness and heat -related deaths (EPA 2020).
Currently, extreme heat causes more deaths than any other weather -related hazard, with particularly vulnerable groups consisting of the elderly, unhoused populations, and those with
12.67 10.8
3.22 12.7
3.34 14.0
6.92 14.6
2.80 14.9
1.21 18.3
2.69 23.0
7.51 -1 23.1
pre-existing conditions (Sherman 2020). Climate projections anticipate more extreme heat days, which will be accompanied by increased health risks, and an additional 9,30o heat - related deaths are expected nationwide by 2036 (Sherman 202o). Tree canopies reduce the urban heat island effect by lowering surface and air temperatures through shade and evapotranspiration (Loughner et al. 2012). Surface temperatures may be 20°F to 45°F (11°F to 25°C) cooler under the shade of a tree than areas with no tree cover (EPA 2019). Further, on a sunny day, hardscape surfaces, such as asphalt, concrete, or roofs, can reach temperatures that are 50°F to 9o°F hotter than the surrounding air temperature (EPA 2021).
Figure 3-2, Urban Heat Island and Canopy Cover, presents urban heat islands found throughout Temecula overlayed with 54 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
canopy cover. Heat islands are found throughout Temecula, but higher concentrations are located in the northern, western, and central portions of Temecula. In particular, heat islands are found along major transportation routes (i.e., Interstate 15, State Route 79), within open space land that largely consists of bare ground, in areas designated as industrial, office, and public institution land use types in the western portion of Temecula and in areas designated as very low density residential in the northern and southern portions of Temecula.
Table 3-6 presents the census tracts with high concentrations of urban heat islands and the corresponding canopy
percentage in that census tract. As shown, only one of these census tracts (6065043222) has a canopy percentage that is equal to the Citywide canopy, and all other census tracts have a lower canopy cover. A recent study (Alonzo et Al. 2021) revealed that the cooling effects provided by individual street trees scattered throughout urban neighborhoods should not be underestimated. The study revealed lower evening and predawn temperatures in neighborhoods covered by canopy from distributed trees compared to areas with few or no trees.
Temperatures were 1.4°C cooler in the evening in areas with 50% canopy cover compared with areas with few trees, and perceptibly cooler temperatures were also found in areas with 20% canopy cover compared to areas with no trees. The study implies that planners can take advantage of planting individual trees as a strategy to mitigate urban heat.
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
While individual trees contribute to cooling neighborhoods and improving the quality of life for Temecula residents, environmental services are compounded as tree canopy cover increases. Research suggests that at least 40% canopy cover is needed to achieve the maximum cooling effect of trees in offsetting the urban heat island effect (Ziter et al. 2019). However, realistic canopy cover goals must be set for the City, as further discussed in the following section. Nonetheless, the 40% benchmark provides an understanding as to the importance of dense canopy cover over streets, sidewalks, and walking trails to ensure residents have continuous protection from heat as they walk through neighborhoods, to shopping, or to transportation centers. Currently, the majority (870/8) of Temecula's public tree inventory consist of young and immature trees, indicating that tree canopy will increase over time as trees mature.
Table 3-6. Census Tracts with High Concentrations of Urban Heat Islands
CensusCanopy
6065043247
1.5 6065051200
4.6 6065043244
M 6.1
6065043217
_ 8.3
6065043256
8.4 6065043250
_ 9.1
6065049600
9.3 6065043222 11.0
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT I 55
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
3.3.3.2 CALENVIROSCREEN
The Environmental Protection Agency CalEnviroScreen
4.0 online tool identifies California communities that are disproportionately burdened by pollution and have a higher vulnerability to the health effects of pollution (OEHHA 2018).
The tool uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic
information to identify the inequities associated with
pollution throughout the state, and each census tract is given a CalEnviroScreen (CES) score. The score is given in percentage ranges, with 1-io-10-io being the least vulnerable and 91-/0-too-io being the most vulnerable. As shown in Table 3-7 and Figure 3-3, City of Temecula CalEnviroScreen Results, Temecula's census tracts have CES scores ranging from 14.1% (6065043252) to 65.2% (6065051200).
Of the 22 census tracts that comprise Temecula:
■ Approximately 92% of residents live in a census tract that scored less than 50%, and approximately 36% of
residents live in a census tract that scored below 20%. ■ One census tract (6065051200) scored greater than
60%, and approximately 3% of residents live within this census tract; the remainder of Temecula's census tracts have a score of 60% or below.
■ There are no census tracts in the City that scored
above 70%.
Table 3-7. Canopy Cover and CalEnviroScreen Score by Census Tract
6o65043250
6o65043246
,6o65043265
6065043262
6065043266
6o65043267
6065043217
6o65043256
6o65043247
6o650496o0
6065043254
6o65043220
6o65043222
6o65050500
6065043216
6065051200
20.5 10.7
21.5 22.1
23.7 25.1
25.9 29.2
34.3 38.4
40.7 45.4
46.7 48.1
53.3 65.2
10.7 12.5
14.7 11.9
8.3 8.4
1.5 9.3
0.7 12.1
11.0 12.4
Wo.8
■lt.6
56 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
- PO
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
Figure 3-2. Urban Heat Island and Canopy Cover
6065050600f t—6065043211 6065043291
6065043206
klftgt�
to6065050500
6065049800//�\ L w / V
6065049600
[ �t
4�
7 -
O City of Temecula Urban Lands
"-
O Census Tract Boundary
0 Tree Canopy
°
Heat Island Severity
Mild
MOM
Mild to Moderate
1 Moderate
■ Moderate to High
. Severe
SOURCE'. NHIP NO; Trust br Public Land 2020
DUDEK © °
-
_., �s .ate'', EtFP- `H"' . ,� .y9�l�x`�•--
fi065043244
6065043247
6065043218�. '
6065043217 �BM �✓=` a `?g'
rs Y
1 6065043267 _�,Prr c5r tag.'
r �yY
ed Ur L 1 �j 216� A- 6065043239 * ,
s
6065043246 {
6065043262
f fir. X
6065043264
k 6065043265 �..
It 6065;43p
6065043256
6065043248
6065043250
6065043257'_V
6065043252
FIGURE 3-2
Urban Heat Island and Canoov Cover
58 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Figure 3-3. City of Temecula CalEnviroScreen Results
0600' 6065043211 f 6065043291
_j County Boundary 6065043206
O City of Temecula 6os5o9800 6065050500
O Census Tract Boundary /,.\//
Q739,19,001
SOURCE: OEHHA 2021; NAIP 2020; CA DTSC 2021
D U D E K © 0Mes
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
f
6065043267
-------------•----------------------------
6073019002 , ..__
6065043247
6065043239
FIGURE 3-3
City of Temecula CalEnviroScreen Results
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 59
u
s
I Al
.r
r
� R
777 , a.• y � x •�j,
b CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
As depicted in Figure 3-3, the areas of the City with the highest CES scores (and greatest vulnerability to pollution) are located in the western and central portions of the City. These areas largely correspond to the observed urban heat islands discussed above. Overall, the majority of Temecula's census tracts have CES scores below 50%, indicating that most areas are not significantly vulnerable to pollution. The census tract with the highest CES score (6o6505120o) has a canopy cover percentage of 4.6% (5.4% less than the Citywide canopy cover) and primarily consists of industrial and public institution land uses. Communities with low canopy cover tend to have an increased vulnerability to pollution, extreme heat, and associated health issues (Wolf et al. 2020).
Studies have shown that due to identifiable systemic injustices and socioeconomic factors, inequitable canopy cover and pollution vulnerability disproportionately affect low income and minority communities (Locke et al. 2021. The race and ethnicity profiles of the census tracts with the highest (606505120o) and lowest (6065043252) CES scores are presented in Exhibit 3-1 and Exhibit 3-2, respectively. The census tract with the highest CES score and greatest vulnerability to pollution has a population that consists of 60.6% minority populations, while the census tract with the lowest CES score has a population that consists of 47% minority populations. Efforts to expand canopy cover should be focused areas of greater vulnerability to pollution to help achieve a more equitable tree canopy.
60 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
Exhibit 3-1. Race and Ethnicity Profile of Census Tract with Highest CalEnviroScreen Score Rare and Fthnirity PrOfllB Of C@nSUS TYdCt
151200
Hispanic 50.9%
White 39.3%
Asian American 6.3%
a African American 1.8%
■ Other 1.2%
■ Native American 0.4%
MAI
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT i 61
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
Exhibit 3-2. Race and Ethnicity Profile of Census Tract with Lowest CalEnviroScreen Score Race and Ethnicity Profile of Census Tract
6065043252
53%
White 53.1%
Hispanic 21%
Asian American 11.3%
Other 7.6%
vii African American 5.1%
■ Native American 2%
62 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
3.3.3.3 TREE EQUITY SCORE
Tree Equity Score (TES) is a method to identify and prioritize neighborhoods within census block groups that need green spaces, that can be used to prioritize tree planting initiatives that contribute to solving the current disparities in tree canopy cover. The TES method was created by American
Forests, a nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing tree canopy in urban, rural, and natural areas. The variables used when determining the TES include canopy cover, climate, demographic, and socioeconomic data, such as percentage of population below the poverty line, unemployment rate, and urban heat island severity (American Forests 2021). The TES is then calculated by multiplying the Baseline Gap Score by the overall Priority Index. A lower TES indicates a greater priority for closing the tree canopy disparity. The TES method was used to evaluate Temecula's equitable distribution of trees and the results are further discussed below.
The target score established by American Forests for a city to achieve tree equity is a minimum of 75. Overall, Temecula has a TES of 71. Individual census group blocks that scored below 75 are presented in Table 3-8. Currently, there are 26 census block groups that have a TES below 75. Based on the canopy cover analysis presented in Section 3.3.2, Results,, the average canopy cover across the census tracts where these 26 census block groups are located is 9%. According to TES data for
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
the city of Temecula, the two census block groups that have the lowest TESS are 60650512002 and 60650512001. Census block group 60650512002 has a TES of 42, where 41% of the population are people of color and 149/0 of people live below the poverty line. Census block group 6o6505120o1 has a TES of 41, where 63% of the population are people of color and 35% of people live below the poverty line. Both census block group are located within a census tract with a canopy cover percentage of 59/0. The demographics of these two census block groups and their lower canopy covers than other areas of the City reflect environmental inequities where low-income and minority communities are found to have lower canopy cover and receive significantly fewer benefits related to trees and green spaces.
Table 3-8. Tree Equity Scores below 75 by Census Block Group and Canopv Cover Percentage
6o650432661
74 9
6o650432181
73 12
6o650432621
73 13
6o650432182
73 12
6o650432671
72 12
6o650432501
71 9
6o650432672
68 12
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 63
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
Table 3-8. Tree Equity Scores below 75 by Census Block Group and CanoiDv Cover Percentage
60650432221
67 11
60650432505
67 9
60650432162
63 11
60650432572
63 10
60650432502
62 9
60650432441
59 6
60650432201
59 12
60650432171
58 8
60650432222
58 11
60650496003
58 9
60650432471
57 2
60650432563
56 8
60650496o01
55 9
60650432442
54 6
6o650432653
54 11
6o650432472
49 2
60650432161
44 11
60650512002
42 5
6o650512001
41 I 5
Note:* Canopy cover percentages are based on canopy assessment presented in Section 3.3.2.
3.3.4 INCREASING CANOPY COVER
Increasing canopy cover in Temecula will require new tree plantings as well as ensuring existing trees are maintained and preserved. The potential canopy cover that can be achieved in any city is based on historical and existing conditions. A variety of factors influence canopy cover, such as development intensities, land use patterns, historical canopy cover, and growing conditions. These factors largely determine the achievable canopy cover. Cities located in forested areas with ideal growing conditions may achieve up to 40% to 60% canopy cover, while cities in desert and grassland areas generally may achieve up to 15% to 20% canopy cover, respectively (Leahy 2017). Therefore, Temecula's canopy cover must be analyzed in consideration of the historical landscape, which primarily consisted of scrub, chapparal, riparian, and woodland habitat (City of Temecula 2005). Citywide canopy cover goals must be attainable and should be made in consideration of the overall benefit to the community. Tree planting efforts to increase canopy should be implemented strategically across land use types and specific areas of the City to ensure canopy cover is equitably distributed.
Table 3-9 presents the total number of new trees that would need to be planted to increase canopy cover above the existing 11% canopy cover. The planting calculations presented indicate the number of trees with 20-, 35-, 50, or 75-foot canopy spread that would be needed, if the City planted all trees from one 64 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
size category. In reality, it is anticipated that the City would plant a combination of various tree sizes, which can be tracked and monitored to determine progress toward reaching canopy cover goals. Planting a variety of species will help the City maintain a diverse urban forest. Actual canopy cover increases would happen over a 30- to 40-year time frame depending on annual tree planting totals, establishment care, growth rate of the species planted, and potential mature tree canopy size.
Achieving these canopy cover percentages is also dependent on the survival of trees planted. As such, a 5% potential mortality was factored into the tree planting calculations.
Table 3-10 presents the total number of new trees that would need to be planted each year over the next 40 years to increase canopy cover. A 20% canopy cover goal to be achieved over the next 40 years is a realistic goal for the City. The planting scenarios presented provide calculations for the number of trees with 20-, 35-, 50-, or 75-foot canopy spread. For example, planting 937 trees with a potential 50-foot canopy spread per year for 40 years would achieve a 20% canopy cover in Temecula. As stated above, it is anticipated that the City would plant a combination of various tree sizes over the next 40 years, which means canopy goals could be achieved at a faster or slower rate, depending on the species planted and available planting space. It should be noted that the majority (87%) of Temecula's public tree inventory
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
consists of young and immature trees, indicating that tree canopy will increase over time as trees mature. As such, the tree planting calculations presented reflect the number of trees needed to increase canopy based on existing conditions, and growth of existing trees is not considered.
The tree planting scenarios do not account for loss of existing tree canopy or loss of available tree planting sites, such as poor pruning practices, infrastructure conflicts that could lead to poor tree health or tree removal, or conversion of available planting sites to other infrastructure/development. Prioritizing medium- and large -stature trees where feasible will provide a greater benefit to the community and help to increase canopy cover. However, most importantly, planting the right tree in the right place will help to ensure that trees can grow to maturity and provide the maximum environmental benefits and services to the community. Tree species should be selected based on the Recommended Species List and the street tree master plan presented in the UFMP, which consider variables such as minimum planter size, planter type, water use, climate readiness, utility compatibility, and fire hazard rating. Additional variables to consider include existing infrastructure and other potential conflicts (e.g., view obstructions, safety, leaf litter).
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 65
CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY
Table 3-9. Total Number of Trees Needed to Increase Canopy Cover Above 11% 12 26,949
8,796
4,311
1,915
15 100,563
32,824
16,086
7,147
18 174,177
56,852
27,861
12,379
19 198,716
64,861
31,786
14,123
20 MM
223,254
_
jMMMMM�2,871
35,711
15,867
2.5 A,
345,944
-MMMMM�l 12,917
55,337
24,587
Note: Green highlighting indicates
the Citywide canopy cover goal of 209/6.
Table 3-10. Total Number of Trees Needed to Plant
Cover
12 707
231
113 50
15 2,640
862
422 188
18 4,572
1,492
731 325
19 5,216
1,703
834 371
20'
93 � 417
25AM-
9,081
2,964
■ 1,453 IN 645
Notes: A 5% mortality rate has been added to the planting scenarios presented in this table. Green highlighting indicates the Citywide canopy cover goal of 20% 66 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
;o � y.� r 3`fr �'� r �!� 4�` o- a ft' ��-V.•-�r",t' ���>' •x.+4ur
, '.t
?�'�c rvll�f"�n yj�. � ti_ 1-�+�tRk"`�... �;yjA��� '" , � u ;��t'g\ �ti, t�+ r t •n , � - P _.
