Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02272024 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35 .102.35.104 ADA Title II]. AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 27, 2024 - 6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION - 5:30 PM LABOR NEGOTIATIONS — The City Council will meet in closed session with its designated representatives to discuss labor negotiations pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. The City's designated representatives are City Manager Aaron Adams, City Attorney Peter Thorson, Assistant City Manager Kevin Hawkins, Director of Finance Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Human Resources and Risk Management Isaac Garibay, Deputy City Manager Luke Watson and Senior Human Resources Analyst Becky Obmann. The employee organization is the California Teamsters Public, Professional and Medical Employees Union Local 911. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor James Stewart INVOCATION: Pam Migliozzi of Center for Spiritual Living Temecula Valley FLAG SALUTE: Mayor James Stewart ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart BOARD / COMMISSION REPORTS Community Services Commission, Planning Commission and Race, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Commission PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT County of Riverside, Fire Department (CAL FIRE) PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDA ITEMS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited . Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Page 1 City Council Agenda February 27, 2024 Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten minutes will be devoted to these reports . CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on matters on the Consent Calendar . Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca .gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 1.Waive Reading of Title and Text of All Ordinances and Resolutions Included in the Agenda That the City Council waive the reading of the title and text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Recommendation: Agenda ReportAttachments: 2.Approve Action Minutes of February 13, 2024 That the City Council approve the action minutes of February 13, 2024.Recommendation: Action MinutesAttachments: 3.Approve List of Demands That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Recommendation: Agenda Report Resolution List of Demands Attachments: 4.Approve Resolution to Adopt the Urban Forest Management Plan and Make a Finding it is Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15307 and 15061 Page 2 City Council Agenda February 27, 2024 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO ADOPT THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION (CAL FIRE) 2019/2020 URBAN AND COMMUNITY FOREST PROGRAM GRANT GUIDELINES AND FINDING THAT THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15307 AND 15061 Recommendation: Agenda Report Resolution Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) UFMP Technical Assessment UFMP Appendices Attachments: 5.Award Construction Contract to Ace Capital Engineering for the American with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW 18-16 That the City Council: 1. Award a construction contract to Ace Capital Engineering in the amount of $356,528.53 for the American with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW 18-16; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve contract change orders up to 15% of the contract amount, $53,479.28; and 3. Make a finding that the American with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW 18-16, project is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan fees. Recommendation: Agenda Report Contract Project Description Project Location Attachments: 6.Approve an Increase to the Contingency Amount for the Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing at Calle Aragon Park That the City Council: 1. Approve an increase to the contingency amount for the Playground Recommendation: Page 3 City Council Agenda February 27, 2024 Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing at Calle Aragon Park, by $17,890; and 2. Increase the City Manager’s authority to approve additional work by $17,890. Agenda ReportAttachments: 7.Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize the Solicitation of Construction Bids for Pickleball Courts, PW21-03 That the City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Pickleball Courts, Project PW21-03; and 2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. Recommendation: Agenda Report Project Description Project Location Attachments: RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND/OR THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Page 4 City Council Agenda February 27, 2024 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING CALL TO ORDER: President Zak Schwank ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDA ITEMS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited . Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited . Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54. 8.Approve Action Minutes of February 13, 2024 That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of February 13, 2024. Recommendation: Action MinutesAttachments: CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTOR REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District will be held on Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Page 5 City Council Agenda February 27, 2024 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - NO MEETING TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY - NO MEETING TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CALL TO ORDER: Chair James Stewart ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart TPFA PUBLIC COMMENT A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca .gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. TPFA CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Temecula Public Financing Authority request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action . A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54. 9.Approve Joint Action Minutes of February 13, 2024 That the Board of Directors approve the joint action minutes of February 13, 2024 Recommendation: Joint TPFA and CC Action MinutesAttachments: TPFA PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the Board of Directors before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of a project at the time of the hearing . Page 6 City Council Agenda February 27, 2024 If you challenge a project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the public hearing. For public hearings each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be included into the record. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca .gov. Email comments on all matters, including those not on the agenda, must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. At public hearings involving land use matters, the property owner and/or applicant has the burden of proof and, therefore, shall be allowed 15 minutes for an initial presentation, and an additional 10 minutes for rebuttal by its development team following other comments on the matter. An appellant, other than the property owner and/or applicant, and the spokesperson for an organized group of residents residing within the noticed area of the property, which is the subject of the public hearing, shall be allowed 15 minutes to present the appellant’s position to the Board. The Chair may allow more time if required to provide due process for the property owner, applicant or appellant. All other members of the public may speak during the public hearing for a maximum period of 5 minutes each. Deferral of one speaker’s time to another is not permitted. In the event of a large number of speakers, the Chair may reduce the maximum time limit for members of the public to speak. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54. 10.Adopt Resolutions to Form Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) That the Board of Directors take the following actions : 1. That the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the “Board”) hold a public hearing regarding the formation of the proposed Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) (the “CFD”), the levy of special taxes in the CFD, and the issuance of bonds by the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the “Authority”) for the CFD, and adopt the following resolutions entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF FORMATION OF TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO), AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN THE DISTRICT, AND PRELIMINARILY ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. TPFA A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DETERMINING Recommendation: Page 7 City Council Agenda February 27, 2024 THE NECESSITY TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO) RESOLUTION NO. TPFA A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CALLING SPECIAL ELECTION WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO) 2. That the Board hold an election regarding the CFD, and adopt the resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DECLARING RESULTS OF SPECIAL ELECTION AND DIRECTING RECORDING OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN - COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO) 3. That the Board have the first reading of the ordinance entitled : ORDINANCE NO. TPFA AN ORDINANCE OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY LEVYING SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO) Agenda Report TPFA Resolution - Formation TPFA Resolution - Incur Bonded Indebtedness TPFA Resolution - Calling Election TPFA Resolution - Declaring Election Results TPFA Ordinance CFD Report Notice of Special Tax Lien Attachments: TPFA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT TPFA BOARD OF DIRECTOR REPORTS TPFA ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Temecula Public Financing Authority will be held on Tuesday, March Page 8 City Council Agenda February 27, 2024 12, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of a project at the time of the hearing. If you challenge a project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the public hearing. For public hearings each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk or by submitting an email to be included into the record. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca .gov. Email comments on all matters, including those not on the agenda, must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. At public hearings involving land use matters, the property owner and/or applicant has the burden of proof and, therefore, shall be allowed 15 minutes for an initial presentation, and an additional 10 minutes for rebuttal by its development team following other comments on the matter. An appellant, other than the property owner and/or applicant, and the spokesperson for an organized group of residents residing within the noticed area of the property, which is the subject of the public hearing, shall be allowed 15 minutes to present the appellant’s position to the Council. The Mayor may allow more time if required to provide due process for the property owner, applicant or appellant. All other members of the public may speak during the public hearing for a maximum period of 5 minutes each. Deferral of one speaker’s time to another is not permitted. In the event of a large number of speakers, the Mayor may reduce the maximum time limit for members of the public to speak. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54. 11.Approve Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-25 User Fee Schedule That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE SCHEDULE AND AMENDING FEES AND CHARGES FOR CITY SERVICES, INCLUDING BUILDING AND SAFETY, PLANNING, LAND DEVELOPMENT, FIRE PREVENTION, POLICE, AND OTHER CITY SERVICES AND MAKING RELATED DETERMINATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Recommendation: Page 9 City Council Agenda February 27, 2024 Agenda Report Resolution Proposed User Fee Schedule User Fee Study Fact Sheet Final Report Notice of Public Hearing Attachments: BUSINESS - JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Any member of the public may address the City Council on items that appear on the Business portion of the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited . Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54. 12.Approve Fiscal Year 2023-24 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments That the City Council/Board of Directors adopt the following resolutions entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2024-28 AND AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REVISING THE SALARY SCHEDULE RESOLUTION NO. CSD A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS Recommendation: Page 10 City Council Agenda February 27, 2024 Agenda Report FY 2023-24 Consolidated Mid-Year Requests Resolution - City Exhibit A, B and C - City Fund Summaries Resolution - CIP Exhibit 1 - FY 2023-24 Mid-Year CIP Requests Resolution - Salary Schedule Salary Schedule Resolution - TCSD Exhibit A - TCSD Fund Summaries Attachments: BUSINESS - CITY COUNCIL 13.Approve Amendment No. 7 to City Manager Aaron Adams’ Employment Agreement That the City Council approve Amendment No. 7 to City Manager Aaron Adams’ Employment Agreement. Recommendation: Agenda Report Amendment No. 7 Employment Agreement and Amendment Nos. 1-6 Attachments: 14.Appoint Members to the Old Town Local Advisory Committee and Ratify the Full Membership List for the Committee That the City Council appoint members to the Old Town Local Advisory Committee and ratify the full membership list for the committee . Recommendation: Agenda Report Redacted Applications Attachments: 15.Consider the Creation of an Ad Hoc Subcommittee to Discuss Issues Related to the Acceptance of Streets into the City-Maintained Street System for Street Maintenance by the City (At the Request of Mayor Pro Tempore Kalfus) That the City Council: 1. Consider the creation of an ad hoc subcommittee to discuss issues related to the acceptance of streets into the city-maintained street system for street maintenance by the City and City policies and standards relating to the acceptance of streets . 2. If the subcommittee is created, appoint two Council Members to the subcommittee. 3. If the subcommittee is created, authorize City staff to provide the necessary document production and research necessary for the Recommendation: Page 11 City Council Agenda February 27, 2024 subcommittee’s consideration of the issues. Agenda ReportAttachments: DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS (RECEIVE AND FILE) 16.Community Development Department Monthly Report Agenda Report Planning Activity Report Attachments: 17.Fire Department Monthly Report Agenda Report Fire Monthly Report Attachments: 18.Police Department Monthly Report Agenda ReportAttachments: 19.Public Works Department Monthly Report Agenda Report Project Status Report Attachments: ITEMS FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS Any Council Member, including the Mayor, may request an item be placed on a future agenda. Any such request will be discussed under this section. In making the request, a Council Member may briefly describe the topic of the proposed agenda item and any timing associated with the placement of the item on the agenda. This description shall not exceed 3 minutes. No substantive discussion on the subject of the motion may occur. Items may only be placed on the agenda by Council Members pursuant to policy or by the City Manager based on administrative or operational needs of the City. Public comments on the placement of these agenda items shall be limited to a maximum of 30 minutes. Individual comments shall not exceed 3 minutes. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings and Agenda Placements by Council Members adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Page 12 City Council Agenda February 27, 2024 NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The full agenda packet (including staff reports, public closed session information, and any supplemental material available after the original posting of the agenda), distributed to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on the agenda, will be available for public viewing in the main reception area of the Temecula Civic Center during normal business hours at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. The material will also be available on the City's website at TemeculaCa.gov. and available for review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding any item on the agenda, please contact the City Clerk’s Department at (951) 694-6444. Page 13 Item No. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk DATE: February 27, 2024 SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Title and Text of All Ordinances and Resolutions Included in the Agenda ______________________________________________________________________________ PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the title and text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. In accordance with Government Code Section 34934, the title of each ordinance is included on the published agenda and a copy of the full ordinance has been available to the public online on the City’s website and will be available in print at the meeting prior to the introduction or passage of the ordinance. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the title and text of all ordinances and resolutions is waived. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 2 1 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 13, 2024 - 6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION - 4:30 PM CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. The City Council convened in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding the acquisition of certain property interests, including permanent easements and temporary construction easements on five properties described below in connection with the public improvements required for the Altair Specific Plan Community (“Project”). The negotiators for the City are Patrick Thomas and Ron Moreno. The negotiators for the respective real property interests are set forth below. (i) The acquisition of certain property interests from the real property located at 28481 Rancho California Road in the City of Temecula (APN 921-281-011). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 5,487 square foot permanent easement and an approximate 3,757 square foot temporary construction easement. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owner GGG Partnership, LP. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests. (ii) The acquisition of certain property interests from the real property located in the City of Temecula (No Situs Address) (APN 921-280-002). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 1,016 square foot permanent easement and an approximate 427 square foot temporary construction easement. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owner SPX Investment, LLC. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests. (iii) The acquisition of certain property interests from the real property located at 28751 Rancho California Road in the City of Temecula (APN 921-280-003). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 414 square foot permanent easement and an approximate 396 square foot temporary construction easement. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owner First & Center, LLC. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests. (iv) The acquisition of certain property interests from the real property located at 28545 Felix Valdez Avenue in the City of Temecula (APN 921-281-006). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 402 square foot temporary construction easement. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owners Richard M. Alvarez and Linda Lopez-Alvarez. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests. (v) The acquisition of certain property interests from the real property located at 28381 Vincent Moraga in the City of Temecula (APN 921-281-021). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 4,237 square foot permanent easement and an approximate 16,335 square foot temporary construction easement. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owner Westcore Gem ini VM, LLC. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests. 2 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – INITIATION OF LITIGATION. The City Council convened in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) with respect to two matters of potential litigation. A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Attorney, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City and the City Council will decide whether to initiate litigation. LABOR NEGOTIATIONS — The City Council convened in closed session with its designated representatives to discuss labor negotiations pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. The City's designated representatives are City Manager Aaron Adams, City Attorney Peter Thorson, Assistant City Manager Kevin Hawkins, Director of Finance Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Human Resources and Risk Management Isaac Garibay, Deputy City Manager Luke Watson and Senior Human Resources Analyst Becky Obmann. The employee organization is the California Teamsters Public, P rofessional and Medical Employees Union Local 911. CITY MANAGER ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. The City Council convened in closed session pursuant to Government Code Sections 54957 and 54957.6 to evaluate the performance of the City Manager and establish goals and performance objectives for the next year as required by the City Manager’s Employment Agreement. CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 PM: Mayor James Stewart INVOCATION: Bishop Terrence Hundley of The Place City of Miracles FLAG SALUTE: Mayor James Stewart ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart PRESENTATIONS Presentation of 2024 Community Leader Award of Distinction for Ed Morel Presentation by Gillian Larson Regarding Reality Rally BOARD / COMMISSION REPORTS Planning Commission and Traffic Safety Commission PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT County of Riverside, Riverside County Sheriff's Department PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON-AGENDA ITEMS The following individual(s) addressed the City Council: • Mark Swearingin • Tammy Marine • Arch Aitcheson • Laurel LaMont • Bernard Budney • Melissa Bourbonnais PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS The following individual(s) addressed the City Council: • Pam Nelson (Item #4) 3 All electronic comments received were made a part of the record of the meeting. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CONSENT CALENDAR Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar. Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-0): Motion by Schwank, Second by Kalfus. The vote reflected unanimous approval. 1. Waive Reading of Title and Text of All Ordinances and Resolutions Included in the Agenda Recommendation: That the City Council waive the reading of the title and text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2. Approve Action Minutes of January 23, 2024 and February 6, 2024 Recommendation: That the City Council approve the action minutes of January 23, 2024 and February 6, 2024. 3. Approve List of Demands Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2023-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A 4. Adopt Resolution Approving Agreement Pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5 Between City of Temecula and SB Altair, LLC and Brookfield Temecula, LLC Regarding Acquisition of Property Interests in Connection with Vincent Moraga Improvements Recommendation: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2024-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66462.5 BETWEEN SB ALTAIR, LLC, AND BROOKFIELD TEMECULA, LLC AND CITY OF TEMECULA FOR ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTY INTERESTS (VINCENT MORAGA IMPROVEMENTS) 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents and take all steps necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Agreement. 4 5. Approve Landscape Maintenance Agreement with State of California Department of Transportation for Maintenance of I-15/SR-79 South Interchange Enhanced Landscaping, PW17-19 Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2024-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE I-15/SR-79 SOUTH INTERCHANGE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING 6. Approve Grant of Easement on Portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 921-020-079, Field Operations Center, to Southern California Edison for Electric Vehicles Charging Station Project, PW21-09 Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Approve a Grant of Easement on a portion of Assessor’s Parcel Number 921-020-079, Field Operations Center, to Southern California Edison; and 2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the Grant of Easement. 7. Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Southside Parking Lot Reconfiguration, PW15-07 Recommendation: That the City Council approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Southside Parking Lot Reconfiguration, PW15-07. 8. Establish All-Way Stop Control at the Intersection of Camino Piedra Rojo and Parown Drive/Avenida Bicicleta Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2023-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, ESTABLISHING AN ALL-WAY STOP CONTROL AT THE INTERSECTION OF CAMINO PIEDRA ROJO AND PAROWN DRIVE/AVENIDA BICICLETA AND FINDING THAT THE ACTION IS EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) UNDER SECTION 15301(C) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES 5 9. Receive and File Temporary Road Closure and Detour for Nicolas Road at Calle Girasol Recommendation: That the City Council receive and file the temporary road closure and detour for Nicolas Road at Calle Girasol. 10. Receive and File Temporary Street Closures for Temecula Sunset Market Recommendation: That the City Council receive and file the temporary closure of certain streets for the Temecula Sunset Market. RECESS: At 7:11 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting and Joint Temecula Public Financing Authority and City Council Meeting. At 7 :23 PM the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS (RECEIVE AND FILE) 15. City Council Travel/Conference Report ITEMS FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS The City Council approved the placement of the following topic on a future agenda: 1. Creation of Ad Hoc Subcommittee to discuss private street maintenance (3-1): Motion by Kalfus, Second by Alexander. The vote reflected unanimous approval with Schwank opposing. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT During the closed session the City Council by a vote of 4 -0 authorized the City Attorney’s Office to initiate litigation against the property owners of 42191 6th Street and 28434 Pujol Street to enforce the affordable housing restrictions on the properties. 6 ADJOURNMENT At 7:26 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 27, 2024, at 5:00 PM for Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. James Stewart, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Item No. 3 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: February 27, 2024 SUBJECT: Approve List of Demands ______________________________________________________________________________ PREPARED BY: Tricia Hawk, Finance Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City’s policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. List of Demands 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the office of the City Clerk, has been reviewed by the City Manager’s Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $17,292,363.78. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 27th day of February, 2024. James Stewart, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk 1/29/2024 - 2/9/2024 TOTAL CHECK RUN:16,492,112.63 2/1/2024 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN:800,251.15 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 2/27/2024 COUNCIL MEETING: 17,292,363.78$ CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS Check#Check Date Vendor #Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 301377 02/01/2024 1288 2 HOT UNIFORMS INC 7099 UNIFORMS: EM $209.34 601481 02/08/2024 3518 ACROVISTA LLC 2526 MULTICAST SOFTWARE: LIBRARY: IT $148.50 301378 02/01/2024 1772 ADAME LANDSCAPE INC S25230 PARKING GARAGE SWEEPING/CLEANING: PW $540.00 301439 02/08/2024 1236 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT 1172373 ASPHALT SUPPLIES, PW STREET MAINTENANCE $503.28 301439 02/08/2024 1236 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT 1172225 ASPHALT SUPPLIES, PW STREET MAINTENANCE $356.47 601482 02/08/2024 1512 ALLEGRO MUSICAL VENTURES INC 27304 PIANO SVCS:THEATER:TCSD $280.00 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 161X-3WMG-YNG4 MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD $2,201.08 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1GJ9-GMYM-JTDF MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD $1,641.23 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1FHF-H4V7-7GQL MISC SUPPLIES: TVM: TCSD $851.97 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1CJM-9GPY-LMN6 SUPPLIES: AQUATICS $687.20 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1DLC-DTY3-1NTQ OFFICE SUPPLIES: EM $609.51 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1H3Y-W17D-1GCC MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD $453.55 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1LHL-T3GR-1MWL SMALL TOOLS/EQUIPMENT: FOC $269.60 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1PDH-HQ1M-99YN MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD $238.55 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1TJF-3WCL-9YC4 MISC SUPPLIES: TVM $137.46 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1YYM-WHMJ-DMN7 MISC SUPPLIES: FINANCE $115.11 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1RD1-QRC4-46MG MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CITY MGR $108.40 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1KYX-1NNQ-6CYL MISC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD $98.37 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 193D-DMQ6-3LPP MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CITY CLERK $86.43 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1X4H-FTP9-PYVH MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CIP: PW $82.21 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1CW1-YCCM-V7YV MISC SUPPLIES: TVM $76.34 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1TNW-QW73-FHXG MISC OFC SUPPLIES: COM DEV $70.66 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 17G4-CFWX-7JJR MISC OFC SUPPLIES: COM DEV $69.48 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1GHC-RHPW-L44Y SUPPLIES: HR $65.18 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1XMG-3C3H-YQRJ MISC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD $61.98 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1MWY-6Q4R-FRN4 MISC SUPPLIES: COM DEV $52.78 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1CRJ-R119-NCFT MISC SUPPLIES: TVM $43.49 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1WMY-FYT7-CVYC MISC SUPPLIES: INFO TECH $41.08 601484 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1VWN-WRJQ-R6W6 MISC SUPPLIES: POLICE $40.93 601485 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 19DT-CK73-4WLW MISC SUPPLIES: FINANCE $25.98 601485 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1RHM-L6PK-H4XX MISC SUPPLIES: OPERATIONS: TCSD $17.39 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1W6L-Q3R4-3GQD SMALL TOOLS & EQUIPMENT: FIRE $17.38 601485 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 14HN-NYTY-13GV MISC SUPPLIES: WORKFORCE DEV $17.10 601485 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1LK3-4QV7-9VRV MISC OFC SUPPLIES: COMSP $9.75 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1Y6H-JPX6-F4LX MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD ($326.20) 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1KT1-YHK3-FLCQ MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD ($326.20) 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1V47-RQ4D-FWND MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD ($326.20) 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 19JM-YK33-QHG4 MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD ($370.59) 601427 02/01/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1NG7-1J6L-QKDP MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD ($370.59) 601483 02/08/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 16M4-NQLX-4YHM MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD ($370.59) 601486 02/08/2024 1261 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES 78486 MAR STAND BY FEE: POLICE $1,485.90 601486 02/08/2024 1261 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES 78445 DRUG ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: PD $359.75 601487 02/08/2024 2485 AMERICAN HEART ASSOCIATION INC SCPR156456 CPR PROGRAM SUPPLIES: MEDIC $955.60 601488 02/08/2024 1080 AMERICAN RED CROSS 22656646 STAFF/LIFEGUARDS CERTS: AQUATICS $296.40 301440 02/08/2024 3217 ANTHOLOGY INSTITUTE PERF: 02/08/24b PERFORMING ARTS AGREEMENT $6,000.00 601428 02/01/2024 1805 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO 20075786 DRINKING WATER SYSTEM MAINT: MPSC $35.89 601489 02/08/2024 1805 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO 20075784 DRINKING WATER SRVCS:IT $28.55 601490 02/08/2024 1293 AQUA SOURCE INC 404197 POOL SUPPLIES AQUATICS: TCSD $2,740.50 301441 02/08/2024 2777 ARAMARK SERVICES INC 106024944 BEVERAGE SERVICES, FACILITIES $572.51 301441 02/08/2024 2777 ARAMARK SERVICES INC 8269309 BEVERAGE SERVICES, FACILITIES $111.00 301441 02/08/2024 2777 ARAMARK SERVICES INC 3413896 BEVERAGE SERVICES, FACILITIES $89.78 601429 02/01/2024 2917 ARJONA GLORIA Sttlmnt: 01/19/24 TICKET SERVICES AGREEMENT-BRAZILIAN & JAZZ $1,124.95 301380 02/01/2024 2502 ARTHUR J GALLAGHER RISK MANAGMENT SRV 4980780 ANNUAL SERVICES AGREEMENT $7,606.00 601491 02/08/2024 3168 ASTER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC 6 MARY PHILLIPS SENIOR CENTER OUTDOOR REC AREA $34,586.00 301381 02/01/2024 2242 AT&T 491658 LOCATION/ACTIVATION FEES: POLICE $175.00 601430 02/01/2024 1170 AUTOPARTSPROS LLC 093719 AUTO PARTS FOR PW STREET MAINTENANCE $395.48 601430 02/01/2024 1170 AUTOPARTSPROS LLC 096030 AUTO PARTS FOR PW STREET MAINTENANCE $41.29 601430 02/01/2024 1170 AUTOPARTSPROS LLC 096012 AUTO PARTS FOR PW STREET MAINTENANCE $13.04 601430 02/01/2024 1170 AUTOPARTSPROS LLC 094488 AUTO PARTS FOR PW STREET MAINTENANCE ($58.73) 601431 02/01/2024 1369 AYERS DISTRIBUTING COMPANY 1940 PLASTIC EGGS FOR EASTER: TCSD $3,337.54 601492 02/08/2024 2381 AYERS WILLIAM BRIAN 2950 LIGHTING R&R: LIBRARY STORY ROOM: PW $1,600.00 601492 02/08/2024 2381 AYERS WILLIAM BRIAN 2935 ELECTRICAL SVCS: TOWN SQUARE LIGHTING SYSTEM: PW $700.00 601492 02/08/2024 2381 AYERS WILLIAM BRIAN 2947 ELECTRICAL SVCS: TOWN SQUARE LIGHTING SYSTEM: PW $350.00 601492 02/08/2024 2381 AYERS WILLIAM BRIAN 2936 ELECTRICAL SVCS: HARVESTON LAKE PUMP: PW $300.00 601495 02/08/2024 1980 B G P RECREATION INC 4005-4010 2nd half TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $3,225.60 601493 02/08/2024 1405 B&H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP 220519549 MISC AV EQUIPMENT:PEG $1,470.58 601494 02/08/2024 1717 BARRETT ENGINEERED PUMPS 131785 MISC PARTS: CITY FACILITIES: PW $5,049.85 301382 02/01/2024 2953 BDS TACTICAL GEAR 20447 UNIFORMS: TEM SHERIFF $571.35 301444 02/08/2024 2935 BETTS KENNETH 1900.101-1910.101 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $2,469.60 301445 02/08/2024 1095 BIG EAR AUDIO LLC INV-05144 PLATFORM FOR OLD TOWN CHRISTMAS TREE $3,000.00 301383 02/01/2024 1264 BIO TOX LABORATORIES 45399 PHLEBOTOMY SERVICES: PD $3,704.45 301383 02/01/2024 1264 BIO TOX LABORATORIES 45398 PHLEBOTOMY SERVICES: PD $752.80 301383 02/01/2024 1264 BIO TOX LABORATORIES 45464 PHLEBOTOMY SERVICES: PD $530.00 601496 02/08/2024 2037 BLUEBEAM INC 1802993 SOFTWARE RENEWAL: BLDG & SAFETY $6,591.00 601432 02/01/2024 1101 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC 14A0028910578 WATER DELIVERY SVCS: PW $224.14 601432 02/01/2024 1101 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC 04A6702622575 WATER DELIVERY SVCS: TVE2 $146.79 Check#Check Date Vendor #Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 601432 02/01/2024 1101 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC 04A0036263176 WATER DELIVERY SVCS: HELP CENTER $136.16 601497 02/08/2024 1101 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC 14A0028662112 WATER DELIVERY SVCS: PW $85.94 601497 02/08/2024 1101 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC 04A0035623057 WATER DELIVERY SVCS: PW $21.74 601497 02/08/2024 1101 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC 04A6705212167 WATER DELIVERY SVCS: PW $11.95 301384 02/01/2024 1631 BONCOR WATER SYSTEMS LLC 789589 01/03/24 WATER FILTER REPLACEMENT: STATION 73 $330.00 601433 02/01/2024 2415 BRAUN PETER 4118 PLANT MAINTENANCE: PW FACILITIES $200.00 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038026271 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $749.10 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038039033 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $367.08 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038018306 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $275.14 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038026270 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $231.75 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038018305 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $172.01 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038060594 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $149.73 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038036851 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $102.11 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038036853 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $59.93 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038039032 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $41.91 301442 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038026269 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $28.56 301443 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038039031 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $21.22 301443 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038036852 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $15.90 301443 02/08/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPA 2038060595 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $10.27 601498 02/08/2024 1085 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS 17169 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: BLDG DEPT $325.00 301385 02/01/2024 1612 CALIF DEPT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS E 2025526 SB 115265 ELEVATOR INSP: 28314 MERCEDES ST $225.00 301387 02/01/2024 2465 CALIF NEWSPAPERS PARTNERSHIP 0000580158B BID ADVERTISING: PW18-16: CIP $2,976.02 301477 02/08/2024 100 CARMEN ZEPEDA 65064063 REFUND: SENIOR EXCURSION $15.00 301388 02/01/2024 2063 CASC ENGINEERING AND, CONSULTING INC 0050493 NPDES COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL $5,012.50 601499 02/08/2024 1280 CDW LLC PC93702 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP:IT $922.53 601499 02/08/2024 1280 CDW LLC PB64429 REPLACEMENT TV'S:TEM PUBLIC LIBRARY: IT $855.97 601499 02/08/2024 1280 CDW LLC PF21497 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH $830.27 601499 02/08/2024 1280 CDW LLC PH91873 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH $230.79 601499 02/08/2024 1280 CDW LLC PD94195 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH $92.00 601499 02/08/2024 1280 CDW LLC NX22795 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH $78.30 601499 02/08/2024 1280 CDW LLC NZ97479 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH $58.08 601499 02/08/2024 1280 CDW LLC NZ10956 MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH $47.39 601500 02/08/2024 1100 CES HOLDINGS LLC 219550 POOL SUPPLIES: AQUATICS: PW $333.62 301446 02/08/2024 3334 CHARLES M SCHULZ MUSEUM AND RESEARCH Exhibition Rental EXHIBIT: MERRY CHRISTMAS CHARLIE BROWN $3,750.00 301447 02/08/2024 1942 CHRISTIAN STITCHERY INC COT 85 AWARDS: SPORTS DIVISION $4,455.72 301448 02/08/2024 1701 CLEAR IMAGE ENTERPRISES INC 18987 WINDOW CLEANING: TVE2: PW $600.00 301448 02/08/2024 1701 CLEAR IMAGE ENTERPRISES INC 18984 WINDOW CLEANING: CITY FACITILIES: PW $348.00 301448 02/08/2024 1701 CLEAR IMAGE ENTERPRISES INC 18989 WINDOW PAINT REMOVAL: TVM: TCSD $200.00 601501 02/08/2024 1239 COAST RECREATION INC 15546 MISC PLAYGROUND HARDWARE: VARIOUS PARKS $756.42 601502 02/08/2024 3043 COMMERCIAL CLEANING BY ROGERS 10897 JANITORIAL SERVICES: OTSF AND MALL $814.77 601503 02/08/2024 1046 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS 120032 ALARM INSTALL: MARGARITA REC CENTER, PW17-21 $5,582.00 301478 02/08/2024 100 CONNIE NEELY 65168098 REFUND: SENIOR EXCURSION $15.00 601434 02/01/2024 3130 CORTEZ GASTELUM MARIA VICTORIA 231223 NEWSPAPER SUBSCRIPTION: MPSC: TCSD $125.00 601504 02/08/2024 1771 COSSOU, CELINE 1620.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $343.00 601435 02/01/2024 1771 COSSOU, CELINE 1630.101 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $140.00 301449 02/08/2024 1098 COSTCO TEMECULA 491 3547 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES: CIP PW $99.68 301450 02/08/2024 1268 COSTCO TEMECULA 491 3546 MISC SUPPLIES: MRC, MPSC AND SFSP $440.90 601505 02/08/2024 2004 COX KRISTI 4100.102-4150.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $1,484.00 601506 02/08/2024 1592 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC 003729 GARBAGE DISPOSAL INSTALL: SENIOR CENTER: PW $4,748.00 601436 02/01/2024 1592 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC 003805 POOL DECK SHOWER REPARIR: CRC: PW $1,947.00 601506 02/08/2024 1592 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC 003816 CONSTRUCTION SVCS: PW CIP PW22-16 $890.00 601506 02/08/2024 1592 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC 003730 PLUMBING SVCS: HARVESTON LAKE PARK: PW $690.00 301451 02/08/2024 2646 CRISP ENTERPRISES INC 457469 REPROGRAPHIC SVCS: PW CIP PW21-07 $442.94 301452 02/08/2024 2002 CRST SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION INC DU072400 SHIPPING CHARGES: EXHIBIT: TVM $727.97 301390 02/01/2024 1207 D F M ASSOCIATES '24 Electrions Code 2024 CA ELECTIONS CODE BOOK: CITY CLERK $76.13 301391 02/01/2024 3209 DATA PROCESSING DESIGN INC EGOLD-12054848 CLOUD FAXING SERVICE: INFO TECH $75.99 301391 02/01/2024 3209 DATA PROCESSING DESIGN INC EGOLD-12057110 CLOUD FAXING SERVICE:ITSS $75.99 601507 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 160628 CITATION PROCESSING: POLICE $1,525.62 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 149946 MAR '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $787.86 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 148835 FEB '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 160180 DEC '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 159818 NOV '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 157878 OCT '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 155639 AUG '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 156789 SEP '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 153318 JUN '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 151067 APR '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601508 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 152237 MAY '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $200.00 601509 02/08/2024 1105 DATA TICKET INC 147938 JAN '23 CITATION PROCESSING: TEM SHERIFF $102.83 301392 02/01/2024 1699 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC 549230 DIAZ ROAD EXPANSION $11,104.64 301453 02/08/2024 1699 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC 553831 ENG SVCS: PICKLEBALL COURTS: RRSP $966.00 301454 02/08/2024 2192 DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 4066 CEQA REVIEW: PARADISE CHEVROLET $15,275.00 601510 02/08/2024 1578 DEMCO INC 7428579 MISC SUPPLIES: RHRTPL: TCSD $132.43 301393 02/01/2024 1491 DEPT OF GENERAL SERVICES DGS 0000001552270 CASE FILINGS: MASSAGE $1,778.50 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00135501 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $9,898.00 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00138998 TRAFFIC CAMERAS:CIP PW17-01 $7,696.22 Check#Check Date Vendor #Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00135500 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $4,968.00 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00135505 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $2,798.00 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00133861 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $1,965.00 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00146303 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM: IT $1,856.69 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00135782 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $1,560.00 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00139790 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $1,050.00 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00146279 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $828.88 601511 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00135796 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $800.00 601512 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00146287 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $727.50 601512 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00135791 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $720.00 601512 02/08/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00135799 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYSTEM:IT $620.00 601437 02/01/2024 1235 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS 0005146733 PORTABLE RESTROOMS: HARMONY LN $165.88 601437 02/01/2024 1235 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS 0005111283 PORTABLE RESTROOMS: STEPHEN LINEN PARK $160.88 601437 02/01/2024 1235 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS 0005080822 PORTABLE RESTROOMS: STEPHEN LINEN PARK $160.88 601437 02/01/2024 1235 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS 0004960430 PORTABLE RESTROOM RENTAL: CITYWIDE CLEAN-UP: PW $135.20 601437 02/01/2024 1235 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SRVCS 0005166133 FENCE RENTAL: JRC: PW $95.00 301386 02/01/2024 1262 DIV. OF THE STATE ARCHITECT QE DEC 2023 AB1379 REMITTANCE OF AB1379 - QE DEC 2023 $1,362.80 601513 02/08/2024 2137 DIVERSIFIED WATERSCAPES INC 10006926 JAN WTR QUALITY MAINT: DUCK POND/HARV $7,800.00 601514 02/08/2024 2040 DOKKEN ENGINEERING 45157 DSGN SVCS: SOUTHSIDE PARKING LOT RECONFIRGURATION $5,160.00 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL23593 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: STREET MAINT: PW $1,563.16 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25032 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PARKS: PW $1,557.14 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25038 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: STREETS: PW $1,267.24 601516 02/08/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL23590 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG INSPECTORS $304.68 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25052 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC: PW $293.83 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL23607 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC $250.88 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25037 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CIP: PW $204.03 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25036 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG INSPECTORS $142.59 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL24387 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: FIRE DEPT $117.16 601516 02/08/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL26466 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: POLICE $113.91 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25033 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: LAND DEV: PW $109.63 601438 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25035 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CODE ENFORCEMENT $95.00 601439 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25050 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: EOC $80.43 601515 02/08/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25034 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: POLICE $63.38 601439 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25053 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD $60.14 601439 02/01/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL23587 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: LAND DEV: PW $56.13 601517 02/08/2024 2258 ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVES INC 105782 WATER SYSTEMS MONITORING FOR HVAC EQUIPMENT $619.55 601440 02/01/2024 1156 ENGINEERING RESOURCES OF SOUTHERN CA 59701 ENGINEERING SVCS: CIP-PW, PW22-13, ON-CALL $1,572.50 601518 02/08/2024 1525 ENNIS PAINT INC 280008 STREET MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: PW $1,055.12 601519 02/08/2024 3515 ENSURITY MOBILE CORP 24790 GPS TRACKING DEVICES: TEM SHERIFF $6,166.20 301395 02/01/2024 3603 EE # 609 Reimb: Conf & Lodge REIMB: PARKS TRAINING CONFERENCE & LODGING $514.86 301455 02/08/2024 1004 ESGIL LLC 128354 Revised SEP PLAN REVIEW SVCS: BLDG & SAFETY $16,047.18 301456 02/08/2024 1366 EXHIBIT ENVOY 1410 NEWEST AMERICANS EXHIBIT $562.50 601520 02/08/2024 2116 FALCON ENGINEERING SERVICES 2023-9 I-15/FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS $255,571.09 301457 02/08/2024 1005 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 8-389-70511a EXPRESS MAILING SVCS: FIRE DEPT $28.57 301457 02/08/2024 1005 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 8-389-70511c EXPRESS MAILING SVCS: HR $24.14 301396 02/01/2024 1005 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 8-363-07079 EXPRESS MAIL SVCS: INFO TECH $8.31 301457 02/08/2024 1005 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 8-389-70511b EXPRESS MAILING SVCS: FINANCE $7.32 601521 02/08/2024 1109 FIELDMAN ROLAPP AND ASSOCIATES 28809 ALTAIR CFD FORMATION $4,902.00 601521 02/08/2024 1109 FIELDMAN ROLAPP AND ASSOCIATES 28922 ALTAIR CFD FORMATION $3,701.00 601521 02/08/2024 1109 FIELDMAN ROLAPP AND ASSOCIATES 28923 PRADO CFD NO 16-01 AGREEMENT NO 22217 $3,036.50 601521 02/08/2024 1109 FIELDMAN ROLAPP AND ASSOCIATES 28810 PRADO CFD NO 16-01 AGREEMENT NO 22217 $1,584.50 301397 02/01/2024 1961 FIELDTURF USA INC 709678 FIELDTURF MAINTENANCE AT VARIOUS PARKS $19,500.00 601522 02/08/2024 1871 FLATIRON WEST INC 8 I-15/ FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS $4,147,905.89 601441 02/01/2024 2582 FLOCK GROUP INC INV-28447 LICENSE PLATE RECOGINITION CAMERA $380.63 301458 02/08/2024 1497 FULL COMPASS SYSTEMS INC02467459 SOUND/LIGHTING & MISC SUPPLIES: THEATER $195.70 601442 02/01/2024 2374 GEORGE HILLS COMPANY INC INV1027352 CLAIMS TPA: RM $241.50 301398 02/01/2024 2722 GEOTAB USA INC IN368054 VEHICLE TELEMATICS: CITY FLEET: IT $1,678.75 301399 02/01/2024 3595 GFWC TEMECULA VALLEY WOMANS CLUB FY 23/24 CSF PMT 1 COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDING REINVESTMENT $16,916.21 601523 02/08/2024 3332 GIFTCRAFT INC INV13349 GIFT SHOP ITEMS: TVM: TCSD $598.87 601523 02/08/2024 3332 GIFTCRAFT INC INV20746 GIFT SHOP ITEMS: TVM: TCSD $313.01 601523 02/08/2024 3332 GIFTCRAFT INC INV17111 GIFT SHOP ITEMS: TVM: TCSD $51.21 301459 02/08/2024 1523 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC SOCIETY Sttlmnt: 1/14 & 1/28 CLASSICS @ THE MERC 1/14 & 1/28 $329.00 301467 02/08/2024 3095 GONZALEZ JAVIER I 1515 HVAC SUPPLES: FACILITY MAINT $2,421.86 301467 02/08/2024 3095 GONZALEZ JAVIER I 1511 HVAC SUPPLES: FACILITY MAINT $519.83 301467 02/08/2024 3095 GONZALEZ JAVIER I 1513 HVAC SUPPLES: FACILITY MAINT $275.14 301467 02/08/2024 3095 GONZALEZ JAVIER I 1545 HVAC SUPPLES: FACILITY MAINT $200.64 301467 02/08/2024 3095 GONZALEZ JAVIER I 1512 HVAC SUPPLES: FACILITY MAINT $48.94 301460 02/08/2024 3128 GREEN ACRES INTERACTIVE THERAPY CSF: Grant Pgm 01/29 CSF GRANT PROGRAM $2,500.00 601524 02/08/2024 1197 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INLAND VALLEY INCCSF: Reinvest in Tem COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDING REINVESTMENT IN TEMECU $45,000.00 601565 02/08/2024 1383 HANCOCK LORENA 3700.102-3710.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $756.00 301461 02/08/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2644/Jan-a SMALL TOOLS/EQUIP FACILITIES MAINT: PW $1,731.50 301400 02/01/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2644/Dec-b HARDWARE SUPPLIES, MARGARITA REC CENTER PW $848.25 301400 02/01/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2733/Dec MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: STREETS AND TRAFFIC MAINT $192.39 301461 02/08/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2644/Jan-b SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: FIRE $174.20 301461 02/08/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2634/Jan SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: FIRE $117.27 301461 02/08/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2824/Jan MISC HARDWARE SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD $93.58 Check#Check Date Vendor #Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 301400 02/01/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2664/Dec SMALL TOOLS/EQUIP FACILITIES MAINT: MPSC $67.35 301461 02/08/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2702/Jan-b SMALL TOOLS/EQUIP: TVM: TCSD $61.87 301400 02/01/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2708/Dec HARDWARE SUPPLIES, OLD TOWN MAINT PW $41.30 301401 02/01/2024 3604 EE # 624 Reimb: Conf & Lodge REIMB: PARKS TRAINING CONFERENCE & LODGING $514.86 301462 02/08/2024 2225 HASA INC 939264 POOL SANTIZING CHEMICALS: CITY POOLS $1,002.53 601443 02/01/2024 1056 HDL COREN AND CONE SIN035466 JAN-MAR FY23-24 PROPERTY TAX CONSULTING $6,859.34 301379 02/01/2024 1110 HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCE CENTER INC E0307808 EAP-HR-BENEFITS $1,517.45 301402 02/01/2024 1791 HELIXSTORM INC 14986 DATA CENTER FIREWALL REPLACEMENT: IT $40,165.56 601444 02/01/2024 2235 HICKS AND HARTWICK INC 8303 ENG PLAN CHECK SRVCS:PW - LAND DEV $906.50 301463 02/08/2024 3608 EE # 576 Reimb: Conf & Lodge REIMB: PARKS TRAINING CONFERENCE & LODGING $514.86 301403 02/01/2024 1192 HOME DEPOT 7598312 HARDWARE SUPPLIES: FACILITIES $1,086.41 301403 02/01/2024 1192 HOME DEPOT 4974996 HARDWARE SUPPLIES: MARGARITA $303.41 301403 02/01/2024 1192 HOME DEPOT 5971066 MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: FACILITIES $244.35 601445 02/01/2024 2233 HOWELL, ANN MARIE COT_ECONDEV_1123a CHRISTMAS BANNER DESIGN: ED $1,170.25 601525 02/08/2024 2564 INLAND FLEET SOLUTIONS INC 6977 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPAIR, STREET MAINTENANCE $2,699.42 601526 02/08/2024 1396 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS 256460 NOV COPIER MAINT/REPAIR/USAGE: CITYWIDE $5,113.01 601526 02/08/2024 1396 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS 257161 COPIER MAINT/REPAIR/USAGE:CITYWIDE $4,298.20 601526 02/08/2024 1396 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS 256461 NOV COPIER MAINT/REPAIR/USAGE: CITYWIDE $308.24 601526 02/08/2024 1396 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS 257162 COPIER MAINT/REPAIR/USAGE:CITYWIDE $195.24 301464 02/08/2024 3035 INTERFLEX PAYMENT LLC Ben350009 CHILD CARE REIMBURSEMENT FSA: PAYMENT $24,455.55 301465 02/08/2024 3108 INTERNATIONAL CHRISTIAN ADOPTIONS CSF: Grant Pgm 01/29 CSF GRANT PROGRAM $5,000.00 301466 02/08/2024 1398 INTERNATIONAL MUNICIPAL SIGNAL ASSOCIA 74977 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: TRAFFIC DIV: PW $510.00 301404 02/01/2024 1053 INTL INSTITUTE OF MUNICIPAL CLERKS 37160 01/10/24 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: CITY CLERK $125.00 601446 02/01/2024 1719 JACOB'S HOUSE INC CSF Grant Prgm COMMUNITY SVC FUNDING GRANT PRGM $5,000.00 301468 02/08/2024 2045 JAMES ELLIOTT ENTERTAINMENT Sttlmnt: 01/10/24 STTLMNT: BRITAIN'S 1ST COMPLETE BEATLES EXPERIENCE $5,270.17 301468 02/08/2024 2045 JAMES ELLIOTT ENTERTAINMENT Sttlmnt: 01/11/24 STTLMNT: KENNY CETERA'S CHICAGO EXPERIENCE $4,948.36 301468 02/08/2024 2045 JAMES ELLIOTT ENTERTAINMENT Sttlmnt: 01/12/24 STTLMNT: NEVER A DULL MOMENT: ROD STEWART $4,781.55 601528 02/08/2024 2475 JP HANDMADE CORP 68598 PRINTING SERVICES: TEM SHERIFF $196.17 601447 02/01/2024 2475 JP HANDMADE CORP 68601 PRINTING SERVICES: ECO DEV $87.14 601447 02/01/2024 2475 JP HANDMADE CORP 68602 BUSINESS CARDS: BUILDING AND SAFETY $87.14 301469 02/08/2024 1933 KELLY SPICERS INC 11502728 WHITE COPY PAPER:CENTRAL SERVICES $2,650.78 301469 02/08/2024 1933 KELLY SPICERS INC 11504911 MISC PAPER SUPPLIES:CENTRAL SERVICES $2,234.60 301405 02/01/2024 3304 KOSMONT REAL ESTATE SERVICES 2308.2-003 SURPLUS LAND ACT CONSULTING SV $1,183.00 301405 02/01/2024 3304 KOSMONT REAL ESTATE SERVICES 2308.2-002 SURPLUS LAND ACT CONSULTING SVCS LR23-0225 $416.00 601448 02/01/2024 1975 KRACH BREE B 200132 RECOGNITION AWARDS: TCC $343.65 601448 02/01/2024 1975 KRACH BREE B 200133 RECOGNITION AWARDS: TCC $249.04 601529 02/08/2024 1975 KRACH BREE B 200148 PLAQUE: PLANNING COMMISSION $112.01 301406 02/01/2024 1136 LAKE ELSINORE ANIMAL FRIENDS Jan '24 JAN '24 ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES $10,762.50 601530 02/08/2024 1930 LDCO INC 6 PW20-13 MARY PHILLIPS SENIOR CENTER ENHANCEMENT $246,065.89 601530 02/08/2024 1930 LDCO INC 5 PW20-13 MARY PHILLIPS SENIOR CENTER ENHANCEMENT $101,587.60 601530 02/08/2024 1930 LDCO INC 7 PW20-13 MARY PHILLIPS SENIOR CENTER ENHANCEMENT $57,944.75 601449 02/01/2024 1930 LDCO INC 3400 FABRICATE AND INSTALL SIGN: MRC $12,364.28 601449 02/01/2024 1930 LDCO INC 3398 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES: TVE2: PW $1,480.00 301407 02/01/2024 1014 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES SACRAM INV-12046-R1R8J7 '24 MEMBERSHIP DUES: CITY MGR $30,959.00 601450 02/01/2024 2278 LESO PAMELA 8894 CRIME PREVENTION MATERIALS: PD $775.15 601531 02/08/2024 1320 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 256981 LEGAL SERVICES $8,939.50 601531 02/08/2024 1320 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 256321 LEGAL SERVICES $5,992.00 301479 02/08/2024 100 LILIANA VARGAS 01/31/24 REFUND: DUPLICATE PAYMENT $39.00 301470 02/08/2024 3198 LOOMIS ARMORED US LLC 13282682 ARMORED CAR SVCS: FINANCE $1,124.51 301408 02/01/2024 1806 M C I COMM SERVICE JAN 7DK89878 JAN 7DK89878 XXX-0714 USAGE MALL PD $37.77 301408 02/01/2024 1806 M C I COMM SERVICE JAN 7DK90589 JAN 7DK90589 XXX-3046 GEN USAGE $36.13 301471 02/08/2024 1224 MAIN STREET SIGNS 43700 SIGNS & SUPPLIES: PARKS $851.99 301471 02/08/2024 1224 MAIN STREET SIGNS 43709 VARIOUS SUPPLIES AND SIGNS: PW PARKS $83.20 301409 02/01/2024 1039 MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT ASSOCIATIOMembership Renewal MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: STREETS: PW $180.00 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3274 TREE TRIMMING: HARVESTON SLOPE: PW $39,918.52 601452 02/01/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3233 ANNUAL RIGHT OF WAY TREE TRIMMING, REMOVALS & PLAN $15,746.66 601452 02/01/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3225 TREE TRIMMING: VILLAGES SLOPE: PW $10,995.61 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3275 EMERGENCY SLOPE TREE SERVICES $7,589.40 601451 02/01/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3280 TREE TRIMMING: RANCHO HIGHLANDS: PW $4,976.90 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3283 ANNUAL TREE TRIMMING,REMOVALS & PLANTING AT PARKS $2,433.12 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3273 EMERGENCY SLOPE TREE SERVICES $1,824.66 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3277 ANNUAL RIGHT OF WAY TREE TRIMMING, REMOVALS & PLAN $1,726.72 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3284 ANNUAL TREE TRIMMING,REMOVALS & PLANTING AT PARKS $1,723.33 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3282 EMERGENCY SLOPE TREE SERVICES $1,363.20 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3287 TREE TRIMMING: VILLAGES SLOPE: PW $946.12 601451 02/01/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3281 TREE TRIMMING: VINTAGE HILLS: PW $625.70 601451 02/01/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3285 TREE TRIMMING: VAIL RANCH SLOPE: PW $608.28 601451 02/01/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3278 TREE TRIMMING: CROWNE HILL SLOPE: PW $408.96 601532 02/08/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3272 ANNUAL TREE TRIMMING,REMOVALS & PLANTING AT PARKS $405.52 601451 02/01/2024 2619 MARIPOSA TREE MANAGEMENT INC 3286 ANNUAL TREE TRIMMING,REMOVALS & PLANTING AT PARKS $202.76 601533 02/08/2024 2376 MARK THOMAS AND COMPANY INC 49835 CHERRY STREET EXTENSION & MURRIETA CREEK LOW FLO $5,109.00 601533 02/08/2024 2376 MARK THOMAS AND COMPANY INC 49867 I-15 CONGENSTION RELIEF $1,339.50 301472 02/08/2024 1996 MATCHETT VIVIAN 1320.101-1320.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $798.00 601534 02/08/2024 2057 MDG ASSOCIATES INC 18167 CDBG ADMINISTRATION SVCS: COMM DEV $5,668.00 601535 02/08/2024 2057 MDG ASSOCIATES INC 18170 MPSC OUTDOOR RECREATION AREA PROJECT $1,401.89 601536 02/08/2024 2042 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL 1201949 I-15/STATE ROUTE 79 SOUTH INTERCHANGE $13,704.00 Check#Check Date Vendor #Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 601453 02/01/2024 2042 MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL 1200590 CONSULTANT & SURVEY SVCS: PW-CIP $3,800.00 601537 02/08/2024 2259 MICHELLE MEDINA 1040.101 2nd half TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $1,483.49 301410 02/01/2024 1354 MICHELLES PLACE CANCER RESOURCE CENTERCSF Grant Pgm COMMUNITY SRVC FUNDING GRANT PRGM $5,000.00 301473 02/08/2024 1934 MID AMERICA ARTS ALLIANCE BK-060056 EXHIBIT- ALIENTO A TEQUILA $1,387.50 301474 02/08/2024 1777 MIDWEST TAPE LLC 504900689 BOOKS ON TAPE $390.92 601538 02/08/2024 1327 MIKES PRECISION WELDING INC 407838 TRASH SCREEN COVERS: MRC: PW $150.00 601454 02/01/2024 1795 MIKO MOUNTAINLION INC 1183-130 EXCAVATION SVCS: VALLEJO & YNEZ: PW $19,510.00 601539 02/08/2024 1795 MIKO MOUNTAINLION INC 1183-131 REPLACE GUARD RAIL: HWY 79 S: PW $19,144.00 601540 02/08/2024 1681 MIRANDA JULIO C 3600.102-3605.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $1,332.80 601541 02/08/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519533-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $2,075.42 601541 02/08/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519467-01 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: DUCK POND: PW $1,798.01 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 518568-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: FIRE LANE $1,783.66 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519140-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $731.32 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519264-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR $706.53 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519734-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR $526.35 601457 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519586-00 LED LIGHT FIXTURES: PARKS: PW $446.44 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 515530-01 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $413.25 601541 02/08/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519853-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: TPL $403.95 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519198-01 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $385.47 601541 02/08/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519873-01 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $297.63 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519114-01 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $232.67 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 518774-01 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CHILDREN'S MUSEUM $229.13 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519198-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $97.42 601455 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 520024-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $61.55 601541 02/08/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519734-02 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CITY HALL $55.59 601456 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 520034-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $30.94 601456 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519991-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR $29.28 601456 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519694-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $22.88 601541 02/08/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 520072-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $22.62 601456 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 518902-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $11.42 601541 02/08/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519630-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: OLD TOWN $8.78 601541 02/08/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519734-01 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CITY HALL $6.95 601456 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 519061-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: PARKS $5.59 601456 02/01/2024 1241 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 520009-00 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR $3.05 601542 02/08/2024 1240 MORAMARCO ANTHONY J 01/15/24 ART EVENTS & MURALS: TVM $750.00 601458 02/01/2024 1240 MORAMARCO ANTHONY J 2047.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $88.20 301475 02/08/2024 2489 EE # 540 Reimb: 01/22/24 REIMB: LAND DEV MTG $127.67 601543 02/08/2024 3475 MSW CONSULTANTS INC 779 SB 1383 SUPPORT SERVICES $8,400.00 601544 02/08/2024 2081 MUSIC CONNECTION LLC Sttlmnt: 01/13/24 SPEAKEASY @ THE MERC: 01/13/24 $641.20 301411 02/01/2024 1071 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 187396 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: CITY COUNCIL $9,988.00 601545 02/08/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76687 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SVCS: FACILITIES: PW $11,245.00 601545 02/08/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76690 LANDSCAPE SVCS: HARVESTON LAKE $4,031.00 601545 02/08/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76686 LANDSCAPE SVCS: FIRE STATIONS $2,068.00 601545 02/08/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76692 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES LEVEL C SLOPES: PW $106.00 301476 02/08/2024 1013 NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC 53237457 EQUIPMENT REPAIR SUPPLIES: FIRE STATIONS $126.14 301421 02/01/2024 1807 OFFICE OF ECON DEVELOPMENT LIBRARY DIV 2024-111 BOOTH SPACE - ICSC CONFERENCE $4,000.00 601547 02/08/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73890 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE: PARKS: PW $831.42 601459 02/01/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73872 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE: TCC: FIRE $523.67 601459 02/01/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73884 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - PARKS & FACILITIES $503.66 601459 02/01/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73834 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - PARKS & FACILITIES $458.26 601459 02/01/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73786 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE: PW - CIP $329.02 601547 02/08/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73899 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE: PARKS: PW $274.50 601546 02/08/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73833 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - STREET MAINTENANCE $174.82 601547 02/08/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73783 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - HOMELESS OUTREACH $77.33 601459 02/01/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73797 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - PARKS & FACILITIES $53.99 601547 02/08/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73836 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE: CM $51.81 601459 02/01/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 73893 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE - PARKS & FACILITIES $48.78 301480 02/08/2024 2048 PACIFIC PRODUCTS & SERVICE LLC 33208 STREET MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: PW $4,501.66 601548 02/08/2024 1922 PASTPERFECT SOFTWARE INC 2024PPWE-40376 SFTWR SUPPORT RENEWAL: TVM: TCSD $1,245.00 301412 02/01/2024 2155 PECHANGA BAND LUISENO MISSION 0733 EDUCATIONAL BOOKS: CITY COUNCIL $166.69 301413 02/01/2024 1214 PECHANGA BAND OF LUISENO MISSION INDIA20947 I-15/ FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENT: PW $751.80 301481 02/08/2024 3462 PECHANGA RESORTS INCORPORATED 1700.102-1705.