Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2024-15 CC Resolution
RESOLUTION NO.2024-15 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 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 270' day of February, 2024. ames Stewart, Mayor AT ST- Randi , City Clerk [SEAL] 1 1 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. 2024-15 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: 4 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart NOES: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Randi Johl, City Clerk 3 ALMAM J69dmkk Urban Fores t Management Plan April 2023 1' ti {�y �K I y r�► _ r Pw i Ir t — f r gy�y� - /)�11't i � � � � P& �` set �7•e �t � � �t5 � � r { PROP 68 PAPLI BY FIRE INTRODUCTION CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN ACRONYMS....................................................................................................................................... v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................vii VISION.....................................................................................................................................................ix 1 I 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 1 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 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 1 STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST...............................................................34 3.1 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 1 City Management of the Tree Program.................................................46 3.8.1 Budget and Funding.............................................................................................46 3.8.2 Staffing and Contractors.................................................................................48 3.8.3 1 Annual Service Data..............................................................................................50 3.8.4 1 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 1 Urban Forest Summit Results......................................................................58 4.5 1 Arbor Day Tree Planting Event......................................................................60 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I II TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 1 STRATEGIC PLAN..........................................................................................................63 5.1 1 Vision Statement..........................................................................................................63 5.2 Strategic Plan....................................................................................................................33 5.3 Guiding Principles........................................................................................................33 61 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN.....................................................................................75 6.1 Ongoing Actions................................................................................75 6.2 Short Term Actions 1-5 Years........................................................76 6.3 1 Medium Term Actions 5-10 Years...............................................78 6.4 1 Long Term Actions 10 Years+.......................................................81 71 MONITORING PLAN...................................................................................................83 7 1 Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment............................................................................83 81 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 %...... :, 5. Total 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 IV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 C5 I Irrigation Detail Species Palette D Nursery Stock Standards B Sidewalk Solutions E Highly Flammable Plant List Cl I Establishment F Public Survey Results Care Guidelines G Funding Opportunities C2 I Tree Protection Guidelines C3 I Tree Protection Detail C4 I Root Pruning Detail CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I V INTRODUCTION VI 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 6 F/RE 8 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I VI INTRODUCTION VI I I I CITY OF TEMFCULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I IX INTRODUCTION CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XI INTRODUCTION XI I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 101 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 Luisenos, 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 Luisenos, 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 Luiseno 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 Luisenos 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). CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION I 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 19o4, the Vail family who immigrated from Nova Scotia bought vast acreages of ranch land and large tracts of property in Temecula. Throughout the 19oos, 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 97,50o, and Temecula was renamed "Rancho California" 2 I 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 1-15 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. Historical and Environmental Context I INTRODUCTION CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 3 192 WHY THE CITY NEEDS AN URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN �ll EXTREME HEAT i +19 0 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 70oF by 2099 (PIER Program 2011). LJ DROUGHT Lowest water percipitation in It200 Y E A R S ■ In Riverside County, the third driest February in 727 years occurred in 2027 (NOAA and NIDIS 2027). ■ Riverside County has been added to the emergency drought declaration since October 2027 (Rancho California Water District 2027). ■ Between Fall 2073 and Spring 2074, Southern California experienced the lowest water year precipitation totals in at least 1,20o years (Griffin and Anchukaitis 2014). FIRE AIR POLLUTION FLOODING TOP HIGH 6 Environmental Vulnerability Score F E E T ■ Temecula ranked in the top five western US Cities ■ Riverside County residents are ■ In 7993, a severe with the most exposed exposed to health risks from flood event resulted in communities that will auto air pollution transported approximately 6 feet of be impacted by future by prevailing winds from Los sediment deposited into wildfires (Ager et al. 2079). Angeles and Orange County Old Town Temecula and Temecula contains and (City of Temecula 2027). resulted in a Presidential Disaster Proclamation is surrounded by land ■ Riverside County has a high (Riverside County Flood ranked as "Very High Fire environmental vulnerability Control District 2009). Hazard Severity Zone" by score caused by air pollution the California Department from trucks servicing increasing ■ Sixteen percent of all of Forestry and Fire warehouses within the county properties in Temecula Protection (CAL FIRE (OEHHA 2027). have greater than 26% 2021) chance of being severely ■ Riverside County received t flooding within ■ Southern California fall failing grades for smog and the next affected by by years (Risk fire weather days will ozone levels (American Lung Factor 30 increase by 4o% by 2065 Association 2022) (Goss et al. 2020). INTRODUCTION I Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Management Plan Figure 1. Urban Heat Island Effect HOW TREES HELP NEGATE THE URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT NO TREES OR GREENERY Solar energy is Heat is absorbed Heat is slowly emitted Increased temperatures emitted by the El and retained by throughout the day and discourage pedestrian sun. dark, urban surfaces. evening, increasing traffic, negatively impacting temperatures. the local economy. No trees ------- to absorb 6 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Management Plan I INTRODUCTION WITH TREES AND GREENERY P=mq Solar energy Shaded surfaces K4Auto emissions � emitted by the sun Fw absorb and are partially is partially absorbed retain less heat. absorbed by by trees. trees. ------------------------ --------------------------------------------- Cleaner air, cooler weather creates a pedestrian -friendly environment positively impacting local businesses. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 7 INTRODUCTION I 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). Figure 2. Quality -of -Life Master Plan Quality -of -Life Master Plan EQUITY Equity values help remove barriers to ensure opportunities for all to prosper through datadriven decisions personalized to residents of the City. 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. SUSTAINABLE & RESILIENT CITY Sustainable City values help plan for the future by meeting present needs without compromising the resources needed for future generations. SAFE & PREPARED COMMUNITY Public safety is the foundation of Temecula and the most basic service for which the City is responsible. OUR 7 CORE VALUES ECONOMIC PROSPERITY A business -friendly local economy providing diverse opportunities to live, work and play in Temecula. TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY & CONNECTIVITY Transportation mobility, Astreet maintenance and sanitation are basic but essential functions deemed highly important by residents. PF 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. 8 1 CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Relation to the Quality -of -Life Master Plan I INTRODUCTION Table 1. Quality -of -Life Master Plan Core Values Relationship to the Urban Forest Management Plan 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. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 9 INTRODUCTION I Relation to the Quality -of -Life Master Plan 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 thejobs 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).. 10 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Relation to the Quality -of -Life Master Plan I INTRODUCTION 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. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 11 INTRODUCTION I Relation to the Quality -of -Life Master Plan 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. 