MvIl"
New
Ap-
r Ig
t�y f r N �\'lam•-�•jn'v�.'. '..>.. :5"
a
_
ti .FI i 1�'.:4� l{Ar,�t't � =.Ift ;�10y ���' � { .�� Iy �4��M ���1q 1r�t. YS r1 f�
r n'/ h,ryYya�,f� �:� �fJ 7{y f1�`) Pi �'�'^"NI♦phM +� IR � r
', r
1t •
.. a ..
b'.���t yy
:yi ,y ,,,!ppp�, �� . J �x 4��'} .f�����,f4C�P�} F�,�.hi"2`•� }L���n� M\�� �5 �"� � 4�-�iti. •� j �.. 9i ,�1 ti'
^11�(�V'��x`"��1�A
't�N; 1 '.. � 1 K I ' � �j�,
11 ����`�Y �.A °�, �Y�• ` `fy ",�
-
i..7 �� .. ; _
=C
! 1 �,
�.C(�. V♦
t� t
�f`�
-
� yW'Ma+ '^Y b
t MF'�y !1\�M ; � �+ t �f- V�}} ;
�ii.H�i�Y���.\'�
� ' ` _
^�jy��\ttr,
�..1 ��s{ Si.�.l R� '':r�� eakaZ• �' 4.YC,SV$��n'{r �, v • � r`�.h�Ci�?`' - �. r
S�
w � 1 th-'3n\)i Plle �R. Z.V+ �S. �� a i..
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
4.1 CITY TREE INVENTORY
METHODOLOGY
Arbor Pro Inc. conducted an inventory of
City -managed trees between January 2021
and July 2021. The scope of the inventory
included collecting tree location and
arboricultural attribute information of City -
owned trees of all City -managed street,
slope, and park locations. The resulting
combined inventory database includes
30,715 trees, with 1,859 stumps and 3,691
vacant sites. The following sections present
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
433 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/ECONOMIC BENEFITS
1-Tree Eco was used to analyze tree inventory records to determine the values of the environmental services provided by the City's trees. In Table 4-1, carbon sequestration is the amount of carbon annually removed from the air by the City's trees. Avoided runoff represents the annual quantity of rainwater that is diverted from the stormwater management system by the trees, and air pollution removal includes the amount of annual removal of ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns. In addition to these environmental services, Temecula's inventory increases property values; provides shade, food, and habitat for wildlife; reduces urban heat islands; and increases public health outcomes. These services contribute directly to the community members' quality of life, and discussing their merits is one method to encourage residents and an analysis of the City inventory data. business owners to participate in urban forest programs.
Table 4-1. Annual Environmental Services and Benefits Provided bvCity-Manaaed Trees Carbon Sequestration
(carbon dioxide removed from air by trees)
Avoided Runoff (rainwater diverted from stormwater
management system by trees)
Air Pollution Removal
(ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon
monoxide, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns)
The carbon removed from the City's air by
262 tons the urban forest is equivalent to an average $44,800 passenger vehicle driving 589,977 miles.
1,796,073 gallons This benefit is equivalent to the average annual $16,000 water usage of 16 American homes.
The pollution removed by the City's tree
IL 9.33 tons inventory is equivalent to the carbon dioxide $55,500 emissions of 9,365 pounds of burned coal.
Sources: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and i Tree Analysis (USFS 2020).
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 69
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Table 4-2. Financial Value of City -Managed Trees
Carbon Storage (7,5460 Tons) Amount of carbon held in trees Structural i I Tree replacement cost I
Functional `Value based o es perfornl
Sources: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and Tree Analysis (USFS 2020).
The financial value of the City's tree inventory is presented in Table 4-2. Each tree in the City's inventory has an average City asset value of $2,892.24. The functional value represents the annual value of the environmental services that the trees provide ($116,3oo/year). Each tree delivers approximately $44.46 in ecosystem services based on the combined
functional and carbon storage values each year. This value is lower than the California average of $110.63 (McPherson et al. 2016), which can be attributed to the age of the City's trees. With nearly 87% of the City's trees classified as either immature or young, with proper maintenance and care it is expected that the environmental services will continue to increase over time as the trees mature.
4.1.2 SPECIES DIVERSITY
Cities with tree inventories that have low species diversity may be more susceptible to invasive pests, pathogens, or $1,290,000 '= $42.00 —
■
$86.9 million $2,892.24
$116,300 $2.46
i
significant weather events. California acquires a new invasive pest approximately once every 6o days (Sutherland 2014).
While not all introduced invasive species result in destructive losses to urban forests, an important strategy to increase resiliency to threats is to foster a diverse urban forest.
Generally, a city's tree inventory should contain no more than 1o% of any one species, 20% of any one genus, or 30% of any one family (Miller and Miller 1991; Richards 1993; Ball 2007).
These recommendations provide useful guidelines to measure the vulnerability of the City's tree population. To further ensure that the inventory is resilient to threats, Dudek used a more stringent sustainability metric of no more than 5% of any one species, to-/o of any one genus, or 20% of any one family to be represented in the inventory.
The City's tree inventory of 30,715 trees is composed of 36 families, 89 genera, and 170 species. The top 10 tree 70 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
families make up 82% of the City inventory, and all
families fall within the 20% sustainability guideline
(Table 4-3)` The top 10 tree genera make up 71%
of City -owned trees (Table 4-4). The top 8 genera
fall within the 10-io recommendation, while Pinus
and Platanus exceed the recommendation and
represent 32% of the inventory. The top 10 species
compose 53% of the inventory, and the top 3
species (Pinus eldarica, Platanus x hispanica, and
Lagerstroemia indica) each exceed the 59/8 guideline
and represent 33% of the inventory (Table 4-5). As
the City continues to plan for tree removals and
replacements, it could consider planting different
trees outside of these genera and species that are
overrepresented in the inventory. Sections 1.2.7,
Recommended Species Palette, and 4.1.2.1, Species
Predicted to be Heat and Water Sensitive, provide
more information for the City to consider.
} y
M.
A-�
'f_f:F� d C.•. gyp,., �_._`� la"` \..
Table 4-3. Top 10 Tree Families in the City Inventory
1 Pinaceae
5,433
18 2
Platanaceae
4,553
15 3
Anacardiaceae
2,981
10 4
Lythraceae
2,677
9 5
Myrtaceae
2,351
8 6
Sapindaceae
1,688
5 7
Rosaceae
1,573
5 8
Fabaceae
1,533
5 9
Fagaceae
1,366
4 10
Hamamelidaceae
995
3 Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021).
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 71
FM
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Table 4-4. Toa 10 Tree G
t 1
Pinus
5,359
17 2
Platanus
4,553
15 E 3
Lagerstroemia
2 677
9 f
f, 4
Eucalyptus
1,837
6 5
Koelreuteria
1,525
5 Quercus
1,366
4 .
Pistacia
1,349
4 Pyrus
1,176
4 Liquidambar
988
3 10
Schinus
941
3 Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021 and additional inventory data).
72 1 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
1 Pinus eldarica
2 Platanus x hispanica
3 Lagerstroemia inclica
4 Pistacia chinensis
5 Eucalyptus sideroxylon
6 Koelreuteria bipinnata
7 Liquidambarstyraciflua
8 Platanus racemosa
9 Schinus molle
10 Cinnamomum camphora
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Mondell pine
Large
3,645
12 London plane
Large
3,644
12 Crape myrtle
Small
2,666
9 Chinese pistache
Medium
1,349
4 Red ironbark
Medium
1,250
4 Chinese flame tree
Medium
1,075
3 American sweet gum
Large
966
3 California sycamore
Large
882
3 California pepper
Large
886
3 Camphor
Large
8o6
3 Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021 and additional inventory data).
4.1.2.1 SPECIES PREDICTED TO BE HEAT AND WATER SENSITIVE Over the past century, average maximum temperatures in California have increased between 1.6°F to 2.5°F, and these temperatures are expected to continue to rise over the coming years (WRCC 2018). Longer, more intense periods of drought and more variable periods of precipitation with increased flooding (Swain et al. 2018) will make finding additional irrigation water a challenge and allocating funding for irrigation improvements for street trees a priority (McBride and Lacan 2018).
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT I 73
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Recent research by McBride and Lacan (2018) provides helpful findings that can guide the City as it plans for its hotter, dryer future. Table 4-6 presents 28 species in the City inventory that are predicted to be heat and water sensitive. Collectively, these 11,293 trees make up 379/8 of the City's inventory and indicate the potential for a gradual decline of tree canopy cover over time.
Of the City's top 10 species, 4 are on this list. Based on this list of species, the City will need to determine which species should remain on its palette that will be able to withstand hotter and dryer weather if future drought conditions persist. Section 1.2.7, Recommended Species Palette, considers this list of species.
Table 4-6. Tree Species in the City Inventory that are Predicted to be Heat or Water Sensitive Platanus x hispanica 11
Lagerstroemia indica'
Platanus racemosa
Liquidambar styraciflua
Ulmus parvifolia
Magnolia grandiflora
Brachychiton populneus
Prunus cerasifera
kKoelreuteria paniculata
Populus fremontii
Purus calleryana
'Gleditsia triacanthos
Pacaranda mimosifolia
Betula pendula
Cedrus deodara
London plane
Crape myrtle
California sycamore
American sweetgum
Chinese elm
Southern magnolia
Kurrajong
Purple -leaf plum
Goldenrain tree
Fremont poplar
Bradford pear
Thornless honey locust
Jacaranda
European white birch
Deodarcedar MES
3,644
Morus alba
2,666
Fraxinus uhdei
882
Quercus rubra
781
Ginkgo biloba
584
Prunus cerasifera
538
Cercis canadensis
365
Corymbia citriodora
311
Lophostemon confertus
307
Cercis occidentalis
195
Liriodendron tulipifera
172
207
131
79 74
Sequoia sempervirens
Acer saccharinum
White mulberry
Evergreen ash
Red oak
Maidenhair tree
Cherry plum J
Eastern redbud
Lemon -scented gum
Brisbane box
Common hackberry
Tulip tree
Coast redwood
Sugar maple
Notes:* Denotes a top to species in the Temecula inventory. 66 64
59 48
12 27
19 19
15 7
7 0
74 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
43.3 DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION
Understanding the overall age distribution of the City's urban forest can better prepare arborists, policy makers, and maintenance workers for funding and management decisions needed as the trees age (Morgenroth et al. 2020). General age recommendations suggest that an urban forest should have a distribution of immature trees (40%) to replace failing or aging ones, young (3o%) and middle-aged (20%) trees to provide the bulk of economic and environmental benefits, and relatively fewer mature trees (lo%) that have most of their life behind them but provided significant environmental benefits for many years (Morgenroth et al. 2020; Richards 1983). The most common and least invasive method to approximate the
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
age of a living tree is to measure the trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground (DSH). Since trees vary in size and growth patterns, using DSH to determine age can only be considered an estimate.
Table 4-7 shows the DSH distribution of all trees in the inventory compared to the recommended DSH distributions.
Based on urban forestry research (Richards 1983), there are more young trees, and fewer immature, middle-aged, and
mature trees than are recommended to maintain a sustainable urban forest. This age distribution is consistent with the age and development of the City, which reflects an urban forest that was relatively recently planted.
Table 4-7. Diameter at Standard Heiqht Distribution of the City's Tree Inventory Age Category
Diameter at Standard Height
(inches)
Number of
Trees
Recommended Percentage of
Tree Inventory
o of Inventory
/o
Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021); Richards 1983.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT i 75
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Considering species' age distributions can help the City plan for future maintenance needs of specific species (Exhibit 4-1).
With nearly 87% of the inventory at either immature or young, maintenance needs for these trees will be focused on formative pruning to help limit structural defects as trees mature. Supplemental watering resources and establishment care will be required to promote root growth and tree health. This level of maintenance is less costly than large tree pruning and is essentia to establishing trees in an urban landscape.
Exhibit 4-1. Age Distribution of Temecula's Top io Inventory Species 4000
Recent work by Morgenroth et al. (202o), and the DSH distribution, helps justify that because a large percentage Of the tree inventory will reach removal and replacement stage at a similar time in their lifecycle, the City should plan to increase its maintenance budget to proactively manage and foster a sustainable urban forest. 76 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
43.4 TREE CONDITION
In general, trees that are healthy with good trunk and branch structure have a lower risk of failure and contribute to a safer City. To determine the health composition, inventory arborists rated trees on a scale of excellent, very good, good, fair poor, or dead (Table 4-8). Tree condition ratings were determined based on visual assessment of trees. Diagnostic testing, internal decay probing, and root excavations were not conducted.
Approximately 9,277 trees from a previous inventory were not assigned a condition rating. As such, they are excluded from the table below. The percentages reflect the number of trees in the 2021 inventory, 21,438.
Table 4-8. Tree Condition Ratings of the City Inventory Excellent
Very good
Good
Fair
Poor
8 10
11,433
8,151
1,719
0.04 0.05
53.33 38.02
M
Source: City of Temecula Inventory (City of Temecula 2021).
Note: *Approximately 9,277 trees from a previous inventory were combined with the 2021 inventory but were not assessed for tree condition. As such, these trees are excluded from the table.
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Table 4-8 shows the health composition of the inventory varies, with 53% rated as good or better, and 38% as fair.
Approximately 9% of trees were rated poor or dead. The main reasons for the poor and dead ratings include signs of internal decay, topped or heavily/improperly pruned trees, sunscald, and damage to the trunk. The City should visit trees rated poor or dead to determine appropriate management actions.
43.5 RELATIVE PERFORMANCE INDEX
Tree condition ratings in the City inventory show how individual trees are performing but do not aggregate performance by species type. The relative performance index (RPI) is used to better understand how individual species are performing and identify species that may need further analysis to determine appropriate management actions to maintain vigor. Species RPI is calculated by taking the percentage of trees in a single species that are assessed in good or better condition and dividing it by the percentage of all trees in the inventory that are assessed as being in a good or better condition. Tree species with an RPI of 1.o or higher are performing as well or better than the tree inventory average, and tree species with an RPI less than 1.o are performing below the tree inventory average.
A sustainability goal for the City is to have its top 6 species with RPIs greater than 1.o (Vibrant Cities Lab n.d.). RPIs for the top 10 tree species are presented in Table 4-9.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 77
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Table 4-9. Relative Performance Index of the Top 10 Species in the Inventory Platanus x hispanica
Lagerstroemia inclica
Pistacia chinensis
Eucalyptus sideroxylon
Koelreuteria bipinnata
Liquidambar styraciflua
Platanus racemosa
Cinnamomum camphora
London plane
Chinese pistache
Chinese flame tree
American sweet gum
California sycamore
California pepper
Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and Tree (USFS 2020).
With three of its top six species having an RPI of 1.0 of greater, the City inventory does not yet meet the RPI sustainability goal. However, only two species (Eucalyptus sideroxylon and Liquidambar styraciflua) are significantly below an RPI of 1o. Of particular importance is the low 0.36 RPI for the City's American sweet gum trees (Liquidambar styraciflua).
These trees have moderate/medium water requirements
based on ratings developed by the Water Use Landscape
Classification of Species ratings, and the cumulative effects of repetitive drought conditions in recent years could be contributing to this species' decline. These trees are also on the list of trees in the City inventory that are predicted to be heat and water sensitive (Section 4.1.2.1, Species Predicted to be Heat and Water Sensitive). The City should monitor sweetgum performance over the next 5-10 years to determine if additional mitigation strategies are needed.
78 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
43.6 IMPORTANCE VALUE
The importance value of trees is calculated in 1-Tree Eco by combining the percentage of the species in the population of City -owned trees and its corresponding percentage of leaf area. These two percentages are added together to determine the importance value (Table 4-1o). This metric is another way to measure a species' total value to the City's urban forest.
Table 4-10. Ten Species with the Highest Importance Values in the City's Inventory Pinus elclarica
Mondell pine
Large
11.9 16.8
27.9 Eucalyptus sideroxylon
Red ironbark
Large
4.1 18.3
22.4 Platanus x hispanica
London plane
Large
11.9 10.2
22.1 Lagerstroemia indica
Crape myrtle
Small
8.7 0.9
9.6 Platanus racemosa
California sycamore
Large
2.9 4.4
7.3 Pyrus calleryana
Callery pear
Medium
3.8 2.8
6.6 Acacia stenophylla
Shoestring acacia r
Medium
2.3 3.8
6.1 Schinus mole
California pepper
Large
2.8 3.1
6.o
r
Pinus canariensis
Canary Island pine '
Large
2.6 3.2
5.8 Pistacia chinensis
Chinese pistache�
i
Medium
4.4 1.3
5.7 Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and i Tree (USFS 2020) CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT i 79
7"
'0 ................. .... j",
av
jul� I -, - - " � i, - -Z
� � pre; "�,"
ito M.T.