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $1,190.00 601549 02/08/2024 2468 PLACEWORKS INC 82995 OLD TOWN PARKLETS PROGRAM: PLANNING $2,140.51 601460 02/01/2024 3271 POWERSPORTS UNLIMITED INC 46897 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT: TEM SHERIFF $1,782.24 601460 02/01/2024 3271 POWERSPORTS UNLIMITED INC 46630 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT: TEM SHERIFF $1,412.83 601460 02/01/2024 3271 POWERSPORTS UNLIMITED INC 47016 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT: TEM SHERIFF $606.00 601460 02/01/2024 3271 POWERSPORTS UNLIMITED INC 47053 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT: TEM SHERIFF $259.20 601460 02/01/2024 3271 POWERSPORTS UNLIMITED INC 47084 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT: TEM SHERIFF $249.11 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132231730 UNIFORMS: STREET MAINTENANCE $68.83 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132234218 UNIFORMS: STREET MAINTENANCE $68.83 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132235501 UNIFORMS: STREET MAINTENANCE $68.83 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132231728A UNIFORMS: PARKS AND FACILITIES $65.64 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132232987A UNIFORMS: PARKS AND FACILITIES $65.64 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132234217A UNIFORMS: PARKS AND FACILITIES $65.64 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132235500A UNIFORMS: PARKS AND FACILITIES $63.21 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132232265 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $31.45 Check#Check Date Vendor #Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132233526 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $31.45 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132232247 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $24.52 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132231003 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $19.88 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132231001 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $14.32 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132232264 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $14.32 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132233525 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $14.32 601462 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132232253 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $12.74 601461 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132233512 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $12.74 601462 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132232989 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $10.28 601462 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132231731 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $10.28 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132234219 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $10.28 601462 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132232254 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $9.89 601462 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132233513 FLOOR MATS AND TOWEL RENTALS: FACILITIES $9.89 601462 02/01/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132231728B UNIFORMS: STREET MAINTENANCE $5.67 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132232987B UNIFORMS: STREET MAINTENANCE $5.67 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132234217B UNIFORMS: STREET MAINTENANCE $5.67 601550 02/08/2024 1336 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 132235500B UNIFORMS: STREET MAINTENANCE $5.67 301415 02/01/2024 2727 QUADIENT FINANCE USA INC PPLN01 01/09/24 POSTAGE SERVICES: PD $257.48 301482 02/08/2024 2169 QUINN COMPANY WOG00018720 GENERATOR MAINT SVCS: FACILITIES: PW $1,668.23 301482 02/08/2024 2169 QUINN COMPANY WOF00018718 GENERATOR MAINT SVCS: FACILITIES: PW $1,318.94 301482 02/08/2024 2169 QUINN COMPANY WOG00018695 GENERATOR MAINT SVCS: FACILITIES: PW $1,120.46 301482 02/08/2024 2169 QUINN COMPANY WOG00018719 GENERATOR MAINT SVCS: FACILITIES: PW $1,033.37 301482 02/08/2024 2169 QUINN COMPANY WOG00018694 GENERATOR MAINT SVCS: FACILITIES: PW $986.08 301416 02/01/2024 2169 QUINN COMPANY WOG00018696 GENERATOR MAINT: FIRE STATIONS $895.68 301416 02/01/2024 2169 QUINN COMPANY WOG00018697 GENERATOR MAINT: FIRE STATIONS $666.93 301483 02/08/2024 1847 R AND R CONTROLS INC 24893 MISC SUPPLIES: FACILITIES: PW $610.00 301483 02/08/2024 1847 R AND R CONTROLS INC 24899 MISC SUPPLIES: FACILITIES: PW $375.00 301417 02/01/2024 1473 R M F CONTRACTING INC RM5065 SECURITY LIGHT FIXTURES: RR SPORTS PARK: PW $33,250.00 301484 02/08/2024 2535 RANCHO RUNNERS INC 99179 EXP MAIL DLVY SVCS: HR $45.00 601551 02/08/2024 3514 REEP FIRE PROTECTION INC 2998 FIRE SPRINKLER SVCS: CIVIC CENTER: PW $3,800.00 601552 02/08/2024 2552 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES, DISTRIBUTOR 60172564-00 MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: TVE: PW $1,337.08 601552 02/08/2024 2552 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES, DISTRIBUTOR 60172590-00 MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: TVE: PW $23.88 601552 02/08/2024 2552 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES, DISTRIBUTOR 60172981-00 MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: TVE: PW ($447.26) 301418 02/01/2024 2532 REVZILLA MOTORSPORTS LLC 44376634 UNIFORMS: TEM SHERIFF $749.12 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245909 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $20,185.74 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245904 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $16,397.08 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245905 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $8,327.00 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245924 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $8,322.50 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245925 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $7,608.35 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245927 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $6,150.00 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245468 NOV 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $4,513.61 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245469 NOV 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $4,510.11 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245037 OCT 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $4,160.60 601463 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245926 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $4,128.00 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245928 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $3,975.00 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245912 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $3,827.00 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245027 OCT 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $3,726.60 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245450 NOV 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $3,133.00 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245893 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $3,031.00 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245914 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $2,405.00 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245919 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $2,000.73 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245922 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $1,902.01 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245910 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $1,519.50 601464 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245915 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $1,413.13 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245923 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $1,371.39 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245457 NOV 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $1,296.00 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245907 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $1,098.85 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245906 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $1,058.00 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245899 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $1,050.00 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245447 NOV 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $900.00 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245902 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $600.00 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245911 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $511.30 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245908 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $408.00 601465 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245894 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $360.00 601466 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245918 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $327.50 601466 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245913 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $279.50 601466 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245903 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $216.00 601466 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245921 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $94.50 601466 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245446 NOV 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $60.00 601466 02/01/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245920 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $8.42 301389 02/01/2024 1045 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK & RECORDER OFFICE 23-336872 CEQA FILING: PLANNING $50.00 601553 02/08/2024 1022 RIVERSIDE CO FIRE DEPARTMENT 235240 FPARC-TM: FY 23/24 JUL-SEP Q1 $2,045,099.21 601553 02/08/2024 1022 RIVERSIDE CO FIRE DEPARTMENT 235215 REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE: LADDER TRUCK $6,984.17 301420 02/01/2024 1042 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT SH0000044844 11/16/23-12/13/23 LAW ENFORCEMENT $2,940,448.86 301419 02/01/2024 1042 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT SH0000044832 11/01-12/31 YOUTH COURT SVCS $460.51 301420 02/01/2024 1042 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT SH0000044292 EXPRESS MAILING SVCS: TEM SHERIFF $82.67 Check#Check Date Vendor #Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 301414 02/01/2024 2635 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PE0000001486 EMERGENCY RADIO RENTAL: PD $1,122.01 301414 02/01/2024 2635 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PE0000001487A EMERGENCY RADIO RENTAL: CODE ENF $513.10 301414 02/01/2024 2635 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PE0000001487B EMERGENCY RADIO RENTAL: EOC $102.62 301394 02/01/2024 1104 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF ENVIRON.IN0500949 PERMIT RENEWAL: FOC $1,838.00 301394 02/01/2024 1104 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF ENVIRON.IN0500574 PERMIT RENEWAL: MARG SPLASH PAD: PW $422.00 301394 02/01/2024 1104 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF ENVIRON.IN0497290 PERMIT RENEWAL: SPORTS RANCH CONCESSION BLDG: PW $156.00 301422 02/01/2024 1304 RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY 87221 TROLLEY ROUTE 55 TRANSPORTATION SERVICES $2,375.80 601554 02/08/2024 2005 ROSEN AND ROSEN INDUSTRIES INC 661075 STREET MAINTENANCE UNIFORMS: PW $2,865.27 301423 02/01/2024 1941 ROTARY CLUB OF TEMECULA FOUNDATION FY 23/24 CSF FY 23/24 COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDING $5,000.00 301485 02/08/2024 2487 RUSSELL SIGLER INC INV-SDG24001115 HVAC SUPPLIES: VARIOUS FACILITIES: PW $137.72 301486 02/08/2024 1769 EE # 474 Reimb: Team Bldg REIMB: TCSD TEAM BLDG EVENT: 12/08/23 $1,460.00 601556 02/08/2024 1552 SANBORN GWYNETH A CO TEMECULA MUSIC PERF: 01/20/24 COUNTRY LIVE 01/20/24 $1,221.75 601557 02/08/2024 2008 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA PRESTON 101012024 PHOTOGRAPHY: THEATER: TCSD $1,520.00 601468 02/01/2024 2008 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA PRESTON 01242024 MISC PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES: ECO DEV $400.00 601468 02/01/2024 2008 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA PRESTON 01112024 MPSC/HUMAN SERVICES PHOTOGRAPHY: TCSD $275.00 601557 02/08/2024 2008 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA PRESTON 02022024 MUSEUM/ACE PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: TCSD $275.00 301487 02/08/2024 3600 SAVAGE TUKKIE 64669184 REFUND: SWIM LESSONS: TCSD $55.00 301488 02/08/2024 2360 SB&O INC 124015 ENGINEERING & SURVEY SVCS: PW-CIP, PW22-16 $4,032.00 301488 02/08/2024 2360 SB&O INC 124017 ENGINEERING & SURVEY SVCS: PW-CIP, PW23-24 $1,249.00 301488 02/08/2024 2360 SB&O INC 124020 ENGINEEIRNG & SURVEY SVCS: PWSW02-02 $740.00 301488 02/08/2024 2360 SB&O INC 124019 DESIGN, ENVIRO & SURVEY SVS: PW22-05: CIP $681.00 301489 02/08/2024 3563 EE # 642 Reimb: Education REIMB: CIVIL WATER RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL CLASS $2,398.75 301490 02/08/2024 1920 SESAC 10704576 BROADCAST MUSIC LIC FEE: OLD TOWN: TCSD $131.00 601558 02/08/2024 1509 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Perf: 01/27/24 PERF: STAND UP COMEDY: 01/27/24 $1,860.00 601558 02/08/2024 1509 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC Perf: 01/25/24 PERF: JAZZ @ THE MERC 01/25/24 $700.00 601469 02/01/2024 1509 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC PERF: 01/11/24 TICKET SERVICES AGREEMENT: JAZZ@THE MERC 1/11/24 $550.00 601469 02/01/2024 1509 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC PERF: 01/18/24 TICKET SERVICES AGREEMENT: JAZZ@THE MERC 01/18/24 $332.50 301424 02/01/2024 1787 SHRED IT US JV LLC 8005936552 SHRED SERVICES: CITYWIDE $150.02 301491 02/08/2024 1787 SHRED IT US JV LLC 8005936712 DOCUMENT SHREDDING: PD $69.87 601470 02/01/2024 2617 SIDI SEBASTIAN 12424 VIDEOGRAPHY SERVICES: TVE2 $900.00 601559 02/08/2024 1061 SMART & FINAL INC 01/30/24 MISC SUPPLIES: MRC: TCSD $309.26 601560 02/08/2024 3170 SMER RESEARCH 1 LLC 50030 JAN SOLAR GENERATION: VARI LOCATIONS $17,552.07 301492 02/08/2024 1153 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT D 4288505 FY 23/24 I C E ELEC GEN DIESEL: TVE2 $504.91 301492 02/08/2024 1153 SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT D 4290885 FY 23/24 FLAT EMISSION FEE: TVE2 $160.35 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291172 PEST CONTROL SVCS: PARKS: PW $95.00 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0290693 EMERGENCY PEST CONTROL SVCS: PARKS: PW $94.00 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0290744 BEE SERVICE: CIVIC CENTER: PW $94.00 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291047 ROUTINE PEST CONTROL: FACILITIES: PW $90.00 601561 02/08/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291247 ROUTINE PEST CONTROL: FACILITIES: PW $90.00 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291123 PEST CONTROL SVCS: FIRE STATIONS $80.00 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291031 ROUTINE PEST CONTROL: FACILITIES: PW $56.00 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291078 PEST CONTROL SVCS: PARKS: PW $49.00 601561 02/08/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291370 PEST CONTROL SVCS: PARKS: PW $49.00 601561 02/08/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291125 PEST CONTROL SERVICES: FIRE STATIONS $42.00 601561 02/08/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291274 ROUTINE PEST CONTROL: FACILITIES: PW $40.00 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291030 ROUTINE PEST CONTROL: FACILITIES: PW $36.00 601471 02/01/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291427 ROUTINE PEST CONTROL: FACILITIES: PW $29.00 15983 01/31/2024 1800 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO VAR SCE DEC VAR SCE DEC $151,692.06 301493 02/08/2024 1028 STADIUM PIZZA INC 01/24/24 RFRSHMNTS: WORKFORCE DEV: TCSD $127.74 301425 02/01/2024 1708 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY Ben349995 VOLUNTARY SUPP LIFE INSURANCE: PAYMENT $2,006.63 301494 02/08/2024 1452 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT 7624572801-0-1 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: OPERATIONS: TCSD $96.66 301426 02/01/2024 1452 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT 7622984571-0-1 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: OPERATIONS: TCSD $95.38 301494 02/08/2024 1452 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT 7905504122-0-1 MISC SUPPLIES: RHRTPL: TCSD $90.92 301426 02/01/2024 1452 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT 7624234276-0-1 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: OPERATIONS: TCSD $69.03 301426 02/01/2024 1452 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT 7622992398-0-1 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: OPERATIONS: TCSD $41.28 301494 02/08/2024 1452 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT 7624572801-0-2 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: OPERATIONS: TCSD $10.59 601562 02/08/2024 1263 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTI 710465 BLOOD / ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: POLICE $1,085.00 301495 02/08/2024 2299 STATE STREET BALLET PERF: 04/27/24 PERFORMANCE: THEATER: TCSD $5,000.00 301427 02/01/2024 1179 STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD WD-0263261 STORM WATER PERMIT: PW $399.00 301428 02/01/2024 2016 STC TRAFFIC INC 6695 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SVCS: TRAFFIC: PW $16,000.00 601472 02/01/2024 1146 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET CLEANING 11790 CARPET CLEANING: CITY FACILITIES: PW $1,375.00 601472 02/01/2024 1146 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET CLEANING 11791 CARPET CLEANING: CITY FACILITIES: PW $825.00 601563 02/08/2024 1146 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET CLEANING 11793 CARPET CLEANING: CITY FACILITIES: PW $775.00 601472 02/01/2024 1146 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET CLEANING 11786 CARPET CLEANING: CITY FACILITIES: PW $250.00 601564 02/08/2024 1747 STOVER JEFFREY PERF: 01/14/24 PERFORMING ARTS AGREEMENT: RAT PACK 01/14/24 $7,837.17 301429 02/01/2024 1763 STUDENT OF THE MONTH PRGM INC 01/18/24 FY 23/24 COMMUNITY SERVICE GRANT PRGM $1,000.00 301430 02/01/2024 2261 T MOBILE USA INC 9557994696 TIMING ADVANCE: TEM SHERIFF $25.00 301430 02/01/2024 2261 T MOBILE USA INC 9557994694 TIMING ADVANCE: TEM SHERIFF $25.00 301430 02/01/2024 2261 T MOBILE USA INC 9557994695 TIMING ADVANCE: TEM SHERIFF $25.00 301496 02/08/2024 2261 T MOBILE USA INC 9558634069 TIMING ADVANCE: TEM SHERIFF $25.00 301497 02/08/2024 1212 T Y LIN INTERNATIONAL 102401175 I-15/ FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS $46,581.72 301431 02/01/2024 1877 TEMECULA CATERING LLC E06074 TEMECULA CITIZEN CORPS RECOGNITION: FIRE $4,189.05 15982 01/30/2024 1084 TEMECULA ENVIRONMENTAL CR&R Jul - Dec '23 JUL - DEC '23 $5,162,721.12 601566 02/08/2024 1914 TEMECULA VALLEY BACKFLOW INC 46919 BACKFLOW SVCS: PW PARKS $4,062.00 601566 02/08/2024 1914 TEMECULA VALLEY BACKFLOW INC 46920 BACKFLOW SVCS: PW PARKS $2,975.50 601566 02/08/2024 1914 TEMECULA VALLEY BACKFLOW INC 46916 BACKFLOW TESTING: VARIOUS FACILITIES: PW $630.00 Check#Check Date Vendor #Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 601566 02/08/2024 1914 TEMECULA VALLEY BACKFLOW INC 46918 BACKFLOW TESTING: VARIOUS PARKS: PW $480.00 601567 02/08/2024 1054 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 1043 FY 23-24 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPONSORSHIP FUNDING $50,000.00 601467 02/01/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54740 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: FACILITY MAINTENANCE: CITY HAL $677.50 601467 02/01/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54798 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: VARIOUS LOCATIONS: PARKS $148.93 601467 02/01/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54807 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: VARIOUS PARK LOCATIONS: PW $61.46 601555 02/08/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54880 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: VARIOUS PARKS LOCATIONS: PW $60.36 601555 02/08/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54884 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: FACILITY MAINTENANCE $36.89 601467 02/01/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54799 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: FACILITY MAINTENANCE: CITY HAL $32.36 601555 02/08/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54806 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: FACILITY MAINTENANCE: PW $21.37 601467 02/01/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54805 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: VARIOUS PARK LOCATIONS: PW $16.20 601555 02/08/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54589 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: STATION 92 $8.80 301498 02/08/2024 1234 TEMECULA WINNELSON COMPANY 302193 01 PLUMBING SUPPLIES: PARKS $136.33 301498 02/08/2024 1234 TEMECULA WINNELSON COMPANY 301881 01 PLUMBING SUPPLIES: PW FACILITIES $74.98 301498 02/08/2024 1234 TEMECULA WINNELSON COMPANY 302604 01 PLUMBING SUPPLIES: PW FACILITIES $71.89 601473 02/01/2024 1232 TERRYBERRY COMPANY P92970 SERVICE RECOGNITION: HR $239.42 601568 02/08/2024 1232 TERRYBERRY COMPANY P99409 SERVICE RECOGNITION: HR $198.80 601473 02/01/2024 1232 TERRYBERRY COMPANY P92971 SERVICE RECOGNITION: HR $139.82 601473 02/01/2024 1232 TERRYBERRY COMPANY P92969 SERVICE RECOGNITION: HR $79.64 601569 02/08/2024 1936 TIERCE NICHOLAS NTOTTCT-2024-02 GRAPHIC DESIGN: THEATER: TCSD $5,160.00 601570 02/08/2024 3135 TK CONSULTING INC 7 YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS-PHASE IMPROV $18,793.05 601570 02/08/2024 3135 TK CONSULTING INC 6 YNEZ ROAD IMPROVEMENTS-PHASE IMPROV $10,884.06 601474 02/01/2024 2410 EE # 534 01/24/24 REIMB: TEAM PACE $150.00 601475 02/01/2024 2413 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS INC 20947 CONSULTING/GRANT WRITING SVCS: CITY CLERK $6,000.00 601571 02/08/2024 2375 TR DESIGN GROUP INC 4803 ARCHITECTURAL SVCS: PW19-13: CIP: PW $50,551.20 301499 02/08/2024 2006 TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT INC 1067798 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND CONTROL PLAN: TCSD $7,063.63 601476 02/01/2024 2249 TVEYES INC 2024-L1164 MEDIA MONITORING: 3/1/24-2/28/25 $1,500.00 601572 02/08/2024 2340 TWOS COMPANY INC 2413732 SUPPLIES: GIFT SHOP: TCSD $117.56 601572 02/08/2024 2340 TWOS COMPANY INC 7805415 SUPPLIES FOR GIFT SHOP: TCSD ($108.00) 301432 02/01/2024 1350 U S BANK CM-9690 7172207 TRUSTEE ADMIN FEES: CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL $3,830.00 301500 02/08/2024 3222 ULTRA SHINE INC 1814B JANITORIAL SVCS MAINT: PD $881.21 601573 02/08/2024 1432 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF SOUTHER 120240737 JAN DIG SAFE BRD BILLABLE TIX: PW $270.75 601573 02/08/2024 1432 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF SOUTHER 23-2424474 JAN DIG SAFE BILLABLE TIX: PW $87.04 301433 02/01/2024 1131 UNITED RENTALS NORTH AMERICA INC 228816566-001 TRENCHER RENTAL: PENNYPICKLE LIGHT POLE: PW $295.92 601574 02/08/2024 3526 UNITED TOWING SERVICE INC 63179 TOWING SVCS: PARKS: PW $125.00 601477 02/01/2024 2142 URBANE CAFE OPERATIONS LLC 110082 TVE2 ORDERS FOR WORKSHOPS/MEETINGS $126.15 301434 02/01/2024 1163 USPC - POC DEC '23 DEC '23 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT $2,288.85 301434 02/01/2024 1163 USPC - POC OCT '23 OCT '23 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT $2,187.57 301434 02/01/2024 1163 USPC - POC AUG '23 AUG '23 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT $1,970.77 301434 02/01/2024 1163 USPC - POC NOV '23 NOV '23 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT $1,868.49 301434 02/01/2024 1163 USPC - POC SEP '23 SEP '23 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT $1,700.89 301434 02/01/2024 1163 USPC - POC JUL '23 JUL '23 POSTAGE METER DEPOSIT $1,416.31 301435 02/01/2024 1845 VERIZON WIRELESS 9953884147 12/11-01/10 TASK FORCE TABLETS: POLICE $418.50 601575 02/08/2024 1498 VISION ONE, INC.INV-74897 TICKETING SERVICES: THEATER: TCSD $7,000.20 601478 02/01/2024 1498 VISION ONE, INC.INV-75003 TICKETING SERVICES EQUIPMENT: THEATER: TCSD $2,781.35 301501 02/08/2024 1439 WALMART 02/01/24 MISC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD $443.72 301501 02/08/2024 1439 WALMART 01/25/24 MISC SUPPLIES: RESPONSIBLE COMPASSION $209.77 301501 02/08/2024 1439 WALMART 02/02/24 MISC SUPPLIES: MRC: TCSD $164.55 301436 02/01/2024 1439 WALMART 01/24/24 MISC SUPPLIES: TCC: TCSD $163.36 301501 02/08/2024 1439 WALMART 01/22/24 BUILDING SUPPLIES: CLASSES: TCSD $56.14 301502 02/08/2024 1102 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC 82250489 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: PARKS: PW $5,328.78 301502 02/08/2024 1102 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC 82207050 JANITORIAL SVCS FACILITY MAINT: PW $5,240.01 301502 02/08/2024 1102 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC 82256742 RESTROOM CLEANING EQUIPMENT: PARKS: PW $4,513.06 301503 02/08/2024 2230 WEBB MUNICIPAL FINANCE LLC ARIV0000105 QTR 2 FY 23/24 CFD ADMIN SVCS $13,415.86 601576 02/08/2024 3318 WEILAND DESIGN GROUP INC 23-050 #4 LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN/DESIGN: PARKS: PW $92.20 301504 02/08/2024 1033 WEST PUBLISHING CORPORATION 849669853 SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTION: PD $1,179.86 601527 02/08/2024 1757 WEST SAFETY SERVICES, INC.6081666 NOV ENTERPRISES 911 SVC: INFO TECH $300.00 601479 02/01/2024 1358 WESTERN EAGLE FOUNDATION FY 23/24 CSF FY 23/24 COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDING $5,000.00 301505 02/08/2024 2175 WHITE CAP LP 50025069419 ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT PW $227.23 301437 02/01/2024 2175 WHITE CAP LP 50025162498 ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PW $117.44 301437 02/01/2024 2175 WHITE CAP LP 50024998509 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: TCSD FACILITIES: PW $18.81 601480 02/01/2024 1069 WINCHAK KRIS R 24.01 ENG PLAN CHECK & REVIEW: PW LAND DEV $1,190.00 301438 02/01/2024 1991 WOMEN ORGANIZING WOMEN INC FY 23/24 CSF FY 23/24 COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDING GRANT $5,000.00 601577 02/08/2024 1178 WSP USA INC 1389991 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN LR23-0083 $74.83 601578 02/08/2024 2289 YANES BLANCA A 0203.01 LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION SERVICES $13,905.00 601578 02/08/2024 2289 YANES BLANCA A 0204.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION SERVICES $7,730.00 601578 02/08/2024 2289 YANES BLANCA A 0202.0 LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTION SERVICES $5,950.00 301506 02/08/2024 2477 ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS INC Q2394655 ZOOM PHONE CONNECTION FOR SOUND SYSTEM:IT $118.52 Total $16,492,112.63 Item No. 4 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 27, 2024 SUBJECT: Approve Resolution to Adopt the Urban Forest Management Plan and Make a Finding it is Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15307 and 15061 ______________________________________________________________________________ PREPARED BY: Julie Tarrant, Principal Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO ADOPT THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION (CAL FIRE) 2019/2020 URBAN AND COMMUNITY FOREST PROGRAM GRANT GUIDELINES AND FINDING THAT THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15307 AND 15061 BACKGROUND: On March 15, 2019, the Department of Public Works applied to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire), for the Temecula Urban Forest Management Plan and Inventory project, for consideration of grant funding from the 2019/20 CAL Fire Urban and Community Forestry Program. On March 20, 2019, we were notified that we had been awarded grant funding in the amount of $323,930 for our project. The project included the planting of approximately 300 trees, developing a tree inventory and canopy assessment, preparing an Urban Forest Management Plan, ordinance, and policy updates, and providing tree-planting events for community input. In addition, as part of the grant program guidelines and overall project close out requirements, the City is to formally adopt the Urban Forest Management Plan. The Public Works Department staff, along with Dudek, a consulting services firm, developed and completed the City of Temecula’s Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP). The UFMP provides an outline of Temecula’s urban forest that will be implemented over the next 40 years, including a strategic plan with goals, objectives, and actions based on identified needs. The UFMP incorporates our current Street Tree Master Plan, the City’s existing tree inventory and canopy analysis, and key findings as to current practices, plans, policies, and ordinances. In accordance with the Urban and Community Forestry Program Grant Guidelines, applicants must agree to officially adopt the Urban Forest Management Plan as a guiding policy document in an ordinance, a general plan element, or other binding, enforceable way as approved by CAL Fire. In addition to the adoption of the UFMP, staff intends to bring forth to City Council for consideration to amend the Temecula Municipal Code tree ordinance to align with policies and ordinance updates, as identified in the UFMP. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council finds, determines and declares that the adoption of the Urban Forest Management Plan is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15307, 15061(b)(3), and 15378(b)(5) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. CEQA Guidelines Section 15307 exempts from CEQA actions taken by agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3) where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council finds determines and declares that adoption of the Urban Forest Management Plan is an action of the City Council specifically designed to and does assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource, in this case the urban forest, where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. The Urban Forest Management Plan has been prepared in accordance with State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regulations. Additionally, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. In this case the Urban Forest Management Plan will enhance the environment and mitigate several existing adverse conditions affecting the environment. Therefore, City Council of the City of Temecula will therefore adopt a Notice of Exemption for the Ordinance and direct the City Manager or his designee to file it as required by law. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to Adopt the Urban Forest Management Plan. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Urban Forest Management Plan (UFMP) 3. UFMP Technical Assessment 4. UFMP Appendices 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO ADOPT THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION (CAL FIRE) 2019/2020 URBAN AND COMMUNITY FOREST PROGRAM GRANT GUIDELINES AND FINDING THAT THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15307 AND 15061 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that: A. The Governor of the State of California in cooperation with the California State Legislature has enacted the California Proposition 68 Bond Fund, which provide funds to the State of California and its political subdivisions for Urban and Community Forestry Program. B. The State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire) has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures governing application by local agencies and non-profit organization under the program. C. Said procedures established by the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire) require the applicant to officially adopt the Urban Forest Management Plan as a guiding policy document in an ordinance, a general plan element, or other binding, enforceable way as approved by CAL Fire. Section 2. California Environmental Quality Act Findings. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the City Council finds, determines and declares that the adoption of the Urban Forest Management Plan is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to Sections 15307, 15061(b)(3), and 15378(b)(5) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. CEQA Guidelines Section 15307 exempts from CEQA actions taken by agencies as authorized by state law or local ordinance to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3) where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council finds determines and declares that adoption of the Urban Forest Management Plan is an action of the City Council specifically designed to and does assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource, in this case the urban 2 forest, where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment . The Urban Forest Management Plan has been prepared in accordance with State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regulations. Additionally, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the action will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. In this case the Urban Forest Management Plan will enhance the environment and mitigate several existing adverse conditions affecting the environment. Therefore, City Council of the City of Temecula hereby adopts a Notice of Exemption for the Ordinance and directs the City Manager or his designee to file it as required by law. Section 3. Adoption. The City Council hereby adopts the Urban Forest Management Plan in accordance with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL Fire) 2019/2020 Urban and Community Forestry Program Grant Guidelines, which Plan is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 27th day of February, 2024. James Stewart, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Urban Forest Management Plan PREPARED BY April 2023 URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN OPTION A ii | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................................................v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................vii VISION .....................................................................................................................................................ix 1 | INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1 1.1 | Historical and Environmental Context .......................................................1 1.2 | Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Management Plan ......4 1.3 | Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan ..........................................8 1.4 | Developing the Temecula Urban Forest Management Plan ...16 1.5 | Key Findings .......................................................................................................................18 1.5.1 | Urban Forest Inventory and Analysis ..................................................18 1.5.2 | Analysis of Current Practices, Plans, Policies, and Ordinances ..................................................................................20 1.5.3 | Departmental and Stakeholder Interviews ...................................22 1.5.4 | Community Engagement ................................................................................23 2 | CANOPY COVER.............................................................................................................24 2.1 | Canopy Cover ..................................................................................................................25 2.2 | Increasing Canopy Cover ....................................................................................27 2.3 | Canopy Equity ..................................................................................................................31 2.4 | Priority and Opportunity Areas ....................................................................32 3 | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST ...............................................................34 3.1 | Environmental Services/Economic Benefits ....................................35 3.2 | Species Diversity Summary ................................................................................36 3.3 | Diameter at Standard Height Distribution Summary ..............41 3.4 | Tree Condition .................................................................................................................42 3.5 | Relative Performance Index Summary ....................................................43 3.6 | Importance Values Summary ............................................................................44 3.7 | Street Tree Master Plan ..........................................................................................45 3.8 | City Management of the Tree Program .................................................46 3.8.1 | Budget and Funding .............................................................................................46 3.8.2 | Staffing and Contractors .................................................................................48 3.8.3 | Annual Service Data ..............................................................................................50 3.8.4 | Tree Responsibility .................................................................................................50 4.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT .......................................................................53 4.1 | Community Tabling Events .................................................................................53 4.2 | Working Group ................................................................................................................54 4.3 | Public Survey .....................................................................................................................55 4.4 | Urban Forest Summit ................................................................................................57 4.4.1 | Urban Forest Summit Results ......................................................................58 4.5 | Arbor Day Tree Planting Event ......................................................................60 TABLE OF CONTENTS iv | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS 5 | STRATEGIC PLAN ..........................................................................................................63 5.1 | Vision Statement ..........................................................................................................63 5.2 | Strategic Plan ....................................................................................................................33 5.3 | Guiding Principles ........................................................................................................33 6 | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .....................................................................................75 6.1 | Ongoing Actions ................................................................................75 6.2 | Short Term Actions 1-5 Years ........................................................76 6.3 | Medium Term Actions 5-10 Years ...............................................78 6.4 | Long Term Actions 10 Years+ .......................................................81 7 | MONITORING PLAN ...................................................................................................83 7 | Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment ............................................................................83 8 | REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................91 TABLES 1. Quality-of-Life Master Plan Core Values Relationship to the Urban Forest Management Plan ........................9 2. Stakeholder Interview Participants ..................................................................22 3. Land Cover Classification...........................................................................................25 4. Total Number of Trees Needed to Increase Canopy Cover Above 11% ...............................................................28 5. T otal Number of Trees Needed to Plant per Year for 40 Years to Increase Canopy Cover ............28 6. Annual Environmental Services and Benefits Provided by City-Managed Trees ...............................................35 7. Financial Value of City-Managed Trees ........................................................35 8. Top 10 Tree Families in the City Inventory ...............................................36 9. Tree Species in the City Inventory that are Predicted to be Heat or Water Sensitive ..........................................40 10. Tree Condition Ratings of the City Inventory ....................................42 11. Relative Performance Index of the Top 10 Species in the Inventory......................................................43 12. Ten Species with the Highest Importance Values in the City’s Inventory .............................................44 13. City of Temecula Annual Tree Management Budget 2016–2021 ..................................................46 14. Estimated Contractor Funding Needed to Achieve Best Management Practices ..........................47 15. Temecula Tree-Related In-House Staff Positions ...........................48 16. Annual Service Data ......................................................................................................50 17. Temecula’s Urban Forest Master Plan Working Group Members .....................................................54 18. Summary of Online Survey Responses .....................................................55 19. Vision Statement Results .........................................................................................58 20. Group Discussion Activity Themes ...............................................................59 21. Tree Canopy Goal Summary.................................................................................84 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | v TABLE OF CONTENTS FIGURES 1. Urban Heat Island Effect ..................................................................................................6 2. Quality-of-Life Master Plan .........................................................................................8 3. Canopy Cover Acres Provided by Public vs Private Tree ..........19 4. City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis .......................................................26 5. The Benefits of Trees .......................................................................................................29 6. Priority Planting Score by Census Tract ......................................................33 7. Top 10 Genera in the City Inventory ...............................................................38 8. Top 10 Species in the City Inventory ..............................................................39 9. Diameter at Standard Height Distribution ................................................41 10. Temecula’s Urban Forest Funding Sources ...........................................47 11. Contractor’s Allocated Time Spent on Tree Activities ..............48 12. Organizational Chart ...................................................................................................49 13. Tree Responsibility Along Average Streets ...............................51 APPENDIX A | Recommended Tree Species Palette B | Sidewalk Solutions C1 | Establishment Care Guidelines C2 | Tree Protection Guidelines C3 | Tree Protection Detail C4 | Root Pruning Detail C5 | Irrigation Detail D | Nursery Stock Standards E | Highly Flammable Plant List F | Public Survey Results G | Funding Opportunities CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection City City of Temecula PPS Priority Planting Score QLMP Quality-of-Life Master Plan RPI Relative Performance Index UFMP Urban Forest Management Plan ACRONYMS vi | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CITY OF TEMECULA STAFF Department of Public Works Patrick Thomas, Director/City Engineer Julie Tarrant, Senior Principal Management Analyst Stacy Fox, Park and Landscape Superintendent CITY OF TEMECULA COUNCILMEMBERS Mayor Zak Schwank Mayor Pro Tem James “Stew” Stewart Council Member Jessica Alexander Council Member Curtis Brown Council Member Brenden Kalfus COMMUNITY MEMBERS TEMECULA UFMP WORKING GROUP CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION (CAL FIRE) Greg Dion FUNDING PROVIDED BY CAL FIRE/Prop 68 PREPARED BY Dudek – Urban Forestry Division Abby Beissinger Dana Link-Herrera Ryan Allen Kalie Ortiz Chris Kallstrand Funding for this project is provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as part of the California Climate Investments Program. The City of Temecula Urban Forestry Program is part of California Climate Investments, a statewide program that puts billions of Cap-and-Trade dollars to work reducing GHG emissions, strengthening the economy, and improving public health and the environment– particularly in disadvantaged communities. The Cap-and-Trade program also creates a financial incentive for to invest in clean technologies and develop innovative ways to reduce pollution. California Climate Investments projects include affordable housing, renewable energy, public transportation, zero-emission vehicles, environmental restoration, more sustainable agriculture, recycling, and much more. At least 35 percent of these investments are located within and benefiting residents of disadvantaged communities, low- income communities, and low-income households across California. For more information, visit the California Climate Investments website at: www.caclimateinvestments.ca.gov. viii | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION VISION CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | ix VISION Temecula will preserve and expand a sustainable urban forest that embraces our shared history and enhances the quality of life by improving the health, safety, connectivity, economy, and resilience of our community. VISION x | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | xi INTRODUCTION URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN xii | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION 1 INTRODUCTION CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 1 1.1 HISTORICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT The City of Temecula (City) is well known for its beautiful landscapes, mild climate, and rich history. The rolling hillsides were originally inhabited by the Temecula Indians, commonly known as Luiseños, whose ancestors lived in the area as hunters and gatherers since 900 AD (Barnett and Farnbach 2006). The native people from Temecula to the coast who shared the same language and culture became known as the Luiseños, as many of their villages were under the influence of Mission San Luis Rey (City of Temecula n.d.). The name Temecula comes from the Luiseño word “Temecunga,” with “temet” meaning “sun” and “-ngna” which means “place of.” The Spanish interpreted and spelled the word as “Temecula” and was translated to mean “where the sun breaks through the mist.” Temecula is the only city in California that preserved its indigenous name. The Luiseños lived on the land when the first Spanish padre, Father Juan Norberto de Santiago, arrived in the Temecula Valley in 1797. The Spanish padres found and claimed Temecula’s rich pastureland and the people dwelling on it for the expansion of the church and Spain. By the mid-1800s, Mexico’s power over California shifted, and ranchos that were owned by the mission system and the Mexican government, became land for private ownership granted by governors of the province (Bliss 2017). LUISEÑOS Temecula was originally inhabited by the Temecula Indians, commonly known as Luiseños, whose ancestors lived in the area as hunters and gatherers since 900 AD (Barnett and Farnbach 2006) WHERE THE SUN BREAKS THROUGH THE MIST. “Temecula” was translated to mean “where the sun breaks through the mist.” Temecula is the only city in California that preserved its indigenous name. 2 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION | Historical and Environmental Context The growth of the City was ignited as Temecula became a stop on the famous Butterfield Overland stage route in the vicinity of present-day Margarita Road and the Temecula Parkway. The stage routes brought new settlers to the area, establishing the City as a flourishing hub for commerce (Miller 2021). Waterman Hornsby, a reporter at the New York Herald Newspaper wrote about his travels through the Temecula area in his series of mail dispatches. “Our road lay through delightful oak groves lined with prosperous ranches- while the cool, delicious springs of water were most acceptable” (Preimsberger 2009). In 1859, the Temecula Post Office was established as the first post office in inland Southern California (Brigandi 1998). During the post-Civil War, a rail line service was built to provide access to and from San Diego, and a second wave of business boomed in Temecula. The transportation system led to the opening of several new stores and opportunities to garner trade and the City became an important location for shipping grain and cattle. In 1904, the Vail family who immigrated from Nova Scotia bought vast acreages of ranch land and large tracts of property in Temecula. Throughout the 1900s, the stimuli for the economy continued to center around the cattle business and agriculture owned by the Vail Family Ranch (City of Temecula 2021). The old western lifestyle of Temecula eventually came to an end, and the Vail Family Ranch was sold to Kaiser Development Company in 1964. The total acreage of land sold was 97,500, and Temecula was renamed “Rancho California.” RAILWAY During the post-Civil War, a rail line service was built to provide access to and from San Diego, and a second wave of business boomed in Temecula. The transportation system led to the opening of several new stores and opportunities to garner trade and the City be- came an important location for shipping grain and cattle. Historical and Environmental Context | INTRODUCTION CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 32 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN The area became known for its high-profile real estate and the value of land suitable for avocado groves and grape vineyards skyrocketed. Growth was invigorated by residential neighborhoods, shopping centers, restaurants, and transportation corridors. The I-15 corridor between Los Angeles County and San Diego was finished in the 1980s, and Rancho California became incorporated in December 1989. The citizens voted to change the name Rancho California and officially name their city, “Temecula.” Today, Temecula is home to approximately 115,055 residents (World Population Review 2021). Despite rapid growth and evolution, the City of Temecula takes pride in preserving the bountiful valley and its rich connection to California history. 4 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION | Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Management Plan +19° difference ƒThe 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). ƒWest Riverside will experience frequent extreme heat days, warmer summer evenings, and warmer average annual temperatures throughout the next three decades (CEC 2006). ƒThe projected increase in average annual temperature in Riverside County is 63.5°F to 70°F by 2099 (PIER Program 2011). Lowest water percipitation in11,,200200YEARS ƒIn Riverside County, the third driest February in 127 years occurred in 2021 (NOAA and NIDIS 2021). ƒRiverside County has been added to the emergency drought declaration since October 2021 (Rancho California Water District 2021). ƒBetween Fall 2013 and Spring 2014, Southern California experienced the lowest water year precipitation totals in at least 1,200 years (Griffin and Anchukaitis 2014). 1.2 WHY THE CITY NEEDS AN URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN EXTREME HEAT DROUGHT CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 5 Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Management Plan | INTRODUCTION HIGH Environmental Vulnerability Score ƒRiverside County residents are exposed to health risks from auto air pollution transported by prevailing winds from Los Angeles and Orange County (City of Temecula 2021). ƒRiverside County has a high environmental vulnerability score caused by air pollution from trucks servicing increasing warehouses within the county (OEHHA 2021). ƒRiverside County received failing grades for smog and ozone levels (American Lung Association 2022). 66FEET ƒIn 1993, a severe flood event resulted in approximately 6 feet of sediment deposited into Old Town Temecula and resulted in a Presidential Disaster Proclamation (Riverside County Flood Control District 2009). ƒSixteen percent of all properties in Temecula have greater than 26% chance of being severely affected by flooding within the next 30 years (Risk Factor n.d.). TOP 5 ƒTemecula ranked in the top five western US Cities with the most exposed communities that will be impacted by future wildfires (Ager et al. 2019). ƒTemecula contains and is surrounded by land ranked as “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone” by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE 2021) ƒSouthern California fall fire weather days will increase by 40% by 2065 (Goss et al. 2020). FIRE AIR POLLUTION FLOODING 6 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION | Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Management Plan Figure 1. Urban Heat Island Effect CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 7 Why the City Needs an Urban Forest Management Plan | INTRODUCTION 8 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION | Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan 1.3 RELATION TO THE QUALITY-OF-LIFE MASTER PLAN Temecula’s QLMP (Figure 2) reflects the vision and long-term goals of the City and is crucial to maintaining the quality of life in Temecula. The QLMP provides a proactive approach to identifying community needs, goals, and improvements, and was developed through an inclusive engagement process with residents, businesses, local institutions, and regional partners. The 2040 QLMP was adopted by City Council on November 15, 2022. The 2040 QLMP identifies seven Core Values that provide the roadmap for the future of the City. The QLMP is organized into seven chapters, one for each Core Value, and identifies detailed goals and recommendations to maintain and enhance the quality of life in Temecula. The 2030 QLMP was reviewed during development of this UFMP, and our review was updated to include the 2040 QLMP to ensure that the UFMP reflects and supports the Core Values identified in the 2040 QLMP, as discussed below (Table 1). COREVALUES OUR 7 ACCOUNTABLE & RESPONSIVE CITY GOVERNMENT Meeting requisite health and public safety needs while proactively seeking to enhance service delivery to the community and maintaining fiscal transparency and prudent stewardship of local resources. EQUITY Equity values help remove barriers to ensure opportunities for all to prosper through datadriven decisions personalized to residents of the City. SAFE & PREPARED COMMUNITY Public safety is the foundation of Temecula and the most basic service for which the City is responsible. TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY & CONNECTIVITY Transportation mobility, street maintenance and sanitation are basic but essential functions deemed highly important by residents. HEALTHY & LIVABLE CITY Opportunities for parks, recreation, cultural arts, programs and events for civic engagement help to define the great quality of life in Temecula.ECONOMIC PROSPERITY A business-friendly local economy providing diverse opportunities to live, work and play in Temecula. SUSTAINABLE & RESILIENT CITY Sustainable City values help plan for the future by meeting present needs without compromising the resources needed for future generations. Figure 2. Quality-of-Life Master Plan Quality-of-Life Master Plan CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 9 Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan | INTRODUCTION Table 1. Quality-of-Life Master Plan Core Values Relationship to the Urban Forest Management Plan 7 CORE VALUES | HEALTHY & LIVABLE CITY A healthy and livable city is characterized by high levels of civic pride and community engagement, a strong sense of place, and is a place where people desire to live and work. Throughout the QLMP planning process, Temecula residents expressed numerous goals related to health and livability. Healthy and Livable City accomplishments identified in the QLMP made thus far related to trees include “Desirable master planned neighborhoods connected by landscaped boulevards and bike trails” and “Trees for Temecula” program has planted approximately 1,000 new trees since 2001.” The UFMP supports the Healthy and Livable City goals of protecting the natural environment, promoting recreation programs, parks, trails, and facilities, and respecting and remembering the local culture and history. The analysis and recommendations contained in this UFMP promote these goals through sustainable tree management and maintenance practices, tree protection ordinances, as well as growing the urban forest and expanding canopy cover. A robust urban forest helps to create more desirable parks and recreational facilities, which promote healthy and active lifestyles and community engagement. Trees contribute to the overall character and aesthetic of the City and help to create a sense of place. Lastly, the history and culture of Temecula, from the first inhabitants through development of a modern City, were considered during the process of creating this UFMP. Additional tree plantings and maintaining a healthy and robust urban forest will help progress the City toward its Healthy and Livable City goals. 10 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION | Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan 7 CORE VALUES | ECONOMIC PROSPERITY During development of the QLMP community members expressed a desire to be able to live and work in Temecula. The Economic Prosperity goals in the QLMP that relate to trees call for continued protection of Temecula’s natural resources, increased urban amenities, revitalizing the City’s aging commercial corridors, and providing a diverse range of employment opportunities. The UFMP directly relates to economic prosperity through the jobs that are created in the urban forest management sector, as well as the positive influence the trees have on the economy and commercial areas. Trees are an important part of a City’s infrastructure and help to create a sense of place and influence shopping behaviors to boost economic prosperity. Revitalizing commercial corridors should include tree planting efforts to ensure that these areas have adequate canopy cover, which creates a more desirable and walkable commercial area. Studies have explored the psychosocial response of shoppers to outdoor environments in commercial areas, revealing consistently positive associations between streetscapes with trees and consumer preferences, perceptions, and behavior. Surveys conducted in cities of varying sizes across the United States revealed that shoppers positively associated commercial areas with trees as having higher visual quality and an improved sense of place. Shoppers also indicated an increased willingness to drive farther and pay for parking and, perhaps most notable, a willingness to pay higher prices for goods and services in consumer environments with trees. Survey respondents indicated that they would spend 9% to 12% more for goods and services in commercial districts with a high-quality tree canopy (Wolf 2005). . CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 11 Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan | INTRODUCTION 7 CORE VALUES | SAFE & PREPARED COMMUNITY Maintaining a safe community is one of the City’s most important obligations and directly affects the quality of life. Studies have shown that strategically planted vegetation may reduce crime by creating a sense of place, influencing how people interact with outdoor spaces, and attracting people into public spaces (American Forests 2022). The strategic priorities identified in the QLMP include maintaining safe and attractive parks, public facilities, public rights-of-way, trails, and open spaces. Trees contribute to the attractiveness and safety of these spaces throughout communities. Not only are low crime rates an important part of maintaining a safe community, but the City must also stay prepared for natural occurrences, such as extreme weather, drought, flooding, and fire. Temecula Fire Department was consulted during development of this UFMP, and the Recommended Species List included as part of this UFMP includes species that are climate adapted and predicted to do well in Temecula and includes fire hazard ratings for each species. Proper tree management also helps ensure the safety of trees by evaluating tree health and conducting appropriate maintenance practices to remove potential safety hazards. Trees can also be used as a tool for improved stormwater and flood infrastructure. 12 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION | Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan 7 CORE VALUES | TRANSPORTATION MOBILITY & CONNECTIVITY Transportation mobility and connectivity are an important aspect of maintaining a high quality of life in Temecula. This refers to the efficient movement of people and goods as well as providing residents with equal access to housing choices and neighborhoods, quality schools, services, places of employment, shopping and restaurants, recreational areas and more. Trees directly contribute to the connectivity of a community through the provision of shade along active transportation routes and transit stops as well as creating more desirable public spaces. Trees also provide an added safety benefit along transportation routes by calming traffic or serving as a buffer between vehicles and bicycles or pedestrians. Not only are cities with well-landscaped roads perceived more positively, but studies have shown that inclusion of trees and other landscaping in the streetscape may impact route choice, reduce stress, and increase safety on urban roadways (Wolf 2010). Appropriately placed trees in the streetscape can contribute to traffic calming. One study found a significant drop in travel speeds (an average decrease of approximately 3 miles per hour) on roads where trees are present, as well as an increased perception of safety (Topp 1990). Other studies analyzing vehicle accidents on urban roads have found that vehicle crashes were reduced by as much as 67% on road segments with street trees and traffic calming treatments as opposed to roads without improvements (Dumbaugh 2005, 2006). Consequently, roads with street trees and landscaping also increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety by influencing safer driving practices and by providing a buffer between vehicles and other modes of travel if these elements are appropriately placed. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 13 Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan | INTRODUCTION 7 CORE VALUES | SUSTAINABLE & RESILIENT CITY A sustainable community is one that uses its resources to meet current needs while ensuring that adequate resources are available for future generations. Sustainability is dependent on the interconnectedness of a prosperous economy, a healthy environment, and an equitable community. Trees contribute to many of the goals, progress indicators, accomplishments, and strategic priorities related to creating a more sustainable Temecula. The QLMP specifically identifies maintaining and enhancing the City’s tree canopy and urban forest as a strategic priority. The many ways in which trees make the community more sustainable are discussed throughout this UFMP, such as the ability to improve air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions; provide shade, cooler temperatures and conserve energy; improve water quality, capture stormwater, and reduce urban runoff; contribute to the beauty and comfort of parks, open space, natural habitat, and recreational areas; and implement low impact development concepts. 14 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION | Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan 7 CORE VALUES | ACCOUNTABLE & RESPONSIVE CITY GOVERNMENT An accountable and responsive City government is one that embodies a culture of leadership that is accessible to residents, businesses and employees; transparent in its decision making; committed to the effective and efficient delivery of services that the community values the most; and is a steward of the City’s human and fiscal resources. It also provides an opportunity for residents to be engaged and involved in their community. This UFMP analyzes Temecula’s urban forest program and its governance and provides recommendations for more efficiencies, funding, or expansion of the program. Additionally, the UFMP was development with community engagement at the forefront. The goal of this UFMP is to guide management of Temecula’s urban forest and ensure the urban forest program is sustainably financed. Success of the urban forest program is dependent on community stewardship, clear management and maintenance strategies, and financial support. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 15 Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan | INTRODUCTION 7 CORE VALUES | EQUITY The 2040 QLMP adds Equity as a seventh core value, and identifies an equitable community as one that listens with empathy, and understands with compassion, that different barriers impact the lives of its residents in a variety of ways. One measurement of equity, as it relates to the urban forest, is access to green space and trees. As discussed throughout this UFMP, trees provide multiple environmental and social benefits to a community, such as such as shade, cooler temperatures, improved air quality, improved stormwater quality, enhanced community character, mental and physical health benefits, and overall quality of life. This UFMP includes an analysis of canopy cover equity, compared to social, demographic, and pollution burden statistics. This UFMP identifies strategies to increase tree equity throughout Temecula by increasing canopy cover in areas where it is needed most. INTRODUCTION | Developing the Temecula Urban Forest Management Plan 16 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN DEVELOPING THE TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.4 DEVELOPING THE TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN The City of Temecula was awarded a grant from the CAL FIRE Prop 68 Fund Grants Urban and Community Forestry to complete the Temecula UFMP and Tree Inventory Update. The City’s Public Works Department and Park and Landscape Division are the main City entities that are responsible for overseeing the UFMP’s development and implementation, and provided key insights into City practices, coordination with internal and external stakeholders, and co-hosted community engagement events. The Park and Landscape Superintendent provided City standard documents, City plans, GIS data, and other data sets for analysis. The following sections present key findings of the urban forest analyses and community engagement activities and describes the process taken in developing the UFMP. 1 CAL FIRE Grant Awarded URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN OPTION A 2 Urban forest inventory and canopy analysis 3 Analysis of plans, policies, and ordinances 5 Draft UFMP, Technical Assessment, and Street Tree Master Plan 6 Public Review of Draft UFMP, Technical Assessment, and Street Tree Master Plan 4 Community engagement 7 Final UFMP, Technical Assessment, and Street Tree Master Plan CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 17 Developing the Temecula Urban Forest Management Plan | INTRODUCTION 18 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION | Key Findings 1.5.1 URBAN FOREST INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS Public Tree Inventory ArborPro Inc. conducted an inventory of City-managed trees between January 2021 and June 2021 that included collecting tree location and arboricultural attribute information of City- owned trees on public sidewalks, parkway strips, street medians, rights-of-way, parks, and other accessible City-owned property. The inventory was then analyzed by Dudek using sustainability metrics to determine the condition of trees and to understand what management practices will need to be improved to have the most meaningful impact on tree health and safety. Canopy Cover Analysis Dudek conducted an analysis of canopy cover for Temecula, which included trees on private and public property. Analysis of the City's tree canopy cover was conducted using high- resolution satellite imagery. The analysis provides insight into areas where trees are needed to give the most significant community benefit. The results of the analysis revealed that Temecula has 10.9% tree canopy cover. This canopy cover is relatively low. 30,715 CITY-OWNED TREES 87 % IMMATURE/YOUNG 1,796,073 GALLONS OF STORMWATER RUNOFF CAPTURE ANNUALLY 262 TONS OF CO2 SEQUESTERED ANNUALLY 9.33 TONS OF AIR POLLUTION REMOVAL ANNUALLY Public Tree Inventory 1.5 KEY FINDINGS CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 19 Urban Forest Inventory and Analysis | INTRODUCTION 18 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN However, the inventory analysis revealed that the majority of Temecula’s city-managed trees are young, indicating that canopy cover will increase in the City as these trees mature. It is important to note that total canopy cover in the City consists of approximately 1,928 acres of tree canopy, while the public tree inventory makes up 188 acres of the total tree canopy (Figure 3). Therefore, approximately 10% of canopy cover is city managed and the remaining 90% is on private property. Canopy Cover Acres Provided by Public vs Private Trees 2000 1000 500 1500 0 188 acres 1928 acres Public Private Trees Temecula’s city-wide canopy cover is approximately 11% Figure 3. Canopy Cover Acres Provided by Public vs Private Trees 20 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION | Key Findings 1.5.2 ANALYSIS OF CURRENT PRACTICES, PLANS, POLICIES, AND ORDINANCES A comprehensive review of the status of Temecula’s urban forestry program and related plans, policies, and ordinances provides a baseline for understanding the effectiveness of City tree management. This review included analyses of urban forest funding, staffing policy and procedure manuals, municipal plans and contracts, public education programs, tree ordinances, design guidelines, and long-range planning documents. Knowing and understanding the baseline conditions provides a guide for monitoring present achievements to compare to future urban forestry practices and goals. Funding and Staffing The City uses a combination of in-house staff from the Public Works Division and external contractors. The bulk of tree maintenance activities in Temecula is performed by external contractors. Tree pruning and trimming is the most frequent service conducted by contractors for Temecula’s city-managed trees and requires 75% of work time. The City desires to maintain park and median trees on a 3- to 4-year trim cycle but is unable to do so with current funding. City staff expressed that an additional $40,000 towards the park and median tree budget would be sufficient to increase tree trimming capacity. Contracted pruning costs for trees on slopes can be up to 3 or 4 times more expensive than pruning street trees. When comparing Temecula’s contract services budget to national averages, Temecula has a higher-than-average annual budget. City-managed trees in Temecula are primarily young and immature and therefore do not yet have the same maintenance needs as mature trees which are more costly (McPherson 2003). For these reasons, the City’s per tree spending of $18.62 currently provides an adequate level of funding to sustainably manage the City’s tree inventory. As the City’s trees age, their maintenance needs will increase, and the City’s maintenance funds will need to increase to ensure continued sustainable management. Policies and Ordinances Review of tree related ordinances and policies included review of Municipal Code chapters 8.48 Heritage Tree Ordinance, 8.49 Tree Care and Preservation, and 17.32, Water Efficiency and Landscape Design. The review process revealed that the City’s ordinances are in need of updating to align with ISA best management practices. An update of these ordinances has been included as part of the UFMP process. Planning The following planning documents were reviewed during the UFMP process: Quality of Life Master Plan, General Plan, Multi- use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, Uptown Temecula Specific Plan, and Temecula Best Management Practices Manual. These comprehensive planning documents contain many policies, goals, or actions that relate to trees. The UFMP directly supports implementation of these and provides updated information that should be incorporated as these plans are updated. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 21 Key Findings | INTRODUCTION 22 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION | Key Findings 1.5.3 DEPARTMENTAL AND STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS Stakeholders including City staff, elected officials, community leaders, and members of an HOA were interviewed to further inform the analysis. The City departments and stakeholders who participated in the UFMP interview process are noted in Table 2. Table 2. Stakeholder Interview Participants Department Interviewee Public Works Director Superintendent Senior Landscape Inspector Community Development Principal Planner Principal Planner Stormwater Development Manager Elected Officials Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Community Member Resident of Temecula Departmental and Stakeholder Interview Questions: • How do you envision Temecula’s urban forest in the next 40 years? • Do you have suggestions/thoughts for improving your department’s role regarding tree management? • Are existing policies considered appropriate for efficient tree management? • Are there specific locations that need to be prioritized for tree planting? • What are the biggest challenges facing the expansion of the urban forest? Gathering input from diverse groups illuminated the core values of the community and informed key development processes of the UFMP. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 23 Relation to the Quality-of-Life Master Plan | INTRODUCTION 22 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1.5.4 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Community outreach was a key step in the development process of the UFMP to understand and amplify the voices of Temecula’s community. Kicking off in the Spring of 2021, community members were engaged in outreach efforts that included the following activities and educational materials: • Online Temecula Tree Survey in English and Spanish (702 responses) • Educational pamphlets describing tree benefits and tree maintenance resources for homeowners, landscape professionals, and business owners • Temecula UFMP website, detailing project updates, educational materials, public meeting notifications, community resources, and the City’s tree inventory tree inventory • Online community meeting introducing the UFMP (1 virtual community meeting) • Presentations to City of Temecula department commission meetings (3 meetings) • Tabling at community events including the ‘Chilled in the Park’ holiday event, Old Town Farmers Market, and Vail Headquarters Farmers Market (5 pop up tabling events) • Social media outreach through the City of Temecula channels (e-newsletters, Instagram, Facebook, Twitter) • Local outreach and presentations to community-based organizations (CBOs) and nonprofits such as the Sierra Club, Temecula Valley Garden Club, and Kiwanis Club (3 CBOs engaged) • Arbor Day Tree Planting Event held on April 25, 2022 (Planted 300 trees in 3 parks with over 400 volunteers) • Urban Forest Summit (36 attendees) • Working Group (4 meetings, 8 members) OVER 1,000 community members were engaged during development of the CWPP through a public survey and in- person outreach events, plus many more through social media, the website, and other online platforms! 24 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION URBAN FOREST DATA 2 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 25 2.1 CANOPY COVER T ree canopy cover can have a positive impact on communities as it provides many environmental benefits and services (Figure 5), such as shade, cooler temperatures, improved air quality, improved stormwater quality, enhanced community character, improved mental and physical health, as well as an overall improved quality of life. A citywide canopy cover assessment was conducted for Temecula using satellite imagery and spatial analysis (see the technical assessment for methodology details). Figure 4 City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis, depicts the results of the canopy cover assessment. The canopy cover assessment revealed that Temecula has an existing canopy cover of approximately 11% (Table 3). Table 3. Land Cover Classification Land Cover Type Canopy Cover Assessment Acres Canopy Cover (%) Tree 1,928 10.9 Other Vegetation 4,159 23.5 Impervious Surfaces 8,194 46.3 Bare Ground 3,371 19.1 Water 36 0.2 Canopy cover refers to the layer of leaves, branches, and stems that provide tree coverage of the ground when viewed from above. 26 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN URBAN FOREST DATA | Canopy Cover Da t e : 9 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 1 - L a s t s a v e d b y : h m c o m b e r - P a t h : Z : \ P r o j e c t s \ j 1 3 0 4 7 0 1 \ M A P D O C \ D O C U M E N T \ T e m e c u l a T r e e C a n o p y A n a l y s i s _ R e s u l t s . m xd City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis Urban Forest Management Plan SOURCE: NAIP 2020 0 4,2002,100 Feet FIGURE 4 Temecula BlytheMurrieta BlytheCanyon Lake Coachella La Quinta IndianWellsHemet Hemet Rancho MirageNorco Desert HotSpringsBanning Jurupa Valley Imperial County Riverside County San Bernardino County San Diego County 395 95 18 71 247 60 74 94 91 241 54 206 195 56 330 2 115 173 67 243 177 58 138 38 76 79 98 86 111 78 78 215 10 15 5 15 40 405 8805 210 City of Temecula City of Temecula Urban Lands Land Cover Impervious (46.32 %) Bare Ground (19.06 %) Low Vegetation (23.51 %) Tree/Canopy (10.90 %) Water (0.21%) Figure 4. City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 27 Canopy Cover | URBAN FOREST DATA DATA 2.2 INCREASING CANOPY COVER Table 4 below presents the total number of new trees that would need to be planted each year over the next 40 years to increase canopy cover. For example, planting 937 trees with a potential 50-foot canopy spread per year over the next 40 years would put the City on track to achieve a 20% Citywide canopy cover. In reality, it is anticipated that the City would plant a combination of various tree sizes over the next 40 years. The planting calculations presented indicate the number of trees with 20-, 35-, 50- or 75-foot canopy spread that would be needed, if the City planted all trees from one size category. In reality, it is anticipated that the City would plant a combination of various tree sizes, which can be tracked and monitored to determine progress toward reaching canopy cover goals. Prioritizing areas of with low canopy cover and available planting locations will help to develop an equitable canopy cover for those communities in most need of trees. Goal for Temecula citywide to be achieved over the next 40 years CANOPY COVER20% 28 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN URBAN FOREST DATA | Increasing Canopy Cover Table 4 presents the total number of new trees that would need to be planted to increase canopy cover above the existing 11% canopy cover. Table 4. Total Number of Trees Needed to Increase Canopy Cover Above 11% Total Canopy (%) Total Number of Trees by Canopy Spread 20 feet 35 feet 50 feet 75 feet 12 26,949 8,796 4,311 1,915 15 100,563 32,824 16,086 7,147 18 174,177 56,852 27,861 12,379 19 198,716 64,861 31,786 14,123 20 223,254 72,871 35,711 15,867 25 345,944 112,917 55,337 24,587 Note: Darker green highlighting indicates the Citywide canopy cover goal of 20%. Table 5 presents the total number of trees needed to plant per year for the next 40 years to increase canopy cover above the existing 11% canopy cover. Table 5. Total Number of Trees Needed to Plant per Year for 40 Years to Increase Canopy Cover Total Canopy (%) Total Number of Trees by Canopy Spread 20 feet 35 feet 50 feet 75 feet 12 707 231 113 50 15 2,640 862 422 188 18 4,572 1,492 731 325 19 5,216 1,703 834 371 20 5,860 1,913 937 417 25 9,081 2,964 1,453 645 Notes: A 5% mortality rate has been added to the planting scenarios presented in this table. Green highlighting indicates the Citywide canopy cover goal of 20%. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 29 Increasing Canopy Cover | URBAN FOREST DATA Figure 5. The Benefits of Trees 30 | URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN URBAN FOREST DATA Implementing a tree planting strategy to achieve a 20% citywide canopy cover goal would also contribute to reaching greenhouse gas reduction goals established in the Climate Action Plan. CAL FIRE has developed a method for estimating the carbon storage potential of a tree planting project over a 40-year timeframe that is required for all California Climate Investment Act grant applications. Using this method, and with an assumption of planting 36,000 trees that are an equal mix of small, medium, and large stature, the City has the potential to sequester approximately 91,000 tons of carbon over a 40-year period. 36,000 TREES over the next 40 years toward the City’s 20% canopy goal has the potential to sequester approximately 91,000 tons of carbon! Planting CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 31 Canopy Equity | URBAN FOREST DATA 2.3 CANOPY EQUITY The technical assessment includes a breakdown of canopy cover by land use type, parks, council districts, and schools, as well as an analysis of tree equity using CalEnviroScreen data, American Forests tree equity scoring tool, and city data, to guide the City in identifying priority and opportunity areas for tree planting efforts and increasing canopy cover. Findings from the canopy analysis and equity analysis revealed the following:. • Census tract 6065051200 has the highest CalEnviroScreen score (65%) and one of the lowest canopy cover percentages (4.6%). Approximately 3% of Temecula’s residents live in this census tract, and approximately 61% of the population of this census tract are people of color. • Census block groups with the lowest Tree Equity Scores are 60650512002 and 60650512001 (both located with census tract 6065051200, which as the highest pollution burden/CalEnviroScreen score). • Eight census tracts have the highest concentrations of urban heat islands: 606504324, 6065051200, 6065043244, 6065043217, 6065043256, 6065043250, 6065049600,6065043222. • Parks (non-Sports Parks) with the lowest canopy cover include Skyview Park, John Magee Park Harveston Community Park, Voorburg Park, Long Canyon Creek Park, Michael “Mike” Naggar Community Park, Wolf Creek Park, Veteran’s Park, all of which have a canopy cover less than 10%. • Schools with the lowest canopy cover include Temecula Christian School, Great Oak High School, Chaparral High School, Vail Ranch Middle School, Rancho Christian School, Temecula Valley High School, Erle Stanley Gardner Middle School, Crowne Hill Elementary School, Luiseño Elementary School, Temecula Middle School, Rancho Elementary School, and Vintage Hills Elementary School, all of which have a canopy cover less than 5%. • Vineyards/Agricultural, Tribal Trust Lands, Specific Plan, and Commercial land use types have the lowest canopy cover URBAN FOREST DATA 2.4 PRIORITY AND OPPORTUNITY AREAS The Priority Planting Score (PPS) prioritizes where the City should focus tree planting efforts by census tract for a more equitably distributed canopy cover, presented in Figure 6. The study area for developing the PPS was limited to the canopy analysis study area. A higher PPS indicates a higher priority for focused tree planting efforts. PPS considers current canopy cover, distribution of land use type, total recorded City-managed vacant planting sites, pollution burden and equity, and relative population and acreage. The PPS multiplies a canopy gap index by a priority equity index for each census tract to calculate the relative tree planting needs within the study area. A canopy goal is Low canopy cover in multiple parks and schools present an opportunity to increase canopy cover through partnerships with the school district, volunteer groups, and community organizations. 32 | URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 33 Priority and Opportunity Areas | URBAN FOREST DATA Planting Pr iority Score 50 to 60 40 to 50 30 to 40 20 to 30 10 to 20 0 to 10 Figure 6. Priority Planting Score by Census Tract calculated for each census tract based on the current canopy as well as distribution of land use types and vacant planting sites relative to other census tracts. The canopy gap index is then calculated based on the difference between the current canopy and the goal for each census tract. The canopy gap index is a number between 0 and 100, with a higher number indicating a greater gap between the current canopy cover and the goal. A priority equity index is calculated for each census tract based on CalEnviroScreen, an equity-focused metric of pollution vulnerability and burden, and relative population and acreage sizes. The priority equity index is a number between 0 and 1, with a higher number indicating a higher need for trees based on equity metrics. 34 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 3 STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 35 Environmental Services/Economic Benefits | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/ECONOMIC BENEFITS Temecula’s tree inventory provides the annual environmental services and benefits presented in Table 6. Table 6. Annual Environmental Services and Benefits Provided by City-Managed Trees Service Annual Environmental Benefit Annual Environmental Impact Annual Economic Value Carbon Sequestration (carbon dioxide removed from air by trees)262 tons The carbon removed from the City’s air by the urban forest is equivalent to an average passenger vehicle driving 589,977 miles. $44,800 Avoided Runoff (rainwater diverted from stormwater management system by trees)1,796,073 gallons This benefit is equivalent to the average annual water usage of 16 American homes.$16,000 Air Pollution Removal (ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns) 9.33 tons The pollution removed by the City’s tree inventory is equivalent to the carbon dioxide emissions of 9,365 pounds of burned coal. $55,500 Sources: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and i-Tree Analysis (USFS 2020). Table 7 presents Temecula’s tree inventory financial value. Table 7. Financial Value of City-Managed Trees Value Description Asset Amount Per-Tree Value Carbon Storage (7,546 Tons)Amount of carbon held in trees $1,290,000 $42.00 Structural Tree replacement cost $86.9 million $2,892.24 Functional Value based on the services trees perform $116,300 $2.46 Sources: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and i-Tree Analysis (USFS 2020). 36 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Species Diversity Summary 3.2 SPECIES DIVERSITY SUMMARY Temecula’s tree inventory consists of 30,715 trees, composed of 36 families, 89 genera, and 170 species, with 1,859 stumps and 3,691 vacant sites. The top 10 families in Temecula’s tree inventory are shown in Table 8. Figures 7 and 8 on the following pages depict the top 10 genera and top 10 species in the Temecula tree inventory, respectively. Table 8. Top 10 Tree Families in the City Inventory Family Diversity Sustainability Goal: No Family Represents More Than 20% of the Inventory Rank Family Number of Trees % of Inventory 1 Pinaceae 5,433 18 2 Platanaceae 4,553 15 3 Anacardiaceae 2,981 10 4 Lythraceae 2,677 9 5 Myrtaceae 2,351 8 6 Sapindaceae 1,688 5 7 Rosaceae 1,573 5 8 Fabaceae 1,533 5 9 Fagaceae 1,366 4 10 Hamamelidaceae 995 3 Total 25,150 82 Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021). CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 37 Species Diversity Summary | STATUS OF THE URBAN FORESTA 38 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TOP 10 Genera in the City Inventory 1. Pinus 2. Platanus 3. Lagerstroemia 4. Eucalyptus 5. Koelreuteria 6. Quercus 7. Pistacia 8. Pyrus 9. Liquidambar 10. Schinus 17% 4% 15% 4% 9% 4% 6% 3% 5% 3% Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021). Meets Goal Does Not Meet GoalSustainability Goal: No genus represents greater than 10% of Inventory STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Top Ten Genera Genus Diversity Figure 7. Top 10 Genera in the City Inventory CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 39CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 39 Top Ten Species | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021). 1. Mondell pine Pinus eldarica 6. Chinese flame tree Koelreuteria bipinnata 2. London plane Platanus x hispanica 7. American sweet gum Liquidambar styraciflua 3. Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica 8. California sycamore Platanus racemosa 4. Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis 9. California pepper Schinus molle 5. Red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 10. Camphor Cinnamomum camphora 12% 3% 12% 3% 9% 3% 4% 3% 4% 3% Meets Goal Does Not Meet Goal TOP 10 Species in the City Inventory Sustainability Goal: No species represents greater than 5% of Inventory STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Top Ten GeneraSpecies Diversity Figure 8. Top 10 Species in the City Inventory 40 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Species Diversity Summary Table 9. Tree Species in the City Inventory that are Predicted to be Heat or Water Sensitive Botanical Name Common Name Number of Trees Platanus x hispanica London plane 3,644 Lagerstroemia indica Crape myrtle 2,666 Platanus racemosa California sycamore 882 Liquidambar styraciflua American sweetgum 781 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese elm 584 Magnolia grandiflora Southern magnolia 538 Brachychiton populneus Kurrajong 365 Prunus cerasifera Purple-leaf plum 311 Koelreuteria paniculata Goldenrain tree 307 Populus fremontii Fremont poplar 195 Pyrus calleryana Bradford pear 172 Gleditsia triacanthos Thornless honey locust 207 Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda 131 Betula pendula European white birch 79 Cedrus deodara Deodar cedar 74 Botanical Name Common Name Number of Trees Morus alba White mulberry 66 Fraxinus uhdei Evergreen ash 64 Quercus rubra Red oak 59 Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair tree 48 Prunus cerasifera Cherry plum 12 Cercis canadensis Eastern redbud 27 Corymbia citriodora Lemon-scented gum 19 Lophostemon confertus Brisbane box 19 Cercis occidentalis Common hackberry 15 Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip tree 7 Sequoia sempervirens Coast redwood 7 Acer saccharinum Sugar maple 6 Pinus radiata Monterrey pine 4 Total number of trees 11,289 % of inventory 37 HEATHEAT & WATERWATER Temecula has 28 species in its inventory that are predicted to be heat and/or water sensitive in the future (Table 9).28 \11,289SpeciesTrees CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 41 Diameter at Standard Height Distribution Summary | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST 3.3 DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY The age distribution of Temecula’s tree inventory can be estimated by examining trees diameter at standard height. Temecula’s diameter at standard height distribution is presented in Figure 9. Based on urban forestry research (Richards 1983), there are more young trees, and fewer immature, middle-aged, and mature trees than are recommended to maintain a sustainable urban forest. This age distribution reflects an urban forest that was relatively recently planted, which is consistent with the age and development of the City. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Mature Middle Aged Young Immature Recommended age distribution of trees. 25+ in 6 in 7-18 in 19-24 in Age Distribution of the Temecula Tree Inventory 28%59% 9% 4% 60% Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021); Richards 1983. Figure 9. Diameter at Standard Height Distribution DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION 42 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Condition 3.4 TREE CONDITION The health composition of Temecula’s tree inventory is presented in Table 10. Table 10. Tree Condition Ratings of the City Inventory Condition Number of Trees % of 2021 Inventory Excellent 8 0.04 Very good 10 0.05 Good 11,433 53.33 Fair 8,151 38.02 Poor 1,719 8.02 Dead 117 0.55 Total*21,438 100 Source: City of Temecula Inventory (City of Temecula 2021). Note: *Approximately 9,277 trees from a previous inventory were combined with the 2021 inventory but were not assessed for tree condition. As such, these trees are excluded from the table. OVER 50% of Temecula’s inventoried trees are rated as good condition or better CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 43 Relative Performance Index Summary | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST 42 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.5 RELATIVE PERFORMANCE INDEX SUMMARY The relative performance index (RPI) identifies which species are doing well and which many be having issues. Trees with an RPI of 1.0 or higher are performing as well or better than the average tree in the inventory. The RPIs of the top 10 species in Temecula’s inventory are shown in Table 11. Table 11. Relative Performance Index of the Top 10 Species in the Inventory Relative Performance Index (RPI) Goal: Top 6 Species Have an RPI Score of 1.0 or Higher Rank Botanical name Common name RPI City Inventory 0.53 1 Pinus eldarica Mondell pine 1.1 2 Platanus x hispanica London plane 0.91 3 Lagerstroemia indica Crape myrtle 1.43 4 Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache 1.21 5 Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red ironbark 0.48 6 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese flame tree 0.84 7 Liquidambar styraciflua American sweet gum 0.36 8 Platanus racemosa California sycamore 0.78 9 Schinus molle California pepper 0.95 10 Cinnamomum camphora Camphor 0.97 Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and I-Tree (USFS 2020). Note: Approximately 9,277 trees were not assigned a condition in the inventory (30.20%). As such, these trees were excluded from the RPI analysis. Sustainability Goal:Meets Goal Does Not Meet Goal 3.6 IMPORTANCE VALUES SUMMARY The importance value of tree species combines the percentage of the species in the population of City-owned trees with its corresponding percentage of leaf area. The top 10 species with the highest importance values are shown in Table 12. Table 12. Ten Species with the Highest Importance Values in the City’s Inventory Botanical name Common Name Importance Value Pinus eldarica Mondell pine 27.9 Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red ironbark 22.4 Platanus x hispanica London plane 22.1 Lagerstroemia indica Crape myrtle 9.6 Platanus racemosa California sycamore 7.3 Pyrus calleryana Callery pear 6.6 Acacia stenophylla Shoestring acacia 6.1 Schinus mole California pepper 6.0 Pinus canariensis Canary Island pine 5.8 Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache 5.7 Source: City of Temecula Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and i-Tree (USFS 2020). 44 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Importance Values Summary 44 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 3.7 STREET TREE MASTER PLAN The street tree master plan was created to consider diversity standards and parkway sizes to provide recommended trees to be planted in the 5 council district areas. A palette of 10 tree species was created for each council district, offering a range of parkway sizes tailored to the vacant sites in each council district. The tree species selected were determined by Temecula’s current tree inventory, ensuring that a single species was not overrepresented as well as the overall performance in Temecula’s environment. The street tree master plan provides a detailed guideline for planting and tree care management in the City’s future initiatives toward the urban forest. The street tree master plan is presented in the Street Tree Master Plan companion document. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 45 Street Tree Master Plan | URBAN FOREST DATA 46 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Budget and Funding 3.8 CITY MANAGEMENT OF THE TREE PROGRAM 3.8.1 BUDGET AND FUNDING The City annual budget related to tree management between FY 16/17 and FY 20/21 is shown in Table 13. Table 13. City of Temecula Annual Tree Management Budget 2016–2021 Budget Line Items FY 16/17 FY 17/18 FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 Average Contractor Services Budget Street/Right-of-Way Trees $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Parks and Median Trees $60,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $76,000 City Facility Trees $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 City Trees on Slopes $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 Total Contractor Services Budget $480,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $496,000 City Staff Salary Budget* Maintenance Superintendent $20,300 $20,300 $20,300 $20,300 $20,300 $20,300 Senior Landscape Inspector $30,700 $30,700 $30,700 $30,700 $30,700 $30,700 Landscape Inspector II $25,100 $25,100 $25,100 $25,100 $25,100 $25,100 Total City Staff Salary Budget $76,100 $76,100 $76,100 $76,100 $76,100 $76,100 Total (Contractor Services Budget + City Staff Salary Budget)$556,100 $576,100 $576,100 $576,100 $576,100 $572,100 Note: *Annual staff salaries are calculated based on the percentage of time overseeing all landscape and tree maintenance throughout the city. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 47 Budget and Funding | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST Table 14 shows the estimated increases needed for contractor funding to achieve best management practices as Temecula’s immature and young tree inventory matures. Additionally, annual increases in funding are needed to achieve best management practices, as contractor fees continue to increase. In addition to pursuing grant funding, the City will need to allocate additional funds to tree management to reach these funding targets. Table 14. Estimated Contractor Funding Needed to Achieve Best Management Practices Best Management Practice (BMP) Current Funding Funding Needed to Achieve BMPs Tree Planting –100% Stocking $4,800 $34,905 3-Years Establishment Care $0 $118,590 3-4 Year Pruning Cycle $465,200 $580,200 Tree and Stump Removal $10,000 $10,000 Totals $480,000 $743,695 Annual Funding Increases* Fiscal Year 2024-2025 $480,000 $788,316 Fiscal Year 2025-2026 $480,000 $835,615 Fiscal Year 2026-2027 $480,000 $885,752 Fiscal Year 2027-2028 $480,000 $938,897 Note: * Annual funding increase is based on a 6% annual increase in contractor fees Figure 10 shows funding sources that contribute to the City’s urban forest budget. 50% ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 40% GENERAL FUND 10% ROAD USE TAX FUNDING Figure 10. Temecula’s Urban Forest Funding Sources 48 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST | Staffing and Contractors 3.8.2 STAFFING AND CONTRACTORS The City uses a combination of in-house staff from the Public Works Park Division to oversee and external contractors tree maintenance city wide. Table 15 shows the City of Temecula tree-related in-house staff positions. Table 15. Temecula Tree-Related In-House Staff Positions Type Number of Positions Number of FTEs Management Director/Supervisor 1 0.10 Senior Landscape Inspector 1 0.2 Field Inspector 1 0.2 Total 3 0.50 Note: FTE = Full-Time Equivalent. 75% TREE PRUNING& TRIMMING $$ $ Figure 11. Contractor’s Allocated Time Spent on Tree Activities Figure 11 shows the distribution of tree maintenance activities performed by contractors. Figure 12 depicts the organizational chart for all city staff and departments that play a role in tree maintenance and operations. 1% TREE PLANTING 24% TREE AND STUMPREMOVAL MAINTENANCEALLOCATION CITYWIDE TREE MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS TREE REMOVAL REQUEST/APPEALS Community Service Park and Recreation Commission URBAN FOREST TREE PLANTING PROGRAMS Stacy Fox PW Parks Superintendent City Arborist Tracy Courts Community Services Coordinator Figure 12. Organizational Chart Staffing and Contractors | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 49 PUBLIC WORKS Patrick Thomas Director of Public Works, Rodney Tidwell PW Operations Manager, Stacy Fox PW Parks Superintendent / City Arborist Mariposa Tree Management Citywide Tree Trimming Maintenance Services Contractor LAND DEVELOPMENT Ron Moreno Principle Engineer Annie Bostre-Le Development Manager CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS Amer Attar Engineering Manager Nick Minicilli Senior Traffic Engineer PLANNING Luke Watson Director of Community Development Stuart Fisk / Matt Peters Planning Manager 50 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN URBAN FOREST DATA | Annual Service Data 3.8.3 ANNUAL SERVICE DATA Table 16. Annual Service Data Tree Planting Establishment Care Tree Pruning Tree Removal Urban Wood Reuse Right-of-Way Tree Replacement Program, Remembrance Tree Planting Program Newly planted trees in the ROW are receive establishment care by the adjacent homeowner Annual aesthetic and clearance pruning Approximately 100 trees and stumps are removed per year City tree trimming materials are mulched, 5k–10k yards per year Typically, 5–10 trees are planted annually to replace removals Care is inconsistent and irrigation not always provided; a watering agreement would be helpful Approximately 1,000 trees are pruned per year Tree removals are due to diseased, damaged, poor location, or other hazards Wood mulch is recycled into city parks and median landscapes Special events such as Arbor Day may result in high volume tree planting by volunteers The City does not have a formal establishment care program Estimated pruning cycle of 3–5 years, depending on tree species Removed tree and stump locations are identified for replacement trees Wood mulch helps regulate soil temperature and retains moisture 3.8.4 TREE RESPONSIBILITY Staff interviews identified confusion over maintenance responsibility regarding street trees planted in parkway strip, rights-of- way, and private property front yards. The following graphic (Figure 13) depicts tree responsibility along an average street in Temecula. For trees within HOAs or other special cases, tree responsibility should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 51 Annual Service Data | STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST PP par k w a y sid e w a l k City CC CC SS PP PP PPSS Right-of-Way Right-of-Way Tree Responsibility Pruning and Watering P = Private Property — The property owner's responsibility for watering and pruning. C = City Property — The City's responsibility for watering and pruning. S = Shared Right-of-way—Shared City and Property Owner Responsibility* * Trees planted on private property within any easement retained by the city on a public street are added to the City's pruning cycle. Property owners provide regular watering, care and maintenance, and may request an encroachment permit from the City to prune these trees. n Property Owner Responsibility n City Responsibility Figure 13. Tree responsibility along average streets PP 52 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 53 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Community engagement occurred throughout the UFMP process, including in-person and virtual outreach activities. In-person activities included an interactive booth at six public events and the Temecula Urban Forest Summit held in March 2022. Virtual outreach took place via video conference interviews with City staff, a virtual community meeting, social media campaigns, e-newsletters, a public survey, presentations about the UFMP to local organizations, and monthly working group meetings with key stakeholders. 4.1 COMMUNITY TABLING EVENTS The consultant team, in collaboration with the City, tabled at five community events, from December 2021 through March 2022. Tabling events included interactive boards used to gather information and perspectives from participants, handouts providing information about Temecula’s urban forest, and flyers promoting the urban forest summit event and public survey, and hard copies of the Temecula tree survey. 54 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT | Working Group 4.2 WORKING GROUP The City’s UFMP working group was formed to bring together key personnel heavily involved in the urban forest program to help advise the UFMP’s developmental process. A list of the Working Group members is included in Table 17. Four working group meetings were held between February 2022 and January 2023, facilitated by Dudek. During the working group meetings, members generated a draft UFMP vision statement, played an integral role in developing the guiding principles, goals, and strategies that are discussed throughout the UFMP, and reviewed the draft of the UFMP. Each working group member brought a unique perspective to the group, providing the context for City policy, regulatory perspectives, community challenges, and safety considerations. Table 17. Temecula’s Urban Forest Master Plan Working Group Members Name City Department Title Stacy Fox Public Works Parks Maintenance Superintendent Patrick Thomas Public Works Director of Public Works/City Engineer Matt Hayes Fire Temecula Fire Captain Nicole Flores Risk Risk Management Analyst Tom Cole Code Enforcement Field Supervisor Code Enforcement Kathy Sizemore Community Services Chair, Community Services Commissioner Abigail Srader California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Urban Forester Mark Collins Planning Temecula Planner CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 55 Public Survey | COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4.3 PUBLIC SURVEY An online bilingual survey was created to identify the public’s perception and understanding of the City’s trees, and to offer an open forum for public feedback as the City developed its UFMP. The 19-question survey was open between February 2021 and April 2022 and was disseminated through various outreach outlets, such as social media posts, e-newsletters, farmers markets, community events, and the Urban Forest Summit. In total, 702 survey responses were recorded, including 688 English respondents and 14 Spanish respondents. The results of the survey are summarized in Table 18 below. Table 18. Summary of Online Survey Responses Topic Responses Trees as a City asset • 97% view trees as a valuable community asset that contribute to the quality of life in Temecula • 75% view trees as more important than or equally as important as other City-maintained infrastructure • 67% believe City-maintained trees are in good or excellent condition Priorities, benefits, and challenges • 24% believe that maintaining existing trees is the top priority of the Temecula Urban Forest Management Plan • 28% believe improving the environment (i.e., air quality, storing carbon) is the most important benefit trees provide in Temecula • 24% are reluctant to plant trees due to damage to sewer pipes/sidewalks 97% of survey respondents view trees as a valuable community asset that contribute to the quality of life in Temecula 56 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT | Public Survey Topic Responses Opinions on tree protection ordinances • 66% agree that the City should have ordinances to protect trees on private property in the same way they protect trees in the public space Cost of tree-related maintenance/repairs • 32% have had no expenses related to preventative tree care or maintenance over the past 5 years • 24% have spent $100–$499 on expenses related to preventative tree care or maintenance over the past 5 years Opportunities for community involvement • 32% are willing to plant a tree on their private property • 30% are willing to participate in a community tree planting event Trees on private property • 48% believe the City should provide “How-To” information on planting, watering, and trimming • 45% believe the City should provide financial support for tree trimming Additional comments/ open forum • 9% believe a free shade/fruit tree citywide program would be the most effective way to increase canopy on private property • 6% would like to see a more diverse variety of tree species planted throughout the city while including native trees where feasible • 6% would like educational materials about the urban forest that are easy to comprehend and accessible to all community members 48% of survey respondents believe the City should provide “How-To” information on planting, watering, and trimming CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 57 Working Group | COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 4.4 URBAN FOREST SUMMIT The Temecula Urban Forest Summit was a 2.5-hour community event held at the Temecula Conference Center on March 16, 2022. The summit event served as an open forum for community members to share their thoughts about the opportunities, challenges, and ideas relating to Temecula’s trees through interactive activities and group discussions. The summit provided community members with a formal introduction to the UFMP, preliminary inventory and survey data analysis, and opportunities to stay involved with the City’s urban forest. The summit was an engaging event for all in attendance and included food, refreshments, prizes, and goodie bags. 58 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT | Public Survey 4.4.1 URBAN FOREST SUMMIT RESULTS General themes about the status of the urban forest were identified by the consultant team and working group volunteers and were used to create the vision statement and goals of the UFMP. Community members were led through guided idea- generating exercises to identify critical successes, barriers, and desires for the City’s urban forest. Tables 19 and 20 show the ideas and opinions shared by attendees. Table 19. Vision Statement Results What words/phrases describe Temecula’s urban forest What do you value most about living in Temecula? • Variety of tree species • Shade corridors • Dense, forested areas • Peaceful sanctuary • Native tree gardens • Food providing • Model urban forest • Serving wildlife habitat • Hilly terrain and beauty • Open spaces • Family oriented • Small town charm • Walkability • Safety • Growing ethnic diversity • Green belts and mountains CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 59 Public Survey | COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Table 20. Group Discussion Activity Themes How do we get more residents involved with the urban forest? How can we help preserve/ maintain the existing urban forest? How can we get more trees planted on non-city-owned property? • Monthly tabling at farmers markets/community events • Incorporate tree education in school curriculums • City-sponsored tree training workshops and classes • Involve homeowners association management to be on the same page as the City to achieve canopy cover goals • Create and promote a citywide drought-tolerant tree species palette for homeowners • Develop canopy cover goals that Temecula residents are made aware of • Enforce the following: protection of heritage trees, tree replacement requirements, and violations/ penalties of illegal tree removal • Provide a breakdown of tree maintenance costs to homeowners to encourage them to invest/take care of trees • Hire more city staff involved in the urban forest program • Citywide campaigns: drought tolerant trees in Temecula • Provide financial incentives for more trees (i.e., contests, giveaways, rebate programs) • Free fruit/shade tree programs • Install community tree information boards in parks/ trailheads • Revive Remembrance Tree Program • Seek more grant opportunities for City and park tree planting/care 60 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TREE PLANTING 4.5 ARBOR DAY TREE PLANTING EVENT Dudek assisted the City with an Arbor Day tree planting event held on April 23, 2022. Approximately 400 volunteers were engaged and 300 trees planted in Vail Ranch Park, Sunset Park, Redhawk Community Park, Mike Naggar Park and Murrieta Creek Trail along Diaz Road. April 23, 2022 Saturday | 9:00 am Vail Ranch Park TemeculaCA.gov/TCSD @TemeculaParksAndRec Join us as we celebrate A r b o r D a y ! T h i s y e a r m a r k s t h e 1 5 0 t h a n n i v e r s a r y o f t h e t r e e p l a n t e r ’ s holiday and we’re excited t o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e C i t y ’ s u r b a n f o r e s t b y p l a n t i n g m o r e t r e e s i n h o n o r of this special day. Enjoy l i g h t r e f r e s h m e n t s a n d a p l a n t - r e l a t e d c r a f t t o t a k e h o m e . For information about th e C i t y o f T e m e c u l a ’ s U r b a n F o r e s t M a n a g e m e n t P l a n , please visit TemeculaCA. g o v / T r e e s CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 61 Urban Forest Summit | COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 60 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 400 volunteers planted 300 trees in April 2022! 62 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION STRATEGIC PLAN 5 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 63 Vision Statement | STRATEGIC PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 63 Temecula will preserve and expand a sustainable urban forest that embraces our shared history and enhances the quality of life by improving the health, safety, connectivity, economy, and resilience of our community. 5.1 VISION STATEMENT 64 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN STRATEGIC PLAN | Strategic Plan 5.2 STRATEGIC PLAN Guiding Principle Strategy A welcoming and equitable City The urban forest is a vital component of our community character and is equitably distributed to create inviting spaces throughout Temecula. Healthy, safe, and connected neighborhoods Parks, trails, pathways, and open spaces will have an abundance of trees contributing to the safety and connectivity of our community. Sustainable and resilient urban forest A thriving urban forest that will result in reduced urban heat islands, increased energy efficiency, resilience to pests and diseases, and landscapes that conserve water. Enhance the quality of life and the environment The quality of life in Temecula and its environs is further enhanced by the benefits and services of our urban forest. Preserve mature and historic trees Heritage trees are protected for their significant environmental and historic value. Balance nature and development Trees are included in the beginning of the planning process to provide landscaped settings and habitat, maximize environmental benefits, and reduce infrastructure conflicts. Sufficient resources and funding The urban forest will be sustainably managed through financial investment and staffing. Expand canopy cover Existing trees will be maintained, and new trees will be strategically planted to increase canopy cover equitably across Temecula and to ensure no net loss of canopy cover. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 65 Guiding Principles | STRATEGIC PLAN 5.3GUIDING PRINCIPLES GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 1: A Welcoming and Equitable City STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame The urban forest is a vital component of our community character and is equitably distributed to create inviting spaces throughout Temecula. 1A Explore opportunities for hosting community tree planting events to involve and educate community members in tree planting. Partner with community groups for volunteers. Ongoing 1B Prioritize tree plantings in land uses and communities with low canopy cover. Ongoing 1C Continue outreach efforts to underrepresented populations. Ongoing 1D Explore opportunities to plant trees in public spaces to create tree- dense gathering spaces.Medium/Ongoing 1E Fill all vacant planting sites and identify new planting sites, especially street trees to create tree-lined streets throughout Temecula. Medium 1F Maintain the “Tree City USA” designation.Ongoing 1G Continue to celebrate Arbor Day with community events and tree plantings.Ongoing 66 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN STRATEGIC PLAN | Guiding Principles GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 2: Healthy, Safe, and Connected Neighborhood STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame Parks, trails, pathways, and open spaces will have an abundance of trees contributing to the safety and connectivity of our community. 2A Ensure active transportation routes are densely planted to increase safety and shade along these routes. Medium–Long 2B Identify safe routes to school, bicycle routes, walking trails, routes to parks and recreational areas for tree planting.Short 2C Plant street trees according to the street tree master plan and Recommended Species List.Ongoing 2D Identify streets where trees are lacking and pursue tree planting opportunities along these routes, beginning with areas identified by community members during public input, which include Winchester Road, Nicolas Road, Pechanga Parkway, Temecula Parkway, Pauba Road, and in public rights-of-way within residential communities. Medium 2E Plant trees in Temecula’s parks, prioritizing those with low Priority Planting Scores per Table 4-11 in the technical assessment. Medium CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 67 Guiding Principles | STRATEGIC PLAN GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 3: Sustainable and Resilient Urban Forest STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame A thriving urban forest prepared to achieve outcomes of the City Climate Action Plan will result in reduced urban heat islands, increased energy efficiency, resilience to pests and diseases, and landscapes that conserve water. 3A Develop a system to track and monitor tree plantings and calculate greenhouse gas reduction attributed to tree plantings. Medium 3B Update the City of Temecula Tree Policy and standard details to incorporate the recommendations in Section 1.2.1 of the technical assessment. Short 3C Implement phased removal and replacement of undesirable species. As trees age and require replacement, replace with appropriate species identified by the street tree master plan and Recommended Species List. Ongoing 3D Plant trees in City-maintained vacant planting sites at a rate of 179 trees per year over the next 20 years (see Table 1-6 of the technical assessment). Ongoing 3E Implement a formative pruning program for young and newly planted trees to mitigate potential tree structure and safety issues. Short 3F Explore partnerships for developing an urban wood reuse program, such as programs for tree removal and milling to turn removed trees into useable lumber, or promote the use of on-demand mulch drop programs. Medium 3G Adopt the Street Tree Master Plan and Recommended Species List (Appendix A) as the guiding standard for street tree selection.. Short 3H Monitor trees rated as poor or dead in the City’s tree inventory to determine appropriate management actions.Short 68 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN STRATEGIC PLAN | Guiding Principles GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 4: Enhance the Quality of Life and the Environment STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame The quality of life in Temecula and its environs is further enhanced by the benefits and services of our urban forest. 4A Provide guidance and educational materials to property owners regarding responsibility for maintaining trees in the public right-of- way and how to properly care for and water trees. Short 4B Develop guidelines and educational materials for planting and siting of trees to reduce energy costs in support of the General Plan Air Quality Element. Short 4C Develop an “Adopt a Tree” program to increase stewardship of trees on public and private property. Medium CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 69 Guiding Principles | STRATEGIC PLAN GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 5: Preserve Mature and Historic Trees STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame Heritage trees are protected for their significant environmental and historic value. 5A Update the Chapter 8.48 Heritage Tree Ordinance per Table 2-2 of the technical assessment.Short 5B Create a performance bond requirement for replacement trees to ensure long-term successful establishment of replacement trees.Medium 5C Create a map that identifies the heritage trees throughout the City.Medium 5D Develop a program to increase funding for ongoing maintenance of heritage trees, similar to an “Adopt a Tree” program.Medium 70 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN STRATEGIC PLAN | Guiding Principles GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 6: Balance Nature and Development STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame Trees are included in the beginning of the planning process to provide landscaped settings and habitat, maximize environmental benefits, and reduce infrastructure conflicts. 6A Update Municipal Code Chapter 8.49 Tree Care and Preservation per recommendations in Table 2-1 of the technical assessment. Include requirements and guidelines for tree protection during construction. Short 6B Update Municipal Code Chapter 17.32 Water Efficiency and Landscape Design per Table 2-3 of the technical assessment.Short 6C Update the Municipal Code and the General Plan to identify “landmark” trees that warrant special protections, per the Open Space Element of the General Plan. Medium 6D Update the Citywide Design Guidelines to reflect the urban forest management plan recommendations and street tree master plan/Recommended Tree Species List, which identify planter space requirements, utility compatibility, and tree spacing needs that vary by species. Medium 6E Update Municipal Code Section 17.24.505.H and the Citywide Design Guidelines to include more prescriptive requirements for parking lot trees and planter space. Medium 6F Update Municipal Code Section 17.22 to ensure minimum tree planting requirements are established for all Planned Development Overlay Zoning Districts (PDOs). Plant palette proposed for PDOs should be updated according to the Recommended Species List and the street tree master plan. Medium CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 71 Guiding Principles | STRATEGIC PLAN GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 6: Balance Nature and Development STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame Trees are included in the beginning of the planning process to provide landscaped settings and habitat, maximize environmental benefits, and reduce infrastructure conflicts 6G Update the Bikeways and Trails Master Plan to include guidelines for planting trees to increase bicyclist and pedestrian safety, as well as to 6reflect standard arboriculture practice to measure trees by diameter at standard height, which is measured at 4.5 feet above the ground, for a more accurate depiction of tree size and maturity. This guideline should also be updated to reflect the Municipal Code definition of a protected tree, or heritage tree. Medium 6H Update the Uptown Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards to reflect the updated Recommended Species List and the street tree master plan, and identify alternative options for tree and sidewalk conflict resolution (see Appendix C, Sidewalk Solutions). Medium 6I Update the Best Management Practices Design Manual to reflect tree spacing requirements as identified in the Recommended Species List, the street tree master plan, and tree protection requirements in the Municipal Code. Medium (continued) 72 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN STRATEGIC PLAN | Guiding Principles GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 7: Sufficient Resources and Funding STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame The urban forest will be sustainably managed through financial investment and staffing. 7A Pursue tree planting opportunities through community volunteer events or collaborating with local organizations to reduce the cost of tree planting. Ongoing 7B Increase annual city wide tree maintenance funding so it will be sufficient to maintain trees on a 3- to 4-year pruning cycle. Table 14 depicts annual funding increases needed. Medium 7C Update the service level C district funding mechanism for contractor services on slopes to ensure adequate funding is available for tree maintenance. Medium–Long 7D Communicate the economic value of trees to decision makers.Short 7E Pursue opportunities to increase tree maintenance funds, such as grants, integrating funding into new development plans and implementing a Citywide fee program. Medium 7F Develop a strategy to increase tree maintenance funds as the City’s trees age and require increased maintenance costs. Long 7G Pursue CAL FIRE grant funding to develop and urban wood reuse program.Short 7H Increase funding for establishment care by 27% ($153,495) above current levels to account for new tree plantings in City-maintained vacant planting sites. Pursue grants. Short CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 73 Guiding Principles | STRATEGIC PLAN GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 8: Expand Canopy Cover STRATEGY Action No.ACTION Time Frame Existing trees will be maintained, and new trees will be strategically planted to increase canopy cover equitably across Temecula. 8A Increase Citywide canopy cover to 20% over the next 40 years.Long 8B Develop a system to track annual tree plantings to ensure progress toward achieving a 20% canopy cover. Adjust annual tree planting goals based on Table 5 of the urban forest management plan. Short, Ongoing 8C Develop minimum tree planting requirements for commercial and retail land uses. Medium 8D Provide educational information to commercial property owners on the benefits of trees for businesses to encourage commercial property owners to plant and maintain trees. Short 8E Implement a rewards program or acknowledgement program for commercial properties with exemplary tree cover. Short 8F Pursue partnerships with Temecula Valley Unified School District to plant trees on school property and increase public school education about trees. Medium 8G Prioritize tree planting in portions of the City most in need of tree cover, based on the Priority Planting Scores identified in Section 2.4 of the urban forest management plan. Ongoing 74 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 6 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 75 Ongoing Actions | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACTION NO.ACTION RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST 1A Explore opportunities for hosting community tree planting events to involve and educate community members in tree planting. Partner with community groups for volunteers. PW, TCSD, CD $ 1B Prioritize tree plantings in land uses and communities with low canopy cover. PW, CD, P $$$ 1C Continue outreach efforts to underrepresented populations. PW, CD $ 1D Explore opportunities to plant trees in public spaces to create tree-dense gathering spaces.PW, CD, P $ 1F Maintain the “Tree City USA” designation.PW $ 1G Continue to celebrate Arbor Day with community events and tree plantings.PW, TCSD $ 2C Plant street trees according to the street tree master plan and Recommended Species List.PW, CD, P, LD $$$ 3C Implement phased removal and replacement of undesirable species. As trees age and require replacement, replace with appropriate species identified by the street tree master plan and Recommended Species List. PW P $$ 3D Plant trees in City-maintained vacant planting sites at a rate of 179 trees per year over the next 20 years (see Table 1-6 of the technical assessment). PW, CD $$ 7A Pursue tree planting opportunities through community volunteer events or collaborating with local organizations to reduce the cost of tree planting. PW, TCSD $ 8G Prioritize tree planting in portions of the City most in need of tree cover, based on the Priority Planting Scores identified in Section 2.4 of the urban forest management plan.PW, CD, P $$$ RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000) 6.1ONGOING ACTIONS 76 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN | Short Term Actions 1-5 Years ACTION NO.ACTION RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST 2B Identify safe routes to school, bicycle routes, walking trails, routes to parks and recreational areas for tree planting.PW, CD, P $$ 3B Update the City of Temecula Tree Policy and standard details to incorporate the recommendations in Section 1.2.1 of the technical assessment.PW $ 3E Implement a formative pruning program for young and newly planted trees to mitigate potential tree structure and safety issues.PW $ 3G Adopt the Street Tree Master Plan and Recommended Species List (Appendix A) as the guiding standard for street tree selection. PW, CD, P, City $ 3H Monitor trees rated as poor or dead in the City’s tree inventory to determine appropriate management actions.PW $ 4A Provide guidance and educational materials to property owners regarding responsibility for maintaining trees in the public right-of-way and how to properly care for and water trees. PW, TCSD, CD $ 4B Develop guidelines and educational materials for planting and siting of trees to reduce energy costs in support of the General Plan Air Quality Element. PW, CD $ 4C Develop an “Adopt a Tree” program to increase stewardship of trees on public and private property. PW, TCSD $ 5A Update the Chapter 8.48 Heritage Tree Ordinance per Table 2-2 of the technical assessment.PW, City $ 6A Update Municipal Code Chapter 8.49 Tree Care and Preservation per recommendations in Table 2-1 of the technical assessment. Include requirements and guidelines for tree protection during construction. PW, City $ 6B Update Municipal Code Chapter 17.32 Water Efficiency and Landscape Design per Table 2-3 of the technical assessment.PW, City $ RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000) 6.2SHORT TERM ACTIONS 1-5 YEARS CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 77 Short Term Actions 1-5 Years | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACTION NO.ACTION RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST 7a Pursue tree planting opportunities through community volunteer events or collaborating with local organizations to reduce the cost of tree planting. PW, TCSD $ 7g Pursue CAL FIRE grant funding to develop and urban wood reuse program.PW, P $ 7h Increase funding for establishment care by 27% ($153,495) above current levels to account for new tree plantings in City-maintained vacant planting sites. Pursue grants.PW $$$$ 7b Increase funds available for the park and median tree budget so it will be sufficient to increase tree trimming capacity and maintain park and median trees on a 3- to 4-year pruning cycle. PW $$$ 7c Update the service level C district funding mechanism for contractor services on slopes to ensure adequate funding is available for tree maintenance.PW $$$ 7d Communicate the economic value of trees to decision makers.PW $ 8b Develop a system to track annual tree plantings to ensure progress toward achieving a 20% canopy cover. Adjust annual tree planting goals based on Table 5 of the urban forest management plan. PW $ 8d Provide educational information to commercial property owners on the benefits of trees for businesses to encourage commercial property owners to plant and maintain trees.PW, CD $ 8e Implement a rewards program or acknowledgement program for commercial properties with exemplary tree cover. PW, CD $ 8g Prioritize tree planting in portions of the City most in need of tree cover, based on the Priority Planting Scores identified in Section 2.4 of the urban forest management plan.PW, CD, P $$ SHORT TERM ACTIONS 1-5 YEARS (CONTINUED) RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000) 78 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN | Medium Term Actions 5-10 Years ACTION NO.ACTION RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST 1E Fill all vacant planting sites and identify new planting sites, especially street trees to create tree-lined streets throughout Temecula.PW $$ 2A Ensure active transportation routes are densely planted to increase safety and shade along these routes. Identify safe routes to school, bicycle routes, walking trails, and routes to parks and recreational areas for tree planting. PW $$ 2D Identify streets where trees are lacking and pursue tree planting opportunities along these routes, beginning with areas identified by community members during public input, which include Winchester Road, Nicolas Road, Pechanga Parkway, Temecula Parkway, Pauba Road, and in public rights-of-way within residential communities. PW $$ 2F Plant trees in Temecula’s parks, prioritizing those with low Priority Planting Scores per Table 4-11 in the technical assessment. PW $$$ 3A Develop a system to track and monitor tree plantings and calculate greenhouse gas reduction attributed to tree plantings. PW $ 3F Explore partnerships for developing an urban wood reuse program, such as programs for tree removal and milling to turn removed trees into useable lumber, or promote the use of on-demand mulch drop programs. PW, CD, P $ 5B Create a performance bond requirement for replacement trees to ensure long-term successful establishment of replacement trees.PW, City $ 6.3MEDIUM TERM ACTIONS 5-10 YEARS RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000) CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 79 Medium Term Actions 5-10 Years | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACTION NO.ACTION RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST 5C Create a map that identifies the heritage trees throughout the City.PW, P $ 5D Develop a program to increase funding for ongoing maintenance of heritage trees, similar to an “Adopt a Tree” program.PW $$ 6C Update the Municipal Code and the General Plan to identify “landmark” trees that warrant special protections, per the Open Space Element of the General Plan. PW, City $ 6D Update the Citywide Design Guidelines to reflect the urban forest management plan recommendations and street tree master plan/Recommended Tree Species List, which identify planter space requirements, utility compatibility, and tree spacing needs that vary by species. PW, City $$ 6e Update Municipal Code Section 17.24.505.H and the Citywide Design Guidelines to include more prescriptive requirements for parking lot trees and planter space. PW, City $ 6f Update Municipal Code Section 17.22 to ensure minimum tree planting requirements are established for all Planned Development Overlay Zoning Districts (PDOs). Plant palette proposed for PDOs should be updated according to the Recommended Species List and the street tree master plan. PW, City $ 6g Update the Bikeways and Trails Master Plan to include guidelines for planting trees to increase bicyclist and pedestrian safety, as well as to reflect standard arboriculture practice to measure trees by diameter at standard height, which is measured at 4.5 feet above the ground, for a more accurate depiction of tree size and maturity. This guideline should also be updated to reflect the Municipal Code definition of a protected tree, or heritage tree. PW, P $ MEDIUM TERM ACTIONS 5-10 YEARS (CONTINUED) RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000) 80 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN | Medium Term Actions 5-10 Years ACTION NO.ACTION RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST 6h Update the Old Town and Uptown Specific Plan (SPA) Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards to reflect the updated Recommended Species List and the street tree master plan, and identify alternative options for tree and sidewalk conflict resolution (see Appendix C, Sidewalk Solutions). PW, P, LD $ 6i Update the Best Management Practices Design Manual to reflect tree spacing requirements as identified in the Recommended Species List, the street tree master plan, and tree protection requirements in the Municipal Code. PW, P $ 7e Pursue opportunities to increase tree maintenance funds, such as grants, integrating funding into new development plans and implementing a Citywide fee program. PW, CD, P, City $ 8c Develop minimum tree planting requirements for commercial and retail land uses. PW, CD, P, City $ 8f Pursue partnerships with Temecula Valley Unified School District to plant trees on school property and increase public school education about trees. PW $$ 8f Pursue partnerships with Temecula Valley Unified School District to plant trees on school property and increase public school education about trees. PW $$ MEDIUM TERM ACTIONS 5-10 YEARS (CONTINUED) RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000) CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 81 Long Term Actions 10 Years+ | IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ACTION NO.ACTION RESPONSIBLE PARTY COST 7F Develop a strategy to increase tree maintenance funds as the City’s trees age and require increased maintenance costs. PW $$ 8A Increase Citywide canopy cover to 20% over the next 40 years.PW $$$$ 6.4LONG TERM ACTIONS 10 YEARS+ RESPONSIBLE PARTY: PW = Public Works, CD = Community Development, P = Planning, TCSD = Temecula Community Services Department City = City council action required COST: $ Low 0-$25,000, $$ Medium ($25,000 -$50,000), $$$ High ($50,000 - $100,000), $$$$ Very High (>$100,000) 82 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION MONITORING PLAN 7 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 83 VIBRANT CITIES LAB ASSESSMENT The City can use the Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal- Setting Tool to monitor the implementation of the UFMP. The tool is used as an assessment to define the City’s current state of a specific area of urban forest sustainability. The user decides what the City’s current state of the metric is, and then sets where the goal metric should be. Each metric is assigned a point value, and the City is assigned a “Total Current Score” and a “Gap Score”, or how far off the current state is from the desired goal. A city that has a gap score between 20 to 40 is not far from achieving the goals of its urban forest program. Conversely, gap scores of 40+ indicates that a City is still implementing programs and policies to close the gap and develop a sustainable urban forest. Temecula’s first assessment Willits’ first assessment was conducted on August 18, 2021, by the Parks and Landscape Maintenance Superintendent and the consultant team. Table 24 reflects the results from the first assessment, which set the baseline for the City’s “Total Current Score” at its pre-UFMP metrics. Based on the first assessment, the City has a current rating of 13, with a gap score of 85. The City’s UFMP monitoring plan should be based around the Vibrant Cities Lab Community Assessment and Goal Setting Tool and be retaken each year to track, measure, and highlight progress. The assessment can also be used to demonstrate successes and justify additional funding asks to City Council. Since the City first took the assessment, several of the responses that had significant gaps such as the lack of a UFMP (5) and an urban tree canopy assessment (5), have already been achieved. 