12 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Relation to the Quality -of -Life Master Plan I INTRODUCTION 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. CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 13 INTRODUCTION I Relation to the Quality -of -Life Master Plan 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. 14 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Relation to the Quality -of -Life Master Plan I INTRODUCTION 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. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 15 ODEVELOPING 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. ,fsiP CAL <<I�ow�,;wEPa, AO FIRE • • SINCE 1885 • • 0 CAL FIRE © Urban forest 0- ()Analysis of plans, P O Community Grant inventory and policies, and engagement Awarded canopy analysis ordinances _ w © Draft UFMP, 0 Public Review of 0.4 Final UFMP, Technical Technical Assessment, Draft UFMP, Technical Assessment, and Street and Street Tree Assessment, and Street Tree Master Plan Master Plan Tree Master Plan 16 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 40 rX4%4Z 1[ INTRODUCTION I Key Findings 1.5 KEY FINDINGS n o 1.5.1 n�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. 18 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN .;r—`S:T - 1A� i . ti. � � f •r M � 14; x a^, ''M d �w { ,R �IrF�,�$ Temeculas7city-wide canopy cover 2000 is approximately »% 1500 However, the inventory analysis revealed that the majority of Temecula's i000 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 500 canopy, while the public tree inventory makes up 188 acres of the total tree canopy (Figure 3). Therefore, approximately lo% of canopy cover is city managed and the remaining 90% is on private property. 0 rw 0 Figure 3. Canopy Cover ded by Public vs Private Trees Canopy Cover Acres Provided by Public vs Private Trees Public 0 Private Trees CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 19 INTRODUCTION I 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. 20 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN - a- IbMAN" • No • Im, %Ohm 'At wry alL 1. YAK 1,4 19PT I . . . ... ..... ��■��-i� _ .r _ _ '. rr.+ %fir ::: �.� .: f INTRODUCTION I 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 Director Public Works Superintendent Senior Landscape Inspector Principal Planner Community Principal Planner Development Stormwater Development Manager Mayor Elected Officials Mayor Pro Tem Community Member Resident of Temecula 22 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 virtua 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) CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 23 URBAN FOREST DATA Canopy cover refers to the layer of leaves, branches, and stems that provide tree coverage of the ground when viewed from above. 2*1 CANOPY COVER 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 ii% (Table 3). Table 3. Land Cover Classification Other Vegetation 4,159 23.5 Impervious Surfaces 8,194 46.3 Bare Ground 3,371 19.1 Water im 36 0.2 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN i 25 URBAN FOREST DATA I Canopy Cover Figure 4. City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis s.� City of Temecula O City of Temecula Urban Lands Land Cover O Impervious (46.32 %) O Bare Ground (19.06 %) O Low Vegetation (23.51 %) • Tree/Canopy (10.90 %) • Water (0.21%) SOURCE: NAIP2020 DUDEK m FIGURE 4 City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis Urban Forest Management Plan 26 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Canopy Cover I URBAN FOREST DATA DATA 2.2 I 1104 a Z W40, Z W WL6101' TA : I all Table 4 below presents the total number of new r" 1 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 Oat or Temecula planting locations will help to develop an equitable / canopy cover for those communities in most need CANON of trees. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 27 URBAN FOREST DATA I 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% 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 - 15,867 25 345,944 J 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 Canopyota 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 5A EL-- 1,913 4 25 A, 9,081 -M 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% 28 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Figure 5. The Benefits of Trees CLEANER AIR 100 trees remove 53 tons of carbon dioxide and 430 pounds of other air pollutants per year. COMBATS 1 CLIMATE CHANGE By reducing energy demand and absorbing carbon dioxide, trees and vegetation decrease the production and negative effects of air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. ®CAPTURES RAINWATER 100 mature trees can capture and store about 139,000 gallons of rainwater per year. CLEANER WATER A medium-sized tree intercepts up to 2,300 gallons of stormwater runoff per year. Increasing Canopy Cover I URBAN FOREST DATA The Benefits of TREES CO2 REMOVED 139K RAINWATER IV HEALTHIER PEOPLE IMPROVES PUBLIC HEALTH 'C People are less likely to be hospitalized for athsma when they live in neighborhoods with many trees. COOLER SURFACE SUSTAINABLE LIVING SAVES ENERGY AI Strategically placed shade trees can help save up to 56% on annual air-conditioning costs for homes and businesses. REDUCES URBAN HEAT ISLAND EFFECT Shaded surfaces may be 20-45°F cooler than the peak temperatures of unshaded areas. 0INCREASES BUSINESS Shoppers will spend 9% to 12% more for goods and services in business districts with a high quality tree canopy. 0 GREEN ECONOMY In 2009, urban forestry supported 60,067jobs in California resulting in $3.3 billion individual income. IMPROVES MENTAL HEALTH People living in neighborhoods with less than 10% tree canopy are more likely to report symptoms of depression, stress and anxiety. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 29 S r �s� 444 :Cn �i �ti yY ��7 y 1.r111P;�Qtd.l7..:iS, (4T - vV • "Vow 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. 30 1 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Canopy Equity I 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 60650512oo 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, 6o65043244, 6o65043217, 6o65043256,6o65043250, 6o65049600,6o65043222. • 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 1o%. • 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, Luiseno 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 CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN i 31 LYE -bps s� P `7 L �s@ • • . 9 L7 I S � ■ I 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 32 1 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 o and ioo, 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 o and i, with a higher number indicating a higher need for trees based on equity metrics. Priority and Opportunity Areas I URBAN FOREST DATA Figure 6. Priority Planting Score by Census Tract Planting Priority Score CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN i 33 STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST Environmental Services/Economic Benefits I STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST 391 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 Carbon Sequestration (carbon dioxide removed from air by trees) Avoided Runoff (rainwater diverted from stormwater management system by trees) gjthe urban forest is equivalent to an average passenger vehicle driving 589,977 miles. 1,796,073 gallons This benefit is equivalent to the average annual water usage of 16 American homes. 1 Air Pollution Removal The pollution removed by the City's tree (ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon 9.33 tons inventory is equivalent to the carbon dioxide monoxide, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns) ■ L AL emissions of 9,365 pounds of burned coal. Sources: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and Tree Analysis (USFS 2020). Table 7 presents Temecula's tree inventory financial value. Table 7. Financial Value of City -Managed Trees Carbon Storage (7,546 Tons) Amount of carbon held in trees Tree replacement cost Functional Value based on the services trees perform Sources: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and i Tree Analysis (USFS 2020). $16,000 $55,500 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 35 STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST I 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 to species in the Temecula tree inventory, respectively. Table 8. 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). 36 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN OF q r t •v ¢ � iZy � y •Tn'"f'rk ' � ��•� I 1'�� Fes"' '.•.1+ �. �-_ 'n` r r��= ; 'i tN,c 1 y 4Rt. syRlr;�yp"Ya j '+`% �r a S •* h. R� _ i t �, it .-..� t -«1 v `� s. _.,ti:,�„, :r•�` ..4 r.r ` �� �� + •,t Li •.. ,yam •a-R''�'i Y �� .`+:s f.+riy�Yl-_ �'' � - } 4 .. ' � ) � w Mw4r�"?r ;Is♦' � '�'ya,.�7s. r�"�`�;��'11� rr�� '� _t, d t .. .. - :♦`^s+, mat•�y�.. INN": � i I ^ te}.4�N��� � �yy i• q � � .. t• V 4,, 6 L. 1. Pinus d 2. Platanus Z Pistacia h t E AX /v k �, 3. Lagerstroemia S. Pyrus 9. Liquidambar Genus Diversity W4, ; 5% S. Koelreuteria TA 30% 10. Schinus Species Diversity r 120% 120% 1. Mondell pine 2. London plane Pinus eldarica Platanus x hispanica 3% 30%0 } 6. Chinese flame tree 7. American sweet gum Koelreuteria bipinnata Liquidambar styraciflu rt cr 9% 3. Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 30% 8. California sycamore Platanus racemosa W �wc 4% 4. Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis 4% 5. Red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 30% 30% -4 9. California pepper 10. Camphor Schinus molle Cinnamomum camphora STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST I Species Diversity Summary Table 9. Tree Species in the City Inventory that are Predicted to be Heat or Water Sensitive i Platanus x hispanica Lagerstroemia indica Platanus racemosa 1 Liquidambarstyraciflua Ulmus parvifolia Magnolia grandiflora I.Brachychiton populneus Prunus cerasifera Voelreuteria paniculata Populus fremontii Pyrus calleryana 'Gleditsia triacanthos Jacaranda mimosifolia Betula pendula Cedrus deodara A California sycamore 882 American sweetgum 781 Chinese elm 584 Southern magnolia Kurrajong Purple -leaf plum Goldenrain tree Fremont poplar Bradford pear Thornless honey locust Jacaranda European white birch Deodarcedar 538 365 311 307 195 172 207 131 79 74 Morus alba Fraxinus uhdei Quercus rubra Ginkgo biloba Prunus cerasifera Cercis canaclensis Corymbia citriodora Lophostemon confertus Cercis occidentalis Liriodendron tulipifera Sequoia sempervirens Acer saccharinum Pinus radiata White mulberry t Evergreen ash Sk Red oak Maidenhair tree Cherry plum Eastern redbud Lemon -scented gum Brisbane box Common hackberry Tulip tree Coast redwood Sugar maple Monterrey pine 66 64 59 48 12 27 19 19 15 7 7 6 4 40 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Diameter at Standard Height Distribution Summary I STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST 393 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. Figure 9. Diameter at Standard Height Distribution DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION Age Distribution of the Temecula Tree Inventory 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% �% 9% ■ Recommended age distribution of trees. Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021); Richards 1983. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN i 41 • 0 $I;?$ Tree Condition 394 TREE CONDITION The health composition of Temecula's tree inventory is presented in Table lo. Table 10. Tree Condition Ratings of the City Inventory Condition Number of % of 2021 Trees Inventory Excellent 8Z 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 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. 42 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Relative Performance Index Summary I STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST IS 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.o 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 ». Table 11. Relative Performance Index of the Top io Species in the Inventory Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and Tree (USFS 2020). Note: Approximately 9,277 trees were not assigned a condition in the inventory (30.2o%). As such, these trees were excluded from the RPI analysis. Sustainability Goal: Meets Goal r Does Not Meet Goal CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 43 Importance Values Summary 396 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 Pinus eldarica Mondell pine 27.9 Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red ironbark 22.4 Platanus x hispanica London plane 22.1 Lagerstroemia inclica 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 in 6.0 Pinus canariensis Canary Island pine M` 5.8 Pistacia chinensis .Chinese pistache jiiiiiiiiiiiiiI 5.7 Source: City of Temecula Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and Tree (USFS 2020) 44 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Street Tree Master Plan I URBAN FOREST DATA AO ��31 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 1 45 STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST I Budget and Funding 3.8CITY 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 Contractor Services Budget Street/Right-of-Way Trees Parks and Median Trees City Facility Trees City Trees on Slopes Total Contractor Services Budget City Staff Salary Budget* Maintenance Superintendent Senior Landscape Inspector Landscape Inspector II $100,000 $60,OQ,Q' $45,000 1 $275,000 $480,000 $20,300 $30,700 $25,100 $100,000 Wb0,000 $80,000 K80,000 $45,000 045,000 $275,000 W75,000 $500,000 `500,000 a $20,300 PO,300 $30,700 b&700 $25,100 $25,100 $100,000 IP00,000 $80,000 W,000 $45,000 $45,000 $275,000 OR75,000 $500,000 M500,000 Is $20,300 $20,300 $30,700 $30,700 $25,100 $25,100 Note: *Annual staff salaries are calculated based on the percentage of time overseeing all landscape and tree maintenance throughout the city. $100,000 $76,000 $45,000 $275,000 $496,000 $20,300 $30,700 $25,100 46 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Budget and Funding I 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 n . A A . M Tree Planting -100% Stocking $4,800 $34,905 3-Years Establishment Care 3-4 Year Pruning Cycle Tree and Stump Removal $0 $118,590 $465,200 $10,000 $580,200 $10,000 Fiscal Year 2024-2025 $48o,0oo $788,316 Fiscal Year 2025-2026 $480,OOo $835,615 Fiscal Year 2026-2027 I $48o,0oo $885,752 FisA Year 2027-2028 �1$48o,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. Figure 10. Temecula's Urban Forest Funding Sources 40% GENERAL FUND , FUNDING 10% ROAD USE TAX 1qWMW IFVff ASSESSMENT DISTRICT CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN i 47 STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST I 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 Number of Number of Positions FTEs Management 1 0.10 Director/Supervisor Senior 1 0.2 Landscape Inspector Field Inspector 1 0.2 Note: FTE = Full Time Equivalent. Figure» 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. Figure 11. Contractor's Allocated Time Spent on Tree Activities 1% TREE PLANTING MAINTENANCE ALLOCATION 24% TREE AND STUMP REMOVAL 75% TREE PRUNING & TRIMMING 48 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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 URBAN FOREST TREE PLANTING PROGRAMS Stacy Fox PW Parks Superintendent City Arborist Tracy Courts Community Services Coordinator TREE REMOVAL REQUEST/APPEALS Community Service Park and Recreation Commission PLANNING Luke Watson Director of Community Development Stuart Fisk / Matt Peters Planning Manager LAND DEVELOPMENT Ron Moreno Principle Engineer Annie Bostre-Le Development Manager CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS Amer Attar Engineering Manager Nick Minicilli Senior Traffic Engineer URBAN FOREST DATA I Annual Service Data 3.8.3 ANNUAL SERVICE DATA Table 16. Annual Service Data Hight-ot-Way Iree Newly planted trees in the ROW Approximately 100 City tree trimming Replacement Program, are receive establishment care by Annual aesthetic and trees and stumps are materials are mulched, Remembrance Tree Planting the adjacent homeowner clearance pruning removed per year 5k-1 Ok yards per year Program Typically, 5-10 trees are Care is inconsistent and irrigation planted annually to replace not always provided; a watering removals agreement would be helpful Special events such as Arbor Day may result in high volume tree planting by volunteers 3.8.4 The City does not have a formal establishment care program TREE RESPONSIBILITY Approximately 1,000 trees are pruned per year Estimated pruning cycle of 3-5 years, depending on tree species Tree removals are due to diseased, damaged, poor location, or other hazards Removed tree and stump locations are identified for replacement trees Wood mulch is recycled into city parks and median landscapes Wood mulch helps regulate soil temperature and retains moisture 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. 50 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Annual Service Data I STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST Figure 13. Tree responsibility along average streets Pruning and Watering ■ Property Owner Responsibility ■ City 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. P = Private Property— The property owner's responsibility for watering and pruning 44, can Property owners provide regular watering, care and maintenance, C = City Property — The City's responsibility for watering and pruning 4.:, Am and may request an encroachment permit from the City to prune S = Shared Right -of -way —Shared Cit and Pro ert Owner Responsibility* A. these trees. Y Property �+ CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN i 51 INTRODUCTION 52 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN �l 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. 1 � all, l -��►.I* imp �. �r r ,\ t '*k 4.1COMMUNITY 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. A rT CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 53 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT I Working Group 4.2WORKING 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 City -.. - Stacy Fox Public Works I Patrick Thomas Public Works Matt Hayes Fire Nicole Flores Risk Tom Cole Code Enforcement Kathy Sizemore Community Services Abigail Srader California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Mark Collins Planning Parks Maintenance Superintendent Director of Public Works/City Engineer Temecula Fire Captain Risk Management Analyst Field Supervisor Code Enforcement Chair, Community Services Commissioner Urban Forester Temecula Planner 54 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 97 Public Survey I COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Of survey respondents view trees as a valuable community asset that contribute to the quality of life in Temecula _V_-, 4.3PUBLIC 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 • 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 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 55 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT I Public Survey Opinions on tree 66% agree that the City should have ordinances to protect trees on private property in the same way they protection ordinances 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 • 48% believe the City should provide "How -To" information on planting, watering, and trimming Trees on private 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 Of survey respondents believe the City should provide 4& "How -To" information on planting, watering, and trimming 56 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN k S 494 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 A 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. 0, CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN i 57 At L) COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT I Public Survey 4.4.E 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 Variety of tree species • Shade corridors • Dense, forested areas • Peaceful sanctuary Native tree gardens r • 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 58 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Table 20. Group Discussion Activity Themes • 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 Public Survey I 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 ri • 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 I 59 Q1W TREE PLANTING 4. 