IMIN
-Y T
47'
MOW*
will
1-7
-qr
Ow-
VOR
The trees with the highest importance values are expected as they are most common species (Mondell pine [Pines
elclarica]), second most common species (London plane
[Platanus x hispanica]), and fifth most common species
(red ironbark [Eucalyptus sicleroxylon]), and they are all large -stature trees. Red ironbark's importance value of 22.4 highlights the increased value of large -stature trees, as it only makes up 4% of the inventory but accounts for 18.3% of the inventory leaf area. In comparison, the small -stature crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) tree makes up 8.7% of the inventory but only o.9% of the leaf area. The planning decisions of the City have allowed for a high number of large -stature trees to be planted that return an increased level of environmental services and should continue to
prioritize planting large tree species that are adapted to changing climate conditions to receive a high level of environmental benefits.
4.1.7 PARK TREE PLANTING PRIORITIES
Temecula's 31 parks and 8 sports parks contain 5,990
trees, 1,354 vacant sites, and 184 stumps. During City
staff interviews, individuals expressed that City parks would benefit from shade structures and/or increased
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
tree plantings to make parks more comfortable when
temperatures are high during summer months. The average canopy cover for all parks is 16%, which is higher than the citywide canopy cover of 1o.9%. However, canopy cover
significantly varies between parks, ranging from 0.4% to
39.3%. Park variations to canopy cover differ depending on park type (regular park, sports park) and age of park and/or trees (recent tree plantings), As such, the number of trees at each park does not necessarily correlate with canopy cover.
To provide the City with a metric for prioritization of park planting, a Priority Planting Score was created for each park (Table 4-11). To calculate the score, the number of park trees, vacant sites, and stumps were first added together to determine the total number of sites per
park. The number of park trees were divided by the
total number of sites to determine each park's filled site percentage. The filled site percentage was then added
to each park's canopy cover percentage to determine a
priority planting score. Parks with a lower score should be prioritized for planting. Parks with higher scores do not need to be planted in the short-term but could be
prioritized for planting in the next 15-20 years.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 81
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Table 4-11. Park Tree Priority Planting Scores
Crowne Hill Park
Park
47 14.42
61.4 Voorburg Park
Park
6o
5.02 65.0
Paloma del Sol Park
Sports Park
66 4.27
70.3 Veterans Park
Park
68 9.16
77.2 Sam Hicks Monument Park
Park
57 22.64
79.6 Temeku Hills Community Park Sports Park
67 12.72
79.7 Butterfield Stage Park
Park
65 14.92
79.9 Michael Stephen Linen Jr Park Park
55 26.o8
81.1 Calle Aragon Park
Park
57 25.75
82.8 Wolf Creek Park
Park
76 8.29
84.3 Pala Community Park
Sports Park
75 13.18
88.2 Long Canyon Creek Park
Park 'M
83 6.99
90 Patricia Birdsall Park
Park
85 5.82
9o.8
Harveston Community Park
-=Iports
J=tports Park
87 4.38
91.4 Duck Pond Park
Park
70 23.13
93.1 Ronald Reagan Sports Park
ports Park
8o
13.31 93.3
Bahia Vista Park
Park
57 37.18
94.2 Paseo Gallante Park
Park
8o
15.09 95.1
Margarita Community Park
Sports Park A
87 8.14
95.1 82 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
Table 4-11. Park Tree Priority Planting Scores
Park Name 4w-qq
% of
Sites Filled Park Canopy
-
Vail Ranch Park
Park
83 13.02
96 Redhawk Community Park
Park
82 15.6o
97.6 Nicolas Road Park
Park
74 24.o8
98.1 Nakayama Park
Park
8o
18.22 98.2
Pablo Apis Park
Park
85 13.44
98.4 Kent Hintergardt Park
"Floorts Park
7.11 -1
100.1
Harveston Lake Park
Park
16.23 100.2
Skyview Park
Park
100
0.36 100.4
Meadows Park
Park
84 16.48
100.5
Riverton Parl Park
65 3734
102.3
John Magee Park
Park
100
2.90 102.9
Winchester Creek Park
Park
78 25.99
104
Temecula C reeiTrail Park
Park
88 16.61
104.6
LOPATIMM Park
AL JL
A&iA
68 39.31
107.3
Pauba Ridge Park
r7ark=
91 16.43
107.4
Sunset Park
r
100
12.01 112
Wolf Creek Trail Park
91 21.03
112
Serena Hills Park ar
98 A
21.67 119.7
�2otary Park
Par
90 MEL
3o.83
120.8
Note: The 280 trees planted on Arbor Day are included in this analysis.
CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT i 83
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
4.1.7.1 SPECIES DIVERSITY
The top 10 tree genera represent 72% of the City's park trees, and Pinus and Platanus trees exceed the 10-io recommendation. These genera represent 380io of the park trees (Table 4-12) and may be vulnerable to threats. The top to species make up 60% of the park trees, and the top three species (Pinus eldarica, Platanus x hispanica, and Platanus racemosa) each exceed the 5% guideline. These species represent 32% of the inventory (Table 4-13). 1 Platanus
1,345
22 2 Pinus
964
16 3 Quercus
316
5 4 d Rhus
311
5 5 Koelreuteria
302
5 6 , Corymbia
242
4 7 Pistacia
222
4 8 - Lagerstroemia
218
4 9 - Eucalyptus
217
4 0' Ulmus
188
3 Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021).
Note: * The trees planted on Arbor Day are not included in this analysis. 84 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Table 4-13. Top 10 Tree Species in the City Inventory
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
Platanus x hispanica
London plane
861
Pinus eldarica
Mondell pine
663
Platanus racemosa
California sycamore
458
Rhus lancea
African sumac
311
Koelreuteria bipinnata
Chinese flame tree
247
Corymbia ficifolia
Red flowering gum
225
Pistacia chinensis
Chinese pistache
222
Lagerstroemia indica
Crape myrtle
218
Pinus canariensis
Canary island pine
198
Ulmus parvifolia
Chinese elm
188
Note: * The trees planted on Arbor Day are not included in this analysis.
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
4.1.7.2 TREE CONDITION
Table 4-14 depicts the condition of inventoried
trees. The conditions of the City's park trees
•
are primarily rated as good (42%) and fair
(51%). Approximately 7% of the trees are rated
14 poor or dead, which could present a safety
risk depending on the location of the trees.
11 These trees should be monitored, and dead
trees should be removed and replanted.
5 Table 4-14. Tree Condition Ratings of the
City Inventory
4Percent
of
Condition
4 Excellent 2 0.03
Very good 3 0.05
4 Good 2,526 42
4 Fair 3,055 51
Poor 368 6
3 �- o.6o A
Note: *The trees planted on Arbor Day are not included
in this analysis.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 85
STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST
4.1.7.3 AGE DISTRIBUTION
The ages of the City's park trees align fairly closely with the age trends seen in the City inventory, with over 66% of the park trees classified as young (Table 4-15). The park trees will likely need similar maintenance, as they age along a similar time frame.
As this occurs, adequate resources will need to be set aside to accommodate tree maintenance needs and plan for future tree plantings to ensure a continuation of environmental benefits.
Table 4-15. DSH Distribution of the City's Park Trees
Age Category
Immature
Diameter at Standard Height
(inches)
•
Number of
Trees
Recommended Percentage of o
/o
Tree Inventory of Inventory
.• 22
1110
Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021); Richards 1983. 86 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
Y r R I � . � �'�w�� "i '�q� � �► ��t t'� 'fit' r
r�Y
K LL-F' �� �-t�'1��1��,j;, ,�L 1.: - `�,•,j��� .fie
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
88 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
J�
.46
C
eaningful community engagement is essential
to developing a UFMP that reflects the values,
needs, and priorities of Temecula residents and
stakeholders. During the UFMP development process, the
City and the consultant team conducted community outreach and engagement activities to understand the values that community members have for trees, City tree management
actions, and how those perceptions affect the urban forest.
MW no rou 10VE MOST ABOUT TREES?
DO
�_ommunity engagement occurrea tnrougn in -person ana
virtual outreach activities. In -person activities included an interactive booth at five public events and the Temecula Urban Forest Summit. Virtual outreach took place via video conference interviews with City staff, a virtual community meeting, social media campaigns, e-newsletters, a public survey, presentations about the UFMP to local organizations, and monthly working group meetings with key stakeholders.
The following sections outline the community engagement approach used to receive critical input from stakeholders and how the input is incorporated into development of the UFMP.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT I 89
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
53 ONLINE SURVEY
An online bilingual survey (English and Spanish) was created to identify the public's perception and understanding of the City's trees and to offer an open forum for public feedback as the City developed its UFMP. The 19-question survey was open between February 2021 and April 2022 and was disseminated through various outreach outlets such as social media posts, e-newsletters, farmers markets, community events, and the urban forest summit. A summary report of the online survey results can be found in Appendix G.
5.13 DEMOGRAPHIC RESULTS
In total, 702 survey responses were recorded, including 688 English responses and 14 Spanish responses. Table 51 highlights relevant survey respondent demographics and how they compare to City data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The survey responses may reflect the opinions of Temecula residents that are older, are more likely to be homeowners, and have a higher education than the average demographics of the City's residents.
Table 5-1. Dem
I . r r n I n I. n
F the Citv of Temecula
Age 65 or older q% 65 or older 10%
Housing Type Single-family home
Housing Status Homeowner
Primary Language Spoken at Home English
Education Bachelor's degree or higher
Source: World Population Review 2022.
95% Single-family home 81%
81% Homeowner 64%
98% English 76%
6o% Bachelor's degree or higher 34%
90 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
53.2 SURVEY RESULTS
The results of the survey are summarized below (Table 5-2). A full copy of the survey results is included in Appendix G.
Table 5-2. Summary of Online Survey Responses
■ 97% view trees as a valuable community asset that contribute to the quality of life in Temecula Trees as a City asset ■ 75% view trees as more important than or equally as important as other City -maintained infrastructure ■ 67% believe City -maintained trees are in good or excellent condition ■ 24% believe that maintaining existing trees is the top priority of the Temecula Urban Forest Management Plan Priorities, benefits, ■ 28% believe improving the environment (i.e., air quality, storing carbon) is the most important benefit trees and challenges provide in Temecula
■ 24% are reluctant to plant trees due to damage to sewer pipes/sidewalks Opinions on tree ■ 66% agree slightly agree, agree, strongly agree) that the City should have ordinances to protect trees on private protection ordinances property in the same way they protect trees in the public space Cost of tree -related ■ 32% have had no expenses related to preventative tree care or maintenance over the past 5 years maintenance/repairs ■ 24% have spent $100-$499 on expenses related to preventative tree care or maintenance over the past 5 years Opportunities for - 32% are willing to plant a tree on their private property community involvement ■ 30% are willing to participate in a community tree planting event Trees on private 48% believe the City should provide "How To" information on planting, watering, and trimming property 45% believe the City should provide financial support for tree trimming ■ 9% believe a free shade/fruit tree citywide program would be the most effective way to increase canopy on private property
Additional comments/ ■ 6% would like to see a more diverse variety of tree species planted throughout the city while including native open forum trees where feasible
■ 6% would like educational materials about the urban forest that are easy to comprehend and accessible to all community members
CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 91
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
5.2 WORKING GROUP
The City's UFMP working group was formed to bring together a diverse representation of City staff and community members to help advise the UFMP's developmental process (Table 5-3). Four working group meetings were held between February 2022 and .tune 2022, with each meeting facilitated by the consultant team. 5-3. Temecula's Urban Forest Master Plan Workina Grour) Members Stacy Fox -W
Patrick Thomas
Matt Hayes
Nicole Flores
Tom Cole
Kathy Sizemore
Abigail Srader
Mark Collins
Public Works
Public Works
Fire
Risk
Code Enforcement
Community Service
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
Planning
Parks Maintenance Superintendent
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Temecula Fire Captain
Risk Management Analyst
Field Supervisor Code Enforcement
Chair, Community Service Commissioner
Urban Forester
Temecula Planner
92 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
During the working group meetings, members generated a draft UFMP vision statement, played an integral role in developing the guiding principles, goals, and strategies that are discussed throughout the UFMP, and reviewed the administrative draft of the UFMP. Each working group member brought a unique perspective to the group, providing the context for City policy, regulatory perspectives, community challenges, and safety considerations. Key insight gathered from the working group meetings are summarized below (Table 5-4).
Table 5-4. Workina Group Kev Insiahts
What are the core values of Temecula ■ Family and community -oriented living? ■ Mix of city and rural destinations —the best of both worlds ■ Well -maintained city infrastructure
■ Public safety
■ Values history and old traditions
What are the top priorities of a ■ Planting drought -tolerant tree species successful urban forest in Temecula? ■ Increase financial support for tree maintenance and planting ■ Implement water agreements between residents and the City ■ Educate community members on "right tree, right place" ■ Provide residents with the resources to plant a tree on their property What are the biggest challenges of the ■ Stigma about trees that contribute to litter urban forest in Temecula? ■ Element of equity —providing shade in low-income housing complexes ■ Incorporating appropriate tree species in new development plans ■ Consistent educational outreach about the importance of trees CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 93
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
5.3 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS
Between May and June 2021, Dudek conducted interviews with various City staff from the Public Works and Community Development Department, as well as elected officials and community leaders, to understand the effectiveness of the urban forest management program. Nine individuals were invited to attend group interviews, which were conducted virtually via Zoom. Those who participated in the interviews are included below (Table 5-5).
Table 5-5. Stakeholder Interview Particioants
I Director
Public Works Superintendent
Senior Landscape Inspector
Principal Planner
Community Principal Planner
Development Stormwater Development Manager
Elected Officials
Community Member
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tern
Resident of Temecula
The interviews explored the role each stakeholder had in influencing City tree management, clarified internal City procedures, and informed areas where the City could improve management of the urban forest. Major themes shared during the interviews are presented below (Table 5-6).
94 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Table 5-6. Summary of Stakeholder Interview Responses
Community ■ Connect with educators/schools to integrate trees into existing science curriculum Education and ■ Develop an urban forestry internship program among City staff where high school and college students can Outreach participate
■ General desire to significantly increase community engagement and educational campaigns to promote the benefits of a robust urban forest
■ Identify and collaborate with existing local organizations and nonprofits to increase education and outreach ■ Host community tree planting/tree care events on the weekends ■ Social media contests to promote tree giveaways
■ Water -wise campaigns and implement watering agreements between residents and the City Funding the ■ Increased funding is needed to support tree maintenance and tree trimming Urban Forest ■ Homeowner's association (HOA) fees to support the City's tree maintenance efforts have not increased in over 20 Program years
■ Explore alternative funding sources (i.e., California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection grants, climate grants, integrate funding into development plans, implement a citywide fee program) Parks ■ Current sports parks lack trees that provide shade ■ Older parks have big, mature trees while the new parks have less tree canopy coverage ■ Take advantage of planting trees in sports parks and traditional parks throughout the City CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 95
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Table 5-6. Summary of Stakeholder Interview Responses
Planning ■ Integrate the urban forest management plan guiding principles to align with the quality -of -life master plan ■ Preserve portions of golf courses that have existing trees when future development to meet Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers occur
■ More planning and focus needed on right-of-way trees; trees seem to be unfit for planter sizes Staffing ■ More staff is needed for community outreach and education (i.e., hiring more park inspectors) ■ Pleased with staffing levels in Public Works Department New ■ Involve and codify review process for new development Development
■ Include a public works arborist in the review process of new development Stormwater Education program or synergy between Public Works and Engineering Departments to work together and design tree/sidewalk elements to address stormwater and sidewalk infrastructure issues ■ Incorporate stormwater tree wells into alternative compliance program throughout the city (i.e., developers can buy offset credits to install more stormwater tree wells)
HOAs ■ A standard citywide agreement of who is responsible for tree maintenance on HOA property is needed ■ Increase in HOA fees to support tree maintenance fund 96 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
-� Myra
5.4 COMM
Building trust with community members is a key priority to increasing involvement in the Temecula urban forest
program. To support this approach, the consultant team, in collaboration with the City, tabled at five different community events, including the Old Town Temecula Farmers Market, the Vail Ranch Farmers Market, and the "Chilled in the Park" holiday fireworks event.
The consultant team set up graphic engagement boards,
urban forest fast -facts sheets, flyers for the urban forest summit event, and hard copies of the Temecula tree survey at the tabling booth, which provided an interactive experience for interested community members. Public outreach allowed the consultant team to develop personable connections and discuss opportunities and challenges regarding the UFMP with people of various backgrounds and age groups.