84 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN MONITORING PLAN | Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment Table 21. Tree Canopy Goal Summary (1 of 5) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap Canopy cover The existing canopy cover for entire municipality is 50%-75% of the desired canopy. 1 The existing canopy is >75%-100% of desired.2 1 Inventory and assessment methodology Inventory guides planning, management decisions 2 Systematic comprehensive inventory system of entire urban forest – with information tailored to users and supported by mapping in municipality- wide GIS system. Provides for change analysis. 4 2 No urban tree canopy assessment.-1 Urban tree canopy assessment utilized effectively to drive urban forest and green infrastructure policy and practice municipality- wide and at neighborhood or similar management level 4 5 Publicly owned trees Complete tree inventory that includes detailed tree condition ratings.2 Complete GIS tree inventory that includes detailed tree condition and risk ratings.4 2 Publicly owned natural areas Ecological structure and function of all natural areas assessed and documented.3 Management plan focused on sustaining and, where possible, improving overall ecological structure and function while facilitating appropriate public use. Plan should consider impacts on contiguous natural areas [open space corridors] outside the community’s borders 4 1 Private property trees No information.-1 Bottom-up sample-based assessment, as well as basic aerial view 4 5 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 85CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 85 Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment | MONITORING PLAN (2 of 5) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap Relative performance index by species No information.-1 All of the six most common species have higher RPI scores than the average of all species in the community 4 5 Use of native vegetation No coordinated focus on native vegetation.-1 Use of native species is encouraged on a project- appropriate basis in all areas; invasive species are recognized and discouraged on public and private lands 2 3 Align municipal departments Municipal departments/agencies take actions impacting urban forest with no cross-departmental coordination or consideration of the urban forest resource. -1 Municipal policy implemented by formal interdepartmental/ interagency working teams on all municipal projects. 4 5 Engage residents in planning and implementation Little or no citizen involvement or neighborhood action.-1 Proactive outreach and coordination efforts by municipality and NGO partners resulting in widespread citizen involvement and structured engagement among diverse neighborhood groups. 4 5 Environmental equity Planting and outreach includes attention to low canopy neighborhoods or areas.1 Equitable planting and outreach at the neighborhood level is guided by strong resident involvement in low canopy/high need areas. Residents participate actively in identifying needs for their neighborhoods, planning, implementation and monitoring 4 3 Trees acknowledged as vital community resource Trees generally recognized as important and beneficial.1 Urban forest recognized as vital to the community’s environmental, social, and economic well-being. 4 3 86 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN MONITORING PLAN | Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment (3 of 5) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap Engage large private landowners and institutions Municipality educates landowners, provides technical assistance, sets goals and provides incentives for managing resources in accordance with plan. 1 Tree management plans developed with input from community, and public access to the property’s forest resource. 4 3 All utilities work with municipality, employ best management practices Utilities take actions impacting urban forest with no municipal coordination.1 Utilities are included in informal municipal teams that communicate regularly and collaborate on a project-specific basis. 3 2 Green industry embraces goals, high standards Little or no cooperation among segments of green industry or awareness of municipality-wide urban forest goals and objectives. -1 Shared vision and goals and extensive committed partnerships in place. Solid adherence to high professional standards, and commitment to credentialing and continuing education. 4 5 Develop urban forest management plan No urban forest management plan -1 New or recent urban forest and green infrastructure management plan which targets public tree planting sites, protection and maintenance based on assessment of anticipated benefits ranging from stormwater to heat island mitigation, public health, etc. 3 4 Cooperative planning with other municipalities Municipalities have no interaction with each other or the broader region. No regional planning or coordination on urban forestry. -1 Some urban forest planning and cooperation across municipalities and regional agencies.2 3 Forestry plan integrated into other municipal plans Urban forestry plan mentions how it could meet other municipal objectives or inform other planning efforts. -1 Once completed, urban forestry planning team works with other agencies to align current and future objectives. 2 3 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 87CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 87 Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment | MONITORING PLAN (4 of 5) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap Urban forestry program capacity Team has capacity in terms of trained staff and equipment to achieve many of the goals of the urban forest management plan. 2 Team has capacity and will in the future to achieve all goals of the urban forest management plan, to maintain the resource over time, and adapt management as circumstances change. 4 2 Municipality-wide urban forestry funding Funding sufficient for some proactive management based on urban forest management plan. 2 Sustained, long-term funding from multiple municipal, regional, and/or state agencies, along with private sources to implement a comprehensive urban forest management plan and provide for maintenance and adaptive management as circumstances change. 4 2 Growing site suitability Appropriate tree species are considered in site selection 1 Municipality-wide guidelines for the improvement of planting site conditions and selection of suitable species. 2 1 Tree establishment and maintenance Some tree planting and establishment occurs, but with limited overall municipality-wide planning and post- planting care. -1 Comprehensive tree establishment plan provides concrete guidance on most of the following criteria: site selection, size, age class, diversity of species, native plant choice, planting protocols, and young tree care. 4 5 Management of publicly owned natural areas No natural areas management plans or implementation in effect.-1 Management plan in place for each publicly owned natural area to facilitate appropriate public use. 2 3 Policies that foster good urban forestry on private lands Strong tree protection ordinance focused on maintaining mature trees with effective procedures. 1 Policies regarding stormwater, site and subdivision planning, zoning and other issues that affect private forests are included in management plan. 2 1 88 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN MONITORING PLAN | Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment (5 of 5) Category Current Rating Goal Rating Gap Tree protection policy and enforcement Policies include construction standards for on-site tree protection, establishment and maintenance. Conforms to and references ANSI Standards for arboricultural practices (A300), safety (Z133), and nursery stock (Z60.1), as well as applicable ISA BMPs. 3 Integrated municipality-wide policies and practices to protect public and private trees, consistently enforced and with penalties sufficient to deter violations. 4 1 Monitoring Monitoring on a regular basis with rotating schedule for each area. Monitors are professionals or volunteers trained to collect specific data required by municipality. Multi-year data available for trend analyses. 2 Monitoring adheres to the standards and protocols established by the Urban Tree Growth and Longevity network. 4 2 Tree risk management Citizens and city staff report tree safety issues to the forestry department or manager (e.g., 3-1-1 system, online form, etc.). System tracks the time between damage report and mitigation action. 1 Policies and ordinances in place to minimize tree damage and removal on commercial developments, and public capital. Protection measures conform to ANSI A300 standards and ISA BMPs. 3 2 Urban wood and green waste utilization The majority of green waste is reused or recycled – for energy, products, and other purposes beyond chips or mulch. 2 Comprehensive plan and processes in place to utilize all green waste one way or another, to the fullest extent possible. 4 2 Total Current Score 13 Total Goal Rating 95 82 Total Gap Score CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 89CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 89 Vibrant Cities Lab Assessment | MONITORING PLAN 90 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION REFERENCES CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 91 REFERENCES Ager, I.A., P. Palaiologos, C.R. Evers, M.A. Day, C. Ringo, and K. Short. 2019. Wildfire exposure to the wildland urban interface in the western US, Applied Geography, Volume 111: 102059, ISSN 0143-6228, https://doi.org/10.1016/ japgeog.2019.102059. American Forests. 2022. Tree Equity Score Methodology. Accessed May 20, 2022. https://treeequityscore.org/ methodology/. American Lung Association. 2022. “Report Card: California” State of the Air. Riverside County. https://www.lung.org/ research/sota/city-rankings/states/california. Accessed December 9, 2022. Barnett, L. and R. Farnbach. 2006. Temecula. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. Bliss, S. 2017. “Temecula Valley Museum.” History in the Making: Vol. 10, Article 18. https://scholarworks.lib.csusb.edu/cgi/ viewcontent.cgi?article=1042&context=History-in-the- Making. Brigandi, P. 1998. Temecula: At the Crossroads of History. Heritage Media Corporation. CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection). 2021. “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in Local Responsibility Zones as Recommended by CAL FIRE.” https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5924temecula.pdf. Accessed January 16, 2022. CEC (California Energy Commission).2005. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. CEC-500- 2006- 077. Accessed May 20, 2022. http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/ pdffiles/CA_climate_Scenarios.pdf. City of Temecula. n.d. History of Temecula. https://www. temeculaca.gov/150/History-of-Temecula. City of Temecula. 2021. City of Temecula Tree Inventory Data. Conducted by ArborPro. Dumbaugh, E. and J. L. Gattis. 2005. “Safe Streets, Livable Streets.” Journal of the American Planning Association, 71:(3), 283– 300, https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976699. Dumbaugh, E. 2006. “Design of Safe Urban Roadsides: An Empirical Analysis.” Transportation Research Record, 1961(1), 74–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198106196100109. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2015. “First-of-Its-Kind Index Quantifies Urban Heat Islands.” Accessed May 20, 2022. https://calepa.ca.gov/2015/09/16/urbanheat/. Goss, M., D. Swain, J. Abatzoglou, A. Sarhadi, C. Kolden, P. Williams, and N. Diffenbauh, 2020. “Climate change is increasing the likelihood of extreme autumn wildfire conditions across California.” Environmental Research Letters. 15, 094016. Griffin, D. and K.J. Anchukaitis. 2014. “How unusual is the 2012-2014 California drought?” Geophysical Research Letters. 41(24). REFERENCES 92 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN REFERENCES McPherson, E.G. 2003. “A benefit-cost analysis of ten street tree species in Modesto, California.” U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 29(1): 1–9. Miller, A. 2021. Historical Trails Through Temecula. https://www. temeculaca.gov/151/Historical-Trails-through-Temecula. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and NIDIS (National Integrated Drought Information System). 2021. “2021 National Integrated Drought Information System Annual Report.” https://www.drought.gov/documents/2021- national-integrated-drought-information-system-annual- report. OEHHA (California Office of Environmental Health and Hazard Assessment). 2021. CalEnviroScreen 4.0: 2021 Assessment. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen. Accessed January 16, 2022. PIER Program (Public Interest Energy Research Program). 2011. Cal-Adapt: Exploring California's Climate Change Research. Sacramento: California Energy Commission. Accessed May 20, 2022.https://cal-adapt.org/. Preimsberger, D. 2009. Postmark Temecula. https://www.temecula. gov/154/150th-Anniversary-of-Temeculas-1st-Post. Rancho California Water District. Drought Update. Accessed May 20, 2022.https://www.ranchowater.com/266/Drought- Update. Richards, N.A. 1983. “Diversity and Stability in a Street Tree Population.” Urban Ecology 7(2): 159–171. Riverside County Flood Control District. 2009. “Flood Control District History.” https://rcflood.org/About-the-District/ Distric-History. Accessed January 16, 2022. Risk Factor. n.d. “Flood Risk Overview: Does Temecula Have Risk?” https://riskfactor.com/city/Temecula-California/678120_fsid/ flood. Accessed January 16, 2022. Topp, H.H. 1990. “Traffic Safety, Usability and Streetscape Effects of New Design Principles for Major Urban Roads.” Transportation 16:297-310. USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2020. I-Tree Eco: Software Package. Wolf, K.L. 2005. “Business District Streetscapes, Trees, and Consumer Response.” Journal of Forestry 103(8): 396–400. https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2005_ wolf001.pdf. Wolf, K.L. 2010. "Safe Streets – A Literature Review.” In Green Cities: Good Health (www.greenhealth.washington.edu). College of the Environment, University of Washington. World Population Review. 2021. Temecula, California. https:// worldpopulationreview.com/us-cities/temecula-ca- population. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 93 REFERENCES 94 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION APPENDICES A | RECOMMENDED TREE SPECIES PALETTE B | SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS C1 | ESTABLISHMENT CARE GUIDELINES C2 | TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES C3 | TREE PROTECTION DETAIL C4 | ROOT PRUNING DETAIL C5 | IRRIGATION DETAIL D | NURSERY STOCK STANDARDS E | HIGHLY FLAMMABLE PLANT LIST F | PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS G | FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 95 96 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX B | Recommended Tree Species Palette Genus Species Common Name Evergreen, Deciduous, Conifer Size Classification Height (Feet) Crown Spread (Feet) Spacing between trees (Feet) Minimum Parkway Width (Feet) Utility Friendly Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS) rating Fire Hazard Rating Regionally Native Bioretention Planter Flow-Through Planter Tree Well Filter Afrocarpus falcatus fern pine E. Large 65 30-50 30-35 6 to 8 No Moderate/Medium Low No Agonis flexuosa peppermint tree E. Medium 35 15-30 20-30 5 to 10 No Moderate/Medium Low No Angophora costata Sydney red gum E. Large 65 30-50 30-35 6 to 8 No Low Low No Arbutus marina' marina madrone E. Medium 40-50 40 30-35 6 to 8 No Low Low No X X X Bauhinia variegata purple orchid tree D. Medium 35 20-35 15-20 5 to 10 No Moderate/Medium Low No Callistemon citrinus lemon bottle brush E. Medium 25 25 15-25 5 to 10 No Low Low No Callistemon viminalis weeping bottlebrush E. Small 20 15-20 15-20 2 to 5 Yes Low Low No Cassia leptophylla gold medallion tree D. Small 25 30 20-25 5 to 10 No Moderate/Medium Low No Casuarina cunninghamiana river she-oak E. Large 70 30 20-30 >10 No Low Low No Celtis laevigata var. reticulata netleaf hackberry D. Medium 35 25-30 15-20 5 to 10 No Low Low No X Cercis candensis Eastern Redbud D. Small -20 -20 20-25 3 to 4 Yes Moderate/Medium Low No X X X Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud D. Small -20 -20 20-25 3 to 4 Yes Low Low Yes X X X Chilopsis linearis desert willow D. Medium 20-40 20-40 20-25 3 to 4 No Very low Low Yes Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 3 to 4 Yes Low Low Yes Cordia boissieri Texas olive E. Small 20 10-15 10-15 2 to 5 Yes Low Low No Corymbia papuana Ghost Gum E. Medium 30-50 20-35 30-35 4 to 6 No Low Low No Dalbergia sissoo indian rosewood D. Large 60 30-40 25-30 >10 No Low Low No Ebenopsis ebano Texas ebony E. Medium 40 30-40 15-40 >10 No Low Low No Fraxinus greggi Gregg ash E. Small 20 15 15-20 4 to 6 Yes Unknown Low No Fraxinus griffithii Griffith ash E. Medium 45 25 20-25 6 to 8 No Unknown Low No Geijera parviflora Austrailian willow E. Medium 35 20 15-20 5 to 10 No Low Low No X Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese flame D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 6 to 8 Yes Moderate/Medium Low No X Koelreuteria paniculata Golden rain D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 4 to 6 Yes Low Low No X Laurus nobilis sweet bay E. Medium 15-40 15-30 20-25 3 to 4 No Low Low Yes X X X Lophostemon conferta Brisbane box E. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 4 to 6 No Moderate/Medium Low No Melaleuca linariifolia flaxleaf paperbark E. Medium 30 20-25 15-20 5 to 10 No Moderate/ Medium Low No Melaleuca styphelioides prickly melaleuca E. Medium 40 10-20 15-20 5 to 10 No Low Low No Parkinsonia praecox Sonoran palo verde D. Small 20 20 15-20 2 to 5 Yes Low Low No Parkinsonia x 'Desert Museum' desert museum palo verde D. Small 20 20-25 15-20 2 to 5 Yes Very Low Low No Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache D. Medium 40+ 40+ 30-35 6 to 8 No Low Low No Prosopis glandulosa 'Maverick' thornless honey mesquite D. Medium 35 25-35 15-25 5 to 10 No Low Low No Prunus ilicifolia ssp. Lyonii Catalina cherry E. Medium 35 20-30 15-20 5 to 10 No Low Low Yes X X X Quercus agrifolia coast live oak E. Large 40+ 40+ 30-35 6 to 8 No Very Low Low Yes X Quercus engelmannii Engelmann oak D. Large 65 80-120 15-65 >10 No Very Low Low Yes Quercus fusiformis escarpment oak E. Medium 50 20-40 25-30 6 to 8 No Unknown Low No Quercus ilex holly oak E. Medium 30-60 30-60 30-35 6 to 8 No Low Low No X Quercus rubra red oak D. Large 80 50-70 30-35 >10 No Moderate/Medium Low No Quercus shumardii Shumard red oak D. Large 70 40 30-35 >10 No Inappropriate Low No Quercus suber cork oak E. Medium 20-40 20-40 20-25 3 to 4 No Low Low No X Searsia lancea African sumac E. Medium 30 20-35 20-25 5 to 10 No Low Low No Tristaniopsos laurina water gum E. Small 35 15-30 20-25 4 to 6 Yes Moderate/ Medium Low No X X Vachellia farnesiana sweet acacia D. Medium 25 15-25 15-25 5 to 10 Yes Very Low Low No CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 97 Sidewalk Solutions | APPENDIX C SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS 1 TTrreeee aanndd SSiiddeewwaallkk CCoonnfflliicctt SSoolluuttiioonnss Trees and sidewalks are both key pieces of urban infrastructure that contribute to the pedestrian environment. Both contribut e to the character and sense of place in a community as well as provide health and economic benefits while offering a means for comfortable active transportation. However, these two elements of the public streetscape are often in conflict with one another. Sidewalks and other hardscapes can preclude healthy tree growth and canopy development by limiting available soil volume, while tree roots often cause damage to sidewalks resulting in uplif t and fall and trip hazards which can be costly to repair. These conflicts and the associated costs often overshadow the benefits provided by trees in the urban landscape, resulting in the removal of trees or the decision to avoid planting trees altogether. In reality, tree and infrastructure conflicts are due to inadequate site design and exacerbated by planting the wrong tree species for the allotted space. The cost of sidewalk repairs or removing and replacing trees is a significant investment that can be avoided with proper site design and species selection. T here are a number of strategies for minimizing, avoiding or eliminating tree and sidewalk conflicts that can be employed by local or regional governments. Table 1 outlines tree and sidewalk conflict resolution tactics and design solutions that can be employed when replacing damaged sidew alks or installing new sidewalks. Employing these strategies is dependent upon policies, standards and design requirements, clear processes for implementation, and funding. Local jurisdictions are required to abide by federal and state policies governing sidewalk design, such as the US Access B oard Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the California Building Code (CBC). Additionally, local jurisdictions can adopt local policies, standards, and plans that guide the management of trees and sidewalks. Examples include tree protection ordinances, street tree and sidewalk design requirements, tree planting standards and specifications, street tree lists, and long -range plans, such as urban forest management plans, bicycle and pedestrian plans/active transportation plans, the General Plan, and specific plans. In order to successfully implement tree and sidewalk policies and standards, cities must have processes in place for implemen tation and maintenance, including review of development plans and strict code enforcement. If not managed within the same department, city departments managing street trees and sidewalks must maintain clear lines of communication and collaborate regularly. Approaching management of street trees and sidewalks within the same department can prove successful, as collaboration is easily facilitated. Forestry staff and engineers can jointly inspect conflicts or conduct plan review and work together to identify solutions. A formalized process will help guide these actions, such as outlined in the City of Seattle’s; many of the solutions provided in Table 1 are based on the Toolkit included in Trees and Sidewalks Operations. Cities must have reliable funding for management and oversight of its tree and sidewalk programs in order to successfully resolve or avoid conflicts. This includes funding for staff, tree planting, plan review, inspection and code enforcement, and maintenance and repairs. Examples of possible revenue streams to fund forestry and sidewalk programs include allocations from the general fund, partnering with nonprofit organizations, or allocations from taxes or fees, such as a gas tax, utility tax or development impact fees. Additional funding may also come from less traditional approaches, such as establishing a City nursery or composting program and offering these products for sale. 98 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX C | Sidewalk Solutions SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS 2 TTaabbllee 11.. TTrreeee aanndd SSiiddeewwaallkk CCoonnfflliicctt SSoolluuttiioonnss SSoolluuttiioonn TTyyppee PPrrooss CCoonnss EEssttiimmaatteedd CCoosstt (($$––$$$$$$$$)) UUsseeffuull LLiiffee ((YYeeaarrss-- DDeeccaaddeess-- CCeennttuurriieess)) EExxaammppllee IImmaaggee MMaatteerriiaallss TThhee ffoolllloowwiinngg ssiiddeewwaallkk ssoolluuttiioonnss pprreesseenntt vvaarriioouuss mmaatteerriiaallss ffoorr rreeppllaacceemmeenntt//rreeppaaiirr ooff aa ddaammaaggeedd ssiiddeewwaallkk tthhaatt mmaayy bbee uusseedd iinnsstteeaadd ooff ccoonnccrreettee.. Asphalt • Short-term to medium- term solution • Low initial cost • More flexible than concrete • May be used as a repair/replacement or for new sidewalks • Easily repaired • Not widely used, creating conflicts with appearance and visual character • Useful life can vary greatly • Useful life shorter than that concrete $$ ($22 per linear foot) Decades Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 99 Sidewalk Solutions | APPENDIX C SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS 3 Pavers • Many types, materials, and colors available • More flexible than concrete, providing room for continued tree root growth • May be used as temporary repair or replacement, or when installing new sidewalk at the same time as trees • Requires cutting to fit around other infrastructure (e.g., utilities, etc.) • Not all available types and materials are suitable for all locations, as required depth of excavation may vary • Durability varies by type $$–$$$ ($10 to $50 per square foot) Decades Image Source: Carroll’s Building Materials n.d. Pervious Concrete • Allows air and water to reach soil • May encourage deeper root growth and deter shallow root growth, reducing root damage to sidewalks • Provides better growing conditions • Requires deeper excavation for installation of subbase layers • Requires more maintenance than standard concrete $$$–$$$$ ($35 per linear foot) Decades Image Source: Bay Area Pervious Concrete 100 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX C | Sidewalk Solutions SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS 4 Porous Asphalt • Allows water to pass through to soil • May be used for replacement of large segments of sidewalk or installation of new sidewalks where infiltration is desirable (e.g., adjacent to bioretention) • Cannot be produced in small quantities and should only be used when long sidewalk segments are being installed (e.g., multiple blocks) $–$$$ ($30 per linear foot) Decades Image Source: Porous Pave Decomposed Granite • May be used as a pathway or walkway surface, or as a finished surface on top of planting soil in tree pits rather than mulch • Provides flexible but walkable surface near tree roots • Best used in parks on walking and cycling paths, or similar settings • May be used as a temporary repair near root zones or for installation of new pathways or walkways • Not recommended for busy pedestrian routes (best in residential areas) • Requires more maintenance than asphalt or concrete, as uneven settling can occur • Americans with Disabilities Act compliance may require binders and regular maintenance $–$$ ($12 per linear foot) Years Image Source: Bike Orlando CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 101 Sidewalk Solutions | APPENDIX C SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS 5 AAlltteerrnnaattiivvee SSiiddeewwaallkk DDeessiiggnn CCoonnssttrruuccttiioonn MMeetthhooddss TThhee ffoolllloowwiinngg ssiiddeewwaallkk ssoolluuttiioonnss pprreesseenntt aalltteerrnnaattiivvee ssiiddeewwaallkk ddeessiiggnn aanndd ccoonnssttrruuccttiioonn mmeetthhooddss ttoo bbeetttteerr aaccccoommmmooddaattee ttrreeeess aanndd rreessiisstt ddaammaaggee ttoo ssiiddeewwaallkkss.. Reinforced or Thicker Slab • Reinforcing concrete with steel rebar or wire mesh and/or using a thicker slab helps resist uplift of tree roots • May be used to correct uplift after other corrective actions have been taken • May not be compatible with future utility installation • Should not be used where additional root growth is anticipated (i.e., sufficient soil volume should be provided) $$–$$$ ($60 per linear foot for reinforced slab and $40 per linear foot for 4-inch thickness) Decades Image Source: E. F. Gilman Expansion Joints • Allow for some movement of concrete • Used to control the location of cracking • May be used as repair or replacement or for new sidewalks near existing trees (where roots may be pruned prior to installation and substantial root growth is not anticipated) • Should not be used where significant additional root growth is anticipated (i.e., sufficient soil volume should be provided) • Short term solution $ (varies) Decades Image Source: S. Kubiak and V. Kubiak 102 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX C | Sidewalk SolutionsSIDEWALK SOLUTIONS 6 Monolithic Sidewalk • The continuous installation of concrete with no grade change between sidewalk and street has greater weight (mass) to resist tree root uplift • Reduces potential for future weakness in pavement infrastructure • May be used in new development and in redevelopment • Consideration must be given to impacts related to stormwater runoff and drainage patterns • Not ideal for areas where new root growth is expected (new plantings or continued growth) $$$ ($60 per linear foot) Century Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation Tree Pits/Expanded Tree Pits • Alternative to planting strips where maintaining sidewalk width is important (e.g., business districts) • May be used in new development where tree pit sizing and tree selection are coordinated (“right tree, right place”) or in existing development where sufficient space is available to expand existing tree pits • Must establish minimum sizing requirements to ensure adequate soil volume • Continuous planter strips are preferred where feasible $ ($15 per square yard for widening existing tree pits. No additional cost if implemente d in new developmen t design) Decades Image Source: Morristown Shade Commission CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 103 Sidewalk Solutions | APPENDIX CSIDEWALK SOLUTIONS 7 Bridging • Provides grade separation between tree root zone and sidewalk • Does not require compacted subgrade allowing tree roots to grow in soil • Variety of materials can be used such as concrete or steel panels • May be used as repair or replacement of damaged sidewalk or to preserve a high value tree • Site specific grading requirements may prevent use of this technique • A nonslip surface treatment is required for metal/steel materials • Additional Americans with Disabilities Act requirements related to grade differentials greater than 18 inches $$$$ ($225 per linear foot) Decades Image Source: E. Gilman Curb Extensions (Bulb-Outs) • Increases pedestrian safety through traffic calming and shortening the crossing distance for pedestrians • Provides additional root growth area reducing likelihood of root damage to sidewalks • Provides flexibility for tree species selection • May be used in new development or as expansion of sidewalks and planting space in redevelopment • Must consider impacts to drainage and existing utilities • Must consider site specific transportation conditions or impacts, including driver sight lines as well as bicycle and pedestrian facilities $$$–$$$$ ($50 per linear foot excluding drainage and ramps) Century Image Source: Dylan Passmore 104 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX C | Sidewalk SolutionsSIDEWALK SOLUTIONS 8 Curb Realignment • Shifts curb location to widen the planting strip • May be used for new development or redevelopment to provide additional space for new or existing trees • Requires sufficient street widths • Must consider impacts to other infrastructure and utilities • Must consider site specific transportation conditions or impacts $$$–$$$$ ($50 per linear foot excluding drainage modification and ramps Minimal additional cost if part of new developmen t design) Century Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation Curving or Offset Sidewalk • Allows for walkways that meander around planting areas, allowing trees more grow space • Increases pedestrian safety by separating sidewalks from vehicular traffic • May be used in new development or redevelopment to preserve existing trees or to provide sufficient grow space for new plantings • Requires adequate space in the right of way • May require easement for use of private property $$–$$$ ($38 per linear foot) Image Source: Bartlett Tree Care CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 105 Sidewalk Solutions | APPENDIX C SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS 9 Easement • May allow for use of private property where additional space is needed • Provides larger planting area for new or existing trees • Requires coordination with property owner $–$$$ (Varies based on market value or dedication from property owner) Century Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation Suspended Pavement Systems • Provides space and soil volume for new tree plantings in areas that could not have supported tree root growth • Prevents root damage to pavement if implemented at the correct time • Involves removing and repaving sidewalks if they already exist in the areas • Site specific grading requirements need to be taken into consideration $$$–$$$$ (15- $25/cubic foot) Decades Image Source: DeepRoot 106 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX C | Sidewalk Solutions SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS 10 Lowered Tree Sites • Can help prevent soil compaction due to pedestrian traffic • Can bring trees to streets with limited planting space and few underground infrastructure conflicts • Can conflict with underground infrastructure; can only be implemented in areas that have limited potential for conflict • Lowered sites tend to accumulate trash and other debris, presenting a maintenance issue • Design must include a drainage plan because soil can be easily oversaturated $$$–$$$$ Decades Image Source: Storm Tree RRoooott TThhee ffoolllloowwiinngg ssiiddeewwaallkk ssoolluuttiioonnss pprreesseenntt ddeessiiggnn ssoolluuttiioonnss tthhaatt ssppeecciiffiiccaallllyy aaddddrreessss ttrreeee rroooottss.. Root Barriers • Deters root growth to limit damage to pavement • May be added after tree planting to retrofit or address root issues • Will not address all issues from tree roots, but will help deter $ ($8 per linear foot) Decades Image Source: Green Tech CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 107 Sidewalk Solutions | APPENDIX C SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS 11 Foam Underlay • Provides a foam layer of support between pavement and tree roots to help prevent damage • Can offer an alternative to root pruning when a sidewalk needs to be replaced but root pruning would severely damage the tree • Best used to repair damage caused by mature tree roots • Short term solution • Not a good option for tree species that have rapid root growth $–$$ ($150 to $250 per location) Years Image Source: Costello and Jones Modified Gravel Layer • Suppressed root growth • More longevity than foam underlay and serves the same purpose • Thickness of gravel around roots can be adjusted to accommodate size • Could wound tree roots making the trees more susceptible to soilborne pathogens • 4 inches of gravel is needed, if excavation would damage critical existing roots • Modified Gravel Layer may not be an option $ ($0.70 per square foot at depth of 4 inches) Decades Image Source: E. Gilman 108 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX C | Sidewalk Solutions SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS 12 Root Paths • Can proactively direct paths for roots to grow, when designed at the beginning of planting • Help direct roots around utilities when planting space is limited • Drainage away from or out of root path will need to be considered $–$$ ($600 to $800 per tree) Decades Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation Steel Plates • Can be used as an alternative to root pruning • Can be used to help mitigate issues with roots that have already developed (reactionary) • Can conflict with underground utilities • Requires sidewalk to be removed and replaced for installation $$–$$$ ($500 to $1,000 per site) Decades Image Source: Gordan Mann CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 109 Sidewalk Solutions | APPENDIX C SIDEWALK SOLUTIONS 13 SSoouurrcceess:: American Planning Association. 2009. Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community Development. Planning Advisor y Service Report Number 555. Bassuk et al. 2015; Bike Orlando 2020; Casey Trees 2008; Costello and Jones 2003; Elmendorf 2008; City of New York Parks & Recreation 2014; City of Seattle 2011; City of Seattle Department of Transportation 2014, 2015; City of Seattle Public Utilities 2015; Mann n.d.; Smiley 2008 Bassuk, N., Denig, B., Haffner, T. Grabosky, J., and Trowbridge, P. 2015. CU-Structural Soil ®: A Comprehensive Guide. Urban Horticulture Institute, Cornell University. http://www.hort.cornell.edu/uhi/outreach/pdfs/CU-Structural%20Soil%20-%20A%20Comprehensive%20Guide.pdf. Bike Orlando. 2020. Ward Park, Winter Park, FL Biking, Hiking. E-Z Map, 35+ Photos. Accessed May 2021. https://www.bikeorlando.net/ward-park-winter-park.htm. Casey Trees. 2008. Tree Space Design: Growing the Tree Out of The Box. Accessed May 2021. http://caseytrees.org/resources/publications/treespacedesign/. Carroll’s Building Materials. n.d. “Classic Hexagon Pavers.” Accessed May 2021. https://carrollsbuildingmaterials.com/landscape-products/pavers-profiles-finishes/classic- hexagon-pavers/. Costello, L. R. and K. S. Jones. 2003. Reducing Infrastructure Damage By Tree Roots: A Compendium of Strategies. Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. City of New York Parks & Recreation. February 2014. Tree Planting Standards. Accessed May 2021. http://www.nycgovparks.org/pagefiles/53/Tree-Planting-Standards.pdf. City of Seattle. 2011. Seattle Right-of-Way Improvements Manual. https://www.seattle.gov/rowmanual/manual/. City of Seattle Department of Transportation. 2014. Street Tree Manual. Accessed May 2021. http://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/sdot/about/documentlibrary /streettreemanualweb.pdf. City of Seattle Department of Transportation. 2015. Tree Sidewalks Operations Plan. City of Seattle Public Utilities. 2015. Standard Specifications of Municipal Construction. Plans 100a, 421, 424, 425, 430. Elmendorf, W. 2008. Planting and Aftercare of Community Trees. Penn State University Extension. Green Tech. 2021. Ribbed Root Barrier Panels. https://www.green-tech.co.uk/hard-landscaping/tree-pit-root-barriers/ribbed-root-barrier-panels Mann, Gordon. N.d. Sidewalk and Root Conflicts: Mitigating the Conflict - An Overview. Accessed May 2021, on Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) website at: http://mrsc.org/getmedia/4DD1A628-BD5A-49E3-B1EE-3D09525F63BE/m58mannmade.asp. Martin, Justin. 2017. Trees and Sidewalks: A Strategic Approach to Conflicts. Green Infrastructure for Your Community. https://www.deeproot.com/blog/blog-entries/trees-and- sidewalks-a-strategic-approach-to-conflicts Smiley, E. Thomas. 2008. “Comparison of Methods to Reduce Sidewalk Damage from Tree Roots,” inArboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(3):179 -183. 110 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX D1 | Establishment Care Guidelines Weeding ■Remove all the grass and weeds growing in the tree basin or tree well by hand. ■To avoid root damage, do not dig into the soil with a shovel or hoe. ■To avoid trunk damage, do not use a weed whacker or lawnmower for weed removal. Pruning ■Newly planted trees may require minor pruning to remove branches damaged during the planting process and/or dead branches. ■Trees should be pruned sparingly. All other pruning should be withheld until the second or third growing season following tree planting. ■Sucker growth (sprouts from the base of the plant or from roots) should be removed. ■All pruning should be conducted in accordance with ANSI A 300 pruning standards. Repair and extend berms ■Newly planted trees should have a 4”- 6” high berm just outside the root ball to direct water to where it is needed. ■As a tree grows and matures, extend the berm to the drip line. Ensure proper tree support ■Tree stakes should be firmly secured 2’ deep vertically in the soil. ■Leaning or loose stakes should be re-installed and secured in the soil. ■Tree ties should be placed in the middle to lower portion of the tree and allow tree move- ment 3”- 4” in each direction. ■If the roots of the tree are established, remove the stakes and tree ties. This typically occurs two – three years after planting. Dr i p l i n e Dr i p l i n e Mulch ■Use only organic materials such as chipped trees for mulch. ■Apply a layer 2”- 3” thick inside the tree basin and covering the berm. ■Keep mulch 4” away from the trunk of the tree to avoid moisture building on the trunk, which can lead to rot and fungal growth. Establishment CareGuidelines CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 111 Tree Protection Guidelines | APPENDIX D2 Appendix D – Tree Protection Measures The following sections are included as general guidelines for tree protection from construction impacts. The measures presented should be monitored by arborists and enforced by contractors and developers for maximum benefit to the trees. Tree Protection Measures Prior to Construction Fencing: All remaining trees that will not be relocated or removed should be preserved and protected in place. Trees within approximately 15 feet of proposed construction activity should be temporarily fenced with chain link or other material satisfactory to City planning staff throughout grading and construction activities. The fencing should be installed 3 feet outside of the dripline of each tree (or edge of canopy for cluster of trees), be 4 feet tall, and staked every 6 feet. The fenced area should be considered the tree protection zone (TPZ) unless proximate construction required temporary removal. Pre-Construction Meeting: A pre-construction meeting should be held between all contractors (including grading, tree removal/pruning, builders, etc.) and the arborist. The arborist will instruct the contractors on tree protection practices and answer any questions. All equipment operators and spotters, assistants, or those directing operators from the ground, should provide written acknowledgement of their receiving tree protection training. This training should include information on the location and marking of protected trees, the necessity of preventing damage, and the discussion of work practices that will accomplish such. Protection and Maintenance During Construction Once construction activities have begun the following measures should be adhered to: Equipment Operation and Storage: Avoid heavy equipment operation around the trees. Operating heavy machinery around the root zones of trees will increase soil compaction, which decreases soil aeration and subsequently reduces water penetration in the soil. All heavy equipment and vehicles should, at minimum, stay out of the fenced TPZ, unless where specifically approved in writing and under the supervision of a Certified Arborist or as provided by the approved landscape plan. Storage and Disposal: Do not store or discard any supply or material, including paint, lumber, concrete overflow, etc. within the protection zone. Remove all foreign debris within the protection zone; it is important to leave the duff, mulch, chips, and leaves around the retained trees for water retention and nutrients. Avoid draining or leakage of equipment fluids near retained trees. Fluids such as gasoline, diesel, oils, hydraulics, brake and transmission fluids, paint, paint thinners, and glycol (anti-freeze) should be disposed of properly. Keep equipment parked at least 50 feet away from retained trees to avoid the possibility of leakage of equipment fluids into the soil. The effect of toxic equipment fluids on the retained trees could lead to decline and death. Grade Changes: Grade changes, including adding fill, are not permitted within the TPZ without special written authorization and under the supervision of a Certified Arborist or as provided by the approved landscape plan. Lowering the grade within this area will necessitate cutting main support and feeder roots, jeopardizing the health and structural integrity of the tree(s). Adding soil, even temporarily, on top of the existing grade will compact the soil further, and decrease both water and air availability to the trees’ roots. 112 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX D2 | Tree Protection Guidelines Tree Protection Measures Page 2 Moving Construction Materials: Care will be taken when moving equipment or supplies near the trees, especially overhead. Avoid damaging the tree(s) when transporting or moving construction materials and working around the tree (even outside of the fenced tree protection zone). Above ground tree parts that could be damaged (e.g., low limbs, trunks) should be flagged with red ribbon. If contact with the tree crown is unavoidable, prune the conflicting branch(es) using International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards. Root Pruning: Except where specifically approved in writing or as provided in Attachment 3, all trenching should be outside of the fenced protection zone. Roots primarily extend in a horizontal direction forming a support base to the tree similar to the base of a wineglass. Where trenching is necessary in areas that contain tree roots, prune the roots using a Dosko root pruner or equivalent. All cuts should be clean and sharp, to minimize ripping, tearing, and fracturing of the root system. The trench should be made no deeper than necessary. Irrigation: Trees that have been substantially root pruned (30% or more of their root zone) will require irrigation for the first 12 months. The first irrigation should be within 48 hours of root pruning. They should be deep watered every 2 to 4 weeks during the summer and once a month during the winter (adjust accordingly with rainfall). One irrigation cycle should thoroughly soak the root zones of the trees to a depth of 3 feet. The soil should dry out between watering; avoid keeping a consistently wet soil. Designate one person to be responsible for irrigating (deep watering) the trees. Check soil moisture with a soil probe before irrigating. Irrigation is best accomplished by installing a temporary above ground micro-spray system that will distribute water slowly (to avoid runoff) and evenly throughout the fenced protection zone but never soaking the area located within 6 feet of the tree trunk, especially during warmer months. Pruning: Do not prune any of the trees until all construction is completed. This will help protect the tree canopies from damage. All pruning should be completed under the direction of an ISA Certified Arborist and using ISA guidelines. Only dead wood should be removed from tree canopies. Washing: During construction in summer and autumn months, wash foliage of trees adjacent to the construction sites with a strong water stream every two weeks in early hours before 10:00 a.m. to control mite and insect populations. Inspection: An ISA Certified Arborist should inspect the impacted preserved trees on a monthly basis during construction. A report comparing tree health and condition to the original, pre-construction baseline should be submitted following each inspection. Photographs of representative trees are to be included in the report on a minimum annual basis. Maintenance After Construction Once construction is complete the fencing may be removed and the following measures performed to sustain and enhance the vigor of the preserved trees. Mulch: Provide a 4-inch mulch layer under the canopy of trees. Mulch should include clean, organic mulch that will provide long-term soil conditioning, soil moisture retention, and soil temperature control. Pruning: The trees will not require regular pruning. Pruning should only be done to maintain clearance and remove broken, dead or diseased branches. Pruning should only take place following a recommendation by an ISA Certified Arborist and performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist. No more than 20% of the canopy should be removed at any one time. All pruning should conform to ISA standards. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 113 Tree Protection Guidelines | APPENDIX D2 Tree Protection Measures Page 3 Watering: The natural trees that are not disturbed should not require regular irrigation, other than the 12 months following substantial root pruning. However, soil probing will be necessary to accurately monitor moisture levels. Especially in years with low winter rainfall, supplemental irrigation for the trees that sustained root pruning and any newly planted trees may be necessary. The trees should be irrigated only during the winter and spring months. Watering Adjacent Plant Material: All plants near the trees should be compatible with water requirements of said trees. The surrounding plants should be watered infrequently with deep soaks and allowed to dry out in-between, rather than frequent light irrigation. The soil should not be allowed to become saturated or stay continually wet. Irrigation spray should not hit the trunk of any tree. A 60-inch dry-zone should be maintained around all tree trunks. An aboveground micro-spray irrigation system is recommended over typical underground pop-up sprays. Washing: Periodic washing of the foliage is recommended during construction but no more than once every 2 weeks. Washing should include the upper and lower leaf surfaces and the tree bark. This should continue beyond the construction period at a less frequent rate with a high-powered hose only in the early morning hours. Washing will help control dirt/dust buildup that can lead to mite and insect infestations. Spraying: If the trees are maintained in a healthy state, regular spraying for insect or disease control should not be necessary. If a problem does develop, an ISA Certified Arborist should be consulted; the trees may require application of insecticides to prevent the intrusion of bark-boring beetles and other invading pests. All chemical spraying should be performed by a licensed applicator under the direction of a licensed pest control advisor. Inspection: All trees that were impacted during construction within the TPZ should be monitored by an ISA Certified Arborist for the first 5 years after construction completion. The Arborist should submit an annual report, photograph each tree and compare tree health and condition to the original, pre-construction baseline. 114 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX D3 | Tree Protection Detail TREE PROTECTION Crown drip line or other limit of Tree Protection area. See tree preservation plan for fence alignment. 4' - 0 " Maintain existing grade with the tree protection fence unless otherwise indicated on the plans. 2" x 6' steel posts or approved equal. Tree Protection fence: High density polyethylene fencing with 3.5" x 1.5" openings; Color- orange. Steel posts installed at 8' o.c. 5" thick layer of mulch. Notes: 1- See specifications for additional tree protection requirements. 2- If there is no existing irrigation, see specifications for watering requirements. 3- No pruning shall be performed except by approved arborist. 4- No equipment shall operate inside the protective fencing including during fence installation and removal. 5- See site preparation plan for any modifications with the Tree Protection area. SECTION VIEW KEEP OUT TREE PROTECTION AREA 8.5" x 11" sign laminated in plastic spaced every 50' along the fence. URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 115 Root Pruning Detail | APPENDIX D2 116 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX D5 | Irrigation Detail IRRIGATION BUBBLER (2) W/ LAYOUT 18 " m i n . PLAN VIEW SECTION VIEW Pressure compensating bubbler shall be set 1" above finished grade. (See irrigation legend for make and model). Swing joint. See detail. Finished grade. Sch. 40 PVC 90° elbow slip to thread. Lateral line irrigation. (See irrigation plans for sizing). Sch. 40 PVC 90° elbow slip to thread. Sch. 40 PVC Tee or 90° elbow. Edge of root ball. Existing or modified soil. (See specifications for soil modification). Lateral line irrigation. (See irrigation plans for sizing). Notes: 1- All irrigation fittings shall be Sch. 40 PVC unless specified otherwise. 2- All threaded connections from Sch. 40 to Sch. 80 PVC shall be made using teflon tape. 3- Contractor shall settle the area around the bubbler and edge of the root ball so that all irrigation flows through the root ball. Edge of root ball. Settle backfill so that irrigation flows through the root ball. Swing joint. See detail. URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE Example A B Aspect Ratio 2.50"1.80"0.72 2.0"2.0"1.0 2.50"2.0"0.80 4.0"3.0"0.75 CROWN OBSERVATIONS - HIGH BRANCHED A B A B Notes: 1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected. Example A B Aspect Ratio 1.50"0.50"0.33 2.50"0.90"0.36 2.0"1.00"0.50 2.50"1.60"0.64 One central leader (No codominant leaders) Aspect ratio is less than 0.66. Aspect ratio is greater than 0.66. Multiple leaders (Several codominant leaders) ACCEPTABLE REJECTABLE A BA B A B B Aspect ratio of B:A less than 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 117 Nursery Stock Standards | APPENDIX E Example A B Aspect Ratio 2.50"1.80"0.72 2.0"2.0"1.0 2.50"2.0"0.80 4.0"3.0"0.75 CROWN OBSERVATIONS - HIGH BRANCHED A B A B Notes: 1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected. Example A B Aspect Ratio 1.50"0.50"0.33 2.50"0.90"0.36 2.0"1.00"0.50 2.50"1.60"0.64 One central leader (No codominant leaders) Aspect ratio is less than 0.66. Aspect ratio is greater than 0.66. Multiple leaders (Several codominant leaders) ACCEPTABLE REJECTABLE A BA B A B B Aspect ratio of B:A less than 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE 118 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX E | Nursery Stock Standards Example A B Aspect Ratio 2.50"1.80"0.72 2.0"2.0"1.0 2.50"2.0"0.80 4.0"3.0"0.75 CROWN OBSERVATIONS - LOW BRANCHED A B A B Example A B Aspect Ratio 1.50"0.50"0.33 2.50"0.90"0.36 2.0"1.00"0.50 2.50"1.60"0.64 Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 One central leader (No codominant leaders) Aspect ratio is less than 0.66. Aspect ratio is greater than 0.66. Multiple leaders (Several codominant leaders) ACCEPTABLE REJECTABLE A B B A Aspect ratio of B:A less than 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. A B B Notes: 1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected. URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 119 Nursery Stock Standards | APPENDIX E CROWN OBSERVATION DETAIL - MULTI ACCEPTABLE REJECTABLE Aspect ratio is greater than 0.66. Aspect ratio is less than 0.66. Example A B Aspect Ratio 2.50"1.80"0.72 2.0"2.0"1.0 2.50"2.0"0.80 4.0"3.0"0.75 A B A B Example A B Aspect Ratio 1.50"0.50"0.33 2.50"0.90"0.36 2.0"1.00"0.50 2.50"1.60"0.64 A BA B A B B Aspect ratio of B:A less than 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union.Notes: 1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected. URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE 120 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX F | Highly Flammable Plant List UNDESIRABLE PLANT LIST The following species are highly flammable and should be avoided when planting within the first 50 feet adjacent to a structure. The plants listed below are more susceptible to burning, due to rough or peeling bark, production of large amounts of litter, vegetation that contains oils, resin, wax, or pitch, large amounts of dead material in the plant, or plantings with a high dead to live fuel ratio. Many of these species, if existing on the property and adequately maintained (pruning, thinning, irrigation, litter removal, and weeding), may remain as long as the potential for spreading a fire has been reduced or eliminated. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME Abies species Acacia species Adenostoma sparsifolium** Adenostoma fasciculatum** Agonis juniperina Araucaria species Artemesia californica** Bambusa species Cedrus species Chamaecyparis species Coprosma pumila Cryptomeria japonica Cupressocyparis leylandii Cupressus forbesii** Cupressus glabra Cupressus sempervirens Dodonea viscosa Eriogonum fasciculatum** Eucalyptus species Heterotheca grandiflora** Juniperus species Larix species Lonicera japonica Miscanthus species Muehlenbergia species** Palmae species Picea species Pickeringia Montana** Pinus species Podocarpus species Pseudotsuga menziesii Rosmarinus species Salvia mellifera** Taxodium species Taxus species Thuja species Tsuga species Urtica urens** Fir Trees Acacia (trees, shrubs, groundcovers) Red Shanks Chamise Juniper Myrtle Monkey Puzzle, Norfolk Island Pine California Sagebrush Bamboo Cedar False Cypress Prostrate Coprosma Japanese Cryptomeria Leylandii Cypress Tecate Cypress Arizona Cypress Italian Cypress Hopseed Bush Common Buckwheat Eucalyptus Telegraph Plant Junipers Larch Japanese Honeysuckle Eulalia Grass Deer Grass Palms Spruce Trees Chaparral Pea Pines Fern Pine Douglas Fir Rosemary Black Sage Cypress Yew Arborvitae Hemlock Burning Nettle ** San Diego County native species References: Gordon, H. White, T.C. 1994. Ecological Guide to Southern California Chaparral Plant Series. Cleveland National Forest. Willis, E. 1997. San Diego County Fire Interface Development Standards City of Oceanside, California. 1995. Vegetation Management. Landscape Development Manual. Community Services Department, Engineering Division. City of Vista, California 1997. Undesirable Plants. Section 18.56.999. Landscaping Design, Development and Maintenance Standards. www.bewaterwise.com. 2004. Fire-resistant California Friendly Plants. www.ucfpl.ucop.edu. 2004. University of California, Berkeley, Forest Products Laboratory, College of Natural Resources. Defensible Space Landscaping in the Urban/Wildland Interface. A Compilation of Fire Performance Ratings of Residential Landscape Plants. County of Los Angeles Fire Department. 1998. Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines. Appendix I, Undesirable Plant List, and Appendix II, Undesirable Plant List. ** San Diego County native species References: Gordon, H. White, T.C. 1994. Ecological Guide to Southern California Chaparral Plant Series. Cleveland National Forest. Willis, E. 1997. San Diego County Fire Interface Development Standards City of Oceanside, California. 1995. Vegetation Management. Landscape Development Manual. Community Services Department, Engineering Division. City of Vista, California 1997. Undesirable Plants. Section 18.56.999. Landscaping Design, Development and Maintenance Standards. www.bewaterwise.com. 2004. Fire-resistant California Friendly Plants. www.ucfpl.ucop.edu. 2004. University of California, Berkeley, Forest Products Laboratory, College of Natural Resources. Defensible Space Landscaping in the Urban/Wildland Interface. A Compilation of Fire Performance Ratings of Residential Landscape Plants. County of Los Angeles Fire Department. 1998. Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines. Appendix I, Undesirable Plant List, and Appendix II, Undesirable Plant List. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 121 Public Survey Results | APPENDIX G Appendix G Public Survey Results Temec ula Tree Survey 1 / 20 97.08%666 2.62%18 0.29%2 Q1 Do you consider neighborhood trees a valuable community asset that contribute to your quality of life in Temecula? Answered: 686 Sk ipped: 2 TOTAL 686 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Definit ely So mew hat Not at all ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Definit ely Somewhat Not at all 122 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temec ula Tree Survey 2 / 20 15.57%107 74.82%514 9.61%66 Q2 Trees are considered part of the City’s infrastructure. How important do you think trees are compared to other infrastructure like streets, sidewalks, water, sewer, traffic signals, lighting, etc)? Answered: 687 Skipped: 1 TOTAL 687 0%1 0%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100% Trees are more impor tant th... Tr ees ar e equally as... Trees are not as impor tant... ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Trees are more important than other inf ras truct ure Trees are equally as important as other infrastructure Trees are not as important as other infras tructure CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 123 Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GTemecula Tree Survey 3 / 20 23.07%158 53.58%367 21.61%148 1.75%12 Q3 What rating would you give the condition of public space street trees in Temecula? Answered: 685 Skipped: 3 TOTAL 685 0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100% Excellent Good Fair Poor ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Excellent Good Fair Poor 124 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temec ula Tree Survey 4 / 20 Q4 What should be the top two goals of the City of Temecula Urban Forest Management Plan? (select top TWO choices) Answered: 687 Skipped: 1 67.15% 325 32.85% 159 484 1.33 62.41% 254 37.59% 153 407 1.38 50.42% 120 49.58% 118 238 1.50 66.08% 298 33.92% 153 451 1.34 65.01% 275 34.99% 148 423 1.35 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% 1st Priority 2nd Priority Maintaining the existing... Removing dead, dying or... Reducing the number of tr... Increase the number of tr... Planting new species to... 1ST PRIORITY 2ND PRIORITY TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE Maintaining the existing trees Removing dead, dying or otherwise hazardous trees Reducing the number of trees removed every year Increase the number of trees planted every year Planting new species to increase species diversity and to protect against climate change CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 125 Public Survey Results | APPENDIX G Temecula Tree Survey 5 / 20 Q5 Of the following options, select the top 2 most important benefit trees provide in your neighborhood. Answered: 687 Skipped: 1 80.00% 428 20.00% 107 535 1.20 60.76% 223 39.24% 144 367 1.39 65.42% 157 34.58% 83 240 1.35 58.03% 206 41.97% 149 355 1.42 52.45% 203 47.55% 184 387 1.48 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% 1st Priority 2nd Priority Improving the environment... Cooling neighborhood... Protecting human health Aesthetics or appearance Psychological/E motional... 1ST PRIORITY 2ND PRIORITY TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE Improving the environment (like air quality, storing carbon) Cooling neighborhoods and homes Protecting human health Aesthetics or appearance Psychological/Emotional benefits 126 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temecula Tree Survey 6 / 20 Q6 What factors would make you reluctant to have a tree on your property? (Select Your Top Two) Answered: 687 Skipped: 1 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% 1st Priority 2nd Priority Cost to tr im trees Cost to water tr ees Mess/leaf litter Damage to sewer... Risk of damage by falling... No issues CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 127 Public Survey Results | APPENDIX G Temec ula Tree Survey 7 / 20 39.16% 112 60.84% 174 286 1.61 48.40% 106 51.60% 113 219 1.52 38.80% 97 61.20% 153 250 1.61 65.33% 277 34.67% 147 424 1.35 40.81% 91 59.19% 132 223 1.59 70.59% 252 29.41% 105 357 1.29 1ST PRIORITY 2ND PRIORITY TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE Cost to trim trees Cost to water trees Mess/leaf litter Damage to s ewer pipes/s idewalks Risk of damage by falling branches No issues 128 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temec ula Tree Survey 8 / 20 21.64%148 20.32%139 25.88%177 19.44%133 12.72%87 Q7 The City should have ordinances to protect trees on private property in the same way they protect trees in the public space. Answered: 684 Skipped: 4 TOTAL 684 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Strongly agree Agr ee Somewhat agree Disagr ee Strongly disagr ee ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Disagree Strongly disagree CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 129 Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GTemecula Tree Survey 9 / 20 32.41%222 23.50%161 18.25%125 13.72%94 12.12%83 Q8 Approximately how much have you spent on maintenance or repairs related to trees or tree root damage over the past 5 years? Ans wered: 685 Sk ipped: 3 TOTAL 685 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% No expenses r elated to... $100-$499 $5 00 - $999 $1000-$1 999 More than $2000 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES No expenses related to prev entativ e tree care or maintenance $100-$499 $500 - $999 $1000-$1999 More than $2000 130 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temec ula Tree Survey 10 / 20 63.36%422 36.19%241 68.47%456 17.12%114 23.12%154 8.41%56 Q9 Which of the following activities would you be willing to participate in to support the City’s tree planting efforts? (Select all that apply) Answered: 666 Sk ipped: 22 Total Respondents: 666 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Volunteer at a community tr... Attend an educational... Planting a tree on your... Volunteer to provide basi... Help organize a neighborho... Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Volunteer at a community tree planting Attend an educational work shop Planting a tree on y our private property Volunteer to provide bas ic tree c are on a regular basis Help organize a neighborhood tree planting Other (pleas e specify ) CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 131 Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GTemecula Tree Survey 11 / 20 34.83%233 31.84%213 45.59%305 48.43%324 12.26%82 Q10 How can the City best help you plant and/or care for a tree in your yard? Answered: 669 Skipped: 19 Total Respondents: 669 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Pr ovide an expert answ e... Labor to do the work F inancial suppor t for... Provide ‘How -to’... Other (pl ease specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Prov ide an ex pert answer ques tions about t ree health Labor to do the work Financ ial s upport for tree trimming Provide ‘How-to’ information on planting, watering, and trimming Other (pleas e s pecify ) 132 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temec ula Tree Survey 12 / 20 Q11 Additional comments. Answered: 218 Skipped: 470 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 133 Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GTemecula Tree Survey 13 / 20 91.69%596 8.31%54 Q12 Do you live in Temecula? Answered: 650 Sk ipped: 38 TOTAL 650 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No 134 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temec ula Tree Survey 14 / 20 57.12%369 42.88%277 Q13 Do you work in Temecula? Ans wered: 646 Sk ipped: 42 TOTAL 646 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Yes No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes No CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 135 Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GTemecula Tree Survey 15 / 20 2.32%15 26.74%173 58.89%381 3.09%20 1.24%8 4.79%31 2.94%19 Q14 What zip code do you live in? Answered: 647 Sk ipped: 41 TOTAL 647 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% 92590 92591 92592 92596 925 62 925 63 Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES 92590 92591 92592 92596 92562 92563 Other (please specify) 136 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temec ula Tree Survey 16 / 20 2.79%18 91.78%592 0.31%2 3.26%21 1.86%12 Q15 What best describes your housing situation? Answered: 645 Sk ipped: 43 TOTAL 645 0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100% Apartment Singl e family home Dupl ex Condominium Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Apartment Single family home Duplex Condominium Other (please spec ify) CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 137 Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GTemecula Tree Survey 17 / 20 82.71%531 11.99%77 3.58%23 1.71%11 Q16 Which of the following best describes your current housing situation? Answered: 642 Skipped: 46 TOTAL 642 0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Homeowner Renter Living with other s but n... Living with ot her s and... ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Homeowner Renter Living with others but not paying rent or mort gage Liv ing with others and assis t ing with pay ing rent or mortgage 138 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temecula Tree Survey 18 / 20 96.73%621 1.87%12 0.31%2 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 1.09%7 Q17 What is the primary language spoken in your home? Answered: 642 Skipped: 46 TOTAL 642 0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100% English Spanish Russian Vietnamese Tagalog Mandar in Other (please specify) ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES English Spanish Russian Vietnamese Tagalog Mandarin Other (please s pecify) CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 139 Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GTemecula Tree Survey 19 / 20 1.25%8 3.13%20 16.41%105 28.59%183 20.63%132 15.63%100 14.37%92 Q18 Which category below includes your age? Answered: 640 Skipped: 48 TOTAL 640 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ 140 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Temecula Tree Survey 20 / 20 1.11%7 3.16%20 23.58%149 11.55%73 36.87%233 23.73%150 Q19 What is the highest level of education you have attained? Answered: 632 Skipped: 56 TOTAL 632 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% No high school diploma High school diploma or... Some college but no degree Associate degree Bachelor degree Graduate degree ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES No high school diploma High sc hool diploma or equivalent (e.g., GED) Some college but no degree Associate degree Bac helor degree Graduate degree CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 141 Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 1 / 18 100.00%13 0.00%0 0.00%0 Q1 ¿Considera que los árboles de su vecindario son importantes para la comunidad y que contribuyen a la calidad de su vida? Answered: 13 Sk ipped: 1 TOTAL 13 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Sí Un tanto No ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Sí Un tanto No 142 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX G | Public Survey ResultsCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 2 / 18 84.62%11 15.38%2 0.00%0 Q2 Los árboles son parte de la infraestructura de la ciudad. En comparación con los otros elementos de la infraestructura de la ciudad (por ejemplo: las calles, las aceras, las farolas, las señales de tráfico, infraestructura hídrica/alcantarillado), ¿Qué tan importante considera los árboles? Answered: 13 Sk ipped: 1 TOTAL 13 0%10%20%30%40%5 0%60%70%80%90%100% Los ár boles son más... Lo s árbol es son tan... Los árbol es no son tan... ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Los árboles son más importantes que los otros elementos de la inf raestruc tura de la ciudad. Los árboles s on tan importantes que los ot ros elementos de la infraestruc tura de la ciudad. Los árboles no s on tan importantes que los otros elementos de la infraestruc tura de la ciudad. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 143 Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 3 / 18 0.00%0 91.67%11 0.00%0 8.33%1 Q3 ¿De qué calidad considera los árboles en los espacios públicos en la ciudad de Temecula? Answered: 12 Sk ipped: 2 TOTAL 12 0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Excel ente Buena Regular Pobre/Deficient e ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Excelente Buena Regular Pobre/Deficiente 144 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX G | Public Survey Results Cuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 4 / 18 8.33%1 16.67%2 0.00%0 25.00%3 50.00%6 Q4 ¿Cuáles deben ser los dos objetivos más importantes del Manejo del Bosque Comunitario? Answered: 12 Skipped: 2 TOTAL 12 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Mantener los árboles... Quitar los ár boles... Quitar menos árboles cada... Pl antar/sembr ar más árbol es... Pl antar/sembrar árboles de... ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Mantener los árboles ex istentes Quitar los árboles muertos, enfermos o peligrosos Quitar menos árboles cada año Plantar/sembrar más árboles cada año Plantar/sembrar árboles de es pecies diferentes para aumentar la diversidad y proteger la c iudad contra los cambi os climáticos CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 145 Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 5 / 18 83.33%10 91.67%11 75.00%9 83.33%10 16.67%2 Q5 ¿Cuáles son los beneficios más importantes de los árboles en su vecindario? Escoge dos: Ans wered: 12 Sk ipped: 2 Total Res pondents : 12 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% Mejorar el medioambient... Enfriar el barr io y su... Proteger l a sal ud de l os... Estética o aspecto Beneficios psicológicos... ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Mejorar el medioambiente (por ejemplo: la c alidad del aire, cargar c arbono) Enfriar el barrio y su hogar c on la sombra Proteger la s alud de los humanos Estética o aspecto Benefic ios ps ic ológicos/emoc ionales 146 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX G | Public Survey ResultsCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temecula 6 / 18 8.33%1 0.00%0 0.00%0 0.00%0 8.33%1 91.67%11 0.00%0 Q6 Decirnos las razones por que no querría un árbol en su propiedad. Escoge dos: Answered: 12 Skipped: 2 Total Res pondents: 12 0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Los gastos de l a poda de l... Los gastos del agua que... Hojarasca/desor den en la... El daño a las aceras o... El r iesgo de caída de ramas Ninguna r azón Otra r azón ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Los gas tos de la poda de los árboles Los gastos del agua que necesitan los árboles Hojarasca/desorden en la tierra El daño a las aceras o tuberías subterráneas El riesgo de caída de ramas Ninguna razón Otra razón CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 147 Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 7 / 18 83.33%10 0.00%0 0.00%0 8.33%1 8.33%1 Q7 La ciudad debe tener ordenanzas que protegen los árboles en la propiedad privada, similar a las ordenanzas sobre los árboles en los espacios públicos. ¿Está de acuerdo? Answered: 12 Skipped: 2 TOTAL 12 0%1 0%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Estoy totalmente d... Estoy de acuerdo Un poco de acuerdo Estoy de desacuerdo Estoy totalmente d... ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Es toy totalmente de ac uerdo Es toy de ac uerdo Un poco de acuerdo Estoy de desacuerdo Estoy totalmente de des acuerdo 148 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX G | Public Survey ResultsCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 8 / 18 0.00%0 16.67%2 16.67%2 25.00%3 41.67%5 Q8 En los 5 años pasados, ¿cuánto ha gastado para mantener los árboles o en las reparaciones relacionadas con los árboles? (en $US) Ans wered: 12 Skipped: 2 TOTAL 12 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%1 00% $0 $1 00-$499 $500 - $999 $1000-$1999 Más que $2000 ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES $0 $100-$499 $500 - $999 $1000-$1999 Más que $2000 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN | 149 Public Survey Results | APPENDIX GCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 9 / 18 41.67%5 8.33%1 83.33%10 33.33%4 16.67%2 0.00%0 Q9 ¿En qué actividades participaría para apoyar los esfuerzos de la siembra de árboles en la ciudad? (Escoge todo lo que se aplica.) Answered: 12 Skipped: 2 Total Respondents : 12 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Voluntario(a) en un evento... Inscribir en un taller... Plantar/sembrar un árbol en ... Voluntar io(a) por cuidar se... Ayudar a or ganizar un... Otra actividad ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Voluntario(a) en un evento de la siembra de los árboles Inscribir en un taller educativ o Plantar/sembrar un árbol en su propiedad Voluntario(a) por cuidarse a los árboles en la ciudad en una forma regular Ayudar a organizar una siembra de árboles en su vecindario Otra ac tiv idad 150 | CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX G | Public Survey ResultsCuestionario de los Árboles de la Ciudad de Temec ula 10 / 18 7.14%1 7.14%1 78.57%11 7.14%1 0.00%0 Q10 ¿Cómo puede la ciudad ayudarte a plantar y/o cuidar un árbol en tu propiedad? Ans wered: 14 Skipped: 0 TOTAL 14 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Un exper to quien puede... Alguien para hacer el... Apoyo financier o p... Guías con infor mación... Ot ro ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Un experto quien puede res ponder a las preguntas sobre la salud de los árboles Alguien para hac er el trabajo Apoyo financ iero para la poda de árboles Guías con informac ión sobre la s iembra, poda y riego de árboles Otro Si No ANSWER CHOICES Si No TOTAL Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G Q11 6Vive en Temecula? Answered: 13 Skipped:1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 100.00% 0.00% 13 0 13 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 151 APPENDIX G I Public Survey Results Si No ANSWER CHOICES Si No TOTAL Q12 �,Trabaja en Temecula? Answered:13 Skipped:1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 46.15% 53.85% 7 13 152 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G Q13 �,En que codigo postal vive? Answered:13 Skipped:1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 153 APPENDIX G I Public Survey Results Q14 �,Cual describe su situacion de vivienda? Answered:13 Skipped:1 Apartamiento Casa unifamiliar Duplex Condominio Otro 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Apartamiento 0.00% Casa unifamiliar 100.00% Duplex 0.00% Condominio 0.00% Otro 0.00% TOTAL 0 r 0 13 1541 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G Q15 �,Cual describe su situacion de vivienda? Answered:13 Skipped:I i ir Propietano(a) Alquilado(a)/Re ntado(a) Vivir con otras person... Vivir con otras person... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Propietario(a) Alquilado(a)/Rentado(a) Vivir con otras personas sin pagar de alquiler o renta Vivir con otras personas y ayudar a pagar el pago de alquiler o renta TOTAL RESPONSES 92.31% 12 7.69% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 13 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 155 APPENDIX G I Public Survey Results Q16 �, Cual es el primer idioma en su hogar? Answered:13 Skipped:1 Ingles Espanol Ruso Vietnamita Tagalo Mandarin Otro idioma 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Ingles M-A-1 Huso Vietnamita Tagalo Mandarin Otro idioma TOTAL I RESPONSES 84.62% 7.69% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 13 156 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Menores de 13 anos 14 -20 anos 21-29 anos 30-39 anos 40-49 anos 50-59 anos Mayores de 60 anos 0% ANSWER CHOICES Menores de 13 anos 14 -20 anos 21-29 anos 30-39 anos 40-49 anos 50-59 anos Mayores de 60 anos TOTAL Public Survey Results I APPENDIX G Q17 �,Cuantos anos tiene? Answered: 13 Skipped:I 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 46.15% 23.08% 7.69% 15.38% 0 0 0 6 3 1 2 13 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 157 APPENDIX G I Public Survey Results Q18 �,Cual es el nivel mas alto de educacion que has alcanzado? Answered:13 Skipped:I Sin diploma de escuela... Diploma de escuela... Cierta educacion... Titulo asociado Licenciatura Titulo de posgrado 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Sin diploma de escuela secundaria Diploma de escuela secundaria o to igual (por ejemplo: GED) Cierta educacion universitaria, pero sin titulo Titulo asociado Licenciatura Titulo de posgrado TOTAL . RESPONSES 0.00% 0 7.69% 1 15.38% 2 0.00% 0 23.08% 3 53.85% 7 13 158 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Funding Opportunities I APPENDIX H Funding Opportunities Grants Environmental With approximately $13.4 million for the 2021-2023 funding cycle, this Enhancement Mitigation program encourages projects that produce multiple benefits that reduce Program (California Natural greenhouse gas emissions; increase water use efficiency; reduce risks from Resources Agency) climate change impacts; and demonstrate collaboration with local, state, and community entities. Eligible projects like tree planting and habitat restoration, must be directly or indirectly related to the environmental impact of the modification of an existing transportation facility or construction of a new transportation facility. Urban Flood Protection Grant The Urban Flood Protection Program was created by Proposition 68 for the purpose Program (California Natural of multi -benefit projects in urbanized areas to address flooding. Projects must Resources Agency) provide multi -benefit solutions to address flooding in urban areas, protect people, and protect property from flood damage. Examples of eligible projects include tree planting and establishment care and creating native landscapes with stormwater capture features like bioswales. There was one funding cycle for fiscal year 2020- 2021 totaling $92.5 million. Urban and Community Multiple grant programs supported by the Urban and Community Forestry Program Forestry Program will fund tree planting, tree inventories, urban wood and biomass utilization, (CAL FIRE) blighted urban lands improvements, and leading edge work that advances the goals and objectives of supporting healthy urban forests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There was an estimated $10 million available to fund a variety of urban forestry projects in fiscal year 2019-2020. Urban Greening Grant Consistent with Assembly Bill 32 (2006), the Urban Greening Program will fund Program (California Natural projects that reduce greenhouse gases by sequestering carbon, decreasing Resources Agency) energy consumption, and reducing vehicles miles traveled, while also transforming the built environment into places that are more sustainable, enjoyable, and effective in creating healthy and vibrant communities. During the 2019-2020 fiscal year, there was approximately $28.5 million available for selected project applicants, which included public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and qualifying districts. Active Transportation This program provides fundingto encourage increased use of active modes of Program (California transportation, such as biking and walking. Trees and other vegetation are significant Department of components of several eligible projects underthe Active Transportation Program, Transportation) including parks, trails, and safe routes to schools. $440 million will be distributed to project applicants over fiscal years 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023. Applicants include public agencies, transit agencies, school districts, tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations. Affordable Housing and The Strategic Growth Council is authorized to fund land use, housing, transportation, Sustainable Communities and land preservation projects to support infill and compact developmentthat (California Strategic Growth reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Urban Greening is a threshold requirementfor all Council) Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities funded projects. Eligible urban greening projects include, but are not limited to, rainwater recycling; flow and filtration systems including rain gardens, stormwater planters, and filters; vegetated swales; bioretention basins; infiltration trenches; and integration with riparian buffers, shade trees, community gardens, and parks and open space. Fundingfor 2021 is estimated at $452 million and will be available to locality (e.g., local agencies), developer (entity responsible for project construction), or program operator (day -today operational project administrator) project applicants. Storm Water Grant Program — (California State Water Resources Control Board CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 159 APPENDIX H I Funding Opportunities *Fees, Assessments, Taxes Parcel Tax A parcel tax is a special tax levied for the provision of special benefits. Revenues from special taxes must be used for the specific purpose for which they are intended, so a parcel tax would create a dedicated funding stream for street trees. Similar to a special assessment, a parcel tax cannot be based on the value of property; however, the amount levied on each parcel need not be directly related to the benefits provided (ILG 2008). Cities have the flexibility to levy parcel taxes as they see fit, but they are typically based on lot square footage or levied as a flat tax, with the same amount per parcel (CTD 2012a). Parcel taxes are designed to encompass entire cities and therefore, are good candidates for a citywide street tree program, as opposed to the district -level approach that often occurs under special assessments. Landscape and Lighting LLADs are a form of special assessment that finance improvements to Assessment Districts landscaping, lighting and open space, along with open space acquisition. The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 authorizes municipal agencies in California to initiate and administer LLADs. The creation of a LLAD, as with any special assessment, requires the preparation of an Engineer's Report that demonstrates the nexus between fees assessed and benefits provided, followed by majority (50 percent plus one) approval via a special ballot, pursuant to Proposition 218. LLADs are widely used throughout California to fund a range of public realm improvements and services related to street trees, streetscape improvements, street and traffic lights, and recreational facilities, among others. As with parcel taxes, LLADs typically fund more than just street tree planting, establishment and maintenance. While a LLAD could be designed for street trees alone, the process may attract other agencies in need of additional revenue and interested in expanding the scope to services such as park and recreation maintenance. One caution would be to avoid setting the assessment so high as to generate voter backlash. Local municipalities have often convened focus groups to determine the appropriate assessment level. General Obligation Bonds Local governments commonly use General Obligation (GO) bonds to fund the construction and improvement of projects involving real property (e.g., buildings, infrastructure and parks). GO bonds typically carry low interest rates, making them attractive for capital projects, which may include tree planting. However, funding is available for discrete projects, often over a limited time rather than an extended period. In addition, ongoing maintenance is ineligible for GO bond funding pursuant to federal tax law. California cities pay debt service from GO bonds through ad valorem property taxes, where assessments are based on property value. As a result, the issuance of GO bonds requires two-thirds voter approval (State Treasurer 2008). Maintenance Assessment The Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972 authorizes Maintenance Assessment Districts Districts (MADs), which are closely related to LLADs. The key difference is that charter cities, can create MADs for the provision of services not specifically authorized under state law, thereby broadening their use (Griffin, pers. comm., 2012). MADs may be used to finance street tree care, but as with a LLAD, a MAD intended for street trees alone could also attract the attention of other agencies interested in funding the provision of additional non -related services. Community Benefit Community Benefit Districts (CBDs) are used to finance neighborhood Districts revitalization, commonly in commercial areas. Special benefits typically include public safety, economic development, beautification, and streetscape improvements. Formation of a CBD requires property owners to petition the appropriate local agency and demonstrate an interest in paying for additional services. A non-profit Board of Directors typically comprised of property owners, businesses, and government representatives administers a CBD. While CBDs may include street tree planting and maintenance, this is rarely the focus. * Source: City of San Francisco, Financing San Francisco's Urban Forest 2013 160 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN REFERENCES CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 161 PUR�BpNFORESTMANpGEMENTPIAN //�� �✓ _ �l April 2023 Technical Assessment THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN (UFMP) TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT PROVIDES THE FRAMEWORK, METHODOLOGY, AND DATA TO SUPPORT THE FINDINGS IN THE UFMP. "fit► ,.,. dog— JM - b .ter _ [ t� o a � 9 s� F/RE68 PROP ¢ 1;�5 sixce vC tees '� i Ij �y y s aie ai ro.ma ra��a;'ifF INTRODUCTION CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN ACRONYMS................................................................................vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................ix 1 I CITY TREE MANAGEMENT..................................................1 1.1 1 City Resources...................................................................................... 1 1.1 1 City Resources............................................................................. 1 1.1.1 1 Budget........................................................................................ 2 1.1.2 1 Funding Sources.....................................................................4 1.1.3 1 City Staff.................................................................................... 5 1.1.4 1 Contract Labor........................................................................ 6 1.1.5 1 Comparison to Other Municipalities .............................. 7 1.2 1 Life Cycle Management Actions .................................................... 9 1.2.1 1 Tree Policy.................................................................................9 1.2.2 1 Tree Planting..........................................................................14 1.2.3 1 Establishment Care.............................................................15 1.2.4 1 Tree Pruning...........................................................................16 1.2.5 1 Tree Removal and Replacement......................................18 1.2.6 1 Urban Wood Reuse..............................................................18 1.2.7 1 Recommended Species Palette......................................19 2 1 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.....................................21 2.1 1 Tree Policies and Ordinances.......................................................21 2.1.1 1 Municipal Code and Ordinance Review......................21 2.2 1 City Planning Documents...............................................................26 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2.2.1 1 Quality -of -Life Master Plan(2009)...............................28 2.2.2 1 General Plan...........................................................................30 2.2.3 1 Citywide Design Guidelines.............................................32 2.2.4 1 Municipal Code/Zoning Code........................................34 2.2.5 1 Multi -use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan .................36 2.2.6 1 City of Temecula Uptown Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards ............38 2.2.7 1 Temecula Community Services Master Plan..............38 2.2.8 1 City of Temecula Best Management PracticesDesign Manual ............................40 31 CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY..........................................43 3.1 1 Why Canopy Cover Matters.........................................................43 3.2 1 Historical Canopy Cover................................................................44 3.3 1 Tree Canopy Assessment...............................................................45 3.3.1 1 Methodology.........................................................................45 3.3.2 1 Results.......................................................................................45 3.3.3 1 Tree Equity..............................................................................54 3.3.4 1 Increasing Canopy Cover..................................................64 41 STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST......................................69 4.1 1 City Tree Inventory Methodology...............................................69 4.1.1 1 Environmental Services/Economic Benefits..............69 4.1.2 1 Species Diversity...................................................................70 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I II TABLE OF CONTENTS 4.1.3 1 Diameter at Standard Height Distribution ..................75 4.1.4 1 Tree Condition.......................................................................77 4.1.5 1 Relative Performance Index.............................................77 4.1.6 1 Importance Value..................................................................79 4.1.7 1 Park Tree Planting Priorities.............................................81 5 1 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT..............................................88 5.1 1 Online Survey......................................................................................90 5.1.1 1 Demographic Results..........................................................90 5.1.2 1 Survey Results........................................................................91 5.2 1 Working Group...................................................................................92 5.3 1 Stakeholder Interviews....................................................................94 5.4 1 Community Tabling Events............................................................97 5.5 1 Urban Forest Summit.......................................................................97 5.5.1 1 Urban Forest Summit Results...........................................98 5.6 1 Arbor Day Tree Planting Event..................................................104 6 1 REFERENCES.....................................................................107 EXHIBITS 1-1. Temecula's Urban Forest Funding Sources ................................ 4 3-1. Race and Ethnicity Profile of Census Tract with Highest CalEnviroScreen Score...................................................61 3-2. Race and Ethnicity Profile of Census Tract with Lowest CalEnviroScreen Score ...................62 4-1. Age Distribution of Temecula's Top 10 Inventory Species.........................................................................76 5-1. "Where Do We Need More Trees" Categorical Graphic Board Results...................................................100 5-2. "What Do You Love Most About Trees" Categorical Graphic Board Results...................................................101 5-3. "Where Are Trees Needed Most" Map of Temecula Activity Results.......................................................102 FIGURES 1-2. Contractor's Allocated Time Spent on Tree Activities................................................................... 6 3-1. City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis....................................46 3-2. Urban Heat Island and Canopy Cover.......................................58 3-3. City of Temecula CalEnviroScreen Results..............................60 TABLES 1-1. City of Temecula Annual Tree Management Budget2016-2021..................................................................................... 2 1-2. Estimated Contractor Funding Needed to Achieve Best Management Practices .................................................... 3 1-3. Temecula Tree -Related In -House Staff Positions ..................... 5 1-4. Comparison of Municipal Urban Forest Management Funding................................................................... 7 IV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1-5. Tree Policy Review..............................................................................10 1-6. Trees to Plant Annually to Reach Full Stocking Goal over 20 Years...........................................................14 1-7. Annual Tree Planting Costs to Reach Stocking Goal ............ 15 1-8. Annual Tree Planting and Establishment Care Costs to Reach Stocking Goal.....................................................15 1-9. Average per Tree Spending on a 4-Year Trim Cycle..............17 1-10. Tree Removals from 2015 to 2020.........................................18 2-1. Chapter 8.49 Tree Care and Preservation...............................21 2-2. Chapter 8.48 Heritage Tree Ordinance....................................23 2-3. Water Efficiency and Landscape Design..................................25 2-4. How the Quality -of -Life Master Plan Addresses Trees .......29 2-5. How the General Plan Addresses Trees....................................30 2-6. How the Citywide Design Guidelines Address Trees ........... 32 2-7. How the Municipal Code/Zoning Code Address Trees ...... 35 2-8. How the Multi -use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Addresses Trees.................................................................36 2-9. How the Uptown Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Improvement Standards Address Trees..............................................38 2-10. How the Community Services Master Plan Addresses Trees..................................................................39 2-1 1. How the Best Management Practices Design Manual Addresses Trees............................................................41 3-1. Land Cover Classification...............................................................45 3-2. Canopy Cover by Land Use Type.................................................47 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I V TABLE OF CONTENTS 3-3. Park Canopy Cover...........................................................................49 3-4. Canopy Cover by Council District...............................................52 3-5. Canopy Cover in Schools................................................................53 3-6. Census Tracts with High Concentrations of Urban Heat Islands.................................................................................55 3-7. Canopy Cover and CalEnviroScreen Score by Census Tract...............................................................................56 3-8. Tree Equity Scores below 75 by Census Block Group and Canopy Cover Percentage...............................................63 3-9. Total Number of Trees Needed to Increase Canopy Cover Above 11 %......................................................................66 3-10. Total Number of Trees Needed to Plant per Year for 40 Years to Increase Canopy Cover..........................................................66 4-1. Annual Environmental Services and Benefits Provided byCity-Managed Trees................................69 4-2. Financial Value of City -Managed Trees.....................................70 4-3. Top 10 Tree Families in the City Inventory...............................71 4-4. Top 10 Tree Genera in the City Inventory................................72 4-5. Top 10 Species in the City Inventory..........................................73 4-6. Tree Species in the City Inventory that are Predicted to be Heat or Water Sensitive ...........................75 4-7. Diameter at Standard Height Distribution of the City's Tree Inventory.............................................75 4-8. Tree Condition Ratings of the City Inventory .........................77 4-9. Relative Performance Index of the Top 10 Species in the Inventory.............................................................78 4-10. Ten Species with the Highest Importance Values in the City's Inventory..................................................................79 4-1 1. Park Tree Priority Planting Scores............................................82 4-12. Top 10 Tree Genera in the City's Park Trees .........................84 4-13. Top 10 Tree Species in the City Inventory .............................85 4-14. Tree Condition Ratings of the City Inventory .......................85 4-15. DSH Distribution of the City's Park Trees..............................86 5-1. Demographics of Survey Respondents Compared to Demographics of the City of Temecula...................90 5-2. Summary of Online Survey Responses......................................91 5-3. Temecula's Urban Forest Master Plan Working Group Members........................................................................92 5-4. Working Group Key Insights..........................................................93 5-5. Stakeholder Interview Participants.............................................94 5-6. Summary of Stakeholder Interview Responses ......................95 5-7. Urban Forest Summit Attendee Demographics Compared to City Demographics.........................................................98 5-8. Vision Statement Results.................................................................99 5-8. "Where Do We Need More Trees" Categorical Graphic Board Results...................................................100 5-9. "What Do You Love Most About Trees" Categorical Graphic Board Results...................................................101 5-10. "Where Are Trees Needed Most" Top 8 Location Results............................................................................102 5-1 1. Group Discussion Activity Themes........................................103 VI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A I Recommended Tree Species Palette B I Sidewalk Solutions C1 I Establishment Care Guidelines C2 I Tree Protection Guidelines C3 I Tree Protection Detail C4 I Root Pruning Detail C5 I Irrigation Detail D I Nursery Stock Standards E I Highly Flammable Plant List F I Public Survey Results G I Funding Opportunities TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I VII INTRODUCTION VI I I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY OF TEMECULA STAFF Department of Public Works Patrick Thomas, Director/City Engineer Julie Tarrant, Senior Principal Management Analyst Stacy Fox, Park and Landscape Superintendent CITY OF TEMECULA COUNCILMEMBERS Mayor Zak Schwank Mayor Pro Tem James "Stew" Stewart Council Member Jessica Alexander Council Member Curtis Brown Council Member Brenden Kalfus COMMUNITY MEMBERS TEMECULA UFMP WORKING GROUP ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION (CAL FIRE) Greg Dion FUNDING PROVIDED BY CAL FIRE/Prop 68 PREPARED BY Dudek - Urban Forestry Division Abby Beissinger Dana Link -Herrera Ryan Allen Kalie Ortiz Chris Kallstrand Funding for this project is provided by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as part of the California Climate Investments Program. The City of Temecula Urban Forestry Program is part of California Climate Investments, a statewide program that puts billions of Cap -and -Trade dollars to work reducing GHG emissions, strengthening the economy, and improving public health and the environment- particularly in disadvantaged communities. The Cap -and -Trade program also creates a financial incentive for to invest in clean technologies and develop innovative ways to reduce pollution. California Climate Investments projects include affordable housing, renewable energy, public transportation, zero -emission vehicles, environmental restoration, more sustainable agriculture, recycling, and much more. At least 35 percent of these investments are located within and benefiting residents of disadvantaged communities, low- income communities, and low-income households across California. For more information, visit the California Climate Investments website at: www.caclimateinvestments.ca.gov. PROP 68 F,RE CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I IX INTRODUCTION X CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN CITY TREE MANAGEMENT he City of Temecula (City) was officially incorporated in 1989 and is moving from building a city to sustaining a city (quality -of -life master plan [QLMP]). The same movement is true of the urban forest program and the management actions it will need to prioritize to grow and maintain citywide canopy cover. Over the last 30 years, the urban forest program was built as trees were planted with the construction of each new housing development, shopping center, road, and park. A majority of this tree planting activity has occurred in the last 10-15 years, which is reflected in the inventory data that shows 87% of city -managed trees are classified as young or immature. The surge of tree planting within a short time frame was essential to developing canopy cover as soon as possible and required the City to prioritize tree planting, establishment care, and structural pruning. Over the next 20 years as City trees grow and approach maturity, management priorities will need to shift to mature tree pruning, risk assessment, and tree removal and replacement planning. This analysis is the foundation for the following sections of the urban forest management plan (UFMP) that address the City's urban forest management practices, budget needs, and staffing levels. 13 CITY RESOURCES For trees to remain an integral asset that increases in value overtime, investments in tree management, planting, and maintenance are required. Section 1.1, City Resources, explains how the City is allocating their budget for tree management and how their urban forestry operations are staffed and funded. Appendix H presents funding opportunities the City may wish to pursue to acquire additional resources for the urban forest program. 1MOM ■ ■■■■■ ■ NNW ■ ■ MEN ■ CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 1 CITY TREE MANAGEMENT 1.1.1 BUDGET The overview of the City's urban forest program between 2016 and 2021 reflects an annual average of $572,100. (Table 1-1). Of this funding, $500,000 was allocated for tree management work conducted by contractor services, and $76,1oo for City staff salaries. Annual staff salaries are calculated based on the percentage of time overseeing all landscape and tree maintenance throughout the city. Table 1-1. Ci 1 T , Budqet 2016-2021 Street/Right-of-Way Trees $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Parks and Median Trees $6o,000 $8o,000 $8o,000 $8o,000 $8o,000 $76,000 City Facility Trees $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 $45,000 City Trees on Slopes $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 $275,000 Total Contractor Services Budget $48o,000 $5oo,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $496,000 City Staff Salary Budget* Maintenance Superintendent $20,300 $20,300 $20,300 $20,300 $20,300 $20,300 Senior Landscape Inspector $30,700 $30,700 $30,700 $30,700 $30,700 $30,700 Landscape Ins ecto $25,100 $25,100 $25,100 $25,100 $25,100 $25,100 Total City Staff Salary Budget $76,10o $76,100 $76,1oo $76,100 $76,100 $76,1oo Contractor Services Budget + City Staff Salary Budget) $556,100 11 $576,100 $576,100 $576,100 $576,100 $572,100 Note: * Annual staff salaries are calculated based on the percentage of time overseeing all landscape and tree maintenance throughout the city The City's tree management budget has largely remained constant over the past 5 years, except for a $2o,000 budget increase allocated to park and median trees beginning in fiscal year 2017-2018. The City desires to maintain park and median trees on a 3- to 4-year trim cycle but is unable to do so with current funding. City staff expressed that an additional $40,000 towards the park and median tree budget would be sufficient to increase tree trimming capacity. 2 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT CITY TREE MANAGEMENT The amount allocated for City trees on slopes is more than double other areas of the contractor budget. There are 13,000 City - managed trees on slopes that represent approximately 36% of the total inventory, but management of these trees requires 57% of the contracted services budget. This difference is accounted for as contracted pruning costs for trees on slopes can be up to three or four times more expensive than pruning street trees. As a result of increased tax revenue generated by Measure S, City staff anticipate the annual budget to increase in the subsequent year. City staff also mentioned that this increase would significantly help the overall maintenance of City -managed trees. Section 1.2, Life Cycle Management Actions, outlines specific areas where City tree management can be improved and the costs associated with the program changes. Table 1-2 below represents an estimate of potential increases in contractor funding needed to implement those changes, as well as approximate annual funding increases needed each year to keep up with increases in contractor fees. Table 1-2. Estimated Contractor Fundi n . A A ement Practices Tree Planting - 100% Stocking Rate $4,800 $30,105 $34,905 3-Years of Establishment Care of Newly Planted Trees 3-4 Year Pruning Cycle Tree and Stump Removal $0 $118,590 $118,590 $465,200 $115,000 $580,200 $10,000 $o $10,000 2023-2024 Totals $480,000 $263,695 $743,695 Annual Funding Increases* MML $480,000 Fiscal Year 2024-2025 $308,316 $788,316 Fiscal Year 2025-2026 $480,000 $355,615 $835,615 Fiscal Year 2026-2027 $480,000 $405,752 $885,752 Fiscal Year 2027-2028 $480,000 $458,897 $938,897 Note: * Annual funding increase is based on a 6% annual increase in contractor fees CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 3 CITY TREE MANAGEMENT Exhibit 1 -1. Temecula's Urban Forest Funding Sources 40% GENERAL FUND FUNDING SOURCES 1.1.2 FUNDING SOURCES The City uses a variety of funding sources O for the current tree management budget, 1 0 /Q primarily from the Service Level C ROAD assessment districts, general fund, and road - USE TAX use tax (Exhibit 1-1). Contractor services ASSESSMENT DISTRICT performed on slopes are funded by the subsequent zone of each slope through property owners' annual tax assessments that City staff mentioned have not been increased in over 30 years. Contractor services performed on parks and median trees stem from the road -use tax. All other areas are funded primarily by the general fund. City staff have expressed a need to explore other funding sources to meet the current deficit in City -funded tree maintenance, such as utilizing grants, integrating funding into new development plans, and implementing a citywide fee program. Communicating to decision makers about the economic value of trees as a community asset with a significant return on investment is a strong foundation when requesting a budget increase for the urban forest program. 4 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 'v - ' ; � ' �' � f ^ i4�Y• ?¢`!: oa.�i " jam. 4 i ,..�c A � a` � !•Ldx } ,� 1"�� e a .,�.✓' 1. �=`��' c 171, 1. 19 1.1.3 CITY STAFF -��- The City uses a combination of three in-house employees from the Public Works Park Division and external contractors to manage and maintain the City's urban forest. Collectively, Table 1-3. Temecula Tree Related In House Staff Positions in-house staff oversee all landscape and tree maintenance. In-house staff include a maintenance superintendent, a senior landscape inspector, and a field inspector, two of whom are International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborists. Management Director/Supervisor Full -Time Equivalents (FTEs) represent the percentage of Senior Landscape Inspector staff time for staff who are involved with the municipal tree management program based on a 40-hour work week. The Field Inspector total number of in-house FTEs involved with tree management for Temecula is 0.50 (Table 1-3), where 20% of the senior landscape inspector's and field inspector's time and lo% of the superintendent's time, is dedicated to tree -related management. Note: FTE = Full Time Equivalent. 1 0.10 1 0.2 J1 0.2 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT i 5 CITY TREE MANAGEMENT 13.4 CONTRACT LABOR The bulk of tree maintenance activities in Temecula is performed by external contractors. These activities include tree pruning, tree and stump removal, pest management, tree planting, and establishment care. Tree pruning and trimming is the most frequent service conducted by contractors for Temecula's City -managed trees and requires 75% of work time (Exhibit 1-2). Tree and stump removal require 24% of the contractors' time, and less than 1% of the contractors' time is dedicated to tree planting. Because contractors spend a significantly low amount of time towards the City's tree -planting initiatives, tree -planting opportunities through community volunteer events or collaborating with local organizations is an option worth exploring. When comparing the City's contract services budget to national averages, the City's higher -than - average annual budget highlights the City's reliance on contractors as a key component of the tree program. Figure 1-2. Contractor's Allocated Time Spent on Tree Activities I o� TREE PLAN MAINTENANCE ALLOCATION 24% 'REE AND JUMP ZEMOVAL 75% TREE PRUNING & TRIMMING 6 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 13.5 COMPARISON TO OTHER MUNICIPALITIES The City's tree -management -by -contractor strategy can keep tree maintenance costs low because the City does not need to pay overhead, salary, fringe benefits, or equipment costs for City staff to complete this work. And, because trees are primarily young and immature in the City (see Section 4.1.3, Diameter at Standard Height Distribution), they do not yet have the same maintenance needs as mature trees, which are more costly (McPherson 2003). For these reasons, the City's per tree spending of $18.62 currently provides an adequate level of funding to sustainably manage the City's tree inventory. Table 1-4. Comparison of Municipal Urban Forest Management F CITY TREE MANAGEMENT As the City's trees age, their maintenance needs will increase, and the City's maintenance funds will need to increase to ensure continued sustainable management. Table 1-4 provides a comparison to the cities of Irvine, Downey, and Burbank. Each of these cities were incorporated prior to Temecula and have robust mature tree canopies that result in higher -cost maintenance needs. The cities have established pruning cycles between 2 and 5 years (City of Pasadena 2015; Dudek 2021), and a combination of in-house staff and contractors carry out management activities. Their per -tree spending costs range from $23.07 to $67.37 and come from a variety of internal sources. The tree budgets of these cities should be considered as Temecula considers allocating funds for the future. Temecula 1989 115,202 $572,100 30,715 $18.62 Irvine 1971 281,707 $1,500,000 65,000 $23.07 Downey L 1956 111,263 $1,000,000 18,399 $54.35 Burbank 1911 103,695 $2,223,389 33,000 $67.37 ja Sources: City of Burbank 2021; City of Pasadena 2015; Dudek 2021; U.S. Census Bureau 2021. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 7 .... ..... . I MEN Somme MFj ,T 7 a -�-. -. :A - A_m_.. .. .. .. r.: _... - .. _ _ CITY TREE MANAGEMENT 1.2 LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS The following section addresses the management actions that occur from the time a tree is planted through removal. The analysis in this section presents a review of current management actions and if they are helping to progress the City towards sustainable urban forest management. It also discusses how tree management actions may need to change to address the aging of the City inventory and changing climate conditions. Appendices D1 through D4 contain establishment care guidelines, tree protection guidelines, tree protection details, root pruning details, and irrigation details that represent best management practices and standards and are reflected in this review. The guidelines, details, and standards found in Appendices D1 through D4 should be integrated into the City's tree management actions. Additionally, Appendix E presents nursery stock standards that can be referenced to help guide the City's tree selection when purchasing trees from nurseries. 1.2.1 TREE POLICY The City of Temecula Tree Policy is used by several City departments and contractors to select, maintain, and remove trees within City -owned properties. Since all tree management work is completed by contracted labor, it is important to review the guidelines and ensure the standards reflect current ISA and American National Standards Institute best management practices. Table 1-5 provides a line -by-line review of the tree policy and provides suggestions for standards to create, update, or remove to ensure guidelines and specifications are reflective of current ISA and American National Standards Institute practices. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 9 VF 62 CITY TREE MANAGEMENT Table 1-5.Tree Policy Review Introduction This section should be updated with current approximate number of trees within the City of Temecula (City) right-of-way. Consider revising the definition of the City's urban forest to include trees on private and commercial property. I. C. Tree Pruning Under tree pruning guidelines, aside from health, strength, and attractiveness (general appearance) of the Guidelines tree, adding other pruning objectives, such as safety, clearance, and damage repair, will further define the various reasons for pruning and demonstrate that the pruning objective needs to be appropriate to the species and the tree/site conditions. I. C. Tree Pruning Under the nine listed guidelines, the list can be augmented to include American National Standards Guidelines Institute (ANSI) A300 Pruning Standards guidelines and the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) best management practices. The ISA and ANSI standards to consider include making the smallest possible cuts necessary to meet pruning objectives, making cuts outside the branch collar, avoiding unnecessary heading cuts, avoiding topping and lion's tailing (stripping a branch from the inside, leaving foliage just at the ends), not using wound paint, and not climbing with spikes. I. C. Tree Pruning The recommended amount of pruning should be updated to reflect the current standard of removing no more Guidelines than 25% of the foliage from a single branch and no more than 25% of the total tree foliage in a single year. The percentage of foliage removed should be adjusted according to age, health, and species considerations. Stressed trees and mature trees are less tolerant of pruning, and leaf area removal should be minimal. I. E. Emergency Tree The list of emergency pruning situations can be augmented to reflect increasing concerns about tree risk from Pruning wildfires, storm and wind damage, and unpredictable health conditions like sudden limb drop and others. II. Tree Removals The policy states that when a tree must be removed the property owner should make every attempt to replace it. This could be updated for adherence with the Heritage Tree Ordinance where appropriate. II. A. Diseased/Insect The determination of a tree being determined to be diseased or infested by insects should be made by an Infested Trees ISA Certified Arborist. II. B. Hazardous Update the numbered list of hazardous conditions to include other common reasons such as storm or fire Condition Removal damage. 10 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT CITY TREE MANAGEMENT Table 1-5.Tree Policy Review Section/ age II. C. Hardscape Add further clarification to this section that severe root damage is defined within the root pruning Damage guidelines. Tree removal should only be approved after determining if alternative site design or materials are not appropriate to address the conflict. II. D. Building Structure Add further clarification to this section that the tree should be evaluated through the root pruning or Maintenance guidelines. Tree removal should only be approved after determining if alternative site design or materials are not appropriate to address the conflict. II. E. Construction Tree removal should only be approved after determining if alternative site design or materials are not appropriate to address the conflict. II. F. Sewer Lateral and Clarify the language that a tree can be removed if it is not possible to repair the damage and maintain tree Main Line Damage safety or if it is likely the tree will continue to cause damage to the sewer/main line. II. G. Reasons That Under Number 3, a reasonable solution should be better defined. Consider adding examples and Are Not Valid for Tree alternatives to reduce tree root and hardscape conflicts such as pop -outs, meandering sidewalks, use of Removal structural soils, bridging, ramping, and others. III. C. Tree Low and very low water use should be added to the list of the nine tree characteristics. Characteristics III. D. Approved Street Update the approved street trees list with the recommendations of the urban forest management plan. Trees III. D. Approved Street The concept of consistent predominant species on a street should be carefully balanced with the idea Trees of creating a resilient urban forest that represents species diversity and various age classes. It may be appropriate to limit the extent with which a street or block is planted with a monoculture tree species. III. E. Root Barriers The use of root barriers should be further defined as to when it is appropriate, where the root barriers will be installed, and on how many sides of the tree. IV. Tree Spraying This section would benefit from development of an integrated pest management approach and not be limited to one form of pest/disease management like tree spraying. V. Root Pruning This section needs further clarification and definition to ensure it preserves trees in a safe manner. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 11 CITY TREE MANAGEMENT TREE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to the recommendations provided in Table 1-5, general summary recommendations/key findings of the review are listed below. UPDATE STANDARD DETAILS Several areas of the tree policy are outdated or lack detail. While the intent of the tree policy is to guide the care of City -owned trees, with some revision and updating this policy document, it could become a collection of standards that governs the care of trees throughout the City. 1. Specific standards that should be updated include the following: a. Tree Pruning This section covers in detail pruning objectives, pruning practices, and the amount of pruning. One area to consider adding to this section is when to prune. While generally trees can be pruned throughout the year, there are times when pruning may need to be avoided due to a tree's phenology, pest problems, and other wildlife considerations (i.e., bird nesting season), among others. In addition, guidance for pruning palms would also be helpful as they have a different anatomy and have unique and specialized needs re- garding pruning and disease reduction. b. Tree Removal This section covers the various reasons a tree may be removed. One consideration to add would be the phased removal and replacement of undesirable species for a variety of rea- sons including excessive water use or invasive spread into wildland. Consider creating a specific standard or guidance of techniques to reduce tree and hardscape conflicts. This could include a variety of techniques aside from removal that can be utilized to avoid tree removals such as curved sidewalks, structural soils, bridges and ramps, and pop -outs. 12 1 CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT CITY TREE MANAGEMENT c. Tree Planting The tree planting section addresses suitability of a tree, planting standards, tree characteristics, and approved species. Consider creating a standard for soil volume and spacing to aid in selecting the right tree for the right place. Root guards and barriers are addressed in the policy. This is another case where creating a standard for the use and proper installation of root barriers would standardize and improve the protection of hardscapes or structures. d. Tree Spraying Consider revising this section of the tree policy to outline an integrated pest management strategy. This should include language that shows a commitment to approaching pest management with the least toxic method that is effective and feasible. e. Root Pruning This section should be revised to include guidance on the proximity of the cuts to the trunk of the tree, limits to the overall percent of the root system impacted by the root disturbance, the size and number of roots, and other site- and species -specific considerations. Also, add that all root pruning should be overseen by a Certified Arborist. Additionally, this section should be augmented to provide alternatives to root pruning that can be used in the landscape. 2. Specific standards that should be created include the following: a. Nursery stock specifications b. Tree protection during construction c. Approved irrigation systems d. Tree watering and establishment care e. Root pruning f. Updated tree protection ordinance CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 13 CITY TREE MANAGEMENT 1.2.2 TREE PLANTING Historically, the main avenue for new tree plantings throughout the City has been as a requirement for a residential or commercial development, which has largely occurred over the last 15-20 years. As such, tree planting efforts have been directed through a planning and development process as opposed to needing to plant trees in neighborhoods that are underserved and lack canopy cover. This is evident in City inventory data that reflects 9i% of available planting sites are filled. While there is already a high number of trees planted in City -maintained locations, it is important to continue to fill vacant sites to maximize the City's ability to increase canopy cover. This sentiment was also conveyed by City staff and elected officials during the department interview process. Table 16 reflects how many trees the City will annually need to plant over a 20-year time frame to fill all vacant sties. Continuing to plant new trees will be important for the City to develop a more sustainable and resilient tree population. Section 4.1.2, Species Diversity, of this technical assessment for the UFMP reflects that overall, the City -managed tree inventory is sufficiently diverse to be resilient to an emerging threat. Continuing to plant a wider diversity of tree species will help to provide further protection and resiliency against a pest or disease that could result in losing a significant portion of the tree population. Section 4.1.2 of this technical assessment for UFMP also highlights that the City tree population is highly skewed toward being young and immature. This means that most City trees will begin to reach a period of senescence and require removal within a relatively similar time frame. Gradually planting more trees over a 20- year time frame will help to ensure that as City trees age and require removal, there will be spectrum of younger trees to maintain canopy cover. Table 1-6. Trees to Plant Annually to Reach Full Stocking Goal over 20 Years Planting Sites Trees to Plant per Year Over 20 Years (Gross) Annual Removals 3,�K_ M 169 10 Source: Miller et al. 2015• Note:* Adjusted for tree removals. Trees to Plant per Year (Net) 179 14 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1.2.3 ESTABLISHMENT CARE One of the main tenants of urban forest sustainability is that they require human intervention (Clark et al. 1997). Since urban trees are planted and not naturally regenerating, they require ongoing care to ensure they successfully establish in the landscape. Establishment care is used to describe the period after a tree is planted and will need supplemental watering and maintenance to establish roots. The level of care and consistency of watering is the main factor in whether newly Table 1-7. Annual Tree Plantinq C Goal CITY TREE MANAGEMENT planted trees fail or do not grow at a rate to their full potential. As such, the cost to establish newly planted trees must be considered along with the cost to plant a tree. Table 1-7 provides the estimated total cost to annually plant 179 trees towards filling all vacant tree planting sites. Table 1-8 reflects the annual planting costs and establishment care costs to maintain all newly planted trees for a 3-year period. After year 3, the level of trees needing establishment care would remain constant at 537. k 4)1y5 �- 4)64,YUb '05y,b6U 4,/4,455 Note: * Cost to install a 15-gallon-size tree with root barrier. ** Assumes watering each tree once a week and i day of a contracted watering crew per 179 trees for the first year. Table 1-8. Annual Tree Plantina and Establishment Care Costs to Reach Stockina Goal 179 $34,905 $39,530 358 $34,905 1 $79,o6o 537 $34,905 `L— $118,590 Note: *Assumes watering each tree once a week and 1 day of a contracted watering crew per 179 trees. $74,435 $113,965 $153,495 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 15 CITY TREE MANAGEMENT Based on these assumptions, the City would potentially need to increase funding for tree planting by $153,495, or 27% above current levels, to fill all vacant tree planting sites over a 20-year period. It may be prudent to first explore whether the City can receive grant funding to implement this program based on the number of trees and level of funding that is needed. Grants have the potential to accelerate the time frame to fill all vacant sites by securing funding for a large number of trees at one time, allowing the City to implement the program without waiting for an annual budget allocation. It could also potentially be used to fund watering and establishment care for the first three years, further reducing the need for City funding. However, the City will also need to allocate additional funding to the tree program to support new tree plantings, as well as maintain the existing tree inventory (see Table 2-1). Additionally, when residential property owners request a tree to be planted within the public right-of-way, they are responsible to water and maintain the tree. This model benefits the City in reducing the need for contracted labor to water newly planted trees but does require community education and engagement. City staff reported that there is some confusion with property owners over who is responsible for maintaining trees in the public right-of-way. It is also not known if property owners understand how to properly care for and water trees. These two factors are key educational opportunities for the City to address if it continues with this model. So far, the need for this education campaign has been low as only a handful of residents have asked to have a tree planted in their parkway, but it will be important if the City is going to increase tree planting activities. Inventory data shows that 8% of trees with a diameter at standard height (DSH) of 0-6 inches are in a poor condition and 1% are dead. This indicates that while there is some confusion over maintenance responsibilities, trees are being properly cared for. 1.2.4 TREE PRUNING Tree pruning differs from other maintenance actions in that the need may vary depending on the desired outcome, like removing hazards, road clearance, or correcting a defective branch. Whatever the pruning need though, the result of all pruning should be to improve the structure and safety of a tree. One aspect of maintaining trees in a safe condition is to prune and inspect trees on a regular basis. Five to seven years is a commonly accepted standard for a municipal tree management program to cost effectively maintain trees in a safe condition (Miller and Sylvester 1981). Temecula has established that they desire to maintain all trees on a 3- to 4-year pruning cycle and is not able to accomplish this for most trees in the City. City staff estimate that $40,000 in additional funding would be needed to maintain park and right-of-way trees on a 3- to 4-year cycle, which is approximately 55% of the tree inventory. 16 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT CITY TREE MANAGEMENT Given that most trees are accessible from an aerial lift truck, it is likely that more trees would require aerial unit pricing, and the gap in funding would be closer to $75,000 per year than $600,000. Increasing funding may be difficult as it is assessed directly to property owners and is not an allocation from the general fund. As previously noted, 87% of the City tree inventory has DSH of 18 inches or smaller, which has two important implications for tree management. First, the City can mitigate potential tree structure and safety issues by implementing a robust formative pruning program. This type of pruning helps to remove structural defects while they are small and easy to manage, eliminating the need for more costly pruning of a mature tree later. By eliminating the defect, it also helps to ensure the tree grows with a structurally sound crown that would be less prone to failure. Second, it also indicates that the City will need to invest more resources into the tree pruning program over the next 20 years as pruning young and immature trees is typically less expensive than pruning mature trees. The remaining 15,337 trees fall under service level C districts, which are service districts created to pay for the costs of ongoing maintenance of public landscaping that provides special benefits to parcels in given areas of the City. The 29 service level C districts work by assessing fees to property owners that fund City services that solely benefit parcels located within each zone. The original fee structure for the districts was established 30 years ago, and it has not been updated since. As such, the funding provided by the fees does not sufficiently cover the costs to maintain trees on a 3- to 4-year cycle. Almost all trees identified on a slope in the City inventory exist in the service level C districts, which consists of 13,865 trees. Table 1-9 presents the average per tree spending based on a 4-year trim cycle against the contractor -listed pricing for aerial unit and climbing tree pruning on slopes. Table 1-9. Avera le Cost per Tree $79.34 $101 $255 Total $275,000 $350,091 $883,894 $75,000-$600,000 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 17 CITY TREE MANAGEMENT 1.2.5 TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT Tree removal and replacement is an important component of ensuring public safety and can be accomplished by ensuring all dead trees identified in the inventory are removed in a calendar year. Table 1-lo reflects tree removals from 2015 to 202o and demonstrates that the City has successfully addressed the backlog of identified tree removals and is maintaining the City -managed tree population in a safe manner. This is further evident in current inventory data that reflects only 10 dead trees with a DSH of 16 inches or larger. Table 1-10. Tree Removals from 2015 to 2020 2015 43 2o16 96 2017 49 2o18 53 2019 56 2020 =M 7 1.2.6 URBAN WOOD REUSE An urban wood reuse program involves creating avenues for removed trees to continue to support a sustainable urban forest beyond their use in the landscape. These programs divert wood that would otherwise populate landfills and produce greenhouse gas emissions during traditional disposal processes. Urban wood reuse programs can benefit communities by providing a source of local lumber for residents, wood for artisans, and iconic design features adding to the character of the community. Based on inventory data, the City has a limited backlog of tree removals, but that does not mean it would not benefit from a more robust urban wood reuse program. One possible avenue to increase its urban wood reuse is through a partnership with its primary tree maintenance contractor West Coast Arborists. West Coast Arborists operates an urban wood reuse program called "Street Tree Revival," which includes programs for tree removal and milling, to turn removed trees into useable lumber. Another option could be to promote the use of programs like ChipDrop, which allow individuals to request mulch to be delivered to their property from a tree removal company. This type of service would provide an avenue for mulch to be reused in urban landscapes, but it also comes with caveats. Primarily, the individual requesting mulch cannot specify the amount of mulch or when it will be delivered. 