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. 60 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Vi )o- DaY volunteers planted 300 trees in April 2022! gyp Vif '� sir .¢ . ���� � � •� MRIVT W} , I, 7 . r, 1 1 . y I lltM .P �:/J 1_t r% J�.{', � 3 �./, fl I' /{P I; ��/ „/�� � ��jl'(. ,1 i .,, 1.. ,' I I i'• � , , i :, ` �� ���•\ t i 1, -S r i•'Y.'�.1 ,:7..y /t l ,�, ,//�� . R .� 1. :a' ar/�'(�i r V I l:i"r�:' �IWT,i 1 !� I , .�. � r �•\ �•• i \'y•, 1 \ a ,al, �t�,';. u �,..i,�i,l ,r I �� 'r 1 'rh � i \• 1 .�f is �. fi,.' �' S �:I' r.f; r, I. \M'l r �(, '� '.A' � G�'r � 1 I 1 \ � ���-. •�, \ � i �, ' \. ` •�' t � r !! a / �{ .t, `;f ,/ .,r/ �,l r ,'1!, r✓, �%l ;r .1 ��'{`S C�.I 1 y, .� I� \ 1.'\ '�� ,t r �' ,,}}r�R.:i. � e. ! 1 fi i \. \f a '�\ ��•�'�,� � !!t<:9Y �.,h ��a,�'. /\,�a�, �,.1 r P•i I (. 1, �' ? '{. +.,� ��'r 1. �� 1 .!s '1 ,I� IIi J!;'"rr,�, 1 I ,1• I� i A l; rl..� t r, t. ,r/f%r gJ%f���nr ;i p r';i; Nf,.r{ t�.(, 7N.§ .r. •``AI' ,1 J' %: T4, lea Idl \. 1: r •r i �.� t. ''{ r 1 ,.�� i 'i ; i � !! :/,•✓. i ��S' �M ���rr���r i r �,�. Pi�l. ,,7�: .•1 �` r�'�I �d :l %f 1 �� I � �\'`�{ , ( S a: �� K . � . / : R�� % ,; u° � ' IiiAr. V N•.('I Ai � i r,�' �\ I r � 1 ' f �t'4 :1 y �'fS 1.v 'Y' � '2 .�: n` �; A;'a ��,r. � � p. diti� (I 9l'��q �,1•;�r'" � I �' �.i �'�ati'rk V, "l./i yy „''.tt'iSi I, � � :% !i � ./' 'r t`7 v� ,, ,A '`��,� ::� ,0•'a: ;r� � r r /.,I t' 7 •:) -t�„ ,;,A ;�,., ,i �.t.{: �' -i �, a l 1 �. ;% r I. /'•��.Y �• 1:.,, :>e. ,I,� {Ft' �, ,, � y ,�1' J ,. t I 4 � f�� J '1..: •l �'. •G W • `7, �, h s :{.. '} !I 'p. r V ..ia i i• u1 � I �1a: �� u rl, ••�- !• S •�a! tl: ,ti h .:�4 'fil' �i / 'n '+ 1'&,,,'. ,:�yti fill d. '•:l.�'>'((r, �t h Y, V A. ,N,� •i° c,gt'7 Lr: a . y ,/fy 7?'�� 'Jl„ ' >' v'r��' ,,f iJ lrr.:', � �/ f�}7� I % r,l P-( f�,:��yp�'1.3 `•lj,,l�4h�.4 , 2.y , �� � •.,/ J..�t-/�j „�,.r ,�,✓6l Lr6tllly/ ��I1�'N. 'W!', �. d.ai :�:rl i,f. i'� t1 ��4�.., J,:,l �..i.l„'.I�t� � )L..,�.i�Ne�lil�Jr �N 1YX.'e\�,)����64I n.n , ,- �I��i.Mai'R'vV��i�lr3�iih���.N�t.. INTRODUCTION 62 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Vision Statement I STRATEGIC PLAN 501 VISION STATEMENT 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. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN i 63 STRATEGIC PLAN I Strategic Plan 592 STRATEGIC PLAN 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 Parks, trails, pathways, and open spaces will have an abundance of trees contributing to the neighborhoods 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 The quality of life in Temecula and its environs is further enhanced by the benefits and environment 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. 64 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Guiding Principles I STRATEGIC PLAN 593 GUIDING PRINCIPLES The urban forest is a Explore opportunities for hosting community tree planting events to vital component ourYA involve and educate community members in tree planting. Partner Ongoing community character ter with community groups for volunteers. and is equitably distributed to create 1 B Prioritize tree plantings in land uses and communities with low Ongoing inviting spaces canopy cover. g g throughout Temecula. 1C Continue outreach efforts to underrepresented populations. Ongoing 1D Explore opportunities to plant trees in public spaces to create tree- Medium/Ongoing dense gathering spaces. Fill all vacant planting sites and identify new planting sites, lE especially street trees to create tree -lined streets throughout Medium Temecula. 1F Maintain the "Tree City USA' designation. Ongoing 1G Continue to celebrate Arbor Day with community events and tree Ongoing plantings. g g CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 65 STRATEGIC PLAN I Guiding Principles Parks, trails, pathways, and open spaces will Ensure active transportation routes are densely planted to increase Medium -Long have an abundance safety and shade along these routes. of trees contributing ir to the safety and qV connectivity of our 2113 Identify safe routes to school, bicycle routes, walking trails, routes to Short community. parks and recreational areas for tree planting. 2C Plant street trees according to the street tree master plan and Ongoing Recommended Species List. g g Identify streets where trees are lacking and pursue tree planting opportunities along these routes, beginning with areas identified by 2D community members during public input, which include Winchester Medium Road, Nicolas Road, Pechanga Parkway, Temecula Parkway, Pauba Road, and in public rights -of -way within residential communities. Plant trees in Temecula's parks, prioritizing those with low Priority 2E Medium Planting Scores per Table 4-11 in the technical assessment. 66 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Guiding Principles I STRATEGIC PLAN prepared to achieve 3A LJCVCIUfJ Q Jy JLCIII LU LIQI.II QIIU IIIVIIILVI LICC IJIQIILIII�JJ QIIU I.QII..UIQLC greenhouse gas reduction attributed to tree plantings. Medium outcomes of the City Climate Action Plan Update the City of Temecula Tree Policy and standard details to will result in reduced 3113 incorporate the recommendations in Section 1.2.1 of the technical Short urban heat islands, assessment. increased energy Implement pha es d removal d replacement of undesirable species. As efficiency, resilience 3C trees age and require replacement, replace with appropriate species Ongoing to pests and diseases, identified by the street tree master plan and Recommended Species List. and landscapes that conserve water. 3D Plant trees in City -maintained vacant planting sites at a rate of 179 trees per Ongoing g g year over the next 20 years (see Table 1-6 of the technical assessment). 3E Implement a formative pruning program for young and newly planted Short trees to mitigate potential tree structure and safety issues. Explore partnerships for developing an urban wood reuse program, 3F such as programs for tree removal and milling to turn removed trees into Medium useable lumber, or promote the use of on -demand mulch drop programs. 3G Adopt the Street Tree Master Plan and Recommended Species List Short (Appendix A) as the guiding standard for street tree selection.. 3H Monitor trees rated as poor or dead in the City's tree inventory to Short determine appropriate management actions. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN i 67 STRATEGIC PLAN I Guiding Principles The quality of life in Temecula and its environs is further enhanced by the benefits and services of our urban forest. 4B 0 411111 Provide guidance and educational materials to property owners regarding responsibility for maintaining trees in the public right -of- Short way and how to properly care for and water trees. Develop guidelines and educational materials for planting and siting of trees to reduce energy costs in support of the General Plan Air Short Quality Element. Develop an "Adopt a Tree" program to increase stewardship of Medium trees on public and private property. 68 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Heritage trees are protected for their significant environmental and historic value. Guiding Principles I STRATEGIC PLAN Update the Chapter 8.48 Heritage Tree Ordinance per Table 2-2 of the technical assessment. Create a performance bond requirement for replacement trees to 5B Medium ensure long-term successful establishment of replacement trees. 5C Create a map that identifies the heritage trees throughout the City. Medium Develop a program to increase funding for ongoing maintenance of 5D Medium heritage trees, similar to an "Adopt a Tree" program. 4d CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 69 STRATEGIC PLAN I Guiding Principles Trees are included in Update Municipal Code Chapter 8.49 Tree Care and Preservation per the beginning of the 6A recommendations in Table 2-1 of the technical assessment. Include Short planning process to requirements and guidelines for tree protection during construction. provide landscaped settings and Update Municipal Code Chapter 17.32 Water Efficiency and Landscape 6B Short habitat, maximize Design per Table 2-3 of the technical assessment. environmental benefits, and reduce Update the Municipal Code and the General Plan to identify "landmark" infrastructure 6C trees that warrant special protections, per the Open Space Element of the Medium conflicts. General Plan. Update the Citywide Design Guidelines to reflect the urban forest management plan recommendations and street tree master plan/Recommended Tree Species 6D Medium List, which identify planter space requirements, utility compatibility, and tree spacing needs that vary by species. Update Municipal Code Section 17.24.505.1-1 and the Citywide Design 6E Guidelines to include more prescriptive requirements for parking lot trees Medium and planter space. Update Municipal Code Section 17.22 to ensure minimum tree planting requirements are established for all Planned Development Overlay Zoning 6F Medium Districts (PDOs). Plant palette proposed for PDOs should be updated according to the Recommended Species List and the street tree master plan. 70 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Guiding Principles I STRATEGIC PLAN (continued) Balance Nature and ❑ Trees are included in the beginning of the Update the Bikeways and Trails Master Plan to include guidelines for planning process to planting trees to increase bicyclist and pedestrian safety, as well as to provide landscaped 6reflect standard arboriculture practice to measure trees by diameter at settings and 6G standard height, which is measured at 4.5 feet above the ground, for a more Medium habitat, maximize accurate depiction of tree size and maturity. This guideline should also be environmental updated to reflect the Municipal Code definition of a protected tree, or benefits, and reduce heritage tree. infrastructure conflicts Update the Uptown Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards to reflect the updated Recommended Species List and the street 6H Medium tree master plan, and identify alternative options for tree and sidewalk conflict resolution (see Appendix C, Sidewalk Solutions). Update the Best Management Practices Design Manual to reflect tree 61 spacing requirements as identified in the Recommended Species List, the street tree master plan, and tree protection requirements in the Municipal Code. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 71 STRATEGIC PLAN I Guiding Principles The urban forest Pursue tree planting opportunities through community volunteer events will be sustainably 7A or collaborating with local organizations to reduce the cost of tree Ongoing managed through planting. financial investment Increase annual city wide tree maintenance funding so it will be and staffing. 7113 we sufficient to maintain trees on a 3- to 4-year pruning cycle. Table 14 Medium depicts annual funding increases needed. Update the service level C district funding mechanism for contractor services on slopes to ensure adequate funding is available for tree Medium -Long maintenance. Communicate the economic value of trees to decision makers. Short Pursue opportunities to increase tree maintenance funds, such as grants, integrating funding into new development plans and implementing a Medium Citywide fee program. Develop a strategy to increase tree maintenance funds as the City's trees age and require increased maintenance costs. Long Pursue CAL FIRE grant funding to develop and urban wood reuse Short program. Increase funding for establishment care by 27% ($153,495) above current levels to account for new tree plantings in City -maintained vacant planting Short sites. Pursue grants. 72 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Guiding Principles I STRATEGIC PLAN Existing trees will be maintained, and 8A► Increase Citywide canopy cover to 20% over the next 40 years. Long new trees will be strategically planted Develop a system to track annual tree plantings to ensure progress toward to increase canopy 8113 achieving a 20% canopy cover. Adjust annual tree planting goals based on Short, Ongoing cover equitably across Table 5 of the urban forest management plan. Temecula. 8C Develop minimum tree planting requirements for commercial and retail Medium land uses. Provide educational information to commercial property owners on 8D the benefits of trees for businesses to encourage commercial property Short owners to plant and maintain trees. Implement a rewards program or acknowledgement program for 8E Short commercial properties with exemplary tree cover. Pursue partnerships with Temecula Valley Unified School District to plant 8F trees on school property and increase public school education about Medium trees. Prioritize tree planting in portions of the City most in need of tree cover, 8G based on the Priority Planting Scores identified in Section 2.4 of the urban Ongoing forest management plan. A CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 73 INTRODUCTION 74 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Ongoing Actions I IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 6*1 ONGOING ACTIONS IA Explore opportunities for hosting community tree planting events to involve and educate PW, TCSD, community members in tree planting. Partner with community groups for volunteers. CD $ 1113 Prioritize tree plantings in land uses and communities with low canopy cover. PW, CD, P $$$ 1C Continue outreach efforts to underrepresented populations. PW, CD $ 1D Explore opportunities to plant trees in public spaces to create tree -dense gathering PW CD, P $ spaces. IF Maintain the "Tree City USA" designation. PW $ 1G Continue to celebrate Arbor Day with community events and tree plantings. PW, TCSD $ 2C Plant street trees according to the street tree master plan and Recommended Species PW, CD, P, LD $$$ List. Implement phased removal and replacement of undesirable species. As trees age and 3C require replacement, replace with appropriate species identified by the street tree PW P $$ master plan and Recommended Species List. 3D Plant trees in City -maintained vacant planting sites at a rate of 179 trees per year over PW, CD $$ the next 20 years (see Table 1-6 of the technical assessment). Pursue tree planting opportunities through community volunteer events or collaborating 7A with local organizations to reduce the cost of tree planting. PW, TCSD $ BG Prioritize tree planting in portions of the City most in need of tree cover, based on the PW, CD, P $$$ Priority Planting Scores identified in Section 2.4 of the urban forest management plan. RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 450,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000) CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN i 75 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN I Short Term Actions 7-5 Years 692 SHORT TERM ACTIONS 1-5 YEARS 2113 3 4A Identify safe routes to school, bicycle routes, walking trails, routes to parks and recreational PW, CD, P $$ areas for tree planting. Update the City of Temecula Tree Policy and standard details to incorporate the recommendations in Section 1.2.1 of the technical assessment. Implement a formative pruning program for young and newly planted trees to mitigate potential tree structure and safety issues. Adopt the Street Tree Master Plan and Recommended Species List (Appendix A) as the guiding standard for street tree selection. Monitor trees rated as poor or dead in the City's tree inventory to determine appropriate management actions. 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 $ PW PW, CD, P, City PW PW, TCSD, CD 4Develop guidelines and educational materials for planting and siting of trees to reduce PW, CD 6A energy costs in support of the General Plan Air Quality Element. 4C!V Develop an 'Adopt a Tree" program to increase stewardship of trees on public and private property. PW, TCSD SA A Update the Chapter 8.48 Heritage Tree Ordinance per Table 2-2 of the technical assessment. PW, City Update Municipal Code Chapter 8.49 Tree Care and Preservation per recommendations 6A in Table 2-1 of the technical assessment. Include requirements and guidelines for tree PW, City protection during construction. IwoUpdate Municipal Code Chapter 17.32 Water Efficiency and Landscape Design per Table 2-3 PW, City of the technical assessment. 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), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000) 76 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Short Term Actions 7-5 Years I IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SHORT TERM ACTIONS 1-5 YEARS (CONTINUED) Pursue tree planting opportunities through community volunteer events or collaborating with local organizations to reduce the cost of tree planting. Pursue CAL FIRE grant funding to develop and urban wood reuse program. Increase funding for establishment care by 27% ($153,495) above current levels to account for new tree plantings in City -maintained vacant planting sites. Pursue grants. Increase funds available for the park and median tree budget so it will be sufficient to increase tree trimming capacity and maintain park and median trees on a 3- to 4-year pruning cycle. Update the service level C district funding mechanism for contractor services on slopes to ensure adequate funding is available for tree maintenance. 7d Communicate the economic value of trees to decision makers. Develop a system to track annual tree plantings to ensure progress toward achieving a 8b 20% canopy cover. Adjust annual tree planting goals based on Table 5 of the urban forest management plan. PW, TCSD $ PW, P $ PW $$$$ PW PW PW PW Provide educational information to commercial property owners on the benefits of trees for PW, CD businesses to encourage commercial property owners to plant and maintain trees. Implement a rewards program or acknowledgement program for commercial properties PW, CD with exemplary tree cover. Prioritize tree planting in portions of the City most in need of tree cover, based on the PW, CD, P Priority Planting Scores identified in Section 2.4 of the urban forest management plan. RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required COST $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000-$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$1oo,000) CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 77 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN I Medium Term Actions 5-70 Years 693 MEDIUM TERM ACTIONS 5-10 YEARS I Fill all vacant planting sites and identify new planting sites, especially street trees to create PW $$ tree -lined streets throughout Temecula. Ensure active transportation routes are densely planted to increase safety and shade 2A along these routes. Identify safe routes to school, bicycle routes, walking trails, and routes PW $$ to parks and recreational areas for tree planting. Identify streets where trees are lacking and pursue tree planting opportunities along these 2D routes, beginning with areas identified by community members during public input, which PW $$ include Winchester Road, Nicolas Road, Pechanga Parkway, Temecula Parkway, Pauba Road, and in public rights -of -way within residential communities. Plant trees in Temecula's parks, prioritizing those with low Priority Planting Scores per 2F Table 4-11 in the technical assessment. PW $$$ 3A Develop a system to track and monitor tree plantings and calculate greenhouse gas PW $ reduction attributed to tree plantings. Explore partnerships for developing an urban wood reuse program, such as programs for 3F tree removal and milling to turn removed trees into useable lumber, or promote the use of PW, CD, P $ on -demand mulch drop programs. Create a performance bond requirement for replacement trees to ensure long-term 5B successful establishment of replacement trees. PW, City $ RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required COST $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000) 78 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Medium Term Actions 5-70 Years I IMPLEMENTATION PLAN MEDIUM TERM ACTIONS 5-10 YEARS (CONTINUED) 5C Create a map that identifies the heritage trees throughout the City. PW, P $ 5D Develop a program to increase funding for ongoing maintenance of heritage trees, similar PW $$ to an "Adopt a Tree" program. 