5.5 URBAN FOREST SUMMIT
The Temecula Urban Forest Summit was a 2.5-hour
community event held at the Temecula Conference Center
on March 16, 2022. Community members were led through
guided idea -generating exercises to identify critical
successes, barriers, and desires for the City's urban forest.
The summit provided community members with a formal
introduction to the UFMP, preliminary inventory and survey data analysis, and opportunities to stay involved with the City's urban forest program. General themes about the
status of the urban forest were identified by the consultant team and working group. The themes were later used to
develop the vision statement and goals of the UFMP.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 97
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
5.5.1 URBAN FOREST SUMMIT RESULTS
5.5.1.1 DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
Summit attendees completed a voluntary demographic
survey to help the City understand if event attendees
represent similar demographics to that of Temecula.
Results from the demographic survey was compared
to demographics from the U.S. Census Bureau. Of the
respondents, 82% live in a single-family home, 78% are
homeowners, 96% speak English as their primary language, and 43% have a bachelor's degree or higher (Table 5-7).
Table 5-7. Urban Forest Summit Attendee Dem
The urban forest summit responses may reflect the
opinions of Temecula residents that are likely to be
homeowners and have a higher education level than the
average demographics of the City's residents. During the implementation phase of the UFMP, it will be important to continue to prioritize outreach efforts to City residents of different backgrounds and ages to ensure that their input regarding the urban forest is included.
hics
Age 65 or older 4% 65 or older 10%
Housing Type Single-family home 82% Single-family home 81% Housing Status Homeowner 78% Homeowner 64%
Primary Language Spoken at Home English 96% English 76% Education
Ethnicity
Bachelor's degree or higher
Hispanic, Latino/a/x
43% Bachelor's degree or 34%
higher
0% Hispanic, Latino/a/x 30%
98 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
�1
tole—
Ar"
o
� I
'` .'s
5.5.1.2VISION STATEMENT
The first activity aimed at generating words and phrases to develop the vision statement for the UFMP. Participants were asked to write their responses to the following questions on sticky notes and stick each note on large flip chart paper:
What words/phrases would you use to describe
Temecula's urban forest and/or ideal urban forest?
What do you value most about living in Temecula?
Responses to the vision statement activity are detailed in Table 5-8.
k
Table 5-8. Vision Statement Results
■ Variety of tree species
■ Shade corridors
■ Dense, forested areas
■ Peaceful sanctuary
■ Native tree gardens
■ Food providing
■ Model urban forest
■ Serving wildlife habitat
111
■ Hilly terrain and beauty
■ Open spaces
■ Family oriented
■ Small town charm
■ Walkability
■ Safety
■ Growing ethnic diversity
■ Green belts and mountains
F --q
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 99
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
5.5.1.3CATEGORICAL GRAPHIC BOARD I
The second activity instructed attendees to place tree
magnets on a categorical graphic board of where more trees are needed in Temecula. Of the total responses, the top two categories were schools and biking/walking paths. Responses to the first graphic board activity are shown below (Table 5-9 and Exhibit 5-1).
Table 5-9. "Where Do We Need More Trees" Categorical
Graphic Board Results
Schools
20 14
Biking/Walking Paths
20 14
Parks
18 12
Parking Lots
18 12
Apartment Communities
15 10
Retail Areas
15 10
Front and Backyards
14 9
Sidewalks
14 9
Transit Stops
14 9
Exhibit 5-1. "Where Do We Need More Trees" Categorical
Graphic Board Results
nent UU WE NEED MORE 7REES7
100 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
5.5.1.4CATEGORICAL GRAPHIC BOARD II
The third activity instructed attendees to place tree magnets on a graphic board of what they love most about trees.
Of the total responses, most people love the benefit of trees providing cleaner air. Responses to the graphic board activity are shown below (Table 5-10 and Exhibit 5-2).
Table 5-10. "What Do You Love Most About Trees" Categorical Graphic Board Results
Cleaner Air
32 16
Food
27 13
Shade
26 13
Rainwater Capture
25 12
Beauty
22 11
Healthier Communities
22 11
Wildlife Habitat
19 9
Energy Savings
16 8
Connecting with Neighbors
14 7
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Exhibit 5-2. "What Do You Love Most About Trees"
Categorical Graphic Board Results
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 101
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Exhibit 5-3. "Where Are Trees Needed Most" Map of Temecula Activity Results
City of T+
I
4 5.4.1.5MAP OF TEMECULA
The fourth activity instructed attendees
to place pushpins on a map of Temecula
where trees are needed most. The top eight
locations where trees are needed most
based on number of pushpins on the map
are shown below (Table 5-11 and Exhibit 5-3).
Table 5-11. "Where Are Trees Needed
Most" Top 8 Location Results
.. 8 Locations
Winchester Road
Nicolas Road
Pechanga Parkway
Temecula Parkway
Pauba Road
Lake Village (central Temecula)
Arbor Glen (southern Temecula)
Temecula Ranchos (southern Temecula)
102 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
5.5.1.6GROUP DISCUSSIONS
The fifth activity involved participants
working in small groups of 8-10 to
brainstorm answers to questions that
were organized by different principles for
urban forest management:
1. How do we get more resi-
dents involved with the urban
forest?
2. How can we help preserve/
maintain the existing urban
forest?
3. How can we get more trees
planted on non -city -owned
property?
Working group members and volunteers
facilitated each group discussion by
rotating to a new group table every 15
minutes for 3 rounds and summarized the
ideas generated from the previous group
table for each question. The feedback
received from the group discussion
activity was incorporated during the
development of the UFMP. The results
received are shown in Table 5-12.
■ Monthly tabling at
farmers markets/
community events
■ Incorporate tree
education in school
curriculums
■ City -sponsored tree
training workshops
and classes
■ Involve homeowner's
association
management to be
on the same page as
the City to achieve
canopy cover goals
■ Create and promote
a citywide drought -
tolerant tree
species palette for
homeowners
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
■ Develop canopy
cover goals that
Temecula residents
are made aware of
■ Enforce the
following: protection
of heritage trees,
tree replacement
requirements, and
violations/penalties
of illegal tree
removal
■ Provide a breakdown
of tree maintenance
costs to homeowners
to encourage them
to invest/take care of
trees
■ Hire more City staff
involved in the urban
forest program
■ Citywide campaigns:
drought tolerant trees
in Temecula
■ Provide financial
incentives for more
trees (i.e., contests,
giveaways, rebate
programs)
■ Free fruit/shade tree
programs
■ Install community tree
information boards in
parks/trailheads
■ Revive Remembrance
Tree Program
• Seek more grant
opportunities for
City and park tree
planting/care
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT 1 103
Q1W
NEW
T
1. f f
p'
7 �.� ®
3►
i { Y
x� :.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEME
T
TemeculaCA.gCSDRov/
�tj7 I CuTemeculaParksAndec
-s
5.6 ARBOR DAY TREE PLANTING
EVENT
Dudek assisted the City with an Arbor Day
Y�.
tree planting event held on April 23, 2022.
Approximately 400 volunteers were engaged and
300 trees planted in Vail Ranch Park, Sunset Park,
Redhawk Community Park, Mike Naggar Park and
A
Murrieta Creek Trail along Diaz Road.
yX
?�ti1 eta..
K,Y""I105 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
.s W
1 � J
t
.�x i,� � ,� t J Y L•
� 4 F
.: -�fA a' .7 cif, • • ' �` % �\J�!! � _ Y-
�,''.`�, s y.'�+A.'�±;'"�•�`,��+._, IC re
i r kr
ti
Y r+jj)t r•j�u,6r" y�,_,y,,yby � r'°i.!�j"t�yl,'k .1,.. 4 1` � rai'4"" """`•+�r � r 01 '`iITIP'4•9�"J�L���SY A �t 1 l to
Mg
wl
'� Sfd !� � ' i eft �' �� ,� i .l � y y� ,b'�•
ja��q�rs)�i4i�k�a`
,i u �'���Y � T (� N' 1� yS � ��, � • � - ... ,
,( �J. �• '`1`i' i:� .. �s�, ,, � ,:. a:{e ) �,. J{ �,, q%J;" 1 i 1'• t �� 1� `1�� 1 �lS�:,l; a/yr� ,,7!a ! ; / � ��t ��j t ,;1�. � U �I , Iti;r,�id 'I/ , � • 1 , c t � s rX1 ; q ,�".� �, ,�:�!✓tM /�,•?'y;i", 1 l iy , ��. J, ���.V / � � t i, d'!�'� `t ,�. , ,i s'y �, 1 � ,, l
b.
Y"`;'." �.�✓.�yt �•N/f� -� , ��I' �.f: +1 "i. ,M ") i �". '.A'� )1 1 �: �, � r\.H ���. t r N //ll:'{ 4' "f '� �yy.{{/ { �� � jC.Yi �." 'I'v � I7/�1yry'�!�).1 I•�I I l � � � � � ' l'r� 'A' '6'" �N % .�� ".i ��(hy. �il(p �.1 1� �I' �A. (- i 1 i�.l � �� � �, ,.1 �. 1• ,�,�J. �i. 57," ,.���r 4�p I' I, °�i1���1?. ,�' �1 1 ) 1 ., •v1� I \ �� �, � i � /�'•'�'' .� . �.. %1 , t. g .1, , .ley 1, . r.: � , 1 i �.� t i 1; � A � ' i, y� %�. is/f� i /,, a.'�I� j�f �. t' S 1. •1 '�',� .r�'�� ��Y�n�l '�t+ , �1't, l•, . :1 'r 1 i f; r 1 . v '� � "�'. { �.,. ;i; a � •;tiF � �� � p. �,tit tl �l'� '��r ��:�' ty. ��' � ;v �' � k �"r' .A1 a, i�i � d n � ,��' � � t j 1 f ' .'�, 1 1�, 9 �q li' "t, ,i i e 1,1,�•� iti�. ,tl.l 1. ,); 0•
y
•/,fi:'+. �� ��r•J �`�' 1' f'i����' 1'��'i a 1t�•e, �a + .,� :�� t� Li 1 F�\ � �` y�'l . �. � t'„ � ,.,j' 1, ., r�� � �s �Y+�� •J` Ir:� ;h i. Ji l,�i,l , �� 1, �h�� �� •,�� ! ,. 1 � ti 1��.hv '.! ,�; d; r,- r f 1' .,,J,, .,1 l .r� l.R, r, 1 i 1 ,t� tIM� i� �.'il�i �•I` dd I �� ��u , 1 •,�- t,v y r r, tti�'h .��'u t 1 i�„ �( ��, ;� �Ar!, �„ ry fi114��. � '•, l � � .� >'�,,., � �I, I . t . �N,1 `y" �,. Ir � 1. �: � a . a /f r� ,,/ +' 'I�y , r! ,.�r'ti, i,t Y�, r,..�.j, '� ,�y ".�,. (yy � A� Y , 4 rf , I' >,, yw �• ,.J ,. 1 7.77� � � Y ,� (��?ppy y,1{1�, i V � � e % l,l I, I',.� '1,} •,�,,,�1�4h� � 2.y 1 �� �h ¢�{�1 { �..� ,�� f ��� � . . '6�. .. ,.!•.,/��_/3�'✓6l Lr6tlll i/ �✓1,41'1�'N. 'Wl, �. d,ai .�:ri �,1. ��4�..IJ,o1�'..I:I,�.I��.��11�,..,�.I�Ne�lil�J,�IYX.'e\�,)���64i'� n.n � �. � a�i.M�ai'R'vV��i�lr3�iih���.N�t.. �d, sellA�4i.a'�'�4_nk,- �. � ...
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
106 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSM ENT
Alonzo, M, M.E. Baker, Y. Gao, and V. Shandas. 2021. "Spatial configuration and time of day impacts the magnitude
of urban tree canopy cooling." Environmental Research
Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/
1748-9326/acl2f2. https://iopscience.iop.org/
a rt i c l e/10.1088/1748-9326/a cl2f 2
American Forests. 2021. "Tools, Research, Reports, & Guides: Tree Equity Score." Accessed January 26, 2021. https://www . americanforests.org/tools-research-reports-and-guides/
tree -equity -score/.
Arbor Day Foundation. 2021a. "Benefits of Trees." Accessed January 26, 2021. https://www.arborday.org/
trees/ ben efits.cfm.
Arbor Day Foundation. 2021b. "The Right Tree in the Right Place." Accessed January 26, 2021. https://www.arborday.org/
trees/righttreeandplace/.
Arbor Day Foundation. 2022. "How to Plant Trees to Conserve Energy for Summer Shade." https://www.arborday.org/
trees/climatechange/summershade.cfm.
Ball, J., S. Mason, A. Kiesz, D. McCormick, and C. Brown. 2007. "Assessing the Hazard of Emerald Ash Borer and Other
Exotic Stressors to Community Forests." Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33(5): 350-359.
City of Burbank. 2021. City of Burbank Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Adopted Annual Budget. https://www.burbankca .
gov/documents/107269/300694/20211026-FY-2021-22-
REFERENCES
ADOPTED-BUDGETpdf/obdd53el-ae99-4cd7-04b8-
c32549d 86645?t=16352896906o1.
City of Temecula. 2005. "Open Space and Conservation Element." In City of Temecula General Plan, OS-1 through OS-44.
https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/287/Open-
Space-Conservation-PDF?bidld=.
City of Temecula. 2021. City of Temecula Tree Inventory Data.
Conducted by ArborPro.
Clark, J.R., N.P. Matheny, G. Cross, and V. Wake. 1997. A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability." Journal of Arboriculture 230):
January 1997. https://www.dnrwa.gov/Publications/
rp_urban_ecasustainability_model_clark.pdf
City of Pasadena. 2015 City of Pasadena Urban Forest
Management Plan. https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/
wp-content/uploads/sites/28/2015/o9/UFMP-100615.pdf.
Dudek. 2021. City of Downey Urban Forest Management Plan.
Unpublished report.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2019. "Using Trees and Vegetation to Reduce Heat Islands." Last updated
December 16, 2019. Accessed January 26, 2021. https://
www.epa.gov/heatislands/
using -trees -and -vegetation -reduce -heat -islands.
EPA. 2020. "Heat Island Effect." Last updated December 9, 202o. Accessed January 27, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/
heatislands.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 107
REFERENCES
EPA. 2021. "Using Trees and Vegetation to Reduce Heat Islands." Last updated December 16, 2019. Accessed January 26,
2021. https://www.epa.gov/heatislands/using-trees-and- vegetation-reduce-heat-islands.
Leahy, 1. 2017. "Why We No Longer Recommend 40% Canopy
Cover." Loose Leaf (Blog), American Forests, Accessed May 14, 2021. https://www.americanforests.org/article/why-we-no- longer-recommend-a-40-percent-urban-tree-canopy-goal/.
Locke, D.H., B. Hall, J.M. Grove, S.T.A. Pickett, L.A. Ogden, C. Aoki, C.G. Boone, and J.P.M. O'Neil -Dunne. 2021. "Residential housing segregation and urban tree canopy in 37 US
Cities." npj Urban Sustainability 1,15. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s42949-021-00022-0.
Loughner, C., D.J. Allen, D.L. Zhang, K.E. Pickering, R.R. Dickerson, and L. Landry. 2012. "Roles of Urban Tree Canopy and
Buildings in Heat Island Effects: Parameterization and
Preliminary Results." Journal of Applied Meteorology
and Climatology 51(10): 1775-17g3. https://doi.org/10.1175/ JAMC-D-11-0228.1.
McBride, J.R., and I. Lacan. 2018. "The Impact of Climate -Change Induced Temperature Increases on the Suitability of Street Tree Species in California (USA) Cities." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 34: 348-356.
McPherson, E.G. 2003. "A benefit -cost analysis of ten street tree species in Modesto, California," U.S. Journal of
Arboriculture 29(1):1-9.
McPherson, E.G., N. van Doorn, and J. de Goede. 2016. "Structure, Function and Value of Street Trees in California, USA." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 17: 104-115.
Miller, R.W, R. Hauer, and L. Werner. 2015. Urban Forestry Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces Third Edition. Waveland
Press. ISBN 10: 1-4786-o637-1.
Miller, R.H., and R.W. Miller.1991. "Planting Survival of Selected Tree Taxa." Journal of Arboriculture 17(7): 185-1q1.