18 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has a grant assistance program that awards funding for cities and non-profit organizations to develop an urban wood reuse program. In Northern California, the Sacramento Tree Foundation received CAL FIRE funding to begin the "Urban Wood Rescue" program (https:// www.urbanwoodrescue.com). Through this program, the Sacramento Tree Foundation can run a mill that provides lumber and other wood products to local makers and artisans, generating funding to support its operations and contributing to local markets. This successful program provides an example of how the City may approach creating an urban wood reuse program in the future. 1.2.7 RECOMMENDED SPECIES PALETTE With shifting environmental conditions such as prolonged droughts and periods of extreme heat, it is important to ensure that the tree species selected to be planted now will be adapted to future climate conditions and will thrive over the next 50-100 years. To accomplish this, the current City -recommended species list was reviewed against several factors including tree inventory data, Water Use Classification of Landscape Species, climate change research, and a comparison of City tree inventories with anticipated future annual temperatures of Temecula. An updated recommended species list has been created and is included in Appendix B. CITY TREE MANAGEMENT The final list of trees included in the recommended species list are based on the following characteristics: ■ Appropriateness of the type of tree by location ("right tree, right place") ■ Appropriateness for future climate conditions ■ Low water use ■ Pest and disease vulnerability ■ Appropriate planting of numbers of species to achieve species diversity goals of UFMP In addition, the recommended species list includes spacing requirements to assist in selecting trees for specific locations to help avoid tree and infrastructure conflicts. Finally, the list includes additional information on a tree Is fire hazard rating and ability to be planted in stormwater retention basins. CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 19 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 23 TREE POLICIES AND ORDINANCES 23.1 MUNICIPAL CODE AND ORDINANCE REVIEW The City provides a Tree Care and Preservation Ordinance, a Heritage Tree Ordinance, and Water Efficiency in Landscape Design that provide the landscape and streetscape standard plans for tree planting, protection, preservation, and landscape design. The following section highlights specific aspects of each ordinance with recommendations to update the standards to align with ISA best management practices (Tables 2-1 and 2-2). Table 2-1. Chapter 8.49 Tree Care and Preservation 8.49.020 Update the definitions to add specificity, such as what constitutes a "City tree", "City right of way", "Street tree", as well Definitions as other details related to tree protection, and adoption of the Street Tree Master Plan and UFMP. 8.49.030 Update and add new sections to detail the duties of the public works director, commission oversight, the purpose of the . UFMP, maintaining of the City tree inventory, approved tree palettes, and maintenance and preservation of city trees. 8.49.050 Update this section to include additional protections for city trees, such as prohibiting defacing any city tree, prohibiting attaching objects to any city tree, prohibiting placement of stone, cement or other substance around trees/tree roots, and protection of trees during construction activities. 8.49.o6 Specificity should be added to indicate that an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist may be hired to perform tree care on City trees located on private and nonresidential properties. 8.49.o6o E The referenced City tree policy contains standards and procedures that are not current with ISA and American National Standards Institute standards. This statement should be revised to allow the person performing the tree care to provide the best standard of care based on both the City's tree policy and most current industry standards. 8.49.070 Revise this section to include requirements for private property owners to obtain a permit to plant, cut down, prune, remove, or in any way interfere with a city tree. Include requirements for pruning and maintaining trees in accordance with ISA and ANSI A300 standards. Reference the UFMP recommended species list for replacement tree selection. Clarify responsibilities of private property owners. 8.49.090 Chapter 1.20 defines the penalty as a misdemeanor, which is a common practice in many cities but does not account for Violations and the full loss of the tree as City infrastructure or the environmental services provided. Penalties CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 21 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 8.49 RECOMMENDATIONS ADD LANGUAGE REQUIRING A CERTIFIED ARBORIST In the tree care authorization and standards, it mentions that a private contractor may be hired to perform tree care on City trees. All decisions regarding tree maintenance and care should only be made by a Certified Arborist who is qualified to work with the City. If private contractors are hired to care for City trees, there is great liability from improper care and higher risk of damage to City trees from contractors who lack expertise in tree care. UPDATE THE PENALTY FOR VIOLATION Chapter 1.2o defines the penalty as a misdemeanor, which is a common practice in many cities. However, this does not account for the full loss of the tree as City infrastructure or the environmental services provided. The penalty should be updated for illegal tree removal, or in the case when illegal tree pruning damages the tree to a point that it must be replaced. The penalty could be based on a value per inch of DSH, Council for Landscape Appraisal, or other practice that considers the entire value of the tree. 22 1 CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Table 2-2. Chapter 8.48 Heritage Tree Ordinance 8.48.110 After the common names of the species listed to protect and preserve, add the Latin name to be specific and clear about which species this ordinance applies. Further clarify that mature trees of valuable ecological and environmental significance are protected by ordinance. Update this ordinance throughout such that it applies generally to "protected" trees, rather than defined "heritage" trees. 8.48.120 Revise applicability of this ordinance to any protected tree located between the city right-of-way and an adjacent 4 residence. 8.48.130 Update definitions to add specificity and align with ISA and ANSI A300 standards, such as definitions for "Certified arborist", "Drip line", "Excessive pruning", "Hazard/hazardous tree", 8.48.150 1. Add to the required conceptual landscape plans and tree species and location that the plans also show the tree sizes to aid in determining if they are heritage -size trees. 2. Removing the option for the applicant to hire a landscape architect or adhere to the preservation standards on their own without a Certified Arborist preparing a preservation and protection plan would strengthen the City's ability to meet the purpose of this ordinance. 8.48.16o A.1 The list of oaks contains both tree and shrub forms of oaks that are native to California. The size requirements to meet heritage status should be tailored to the mature size for the given oak species. Shrub forms of the oaks would need different metrics to determine heritage status. 8.48.16o A 1-5 The diameter at standard height (DSH) measurement taken for identifying heritage trees should be changed to comply with the industry standard for measuring DSH, which is 4.5 feet above grade. 8.48.2oo B Recreational and resort uses need to be better defined to say which uses specifically are exempt from obtaining permits, as this statement allows them immunity for complying with the ordinance. 8.48.210 B.1 , Add specificity on pruning and routine maintenance that would be appropriate for mature trees. 8.48.210 B.214 The determination that the tree is dead or diseased should be made by a Certified Arborist. 8.48.210 B.3 , The determination that a tree poses an imminent danger to the public or to property should be made by a Certified Arborist. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 23 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT T_1.1_ A A /�I � n n I I . T /l I• 8.48.23o A 8.48.23o A.3 8.48.23o B.5 Recreational and resort uses need to be better defined to say which uses specifically are exempt from obtaining permits, as this statement allows them immunity for complying with the ordinance. Add detail about the permit review process such as needing an arborist preservation and protection plan and if site visits are conducted as part of the review and how much time it takes for a permit to be reviewed. "Decision maker" appears in this section of the ordinance. It is unclear who this refers to and should be added to the definitions. Previously in this ordinance section, the "planning director" is referenced as the person responsible for reviewing applications. It is unclear if this also included the planning commission or both. Define the reasonable and conforming use of property. This language is vague. Licensed landscape architects are not experts in heritage tree care. This statement should be revised to remove them from having the authority to provide other factors influencing the permit decision -making. 8.48.230 C.1 Relocation of a mature heritage tree is likely to have a very low success and establishment rate. If this is the condition for a permit approval, additional monitoring and care should be required over a 5-year period. If the tree does not successfully become established, the applicant would be required to pay a fee equal to the appraised value of the tree based on the conditions and factors prior to relocation. A performance bond should be established and applied to ensure the best possible care for relocated heritage trees. 8.48.230 C.2 Most nurseries do not grow trees to the size requirements of a heritage tree. Trees grown under nursery conditions to very large sizes can develop structural and health -related issues that make them less than optimal as replacement trees. This option should be omitted from the ordinance. 8.48.230 C.3 The replacement of heritage trees at a 2:1 ratio with a 48-inch-box-sized tree does not ensure a successful replacement tree is established. A performance bond would help ensure the long-term successful establishment. 8.48.32o A.1 A performance bond should be established and applied to ensure the best possible care and long-term success for replacement trees. 24 1 CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CREATE A PERFORMANCE BOND REQUIREMENT FOR REPLACEMENT TREES A performance bond would require any project to meet a City standard and conditions of the permit in establishing replacement trees that are equivalent to the ones that have been removed or damaged. A bond performance period of 5 years gives sufficient time to determine if a newly planted tree has been adequately provided establishment care, including watering, weeding, formative pruning, and general maintenance. It will ensure trees are cared for long enough to be given a reasonable chance to survive and thrive if supplemental watering and care is stopped. 2.1.1.1 CHAPTER 17.32 WATER EFFICIENCY AND LANDSCAPE DESIGN Table 2-3 highlights specific aspects of Municipal Code Chapter 17.32 and provides recommendations for updating the code. Table 2-3. Water Efficiency and Landscape Design '=1"r i 17.32.06o L Specify pedestrian areas where protective tree grates are required. Lower traffic pedestrian areas may not require this design feature. Tree grates, if left unmonitored on a regular basis, tend to cause girdling if not maintained as the tree grows. 17.32.060 M This design requirement is inconsistent with the City's tree policy, which states that root barriers shall be placed when planting within 10 feet of any hardscape elements or buildings. 17.32.090 Q Add specifics to the placement of the irrigation bubblers within the root zone of the tree away from the root collar. 17.32.110 A.1 This stipulates that street trees must be planted but does not provide guidelines for street tree selection or size and other requirements for nursery stock. 17.32.110 A.2 Aside from the landscaping requirements that shrubs and ground covers be drought tolerant, this should specify that the water use needs of the shrubs and ground covers are consistent with the water use needs of the trees selected for the site. 17.32.110 A.5 Add appropriate species selection to this requirement. The selection of trees and shrubs is as important as the placement. 17.32.12o B This stipulates that street trees must be planted but does not provide guidelines for street tree selection or size and other requirements for nursery stock. 17.32.12o H Add appropriate species selection to this requirement. The selection of trees and shrubs is as important as the placement. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 25 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CREATE A STANDARD FOR CITY STREET TREE SELECTION Several references are made to planting street trees, but guidance is not provided on the species that are appropriate for Temecula or the standards the City uses to select tree species. Species selection should be based on the following minimum standards: 1. Trees known to be adapted to the expected changes to the local climate, which will be hotter and drier 2. Prioritize trees categorized as very low or low water use trees by the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species a. Minimize use of trees categorized as medium water use b. Do not allow high water use trees 3. Species with fewer ecological benefits (such as palms) should only be used in areas where heat mitigation and shade are not a concern CREATE A SINGLE TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE In addition to the previously discussed recommended updates, combining the Tree Care and Preservation Ordinance (Chapter 8.49) and the Heritage Tree Ordinance (Chapter 8.48) into a single ordinance would further streamline the City's approach to tree protection. By combining these into a single tree protection ordinance, duplicative tree protections that may cause confusion would be avoided. 2.2 CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS Including trees in the early stages of the planning process allows for informed tree selection, siting, and increased benefits received from trees as they grow to maturity. The UFMP is intended to be an adaptive management plan, and regular updates may be warranted. As new comprehensive planning efforts that may affect the urban forest are undertaken by the City, those plans should reference the UFMP for guidance in tree -related issues and goals. Likewise, the UFMP may need to be updated to ensure planning efforts are aligned. For example, the City is currently undertaking significant wildfire planning efforts, and the UFMP should be updated to reflect those efforts and provide information on best practices for tree selection, siting, and maintenance in fire -prone landscapes. Appendix F has been included, which includes a highly flammable plant list, identifying species that should be avoided in fire hazard areas. The following sections present a review of existing comprehensive planning efforts and plans that have been prepared by the City, how they address trees, and how the UFMP relates to such plans. This UFMP intends to complement and enhance existing planning efforts, and in some instances recommendations for updating existing plans to align with the UFMP may be warranted. 26 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN t r� i 7a� � .����;:•fir f cr}ll9a: a �:.4 T�+' rr � �• rii � r � f_ ,Y � �• d � • fir_ _ __ t _. __ . ,• 1j � 1 ` PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 2.23 QUALITY -OF -LIFE MASTER PLAN (2009) ' Temecula's QLMP reflects the vision and long-term goals of the City and is crucial to maintaining the quality of life in Temecula. The QLMP provides a proactive approach to identifying community needs, goals, and improvements. The Temecula � r 2030 QLMP is the current QLMP, and the City is in the process of updating and developing the 2040 QLMP. The 2030 QLMP provides a 20-year outlook to achieve the community vision for the City. The QLMP was developed through an inclusive engagement process with residents, businesses, local institutions, and regional partners. The QLMP identifies six core values that guide the City toward its vision and is organized into six chapters, one for each core value. The QLMP identifies goals, key accomplishments, key findings, metrics of progress, and strategic priorities specific to each core value. Livability, prosperity, and sustainability are the overall themes of the Temecula 2030 QLMP. These themes are reflected and connected in ~� r the goals and recommendations contained in each core value. The overarching goals of the QLMP include strategic priorities that will meet the expressed aspirations of residents for Temecula to be a place where they can live for their entire lives. The UFMP is reflective of each of these core values, as discussed in Section 1.3 of the UFMP (Table 2-4). - ! - The QLMP core values are as follows: ■ Healthy and Livable City ■ Economic Prosperity ■ A Safe and Prepared Community ■ Transportation Mobility and Connectivity ■ A Sustainable City ■ Accountable and Responsive City Government jM 28 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT Table 2-4. How the Quality -of -Life Master Plan Addresses Trees Healthy and Livable City, Healthy and Livable City accomplishments ■ Accomplishments identified in the quality -of -life master plan (QLMP) made thus far related to trees include having master planned neighborhoods connected by landscaped boulevards and bike trails and planting approximately 1,000 new trees since 2001. A Sustainable City A Sustainable City accomplishment ■ Accomplishments identified in the QLMP related to trees is the planting of 1,000 new trees since ■ Indicators 2001. The QLMP also identifies indicators and strategic priorities to measure ■ Strategic Priorities success toward reaching sustainability goals. The QLMP suggests the following indicators: maintaining a healthy tree canopy, establishing an urban forestry program by 2015, and increasing tree canopy. A strategic priority for reaching the City's sustainability goals is to maintain and enhance the City's tree canopy and urban forest. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Tree -lined streets are more desirable in many ways and help to create a healthy and livable city, as trees increase property values, provide shade to pedestrians and parked cars, increase safety, and create a sense of place. New tree plantings help to ensure a diversity of tree ages and species in Temecula's urban forest. Continuing to maintain its landscaped boulevards by preserving existing trees and through new plantings and using the guidance and recommendations provided the UFMP, including the street tree master plan and Recommended Species List, will help to ensure a sustainable urban forest. As discussed, continually planting new trees will ensure a diverse and more sustainable urban forest. Proper tree management and maintenance practices as provided in the UFMP and planting new trees to increase tree canopy based on the canopy cover goals established in the UFMP will help to maintain and expand a healthy urban forest and tree canopy. The City has an existing urban forestry program, and the UFMP supports the continued funding of and provides guidance and strategic planning for the urban forest program. Additional ways in which the UFMP, and trees in general, help support the QLMP sustainability goals is through greenhouse gas reduction. Trees should be identified as a possible strategic priority for reducing greenhouse gases and the effects of climate change. CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT i 29 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 2.2.2 GENERAL PLAN The City's General Plan was originally created in 1993 and updated in 2005. The General Plan provides long-term policy guidance for development, resource management, public safety, public services, and the overall quality of the City. It reflects the vision, values, and planning goals of Temecula's residents, business owners, and public officials. Table 2-5 presents the specific sections of the General Plan that address trees and a discussion of the relationship to the UFMP. Table 2-5. How the General Plan Addresses Trees Air Quality Element The Air Quality Element identifies methods for energy conservation, one of which is to optimize ■ Energy building sites and orientation to take advantage Conservation of shade and windbreaks provided by trees. ■ AQ-15 Energy Implementation programs are identified to provide Efficient Design actions to implement the Air Quality Element policies. Implementation Program AQ-15 calls for energy efficient design elements in residential, commercial, light industrial, and mixed -use development projects, including building orientation strategies that use shade and windbreak trees to reduce fuel consumption for heating and cooling. The Air Quality Element accurately indicates that trees can be used to reduce building energy demand through the provision of shade and windbreaks. Further details regarding appropriate building orientation to maximize benefits should be included to provide guidance to developers and plan reviewers. Appropriately sited trees can reduce summer air conditioning costs by up to 35% (Arbor Day Foundation 2021a, 2021b, 2022). 30 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT Table 2-5. How the General Plan Addresses Trees Open Space The Open Space and Conservation Element identifies Conservation Element goals, policies, and implementation strategies for the ■ Policy 3.4 conservation of open space and important biological habitats and species. Policy 3.4 supports the goal ■ Policy 6.9 of protecting important biological habitats, plant and animal species of concern, wildlife corridors ■ OS-22 Land and biodiversity. This policy calls for encouraging Development developers to incorporate drought -resistant Regulations vegetation, mature trees, and other significant ■ OS-32 Oak Tree vegetation into site and landscape design for Protection proposed projects. Policy 6.9 supports the goal of preserving historic and cultural resources and calls for encouraging the preservation and re -use of landmark trees. Implementation Program OS-22 calls for preservation of open space through land development regulations, which may include conserving mature trees. Implementation Program OS-32 requires developers to retain coast live oak woodland and calls for implementation of oak tree protection guidelines adapted from the Riverside County Oak Tree Management Guidelines. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT The Open Space and Conservation Element appropriately identifies goals, policies, and implementation strategies for the protection of trees. In particular, the Open Space and Conservation Element calls for protection of mature trees, landmark trees, and oak trees during development projects. Tree protection is codified in the Municipal Code. Chapter 8.48 outlines protections for heritage trees, and Chapter 8.49 outlines protections for City trees; however, "landmark trees" are not defined, and further details should be included for tree protection during development/construction. The next update of the General Plan would be an opportunity to provide further details regarding the protection of trees in Temecula to provide guidance on what constitutes a protected tree. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 31 individual project. The Guidelines include single-family residential (Chapter 2), multifamily residential (Chapter 3), commercial (Chapter 4), industrial (Chapter 5), and special standards (Chapter 6), and each chapter addresses design guidelines related to site planning, landscaping, building design, and utilitarian aspects. Table 2-6 presents a summary of the main tree -related conditions included in the Guidelines and how they relate to the UFMP. Additional tree -related conditions discussed in the Guidelines, but not included in this section, encourage the use of trees as an important design feature and support the goals of the UFMP. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 2.2.3 CITYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES The City of Temecula's Citywide Design Guidelines (Guidelines) provide recommendations for the design, construction, review, and approval of commercial, industrial, and residential development in Temecula. Developers and designers are encouraged to familiarize with the Guidelines and incorporate them into project design to ensure the highest quality of development in the City. Some of the Guidelines are mandatory and must be included in project design, while others are encouraged and alternative design standards may be considered that meet or exceed the intent of the Guidelines, recognizing that not all design criteria are appropriate for each Table 2-6. How the Ci n Guidelines Address Trees Tree Spacing The Guidelines provide multiple Determining the appropriate spacing to plant a tree in Guidelines requirements for where trees can be an urban environment should adhere to some general ■ Chapter 2: Landscaping D., F., J., I. Chapter 3: Planting Areas D., E. Chapter 4: Planting Areas E., F., I., J. planted in relationship to other existing guidelines outlined in these recommendations, specifically, infrastructure on streets and in commercial the recommended distances to plant when near water/ and industrial areas. The main components of the requirements include the following: ■ Spacing between trees and infrastructure ■ 5-foot minimum parkway width ■ Planting to minimize root problems gas meters, overhead lines, driveways, utility poles, and fire hydrants. Other items, like mandating 30 feet of spacing between evergreen trees, may not be appropriate for all species and could impact achieving higher canopy cover levels. Finally, a 5-foot minimum parkway is not enough space to accommodate many medium- to large -stature trees. Increasing the minimum parkway size would allow for larger trees to be planted and increase the canopy cover. 32 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT Table 2-6. How the Citywide Design Guidelines Address Trees Tree Species Selection The Guidelines emphasize the use of deciduous, evergreen, and flowering tree ■ Chapter species depending on the location and Landscaping desired result. These recommendations H. include the following: ■ Chapter 3: Planting Areas ■ Use of flowering trees for aesthetic I., J. K., L. M. value ■ Chapter 4: ■ Avoiding the use of flowering and fruit - Planting Areas bearing trees near pedestrian walkways and paths of travel ■ Planting deciduous trees for the aesthetic value of seasonal changes in leaf appearance ■ Use of evergreen trees to soften hardscape and provide visual screening PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT The Guidelines primarily focus on the aesthetic value of trees and limiting their impact on safe paths of travel. Trees provide numerous environmental services and economic values to the City that can be further incorporated into Guideline recommendations. This may include stormwater capture, energy reduction, reduction of heat island and surface level ozone, and creation of a more pedestrian -friendly area in business corridors. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT i 33 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Table 2-6. How the Citywide Design Guidelines Address Trees Trees in Parking Lots The trees in parking lot directions in The Municipal Code has since been updated to include ■ Chapter 3: Parking the Guidelines are to follow Chapter parking requirements in Section 17.24.05o. The Guidelines 17.22.188 of the City Municipal Code for should be updated to reflect this change. This section of the Areas C. the standards for locations and quantities Municipal Code includes requirements for landscaping in of trees required in parking lots. It also Section 17.24.o5o.H, including the following requirement for ■ Chapter 4: Parking provides guidelines that trees should have trees: "A minimum of one tree per four parking spaces shall be Areas minimal canopy potentials that range from provided. Each tree shall be at least a fifteen -gallon container J., Q., R. 25 feet to 40 feet. and shall be of a species that provides a broad canopy. The trees may be clustered, but a minimum of one cluster per ■ Chapter 5: Parking ten parking spaces shall be provided." Additionally, the code Areas identifies a minimum planter size of 5 feet. The code should N. include more descriptive requirements for tree species and size. Additionally, planter sizes must be sufficient to accommodate trees of "broad canopy," which would include medium to large stature trees. This requirement could be updated to a percent canopy cover over parking lots rather than a required number of trees to better support canopy cover goals. This section of the Municipal Code is further discussed below in Section 2.2.4. 2.2.4 MUNICIPAL CODE/ZONING CODE The City's Municipal Code contains the ordinances that govern development and zoning the City. In addition to the tree policies and ordinances discussed in Section 2.1, Tree Policies and Ordinances, the Municipal Code contains additional policies and ordinances that relate to trees (Table 2.7). 34 1 CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT Table 2-7. How the Munici I Code/Zoning Code Address Trees 17.24.050: Parking This section of the Municipal Code identifies Facility Layout and parking facility requirements, including landscaping Dimensions requirements and specific requirements for trees in parking lot landscaping. For example, the code requires a minimum of one tree per four parking spaces. 17.22: Planned This section of the Municipal Code outlines various Development requirements for PDOs. Each PDO has unique Overlay Zoning requirements related to trees. For example, PDO-3 District (PDO) includes a nondescript requirement to use trees in setback landscaping when adjacent to residential uses to create screening buffers, whereas PDO-» includes specific tree sizing, spacing, and minimum planting requirements along major streets, entry streets, slopes, recreational areas, and front yard landscaping. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT The minimum number of trees per parking space requirement should be updated to a minimum potential canopy cover requirement. For example, a 50% parking lot shade requirement, calculated based on the anticipated canopy at tree maturity, is a typical requirement found across municipalities. This would allow for flexibility in the location and species of trees that can be planted. In some instances, fewer large canopy trees may be a better approach than multiple small trees, depending on the available planter space. Additionally, the code should encourage trees to be spaced out throughout parking lots to provide shade to more cars and people, rather than clustered or found at the ends of parking rows only. For example, in lieu of landscape planters between the parking spaces, a continuous planter at the head of the parking rows should be allowed. The Municipal Code should be updated to ensure minimum tree planting requirements are established for all PDOs. Plant palette proposed for PDOs should be updated according to the Recommended Species List and the street tree master plan included in the UFMP. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 35 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 2.2.5 MULTI -USE TRAILS AND BIKEWAYS MASTER PLAN The trails and bikeways master plan provides a comprehensive update of the 2002 plan and is intended to guide the City's future trail and bicycle facility implementation. Existing and newly proposed trails and on -street bicycle facilities were evaluated through field inspections, geographic information system analysis, and public input via community meetings, walking/biking events, and online surveys. Table 2-8 presents a review of the trails and bikeways master plan and the relationship to the UFMP. Table 2-8. How the Multi -use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Addresses Trees Chapter 3: The On -Street Facility Maintenance and Operations Recommended section discusses regular maintenance and Trails and performance monitoring of active transportation Bikeways routes. Debris in travel lanes was identified as a key issue during public engagement. As such, Street this section discusses the need for regular (twice Facility Facility monthly) sweeping of trails/bikeways and keeping Maintenance shrubs and trees trimmed to prevent encroachment and Operations into the pathway or obstruction of bicyclists' views. Asphalt Multi- ..__ n­i........ The Asphalt and Multi -use Pathways section discusses pavement design and the potential for damage to asphalt by vehicles, tree roots, or improper soil compaction. For pathways built along riparian corridors or in wooded areas, methods for Regular trail maintenance and reducing damage to asphalt along active transportation routes encourages use of these routes and promotes safety. Regular trimming of vegetation to maintain lines of sight and reduce leaf litter on trails is necessary to maintain safe and clean pathways. It is also important to note the benefits of trees located along active transportation routes. Trees provide shade and increased safety to cyclists and pedestrians. Shade and cooler temperatures along these routes encourage trail use by creating a more comfortable environment. Trees increase safety by acting as buffers and producing traffic calming elements. Tree removal should be considered a last resort when tree and asphalt conflicts occur. The use of root barriers prior to installment of trails or trees is an appropriate method for reducing or avoiding asphalt damage. If root pruning is required, it should be done under the direction of a Certified Arborist preventing root damage are identified, including and according to the standard details included in Appendix D vegetation removal, path alignment away from trees, Additionally, Appendix C of the UFMP provides additional tree and root barrier placement along the path edge and sidewalk conflict resolution and avoidance tactics that can be when it must come within io feet of existing trees. considered by the City when establishing trails and bikeways. 36 1 CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT Table 2-8. How the Multi -use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan Addresses Trees Appendix A: Toolbox - Design Guidelines Local Neighborhood Accessways Bikeway Maintenance and Operations PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT The Local Neighborhood Accessways section The trails and bikeways master plan design guidelines provides guidance for development of pathways/ protect trees from potential impacts from trail construction trails that provide residential areas with bicycle by allowing for narrower trails where there are mature and pedestrian access and connectivity to parks, trails, green spaces, and other recreational areas. Guidance for development of these trails indicates that trail widths should be no less than 8 feet and should be designed to be less than 8 feet wide only when necessary to protect large mature native trees over 18 inches in caliper, wetlands, or other ecologically sensitive areas. The Bikeway Maintenance and Operations section reiterates the need for regular sweeping and keeping trails clear of trees and shrubs. native trees with over 18 inches in caliper. Measuring a tree by caliper is common practice in nurseries and refers to the diameter of the tree at 12 inches above the ground. However, it is standard arboriculture practice to measure trees by diameter at standard height, which is measured at 4.5 feet above the ground, for a more accurate depiction of tree size and maturity. This guideline should be updated to reflect the Municipal Code definition of a protected tree, or heritage tree. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT l 37 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 2.2.6 CITY OF TEMECULA UPTOWN TEMECULA STREETSCAPE AND SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT STANDARDS The recently adopted Uptown Temecula Specific Plan establishes a vision and framework for the development of new bicycle - and pedestrian -friendly urban neighborhoods, with opportunities for living, working, and shopping and a wide range of recreational activities. The following summary of this document addresses the main components of design intent and species selection for the various neighborhoods identified (Table 2-9). Table 2-9. How the U Design Intent Species Selection win Temecula Streetscape and Sidewalk Imarovement Standards Address Trees The document identifies various neighborhoods and provides recommended tree species to match the historical land use of that area. For example, tree species to be planted in the Murrieta Creek area should reflect riparian habitat trees. The document makes tree species recommendations for individual streets within each of the neighborhoods. Recognizing the historical land use of an area is one consideration to determine if a tree species is appropriate for that location. It should also consider that trees once suited for the natural area may not be adapted to future climate conditions of extended periods of drought and extreme heat events. The species recommended in this document need to be reviewed against the recommended tree species list of the UFMP and street tree master plan, which are created to ensure sustainability of the urban forest through selecting climate -appropriate species and maintaining species diversity. 2.2.7 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES MASTER PLAN The community services master plan was developed to update the original parks and recreation master plan and address the long- term community service needs of Temecula residents for City parks, programs, recreation facilities, bicycle routes, and trail systems. The planning document has few, but important, recommendations for considering the urban forest, with most recommendations currently in progress or having been established by the City. Those specific items are identified below (Table 2-10). 38 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT Table 2-10. How the Community Services Master Plan Addresses Trees 4.4: Develop an Develop an urban forestry management plan that includes goals to (1) maximize These recommendations Urban Forestry the environmental, economic, and social benefits of the urban forest, (2) prevent are being implemented Management Plan: conflicts between City interest and other vital infrastructure while protecting through development of both, (3) encourage public partnerships related to the urban forest (4) ensure the UFMP. adequate funding to prune, maintain, and replant the urban forest, and (5) protect native trees and mature forest in City -maintained areas. 4.16: Park Trees and Develop annual cost estimates for a tree -pruning program based on a 5-7-year These recommendations Landscaping interval between pruning. The City should continue to monitor the spread of the are being implemented polyphagous shot hole borer beetle (Euwaffacea fornicates) in California and through development of take the appropriate steps in conjunction with California Department of Food the UFMP. and Agriculture to reduce the spread of this pest. 4.10: Shaded Areas Promote urban forests by planting trees that provide shade where needed These recommendations in new and existing parks and facilities. Trees provide a number of benefits, are being implemented including improving public health, providing economic opportunities and through development of advantages, and supporting a healthy environment that makes all of our lives the UFMP. better. 4.10: Shaded Areas Implement an in -memorial or tree dedication program whereby residents could The City has implemented purchase a tree through the City's website and the City plants the trees. this recommendation. 4.10: Shaded Areas Inventory the existing irrigation system and identify a tree planting program/ The City has implemented landscape plan at the sports parks for the purpose of providing shade and this recommendation. increasing the tree canopy as long as the plantings do not interfere with or compromise the safety of the sports facility. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 39 L ' i X l Y�.. , �p P!s . ;�ii PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 2.2.8 CITY OF TEMECULA BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES DESIGN MANUAL The California Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Diego Region issued a municipal stormwater, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems [MS4] Permit) that covered its region. The Regional MS4 Permit updates and expands stormwater requirements for new developments and redevelopment projects. In February 2015, the Regional MS4 Permit was amended by Order Rq-2015-000l and again in November 2015 by Order R9-2015- o1oo. As required by the Regional MS4 Permit, the City prepared a best management practices design manual, also referred to as the standard stormwater mitigation plan/ water quality management plan (hereafter referred to as the "manual"), to replace the current 2014 water quality management plan, dated July 11, 2014, which was based on the requirements of the 2010 Santa Margarita Region MS4 Permit. The effective date of the manual is July 5, 2018 (Table 2-11). 40 1 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT Table 2-11. How the Best Mana vent Practices Design Manual Addresses Trees PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT 2.1.1.2: Site Design Buffer zones for natural water bodies (where buffer zones are Requirements technically infeasible, require project applicant to include other buffers such as trees, restrict access, etc.). Conservation of natural areas within the project footprint including existing trees, other vegetation, and soils. 4.3.1: Maintain Natural Buffer zones for natural water bodies (where buffer zones are Drainage Pathways and technically infeasible, require project applicant to include other Hydrologic Features buffers such as trees, restrict access, etc.). 4.3.2: Conserve Natural Buffer zones for natural water bodies (where buffer zones are Areas, Soils and technically infeasible, require project applicant to include other Vegetation buffers such as trees, restrict access, etc.). Projects can incorporate Section 4.3.2 by implementing the following: Preserve trees, especially native trees and shrubs, and identify locations for planting additional native or drought -tolerant trees and large shrubs. Using trees in buffer zones is an appropriate strategy for protecting natural water bodies, as trees help intercept and filter stormwater. Additionally, conservation of natural areas and existing trees within development footprints is encouraged. Tree preservation is an important consideration as the City aims to achieve a citywide canopy cover goal. Preserving trees when feasible, and especially native trees, provides a continuum of environmental services and habitat value that would otherwise take years to regain. These requirements could be updated to reflect tree protection requirements in the Municipal Code. Appendix B: Design This provides a list of minimum distances that tree wells would be These criteria should be consistent with Criteria and Conditions installed in relationship to existing infrastructure. spacing guidelines of other City planning of Tree Wells documents and recommendations of the UFMP. Appendix B, Section 2: This provides a maintenance schedule for newly planted trees over The schedule is in line with International Maintenance Schedule the first 3 years after planting and covers various tasks like watering, Society of Arboriculture best management weed abatement, stake and tie adjustment, and mulching. practices for establishment care and can serve as a guide for establishment care on other tree planting projects. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT i 41 CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY 33 WHY CANOPY COVER MATTERS Canopy cover refers to the layer of leaves, branches, and stems that provide tree coverage of the ground when viewed from above. The urban tree canopy provides multiple environmental services and economic value to the surrounding community. A robust tree canopy that is equitably distributed helps to create a healthier, more resilient community, and the environmental benefits and services received from the urban forest increase as tree canopy increases (Clark et al. 1997)• Likewise, low canopy cover can result in increased vulnerability to pollution, extreme heat, and associated health issues. Residents who live beneath dense tree canopy experience greater tree benefits than residents who live in areas of low tree canopy. For example, low canopy cover may be an indicator of a community's vulnerability to pollution, extreme heat, and associated potential health issues (Wolf et al. 202o). Trees contribute to cleaner, healthier air in urban environments through direct pollution CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY removal (e.g., uptake via leaf stomata or intercepting airborne particles); air temperature reductions (e.g., transpiration); and reduction of urban heat islands, building energy consumption, and consequent energy emissions (e.g., temperature reductions provided by tree shade). These community enhancements provided by tree canopy cover improve the quality of life for residents and businesses. This section of the technical assessment for the UFMP provides a review of the historical and existing canopy cover and identifies priority areas for increasing tree canopy by evaluating the distribution of the tree canopy across the City. The canopy cover analysis establishes the baseline condition from which to develop short- and long-term goals and objectives for maintaining and growing healthy and large trees and increasing tree canopy to maximize resident enjoyment of the environmental services provided by trees. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT i 43 i CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY 3.2 HISTORICAL CANOPY COVER Temecula is located in the Temecula Valley, which is characterized by a mild climate and rolling hills. Historically, vegetation in the Temecula Valley primarily consisted of scrub, chapparal, riparian, and woodland communities. Prior to human settlement, natural tree canopy cover was concentrated in riparian and woodland habitats. Many of Temecula's parks, open space areas, and surrounding hillsides boast natural habitat areas with native tree species. However, Temecula's urban forest was primarily planted as the City developed. As a young city (incorporated in 1989), many of the trees that make up Temecula's urban forest have yet to reach full maturity. Native vegetation communities in Temecula include the following (City of Temecula 2005)- ■ Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub ■ Riversidian Sage Scrub ■ Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub ■ Disturbed Alluvial ■ Chaparral ■ Vernal Pool ■ Southern Cottonwood - Willow Riparian ■ Southern Sycamore -Alder Riparian Woodland ■ Riparian Scrub ■ Mule Fat Scrub ■ Southern Willow Scrub ■ Oak Woodland ■ Non-native Grassland 44 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 3.3 TREE CANOPY ASSESSMENT 3.3.1 METHODOLOGY The City's existing canopy cover was determined by analyzing aerial imagery and spatial data to create an updated map of tree canopy and other land cover classes in Temecula. The tree canopy analysis was developed using aerial imagery, height data, and machine learning. Three critical data types were collected: 0) aerial imagery, (2) a digital surface model indicating the elevation of all features within the area of interest, and (3) a digital terrain model that represents bare ground elevations within the area of interest. This data was used to classify land cover types throughout the City including (1) tree, (2) impervious surface (e.g., roads, buildings), (3) bare ground/dead vegetation, (4) low/medium height vegetation, and (5) water. The tree canopy analysis utilizes four -band multispectral National Agriculture Imaging Program imagery that is freely available from the United States Geological Survey, as well as tree height information derived using bare ground and top -of -surface (e.g., top of trees, buildings) elevation products purchased from Nearmap. The combined multispectral imagery and feature height products were used to map canopy cover within the City, using both multispectral analysis approaches and machine learning CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY image classification. A single scene was collected during the growing season, which had o% cloud cover. The heights of various features in the scene (e.g., trees, buildings) were determined by subtracting the digital terrain model elevation values from digital surface model elevation values to achieve a normalized digital surface model. Ultimately, the machine learning classification process utilized multispectral imagery and normalized digital surface model height values for the image -based land cover classification process. 3.3.2 RESULTS The canopy cover assessment revealed that Temecula has an existing tree canopy cover of approximately 10.9%, as presented in Table 3-1 and Figure 3-1, City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis. Table 3-1. Land Cover Classification Tree 1,928 10.9 Other Vegetation 4,159 23.5 Impervious Surfaces 8,194 46.3 Bare Ground 3,371 19.1 Water 36 0.2 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT i 45 CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY Figure 3-1. City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis SOURCE: NAIP 2020 FIGURE 3.1 D U D E K ® 50 0E- City of Temecula Tree Canopy Analysis Urban Forest Management Plan Project 46 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT Table 3-2 presents the canopy cover across different land use types in Temecula. As shown, residential areas have the highest canopy cover (ranging from 9.5% to 14%), and vineyards/ agricultural areas have the lowest canopy cover (less than 10Q. Low canopy cover would be expected in vineyards/agricultural areas as land use is designated for crop production, and trees may not be warranted or desired. Other specific areas with low canopy cover that would benefit from increased tree planting activities include tribal trust lands, Specific Plan areas, and commercial corridors. Increasing canopy cover in tribal trust lands would require coordination with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians to identify where trees would best benefit the community. Areas of the City that are not yet developed, and fall under a Specific Plan, provide an opportunity for the City to require tree planting activities to achieve City canopy cover goals, which can be accomplished with development regulations. Commercial areas have canopy cover ranging from 4.1% to 5.1-/. and are key areas for the City to increase canopy cover, as both businesses and patrons would benefit. Studies have explored the psychosocial response of shoppers to outdoor environments in commercial areas, revealing consistently positive associations between streetscapes with trees and consumer preferences, perceptions, and behavior. Surveys conducted in cities of varying sizes across the United States revealed that shoppers positively associated commercial areas with trees as having higher visual quality and an improved sense of place. Shoppers also indicated an increased willingness to drive farther and pay for parking and, perhaps most CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY notable, a willingness to pay higher prices for goods and services in consumer environments with trees, indicating that they would spend 9% to 12% more for goods and services in commercial districts with a high -quality tree canopy (Wolf 2005). Table 3-2. Cano Tribal Trust Lands Specific Plan Open Space Service Commercial Neighborhood Commercial Highway Tourist Commercial Public Institutional Facilities Industrial Park Community Commercial Professional Office 0 150 1.2 Low Residential (0.5-2 DU/ac max) Medium Residential (7-12 DU/ac max) Very Low Residential (0.2-0.4 DU/ac max) High Residential (13-2o DU/ac max) ILov.&d�esident3-6 DU/ac max) Note: DU/ac = dwelling units per acre. 1,674 6,682 181 538 170 76o 935 �e 21 394 536 2,511 343 4,845 2.5 2.9 4.1 4.7 5.1 5.4 5.7 6.8 6.9 9.5 9.7 11.6 13.6 01 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 47 - CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY Table 3-3 presents the canopy cover in Temecula's parks. City parks account for 0 12 �o of the City's canopy cover and have an average canopy cover of 16%. While rr. . average canopy cover across parks (16%) is higher than the citywide canopy cover (1o.9 /o), as shown in Table 3-1, the canopy P' cover in City parks ranges from a low of i 0.4% in Skyview Park to a high of 39.3%in { ��' _'•a �'`' `a 1- ,.:,�� Loma Linda Park. With a wide variability in canopy cover, the City can look to w �!" increase canopy cover by targeting parks + 4 with low canopy for tree planting efforts. Parks also present the opportunity to plant large canopy trees that require more + growing space, which is generally not available in a parkway strip or tree well along a City street. One large shade tree not only increases shading and cooling under its canopy,but also provides more benefits to the surrounding community than multiple smaller trees. Park use P / type must be considered when planning for park trees and setting individual park canopy cover goals. Section 4.1.7, Park Tree Planting Priorities, provides further analysis of park trees. 49 1 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT Table 3-3. Park Canopy Cover Park Name Skyview Park John Magee Park Paloma Del Sol Park Harveston Community Park Voorburg Park Patricia H. Birdsall Sports Park Long Canyon Creek Park Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park Eagle Soar Playground and Splash Pad Naggar Park (formerly Margarita Community Park) Wolf Creek Park Veteran's Park Temecula Skate Park Sunset Park Temeku Hills Park Vail Ranch Park ommunity ark Ronald Reagan Sports Park Pablo Apis Park Crowne Hill Park Park Park Sports Park Park Park Sports Park Park Sports Park Park Sports Park Park Park Park Park Sports Park Park Sports Park Sports Park Park Park CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY 6.65 1.00 9.50 19.73 0.73 43.19 4.71 1o.61 20.34 20.34 6.o1 13.78 3.46 1.62 11.48 16.31 6.19 52.42 2.29 3.53 0.4 2.9 4.3 4.4 5.0 5.8 7.0 7.1 8.1 8.1 8.3 9.2 10.1 12.0 12.7 13.0 13.2 13.3 13.4 14.4 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 49 CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY 7ParkNam7e7 Park/Sports Park Canopy Cover Assessment Park Acres Canopy Cover (%) Butterfield Stage Park Paseo Gallante Park Redhawk Community Park Harveston Lake Park Pauba Ridge Park Meadows Park Temecula Creek Trail Park Nakayama Park Town Square Park Wolf Creek Trail Park Serena Hills Park Sam Hicks Monument Park Temecula Duck Pond Nicolas Road Park Calle Aragon Park Winchester Creek Park Stephen Linen Jr. Memorial Park Rotary Park Bahia Vista Park Riverton Park Loma Linda Park Park 2.8o 14.9 Park 1.82 15.0 Park 14.62 15.6 Sports Park 15.92 16.2 Park 5.16 16.4 Park 5.01 16.5 Park 4.35 16.6 Park 0.27 18.2 Park 0.29 20.7 Park 5.38 21.0 Park 2.25 21.7 Park 2.55 22.6 Park 7.51 23.1 Park 2.93 24.1 Park 0.52 25.8 Park 4.50 26.o Park 2.19 26.1 Park 0.77 3o.8 _ Park 0.46 37.2 Park 4.98 37.3 Park 2.81 39.3 50 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY Table 3-4 presents the canopy cover across Temecula's five Council Districts. Table 3-4. Canopy Cover by Council District CanopyCouncil District Canopy Cover Assessment - 1 7,707.5 2.7 2 3,962.5 10.3 3 2,411 12.7 4,755 8.8 4,958 7.4 A Table 3-5 presents the canopy cover in schools throughout Temecula. As shown, canopy cover ranges from 0.5% to 23.1%. The mean canopy cover in Temecula's schools is 8.2% and the median is 8.0%, indicating that schools in Temecula have a lower canopy cover than the Citywide canopy. Only 7 of the 33 schools listed below have a canopy cover that is greater than the Citywide canopy cover of 11%. Schools present an opportunity for the City to increase canopy cover by partnering with the Temecula Valley Unified School District. It was expressed during community outreach that additional public education about trees, including public school education, would benefit the community. Tree plantings at schools paired with an educational component for school -aged children could be a creative and beneficial opportunity to include trees in public school curriculum while increasing canopy cover and achieving a more equitable canopy cover across Temecula's school grounds. 52 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT Table 3-5. Canopy Cover in Schools Temecula Christian School Great Oak High School Chaparral High School Vail Ranch Middle School Rancho Christian School Temecula Valley High School Erle Stanley Gardner Middle School Crowne Hill Elementary School Luiseno Elementary School Temecula Middle School Rancho Elementary School Vintage Hills Elementary School Margarita Middle School Oakhill Academy Pauba Valley Elementary School Abby Reinke Elementary School Redhawk Elementary School Paloma Elementary School Ysabel Barnett Elementary School Temecula Elementary School Linfield Christian School The Learning Choice Academy Vail Elementary School CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY 3.66 0.5 51.45 1.4 49.93 1.7 21.40 2.9 33.17 3.2 65.43 3.3 2o.62 4.3 1 o.85 4.3 11.93 4.6 20.01 4.9 1 o.96 5.0 10.91 5.0 24.97 6.1 4.71 7.0 13.28 7.6 11.63 8.o 9.09 8.2 10.23 8.6 12.11 8.7 13.49 9.2 95.81 9.6 2.93 9.7 10.01 10.3 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 53 CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY Table 3-5. Canopy Cover in Schools 6"r- Park Name Rancho Vista High School River Springs Charter School Van Avery Prep Elementary School Julian Charter School Helen Hunt Jackson Elementary School Temecula Montessori Academy Southern California Lutheran Elementary School James Day Middle School 3.3.3 TREE EQUITY 3.3.3.1 URBAN HEAT ISLANDS As temperatures increase, heat is absorbed and re -emitted by buildings, roads, and other hardscape and infrastructure in the urban landscape, causing temperatures in the urbanized area to increase. This occurrence, known as the "urban heat island effect," results in urbanized areas experiencing higher temperatures relative to surrounding natural or rural areas. Elevated temperatures in urban areas contribute to compromised human health and comfort, which can result in heat -related illness and heat -related deaths (EPA 2020). Currently, extreme heat causes more deaths than any other weather -related hazard, with particularly vulnerable groups consisting of the elderly, unhoused populations, and those with 12.67 10.8 3.22 12.7 3.34 14.0 6.92 14.6 2.80 14.9 1.21 18.3 2.69 23.0 7.51 -1 23.1 pre-existing conditions (Sherman 2020). Climate projections anticipate more extreme heat days, which will be accompanied by increased health risks, and an additional 9,30o heat - related deaths are expected nationwide by 2036 (Sherman 202o). Tree canopies reduce the urban heat island effect by lowering surface and air temperatures through shade and evapotranspiration (Loughner et al. 2012). Surface temperatures may be 20°F to 45°F (11°F to 25°C) cooler under the shade of a tree than areas with no tree cover (EPA 2019). Further, on a sunny day, hardscape surfaces, such as asphalt, concrete, or roofs, can reach temperatures that are 50°F to 9o°F hotter than the surrounding air temperature (EPA 2021). Figure 3-2, Urban Heat Island and Canopy Cover, presents urban heat islands found throughout Temecula overlayed with 54 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT canopy cover. Heat islands are found throughout Temecula, but higher concentrations are located in the northern, western, and central portions of Temecula. In particular, heat islands are found along major transportation routes (i.e., Interstate 15, State Route 79), within open space land that largely consists of bare ground, in areas designated as industrial, office, and public institution land use types in the western portion of Temecula and in areas designated as very low density residential in the northern and southern portions of Temecula. Table 3-6 presents the census tracts with high concentrations of urban heat islands and the corresponding canopy percentage in that census tract. As shown, only one of these census tracts (6065043222) has a canopy percentage that is equal to the Citywide canopy, and all other census tracts have a lower canopy cover. A recent study (Alonzo et Al. 2021) revealed that the cooling effects provided by individual street trees scattered throughout urban neighborhoods should not be underestimated. The study revealed lower evening and predawn temperatures in neighborhoods covered by canopy from distributed trees compared to areas with few or no trees. Temperatures were 1.4°C cooler in the evening in areas with 50% canopy cover compared with areas with few trees, and perceptibly cooler temperatures were also found in areas with 20% canopy cover compared to areas with no trees. The study implies that planners can take advantage of planting individual trees as a strategy to mitigate urban heat. CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY While individual trees contribute to cooling neighborhoods and improving the quality of life for Temecula residents, environmental services are compounded as tree canopy cover increases. Research suggests that at least 40% canopy cover is needed to achieve the maximum cooling effect of trees in offsetting the urban heat island effect (Ziter et al. 2019). However, realistic canopy cover goals must be set for the City, as further discussed in the following section. Nonetheless, the 40% benchmark provides an understanding as to the importance of dense canopy cover over streets, sidewalks, and walking trails to ensure residents have continuous protection from heat as they walk through neighborhoods, to shopping, or to transportation centers. Currently, the majority (870/8) of Temecula's public tree inventory consist of young and immature trees, indicating that tree canopy will increase over time as trees mature. Table 3-6. Census Tracts with High Concentrations of Urban Heat Islands CensusCanopy 6065043247 1.5 6065051200 4.6 6065043244 M 6.1 6065043217 _ 8.3 6065043256 8.4 6065043250 _ 9.1 6065049600 9.3 6065043222 11.0 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT I 55 CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY 3.3.3.2 CALENVIROSCREEN The Environmental Protection Agency CalEnviroScreen 4.0 online tool identifies California communities that are disproportionately burdened by pollution and have a higher vulnerability to the health effects of pollution (OEHHA 2018). The tool uses environmental, health, and socioeconomic information to identify the inequities associated with pollution throughout the state, and each census tract is given a CalEnviroScreen (CES) score. The score is given in percentage ranges, with 1-io-10-io being the least vulnerable and 91-/0-too-io being the most vulnerable. As shown in Table 3-7 and Figure 3-3, City of Temecula CalEnviroScreen Results, Temecula's census tracts have CES scores ranging from 14.1% (6065043252) to 65.2% (6065051200). Of the 22 census tracts that comprise Temecula: ■ Approximately 92% of residents live in a census tract that scored less than 50%, and approximately 36% of residents live in a census tract that scored below 20%. ■ One census tract (6065051200) scored greater than 60%, and approximately 3% of residents live within this census tract; the remainder of Temecula's census tracts have a score of 60% or below. ■ There are no census tracts in the City that scored above 70%. Table 3-7. Canopy Cover and CalEnviroScreen Score by Census Tract 6o65043250 6o65043246 ,6o65043265 6065043262 6065043266 6o65043267 6065043217 6o65043256 6o65043247 6o650496o0 6065043254 6o65043220 6o65043222 6o65050500 6065043216 6065051200 20.5 10.7 21.5 22.1 23.7 25.1 25.9 29.2 34.3 38.4 40.7 45.4 46.7 48.1 53.3 65.2 10.7 12.5 14.7 11.9 8.3 8.4 1.5 9.3 0.7 12.1 11.0 12.4 Wo.8 ■lt.6 56 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT - PO CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY Figure 3-2. Urban Heat Island and Canopy Cover 6065050600f t—6065043211 6065043291 6065043206 klftgt� to6065050500 6065049800//�\ L w / V 6065049600 [ �t 4� 7 - O City of Temecula Urban Lands "- O Census Tract Boundary 0 Tree Canopy ° Heat Island Severity Mild MOM Mild to Moderate 1 Moderate ■ Moderate to High . Severe SOURCE'. NHIP NO; Trust br Public Land 2020 DUDEK © ° - _., �s .ate'', EtFP- `H"' . ,� .y9�l�x`�•-- fi065043244 6065043247 6065043218�. ' 6065043217 �BM �✓=` a `?g' rs Y 1 6065043267 _�,Prr c5r tag.' r �yY ed Ur L 1 �j 216� A- 6065043239 * , s 6065043246 { 6065043262 f fir. X 6065043264 k 6065043265 �.. It 6065;43p 6065043256 6065043248 6065043250 6065043257'_V 6065043252 FIGURE 3-2 Urban Heat Island and Canoov Cover 58 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT Figure 3-3. City of Temecula CalEnviroScreen Results 0600' 6065043211 f 6065043291 _j County Boundary 6065043206 O City of Temecula 6os5o9800 6065050500 O Census Tract Boundary /,.\// Q739,19,001 SOURCE: OEHHA 2021; NAIP 2020; CA DTSC 2021 D U D E K © 0Mes CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY f 6065043267 -------------•---------------------------- 6073019002 , ..__ 6065043247 6065043239 FIGURE 3-3 City of Temecula CalEnviroScreen Results CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 59 u s I Al .r r � R 777 , a.• y � x •�j, b CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY As depicted in Figure 3-3, the areas of the City with the highest CES scores (and greatest vulnerability to pollution) are located in the western and central portions of the City. These areas largely correspond to the observed urban heat islands discussed above. Overall, the majority of Temecula's census tracts have CES scores below 50%, indicating that most areas are not significantly vulnerable to pollution. The census tract with the highest CES score (6o6505120o) has a canopy cover percentage of 4.6% (5.4% less than the Citywide canopy cover) and primarily consists of industrial and public institution land uses. Communities with low canopy cover tend to have an increased vulnerability to pollution, extreme heat, and associated health issues (Wolf et al. 2020). Studies have shown that due to identifiable systemic injustices and socioeconomic factors, inequitable canopy cover and pollution vulnerability disproportionately affect low income and minority communities (Locke et al. 2021. The race and ethnicity profiles of the census tracts with the highest (606505120o) and lowest (6065043252) CES scores are presented in Exhibit 3-1 and Exhibit 3-2, respectively. The census tract with the highest CES score and greatest vulnerability to pollution has a population that consists of 60.6% minority populations, while the census tract with the lowest CES score has a population that consists of 47% minority populations. Efforts to expand canopy cover should be focused areas of greater vulnerability to pollution to help achieve a more equitable tree canopy. 