6C Update the Municipal Code and the General Plan to identify "landmark" trees that warrant PW, City $ special protections, per the Open Space Element of the General Plan. Update the Citywide Design Guidelines to reflect the urban forest management plan 6D recommendations and street tree master plan/Recommended Tree Species List, which identify PW, City $$ planter space requirements, utility compatibility, and tree spacing needs that vary by species. 6e Update Municipal Code Section 17.24.505.H and the Citywide Design Guidelines to include PW, City $ more prescriptive requirements for parking lot trees and planter space. Update Municipal Code Section 17.22 to ensure minimum tree planting requirements are 6f established for all Planned Development Overlay Zoning Districts (PDOs). Plant palette PW, City $ proposed for PDOs should be updated according to the Recommended Species List and the street tree master plan. Update the Bikeways and Trails Master Plan to include guidelines for planting trees to increase bicyclist and pedestrian safety, as well as to reflect standard arboriculture practice 6g to measure trees by diameter at standard height, which is measured at 4.5 feet above the PW, P $ ground, for a more accurate depiction of tree size and maturity. This guideline should also be updated to reflect the Municipal Code definition of a protected tree, or heritage tree. RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$1oo,000) CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 79 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN I Medium Term Actions 5-70 Years MEDIUM TERM ACTIONS 5-10 YEARS (CONTINUED) 6i 7e Update the Old Town and Uptown Specific Plan (SPA) Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards to reflect the updated Recommended Species List and the street PW, P, LD tree master plan, and identify alternative options for tree and sidewalk conflict resolution (see Appendix C, Sidewalk Solutions). Update the Best Management Practices Design Manual to reflect tree spacing requirements as identified in the Recommended Species List, the street tree master plan, PW, P and tree protection requirements in the Municipal Code. Pursue opportunities to increase tree maintenance funds, such as grants, integrating PW, CD, P, funding into new development plans and implementing a Citywide fee program. City Develop minimum tree planting requirements for commercial and retail land uses. PW, CD, P, City Pursue partnerships with Temecula Valley Unified School District to plant trees on school PW property and increase public school education about trees. Pursue partnerships with Temecula Valley Unified School District to plant trees on school PW property and increase public school education about trees. RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000-$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$loo,000) 80 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 6e4 LONG TERM ACTIONS 10 YEARS+ Long Term Actions 70 Years+ I IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 7F Develop a strategy to increase tree maintenance funds as the City's trees age and PW $$ require increased maintenance costs. 8A Increase Citywide canopy cover to 2o% over the next 40 years. PW $$$$ RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required COST $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000-$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000) CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 81 INTRODUCTION 82 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN MONITORING PLAN I Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment Table 21. Tree Canopy Goal Summary Category Current Rating Goal Rating The existing canopy cover for entire Canopy cover municipality is 50%-75% of the desired 1 The existing canopy is >75%-100% of desired. canopy. Systematic comprehensive inventory system of Inventory and Inventory guides planning, management entire urban forest - with information tailored to assessment decisions 2 users and supported by mapping in municipality - methodology wide GIS system. Provides for change analysis. Urban tree canopy assessment utilized effectively to drive urban forest and green No urban tree canopy assessment. -1 infrastructure policy and practice municipality - wide and at neighborhood or similar management level Publicly owned Complete tree inventory that includes Complete GIS tree inventory that includes trees detailed tree condition ratings. 2 detailed tree condition and risk ratings. Management plan focused on sustaining and, where possible, improving overall ecological Publicly owned Ecological structure and function of all structure and function while facilitating natural areas natural areas assessed and documented. 3 appropriate public use. Plan should consider impacts on contiguous natural areas [open space corridors] outside the community's borders Private property No information. -1 Bottom -up sample -based assessment, as well as trees basic aerial view (1 of 5) 4 5 4 2 4 1 4 5 84 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Relative performance index by species No information. Use of native No coordinated focus on native vegetation vegetation. Municipal departments/agencies take Align actions impacting urban forest with municipal departments no cross -departmental coordination or consideration of the urban forest resource. Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment I MONITORING PLAN (2 of 5) All of the six most common species have higher RPI scores than the average of all species in the community Use of native species is encouraged on a project - appropriate basis in all areas; 2 3 invasive species are recognized and discouraged on public and private lands Municipal policy implemented by formal -1 interdepartmental/ interagency working teams 4 5 on all municipal projects. Proactive outreach and coordination efforts Engage residents Little or no citizen involvement or by municipality and NGO partners resulting in in planning and neihborhood action g. -1 widespread citizen involvement and structured 4 5 implementation engagement among diverse neighborhood groups. IqEquitable planting and outreach at the neighborhood level is guided by strong Environmental Planting and outreach includes attention resident involvement in low canopy/high need equity to low canopy neighborhoods or areas. 1 areas. Residents participate actively in 4 3 identifying needs for their neighborhoods, planning, implementation and monitoring Trees acknowledged as Trees generally recognized as important Urban forest recognized as vital to the vital community and beneficial. 1 community's environmental, social, and economic 4 3 well-being. resource CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 85 MONITORING PLAN I Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment Engage Municipality educates landowners, large private provides technical assistance, sets goals landowners and and provides incentives for managing institutions resources in accordance with plan. All utilities work with municipality, employ best Utilities take actions impacting urban forest with no municipal coordination. management practices Green industry Little or no cooperation among segments embraces goals, of green industry or awareness of high standards municipality -wide urban forest goals and objectives. Develop urban forest No urban forest management plan management plan Cooperative Municipalities have no interaction with planning each other or the broader region. No with other regional planning or coordination on municipalities urban forestry. (3 of 5) Tree management plans developed with input from community, and public access to the property's forest resource. Utilities are included in informal municipal teams that communicate regularly and 3 collaborate on a project -specific basis. Shared vision and goals and extensive committed partnerships in place. Solid adherence to high professional standards, and commitment to 4 5 credentialing and continuing education. 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. Some urban forest planning and cooperation -1 across municipalities and regional agencies. Forestry plan Urban forestry plan mentions how it Once completed, urban forestry planning team integrated into could meet other municipal objectives or -1 works with other agencies to align other municipal inform other planning efforts. current and future objectives. plans 2 3 2 3 86 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Team has capacity in terms of trained Urban forestry staff and equipment to achieve many program capacity of the goals of the urban forest management plan. Municipality -wide Funding sufficient for some proactive urban forestry management based on urban forest funding management plan. Growing site Appropriate tree species are considered suitability in site selection Some tree lantin and establishment Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment I MONITORING PLAN (4 of 5) Team has capacity and will in the future to achieve all goals of the urban forest 2 management plan, to maintain the resource over 4 2 time, and adapt management as circumstances change. Sustained, long-term funding from multiple municipal, regional, and/or state agencies, 2 along with private sources to implement a 4 comprehensive urban forest management plan and provide for maintenance and adaptive management as circumstances change. Municipality -wide guidelines for the 1 improvement of planting site conditions and 2 selection of suitable species. Tree P g establishment occurs, but with limited overall -� and maintenance municipality -wide planning and post - planting care. Management of No natural areas management plans or publicly owned -1 implementation in effect. natural areas Policies that Strong tree protection ordinance foster good focused on maintaining mature trees with urban forestry on effective procedures. private lands 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. Management plan in place for each publicly owned natural area to facilitate appropriate