Miller, R.W. and W.A. Sylvester. 1981. 'An Economic Evaluation of the Pruning Cycle." Journal of Arboriculture 7(4): 109-112.
Morgenroth, J., D.J. Nowak, and A.K. Koeser. 2020. "DBH Distributions in America's Urban Forests -An Overview of Structural Diversity." Forests 11(2): 135. doi:10.3390/f11O20135.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2o18. CalEnviroScreen 3.0 [online software]. June 25,
2o18. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/
calenviroscreen-30.
Richards, N.A. 1983. "Diversity and Stability in a Street Tree Population." Urban Ecology 7(2): 15q-171.
Richards, N.A. 1993. "Reasonable Guidelines for Street Tree Diversity." Journal of Arboriculture 19(6): 344-350•
Sherman, A. 2020. "The Heat Is On." American Planning
Association. Planning Magazine. https://www.planning . org/planning/202o/aug/the-heat-is-on/.Sutherland, A.
2014. "Invasive Pests of Concern for California's Urban 108 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Agriculture Systems," Pests in the Landscape (Blog),
University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/
postdetail.cfm?postnum=15606. Accessed May 20, 2021.
Swain, D.L., B. Langenbrunner, J.D. Neelin, and A. Hall. 2018. "Increasing Precipitation Volatility in Twenty -First -Century California." Nature Climate Change 8: 427-433. https:// www.nature.com/articles/s4l558-018-0140-Y
U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. "QuickFacts: Burbank city,
California; Downey city, California; Irvine city,
California; Temecula city, California; United States."
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/
burbankcitycalifornia,downeycitycalifornia,
irvinecitycalifornia,temeculacitycalifornia,US/PST045221.
USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2020. i Tree Eco [online software]. https://www.itreetools.org/tools/i-tree-eco .
Vibrant Cities Lab. n.d. "Determining the Relative Performance Index for Tree Species in Your Community." https://www . vibrantcitieslab.com/resources/determining-the-relative- performance-index-for-tree-species-in-your-community/.
Accessed May 18, 2022.
Wolf, K.L. 2005. "Business District Streetscapes, Trees, and Consumer Response." Journal of Forestry 103(8): 396-400. https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw-2005-
wolfool.pdf.
REFERENCES
Wolf, K.L. ST Lam, J.K. McKeen, G.R.A. Richardson, M. van den Bosch, and A.C. Bardekjian. 2020. Urban Trees and
Human Health: A Scoping Review. International Journal
of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(12),
4371. https://doi.org/10.339o/ijerphl7l24371 .
World Population Review. 2022. "Temecula, California Population 2022." https://worldpopulationreview.com/
us-cities/temecula-ca-population.
WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2018. "California Climate Tracker." Accessed January 10, 2018. http://www . wrcc.dri.edu/monitor/cal-mon/index.html.
Ziter, C.D., E.J. Pedersen, C.J. Kucharik, and M.G. Turner. 2019. "Scale -dependent interactions between tree canopy cover and impervious surfaces reduce daytime urban heat during summer." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2019, 116 (15) 7575-758o; https://www.pnas.org/
co n to nt/116/15/7575.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 109
CITY TREE MANAGEMENT
110 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
CITYTREE MANA��tii.E-��f;
PUR�BpNFORESTMANpGEMENTPIAN //��
�✓ _ �l
•
URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
a
KE
KLa—M ` qm
�r
alms. —
AVP► �►
r
LOW
45 or
IR
:
- _
! •1t ri Lnl a
7 ILL
74 1.
..� -
y.
e 1
� f J
4_44�".
T�~r t
'•A rl I• FR7fr �/. �� �`•`
IV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Recommended Tree Species Palette I APPENDIX A
Genus
Afrocarpus
Species
falcatus
Common Name
16 fern pine
E.
Si,e
Clas ica
Large
jjn�be,:V
65 30-50
Sp
trees
(Feet)
30-35
�_i.i.
Park
Wil
(Fe
6 to 8
0 No
. ater se
Cla sificat?ion of
rLandscap:)Species
[WUCCL rating
Moderate/Medium
Fire
la,
tar'
Low
Regionally
Native
No
Bioretention
Planter
Flow -Through
Planter
Tree Well
Filter
Agonis
f/exuosa
peppermint tree
E.
Medium
35 15-30
20-30
5 to 30
No
Moderate/Medium
Low
No
Angophora
costata
Sydney red gum
E.
Large
65 30-50
30-35
6 to 8
No
Low
Low
No
Arbutus
marina'
marina madrone
E.
Medium
40-50
40 30-35
6 to 8
No
Low
Low
No
x
X
x
Bauhinia
variegata
purple orchid tree
D.
Medium
35 20-35
15-20
5 to 10
No
Moderate/Medium
Low
No
Callistemon
citrinus
lemon bottle brush
E.
Medium
25 25
15-25
5 to 30
No
Low
Low
No
Callistemon
viminalis
weeping bottlebrush
E.
Small
20 15-20
15-20
2 to 5
Yes
Low
Low
No
Cassia
leptophylla
gold medallion tree
D.
Small
25 30
20-25
5 to 30
No
Moderate/Medium
Low
No
Casuarina
cunninghamiana
river she -oak
E.
Large
70 30
20-30
>10
No
Low
Low
No
Celtis
laevigata var.
reticulata
netleaf hackberry
D.
Medium
35 25-30
15-20
5 to 10
No
Low
Low
No
x
Cercis
candensis
Eastern Redbud
D.
Small
-20
-20
20-25
3 to 4
Yes
Moderate/Medium
Low
No
x
x
x
Cercis
occidentalis
Western Redbud
D.
Small
-20
-20
20-25
3 to 4
Yes
Low
Low
Yes
x
x
x
Chilopsis
linearls
desert willow
D.
Medium
20-40
20-40
20-25
3 to 4
No
Very low
Low
Yes
Chitalpa
tashkentensis
Chitalpa
D.
Medium
20-40
20-40
30-35
3to4
Yes
Low
Low
Yes
Cordia
boissieri
Texas olive
E.
Small
20 10-15
10-15
2 to 5
Yes
Low
Low
No
Corymbia
papuana
Ghost Gum
E.
Medium
30-50
20-35
30-35
4 to 6
No
Low
Low
No
Dalbergia
sissoo
Indian rosewood
D.
Large
60 30-40
25-30
>10
No
Low
Low
No
Ebenopsis
ebano
Texas ebony
E.
Medium
40 30-40
15.40 >10
No
Low
Low
No
Fraxinus
greggi
Gregg ash
E.
Small
20 15
15-20
4 to 6
Yes
Unknown
Low
No
Fraxinus
griffithii
Griffith ash
E.
Medium
45 25
20-25
6 to 8
No
Unknown
Low
No
Geijera
parvif/ara
Austrailian willow
E.
Medium
35 20
15-20
5 to 30
No
Low
Low
No
x
Koeireuteria
bipinnata
Chinese flame
D.
Medium
20-40
20-40
30-35
6 to 8
Yes
Moderate/Medium
Low
No
x
Koelreuteria
paniculata
Golden rain
D.
Medium
20-40
20-40
30-35
4 to 6
Yes
Low
Low
No
x
Laurus
nobilis
sweet bay
E.
Medium
15-40
15-30
20-25
3 to 4
No
Low
Low
Yes
x
x
x
Lophostemon
conferta
Brisbane box
E.
Medium
20-40
20-40
30-35
4 to 6
No
Moderate/Medium
Low
No
Melaleuca
linariifolia
flaxleaf paperbark
E.
Medium
30 20-25
15-20
5 to 10
No
Moderate/
Medium
Low
No
Melaleuca
styphelloides
prickly melaleuca
E.
Medium
40 10-20
15-20
5 to 10
No
Low
Low
No
Parkinsonia
praecox
Sonoran palo verde
D.
Small
20 20
15-20
2 to 5
Yes
Low
Low
No
Parkinsonia
x'Desert Museum'
desert museum palo verde
D.
Small
20 20-25
15-20
2 to 5
Yes
Very Low
Low
No
Pistacia
chnnensis
Chinese pistache
D.
Medium
40+
40+
30-35
6 to 8
No
Low
Low
No
Prosopis
glandulosa
'Maverick'
thornless honey mesquite
D.
Medium
35 25-35
15-25
5 to 30
No
Low
Low
No
Prunus
ilicifolia ssp. Lyonii
Catalina cherry
E.
Medium
35 20-30
15-20
5 to 30
No
Low
Low
Yes
x
x
x
Quercus
agrifolia
coast live oak
E.
Large
40+
40+
30-35
6 to 8
No
Very Low
Low
Yes
x
Quercus
engelmannii
Engelmann oak
D.
Large
65 80-120
15-65
>10
No
Very Low
Low
Yes
Quercus
fusiformis
escarpment oak
E.
Medium
50 20-40
25-30
6 to 8
No
Unknown
Low
No
Quercus
ilex
holly oak
E.
Medium
30-60
30-60
30-35
6 to 8
No
Low
Low
No
x
Quercus
rubra
red oak
D.
Large
80 50-70
30-35
>10
No
Moderate/Medium
Low
No
Quercus
shumardii
Shumard red oak
D.
Large
70 40
30-35
>10
No
Inappropriate
Low
No
Quercus
suber
cork oak
E.
Medium
20-40
20-40
20-25
3 to 4
No
Low
Low
No
x
Searsia
lancea
African sumac
E.
Medium
30 20-35
20-25
5 to 30
No
Low
Low
No
Tristaniopsos
laurina
water gum
E.
Small
35 15-30
20-25
4 to 6
Yes
Moderate/
Medium
Low
No
x
x
Vachellia
fornesiona
sweet acacia
D.
Medium
25 15-25
15-25
5 to 30
Yes
Very Low
Low
No
CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I V
APPENDIX B I Sidewalk Solutions
VI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX B
Tree and Sidewalk Conflict Solutions
Trees and sidewalks are both key pieces of urban infrastructure that contribute to the pedestrian environment. Both contribute to the character and sense of place in a community as well as provide health and economic benefits while offering a means for comfortable active transportation.
However, these two elements of the public streetscape are often in conflict with one another. Sidewalks and other hardscapes can preclude healthy tree growth and canopy development by limiting available soil volume, while tree roots often cause damage to sidewalks resulting in uplift and fall and trip hazards which can be costly to repair. These conflicts and the associated costs often overshadow the benefits provided by trees in the urban landscape, resulting in the removal of trees or the decision to avoid planting trees altogether. In reality, tree and infrastructure conflicts are due to inadequate site design and exacerbated by planting the wrong tree species for the allotted space. The cost of sidewalk repairs or removing and replacing trees is a significant investment that can be avoided with proper site design and species selection. There are a number of strategies for minimizing, avoiding or eliminating tree and sidewalk conflicts that can be employed by local or regional governments. Table 1 outlines tree and sidewalk conflict resolution tactics and design solutions that can be employed when replacing damaged sidewalks or installing new sidewalks. Employing these strategies is dependent upon policies, standards and design requirements, clear processes for implementation, and funding.
Local jurisdictions are required to abide by federal and state policies governing sidewalk design, such as the US Access Board Public Right -of -Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the California Building Code (CBC). Additionally, local jurisdictions can adopt local policies, standards, and plans that guide the management of trees and sidewalks. Examples include tree protection ordinances, street tree and sidewalk design requirements, tree planting standards and specifications, street tree lists, and long-range plans, such as urban forest management plans, bicycle and pedestrian plans/active transportation plans, the General Plan, and specific plans.
In order to successfully implement tree and sidewalk policies and standards, cities must have processes in place for implementation and maintenance, including review of development plans and strict code enforcement. If not managed within the same department, city departments managing street trees and sidewalks must maintain clear lines of communication and collaborate regularly. Approaching management of street trees and sidewalks within the same department can prove successful, as collaboration is easily facilitated. Forestry staff and engineers can jointly inspect conflicts or conduct plan review and work together to identify solutions. A formalized process will help guide these actions, such as outlined in the City of Seattle's; many of the solutions provided in Table 1 are based on the Toolkit included in Trees and Sidewalks Operations.
Cities must have reliable funding for management and oversight of its tree and sidewalk programs in order to successfully resolve or avoid conflicts. This includes funding for staff, tree planting, plan review, inspection and code enforcement, and maintenance and repairs. Examples of possible revenue streams to fund forestry and sidewalk programs include allocations from the general fund, partnering with nonprofit organizations, or allocations from taxes or fees, such as a gas tax, utility tax or development impact fees. Additional funding may also come from less traditional approaches, such as establishing a City nursery or composting program and offering these products for sale.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I VI
APPENDIX B I Sidewalk Solutions
Table 1. Tree and Sidewalk Conflict Solutions
Useful Life
Estimated
(Years -
Cost
Decades -
Solution Type
Pros
Cons
($-$$$$)
Centuries)
Example Image
Materials
The following sidewalk solutions present various materials for replacemenVrepair of a damaged sidewalk that may be used instead of concrete.
Asphalt
Short-term to medium-
Not widely used,
$$
Decades
term solution
creating conflicts with
a '`
• Low initial cost
appearance and visual
($22 per
• More flexible than
character
linear foot)
'
concrete
Useful life can vary
• May be used as a
greatly
repair/replacement or for
Useful life shorter than
new sidewalks
that concrete
• Easily repaired
h 'AL
Image Source: Seattle Department of
Transportation
VII I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX B
Pavers
• Many types, materials,
• Requires cutting to fit
$$-$$$
Decades
and colors available
around other
• More flexible than
infrastructure (e.g.,
($10 to $50
concrete, providing room
utilities, etc.)
per square
for continued tree root
• Not all available types
foot)
growth
and materials are
• May be used as
suitable for all
temporary repair or
locations, as required
replacement, or when
depth of excavation
installing new sidewalk at
may vary
the same time as trees
Durability varies by type
Image Source: Carroll's Building Materials n.d.
Pervious
• Allows air and water to
Requires deeper
$$$-$$$$
Decades
Concrete
reach soil
excavation for
• May encourage deeper
installation of subbase
($35 per
root growth and deter
layers
linear foot)
shallow root growth,
Requires more
reducing root damage to
maintenance than
sidewalks
standard concrete
• Provides better growing
n •='t%'_
conditions
Image Source: Bay Area Pervious Concrete
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I IX
APPENDIX B I Sidewalk Solutions
Porous Asphalt
• Allows water to pass
Cannot be produced in
$-$$$
Decades
through to soil
small quantities and
r
• May be used for
should only be used
($30 per
replacement of large
when long sidewalk
linear foot)
segments of sidewalk or
segments are being
installation of new
installed (e.g., multiple
sidewalks where
blocks)
, 21
infiltration is desirable
(e.g., adjacent to
bioretention)
Image Source: Porous Pave
Decomposed
May be used as a
Not recommended for
$-$$
Years
"
Granite
pathway or walkway
busy pedestrian routes
surface, or as a finished
(best in residential
($12 per
surface on top of planting
areas)
linear foot)
soil in tree pits rather
Requires more
than mulch
maintenance than
• Provides flexible but
asphalt or concrete, as
walkable surface near
uneven settling can
tree roots
occur
• Best used in parks on
Americans with
walking and cycling
Disabilities Act
paths, or similar settings
compliance may require
• May be used as a
binders and regular
-
temporary repair near
maintenance
-
root zones or for
Image Source: Bike Orlando
installation of new
pathways or walkways
X I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX B
Alternative Sidewalk Design Construction Methods
The following sidewalk solutions present alternative sidewalk design and construction methods to better accommodate trees and resist damage to sidewalks.