public use. Policies regarding stormwater, site and subdivision planning, zoning and other issues that affect private forests are included in management plan. 2 4 5 2 3 ,do CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 87 MONITORING PLAN I Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment Policies include construction standards for on -site tree protection, establishment Tree protection and maintenance. Conforms to policy and and references ANSI Standards for enforcement arboricultural practices (A300), safety (Z133), and nursery stock (Z6o.1), as well as applicable ISA BMPs. Monitoring Tree risk management Urban wood and green waste utilization Total Current Score Total Gap Score 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. Integrated municipality -wide policies and practices to protect public and private trees, consistently enforced and with penalties sufficient to deter violations. Monitoring adheres to the standards and protocols established by the Urban Tree Growth 4 and Longevity network. Citizens and city staff report tree safety Policies and ordinances in place to minimize issues to the forestry department or tree damage and removal on commercial manager (e.g., 3-1-1 system, online form, developments, and public capital. Protection 3 2 etc.). System tracks the time between measures conform to ANSI A300 standards and damage report and mitigation action. ISA BMPs. The majority of green waste is reused or Comprehensive plan and processes in place to recycled - for energy, products, and other 2 utilize all green waste one way or another, to the 4 2 purposes beyond chips or mulch. fullest extent possible. 13 Total Goal Rating (5 of 5) 2 95 82 88 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN modJA ! - -."°�► „ 7 ., ' w�n �r .c,rf + 'y� i " � d E• + + `.► ' w k 1 i INTRODUCTION 90 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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.1o, 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. REFERENCES 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/15o/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/10.1177/0361198io6ig6ioolog. 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/urban heat/. 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). CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 91 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/15]/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. 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.199o. "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- wolfooi.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:// Rancho California Water District. Drought Update. Accessed world population review.com/us-cities/temecula-ca- May 20, 2022.https://www.ranchowater.com/266/Drought- population. Update. 92 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN , 774 t �,11�, -I "OEM T Il IY 0.04 t 10, XX 7f r ------ . ....... INK WK ....... ...... ,rA al &n % PFI Tgr INTRODUCTION 94 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX B I Recommended Tree Species Palette Genus Afrocarpus Species falcatus Common Name fern pine Evergr Decid Coni ft E. MEN Large 65 30-50 ocung'Uinimum etween trees t) F(Feet) 30-35 Parkway Width (Feet) 6 to 8 Utility Friendly No Water,t?se Classifica on of Landscape Species (WUCCLS) rating Moderate/Medium 'ire ..mrd [Flating 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 It Bauhinia variegate 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 Celds 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 boissied Texas olive E. small 20 10-15 10-15 2 to 5 Yes Low Low No Corymbia papuana Ghost Gum E. Medium 30-50 1 20-35 1 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 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 Koelreuterla paniculata Golden rain D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 4 to 6 Yes Low Low No x Laurus nobills 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 I praecox Sonoran Palo verde D. Small 20 1 20 1 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 glandulasa '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+ 311-35 6 to 8 No Very Low Low Yes x Quercus engelmannil 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 40 311-35 >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 lourina water gum E. small 35 15-30 2U-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 96 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX C 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 1 97 APPENDIX C 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 98 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX C 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 $$$-$$$$ Decades Concrete reach soil excavation for • May encourage deeper installation of subbase ($35 per root growth and deter layers linear foot) shallow root growth, Requires more reducing root damage to maintenance than sidewalks standard concretewm, • Provides better growing n •='t%'_ conditions Image Source: Bay Area Pervious Concrete CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 99 APPENDIX C I Sidewalk Solutions Porous Asphalt • Allows water to pass Cannot be produced in $-$$$ 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 $-$$ Years " Granite pathway or walkway busy pedestrian routes surface, or as a finished (best in residential ($12 per surface on top of planting areas) linear foot) soil in tree pits rather Requires more than mulch maintenance than • Provides flexible but asphalt or concrete, as walkable surface near uneven settling can tree roots occur • Best used in parks on Americans with walking and cycling Disabilities Act paths, or similar settings compliance may require • May be used as a binders and regular - temporary repair near maintenance - root zones or for Image Source: Bike Orlando installation of new pathways or walkways 100 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX C Alternative Sidewalk Design Construction Methods The following sidewalk solutions present alternative sidewalk design and construction methods to better accommodate trees and resist damage to sidewalks. Reinforced or Reinforcing concrete with • May not be compatible $$-$$$ Decades Thicker Slab steel rebar or wire mesh with future utility and/or using a thicker installation ($60 per slab helps resist uplift of • Should not be used linear foot tree roots where additional root for • May be used to correct growth is anticipated reinforced uplift after other (i.e., sufficient soil slab and corrective actions have volume should be $40 per been taken provided) linear foot ;- I for 4-inch thickness) r� ' ' S 5 ti Image Source: E. F. Gilman Expansion Joints Allow for some movement Should not be used $ Decades of concrete where significant • Used to control the additional root growth is (varies) location of cracking anticipated (i.e., • May be used as repair or sufficient soil volume replacement or for new should be provided) sidewalks near existing Short term solution trees (where roots may be pruned prior to installation and substantial root growth is not anticipated) Image Source:`S. Kubiak and V. Kubiak CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 101 APPENDIX C I Sidewalk Solutions Monolithic The continuous • Consideration must be $$$ 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 102 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX C Bridging Provides grade Site specific grading $$$$ Decades separation between tree requirements may: -• . = '" root zone and sidewalk prevent use of this ($225 per r • Does not require technique linear foot) compacted subgrade A nonslip surface allowing tree roots to treatment is required grow in soil for metal/steel • Variety of materials can materials be used such as concrete Additional Americans k, t or steel panels with Disabilities Act • May be used as repair or requirements related to replacement of damaged sidewalk or to a grade differentials greater than 18 inches - :.; _: ,, • :r.n`•' preserve �::-_-0='..:-� �:;�; P. ...;.�:: �•_,}'��' '�s high value tree g Image Source: E. Gilman Curb Extensions • Increases pedestrian • Must consider impacts $$$-$$$$ Century ; (Bulb -Outs) safety through traffic to drainage and existing calming and shortening utilities ($50 per _ the crossing distance for . Must consider site linear foot .•-_ .. pedestrians specific transportation excluding • Provides additional root conditions or impacts, drainage ` growth area reducing including driver sight and ramps) likelihood of root damage lines as well as bicycle to sidewalks and pedestrian facilities • Provides flexibility for tree species selection • May be used in new - development or as expansion of sidewalks and planting space in redevelopment Image Source: Dylan Passmore CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 103 APPENDIX C I Sidewalk Solutions Curb • Shifts curb location to • Requires sufficient $$$-$$$$ Century r_ Realignment widen the planting strip street widths • May be used for new • Must consider impacts ($50 per development or to other infrastructure linear foot redevelopment to provide and utilities excluding additional space for new . Must consider site drainage or existing trees specific transportation modification conditions or impacts and ramps _ Minimal additional cost if part of new developmen t design) _ 1 Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation Curving or Offset • Allows for walkways that • Requires adequate $$-$$$ , Sidewalk meander around planting space in the right of areas, allowing trees way ($38 per more grow space . May require easement linear foot) • Increases pedestrian for use of private safety by separating property sidewalks from vehicular traffic • May be used in new development or - redevelopment to preserve existing trees or to provide sufficient grow space for new plantings -- Image Source: Bartlett Tree Care 1041 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX C Easement • May allow for use of Requires coordination $-$$$ 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 $$$-$$$$ Decades Pavement volume for new tree repaving sidewalks if Systems plantings in areas that they already exist in the (15- could not