Reinforced or
Reinforcing concrete with
• May not be compatible
$$-$$$
Decades
Thicker Slab
steel rebar or wire mesh
with future utility
and/or using a thicker
installation
($60 per
slab helps resist uplift of
• Should not be used
linear foot
tree roots
where additional root
for
• May be used to correct
growth is anticipated
reinforced
uplift after other
(i.e., sufficient soil
slab and
corrective actions have
volume should be
$40 per
been taken
provided)
linear foot
;- I
for 4-inch
thickness)
r�
'
' S
5 ti
Image Source: E. F. Gilman
Expansion Joints
Allow for some movement
Should not be used
$
Decades
of concrete
where significant
• Used to control the
additional root growth is
(varies)
location of cracking
anticipated (i.e.,
• May be used as repair or
sufficient soil volume
replacement or for new
should be provided)
sidewalks near existing
Short term solution
trees (where roots may
be pruned prior to
installation and
substantial root growth is
not anticipated)
Image Source:`S. Kubiak and V. Kubiak
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XI
APPENDIX B I Sidewalk Solutions
Monolithic
The continuous
• Consideration must be
$$$
Century
Sidewalk
installation of concrete
given to impacts related
with no grade change
to stormwater runoff
($60 per
between sidewalk and
and drainage patterns
linear foot)
street has greater weight
• Not ideal for areas
(mass) to resist tree root
where new root growth
uplift
is expected (new
• Reduces potential for
plantings or continued
i
future weakness in
growth)
f
pavement infrastructure
• May be used in new
development and in
redevelopment
Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation
Tree
Alternative to planting
Must establish
$
Decades
Pits/Expanded
strips where maintaining
minimum sizing
Tree Pits
sidewalk width is
requirements to ensure
($15 per
important (e.g., business
adequate soil volume
square yard
districts)
• Continuous planter
for widening
• May be used in new
strips are preferred
existing tree
_
development where tree
where feasible
pits.
pit sizing and tree
selection are coordinated
No
i
("right tree, right place")
additional
t
or in existing
cost if
development where
implemente'
sufficient space is
d in new
available to expand
developmen
existing tree pits
t design)
Image Source: Morristown Shade Commission
XI I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX B
Bridging
Provides grade
Site specific grading
$$$$
Decades
separation between tree
requirements may
�::.• . =' = =. ===:- "" - • - : "= :•`"
root zone and sidewalk
prevent use of this
($225 per
r
• Does not require
technique
linear foot)
compacted subgrade
A nonslip surface
allowing tree roots to
treatment is required
grow in soil
for metal/steel
• Variety of materials can
materials
be used such as concrete
Additional Americans
k, t
or steel panels
with Disabilities Act
• May be used as repair or
requirements related to
replacement of damaged
sidewalk or to a
grade differentials
greater than 18 inches
- :.; _: ,, • :r.n`•'
preserve
-_-0,."
hi g h value tree:
Image Source: E. Gilman
Curb Extensions
Increases pedestrian
Must consider impacts
$$$-$$$$
Century
;
(Bulb -Outs)
safety through traffic
to drainage and existing
calming and shortening
utilities
($50 per
_
the crossing distance for
Must consider site
linear foot
.•-_ ..
pedestrians
specific transportation
excluding
• Provides additional root
conditions or impacts,
drainage
`
growth area reducing
including driver sight
and ramps)
likelihood of root damage
lines as well as bicycle
to sidewalks
and pedestrian facilities
• Provides flexibility for tree
species selection
• May be used in new
-
development or as
expansion of sidewalks
and planting space in
redevelopment
Image Source: Dylan Passmore
CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XIII
APPENDIX B I Sidewalk Solutions
Curb
• Shifts curb location to
• Requires sufficient
$$$-$$$$
Century
r_
Realignment
widen the planting strip
street widths
• May be used for new
• Must consider impacts
($50 per
development or
to other infrastructure
linear foot
redevelopment to provide
and utilities
excluding
additional space for new
. Must consider site
drainage
or existing trees
specific transportation
modification
conditions or impacts
and ramps
_
Minimal
additional
cost if part
of new
developmen
t design)
_
1 Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation
Curving or Offset
• Allows for walkways that
• Requires adequate
$$-$$$
,
Sidewalk
meander around planting
space in the right of
areas, allowing trees
way
($38 per
more grow space
. May require easement
linear foot)
• Increases pedestrian
for use of private
safety by separating
property
sidewalks from vehicular
traffic
• May be used in new
development or
-
redevelopment to
preserve existing trees or
to provide sufficient grow
space for new plantings
--
Image Source: Bartlett Tree Care
XIV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX B
Easement
• May allow for use of
Requires coordination
$-$$$
Century
private property where
with property owner
additional space is
(Varies
needed
based on
-�
• Provides larger planting
market
area for new or existing
value or
J
trees
dedication
;�
from
property
owner)
Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation
Suspended
Provides space and soil
• Involves removing and
$$$-$$$$
Decades
Pavement
volume for new tree
repaving sidewalks if
Systems
plantings in areas that
they already exist in the
(15-
could not have supported
areas
$25/cubic
tree root growth
• Site specific grading
foot)
• Prevents root damage to
requirements need to
pavement if implemented
be taken into
at the correct time
consideration
Image Source: DeepRoot
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XV
APPENDIX B I Sidewalk Solutions
Lowered Tree
Can help prevent soil
Can conflict with
$$$-$$$$
Decades
.
Sites
compaction due to
underground
y
pedestrian traffic
infrastructure; can only
• Can bring trees to streets
be implemented in
—
with limited planting
areas that have limited
space and few
potential for conflict
°
underground
Lowered sites tend to
infrastructure conflicts
accumulate trash and
dhi
other debris, presenting
Y U
ap
a maintenance issue#�',
:•+�1"
• Design must include a
drainage plan because
soil can be easily
oversaturated
Image Source: Storm Tree
Root
The following sidewalk solutions present design solutions that specifically address tree roots.
Root Barriers
Deters root growth to
Will not address all
$
Decades
-
limit damage to
issues from tree roots,
,
pavement
but will help deter
($8 per
• May be added after tree
linear foot)
planting to retrofit or
address root issues
r
Image Source: Green Tech
XVI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX B
Foam Underlay
Provides a foam layer of
• Short term solution
$-$$
Years
support between
e Not a good option forVM
pavement and tree roots
tree species that have
($150 to
r
to help prevent damage
rapid root growth
$250 per
• Can offer an alternative
location)
Poem " 0-
to root pruning when a
�0°r
sidewalk needs to be
"` x
replaced but root pruning
would severely damage
°
the tree
k . -
• Best used to repair
damage caused by
M
mature tree roots
Image Source: Costello and Jones
Modified Gravel
• Suppressed root growth
• Could wound tree roots
$
Decades
Hosts 592y wel.l teneath Me walk because
Layer
• More longevity than foam
making the trees more
lhey do nut grow in the gravel layer.
underlay and serves the
susceptible to soilborne
($0.70 per
same purpose
pathogens
square foot
S+dewaik
• Thickness of gravel
4 inches of gravel is
at depth of 4
around roots can be
needed, if excavation
inches)
adjusted to
would damage critical
accommodate size
existing roots
EkiS�ng5811 Gravoofrume
• Modified Gravel Layer
s"boase1a)w
may not be an option
Image Source: E. Gilman
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XVI
APPENDIX B I Sidewalk Solutions
Root Paths
Can proactively direct
Drainage away from or
$-$$
Decades
V1
paths for roots to grow,
out of root path will
�. a
when designed at the
beginning of planting
need to be considered
($600 to
$800 per
�� F
w'
• Help direct roots around
tree)
utilities when planting
space is limited
6' LJ
4 a
Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation
Steel Plates
• Can be used as an
• Can conflict with
$$-$$$
Decades
alternative to root
underground utilities
y
pruning
. Requires sidewalk to be
($500 to
• Can be used to help
removed and replaced
$1,000
mitigate issues with roots
for installation
per site)
ti
that have already
developed (reactionary)
14 .
Image Source: Gordan Mann
XVI II I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX B
Sources:
American Planning Association. 2009. Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community Development. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 555.
Bassuk et al. 2015; Bike Orlando 2020; Casey Trees 2008; Costello and Jones 2003; Elmendorf 2008; City of New York Parks & Recreation 2014; City of Seattle 2011; City of Seattle Department of Transportation 2014, 2015; City of Seattle Public Utilities 2015; Mann n.d.; Smiley 2008 Bassuk, N., Denig, B., Haffner, T. Grabosky, J., and Trowbridge, P. 2015. CU-Structural Soil 8: A Comprehensive Guide. Urban Horticulture Institute, Cornell University. http://www.hort.cornel I.ed u/uhi/outreach/pdfs/CU-Structural%20Soi1%20-%20A%20Com prehensive°/`20Guide. pdf.
Bike Orlando. 2020. Ward Park, Winter Park, FL Biking, Hiking. E-Z Map, 35+ Photos _Accessed May 2021. https://www.bikeorlando.net/ward-park-winter-park.htm .
Casey Trees. 2008. Tree Space Design: Growing the Tree Out of The Box. Accessed May 2021. http://caseytrees.org/resources/publications/treespacedesign/ .
Carroll's Building Materials. n.d. "Classic Hexagon Pavers." Accessed May 2021. https://carrollsbuildingmaterials.com/landscape-products/pavers-profiles-finishes/classic- hexagon-pavers/.
Costello, L. R. and K. S. Jones. 2003. Reducing Infrastructure Damage By Tree Roots: A Compendium of Strategies. Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture.
City of New York Parks & Recreation. February 2014. Tree Planting Standards. Accessed May 2021. http://www.nycgovparks.org/pagefiles/53/Tree-Planting-Standards.pdf .
City of Seattle. 2011. Seattle Right -of -Way Improvements Manual. https://www.seattle.gov/rowmanual/manual/ .
City of Seattle Department of Transportation. 2014. Street Tree Manual. Accessed May 2021. http://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/sdot/about/documentli brary /streettreema n ua Iweb. pdf.
City of Seattle Department of Transportation. 2015. Tree Sidewalks Operations Plan. City of Seattle Public Utilities. 2015. Standard Specifications of Municipal Construction. Plans 100a, 421, 424, 425, 430.
Elmendorf, W. 2008. Planting and Aftercare of Community Trees. Penn State University Extension.
Green Tech. 2021. Ribbed Root Barrier Panels. https://www.green-tech.co.uk/hard-landscaping,/tree-pit-root-barriers/ribbed-root-barrier-panels Mann, Gordon. N.d. Sidewalk and Root Conflicts: Mitigating the Conflict - An Overview. Accessed May 2021, on Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) website at:
http://m rsc.org/getmedia/4DDlA628-BD5A-49E3-BlEE-3D09525F63BElm58man n made.asp.
Martin, Justin. 2017. Trees and Sidewalks: A Strategic Approach to Conflicts. Green Infrastructure for Your Community. https://www.deeproot.com/blog/blog-entries/trees-and- sidewa I ks-a-strategic-approach-to-conflicts
Smiley, E. Thomas. 2008. "Comparison of Methods to Reduce Sidewalk Damage from Tree Roots," inArboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(3):179-183.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XIX
APPENDIX C1 I Establishment Care Guidelines
XX I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Establishment Care
Guidelines
Ensure proper tree support
■ Tree stakes should be firmly secured 2' deep
vertically in the soil.
■ Leaning or loose stakes should be re -installed
and secured in the soil.
■ Tree ties should be placed in the middle to
lower portion of the tree and allow tree move-
ment 3"- 4" in each direction.
■ If the roots of the tree are established, remove
the stakes and tree ties. This typically occurs
two — three years after planting.
Weeding
■ Remove all the grass and
weeds growing in the tree
basin or tree well by hand.
■ To avoid root damage, do not
dig into the soil with a shovel
or hoe.
■ To avoid trunk damage, do not
use a weed whacker or
lawnmower for weed removal.
Establishment Care Guidelines I APPENDIX C1
P
Fog ®€
e
Mulch
■ Use only organic materials such as chipped trees for mulch. ■ Apply a layer 2"- 3" thick inside the tree basin and covering the berm. ■ Keep mulch 4" away from the trunk of the tree to avoid moisture building on the trunk, which can lead to rot and fungal growth.
Pruning
■ Newly planted trees may require minor pruning to
remove branches damaged during the planting
process and/or dead branches.
■ Trees should be pruned sparingly. All other pruning
should be withheld until the second or third growing
season following tree planting.
■ Sucker growth (sprouts from the base of the plant or
from roots) should be removed.
■ All pruning should be conducted in accordance with
ANSI A 300 pruning standards.
Repair and extend berms
■ Newly planted trees should have a 4"- 6" high berm just outside the root ball to direct water to where it is needed.
■ As a tree grows and matures, extend the berm to the drip line.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXI
APPENDIX C2 I Tree Protection Guidelines
XXH I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Tree Protection Guidelines I APPENDIX C2
Appendix D — Tree Protection Measures
The following sections are included as general guidelines for tree protection from construction impacts. The measures presented should be monitored by arborists and enforced by contractors and developers for maximum benefit to the trees.
Tree Protection Measures Prior to Construction
Fencing: All remaining trees that will not be relocated or removed should be preserved and protected in place. Trees within approximately 15 feet of proposed construction activity should be temporarily fenced with chain link or other material satisfactory to City planning staff throughout grading and construction activities. The fencing should be installed 3 feet outside of the dripline of each tree (or edge of canopy for cluster of trees), be 4 feet tall, and staked every 6 feet. The fenced area should be considered the tree protection zone (TPZ) unless proximate construction required temporary removal.
Pre -Construction Meeting: A pre -construction meeting should be held between all contractors (including grading, tree removal/pruning, builders, etc.) and the arborist. The arborist will instruct the contractors on tree protection practices and answer any questions. All equipment operators and spotters, assistants, or those directing operators from the ground, should provide written acknowledgement of their receiving tree protection training. This training should include information on the location and marking of protected trees, the necessity of preventing damage, and the discussion of work practices that will accomplish such.
Protection and Maintenance During Construction
Once construction activities have begun the following measures should be adhered to Equipment Operation and Storage: Avoid heavy equipment operation around the trees. Operating heavy machinery around the root zones of trees will increase soil compaction, which decreases soil aeration and subsequently reduces water penetration in the soil. All heavy equipment and vehicles should, at minimum, stay out of the fenced TPZ, unless where specifically approved in writing and under the supervision of a Certified Arborist or as provided by the approved landscape plan.
Storage and Disposal: Do not store or discard any supply or material, including paint, lumber, concrete overflow, etc. within the protection zone. Remove all foreign debris within the protection zone; it is important to leave the duff, mulch, chips, and leaves around the retained trees for water retention and nutrients. Avoid draining or leakage of equipment fluids near retained trees. Fluids such as gasoline, diesel, oils, hydraulics, brake and transmission fluids, paint, paint thinners, and glycol (anti -freeze) should be disposed of properly. Keep equipment parked at least 50 feet away from retained trees to avoid the possibility of leakage of equipment fluids into the soil. The effect of toxic equipment fluids on the retained trees could lead to decline and death.
Grade Changes: Grade changes, including adding fill, are not permitted within the TPZ without special written authorization and under the supervision of a Certified Arborist or as provided by the approved landscape plan. Lowering the grade within this area will necessitate cutting main support and feeder roots, jeopardizing the health and structural integrity of the tree(s). Adding soil, even temporarily, on top of the existing grade will compact the soil further, and decrease both water and air availability to the trees' roots.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXI I i
APPENDIX C2 I Tree Protection Guidelines
Moving Construction Materials: Care will be taken when moving equipment or supplies near the trees, especially overhead. Avoid damaging the tree(s) when transporting or moving construction materials and working around the tree (even outside of the fenced tree protection zone). Above ground tree parts that could be damaged (e.g., low limbs, trunks) should be flagged with red ribbon. If contact with the tree crown is unavoidable, prune the conflicting branch(es) using International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards.
Root Pruning: Except where specifically approved in writing or as provided in Attachment 3, all trenching should be outside of the fenced protection zone. Roots primarily extend in a horizontal direction forming a support base to the tree similar to the base of a wineglass. Where trenching is necessary in areas that contain tree roots, prune the roots using a Dosko root pruner or equivalent. All cuts should be clean and sharp, to minimize ripping, tearing, and fracturing of the root system. The trench should be made no deeper than necessary.
Irrigation: Trees that have been substantially root pruned (30% or more of their root zone) will require irrigation for the first 12 months. The first irrigation should be within 48 hours of root pruning. They should be deep watered every 2 to 4 weeks during the summer and once a month during the winter (adjust accordingly with rainfall). One irrigation cycle should thoroughly soak the root zones of the trees to a depth of 3 feet. The soil should dry out between watering; avoid keeping a consistently wet soil. Designate one person to be responsible for irrigating (deep watering) the trees.
Check soil moisture with a soil probe before irrigating. Irrigation is best accomplished by installing a temporary above ground micro -spray system that will distribute water slowly (to avoid runoff) and evenly throughout the fenced protection zone but never soaking the area located within 6 feet of the tree trunk, especially during warmer months.
Pruning: Do not prune any of the trees until all construction is completed. This will help protect the tree canopies from damage. All pruning should be completed under the direction of an ISA Certified Arborist and using ISA guidelines. Only dead wood should be removed from tree canopies.
Washing: During construction in summer and autumn months, wash foliage of trees adjacent to the construction sites with a strong water stream every two weeks in early hours before 10:00 a.m. to control mite and insect populations.
Inspection: An ISA Certified Arborist should inspect the impacted preserved trees on a monthly basis during construction. A report comparing tree health and condition to the original, pre -construction baseline should be submitted following each inspection. Photographs of representative trees are to be included in the report on a minimum annual basis.
Maintenance After Construction
Once construction is complete the fencing may be removed and the following measures performed to sustain and enhance the vigor of the preserved trees.
Mulch: Provide a 4-inch mulch layer under the canopy of trees. Mulch should include clean, organic mulch that will provide long-term soil conditioning, soil moisture retention, and soil temperature control.
Pruning: The trees will not require regular pruning. Pruning should only be done to maintain clearance and remove broken, dead or diseased branches. Pruning should only take place following a recommendation by an ISA Certified Arborist and performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist. No more than 20% of the canopy should be removed at any one time. All pruning should conform to ISA standards.
XXIV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Tree Protection Guidelines I APPENDIX C2
Watering: The natural trees that are not disturbed should not require regular irrigation, other than the 12 months following substantial root pruning. However, soil probing will be necessary to accurately monitor moisture levels. Especially in years with low winter rainfall, supplemental irrigation for the trees that sustained root pruning and any newly planted trees may be necessary. The trees should be irrigated only during the winter and spring months.
Watering Adjacent Plant Material: All plants near the trees should be compatible with water requirements of said trees. The surrounding plants should be watered infrequently with deep soaks and allowed to dry out in-between, rather than frequent light irrigation. The soil should not be allowed to become saturated or stay continually wet. Irrigation spray should not hit the trunk of any tree. A 60-inch dry -zone should be maintained around all tree trunks. An aboveground micro -spray irrigation system is recommended over typical underground pop-up sprays.
Washing: Periodic washing of the foliage is recommended during construction but no more than once every 2 weeks. Washing should include the upper and lower leaf surfaces and the tree bark. This should continue beyond the construction period at a less frequent rate with a high-powered hose only in the early morning hours. Washing will help control dirt/dust buildup that can lead to mite and insect infestations.
Spraying: If the trees are maintained in a healthy state, regular spraying for insect or disease control should not be necessary. If a problem does develop, an ISA Certified Arborist should be consulted; the trees may require application of insecticides to prevent the intrusion of bark -boring beetles and other invading pests. All chemical spraying should be performed by a licensed applicator under the direction of a licensed pest control advisor.
Inspection: All trees that were impacted during construction within the TPZ should be monitored by an ISA Certified Arborist for the first 5 years after construction completion. The Arborist should submit an annual report, photograph each tree and compare tree health and condition to the original, pre -construction baseline.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXV
APPENDIX C3 I Tree Protection Detail
XXVI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
8. lamb
plastic
e,
al
Crown drip line or other limit of Tree Protection area. See tree preservation plan for fence alignment.
AA
TREE PROTECTION
Tree Protection Detail I APPENDIX C3
Notes:
1- See specifications for additional tree
protection requirements.
2- If there is no existing irrigation, see
specifications for watering requirements
3- No pruning shall be performed except
by approved arborist.
4- No equipment shall operate inside the
protective fencing including during fence
installation and removal.
5- See site preparation plan for any
modifications with the Tree Protection
area.
Tree PrOteCtlon
ance: High density
olyethylene fencing
Jth 3.5" x 1.5"
,penings; Color -
,range. Steel posts
istalled at 8' o.c.
x 6' steel posts
it approved equal.
thick
ayer of mulch.
laintain existing
rade with the tree
rotection fence
nless otherwise
idicated on the
Tans.
URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014
OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXVI
APPENDIX C4 I Root Pruning Detail
XXVII I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
crown drip line.
Rwt RrotecDon Zane
11 tc
P
Road way Raver w
wtlh Comr-ote Cure and Gutter
5x Trunk Dian chid I Sat 1 rUlyc btemetar
crrnnu ,,nGw
IT PRUNING GUIDELINES
Root Pruning Detail I APPENDIX C4
Nobel.
1- Hand dig t4 exp6se Facts a� propbsed call
2- Count [hot number of roots within 5x
the trunk diameter that are greater
than 2' In dLameler.
�- identify the numl]er of rr?ats witfrn Sx
the trunk diameter that are greater than
2' in diannetier that require pruning.
4- D1-nde number of roots to be pruned intuit
$x the trunk Giameler by the total nvmger of
tbdL vnthirti 5x the Iruok diameler la
delermime % of roots to be pruned.
5• Root pruning will not exceed N% of
the lctal roots within Sx the trunk
diameter
l} R&bl pruning will AcA bout on
three or mor-a sides of the troa.
SiUew,]k Gonr rele
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXIX
APPENDIX C5 1 Irrigation Detail
XXX I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Notes:
1- All irrigation fittings shall be Sch.
40 PVC unless specified otherwise.
2- All threaded connections from
Sch. 40 to Sch. 80 PVC shall be
made using teflon tape.
3- Contractor shall settle the area
around the bubbler and edge of the
root ball so that all irrigation flows
through the root ball.
Q=('Tinu 111GIAi
PLAN VIEW
IRRIGATION BUBBLER (2) W/ LAYOUT
Irrigation Detail I APPENDIX C5
Pressure compensating bubbler shall be
set 1" above finished grade. (See
irrigation legend for make and model).
Swing joint. See detail.
Finished grade.
Sch. 40 PVC 90' elbow slip to thread.
Lateral line irrigation. (See irrigation
plans for sizing).
Edge of root ball. Settle backfill so that
irrigation flows through the root ball.
Edge of root ball.
Swing joint. See detail.
Sch. 40 PVC 90° elbow slip to thread.
Existing or modified soil. (See
specifications for soil modification).
Sch. 40 PVC Tee or 90' elbow.
Lateral line irrigation. (See irrigation
plans for sizing).
URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014
OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXXI
APPENDIX D I Nursery Stock Standards
XXXI I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
ACCEPTABLE
REJECTABL
One central le,
(No codomb
lead
Aspect ratio is
than C
Multiple leaders
?ral codominanl
leaders'
Aspect ratio is
pater than 0.66.
Nursery Stock Standards I APPENDIX D
A
6 Notes:
1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected.
Example
A
B
Aspect
Ratio
1.50"
0.50"
0.33 2.50"
0.90"
0.36 2.0"
1.00"
0.50 2.50"
1.60"
0.64 Aspect ratio of B:A less the
as measured 1" above the
the branch union.
Example
A
B
Aspect
Ratio
2.50"
1.80"
0.72 2.0"
2.0"
1.0 2.50"
2.0"
0.80 4.0"
3.0"
0.75 Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union.
CROWN OBSERVATIONS - HIGH BRANCHED
URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014
OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXXI II
APPENDIX D I Nursery Stock Standards
One central leader
(No codominant
leaders)
ACCEPTABLE
Aspect ratio is less
than 0.66.
iviutapie ieaaers
(Several codominan
leaders
REJECTABLE
Aspect ratio is
greater than 0.66..
Notes:
1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union.
A
6 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected.
Example
A
B
Aspect
Ratio
1.50"
0.50"
0.33 2.50"
0.90"
0.36 2.0"
1.00"
0.50 2.50"
1 1.60"
1 0.64
Aspect ratio of B:A less the
as measured 1"above the
the branch union.
Example
A
B
Aspect
Ratio
2.50"
1.80"
0.72 2.0"
2.0"
1.0 2.50"
2.0"
0.80 4.0"
3.0"
0.75 Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66
CROWN OBSERVATIONS - LOW BRANCHED
URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014
OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
XXXIV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
/IGT81d3r1\:1■:d
Aspect ratio is
less than 0.66.
1:7Mmr"IFWE;J
Aspect ratio is greater
than 0.66.
Nursery Stock Standards I APPENDIX D
A
e
Notes:
1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected.
CROWN OBSERVATION DETAIL - MULTI
Example
A
B
Aspect
Ratio
1.50"
0.50"
0.33 2.50"
0.90"
0.36 2.0"
1.00"
0.50 2.50"
1.60"
0.64 Aspect ratio of B:A less tha
as measured 1" above the
the branch union.
Example
A
B
Aspect
Ratio
2.50"
1.80"
0.72 2.0"
2.0"
1.0 2.50"
2.0"
0.80 4.0"
3.0"
0.75 Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union.
URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014
OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXXV
APPENDIX E I Highly Flammable Plant List
XXXVI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
UNDESIRABLE PLANT LIST
The following species are highly flammable and should be avoided when planting within the first 50 feet adjacent to a structure. The plants listed below are more susceptible to burning, due to rough or peeling bark, production of large amounts of litter, vegetation that contains oils, resin, wax, or pitch, large amounts of dead material in the plant, or plantings with a high dead to live fuel ratio. Many of these species, if existing on the property and adequately maintained (pruning, thinning, irrigation, litter removal, and weeding), may remain as long as the potential for spreading a fire has been reduced or eliminated. enrAK11rA1 uAiuo I rnneRenu KIAiuo
Abies species
Fir Trees
Acacia species
Acacia (trees, shrubs, groundcovers)
Adenostoma sparsifoliurn—
Red Shanks
Adenostoma fasciculatum**
Chamise
Aoonis iuniperina
Juniper Myrtle
Araucania species
Monkey Puzzle, Norfolk Island Pine
Artemesia californica**
California Sagebrush
Bambusa species
Bamboo
Cedrus species
Cedar
Chamaecyparis species
False Cypress
Coprosma pumila
Prostrate Coprosma
Crmtomeria japonica
Japanese Cryptomeria
Cupressocyparis leylandii
Leylandii Cypress
Cuoressus forbesd—
Tecate Cypress
Cupressus alabra
Arizona Cypress
Cupressus sempervirens
Italian Cypress
Dodonea viscosa
Hopseed Bush
Erioaonum fasciculatum**
Common Buckwheat
Eucalyptus species
Eucalyptus
Heterotheca orandiflora**
Telegraph Plant
Juniperus species
Junipers
Larix species
Larch
Lonicera japonica
Japanese Honeysuckle
Miscanthus species
Eulalia Grass
Muehlenberpia species**
Deer Grass
Palmae species
Palms
Picea species
Spruce Trees
Pickeringia Montana'
Chaparral Pea
Pinus species
Pines
Podocarpus species
Fern Pine
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Douglas Fir
Rosmarinus species
Rosemary
Salvia mellifera*
Black Sage
Taxodium species
Cypress
Taxus species
Yew
Thuia species
Arborvitae
Tsupa species
Hemlock
Urtica urens**
Burning Nettle
San Diego County native species
Highly Flammable Plant List I APPENDIX E
References: Gordon, H. White, T.C. 1994. Ecological Guide to Southern California Chaparral Plant Series. Cleveland National Forest.
Willis, E. 1997. San Diego County Fire Chiefs Association. Wildland/Urban Interface Development Standards
City of Oceanside, California. 1995. Vegetation Management. Landscape Development Manual. Community Services Department, Engineering Division City of Vista, California 1997. Undesirable Plants. Section 18.56.999.
Landscaping Design, Development and Maintenance Standards. www.bewaterwise.com . 2004. Fire-resistant California Friendly Plants www.ucfpl.ucoi).edu . 2004. University of California, Berkeley, Forest Products Laboratory, College of Natural Resources. Defensible Space Landscaping in the Urban/Wildland Interface. A Compilation of Fire Performance Ratings of Residential Landscape Plants.
County of Los Angeles Fire Department. 1998. Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines. Appendix I, Undesirable Plant List, and Appendix II, Undesirable Plant List.
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXXVI
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
XXXVIII I CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q1 Do you consider neighborhood trees a valuable community asset that contribute to your quality of life in Temecula?
Answered:686 Skipped:2
Definitely
Somewhat
Not at all
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Definitely
97.08%
666
Somewhat
2.62%
18 Not at all
0.29%
2 TOTAL
686
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXXIX
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q2 Trees are considered part of the City's infrastructure. How important do you think trees are compared to other infrastructure like streets, sidewalks, water, sewer, traffic signals, lighting, etc)? Answered:687 Skipped:1
Trees are more
important th...
Trees are
equally as...
Trees are not
as important...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Trees are more important than other infrastructure
Trees are equally as important as other infrastructure
Trees are not as important as other infrastructure
TOTAL
RESPONSES
15.57%
107
74.82%
514
9.61%
66 687
XI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q3 What rating would you give the condition of public space street trees in Temecula?
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Answered:685 Skipped:3
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Excellent
23.07%
158
Good
53.58%
367
Fair
21.61%
148
Poor
1.75%
12 TOTAL
685
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I Xii
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q4 What should be the top two goals of the City of Temecula Urban Forest Management Plan? (select top TWO choices)
Answered:687 Skipped:I
Maintaining
the existing...
Removing dead,
dying or...
Reducing the
number of tr...
Increase the
number of tr...
Planting new
species to...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
E 1st Priority a 2nd Priority
Maintaining the existing trees
Removing dead, dying or otherwise hazardous trees
Reducing the number of trees removed every year
Increase the number of trees planted every year
Planting new species to increase species diversity and to protect against climate change
1ST
2ND
TOTAL
WEIGHTED
PRIORITY
PRIORITY
AVERAGE
67.15%
32.85%
325
159
484
1.33 62.41%
37.59%
254
153
407
1.38 50.42%
49.58%
120
118
238
1.50 66.08%
33.92%
298
153
451
1.34 65.01%
34.99%
275
148
423
1.35 XII I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q5 Of the following options, select the top 2 most important benefit trees provide in your neighborhood.
Answered:687 Skipped:1
Imp
envii
neighl
HIM
Aez
a
Psych
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1st Priority 0 2nd Priority
Improving the environment (like air quality, stodng carbon) Cooling neighborhoods and homes
Protecting human health
Aesthetics or appearance
Psychological/Emotional benefits
1ST PRIORITY
2ND PRIORITY
TOTAL
WEIGHTED AVERAGE
80.00%
20.00%
428
107
535
1.20 60.76%
39.24%
223
144
367
1.39 65.42%
34.58%
157
83 240
1.35 58.03%
41.97%
206
149
355
1.42 52.45% 47.55%
203 184 387
1.48 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I Xiii
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q6 What factors would make you reluctant to have a tree on your property? (Select Your Top Two)
Cost to trim
trees
Cost to water
trees
Mess/leaf
litter
Damage to
sewer...
Risk of damage
by falling...
No issues
Answered:687 Skipped:l
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
1st Priority M 2nd Priority
XUV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Cost to trim trees
Cost to water trees
Mess/leaf litter
Damage to sewer pipes/sidewalks
Risk of damage by falling branches
No issues
1ST PRIORITY
39.16%
112
48.40%
106
38.80%
97 65.33%
277
40.81%
91 70.59%
252
2ND PRIORITY
60.84%
174
51.60%
113
61.20%
153
34.67%
147
59.19%
132
29.41%
105
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
TOTAL
286
219
250
424
223
357
WEIGHTED AVERAGE
1.61 1.52
1.61 1.35
1.59 1.29
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XI.V
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q7 The City should have ordinances to protect trees on private property in the same way they protect trees in the public space.
Answered:684 Skipped:4
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Disagree
Strongly
disagree
0% 10% 20% 30%
ANSWER CHOICES
Strongly agree
Agree
Somewhat agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
TOTAL
40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
21.64%
20.32%
25.88%
19.44%
12.72%
148
139
177
133
87 684
X[VI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q8 Approximately how much have you spent on maintenance or repairs related to trees or tree root damage over the past 5 years? Answered:685 Skipped:3
No expenses
related to...
$100-$499
$500-$999
$1000-$1999
More than $2000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
No expenses related to preventative tree care or maintenance $100-$499
$500 - $999
$1000-$1999
More than $2000
TOTAL
RESPONSES
32.41%
222
23.50%
161
18.25%
125
13.72%
94 12.12%
83 685
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XI.VI
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q9 Which of the following activities would you be willing to participate in to support the City's tree planting efforts? (Select all that apply) Answered:666 Skipped:22
Volunteer at a
community tr...