have supported areas $25/cubic tree root growth • Site specific grading foot) • Prevents root damage to requirements need to pavement if implemented be taken into at the correct time consideration Image Source: DeepRoot CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 105 APPENDIX C I Sidewalk Solutions Lowered Tree Can help prevent soil Can conflict with $$$-$$$$ Decades . Sites compaction due to underground y pedestrian traffic infrastructure; can only • Can bring trees to streets be implemented in — with limited planting areas that have limited space and few potential for conflict ° underground Lowered sites tend to infrastructure conflicts accumulate trash and dhi other debris, presenting Y U ap a maintenance issue#�', :•+�1" • Design must include a drainage plan because soil can be easily oversaturated Image Source: Storm Tree Root The following sidewalk solutions present design solutions that specifically address tree roots. Root Barriers Deters root growth to Will not address all $ Decades - limit damage to issues from tree roots, , pavement but will help deter ($8 per • May be added after tree linear foot) planting to retrofit or address root issues r Image Source: Green Tech 106 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX C Foam Underlay • Provides a foam layer of • Short term solution $-$$ Years support between • Not a good option for VNIN pavement and tree roots tree species that have ($150 to to help prevent damage rapid root growth $250 per • Can offer an alternative location) Foam ' 0' to root pruning when a goal sidewalk needs to be replaced but root pruning _ would severely damages. the tree • Best used to repair damage caused by mature tree roots Image Source: Costello and Jones Modified Gravel • Suppressed root growth • Could wound tree roots $ Decades Hocts 51ay wgtl beneath the walk beCause Layer • More longevity than foam making the trees more they do not grow in the gravel layer. underlay and serves the susceptible to soilborne ($0.70 per same purpose pathogens square foot Sidewak • Thickness of gravel 4 inches of gravel is at depth of 4 4V - y�. ;,:; - - — - -rY. -: VOW around roots can be needed, if excavation inches) adjusted to would damage critical accommodate size existing roots ExisGr Garavelar rubble • Modified Gravel Layer subbaS*isyer may not be an option Image Source: E. Gilman CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 107 APPENDIX C 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 108 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX C 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 1 109 APPENDIX DI I Establishment Care Guidelines 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. 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. 110 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Protection Guidelines I 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. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 111 APPENDIX D2 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. 112 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Protection Guidelines I APPENDIX D2 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 1 113 APPENDIX D3 I Tree Protection Detail 8.5" x 11" sign laminated in plastic spaced every 50' along the fence. 0 v Crown drip line or other limit of Tree Protection area. See tree preservation plan for fence alignment. KEEP OUT TREE PROTECTION AREA SECTION VIEW TREE PROTECTION r 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 Protection fence: High density polyethylene fencing with 3.5" x 1.5" openings; Color - orange. Steel posts installed at 8' o.c. 2" x 6' steel posts or approved equal. 5" thick layer of mulch. Maintain existing grade with the tree protection fence unless otherwise indicated on the plans. URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE 1141 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN crown drip IIn9. Rwt RrotecDon Zane 11 tc P Road way Raver w wtlh Comr-ote Cure and Gutter 5x Trunk Dian chit I Sat 1 rUlyc btemetar crrnnu ,,nGw IT PRUNING GUIDELINES Root Pruning Detail I APPENDIX D2 Notes. 1- Hand dig t4 exp6se Facts a� propbsed call 2- Counl [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 Foos 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 tho troa. SiUew,]k Gonr rele CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 115 APPENDIX D5 I Irrigation Detail 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. eGr^T1nti VnGw PLAN VIEW IRRIGATION BUBBLER (2) W/ LAYOUT 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 116 1 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. 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. Nursery Stock Standards I APPENDIX E 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 1 117 APPENDIX E 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 118 1 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 E 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 1 119 APPENDIX F I 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 Dotential for soreadina a fire has been reduced or eliminated. Abies species Fir Trees Acacia species Acacia (trees, shrubs, groundcovers) Adenostoma sparsifolium"" Red Shanks Adenostoma fasciculatum"" Chamise Aoonis iuniperina Juniper Myrtle Araucaria species Monkey Puzzle, Norfolk Island Pine Artemesia californica" California Sagebrush Bambusa species Bamboo Cedrus species Cedar Chamaecyparis species False Cypress Coprosma pumila Prostrate Coprosma Crvptomeria japonica Japanese Cryptomena 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 species Yew HTaxus Thuia species Arborvitae Tsuga species Hemlock Urtica urens"" 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 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. 120 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G 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 1 121 APPENDIX G 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% 66 687 122 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G Q3 What rating would you give the condition of public space street trees in Temecula? Excellent Good Fair Poor ANSWER CHOICES Excellent Good Fair Poor TOTAL Answered:685 Skipped:3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 23.07% 53.58% 21.61% 1.75% 158 367 148 12 685 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 123 APPENDIX G 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 1241 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G Q5 Of the following options, select the top 2 most important benefit trees provide in your neighborhood. Answered:687 Skipped:1 Imp envii neighl 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 1 125 APPENDIX G 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 126 1 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 G 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 1 127 APPENDIX G 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% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Disagree Strongly disagree TOTAL RESPONSES 21.64% 20.32% 25.88% 19.44% 12.72% 148 139 177 133 87 684 128 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G 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 1 129 APPENDIX G 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 56 130 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G 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... ELMM 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 1 131 APPENDIX G I Public Survey Results Q11 Additional comments. Answered:218 Skipped:470 132 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G Q12 Do you live in Temecula? Answered:650 Skipped:38 Yes No 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 1 133 APPENDIX G 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% 369 277 646 134 1 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 G 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 OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 135 APPENDIX G 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 12 645 136 I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G 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 OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 137 APPENDIX G 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% 7 642 138 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G 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 1 139 APPENDIX G 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 1401 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G 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 LhIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, Un tanto No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Si 100.000/0 13 Un tanto 0.00% 0 No 0.00% 0 TOTAL 13 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 141 APPENDIX G 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 1421 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G 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% 0 91.67% 11 0.00% 0 8.33% 1 12 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 143 APPENDIX G 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 12 144 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G 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 1 145 APPENDIX G 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 I... 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 1461 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G 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% 8.33% 10 0 0 1 1 12 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 147 APPENDIX G 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 12 148 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G 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 1 149 APPENDIX G 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 14 150 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 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. 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 1XXX I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Funding Opportunities I APPENDIX G this page was Intentionally left blank CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I I.XXXI PUR�BpNFORESTMANpGEMENTPIAN //�� �✓ _ �l