Attend l off E
educational...
Planting a
tree on your...
Volunteer to
provide basi...
Help organize
a neighborho...
Other (please
specify)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Volunteer at a community tree planting
63.36%
Attend an educational workshop
36.19%
Planting a tree on your private property
68.47%
Volunteer to provide basic tree care on a regular basis
17.12%
Help organize a neighborhood tree planting
23.12%
Other (please specify)
8.41%
Total Respondents: 666
422
241
456
114
154
56 X[VI I ii I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q10 How can the City best help you plant and/or care for a tree in your yard?
Answered:669 Skipped:19
Provide an
expert answe... &am
Labor to do
the work
Financial
support for...
Provide
`How-to'...
Other (please
specify)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Provide an expert answer questions about tree health
34.83%
233
Labor to do the work
31.84%
213
Financial support for tree trimming
45.59%
305
Provide `How-to' information on planting, watering, and trimming
48.43%
324
Other (please specify)
12.26%
82 Total Respondents: 669
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I Xtix
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q11 Additional comments.
Answered:218 Skipped:470
I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q12 Do you live in Temecula?
Answered:650 Skipped:38
Yes hL
No 0
dA
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes 91.69% 596
No 8.31% 54
TOTAL 650
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 1I
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Yes
No
ANSWER CHOICES
Yes
No
TOTAL
Q13 Do you work in Temecula?
Answered:646 Skipped:42
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
57.12%
42.88%
369
277
646
II I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
92590
92591
92592
92596
92562
92563
Other (please
specify)
0%
ANSWER CHOICES
92590
o1)co,
91S9L
92596
92562
92563
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q14 What zip code do you live in?
Answered:647 Skipped:41
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
2.32%
26.74%
58.89%
3.09%
1.24%
4.79%
2.94%
15 173
381
20 8
31 19
647
CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I iIII
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q15 What best describes your housing situation?
Answered:64E Skipped:43
Apartment
Single family
home
Duplex
Condominium
Other (please
specify)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Apartment
Single family home
Duplex
Condominium
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
I
RESPONSES
2.79%
91.78%
0.31%
3.26%
1.86%
18 592
2 21
12 645
HIV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q16 Which of the following best describes your current housing situation? Answered:642 Skipped:46
Homeowner
Renter 0
Living with
others but n...
Living with
others and...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Homeowner
Renter
Living with others but not paying rent or mortgage
Living with others and assisting with paying rent or mortgage TOTAL
RESPONSES
82.71%
531
11.99%
77 3.58%
23 1.71%
11 642
CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I IV
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q17 What is the primary language spoken in your home?
Answered:642 Skipped:46
English
Spanish
Russian
Vietnamese
Tagalog
Mandarin
Other (please
specify)
0%
ANSWER CHOICES
English
Spanish
Russian
Vietnamese
Tagalog
Mandarin
Other (please specify)
TOTAL
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
96.73%
621
1.87%
12 0.31%
2 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 1.09%
7 642
I.VI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q18 Which category below includes your age?
Answered:640 Skipped:48
Under18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
ANSWER CHOICES
Under 18
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
TOTAL
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
1.25%
3.13%
16.41%
28.59%
20.63%
8 20
105
183
132
100
92 640
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I I.Vii ii
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q19 What is the highest level of education you have attained? Answered:632 Skipped:56
No high school
diploma
High school
diploma or...
Some college
but no degree
Associate
degree
Bachelor degree
Graduate degree
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
No high school diploma
1.11%
7 High school diploma or equivalent (e.g., GED)
3.16%
20 Some college but no degree
23.58%
149
Associate degree
11.55%
73 Bachelor degree
36.87%
233
Graduate degree
23.73%
150
TOTAL
632
lVI II I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q1 6Considera que los arboles de su vecindario son importantes para la comunidad y que contribuyen a la calidad de su vida?
Answered: 13 Skipped: ,
Si
Un tanto I
No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Si 100.00% 13
Un tanto 0.00% 0
No 0.00% 0
TOTAL 13
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I tiX
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q2 Los arboles son parte de la infraestructura de la ciudad. En comparacion con los otros elementos de la infraestructura de la ciudad (por ejemplo: las calles, las aceras, las farolas, las senates de trafico, infraestructura hidrica/alcantarillado), �,Que tan importante considera los arboles?
Answered:13 Skipped:1
Los arboles
son mas...
Los arboles
son tan...
Los arboles no
son tan...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Los arboles son mas importantes que los otros elementos de la infraestructura de la ciudad.
Los arboles son tan importantes que los otros elementos de la infraestructura de la ciudad.
Los arboles no son tan importantes que los otros elementos de la infraestructura de la ciudad.
TOTAL
RESPONSES
84.62%
15.38%
0.00%
11 2
0 13
IX I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q3 6De que calidad considera los arboles en los espacios publicos en la ciudad de Temecula?
Fxcelente
Buena
Regular
Pobre/Deficient
e
0% 10%
ANSWER CHOICES
Excelente
Buena
Regular
Pobre/Deficiente
TOTAL
Answered:12 Skipped:2
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
0.00%
91.67%
0.00%
8.33%
0 11
0 1
12 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I W
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q4 6CuMes deben ser los dos objetivos mas importantes del Manejo del Bosque Comunitario?
Answered:12 Skipped:2
Mantener los ■
arboles...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Mantener los arboles existentes
Quitar los arboles muerlos, enfermos o peligrosos
Quitar menos arboles cada ano
Plantar/sembrar mas arboles cada ano
Plantar/sembrar arboles de especies diferentes para aumentar la diversidad y proteger la ciudad contra los cambios climaticos
TOTAL
RESPONSES
8.33% 1
16.67% 2
0.00% 0
25.00% 3
50.00% 6
12 I.XI I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q5 �,Cuales son los beneficios mas importantes de los arboles en su vecindario? Escoge dos:
Answered:12 Skipped:2
Mejorar el.
medioambient...
Enfriar el
ML
barrio y su...
Protegerla
salud de Los...
Estetica o
aspecto
Beneficios
psicol6gicos...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Mejorar el medioambiente (por ejemplo: la calidad del aire, cargar carbono)
83.33% 10
Enfriar el barrio y su hogar con la sombra
91.67% 11
Proteger la salud de los humanos
75.00% 9
Estetica o aspecto
83.33% 10
Beneficios psicol6gicos/emocionales
16.67% 2
Total Respondents: 12
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I I.XI II
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q6 Dearnos las razones por que no querria un arbol en su propiedad.
Escoge dos:
Answered: 12 Skipped:2
Los gastos de
La poda de L...
Los gastos del
agua que...
Hojarasca/desor
den en La...
El dano a Las
aceras o...
El riesgo de
caida de ramas
Ningunarazon
Otra razon
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Los gastos de la poda de los arboles
Los gastos del agua que necesitan los arboles
Hojarasca/desorden en la tierra
El dano a las aceras o tuberias subterraneas
El riesgo de caida de ramas
Ninguna razon
Otra razon
Total Respondents: 12
RESPONSES
8.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
8.33%
91.67%
0.00%
1 0
0 0
1 11
0 I.XIV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q7 La ciudad debe tener ordenanzas que protegen los arboles en la propiedad privada, similar a las ordenanzas sobre los arboles en los espacios publicos. �,Esta de acuerdo?
Answered:12 Skipped:2
E
totalmenti
Estoy
acuer
Un poco
acuer
Esto)
desacue
E
totalmenti
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Estoy totalmente de acuerdo
Estoy de acuerdo
Un poco de acuerdo
Estoy de desacuerdo
Estoy totalmente de desacuerdo
TOTAL
RESPONSES
83.33%
10 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 8.33%
1 8.33%
12 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 1XN
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q8 En los 5 anos pasados, �,cuanto ha gastado para mantener los arboles o en las reparaciones relacionadas con los arboles? (en $US) answered:12 Skipped:2
$0
$100-$499
$500-$999
$1000-$1999
Mas que $2000
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
$0
$100-$499
$500 - $999
$1000-$1999
Mas que $2000
TOTAL
RESPONSES
0.00%
16.67%
16.67%
25.00%
41.67%
0 2
2 3
5 12
1XVI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q9 6En que actividades participaria para apoyar los esfuerzos de la siembra de arboles en la ciudad? (Escoge todo to que se aplica.) Answered:12 Skipped:2
Voluntario(a)
en un evento...
Inscribir en
un taller...
un arbol en ...
Voluntario(a)
por cuidarse...
Ayudar a
organizar un...
Otra actividad
0% 10% 20% 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Voluntario(a) en un evento de la siembra de los arboles Inscribir en un taller educativo
Plantar/sembrar un arbol en su propiedad
Voluntario(a) por cuidarse a los arboles en la ciudad en una forma regular Ayudar a organizar una siembra de arboles en su vecindario Otra actividad
Total Respondents: 12
RESPONSES
41.67% 5
8.33% 1
83.33% 10
33.33% 4
16.67% 2
0.00% 0
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I tXVI
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q10 ,Como puede la ciudad ayudarte a plantar y/o cuidar un arbol en to propiedad?
Answered:14 Skipped:0
Un experto
quien puede...
Alguien para
hacer el...
Apoyo
financiero p...
Guias con
informacion...
Otro
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Un experto quien puede responder a las preguntas sobre la salud de los Arboles Alguien para hacer el trabajo
Apoyo financiero para la poda de arboles
Guias con informacion sobre la siembra, poda y riego de arboles Otro
TOTAL
RESPONSES
7.14%
7.14%
78.57%
7.14%
0.00%
1 0
14 1XVII I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Si
No
ANSWER CHOICES
Si
No
TOTAL
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q11 6Vive en Temecula?
Answered: 13 Skipped:1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
100.00%
0.00%
13 0
13 CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I WX
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
s
No
ANSWER CHOICES
Si
No
TOTAL
Q12 �,Trabaja en Temecula?
Answered:13 Skipped:1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
46.15%
53.85%
7 13
1XX I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q13 �,En que codigo postal vive?
Answered:13 Skipped:1
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I I.XXI
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q14 �,Cual describe su situacion de vivienda?
Answered:13 Skipped:1
Apartamiento
Casa
unifamiliar
Duplex
Condominio
Otro
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
RESPONSES
Apartamiento
0.00%
Casa unifamiliar
100.00%
Duplex
0.00%
Condominio
0.00%
Otro
0.00%
TOTAL
0 r
0 13
IXXI I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q15 �,Cual describe su situacion de vivienda?
Answered:13 Skipped:I
i
ir
Propietario(a)
Alquilado(a)/Re
ntado(a)
Vivir con
otras person...
Vivir con
otras person...
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Propietario(a)
Alquilado(a)/Rentado(a)
Vivir con otras personas sin pagar de alquiler o renta
Vivir con otras personas y ayudar a pagar el pago de alquiler o renta TOTAL
RESPONSES
92.31%
12 7.69%
1 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 13
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I I.XXII
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q16 �, Cual es el primer idioma en su hogar?
Answered:13 Skipped:1
Ingles
Espanol
Ruso
Vietnamita
Tagalo
Mandarin
Otro idioma
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Ingles
M-A-1
Huso
Vietnamita
Tagalo
Mandarin
Otro idioma
TOTAL
I
RESPONSES
84.62%
7.69%
7.69%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
11 1
1 0
0 0
0 13
IXXIV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Menores de 13
anos
14 -20 anos
21-29 anos
30-39 anos
40-49 anos
50-59 anos
Mayores de 60
anos
0%
ANSWER CHOICES
Menores de 13 anos
14 -20 anos
21-29 anos
30-39 anos
40-49 anos
50-59 anos
Mayores de 60 anos
TOTAL
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
Q17 �,Cuantos anos tiene?
Answered: 13 Skipped:I
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
RESPONSES
0.00%
7.69%
0.00%
46.15%
23.08%
7.69%
15.38%
0 0
0 6
3 1
2 13
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 1XXV
APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results
Q18 �,Cual es el nivel mas alto de educacion que has alcanzado? Answered:13 Skipped:I
Sin diploma de
escuela...
Diploma de
escuela...
Cierta
educacion...
Titulo asociado
Licenciatura
Titulo de
posgrado
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
ANSWER CHOICES
Sin diploma de escuela secundaria
Diploma de escuela secundaria o to igual (por ejemplo: GED) Cierta educacion universitaria, pero sin titulo
Titulo asociado
Licenciatura
Titulo de posgrado
TOTAL
. RESPONSES
0.00%
0 7.69%
1 15.38%
2 0.00%
0 23.08%
3 53.85%
7 13
1XXVI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F
this page was Intentionally left blank
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 1XXVI
APPENDIX G I Funding Opportunities
IXXVIII I CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN
Funding Opportunities I APPENDIX G
Funding Opportunities
Grants
Environmental
With approximately $13.4 million for the 2021-2023 funding cycle, this Enhancement Mitigation
program encourages projects that produce multiple benefits that reduce Program (California Natural
greenhouse gas emissions; increase water use efficiency; reduce risks from Resources Agency)
climate change impacts; and demonstrate collaboration with local, state, and community entities. Eligible projects like tree planting and habitat restoration, must be directly or indirectly related to the environmental impact of the modification of an existing transportation facility or construction of a new transportation facility.
Urban Flood Protection Grant
The Urban Flood Protection Program was created by Proposition 68 for the purpose Program (California Natural
of multi -benefit projects in urbanized areas to address flooding. Projects must Resources Agency)
provide multi -benefit solutions to address flooding in urban areas, protect people, and protect property from flood damage. Examples of eligible projects include tree planting and establishment care and creating native landscapes with stormwater capture features like bioswales. There was one funding cycle for fiscal year 2020- 2021 totaling $92.5 million.
Urban and Community
Multiple grant programs supported by the Urban and Community Forestry Program Forestry Program
will fund tree planting, tree inventories, urban wood and biomass utilization, (CAL FIRE)
blighted urban lands improvements, and leading edge work that advances the goals and objectives of supporting healthy urban forests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There was an estimated $10 million available to fund a variety of urban forestry projects in fiscal year 2019-2020.
Urban Greening Grant
Consistent with Assembly Bill 32 (2006), the Urban Greening Program will fund Program (California Natural
projects that reduce greenhouse gases by sequestering carbon, decreasing Resources Agency)
energy consumption, and reducing vehicles miles traveled, while also transforming the built environment into places that are more sustainable, enjoyable, and effective in creating healthy and vibrant communities. During the 2019-2020 fiscal year, there was approximately $28.5 million available for selected project applicants, which included public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and qualifying districts.
Active Transportation
This program provides fundingto encourage increased use of active modes of Program (California
transportation, such as biking and walking. Trees and other vegetation are significant Department of
components of several eligible projects underthe Active Transportation Program, Transportation)
including parks, trails, and safe routes to schools. $440 million will be distributed to project applicants over fiscal years 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023. Applicants include public agencies, transit agencies, school districts, tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations.
Affordable Housing and
The Strategic Growth Council is authorized to fund land use, housing, transportation, Sustainable Communities
and land preservation projects to support infill and compact developmentthat (California Strategic Growth
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Urban Greening is a threshold requirementfor all Council)
Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities funded projects. Eligible urban greening projects include, but are not limited to, rainwater recycling; flow and filtration systems including rain gardens, stormwater planters, and filters; vegetated swales; bioretention basins; infiltration trenches; and integration with riparian buffers, shade trees, community gardens, and parks and open space. Fundingfor 2021 is estimated at $452 million and will be available to locality (e.g., local agencies), developer (entity responsible for project construction), or program operator (day -today operational project administrator) project applicants.
Storm Water Grant Program
—
(California State Water
Resources Control Board
CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 1XXIX
APPENDIX G I Funding Opportunities
*Fees, Assessments, Taxes
Parcel Tax
A parcel tax is a special tax levied for the provision of special benefits. Revenues from special taxes must be used for the specific purpose for which they are intended, so a parcel tax would create a dedicated funding stream for street trees. Similar to a special assessment, a parcel tax cannot be based on the value of property; however, the amount levied on each parcel need not be directly related to the benefits provided (ILG 2008). Cities have the flexibility to levy parcel taxes as they see fit, but they are typically based on lot square footage or levied as a flat tax, with the same amount per parcel (CTD 2012a). Parcel taxes are designed to encompass entire cities and therefore, are good candidates for a citywide street tree program, as opposed to the district -level approach that often occurs under special assessments.