60 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY Exhibit 3-1. Race and Ethnicity Profile of Census Tract with Highest CalEnviroScreen Score Rare and Fthnirity PrOfllB Of C@nSUS TYdCt 151200 Hispanic 50.9% White 39.3% Asian American 6.3% a African American 1.8% ■ Other 1.2% ■ Native American 0.4% MAI CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT i 61 CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY Exhibit 3-2. Race and Ethnicity Profile of Census Tract with Lowest CalEnviroScreen Score Race and Ethnicity Profile of Census Tract 6065043252 53% White 53.1% Hispanic 21% Asian American 11.3% Other 7.6% vii African American 5.1% ■ Native American 2% 62 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 3.3.3.3 TREE EQUITY SCORE Tree Equity Score (TES) is a method to identify and prioritize neighborhoods within census block groups that need green spaces, that can be used to prioritize tree planting initiatives that contribute to solving the current disparities in tree canopy cover. The TES method was created by American Forests, a nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing tree canopy in urban, rural, and natural areas. The variables used when determining the TES include canopy cover, climate, demographic, and socioeconomic data, such as percentage of population below the poverty line, unemployment rate, and urban heat island severity (American Forests 2021). The TES is then calculated by multiplying the Baseline Gap Score by the overall Priority Index. A lower TES indicates a greater priority for closing the tree canopy disparity. The TES method was used to evaluate Temecula's equitable distribution of trees and the results are further discussed below. The target score established by American Forests for a city to achieve tree equity is a minimum of 75. Overall, Temecula has a TES of 71. Individual census group blocks that scored below 75 are presented in Table 3-8. Currently, there are 26 census block groups that have a TES below 75. Based on the canopy cover analysis presented in Section 3.3.2, Results,, the average canopy cover across the census tracts where these 26 census block groups are located is 9%. According to TES data for CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY the city of Temecula, the two census block groups that have the lowest TESS are 60650512002 and 60650512001. Census block group 60650512002 has a TES of 42, where 41% of the population are people of color and 149/0 of people live below the poverty line. Census block group 6o6505120o1 has a TES of 41, where 63% of the population are people of color and 35% of people live below the poverty line. Both census block group are located within a census tract with a canopy cover percentage of 59/0. The demographics of these two census block groups and their lower canopy covers than other areas of the City reflect environmental inequities where low-income and minority communities are found to have lower canopy cover and receive significantly fewer benefits related to trees and green spaces. Table 3-8. Tree Equity Scores below 75 by Census Block Group and Canopv Cover Percentage 6o650432661 74 9 6o650432181 73 12 6o650432621 73 13 6o650432182 73 12 6o650432671 72 12 6o650432501 71 9 6o650432672 68 12 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 63 CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY Table 3-8. Tree Equity Scores below 75 by Census Block Group and CanoiDv Cover Percentage 60650432221 67 11 60650432505 67 9 60650432162 63 11 60650432572 63 10 60650432502 62 9 60650432441 59 6 60650432201 59 12 60650432171 58 8 60650432222 58 11 60650496003 58 9 60650432471 57 2 60650432563 56 8 60650496o01 55 9 60650432442 54 6 6o650432653 54 11 6o650432472 49 2 60650432161 44 11 60650512002 42 5 6o650512001 41 I 5 Note:* Canopy cover percentages are based on canopy assessment presented in Section 3.3.2. 3.3.4 INCREASING CANOPY COVER Increasing canopy cover in Temecula will require new tree plantings as well as ensuring existing trees are maintained and preserved. The potential canopy cover that can be achieved in any city is based on historical and existing conditions. A variety of factors influence canopy cover, such as development intensities, land use patterns, historical canopy cover, and growing conditions. These factors largely determine the achievable canopy cover. Cities located in forested areas with ideal growing conditions may achieve up to 40% to 60% canopy cover, while cities in desert and grassland areas generally may achieve up to 15% to 20% canopy cover, respectively (Leahy 2017). Therefore, Temecula's canopy cover must be analyzed in consideration of the historical landscape, which primarily consisted of scrub, chapparal, riparian, and woodland habitat (City of Temecula 2005). Citywide canopy cover goals must be attainable and should be made in consideration of the overall benefit to the community. Tree planting efforts to increase canopy should be implemented strategically across land use types and specific areas of the City to ensure canopy cover is equitably distributed. Table 3-9 presents the total number of new trees that would need to be planted to increase canopy cover above the existing 11% canopy cover. The planting calculations presented indicate the number of trees with 20-, 35-, 50, or 75-foot canopy spread that would be needed, if the City planted all trees from one 64 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT size category. In reality, it is anticipated that the City would plant a combination of various tree sizes, which can be tracked and monitored to determine progress toward reaching canopy cover goals. Planting a variety of species will help the City maintain a diverse urban forest. Actual canopy cover increases would happen over a 30- to 40-year time frame depending on annual tree planting totals, establishment care, growth rate of the species planted, and potential mature tree canopy size. Achieving these canopy cover percentages is also dependent on the survival of trees planted. As such, a 5% potential mortality was factored into the tree planting calculations. Table 3-10 presents the total number of new trees that would need to be planted each year over the next 40 years to increase canopy cover. A 20% canopy cover goal to be achieved over the next 40 years is a realistic goal for the City. The planting scenarios presented provide calculations for the number of trees with 20-, 35-, 50-, or 75-foot canopy spread. For example, planting 937 trees with a potential 50-foot canopy spread per year for 40 years would achieve a 20% canopy cover in Temecula. As stated above, it is anticipated that the City would plant a combination of various tree sizes over the next 40 years, which means canopy goals could be achieved at a faster or slower rate, depending on the species planted and available planting space. It should be noted that the majority (87%) of Temecula's public tree inventory CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY consists of young and immature trees, indicating that tree canopy will increase over time as trees mature. As such, the tree planting calculations presented reflect the number of trees needed to increase canopy based on existing conditions, and growth of existing trees is not considered. The tree planting scenarios do not account for loss of existing tree canopy or loss of available tree planting sites, such as poor pruning practices, infrastructure conflicts that could lead to poor tree health or tree removal, or conversion of available planting sites to other infrastructure/development. Prioritizing medium- and large -stature trees where feasible will provide a greater benefit to the community and help to increase canopy cover. However, most importantly, planting the right tree in the right place will help to ensure that trees can grow to maturity and provide the maximum environmental benefits and services to the community. Tree species should be selected based on the Recommended Species List and the street tree master plan presented in the UFMP, which consider variables such as minimum planter size, planter type, water use, climate readiness, utility compatibility, and fire hazard rating. Additional variables to consider include existing infrastructure and other potential conflicts (e.g., view obstructions, safety, leaf litter). CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 65 CANOPY COVER AND EQUITY Table 3-9. Total Number of Trees Needed to Increase Canopy Cover Above 11% 12 26,949 8,796 4,311 1,915 15 100,563 32,824 16,086 7,147 18 174,177 56,852 27,861 12,379 19 198,716 64,861 31,786 14,123 20 MM 223,254 _ jMMMMM�2,871 35,711 15,867 2.5 A, 345,944 -MMMMM�l 12,917 55,337 24,587 Note: Green highlighting indicates the Citywide canopy cover goal of 209/6. Table 3-10. Total Number of Trees Needed to Plant Cover 12 707 231 113 50 15 2,640 862 422 188 18 4,572 1,492 731 325 19 5,216 1,703 834 371 20' 93 � 417 25AM- 9,081 2,964 ■ 1,453 IN 645 Notes: A 5% mortality rate has been added to the planting scenarios presented in this table. Green highlighting indicates the Citywide canopy cover goal of 20% 66 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ;o � y.� r 3`fr �'� r �!� 4�` o- a ft' ��-V.•-�r",t' ���>' •x.+4ur , '.t ?�'�c rvll�f"�n yj�. � ti_ 1-�+�tRk"`�... �;yjA��� '" , � u ;��t'g\ �ti, t�+ r t •n , � - P _. MvIl" New Ap- r Ig t�y f r N �\'lam•-�•jn'v�.'. '..>.. :5" a _ ti .FI i 1�'.:4� l{Ar,�t't � =.Ift ;�10y ���' � { .�� Iy �4��M ���1q 1r�t. YS r1 f� r n'/ h,ryYya�,f� �:� �fJ 7{y f1�`) Pi �'�'^"NI♦phM +� IR � r ', r 1t • .. a .. b'.���t yy :yi ,y ,,,!ppp�, �� . J �x 4��'} .f�����,f4C�P�} F�,�.hi"2`•� }L���n� M\�� �5 �"� � 4�-�iti. •� j �.. 9i ,�1 ti' ^11�(�V'��x`"��1�A 't�N; 1 '.. � 1 K I ' � �j�, 11 ����`�Y �.A °�, �Y�• ` `fy ",� - i..7 �� .. ; _ =C ! 1 �, �.C(�. V♦ t� t �f`� - � yW'Ma+ '^Y b t MF'�y !1\�M ; � �+ t �f- V�}} ; �ii.H�i�Y���.\'� � ' ` _ ^�jy��\ttr, �..1 ��s{ Si.�.l R� '':r�� eakaZ• �' 4.YC,SV$��n'{r �, v • � r`�.h�Ci�?`' - �. r S� w � 1 th-'3n\)i Plle �R. Z.V+ �S. �� a i.. STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST 4.1 CITY TREE INVENTORY METHODOLOGY Arbor Pro Inc. conducted an inventory of City -managed trees between January 2021 and July 2021. The scope of the inventory included collecting tree location and arboricultural attribute information of City - owned trees of all City -managed street, slope, and park locations. The resulting combined inventory database includes 30,715 trees, with 1,859 stumps and 3,691 vacant sites. The following sections present STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST 433 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES/ECONOMIC BENEFITS 1-Tree Eco was used to analyze tree inventory records to determine the values of the environmental services provided by the City's trees. In Table 4-1, carbon sequestration is the amount of carbon annually removed from the air by the City's trees. Avoided runoff represents the annual quantity of rainwater that is diverted from the stormwater management system by the trees, and air pollution removal includes the amount of annual removal of ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns. In addition to these environmental services, Temecula's inventory increases property values; provides shade, food, and habitat for wildlife; reduces urban heat islands; and increases public health outcomes. These services contribute directly to the community members' quality of life, and discussing their merits is one method to encourage residents and an analysis of the City inventory data. business owners to participate in urban forest programs. Table 4-1. Annual Environmental Services and Benefits Provided bvCity-Manaaed Trees Carbon Sequestration (carbon dioxide removed from air by trees) Avoided Runoff (rainwater diverted from stormwater management system by trees) Air Pollution Removal (ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter less than 2.5 microns) The carbon removed from the City's air by 262 tons the urban forest is equivalent to an average $44,800 passenger vehicle driving 589,977 miles. 1,796,073 gallons This benefit is equivalent to the average annual $16,000 water usage of 16 American homes. The pollution removed by the City's tree IL 9.33 tons inventory is equivalent to the carbon dioxide $55,500 emissions of 9,365 pounds of burned coal. Sources: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and i Tree Analysis (USFS 2020). CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 69 STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST Table 4-2. Financial Value of City -Managed Trees Carbon Storage (7,5460 Tons) Amount of carbon held in trees Structural i I Tree replacement cost I Functional `Value based o es perfornl Sources: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and Tree Analysis (USFS 2020). The financial value of the City's tree inventory is presented in Table 4-2. Each tree in the City's inventory has an average City asset value of $2,892.24. The functional value represents the annual value of the environmental services that the trees provide ($116,3oo/year). Each tree delivers approximately $44.46 in ecosystem services based on the combined functional and carbon storage values each year. This value is lower than the California average of $110.63 (McPherson et al. 2016), which can be attributed to the age of the City's trees. With nearly 87% of the City's trees classified as either immature or young, with proper maintenance and care it is expected that the environmental services will continue to increase over time as the trees mature. 4.1.2 SPECIES DIVERSITY Cities with tree inventories that have low species diversity may be more susceptible to invasive pests, pathogens, or $1,290,000 '= $42.00 — ■ $86.9 million $2,892.24 $116,300 $2.46 i significant weather events. California acquires a new invasive pest approximately once every 6o days (Sutherland 2014). While not all introduced invasive species result in destructive losses to urban forests, an important strategy to increase resiliency to threats is to foster a diverse urban forest. Generally, a city's tree inventory should contain no more than 1o% of any one species, 20% of any one genus, or 30% of any one family (Miller and Miller 1991; Richards 1993; Ball 2007). These recommendations provide useful guidelines to measure the vulnerability of the City's tree population. To further ensure that the inventory is resilient to threats, Dudek used a more stringent sustainability metric of no more than 5% of any one species, to-/o of any one genus, or 20% of any one family to be represented in the inventory. The City's tree inventory of 30,715 trees is composed of 36 families, 89 genera, and 170 species. The top 10 tree 70 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT families make up 82% of the City inventory, and all families fall within the 20% sustainability guideline (Table 4-3)` The top 10 tree genera make up 71% of City -owned trees (Table 4-4). The top 8 genera fall within the 10-io recommendation, while Pinus and Platanus exceed the recommendation and represent 32% of the inventory. The top 10 species compose 53% of the inventory, and the top 3 species (Pinus eldarica, Platanus x hispanica, and Lagerstroemia indica) each exceed the 59/8 guideline and represent 33% of the inventory (Table 4-5). As the City continues to plan for tree removals and replacements, it could consider planting different trees outside of these genera and species that are overrepresented in the inventory. Sections 1.2.7, Recommended Species Palette, and 4.1.2.1, Species Predicted to be Heat and Water Sensitive, provide more information for the City to consider. } y M. A-� 'f_f:F� d C.•. gyp,., �_._`� la"` \.. Table 4-3. Top 10 Tree Families in the City Inventory 1 Pinaceae 5,433 18 2 Platanaceae 4,553 15 3 Anacardiaceae 2,981 10 4 Lythraceae 2,677 9 5 Myrtaceae 2,351 8 6 Sapindaceae 1,688 5 7 Rosaceae 1,573 5 8 Fabaceae 1,533 5 9 Fagaceae 1,366 4 10 Hamamelidaceae 995 3 Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021). CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 71 FM STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST Table 4-4. Toa 10 Tree G t 1 Pinus 5,359 17 2 Platanus 4,553 15 E 3 Lagerstroemia 2 677 9 f f, 4 Eucalyptus 1,837 6 5 Koelreuteria 1,525 5 Quercus 1,366 4 . Pistacia 1,349 4 Pyrus 1,176 4 Liquidambar 988 3 10 Schinus 941 3 Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021 and additional inventory data). 72 1 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 Pinus eldarica 2 Platanus x hispanica 3 Lagerstroemia inclica 4 Pistacia chinensis 5 Eucalyptus sideroxylon 6 Koelreuteria bipinnata 7 Liquidambarstyraciflua 8 Platanus racemosa 9 Schinus molle 10 Cinnamomum camphora STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST Mondell pine Large 3,645 12 London plane Large 3,644 12 Crape myrtle Small 2,666 9 Chinese pistache Medium 1,349 4 Red ironbark Medium 1,250 4 Chinese flame tree Medium 1,075 3 American sweet gum Large 966 3 California sycamore Large 882 3 California pepper Large 886 3 Camphor Large 8o6 3 Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021 and additional inventory data). 4.1.2.1 SPECIES PREDICTED TO BE HEAT AND WATER SENSITIVE Over the past century, average maximum temperatures in California have increased between 1.6°F to 2.5°F, and these temperatures are expected to continue to rise over the coming years (WRCC 2018). Longer, more intense periods of drought and more variable periods of precipitation with increased flooding (Swain et al. 2018) will make finding additional irrigation water a challenge and allocating funding for irrigation improvements for street trees a priority (McBride and Lacan 2018). CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT I 73 STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST Recent research by McBride and Lacan (2018) provides helpful findings that can guide the City as it plans for its hotter, dryer future. Table 4-6 presents 28 species in the City inventory that are predicted to be heat and water sensitive. Collectively, these 11,293 trees make up 379/8 of the City's inventory and indicate the potential for a gradual decline of tree canopy cover over time. Of the City's top 10 species, 4 are on this list. Based on this list of species, the City will need to determine which species should remain on its palette that will be able to withstand hotter and dryer weather if future drought conditions persist. Section 1.2.7, Recommended Species Palette, considers this list of species. Table 4-6. Tree Species in the City Inventory that are Predicted to be Heat or Water Sensitive Platanus x hispanica 11 Lagerstroemia indica' Platanus racemosa Liquidambar styraciflua Ulmus parvifolia Magnolia grandiflora Brachychiton populneus Prunus cerasifera kKoelreuteria paniculata Populus fremontii Purus calleryana 'Gleditsia triacanthos Pacaranda mimosifolia Betula pendula Cedrus deodara London plane Crape myrtle California sycamore American sweetgum Chinese elm Southern magnolia Kurrajong Purple -leaf plum Goldenrain tree Fremont poplar Bradford pear Thornless honey locust Jacaranda European white birch Deodarcedar MES 3,644 Morus alba 2,666 Fraxinus uhdei 882 Quercus rubra 781 Ginkgo biloba 584 Prunus cerasifera 538 Cercis canadensis 365 Corymbia citriodora 311 Lophostemon confertus 307 Cercis occidentalis 195 Liriodendron tulipifera 172 207 131 79 74 Sequoia sempervirens Acer saccharinum White mulberry Evergreen ash Red oak Maidenhair tree Cherry plum J Eastern redbud Lemon -scented gum Brisbane box Common hackberry Tulip tree Coast redwood Sugar maple Notes:* Denotes a top to species in the Temecula inventory. 66 64 59 48 12 27 19 19 15 7 7 0 74 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 43.3 DIAMETER AT STANDARD HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION Understanding the overall age distribution of the City's urban forest can better prepare arborists, policy makers, and maintenance workers for funding and management decisions needed as the trees age (Morgenroth et al. 2020). General age recommendations suggest that an urban forest should have a distribution of immature trees (40%) to replace failing or aging ones, young (3o%) and middle-aged (20%) trees to provide the bulk of economic and environmental benefits, and relatively fewer mature trees (lo%) that have most of their life behind them but provided significant environmental benefits for many years (Morgenroth et al. 2020; Richards 1983). The most common and least invasive method to approximate the STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST age of a living tree is to measure the trunk diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground (DSH). Since trees vary in size and growth patterns, using DSH to determine age can only be considered an estimate. Table 4-7 shows the DSH distribution of all trees in the inventory compared to the recommended DSH distributions. Based on urban forestry research (Richards 1983), there are more young trees, and fewer immature, middle-aged, and mature trees than are recommended to maintain a sustainable urban forest. This age distribution is consistent with the age and development of the City, which reflects an urban forest that was relatively recently planted. Table 4-7. Diameter at Standard Heiqht Distribution of the City's Tree Inventory Age Category Diameter at Standard Height (inches) Number of Trees Recommended Percentage of Tree Inventory o of Inventory /o Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021); Richards 1983. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT i 75 STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST Considering species' age distributions can help the City plan for future maintenance needs of specific species (Exhibit 4-1). With nearly 87% of the inventory at either immature or young, maintenance needs for these trees will be focused on formative pruning to help limit structural defects as trees mature. Supplemental watering resources and establishment care will be required to promote root growth and tree health. This level of maintenance is less costly than large tree pruning and is essentia to establishing trees in an urban landscape. Exhibit 4-1. Age Distribution of Temecula's Top io Inventory Species 4000 Recent work by Morgenroth et al. (202o), and the DSH distribution, helps justify that because a large percentage Of the tree inventory will reach removal and replacement stage at a similar time in their lifecycle, the City should plan to increase its maintenance budget to proactively manage and foster a sustainable urban forest. 76 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 43.4 TREE CONDITION In general, trees that are healthy with good trunk and branch structure have a lower risk of failure and contribute to a safer City. To determine the health composition, inventory arborists rated trees on a scale of excellent, very good, good, fair poor, or dead (Table 4-8). Tree condition ratings were determined based on visual assessment of trees. Diagnostic testing, internal decay probing, and root excavations were not conducted. Approximately 9,277 trees from a previous inventory were not assigned a condition rating. As such, they are excluded from the table below. The percentages reflect the number of trees in the 2021 inventory, 21,438. Table 4-8. Tree Condition Ratings of the City Inventory Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor 8 10 11,433 8,151 1,719 0.04 0.05 53.33 38.02 M Source: City of Temecula Inventory (City of Temecula 2021). Note: *Approximately 9,277 trees from a previous inventory were combined with the 2021 inventory but were not assessed for tree condition. As such, these trees are excluded from the table. STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST Table 4-8 shows the health composition of the inventory varies, with 53% rated as good or better, and 38% as fair. Approximately 9% of trees were rated poor or dead. The main reasons for the poor and dead ratings include signs of internal decay, topped or heavily/improperly pruned trees, sunscald, and damage to the trunk. The City should visit trees rated poor or dead to determine appropriate management actions. 43.5 RELATIVE PERFORMANCE INDEX Tree condition ratings in the City inventory show how individual trees are performing but do not aggregate performance by species type. The relative performance index (RPI) is used to better understand how individual species are performing and identify species that may need further analysis to determine appropriate management actions to maintain vigor. Species RPI is calculated by taking the percentage of trees in a single species that are assessed in good or better condition and dividing it by the percentage of all trees in the inventory that are assessed as being in a good or better condition. Tree species with an RPI of 1.o or higher are performing as well or better than the tree inventory average, and tree species with an RPI less than 1.o are performing below the tree inventory average. A sustainability goal for the City is to have its top 6 species with RPIs greater than 1.o (Vibrant Cities Lab n.d.). RPIs for the top 10 tree species are presented in Table 4-9. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 77 STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST Table 4-9. Relative Performance Index of the Top 10 Species in the Inventory Platanus x hispanica Lagerstroemia inclica Pistacia chinensis Eucalyptus sideroxylon Koelreuteria bipinnata Liquidambar styraciflua Platanus racemosa Cinnamomum camphora London plane Chinese pistache Chinese flame tree American sweet gum California sycamore California pepper Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and Tree (USFS 2020). With three of its top six species having an RPI of 1.0 of greater, the City inventory does not yet meet the RPI sustainability goal. However, only two species (Eucalyptus sideroxylon and Liquidambar styraciflua) are significantly below an RPI of 1o. Of particular importance is the low 0.36 RPI for the City's American sweet gum trees (Liquidambar styraciflua). These trees have moderate/medium water requirements based on ratings developed by the Water Use Landscape Classification of Species ratings, and the cumulative effects of repetitive drought conditions in recent years could be contributing to this species' decline. These trees are also on the list of trees in the City inventory that are predicted to be heat and water sensitive (Section 4.1.2.1, Species Predicted to be Heat and Water Sensitive). The City should monitor sweetgum performance over the next 5-10 years to determine if additional mitigation strategies are needed. 78 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST 43.6 IMPORTANCE VALUE The importance value of trees is calculated in 1-Tree Eco by combining the percentage of the species in the population of City -owned trees and its corresponding percentage of leaf area. These two percentages are added together to determine the importance value (Table 4-1o). This metric is another way to measure a species' total value to the City's urban forest. Table 4-10. Ten Species with the Highest Importance Values in the City's Inventory Pinus elclarica Mondell pine Large 11.9 16.8 27.9 Eucalyptus sideroxylon Red ironbark Large 4.1 18.3 22.4 Platanus x hispanica London plane Large 11.9 10.2 22.1 Lagerstroemia indica Crape myrtle Small 8.7 0.9 9.6 Platanus racemosa California sycamore Large 2.9 4.4 7.3 Pyrus calleryana Callery pear Medium 3.8 2.8 6.6 Acacia stenophylla Shoestring acacia r Medium 2.3 3.8 6.1 Schinus mole California pepper Large 2.8 3.1 6.o r Pinus canariensis Canary Island pine ' Large 2.6 3.2 5.8 Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache� i Medium 4.4 1.3 5.7 Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021) and i Tree (USFS 2020) CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT i 79 7" '0 ................. .... j", av jul� I -, - - " � i, - -Z � � pre; "�," ito M.T. IMIN -Y T 47' MOW* will 1-7 -qr Ow- VOR The trees with the highest importance values are expected as they are most common species (Mondell pine [Pines elclarica]), second most common species (London plane [Platanus x hispanica]), and fifth most common species (red ironbark [Eucalyptus sicleroxylon]), and they are all large -stature trees. Red ironbark's importance value of 22.4 highlights the increased value of large -stature trees, as it only makes up 4% of the inventory but accounts for 18.3% of the inventory leaf area. In comparison, the small -stature crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) tree makes up 8.7% of the inventory but only o.9% of the leaf area. The planning decisions of the City have allowed for a high number of large -stature trees to be planted that return an increased level of environmental services and should continue to prioritize planting large tree species that are adapted to changing climate conditions to receive a high level of environmental benefits. 4.1.7 PARK TREE PLANTING PRIORITIES Temecula's 31 parks and 8 sports parks contain 5,990 trees, 1,354 vacant sites, and 184 stumps. During City staff interviews, individuals expressed that City parks would benefit from shade structures and/or increased STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST tree plantings to make parks more comfortable when temperatures are high during summer months. The average canopy cover for all parks is 16%, which is higher than the citywide canopy cover of 1o.9%. However, canopy cover significantly varies between parks, ranging from 0.4% to 39.3%. Park variations to canopy cover differ depending on park type (regular park, sports park) and age of park and/or trees (recent tree plantings), As such, the number of trees at each park does not necessarily correlate with canopy cover. To provide the City with a metric for prioritization of park planting, a Priority Planting Score was created for each park (Table 4-11). To calculate the score, the number of park trees, vacant sites, and stumps were first added together to determine the total number of sites per park. The number of park trees were divided by the total number of sites to determine each park's filled site percentage. The filled site percentage was then added to each park's canopy cover percentage to determine a priority planting score. Parks with a lower score should be prioritized for planting. Parks with higher scores do not need to be planted in the short-term but could be prioritized for planting in the next 15-20 years. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 81 STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST Table 4-11. Park Tree Priority Planting Scores Crowne Hill Park Park 47 14.42 61.4 Voorburg Park Park 6o 5.02 65.0 Paloma del Sol Park Sports Park 66 4.27 70.3 Veterans Park Park 68 9.16 77.2 Sam Hicks Monument Park Park 57 22.64 79.6 Temeku Hills Community Park Sports Park 67 12.72 79.7 Butterfield Stage Park Park 65 14.92 79.9 Michael Stephen Linen Jr Park Park 55 26.o8 81.1 Calle Aragon Park Park 57 25.75 82.8 Wolf Creek Park Park 76 8.29 84.3 Pala Community Park Sports Park 75 13.18 88.2 Long Canyon Creek Park Park 'M 83 6.99 90 Patricia Birdsall Park Park 85 5.82 9o.8 Harveston Community Park -=Iports J=tports Park 87 4.38 91.4 Duck Pond Park Park 70 23.13 93.1 Ronald Reagan Sports Park ports Park 8o 13.31 93.3 Bahia Vista Park Park 57 37.18 94.2 Paseo Gallante Park Park 8o 15.09 95.1 Margarita Community Park Sports Park A 87 8.14 95.1 82 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST Table 4-11. Park Tree Priority Planting Scores Park Name 4w-qq % of Sites Filled Park Canopy - Vail Ranch Park Park 83 13.02 96 Redhawk Community Park Park 82 15.6o 97.6 Nicolas Road Park Park 74 24.o8 98.1 Nakayama Park Park 8o 18.22 98.2 Pablo Apis Park Park 85 13.44 98.4 Kent Hintergardt Park "Floorts Park 7.11 -1 100.1 Harveston Lake Park Park 16.23 100.2 Skyview Park Park 100 0.36 100.4 Meadows Park Park 84 16.48 100.5 Riverton Parl Park 65 3734 102.3 John Magee Park Park 100 2.90 102.9 Winchester Creek Park Park 78 25.99 104 Temecula C reeiTrail Park Park 88 16.61 104.6 LOPATIMM Park AL JL A&iA 68 39.31 107.3 Pauba Ridge Park r7ark= 91 16.43 107.4 Sunset Park r 100 12.01 112 Wolf Creek Trail Park 91 21.03 112 Serena Hills Park ar 98 A 21.67 119.7 �2otary Park Par 90 MEL 3o.83 120.8 Note: The 280 trees planted on Arbor Day are included in this analysis. CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT i 83 STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST 4.1.7.1 SPECIES DIVERSITY The top 10 tree genera represent 72% of the City's park trees, and Pinus and Platanus trees exceed the 10-io recommendation. These genera represent 380io of the park trees (Table 4-12) and may be vulnerable to threats. The top to species make up 60% of the park trees, and the top three species (Pinus eldarica, Platanus x hispanica, and Platanus racemosa) each exceed the 5% guideline. These species represent 32% of the inventory (Table 4-13). 1 Platanus 1,345 22 2 Pinus 964 16 3 Quercus 316 5 4 d Rhus 311 5 5 Koelreuteria 302 5 6 , Corymbia 242 4 7 Pistacia 222 4 8 - Lagerstroemia 218 4 9 - Eucalyptus 217 4 0' Ulmus 188 3 Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021). Note: * The trees planted on Arbor Day are not included in this analysis. 84 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT Table 4-13. Top 10 Tree Species in the City Inventory 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Platanus x hispanica London plane 861 Pinus eldarica Mondell pine 663 Platanus racemosa California sycamore 458 Rhus lancea African sumac 311 Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese flame tree 247 Corymbia ficifolia Red flowering gum 225 Pistacia chinensis Chinese pistache 222 Lagerstroemia indica Crape myrtle 218 Pinus canariensis Canary island pine 198 Ulmus parvifolia Chinese elm 188 Note: * The trees planted on Arbor Day are not included in this analysis. STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST 4.1.7.2 TREE CONDITION Table 4-14 depicts the condition of inventoried trees. The conditions of the City's park trees • are primarily rated as good (42%) and fair (51%). Approximately 7% of the trees are rated 14 poor or dead, which could present a safety risk depending on the location of the trees. 11 These trees should be monitored, and dead trees should be removed and replanted. 5 Table 4-14. Tree Condition Ratings of the City Inventory 4Percent of Condition 4 Excellent 2 0.03 Very good 3 0.05 4 Good 2,526 42 4 Fair 3,055 51 Poor 368 6 3 �- o.6o A Note: *The trees planted on Arbor Day are not included in this analysis. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT I 85 STATUS OF THE URBAN FOREST 4.1.7.3 AGE DISTRIBUTION The ages of the City's park trees align fairly closely with the age trends seen in the City inventory, with over 66% of the park trees classified as young (Table 4-15). The park trees will likely need similar maintenance, as they age along a similar time frame. As this occurs, adequate resources will need to be set aside to accommodate tree maintenance needs and plan for future tree plantings to ensure a continuation of environmental benefits. Table 4-15. DSH Distribution of the City's Park Trees Age Category Immature Diameter at Standard Height (inches) • Number of Trees Recommended Percentage of o /o Tree Inventory of Inventory .• 22 1110 Source: City of Temecula Tree Inventory (City of Temecula 2021); Richards 1983. 86 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT Y r R I � . � �'�w�� "i '�q� � �► ��t t'� 'fit' r r�Y K LL-F' �� �-t�'1��1��,j;, ,�L 1.: - `�,•,j��� .fie COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 88 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT J� .46 C eaningful community engagement is essential to developing a UFMP that reflects the values, needs, and priorities of Temecula residents and stakeholders. During the UFMP development process, the City and the consultant team conducted community outreach and engagement activities to understand the values that community members have for trees, City tree management actions, and how those perceptions affect the urban forest. MW no rou 10VE MOST ABOUT TREES? DO �_ommunity engagement occurrea tnrougn in -person ana virtual outreach activities. In -person activities included an interactive booth at five public events and the Temecula Urban Forest Summit. Virtual outreach took place via video conference interviews with City staff, a virtual community meeting, social media campaigns, e-newsletters, a public survey, presentations about the UFMP to local organizations, and monthly working group meetings with key stakeholders. The following sections outline the community engagement approach used to receive critical input from stakeholders and how the input is incorporated into development of the UFMP. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT I 89 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 53 ONLINE SURVEY An online bilingual survey (English and Spanish) was created to identify the public's perception and understanding of the City's trees and to offer an open forum for public feedback as the City developed its UFMP. The 19-question survey was open between February 2021 and April 2022 and was disseminated through various outreach outlets such as social media posts, e-newsletters, farmers markets, community events, and the urban forest summit. A summary report of the online survey results can be found in Appendix G. 5.13 DEMOGRAPHIC RESULTS In total, 702 survey responses were recorded, including 688 English responses and 14 Spanish responses. Table 51 highlights relevant survey respondent demographics and how they compare to City data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The survey responses may reflect the opinions of Temecula residents that are older, are more likely to be homeowners, and have a higher education than the average demographics of the City's residents. Table 5-1. Dem I . r r n I n I. n F the Citv of Temecula Age 65 or older q% 65 or older 10% Housing Type Single-family home Housing Status Homeowner Primary Language Spoken at Home English Education Bachelor's degree or higher Source: World Population Review 2022. 95% Single-family home 81% 81% Homeowner 64% 98% English 76% 6o% Bachelor's degree or higher 34% 90 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 53.2 SURVEY RESULTS The results of the survey are summarized below (Table 5-2). A full copy of the survey results is included in Appendix G. Table 5-2. Summary of Online Survey Responses ■ 97% view trees as a valuable community asset that contribute to the quality of life in Temecula Trees as a City asset ■ 75% view trees as more important than or equally as important as other City -maintained infrastructure ■ 67% believe City -maintained trees are in good or excellent condition ■ 24% believe that maintaining existing trees is the top priority of the Temecula Urban Forest Management Plan Priorities, benefits, ■ 28% believe improving the environment (i.e., air quality, storing carbon) is the most important benefit trees and challenges provide in Temecula ■ 24% are reluctant to plant trees due to damage to sewer pipes/sidewalks Opinions on tree ■ 66% agree slightly agree, agree, strongly agree) that the City should have ordinances to protect trees on private protection ordinances property in the same way they protect trees in the public space Cost of tree -related ■ 32% have had no expenses related to preventative tree care or maintenance over the past 5 years maintenance/repairs ■ 24% have spent $100-$499 on expenses related to preventative tree care or maintenance over the past 5 years Opportunities for - 32% are willing to plant a tree on their private property community involvement ■ 30% are willing to participate in a community tree planting event Trees on private 48% believe the City should provide "How To" information on planting, watering, and trimming property 45% believe the City should provide financial support for tree trimming ■ 9% believe a free shade/fruit tree citywide program would be the most effective way to increase canopy on private property Additional comments/ ■ 6% would like to see a more diverse variety of tree species planted throughout the city while including native open forum trees where feasible ■ 6% would like educational materials about the urban forest that are easy to comprehend and accessible to all community members CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 91 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 5.2 WORKING GROUP The City's UFMP working group was formed to bring together a diverse representation of City staff and community members to help advise the UFMP's developmental process (Table 5-3). Four working group meetings were held between February 2022 and .tune 2022, with each meeting facilitated by the consultant team. 5-3. Temecula's Urban Forest Master Plan Workina Grour) Members Stacy Fox -W Patrick Thomas Matt Hayes Nicole Flores Tom Cole Kathy Sizemore Abigail Srader Mark Collins Public Works Public Works Fire Risk Code Enforcement Community Service California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Planning Parks Maintenance Superintendent Director of Public Works/City Engineer Temecula Fire Captain Risk Management Analyst Field Supervisor Code Enforcement Chair, Community Service Commissioner Urban Forester Temecula Planner 92 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT During the working group meetings, members generated a draft UFMP vision statement, played an integral role in developing the guiding principles, goals, and strategies that are discussed throughout the UFMP, and reviewed the administrative draft of the UFMP. Each working group member brought a unique perspective to the group, providing the context for City policy, regulatory perspectives, community challenges, and safety considerations. Key insight gathered from the working group meetings are summarized below (Table 5-4). Table 5-4. Workina Group Kev Insiahts What are the core values of Temecula ■ Family and community -oriented living? ■ Mix of city and rural destinations —the best of both worlds ■ Well -maintained city infrastructure ■ Public safety ■ Values history and old traditions What are the top priorities of a ■ Planting drought -tolerant tree species successful urban forest in Temecula? ■ Increase financial support for tree maintenance and planting ■ Implement water agreements between residents and the City ■ Educate community members on "right tree, right place" ■ Provide residents with the resources to plant a tree on their property What are the biggest challenges of the ■ Stigma about trees that contribute to litter urban forest in Temecula? ■ Element of equity —providing shade in low-income housing complexes ■ Incorporating appropriate tree species in new development plans ■ Consistent educational outreach about the importance of trees CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 93 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 5.3 STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS Between May and June 2021, Dudek conducted interviews with various City staff from the Public Works and Community Development Department, as well as elected officials and community leaders, to understand the effectiveness of the urban forest management program. Nine individuals were invited to attend group interviews, which were conducted virtually via Zoom. Those who participated in the interviews are included below (Table 5-5). Table 5-5. Stakeholder Interview Particioants I Director Public Works Superintendent Senior Landscape Inspector Principal Planner Community Principal Planner Development Stormwater Development Manager Elected Officials Community Member Mayor Mayor Pro Tern Resident of Temecula The interviews explored the role each stakeholder had in influencing City tree management, clarified internal City procedures, and informed areas where the City could improve management of the urban forest. Major themes shared during the interviews are presented below (Table 5-6). 94 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Table 5-6. Summary of Stakeholder Interview Responses Community ■ Connect with educators/schools to integrate trees into existing science curriculum Education and ■ Develop an urban forestry internship program among City staff where high school and college students can Outreach participate ■ General desire to significantly increase community engagement and educational campaigns to promote the benefits of a robust urban forest ■ Identify and collaborate with existing local organizations and nonprofits to increase education and outreach ■ Host community tree planting/tree care events on the weekends ■ Social media contests to promote tree giveaways ■ Water -wise campaigns and implement watering agreements between residents and the City Funding the ■ Increased funding is needed to support tree maintenance and tree trimming Urban Forest ■ Homeowner's association (HOA) fees to support the City's tree maintenance efforts have not increased in over 20 Program years ■ Explore alternative funding sources (i.e., California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection grants, climate grants, integrate funding into development plans, implement a citywide fee program) Parks ■ Current sports parks lack trees that provide shade ■ Older parks have big, mature trees while the new parks have less tree canopy coverage ■ Take advantage of planting trees in sports parks and traditional parks throughout the City CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 95 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Table 5-6. Summary of Stakeholder Interview Responses Planning ■ Integrate the urban forest management plan guiding principles to align with the quality -of -life master plan ■ Preserve portions of golf courses that have existing trees when future development to meet Regional Housing Needs Assessment numbers occur ■ More planning and focus needed on right-of-way trees; trees seem to be unfit for planter sizes Staffing ■ More staff is needed for community outreach and education (i.e., hiring more park inspectors) ■ Pleased with staffing levels in Public Works Department New ■ Involve and codify review process for new development Development ■ Include a public works arborist in the review process of new development Stormwater Education program or synergy between Public Works and Engineering Departments to work together and design tree/sidewalk elements to address stormwater and sidewalk infrastructure issues ■ Incorporate stormwater tree wells into alternative compliance program throughout the city (i.e., developers can buy offset credits to install more stormwater tree wells) HOAs ■ A standard citywide agreement of who is responsible for tree maintenance on HOA property is needed ■ Increase in HOA fees to support tree maintenance fund 96 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT -� Myra 5.4 COMM Building trust with community members is a key priority to increasing involvement in the Temecula urban forest program. To support this approach, the consultant team, in collaboration with the City, tabled at five different community events, including the Old Town Temecula Farmers Market, the Vail Ranch Farmers Market, and the "Chilled in the Park" holiday fireworks event. The consultant team set up graphic engagement boards, urban forest fast -facts sheets, flyers for the urban forest summit event, and hard copies of the Temecula tree survey at the tabling booth, which provided an interactive experience for interested community members. Public outreach allowed the consultant team to develop personable connections and discuss opportunities and challenges regarding the UFMP with people of various backgrounds and age groups. 5.5 URBAN FOREST SUMMIT The Temecula Urban Forest Summit was a 2.5-hour community event held at the Temecula Conference Center on March 16, 2022. Community members were led through guided idea -generating exercises to identify critical successes, barriers, and desires for the City's urban forest. The summit provided community members with a formal introduction to the UFMP, preliminary inventory and survey data analysis, and opportunities to stay involved with the City's urban forest program. General themes about the status of the urban forest were identified by the consultant team and working group. The themes were later used to develop the vision statement and goals of the UFMP. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 97 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 5.5.1 URBAN FOREST SUMMIT RESULTS 5.5.1.1 DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE Summit attendees completed a voluntary demographic survey to help the City understand if event attendees represent similar demographics to that of Temecula. Results from the demographic survey was compared to demographics from the U.S. Census Bureau. Of the respondents, 82% live in a single-family home, 78% are homeowners, 96% speak English as their primary language, and 43% have a bachelor's degree or higher (Table 5-7). Table 5-7. Urban Forest Summit Attendee Dem The urban forest summit responses may reflect the opinions of Temecula residents that are likely to be homeowners and have a higher education level than the average demographics of the City's residents. During the implementation phase of the UFMP, it will be important to continue to prioritize outreach efforts to City residents of different backgrounds and ages to ensure that their input regarding the urban forest is included. hics Age 65 or older 4% 65 or older 10% Housing Type Single-family home 82% Single-family home 81% Housing Status Homeowner 78% Homeowner 64% Primary Language Spoken at Home English 96% English 76% Education Ethnicity Bachelor's degree or higher Hispanic, Latino/a/x 43% Bachelor's degree or 34% higher 0% Hispanic, Latino/a/x 30% 98 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT �1 tole— Ar" o � I '` .'s 5.5.1.2VISION STATEMENT The first activity aimed at generating words and phrases to develop the vision statement for the UFMP. Participants were asked to write their responses to the following questions on sticky notes and stick each note on large flip chart paper: What words/phrases would you use to describe Temecula's urban forest and/or ideal urban forest? What do you value most about living in Temecula? Responses to the vision statement activity are detailed in Table 5-8. k Table 5-8. Vision Statement Results ■ Variety of tree species ■ Shade corridors ■ Dense, forested areas ■ Peaceful sanctuary ■ Native tree gardens ■ Food providing ■ Model urban forest ■ Serving wildlife habitat 111 ■ Hilly terrain and beauty ■ Open spaces ■ Family oriented ■ Small town charm ■ Walkability ■ Safety ■ Growing ethnic diversity ■ Green belts and mountains F --q CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 99 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 5.5.1.3CATEGORICAL GRAPHIC BOARD I The second activity instructed attendees to place tree magnets on a categorical graphic board of where more trees are needed in Temecula. Of the total responses, the top two categories were schools and biking/walking paths. Responses to the first graphic board activity are shown below (Table 5-9 and Exhibit 5-1). Table 5-9. "Where Do We Need More Trees" Categorical Graphic Board Results Schools 20 14 Biking/Walking Paths 20 14 Parks 18 12 Parking Lots 18 12 Apartment Communities 15 10 Retail Areas 15 10 Front and Backyards 14 9 Sidewalks 14 9 Transit Stops 14 9 Exhibit 5-1. "Where Do We Need More Trees" Categorical Graphic Board Results nent UU WE NEED MORE 7REES7 100 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 5.5.1.4CATEGORICAL GRAPHIC BOARD II The third activity instructed attendees to place tree magnets on a graphic board of what they love most about trees. Of the total responses, most people love the benefit of trees providing cleaner air. Responses to the graphic board activity are shown below (Table 5-10 and Exhibit 5-2). Table 5-10. "What Do You Love Most About Trees" Categorical Graphic Board Results Cleaner Air 32 16 Food 27 13 Shade 26 13 Rainwater Capture 25 12 Beauty 22 11 Healthier Communities 22 11 Wildlife Habitat 19 9 Energy Savings 16 8 Connecting with Neighbors 14 7 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Exhibit 5-2. "What Do You Love Most About Trees" Categorical Graphic Board Results CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 1 101 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Exhibit 5-3. "Where Are Trees Needed Most" Map of Temecula Activity Results City of T+ I 4 5.4.1.5MAP OF TEMECULA The fourth activity instructed attendees to place pushpins on a map of Temecula where trees are needed most. The top eight locations where trees are needed most based on number of pushpins on the map are shown below (Table 5-11 and Exhibit 5-3). Table 5-11. "Where Are Trees Needed Most" Top 8 Location Results .. 8 Locations Winchester Road Nicolas Road Pechanga Parkway Temecula Parkway Pauba Road Lake Village (central Temecula) Arbor Glen (southern Temecula) Temecula Ranchos (southern Temecula) 102 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT 5.5.1.6GROUP DISCUSSIONS The fifth activity involved participants working in small groups of 8-10 to brainstorm answers to questions that were organized by different principles for urban forest management: 1. How do we get more resi- dents involved with the urban forest? 2. How can we help preserve/ maintain the existing urban forest? 3. How can we get more trees planted on non -city -owned property? Working group members and volunteers facilitated each group discussion by rotating to a new group table every 15 minutes for 3 rounds and summarized the ideas generated from the previous group table for each question. The feedback received from the group discussion activity was incorporated during the development of the UFMP. The results received are shown in Table 5-12. ■ Monthly tabling at farmers markets/ community events ■ Incorporate tree education in school curriculums ■ City -sponsored tree training workshops and classes ■ Involve homeowner's association management to be on the same page as the City to achieve canopy cover goals ■ Create and promote a citywide drought - tolerant tree species palette for homeowners COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ■ Develop canopy cover goals that Temecula residents are made aware of ■ Enforce the following: protection of heritage trees, tree replacement requirements, and violations/penalties of illegal tree removal ■ Provide a breakdown of tree maintenance costs to homeowners to encourage them to invest/take care of trees ■ Hire more City staff involved in the urban forest program ■ Citywide campaigns: drought tolerant trees in Temecula ■ Provide financial incentives for more trees (i.e., contests, giveaways, rebate programs) ■ Free fruit/shade tree programs ■ Install community tree information boards in parks/trailheads ■ Revive Remembrance Tree Program • Seek more grant opportunities for City and park tree planting/care CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSMENT 1 103 Q1W NEW T 1. f f p' 7 �.� ® 3► i { Y x� :. COMMUNITY ENGAGEME T TemeculaCA.gCSDRov/ �tj7 I CuTemeculaParksAndec -s 5.6 ARBOR DAY TREE PLANTING EVENT Dudek assisted the City with an Arbor Day Y�. tree planting event held on April 23, 2022. Approximately 400 volunteers were engaged and 300 trees planted in Vail Ranch Park, Sunset Park, Redhawk Community Park, Mike Naggar Park and A Murrieta Creek Trail along Diaz Road. yX ?�ti1 eta.. K,Y""I105 TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT .s W 1 � J t .�x i,� � ,� t J Y L• � 4 F .: -�fA a' .7 cif, • • ' �` % �\J�!! � _ Y- �,''.`�, s y.'�+A.'�±;'"�•�`,��+._, IC re i r kr ti Y r+jj)t r•j�u,6r" y�,_,y,,yby � r'°i.!�j"t�yl,'k .1,.. 4 1` � rai'4"" """`•+�r � r 01 '`iITIP'4•9�"J�L���SY A �t 1 l to Mg wl '� Sfd !� � ' i eft �' �� ,� i .l � y y� ,b'�• ja��q�rs)�i4i�k�a` ,i u �'���Y � T (� N' 1� yS � ��, � • � - ... , ,( �J. �• '`1`i' i:� .. �s�, ,, � ,:. a:{e ) �,. J{ �,, q%J;" 1 i 1'• t �� 1� `1�� 1 �lS�:,l; a/yr� ,,7!a ! ; / � ��t ��j t ,;1�. � U �I , Iti;r,�id 'I/ , � • 1 , c t � s rX1 ; q ,�".� �, ,�:�!✓tM /�,•?'y;i", 1 l iy , ��. J, ���.V / � � t i, d'!�'� `t ,�. , ,i s'y �, 1 � ,, l b. Y"`;'." �.�✓.�yt �•N/f� -� , ��I' �.f: +1 "i. ,M ") i �". '.A'� )1 1 �: �, � r\.H ���. t r N //ll:'{ 4' "f '� �yy.{{/ { �� � jC.Yi �." 'I'v � I7/�1yry'�!�).1 I•�I I l � � � � � ' l'r� 'A' '6'" �N % .�� ".i ��(hy. �il(p �.1 1� �I' �A. (- i 1 i�.l � �� � �, ,.1 �. 1• ,�,�J. �i. 57," ,.���r 4�p I' I, °�i1���1?. ,�' �1 1 ) 1 ., •v1� I \ �� �, � i � /�'•'�'' .� . �.. %1 , t. g .1, , .ley 1, . r.: � , 1 i �.� t i 1; � A � ' i, y� %�. is/f� i /,, a.'�I� j�f �. t' S 1. •1 '�',� .r�'�� ��Y�n�l '�t+ , �1't, l•, . :1 'r 1 i f; r 1 . v '� � "�'. { �.,. ;i; a � •;tiF � �� � p. �,tit tl �l'� '��r ��:�' ty. ��' � ;v �' � k �"r' .A1 a, i�i � d n � ,��' � � t j 1 f ' .'�, 1 1�, 9 �q li' "t, ,i i e 1,1,�•� iti�. ,tl.l 1. ,); 0• y •/,fi:'+. �� ��r•J �`�' 1' f'i����' 1'��'i a 1t�•e, �a + .,� :�� t� Li 1 F�\ � �` y�'l . �. � t'„ � ,.,j' 1, ., r�� � �s �Y+�� •J` Ir:� ;h i. Ji l,�i,l , �� 1, �h�� �� •,�� ! ,. 1 � ti 1��.hv '.! ,�; d; r,- r f 1' .,,J,, .,1 l .r� l.R, r, 1 i 1 ,t� tIM� i� �.'il�i �•I` dd I �� ��u , 1 •,�- t,v y r r, tti�'h .��'u t 1 i�„ �( ��, ;� �Ar!, �„ ry fi114��. � '•, l � � .� >'�,,., � �I, I . t . �N,1 `y" �,. Ir � 1. �: � a . a /f r� ,,/ +' 'I�y , r! ,.�r'ti, i,t Y�, r,..�.j, '� ,�y ".�,. (yy � A� Y , 4 rf , I' >,, yw �• ,.J ,. 1 7.77� � � Y ,� (��?ppy y,1{1�, i V � � e % l,l I, I',.� '1,} •,�,,,�1�4h� � 2.y 1 �� �h ¢�{�1 { �..� ,�� f ��� � . . '6�. .. ,.!•.,/��_/3�'✓6l Lr6tlll i/ �✓1,41'1�'N. 'Wl, �. d,ai .�:ri �,1. ��4�..IJ,o1�'..I:I,�.I��.��11�,..,�.I�Ne�lil�J,�IYX.'e\�,)���64i'� n.n � �. � a�i.M�ai'R'vV��i�lr3�iih���.N�t.. �d, sellA�4i.a'�'�4_nk,- �. � ... CITY TREE MANAGEMENT 106 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECH NICALASSESSM ENT Alonzo, M, M.E. Baker, Y. Gao, and V. Shandas. 2021. "Spatial configuration and time of day impacts the magnitude of urban tree canopy cooling." Environmental Research Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1748-9326/acl2f2. https://iopscience.iop.org/ a rt i c l e/10.1088/1748-9326/a cl2f 2 American Forests. 2021. "Tools, Research, Reports, & Guides: Tree Equity Score." Accessed January 26, 2021. https://www. americanforests.org/tools-research-reports-and-guides/ tree -equity -score/. Arbor Day Foundation. 2021a. "Benefits of Trees." Accessed January 26, 2021. https://www.arborday.org/ trees/ ben efits.cfm. Arbor Day Foundation. 2021b. "The Right Tree in the Right Place." Accessed January 26, 2021. https://www.arborday.org/ trees/righttreeandplace/. Arbor Day Foundation. 2022. "How to Plant Trees to Conserve Energy for Summer Shade." https://www.arborday.org/ trees/climatechange/summershade.cfm. Ball, J., S. Mason, A. Kiesz, D. McCormick, and C. Brown. 2007. "Assessing the Hazard of Emerald Ash Borer and Other Exotic Stressors to Community Forests." Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 33(5): 350-359. City of Burbank. 2021. City of Burbank Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Adopted Annual Budget. https://www.burbankca. gov/documents/107269/300694/20211026-FY-2021-22- REFERENCES ADOPTED-BUDGETpdf/obdd53el-ae99-4cd7-04b8- c32549d 86645?t=16352896906o1. City of Temecula. 2005. "Open Space and Conservation Element." In City of Temecula General Plan, OS-1 through OS-44. https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/287/Open- Space-Conservation-PDF?bidld=. City of Temecula. 2021. City of Temecula Tree Inventory Data. Conducted by ArborPro. Clark, J.R., N.P. Matheny, G. Cross, and V. Wake. 1997. A Model of Urban Forest Sustainability." Journal of Arboriculture 230): January 1997. https://www.dnrwa.gov/Publications/ rp_urban_ecasustainability_model_clark.pdf City of Pasadena. 2015 City of Pasadena Urban Forest Management Plan. https://ww5.cityofpasadena.net/ wp-content/uploads/sites/28/2015/o9/UFMP-100615.pdf. Dudek. 2021. City of Downey Urban Forest Management Plan. Unpublished report. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2019. "Using Trees and Vegetation to Reduce Heat Islands." Last updated December 16, 2019. Accessed January 26, 2021. https:// www.epa.gov/heatislands/ using -trees -and -vegetation -reduce -heat -islands. EPA. 2020. "Heat Island Effect." Last updated December 9, 202o. Accessed January 27, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/ heatislands. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 107 REFERENCES EPA. 2021. "Using Trees and Vegetation to Reduce Heat Islands." Last updated December 16, 2019. Accessed January 26, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/heatislands/using-trees-and- vegetation-reduce-heat-islands. Leahy, 1. 2017. "Why We No Longer Recommend 40% Canopy Cover." Loose Leaf (Blog), American Forests, Accessed May 14, 2021.https://www.americanforests.org/article/why-we-no- longer-recommend-a-40-percent-urban-tree-canopy-goal/. Locke, D.H., B. Hall, J.M. Grove, S.T.A. Pickett, L.A. Ogden, C. Aoki, C.G. Boone, and J.P.M. O'Neil -Dunne. 2021. "Residential housing segregation and urban tree canopy in 37 US Cities." npj Urban Sustainability 1,15. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s42949-021-00022-0. Loughner, C., D.J. Allen, D.L. Zhang, K.E. Pickering, R.R. Dickerson, and L. Landry. 2012. "Roles of Urban Tree Canopy and Buildings in Heat Island Effects: Parameterization and Preliminary Results." Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology 51(10): 1775-17g3. https://doi.org/10.1175/ JAMC-D-11-0228.1. McBride, J.R., and I. Lacan. 2018. "The Impact of Climate -Change Induced Temperature Increases on the Suitability of Street Tree Species in California (USA) Cities." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 34: 348-356. McPherson, E.G. 2003. "A benefit -cost analysis of ten street tree species in Modesto, California," U.S. Journal of Arboriculture 29(1):1-9. McPherson, E.G., N. van Doorn, and J. de Goede. 2016. "Structure, Function and Value of Street Trees in California, USA." Urban Forestry & Urban Greening 17: 104-115. Miller, R.W, R. Hauer, and L. Werner. 2015. Urban Forestry Planning and Managing Urban Greenspaces Third Edition. Waveland Press. ISBN 10: 1-4786-o637-1. Miller, R.H., and R.W. Miller.1991. "Planting Survival of Selected Tree Taxa." Journal of Arboriculture 17(7): 185-1q1. Miller, R.W. and W.A. Sylvester. 1981. 'An Economic Evaluation of the Pruning Cycle." Journal of Arboriculture 7(4): 109-112. Morgenroth, J., D.J. Nowak, and A.K. Koeser. 2020. "DBH Distributions in America's Urban Forests -An Overview of Structural Diversity." Forests 11(2): 135. doi:10.3390/f11O20135. OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2o18. CalEnviroScreen 3.0 [online software]. June 25, 2o18. https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/ calenviroscreen-30. Richards, N.A. 1983. "Diversity and Stability in a Street Tree Population." Urban Ecology 7(2): 15q-171. Richards, N.A. 1993. "Reasonable Guidelines for Street Tree Diversity." Journal of Arboriculture 19(6): 344-350• Sherman, A. 2020. "The Heat Is On." American Planning Association. Planning Magazine. https://www.planning. org/planning/202o/aug/the-heat-is-on/.Sutherland, A. 2014. "Invasive Pests of Concern for California's Urban 108 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Agriculture Systems," Pests in the Landscape (Blog), University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/ postdetail.cfm?postnum=15606. Accessed May 20, 2021. Swain, D.L., B. Langenbrunner, J.D. Neelin, and A. Hall. 2018. "Increasing Precipitation Volatility in Twenty -First -Century California." Nature Climate Change 8: 427-433. https:// www.nature.com/articles/s4l558-018-0140-Y U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. "QuickFacts: Burbank city, California; Downey city, California; Irvine city, California; Temecula city, California; United States." https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/ burbankcitycalifornia,downeycitycalifornia, irvinecitycalifornia,temeculacitycalifornia,US/PST045221. USFS (U.S. Forest Service). 2020. i Tree Eco [online software]. https://www.itreetools.org/tools/i-tree-eco. Vibrant Cities Lab. n.d. "Determining the Relative Performance Index for Tree Species in Your Community." https://www. vibrantcitieslab.com/resources/determining-the-relative- performance-index-for-tree-species-in-your-community/. Accessed May 18, 2022. Wolf, K.L. 2005. "Business District Streetscapes, Trees, and Consumer Response." Journal of Forestry 103(8): 396-400. https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw-2005- wolfool.pdf. REFERENCES Wolf, K.L. ST Lam, J.K. McKeen, G.R.A. Richardson, M. van den Bosch, and A.C. Bardekjian. 2020. Urban Trees and Human Health: A Scoping Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(12), 4371. https://doi.org/10.339o/ijerphl7l24371. World Population Review. 2022. "Temecula, California Population 2022." https://worldpopulationreview.com/ us-cities/temecula-ca-population. WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center). 2018. "California Climate Tracker." Accessed January 10, 2018. http://www. wrcc.dri.edu/monitor/cal-mon/index.html. Ziter, C.D., E.J. Pedersen, C.J. Kucharik, and M.G. Turner. 2019. "Scale -dependent interactions between tree canopy cover and impervious surfaces reduce daytime urban heat during summer." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Apr 2019, 116 (15) 7575-758o; https://www.pnas.org/ co n to nt/116/15/7575. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 109 CITY TREE MANAGEMENT 110 1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT CITYTREE MANA��tii.E-��f; PUR�BpNFORESTMANpGEMENTPIAN //�� �✓ _ �l • URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN a KE KLa—M ` qm �r alms. — AVP► �► r LOW 45 or IR : - _ ! •1t ri Lnl a 7 ILL 74 1. ..� - y. e 1 � f J 4_44�". T�~r t '•A rl I• FR7fr �/. �� �`•` IV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Recommended Tree Species Palette I APPENDIX A Genus Afrocarpus Species falcatus Common Name 16 fern pine E. Si,e Clas ica Large jjn�be,:V 65 30-50 Sp trees (Feet) 30-35 �_i.i. Park Wil (Fe 6 to 8 0 No . ater se Cla sificat?ion of rLandscap:)Species [WUCCL rating Moderate/Medium Fire la, tar' Low Regionally Native No Bioretention Planter Flow -Through Planter Tree Well Filter Agonis f/exuosa peppermint tree E. Medium 35 15-30 20-30 5 to 30 No Moderate/Medium Low No Angophora costata Sydney red gum E. Large 65 30-50 30-35 6 to 8 No Low Low No Arbutus marina' marina madrone E. Medium 40-50 40 30-35 6 to 8 No Low Low No x X x Bauhinia variegata purple orchid tree D. Medium 35 20-35 15-20 5 to 10 No Moderate/Medium Low No Callistemon citrinus lemon bottle brush E. Medium 25 25 15-25 5 to 30 No Low Low No Callistemon viminalis weeping bottlebrush E. Small 20 15-20 15-20 2 to 5 Yes Low Low No Cassia leptophylla gold medallion tree D. Small 25 30 20-25 5 to 30 No Moderate/Medium Low No Casuarina cunninghamiana river she -oak E. Large 70 30 20-30 >10 No Low Low No Celtis laevigata var. reticulata netleaf hackberry D. Medium 35 25-30 15-20 5 to 10 No Low Low No x Cercis candensis Eastern Redbud D. Small -20 -20 20-25 3 to 4 Yes Moderate/Medium Low No x x x Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud D. Small -20 -20 20-25 3 to 4 Yes Low Low Yes x x x Chilopsis linearls desert willow D. Medium 20-40 20-40 20-25 3 to 4 No Very low Low Yes Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 3to4 Yes Low Low Yes Cordia boissieri Texas olive E. Small 20 10-15 10-15 2 to 5 Yes Low Low No Corymbia papuana Ghost Gum E. Medium 30-50 20-35 30-35 4 to 6 No Low Low No Dalbergia sissoo Indian rosewood D. Large 60 30-40 25-30 >10 No Low Low No Ebenopsis ebano Texas ebony E. Medium 40 30-40 15.40 >10 No Low Low No Fraxinus greggi Gregg ash E. Small 20 15 15-20 4 to 6 Yes Unknown Low No Fraxinus griffithii Griffith ash E. Medium 45 25 20-25 6 to 8 No Unknown Low No Geijera parvif/ara Austrailian willow E. Medium 35 20 15-20 5 to 30 No Low Low No x Koeireuteria bipinnata Chinese flame D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 6 to 8 Yes Moderate/Medium Low No x Koelreuteria paniculata Golden rain D. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 4 to 6 Yes Low Low No x Laurus nobilis sweet bay E. Medium 15-40 15-30 20-25 3 to 4 No Low Low Yes x x x Lophostemon conferta Brisbane box E. Medium 20-40 20-40 30-35 4 to 6 No Moderate/Medium Low No Melaleuca linariifolia flaxleaf paperbark E. Medium 30 20-25 15-20 5 to 10 No Moderate/ Medium Low No Melaleuca styphelloides prickly melaleuca E. Medium 40 10-20 15-20 5 to 10 No Low Low No Parkinsonia praecox Sonoran palo verde D. Small 20 20 15-20 2 to 5 Yes Low Low No Parkinsonia x'Desert Museum' desert museum palo verde D. Small 20 20-25 15-20 2 to 5 Yes Very Low Low No Pistacia chnnensis Chinese pistache D. Medium 40+ 40+ 30-35 6 to 8 No Low Low No Prosopis glandulosa 'Maverick' thornless honey mesquite D. Medium 35 25-35 15-25 5 to 30 No Low Low No Prunus ilicifolia ssp. Lyonii Catalina cherry E. Medium 35 20-30 15-20 5 to 30 No Low Low Yes x x x Quercus agrifolia coast live oak E. Large 40+ 40+ 30-35 6 to 8 No Very Low Low Yes x Quercus engelmannii Engelmann oak D. Large 65 80-120 15-65 >10 No Very Low Low Yes Quercus fusiformis escarpment oak E. Medium 50 20-40 25-30 6 to 8 No Unknown Low No Quercus ilex holly oak E. Medium 30-60 30-60 30-35 6 to 8 No Low Low No x Quercus rubra red oak D. Large 80 50-70 30-35 >10 No Moderate/Medium Low No Quercus shumardii Shumard red oak D. Large 70 40 30-35 >10 No Inappropriate Low No Quercus suber cork oak E. Medium 20-40 20-40 20-25 3 to 4 No Low Low No x Searsia lancea African sumac E. Medium 30 20-35 20-25 5 to 30 No Low Low No Tristaniopsos laurina water gum E. Small 35 15-30 20-25 4 to 6 Yes Moderate/ Medium Low No x x Vachellia fornesiona sweet acacia D. Medium 25 15-25 15-25 5 to 30 Yes Very Low Low No CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I V APPENDIX B I Sidewalk Solutions VI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX B Tree and Sidewalk Conflict Solutions Trees and sidewalks are both key pieces of urban infrastructure that contribute to the pedestrian environment. Both contribute to the character and sense of place in a community as well as provide health and economic benefits while offering a means for comfortable active transportation. However, these two elements of the public streetscape are often in conflict with one another. Sidewalks and other hardscapes can preclude healthy tree growth and canopy development by limiting available soil volume, while tree roots often cause damage to sidewalks resulting in uplift and fall and trip hazards which can be costly to repair. These conflicts and the associated costs often overshadow the benefits provided by trees in the urban landscape, resulting in the removal of trees or the decision to avoid planting trees altogether. In reality, tree and infrastructure conflicts are due to inadequate site design and exacerbated by planting the wrong tree species for the allotted space. The cost of sidewalk repairs or removing and replacing trees is a significant investment that can be avoided with proper site design and species selection. There are a number of strategies for minimizing, avoiding or eliminating tree and sidewalk conflicts that can be employed by local or regional governments. Table 1 outlines tree and sidewalk conflict resolution tactics and design solutions that can be employed when replacing damaged sidewalks or installing new sidewalks. Employing these strategies is dependent upon policies, standards and design requirements, clear processes for implementation, and funding. Local jurisdictions are required to abide by federal and state policies governing sidewalk design, such as the US Access Board Public Right -of -Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the California Building Code (CBC). Additionally, local jurisdictions can adopt local policies, standards, and plans that guide the management of trees and sidewalks. Examples include tree protection ordinances, street tree and sidewalk design requirements, tree planting standards and specifications, street tree lists, and long-range plans, such as urban forest management plans, bicycle and pedestrian plans/active transportation plans, the General Plan, and specific plans. In order to successfully implement tree and sidewalk policies and standards, cities must have processes in place for implementation and maintenance, including review of development plans and strict code enforcement. If not managed within the same department, city departments managing street trees and sidewalks must maintain clear lines of communication and collaborate regularly. Approaching management of street trees and sidewalks within the same department can prove successful, as collaboration is easily facilitated. Forestry staff and engineers can jointly inspect conflicts or conduct plan review and work together to identify solutions. A formalized process will help guide these actions, such as outlined in the City of Seattle's; many of the solutions provided in Table 1 are based on the Toolkit included in Trees and Sidewalks Operations. Cities must have reliable funding for management and oversight of its tree and sidewalk programs in order to successfully resolve or avoid conflicts. This includes funding for staff, tree planting, plan review, inspection and code enforcement, and maintenance and repairs. Examples of possible revenue streams to fund forestry and sidewalk programs include allocations from the general fund, partnering with nonprofit organizations, or allocations from taxes or fees, such as a gas tax, utility tax or development impact fees. Additional funding may also come from less traditional approaches, such as establishing a City nursery or composting program and offering these products for sale. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I VI APPENDIX B I Sidewalk Solutions Table 1. Tree and Sidewalk Conflict Solutions Useful Life Estimated (Years - Cost Decades - Solution Type Pros Cons ($-$$$$) Centuries) Example Image Materials The following sidewalk solutions present various materials for replacemenVrepair of a damaged sidewalk that may be used instead of concrete. Asphalt Short-term to medium- Not widely used, $$ Decades term solution creating conflicts with a '` • Low initial cost appearance and visual ($22 per • More flexible than character linear foot) ' concrete Useful life can vary • May be used as a greatly repair/replacement or for Useful life shorter than new sidewalks that concrete • Easily repaired h 'AL Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation VII I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX B Pavers • Many types, materials, • Requires cutting to fit $$-$$$ Decades and colors available around other • More flexible than infrastructure (e.g., ($10 to $50 concrete, providing room utilities, etc.) per square for continued tree root • Not all available types foot) growth and materials are • May be used as suitable for all temporary repair or locations, as required replacement, or when depth of excavation installing new sidewalk at may vary the same time as trees Durability varies by type Image Source: Carroll's Building Materials n.d. Pervious • Allows air and water to Requires deeper $$$-$$$$ Decades Concrete reach soil excavation for • May encourage deeper installation of subbase ($35 per root growth and deter layers linear foot) shallow root growth, Requires more reducing root damage to maintenance than sidewalks standard concrete • Provides better growing n •='t%'_ conditions Image Source: Bay Area Pervious Concrete CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I IX APPENDIX B I Sidewalk Solutions Porous Asphalt • Allows water to pass Cannot be produced in $-$$$ Decades through to soil small quantities and r • May be used for should only be used ($30 per replacement of large when long sidewalk linear foot) segments of sidewalk or segments are being installation of new installed (e.g., multiple sidewalks where blocks) , 21 infiltration is desirable (e.g., adjacent to bioretention) Image Source: Porous Pave Decomposed May be used as a Not recommended for $-$$ Years " Granite pathway or walkway busy pedestrian routes surface, or as a finished (best in residential ($12 per surface on top of planting areas) linear foot) soil in tree pits rather Requires more than mulch maintenance than • Provides flexible but asphalt or concrete, as walkable surface near uneven settling can tree roots occur • Best used in parks on Americans with walking and cycling Disabilities Act paths, or similar settings compliance may require • May be used as a binders and regular - temporary repair near maintenance - root zones or for Image Source: Bike Orlando installation of new pathways or walkways X I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX B Alternative Sidewalk Design Construction Methods The following sidewalk solutions present alternative sidewalk design and construction methods to better accommodate trees and resist damage to sidewalks. Reinforced or Reinforcing concrete with • May not be compatible $$-$$$ Decades Thicker Slab steel rebar or wire mesh with future utility and/or using a thicker installation ($60 per slab helps resist uplift of • Should not be used linear foot tree roots where additional root for • May be used to correct growth is anticipated reinforced uplift after other (i.e., sufficient soil slab and corrective actions have volume should be $40 per been taken provided) linear foot ;- I for 4-inch thickness) r� ' ' S 5 ti Image Source: E. F. Gilman Expansion Joints Allow for some movement Should not be used $ Decades of concrete where significant • Used to control the additional root growth is (varies) location of cracking anticipated (i.e., • May be used as repair or sufficient soil volume replacement or for new should be provided) sidewalks near existing Short term solution trees (where roots may be pruned prior to installation and substantial root growth is not anticipated) Image Source:`S. Kubiak and V. Kubiak CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XI APPENDIX B I Sidewalk Solutions Monolithic The continuous • Consideration must be $$$ Century Sidewalk installation of concrete given to impacts related with no grade change to stormwater runoff ($60 per between sidewalk and and drainage patterns linear foot) street has greater weight • Not ideal for areas (mass) to resist tree root where new root growth uplift is expected (new • Reduces potential for plantings or continued i future weakness in growth) f pavement infrastructure • May be used in new development and in redevelopment Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation Tree Alternative to planting Must establish $ Decades Pits/Expanded strips where maintaining minimum sizing Tree Pits sidewalk width is requirements to ensure ($15 per important (e.g., business adequate soil volume square yard districts) • Continuous planter for widening • May be used in new strips are preferred existing tree _ development where tree where feasible pits. pit sizing and tree selection are coordinated No i ("right tree, right place") additional t or in existing cost if development where implemente' sufficient space is d in new available to expand developmen existing tree pits t design) Image Source: Morristown Shade Commission XI I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX B Bridging Provides grade Site specific grading $$$$ Decades separation between tree requirements may �::.• . =' = =. ===:- "" - • - : "= :•`" root zone and sidewalk prevent use of this ($225 per r • Does not require technique linear foot) compacted subgrade A nonslip surface allowing tree roots to treatment is required grow in soil for metal/steel • Variety of materials can materials be used such as concrete Additional Americans k, t or steel panels with Disabilities Act • May be used as repair or requirements related to replacement of damaged sidewalk or to a grade differentials greater than 18 inches - :.; _: ,, • :r.n`•' preserve -_-0,." hi g h value tree: Image Source: E. Gilman Curb Extensions Increases pedestrian Must consider impacts $$$-$$$$ Century ; (Bulb -Outs) safety through traffic to drainage and existing calming and shortening utilities ($50 per _ the crossing distance for Must consider site linear foot .•-_ .. pedestrians specific transportation excluding • Provides additional root conditions or impacts, drainage ` growth area reducing including driver sight and ramps) likelihood of root damage lines as well as bicycle to sidewalks and pedestrian facilities • Provides flexibility for tree species selection • May be used in new - development or as expansion of sidewalks and planting space in redevelopment Image Source: Dylan Passmore CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XIII APPENDIX B I Sidewalk Solutions Curb • Shifts curb location to • Requires sufficient $$$-$$$$ Century r_ Realignment widen the planting strip street widths • May be used for new • Must consider impacts ($50 per development or to other infrastructure linear foot redevelopment to provide and utilities excluding additional space for new . Must consider site drainage or existing trees specific transportation modification conditions or impacts and ramps _ Minimal additional cost if part of new developmen t design) _ 1 Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation Curving or Offset • Allows for walkways that • Requires adequate $$-$$$ , Sidewalk meander around planting space in the right of areas, allowing trees way ($38 per more grow space . May require easement linear foot) • Increases pedestrian for use of private safety by separating property sidewalks from vehicular traffic • May be used in new development or - redevelopment to preserve existing trees or to provide sufficient grow space for new plantings -- Image Source: Bartlett Tree Care XIV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX B Easement • May allow for use of Requires coordination $-$$$ Century private property where with property owner additional space is (Varies needed based on -� • Provides larger planting market area for new or existing value or J trees dedication ;� from property owner) Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation Suspended Provides space and soil • Involves removing and $$$-$$$$ Decades Pavement volume for new tree repaving sidewalks if Systems plantings in areas that they already exist in the (15- could not have supported areas $25/cubic tree root growth • Site specific grading foot) • Prevents root damage to requirements need to pavement if implemented be taken into at the correct time consideration Image Source: DeepRoot CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XV APPENDIX B I Sidewalk Solutions Lowered Tree Can help prevent soil Can conflict with $$$-$$$$ Decades . Sites compaction due to underground y pedestrian traffic infrastructure; can only • Can bring trees to streets be implemented in — with limited planting areas that have limited space and few potential for conflict ° underground Lowered sites tend to infrastructure conflicts accumulate trash and dhi other debris, presenting Y U ap a maintenance issue#�', :•+�1" • Design must include a drainage plan because soil can be easily oversaturated Image Source: Storm Tree Root The following sidewalk solutions present design solutions that specifically address tree roots. Root Barriers Deters root growth to Will not address all $ Decades - limit damage to issues from tree roots, , pavement but will help deter ($8 per • May be added after tree linear foot) planting to retrofit or address root issues r Image Source: Green Tech XVI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX B Foam Underlay Provides a foam layer of • Short term solution $-$$ Years support between e Not a good option forVM pavement and tree roots tree species that have ($150 to r to help prevent damage rapid root growth $250 per • Can offer an alternative location) Poem " 0- to root pruning when a �0°r sidewalk needs to be "` x replaced but root pruning would severely damage ° the tree k . - • Best used to repair damage caused by M mature tree roots Image Source: Costello and Jones Modified Gravel • Suppressed root growth • Could wound tree roots $ Decades Hosts 592y wel.l teneath Me walk because Layer • More longevity than foam making the trees more lhey do nut grow in the gravel layer. underlay and serves the susceptible to soilborne ($0.70 per same purpose pathogens square foot S+dewaik • Thickness of gravel 4 inches of gravel is at depth of 4 around roots can be needed, if excavation inches) adjusted to would damage critical accommodate size existing roots EkiS�ng5811 Gravoofrume • Modified Gravel Layer s"boase1a)w may not be an option Image Source: E. Gilman CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XVI APPENDIX B I Sidewalk Solutions Root Paths Can proactively direct Drainage away from or $-$$ Decades V1 paths for roots to grow, out of root path will �. a when designed at the beginning of planting need to be considered ($600 to $800 per �� F w' • Help direct roots around tree) utilities when planting space is limited 6' LJ 4 a Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation Steel Plates • Can be used as an • Can conflict with $$-$$$ Decades alternative to root underground utilities y pruning . Requires sidewalk to be ($500 to • Can be used to help removed and replaced $1,000 mitigate issues with roots for installation per site) ti that have already developed (reactionary) 14 . Image Source: Gordan Mann XVI II I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Sidewalk Solutions I APPENDIX B Sources: American Planning Association. 2009. Planning the Urban Forest: Ecology, Economy, and Community Development. Planning Advisory Service Report Number 555. Bassuk et al. 2015; Bike Orlando 2020; Casey Trees 2008; Costello and Jones 2003; Elmendorf 2008; City of New York Parks & Recreation 2014; City of Seattle 2011; City of Seattle Department of Transportation 2014, 2015; City of Seattle Public Utilities 2015; Mann n.d.; Smiley 2008 Bassuk, N., Denig, B., Haffner, T. Grabosky, J., and Trowbridge, P. 2015. CU-Structural Soil 8: A Comprehensive Guide. Urban Horticulture Institute, Cornell University. http://www.hort.cornel I.ed u/uhi/outreach/pdfs/CU-Structural%20Soi1%20-%20A%20Com prehensive°/`20Guide. pdf. Bike Orlando. 2020. Ward Park, Winter Park, FL Biking, Hiking. E-Z Map, 35+ Photos _Accessed May 2021. https://www.bikeorlando.net/ward-park-winter-park.htm. Casey Trees. 2008. Tree Space Design: Growing the Tree Out of The Box. Accessed May 2021. http://caseytrees.org/resources/publications/treespacedesign/. Carroll's Building Materials. n.d. "Classic Hexagon Pavers." Accessed May 2021. https://carrollsbuildingmaterials.com/landscape-products/pavers-profiles-finishes/classic- hexagon-pavers/. Costello, L. R. and K. S. Jones. 2003. Reducing Infrastructure Damage By Tree Roots: A Compendium of Strategies. Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. City of New York Parks & Recreation. February 2014. Tree Planting Standards. Accessed May 2021. http://www.nycgovparks.org/pagefiles/53/Tree-Planting-Standards.pdf. City of Seattle. 2011. Seattle Right -of -Way Improvements Manual. https://www.seattle.gov/rowmanual/manual/. City of Seattle Department of Transportation. 2014. Street Tree Manual. Accessed May 2021. http://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/sdot/about/documentli brary /streettreema n ua Iweb. pdf. City of Seattle Department of Transportation. 2015. Tree Sidewalks Operations Plan. City of Seattle Public Utilities. 2015. Standard Specifications of Municipal Construction. Plans 100a, 421, 424, 425, 430. Elmendorf, W. 2008. Planting and Aftercare of Community Trees. Penn State University Extension. Green Tech. 2021. Ribbed Root Barrier Panels. https://www.green-tech.co.uk/hard-landscaping,/tree-pit-root-barriers/ribbed-root-barrier-panels Mann, Gordon. N.d. Sidewalk and Root Conflicts: Mitigating the Conflict - An Overview. Accessed May 2021, on Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC) website at: http://m rsc.org/getmedia/4DDlA628-BD5A-49E3-BlEE-3D09525F63BElm58man n made.asp. Martin, Justin. 2017. Trees and Sidewalks: A Strategic Approach to Conflicts. Green Infrastructure for Your Community. https://www.deeproot.com/blog/blog-entries/trees-and- sidewa I ks-a-strategic-approach-to-conflicts Smiley, E. Thomas. 2008. "Comparison of Methods to Reduce Sidewalk Damage from Tree Roots," inArboriculture & Urban Forestry 34(3):179-183. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XIX APPENDIX C1 I Establishment Care Guidelines XX I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Establishment Care Guidelines Ensure proper tree support ■ Tree stakes should be firmly secured 2' deep vertically in the soil. ■ Leaning or loose stakes should be re -installed and secured in the soil. ■ Tree ties should be placed in the middle to lower portion of the tree and allow tree move- ment 3"- 4" in each direction. ■ If the roots of the tree are established, remove the stakes and tree ties. This typically occurs two — three years after planting. Weeding ■ Remove all the grass and weeds growing in the tree basin or tree well by hand. ■ To avoid root damage, do not dig into the soil with a shovel or hoe. ■ To avoid trunk damage, do not use a weed whacker or lawnmower for weed removal. Establishment Care Guidelines I APPENDIX C1 P Fog ®€ e Mulch ■ Use only organic materials such as chipped trees for mulch. ■ Apply a layer 2"- 3" thick inside the tree basin and covering the berm. ■ Keep mulch 4" away from the trunk of the tree to avoid moisture building on the trunk, which can lead to rot and fungal growth. Pruning ■ Newly planted trees may require minor pruning to remove branches damaged during the planting process and/or dead branches. ■ Trees should be pruned sparingly. All other pruning should be withheld until the second or third growing season following tree planting. ■ Sucker growth (sprouts from the base of the plant or from roots) should be removed. ■ All pruning should be conducted in accordance with ANSI A 300 pruning standards. Repair and extend berms ■ Newly planted trees should have a 4"- 6" high berm just outside the root ball to direct water to where it is needed. ■ As a tree grows and matures, extend the berm to the drip line. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXI APPENDIX C2 I Tree Protection Guidelines XXH I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Protection Guidelines I APPENDIX C2 Appendix D — Tree Protection Measures The following sections are included as general guidelines for tree protection from construction impacts. The measures presented should be monitored by arborists and enforced by contractors and developers for maximum benefit to the trees. Tree Protection Measures Prior to Construction Fencing: All remaining trees that will not be relocated or removed should be preserved and protected in place. Trees within approximately 15 feet of proposed construction activity should be temporarily fenced with chain link or other material satisfactory to City planning staff throughout grading and construction activities. The fencing should be installed 3 feet outside of the dripline of each tree (or edge of canopy for cluster of trees), be 4 feet tall, and staked every 6 feet. The fenced area should be considered the tree protection zone (TPZ) unless proximate construction required temporary removal. Pre -Construction Meeting: A pre -construction meeting should be held between all contractors (including grading, tree removal/pruning, builders, etc.) and the arborist. The arborist will instruct the contractors on tree protection practices and answer any questions. All equipment operators and spotters, assistants, or those directing operators from the ground, should provide written acknowledgement of their receiving tree protection training. This training should include information on the location and marking of protected trees, the necessity of preventing damage, and the discussion of work practices that will accomplish such. Protection and Maintenance During Construction Once construction activities have begun the following measures should be adhered to Equipment Operation and Storage: Avoid heavy equipment operation around the trees. Operating heavy machinery around the root zones of trees will increase soil compaction, which decreases soil aeration and subsequently reduces water penetration in the soil. All heavy equipment and vehicles should, at minimum, stay out of the fenced TPZ, unless where specifically approved in writing and under the supervision of a Certified Arborist or as provided by the approved landscape plan. Storage and Disposal: Do not store or discard any supply or material, including paint, lumber, concrete overflow, etc. within the protection zone. Remove all foreign debris within the protection zone; it is important to leave the duff, mulch, chips, and leaves around the retained trees for water retention and nutrients. Avoid draining or leakage of equipment fluids near retained trees. Fluids such as gasoline, diesel, oils, hydraulics, brake and transmission fluids, paint, paint thinners, and glycol (anti -freeze) should be disposed of properly. Keep equipment parked at least 50 feet away from retained trees to avoid the possibility of leakage of equipment fluids into the soil. The effect of toxic equipment fluids on the retained trees could lead to decline and death. Grade Changes: Grade changes, including adding fill, are not permitted within the TPZ without special written authorization and under the supervision of a Certified Arborist or as provided by the approved landscape plan. Lowering the grade within this area will necessitate cutting main support and feeder roots, jeopardizing the health and structural integrity of the tree(s). Adding soil, even temporarily, on top of the existing grade will compact the soil further, and decrease both water and air availability to the trees' roots. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXI I i APPENDIX C2 I Tree Protection Guidelines Moving Construction Materials: Care will be taken when moving equipment or supplies near the trees, especially overhead. Avoid damaging the tree(s) when transporting or moving construction materials and working around the tree (even outside of the fenced tree protection zone). Above ground tree parts that could be damaged (e.g., low limbs, trunks) should be flagged with red ribbon. If contact with the tree crown is unavoidable, prune the conflicting branch(es) using International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards. Root Pruning: Except where specifically approved in writing or as provided in Attachment 3, all trenching should be outside of the fenced protection zone. Roots primarily extend in a horizontal direction forming a support base to the tree similar to the base of a wineglass. Where trenching is necessary in areas that contain tree roots, prune the roots using a Dosko root pruner or equivalent. All cuts should be clean and sharp, to minimize ripping, tearing, and fracturing of the root system. The trench should be made no deeper than necessary. Irrigation: Trees that have been substantially root pruned (30% or more of their root zone) will require irrigation for the first 12 months. The first irrigation should be within 48 hours of root pruning. They should be deep watered every 2 to 4 weeks during the summer and once a month during the winter (adjust accordingly with rainfall). One irrigation cycle should thoroughly soak the root zones of the trees to a depth of 3 feet. The soil should dry out between watering; avoid keeping a consistently wet soil. Designate one person to be responsible for irrigating (deep watering) the trees. Check soil moisture with a soil probe before irrigating. Irrigation is best accomplished by installing a temporary above ground micro -spray system that will distribute water slowly (to avoid runoff) and evenly throughout the fenced protection zone but never soaking the area located within 6 feet of the tree trunk, especially during warmer months. Pruning: Do not prune any of the trees until all construction is completed. This will help protect the tree canopies from damage. All pruning should be completed under the direction of an ISA Certified Arborist and using ISA guidelines. Only dead wood should be removed from tree canopies. Washing: During construction in summer and autumn months, wash foliage of trees adjacent to the construction sites with a strong water stream every two weeks in early hours before 10:00 a.m. to control mite and insect populations. Inspection: An ISA Certified Arborist should inspect the impacted preserved trees on a monthly basis during construction. A report comparing tree health and condition to the original, pre -construction baseline should be submitted following each inspection. Photographs of representative trees are to be included in the report on a minimum annual basis. Maintenance After Construction Once construction is complete the fencing may be removed and the following measures performed to sustain and enhance the vigor of the preserved trees. Mulch: Provide a 4-inch mulch layer under the canopy of trees. Mulch should include clean, organic mulch that will provide long-term soil conditioning, soil moisture retention, and soil temperature control. Pruning: The trees will not require regular pruning. Pruning should only be done to maintain clearance and remove broken, dead or diseased branches. Pruning should only take place following a recommendation by an ISA Certified Arborist and performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist. No more than 20% of the canopy should be removed at any one time. All pruning should conform to ISA standards. XXIV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Tree Protection Guidelines I APPENDIX C2 Watering: The natural trees that are not disturbed should not require regular irrigation, other than the 12 months following substantial root pruning. However, soil probing will be necessary to accurately monitor moisture levels. Especially in years with low winter rainfall, supplemental irrigation for the trees that sustained root pruning and any newly planted trees may be necessary. The trees should be irrigated only during the winter and spring months. Watering Adjacent Plant Material: All plants near the trees should be compatible with water requirements of said trees. The surrounding plants should be watered infrequently with deep soaks and allowed to dry out in-between, rather than frequent light irrigation. The soil should not be allowed to become saturated or stay continually wet. Irrigation spray should not hit the trunk of any tree. A 60-inch dry -zone should be maintained around all tree trunks. An aboveground micro -spray irrigation system is recommended over typical underground pop-up sprays. Washing: Periodic washing of the foliage is recommended during construction but no more than once every 2 weeks. Washing should include the upper and lower leaf surfaces and the tree bark. This should continue beyond the construction period at a less frequent rate with a high-powered hose only in the early morning hours. Washing will help control dirt/dust buildup that can lead to mite and insect infestations. Spraying: If the trees are maintained in a healthy state, regular spraying for insect or disease control should not be necessary. If a problem does develop, an ISA Certified Arborist should be consulted; the trees may require application of insecticides to prevent the intrusion of bark -boring beetles and other invading pests. All chemical spraying should be performed by a licensed applicator under the direction of a licensed pest control advisor. Inspection: All trees that were impacted during construction within the TPZ should be monitored by an ISA Certified Arborist for the first 5 years after construction completion. The Arborist should submit an annual report, photograph each tree and compare tree health and condition to the original, pre -construction baseline. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXV APPENDIX C3 I Tree Protection Detail XXVI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 8. lamb plastic e, al Crown drip line or other limit of Tree Protection area. See tree preservation plan for fence alignment. AA TREE PROTECTION Tree Protection Detail I APPENDIX C3 Notes: 1- See specifications for additional tree protection requirements. 2- If there is no existing irrigation, see specifications for watering requirements 3- No pruning shall be performed except by approved arborist. 4- No equipment shall operate inside the protective fencing including during fence installation and removal. 5- See site preparation plan for any modifications with the Tree Protection area. Tree PrOteCtlon ance: High density olyethylene fencing Jth 3.5" x 1.5" ,penings; Color - ,range. Steel posts istalled at 8' o.c. x 6' steel posts it approved equal. thick ayer of mulch. laintain existing rade with the tree rotection fence nless otherwise idicated on the Tans. URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXVI APPENDIX C4 I Root Pruning Detail XXVII I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN crown drip line. Rwt RrotecDon Zane 11 tc P Road way Raver w wtlh Comr-ote Cure and Gutter 5x Trunk Dian chid I Sat 1 rUlyc btemetar crrnnu ,,nGw IT PRUNING GUIDELINES Root Pruning Detail I APPENDIX C4 Nobel. 1- Hand dig t4 exp6se Facts a� propbsed call 2- Count [hot number of roots within 5x the trunk diameter that are greater than 2' In dLameler. �- identify the numl]er of rr?ats witfrn Sx the trunk diameter that are greater than 2' in diannetier that require pruning. 4- D1-nde number of roots to be pruned intuit $x the trunk Giameler by the total nvmger of tbdL vnthirti 5x the Iruok diameler la delermime % of roots to be pruned. 5• Root pruning will not exceed N% of the lctal roots within Sx the trunk diameter l} R&bl pruning will AcA bout on three or mor-a sides of the troa. SiUew,]k Gonr rele CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXIX APPENDIX C5 1 Irrigation Detail XXX I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Notes: 1- All irrigation fittings shall be Sch. 40 PVC unless specified otherwise. 2- All threaded connections from Sch. 40 to Sch. 80 PVC shall be made using teflon tape. 3- Contractor shall settle the area around the bubbler and edge of the root ball so that all irrigation flows through the root ball. Q=('Tinu 111GIAi PLAN VIEW IRRIGATION BUBBLER (2) W/ LAYOUT Irrigation Detail I APPENDIX C5 Pressure compensating bubbler shall be set 1" above finished grade. (See irrigation legend for make and model). Swing joint. See detail. Finished grade. Sch. 40 PVC 90' elbow slip to thread. Lateral line irrigation. (See irrigation plans for sizing). Edge of root ball. Settle backfill so that irrigation flows through the root ball. Edge of root ball. Swing joint. See detail. Sch. 40 PVC 90° elbow slip to thread. Existing or modified soil. (See specifications for soil modification). Sch. 40 PVC Tee or 90' elbow. Lateral line irrigation. (See irrigation plans for sizing). URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXXI APPENDIX D I Nursery Stock Standards XXXI I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN ACCEPTABLE REJECTABL One central le, (No codomb lead Aspect ratio is than C Multiple leaders ?ral codominanl leaders' Aspect ratio is pater than 0.66. Nursery Stock Standards I APPENDIX D A 6 Notes: 1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected. Example A B Aspect Ratio 1.50" 0.50" 0.33 2.50" 0.90" 0.36 2.0" 1.00" 0.50 2.50" 1.60" 0.64 Aspect ratio of B:A less the as measured 1" above the the branch union. Example A B Aspect Ratio 2.50" 1.80" 0.72 2.0" 2.0" 1.0 2.50" 2.0" 0.80 4.0" 3.0" 0.75 Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. CROWN OBSERVATIONS - HIGH BRANCHED URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXXI II APPENDIX D I Nursery Stock Standards One central leader (No codominant leaders) ACCEPTABLE Aspect ratio is less than 0.66. iviutapie ieaaers (Several codominan leaders REJECTABLE Aspect ratio is greater than 0.66.. Notes: 1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. A 6 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected. Example A B Aspect Ratio 1.50" 0.50" 0.33 2.50" 0.90" 0.36 2.0" 1.00" 0.50 2.50" 1 1.60" 1 0.64 Aspect ratio of B:A less the as measured 1"above the the branch union. Example A B Aspect Ratio 2.50" 1.80" 0.72 2.0" 2.0" 1.0 2.50" 2.0" 0.80 4.0" 3.0" 0.75 Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 CROWN OBSERVATIONS - LOW BRANCHED URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE XXXIV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN /IGT81d3r1\:1■:d Aspect ratio is less than 0.66. 1:7Mmr"IFWE;J Aspect ratio is greater than 0.66. Nursery Stock Standards I APPENDIX D A e Notes: 1- Aspect ratio shall be less than 0.66 on all branch unions. Aspect ratio is the diameter of branch (B) divided by the diameter of the trunk (A) as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. 2- Any tree not meeting the crown observations detail may be rejected. CROWN OBSERVATION DETAIL - MULTI Example A B Aspect Ratio 1.50" 0.50" 0.33 2.50" 0.90" 0.36 2.0" 1.00" 0.50 2.50" 1.60" 0.64 Aspect ratio of B:A less tha as measured 1" above the the branch union. Example A B Aspect Ratio 2.50" 1.80" 0.72 2.0" 2.0" 1.0 2.50" 2.0" 0.80 4.0" 3.0" 0.75 Aspect ratio of B:A greater than or equal to 0.66 as measured 1" above the top of the branch union. URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXXV APPENDIX E I Highly Flammable Plant List XXXVI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN UNDESIRABLE PLANT LIST The following species are highly flammable and should be avoided when planting within the first 50 feet adjacent to a structure. The plants listed below are more susceptible to burning, due to rough or peeling bark, production of large amounts of litter, vegetation that contains oils, resin, wax, or pitch, large amounts of dead material in the plant, or plantings with a high dead to live fuel ratio. Many of these species, if existing on the property and adequately maintained (pruning, thinning, irrigation, litter removal, and weeding), may remain as long as the potential for spreading a fire has been reduced or eliminated. enrAK11rA1 uAiuo I rnneRenu KIAiuo Abies species Fir Trees Acacia species Acacia (trees, shrubs, groundcovers) Adenostoma sparsifoliurn— Red Shanks Adenostoma fasciculatum** Chamise Aoonis iuniperina Juniper Myrtle Araucania species Monkey Puzzle, Norfolk Island Pine Artemesia californica** California Sagebrush Bambusa species Bamboo Cedrus species Cedar Chamaecyparis species False Cypress Coprosma pumila Prostrate Coprosma Crmtomeria japonica Japanese Cryptomeria Cupressocyparis leylandii Leylandii Cypress Cuoressus forbesd— Tecate Cypress Cupressus alabra Arizona Cypress Cupressus sempervirens Italian Cypress Dodonea viscosa Hopseed Bush Erioaonum fasciculatum** Common Buckwheat Eucalyptus species Eucalyptus Heterotheca orandiflora** Telegraph Plant Juniperus species Junipers Larix species Larch Lonicera japonica Japanese Honeysuckle Miscanthus species Eulalia Grass Muehlenberpia species** Deer Grass Palmae species Palms Picea species Spruce Trees Pickeringia Montana' Chaparral Pea Pinus species Pines Podocarpus species Fern Pine Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir Rosmarinus species Rosemary Salvia mellifera* Black Sage Taxodium species Cypress Taxus species Yew Thuia species Arborvitae Tsupa species Hemlock Urtica urens** Burning Nettle San Diego County native species Highly Flammable Plant List I APPENDIX E References: Gordon, H. White, T.C. 1994. Ecological Guide to Southern California Chaparral Plant Series. Cleveland National Forest. Willis, E. 1997. San Diego County Fire Chiefs Association. Wildland/Urban Interface Development Standards City of Oceanside, California. 1995. Vegetation Management. Landscape Development Manual. Community Services Department, Engineering Division City of Vista, California 1997. Undesirable Plants. Section 18.56.999. Landscaping Design, Development and Maintenance Standards. www.bewaterwise.com. 2004. Fire-resistant California Friendly Plants www.ucfpl.ucoi).edu. 2004. University of California, Berkeley, Forest Products Laboratory, College of Natural Resources. Defensible Space Landscaping in the Urban/Wildland Interface. A Compilation of Fire Performance Ratings of Residential Landscape Plants. County of Los Angeles Fire Department. 1998. Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines. Appendix I, Undesirable Plant List, and Appendix II, Undesirable Plant List. CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXXVI APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results XXXVIII I CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q1 Do you consider neighborhood trees a valuable community asset that contribute to your quality of life in Temecula? Answered:686 Skipped:2 Definitely Somewhat Not at all 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Definitely 97.08% 666 Somewhat 2.62% 18 Not at all 0.29% 2 TOTAL 686 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XXXIX APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q2 Trees are considered part of the City's infrastructure. How important do you think trees are compared to other infrastructure like streets, sidewalks, water, sewer, traffic signals, lighting, etc)? Answered:687 Skipped:1 Trees are more important th... Trees are equally as... Trees are not as important... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Trees are more important than other infrastructure Trees are equally as important as other infrastructure Trees are not as important as other infrastructure TOTAL RESPONSES 15.57% 107 74.82% 514 9.61% 66 687 XI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q3 What rating would you give the condition of public space street trees in Temecula? Excellent Good Fair Poor Answered:685 Skipped:3 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Excellent 23.07% 158 Good 53.58% 367 Fair 21.61% 148 Poor 1.75% 12 TOTAL 685 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I Xii APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q4 What should be the top two goals of the City of Temecula Urban Forest Management Plan? (select top TWO choices) Answered:687 Skipped:I Maintaining the existing... Removing dead, dying or... Reducing the number of tr... Increase the number of tr... Planting new species to... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% E 1st Priority a 2nd Priority Maintaining the existing trees Removing dead, dying or otherwise hazardous trees Reducing the number of trees removed every year Increase the number of trees planted every year Planting new species to increase species diversity and to protect against climate change 1ST 2ND TOTAL WEIGHTED PRIORITY PRIORITY AVERAGE 67.15% 32.85% 325 159 484 1.33 62.41% 37.59% 254 153 407 1.38 50.42% 49.58% 120 118 238 1.50 66.08% 33.92% 298 153 451 1.34 65.01% 34.99% 275 148 423 1.35 XII I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q5 Of the following options, select the top 2 most important benefit trees provide in your neighborhood. Answered:687 Skipped:1 Imp envii neighl HIM Aez a Psych 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1st Priority 0 2nd Priority Improving the environment (like air quality, stodng carbon) Cooling neighborhoods and homes Protecting human health Aesthetics or appearance Psychological/Emotional benefits 1ST PRIORITY 2ND PRIORITY TOTAL WEIGHTED AVERAGE 80.00% 20.00% 428 107 535 1.20 60.76% 39.24% 223 144 367 1.39 65.42% 34.58% 157 83 240 1.35 58.03% 41.97% 206 149 355 1.42 52.45% 47.55% 203 184 387 1.48 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I Xiii APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q6 What factors would make you reluctant to have a tree on your property? (Select Your Top Two) Cost to trim trees Cost to water trees Mess/leaf litter Damage to sewer... Risk of damage by falling... No issues Answered:687 Skipped:l 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1st Priority M 2nd Priority XUV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Cost to trim trees Cost to water trees Mess/leaf litter Damage to sewer pipes/sidewalks Risk of damage by falling branches No issues 1ST PRIORITY 39.16% 112 48.40% 106 38.80% 97 65.33% 277 40.81% 91 70.59% 252 2ND PRIORITY 60.84% 174 51.60% 113 61.20% 153 34.67% 147 59.19% 132 29.41% 105 Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F TOTAL 286 219 250 424 223 357 WEIGHTED AVERAGE 1.61 1.52 1.61 1.35 1.59 1.29 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XI.V APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q7 The City should have ordinances to protect trees on private property in the same way they protect trees in the public space. Answered:684 Skipped:4 Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Disagree Strongly disagree 0% 10% 20% 30% ANSWER CHOICES Strongly agree Agree Somewhat agree Disagree Strongly disagree TOTAL 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 21.64% 20.32% 25.88% 19.44% 12.72% 148 139 177 133 87 684 X[VI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q8 Approximately how much have you spent on maintenance or repairs related to trees or tree root damage over the past 5 years? Answered:685 Skipped:3 No expenses related to... $100-$499 $500-$999 $1000-$1999 More than $2000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES No expenses related to preventative tree care or maintenance $100-$499 $500 - $999 $1000-$1999 More than $2000 TOTAL RESPONSES 32.41% 222 23.50% 161 18.25% 125 13.72% 94 12.12% 83 685 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I XI.VI APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q9 Which of the following activities would you be willing to participate in to support the City's tree planting efforts? (Select all that apply) Answered:666 Skipped:22 Volunteer at a community tr... Attend l off E educational... Planting a tree on your... Volunteer to provide basi... Help organize a neighborho... Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Volunteer at a community tree planting 63.36% Attend an educational workshop 36.19% Planting a tree on your private property 68.47% Volunteer to provide basic tree care on a regular basis 17.12% Help organize a neighborhood tree planting 23.12% Other (please specify) 8.41% Total Respondents: 666 422 241 456 114 154 56 X[VI I ii I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q10 How can the City best help you plant and/or care for a tree in your yard? Answered:669 Skipped:19 Provide an expert answe... &am Labor to do the work Financial support for... Provide `How-to'... Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Provide an expert answer questions about tree health 34.83% 233 Labor to do the work 31.84% 213 Financial support for tree trimming 45.59% 305 Provide `How-to' information on planting, watering, and trimming 48.43% 324 Other (please specify) 12.26% 82 Total Respondents: 669 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I Xtix APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q11 Additional comments. Answered:218 Skipped:470 I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q12 Do you live in Temecula? Answered:650 Skipped:38 Yes hL No 0 dA 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Yes 91.69% 596 No 8.31% 54 TOTAL 650 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 1I APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Yes No ANSWER CHOICES Yes No TOTAL Q13 Do you work in Temecula? Answered:646 Skipped:42 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 57.12% 42.88% 369 277 646 II I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN 92590 92591 92592 92596 92562 92563 Other (please specify) 0% ANSWER CHOICES 92590 o1)co, 91S9L 92596 92562 92563 Other (please specify) TOTAL Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q14 What zip code do you live in? Answered:647 Skipped:41 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 2.32% 26.74% 58.89% 3.09% 1.24% 4.79% 2.94% 15 173 381 20 8 31 19 647 CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I iIII APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q15 What best describes your housing situation? Answered:64E Skipped:43 Apartment Single family home Duplex Condominium Other (please specify) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Apartment Single family home Duplex Condominium Other (please specify) TOTAL I RESPONSES 2.79% 91.78% 0.31% 3.26% 1.86% 18 592 2 21 12 645 HIV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q16 Which of the following best describes your current housing situation? Answered:642 Skipped:46 Homeowner Renter 0 Living with others but n... Living with others and... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Homeowner Renter Living with others but not paying rent or mortgage Living with others and assisting with paying rent or mortgage TOTAL RESPONSES 82.71% 531 11.99% 77 3.58% 23 1.71% 11 642 CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I IV APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q17 What is the primary language spoken in your home? Answered:642 Skipped:46 English Spanish Russian Vietnamese Tagalog Mandarin Other (please specify) 0% ANSWER CHOICES English Spanish Russian Vietnamese Tagalog Mandarin Other (please specify) TOTAL 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 96.73% 621 1.87% 12 0.31% 2 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 1.09% 7 642 I.VI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q18 Which category below includes your age? Answered:640 Skipped:48 Under18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ ANSWER CHOICES Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+ TOTAL 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 1.25% 3.13% 16.41% 28.59% 20.63% 8 20 105 183 132 100 92 640 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I I.Vii ii APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q19 What is the highest level of education you have attained? Answered:632 Skipped:56 No high school diploma High school diploma or... Some college but no degree Associate degree Bachelor degree Graduate degree 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES No high school diploma 1.11% 7 High school diploma or equivalent (e.g., GED) 3.16% 20 Some college but no degree 23.58% 149 Associate degree 11.55% 73 Bachelor degree 36.87% 233 Graduate degree 23.73% 150 TOTAL 632 lVI II I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q1 6Considera que los arboles de su vecindario son importantes para la comunidad y que contribuyen a la calidad de su vida? Answered: 13 Skipped: , Si Un tanto I No 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Si 100.00% 13 Un tanto 0.00% 0 No 0.00% 0 TOTAL 13 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I tiX APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q2 Los arboles son parte de la infraestructura de la ciudad. En comparacion con los otros elementos de la infraestructura de la ciudad (por ejemplo: las calles, las aceras, las farolas, las senates de trafico, infraestructura hidrica/alcantarillado), �,Que tan importante considera los arboles? Answered:13 Skipped:1 Los arboles son mas... Los arboles son tan... Los arboles no son tan... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Los arboles son mas importantes que los otros elementos de la infraestructura de la ciudad. Los arboles son tan importantes que los otros elementos de la infraestructura de la ciudad. Los arboles no son tan importantes que los otros elementos de la infraestructura de la ciudad. TOTAL RESPONSES 84.62% 15.38% 0.00% 11 2 0 13 IX I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q3 6De que calidad considera los arboles en los espacios publicos en la ciudad de Temecula? Fxcelente Buena Regular Pobre/Deficient e 0% 10% ANSWER CHOICES Excelente Buena Regular Pobre/Deficiente TOTAL Answered:12 Skipped:2 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 0.00% 91.67% 0.00% 8.33% 0 11 0 1 12 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I W APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q4 6CuMes deben ser los dos objetivos mas importantes del Manejo del Bosque Comunitario? Answered:12 Skipped:2 Mantener los ■ arboles... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Mantener los arboles existentes Quitar los arboles muerlos, enfermos o peligrosos Quitar menos arboles cada ano Plantar/sembrar mas arboles cada ano Plantar/sembrar arboles de especies diferentes para aumentar la diversidad y proteger la ciudad contra los cambios climaticos TOTAL RESPONSES 8.33% 1 16.67% 2 0.00% 0 25.00% 3 50.00% 6 12 I.XI I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q5 �,Cuales son los beneficios mas importantes de los arboles en su vecindario? Escoge dos: Answered:12 Skipped:2 Mejorar el. medioambient... Enfriar el ML barrio y su... Protegerla salud de Los... Estetica o aspecto Beneficios psicol6gicos... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Mejorar el medioambiente (por ejemplo: la calidad del aire, cargar carbono) 83.33% 10 Enfriar el barrio y su hogar con la sombra 91.67% 11 Proteger la salud de los humanos 75.00% 9 Estetica o aspecto 83.33% 10 Beneficios psicol6gicos/emocionales 16.67% 2 Total Respondents: 12 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I I.XI II APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q6 Dearnos las razones por que no querria un arbol en su propiedad. Escoge dos: Answered: 12 Skipped:2 Los gastos de La poda de L... Los gastos del agua que... Hojarasca/desor den en La... El dano a Las aceras o... El riesgo de caida de ramas Ningunarazon Otra razon 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Los gastos de la poda de los arboles Los gastos del agua que necesitan los arboles Hojarasca/desorden en la tierra El dano a las aceras o tuberias subterraneas El riesgo de caida de ramas Ninguna razon Otra razon Total Respondents: 12 RESPONSES 8.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 8.33% 91.67% 0.00% 1 0 0 0 1 11 0 I.XIV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q7 La ciudad debe tener ordenanzas que protegen los arboles en la propiedad privada, similar a las ordenanzas sobre los arboles en los espacios publicos. �,Esta de acuerdo? Answered:12 Skipped:2 E totalmenti Estoy acuer Un poco acuer Esto) desacue E totalmenti 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Estoy totalmente de acuerdo Estoy de acuerdo Un poco de acuerdo Estoy de desacuerdo Estoy totalmente de desacuerdo TOTAL RESPONSES 83.33% 10 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 8.33% 1 8.33% 12 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 1XN APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q8 En los 5 anos pasados, �,cuanto ha gastado para mantener los arboles o en las reparaciones relacionadas con los arboles? (en $US) answered:12 Skipped:2 $0 $100-$499 $500-$999 $1000-$1999 Mas que $2000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES $0 $100-$499 $500 - $999 $1000-$1999 Mas que $2000 TOTAL RESPONSES 0.00% 16.67% 16.67% 25.00% 41.67% 0 2 2 3 5 12 1XVI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q9 6En que actividades participaria para apoyar los esfuerzos de la siembra de arboles en la ciudad? (Escoge todo to que se aplica.) Answered:12 Skipped:2 Voluntario(a) en un evento... Inscribir en un taller... un arbol en ... Voluntario(a) por cuidarse... Ayudar a organizar un... Otra actividad 0% 10% 20% 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Voluntario(a) en un evento de la siembra de los arboles Inscribir en un taller educativo Plantar/sembrar un arbol en su propiedad Voluntario(a) por cuidarse a los arboles en la ciudad en una forma regular Ayudar a organizar una siembra de arboles en su vecindario Otra actividad Total Respondents: 12 RESPONSES 41.67% 5 8.33% 1 83.33% 10 33.33% 4 16.67% 2 0.00% 0 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I tXVI APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q10 ,Como puede la ciudad ayudarte a plantar y/o cuidar un arbol en to propiedad? Answered:14 Skipped:0 Un experto quien puede... Alguien para hacer el... Apoyo financiero p... Guias con informacion... Otro 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Un experto quien puede responder a las preguntas sobre la salud de los Arboles Alguien para hacer el trabajo Apoyo financiero para la poda de arboles Guias con informacion sobre la siembra, poda y riego de arboles Otro TOTAL RESPONSES 7.14% 7.14% 78.57% 7.14% 0.00% 1 0 14 1XVII I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Si No ANSWER CHOICES Si No TOTAL Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q11 6Vive en Temecula? Answered: 13 Skipped:1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 100.00% 0.00% 13 0 13 CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I WX APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results s No ANSWER CHOICES Si No TOTAL Q12 �,Trabaja en Temecula? Answered:13 Skipped:1 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 46.15% 53.85% 7 13 1XX I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q13 �,En que codigo postal vive? Answered:13 Skipped:1 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I I.XXI APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q14 �,Cual describe su situacion de vivienda? Answered:13 Skipped:1 Apartamiento Casa unifamiliar Duplex Condominio Otro 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES Apartamiento 0.00% Casa unifamiliar 100.00% Duplex 0.00% Condominio 0.00% Otro 0.00% TOTAL 0 r 0 13 IXXI I I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q15 �,Cual describe su situacion de vivienda? Answered:13 Skipped:I i ir Propietario(a) Alquilado(a)/Re ntado(a) Vivir con otras person... Vivir con otras person... 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Propietario(a) Alquilado(a)/Rentado(a) Vivir con otras personas sin pagar de alquiler o renta Vivir con otras personas y ayudar a pagar el pago de alquiler o renta TOTAL RESPONSES 92.31% 12 7.69% 1 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 13 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I I.XXII APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q16 �, Cual es el primer idioma en su hogar? Answered:13 Skipped:1 Ingles Espanol Ruso Vietnamita Tagalo Mandarin Otro idioma 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Ingles M-A-1 Huso Vietnamita Tagalo Mandarin Otro idioma TOTAL I RESPONSES 84.62% 7.69% 7.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 11 1 1 0 0 0 0 13 IXXIV I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Menores de 13 anos 14 -20 anos 21-29 anos 30-39 anos 40-49 anos 50-59 anos Mayores de 60 anos 0% ANSWER CHOICES Menores de 13 anos 14 -20 anos 21-29 anos 30-39 anos 40-49 anos 50-59 anos Mayores de 60 anos TOTAL Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F Q17 �,Cuantos anos tiene? Answered: 13 Skipped:I 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% RESPONSES 0.00% 7.69% 0.00% 46.15% 23.08% 7.69% 15.38% 0 0 0 6 3 1 2 13 CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 1XXV APPENDIX F I Public Survey Results Q18 �,Cual es el nivel mas alto de educacion que has alcanzado? Answered:13 Skipped:I Sin diploma de escuela... Diploma de escuela... Cierta educacion... Titulo asociado Licenciatura Titulo de posgrado 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ANSWER CHOICES Sin diploma de escuela secundaria Diploma de escuela secundaria o to igual (por ejemplo: GED) Cierta educacion universitaria, pero sin titulo Titulo asociado Licenciatura Titulo de posgrado TOTAL . RESPONSES 0.00% 0 7.69% 1 15.38% 2 0.00% 0 23.08% 3 53.85% 7 13 1XXVI I CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Public Survey Results I APPENDIX F this page was Intentionally left blank CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 1XXVI APPENDIX G I Funding Opportunities IXXVIII I CITY OFTEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN Funding Opportunities I APPENDIX G Funding Opportunities Grants Environmental With approximately $13.4 million for the 2021-2023 funding cycle, this Enhancement Mitigation program encourages projects that produce multiple benefits that reduce Program (California Natural greenhouse gas emissions; increase water use efficiency; reduce risks from Resources Agency) climate change impacts; and demonstrate collaboration with local, state, and community entities. Eligible projects like tree planting and habitat restoration, must be directly or indirectly related to the environmental impact of the modification of an existing transportation facility or construction of a new transportation facility. Urban Flood Protection Grant The Urban Flood Protection Program was created by Proposition 68 for the purpose Program (California Natural of multi -benefit projects in urbanized areas to address flooding. Projects must Resources Agency) provide multi -benefit solutions to address flooding in urban areas, protect people, and protect property from flood damage. Examples of eligible projects include tree planting and establishment care and creating native landscapes with stormwater capture features like bioswales. There was one funding cycle for fiscal year 2020- 2021 totaling $92.5 million. Urban and Community Multiple grant programs supported by the Urban and Community Forestry Program Forestry Program will fund tree planting, tree inventories, urban wood and biomass utilization, (CAL FIRE) blighted urban lands improvements, and leading edge work that advances the goals and objectives of supporting healthy urban forests and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There was an estimated $10 million available to fund a variety of urban forestry projects in fiscal year 2019-2020. Urban Greening Grant Consistent with Assembly Bill 32 (2006), the Urban Greening Program will fund Program (California Natural projects that reduce greenhouse gases by sequestering carbon, decreasing Resources Agency) energy consumption, and reducing vehicles miles traveled, while also transforming the built environment into places that are more sustainable, enjoyable, and effective in creating healthy and vibrant communities. During the 2019-2020 fiscal year, there was approximately $28.5 million available for selected project applicants, which included public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and qualifying districts. Active Transportation This program provides fundingto encourage increased use of active modes of Program (California transportation, such as biking and walking. Trees and other vegetation are significant Department of components of several eligible projects underthe Active Transportation Program, Transportation) including parks, trails, and safe routes to schools. $440 million will be distributed to project applicants over fiscal years 2019-2020, 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023. Applicants include public agencies, transit agencies, school districts, tribal governments, and nonprofit organizations. Affordable Housing and The Strategic Growth Council is authorized to fund land use, housing, transportation, Sustainable Communities and land preservation projects to support infill and compact developmentthat (California Strategic Growth reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Urban Greening is a threshold requirementfor all Council) Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities funded projects. Eligible urban greening projects include, but are not limited to, rainwater recycling; flow and filtration systems including rain gardens, stormwater planters, and filters; vegetated swales; bioretention basins; infiltration trenches; and integration with riparian buffers, shade trees, community gardens, and parks and open space. Fundingfor 2021 is estimated at $452 million and will be available to locality (e.g., local agencies), developer (entity responsible for project construction), or program operator (day -today operational project administrator) project applicants. Storm Water Grant Program — (California State Water Resources Control Board CITY OF TEMECULA URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN I 1XXIX APPENDIX G I Funding Opportunities *Fees, Assessments, Taxes Parcel Tax A parcel tax is a special tax levied for the provision of special benefits. Revenues from special taxes must be used for the specific purpose for which they are intended, so a parcel tax would create a dedicated funding stream for street trees. Similar to a special assessment, a parcel tax cannot be based on the value of property; however, the amount levied on each parcel need not be directly related to the benefits provided (ILG 2008). Cities have the flexibility to levy parcel taxes as they see fit, but they are typically based on lot square footage or levied as a flat tax, with the same amount per parcel (CTD 2012a). Parcel taxes are designed to encompass entire cities and therefore, are good candidates for a citywide street tree program, as opposed to the district -level approach that often occurs under special assessments. 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 Item No. 5 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 27, 2024 SUBJECT: Award Construction Contract to Ace Capital Engineering for the American with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW18-16 PREPARED BY: Nino Abad, Senior Civil Engineer Laura Bragg, Associate Engineer II RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Award a construction contract to Ace Capital Engineering in the amount of $356,528.53 for the American with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW18-16; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve contract change orders up to 15% of the contract amount, $53,479.28; and 3. Make a finding that the American with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW 18-16, project is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan fees. BACKGROUND: On September 12, 2023, City Council approved the plans and specifications and authorized the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW18-16. As part of the Capital Improvements Program and Budget for Fiscal Year 2020-24, the City Council approved appropriations to support an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Implementation Program. The project would implement the recommended improvements identified in the previously completed Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Transition Plan. The ADA Transition Plan prioritized the removal of identified barriers preventing disabled persons access to City facilities and programs. Each Fiscal Year the City utilizes the available budget to implement the ADA Transition Plan. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW18-16, includes four new ADA accessible dugouts at the Ronald Reagan Sports Park North/South Baseball Fields, an ADA accessible ramp from Margarita Road to the North/South Baseball Fields, ADA parking lot reconfiguration, and modifications to sidewalks. The construction contract was publicly advertised between December 15, 2023, and January 11, 2024. Three (3) bids were received and publicly opened on Thursday, January 11, 2024. The results were as follows: Rank Bidder Bid Amount 1. Ace Capital Engineering $ 356,528.53 2. Aster Construction Service Inc. Non -Responsive 3. HZS Engineering Inc. Non -Responsive The bid submitted by Aster Construction Services Inc. did not include acknowledgement of Addendum #1 or Addendum #2, which is required to be submitted with the bid packet, so the bid was deemed non -responsive. HZS Engineering Inc. failed to submit the required exhibits for the CDBG funding, which is required to be submitted with the bid packet, so the bid was deemed non -responsive. Ace Capital Engineering, of Lake Forest, California, did not sign Addendums #1 and #2 but acknowledged the Addendums on page P6 of the proposal. This clerical omission is deemed a waivable minor irregularity. Therefore, it has been determined that Ace Capital Engineering is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Ace Capital Engineering has public contracting experience and has successfully completed similar public projects. Staff has received a bid evaluation memorandum from the City's CDBG consultant which verifies that Ace Capital Engineering bid submittal meets CDBG requirements. The Engineer's Estimate of construction cost was $275,000. The construction contract allows for 60 working days (approximately 3 months) to construct the Project. The Ronald Reagan Sports Park North/South baseball fields have never received renovation such as the ones being proposed. Renovation projects of older facilities often uncover additional deficiencies during construction that would need to be remedied. As such, staff is requesting the approval of a 15% contingency instead of the 10% normally requested. The Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is an element of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) to conserve open space, nature preserves and wildlife to be set aside in some areas. It is designed to protect over 150 species and conserve over 500,000 acres in Western Riverside County. The City of Temecula is a permittee to the MSHCP and as such is required to abide by the Regional Conservation Authority's (RCA) MSHCP Mitigation Fee Implementation Manual adopted by Resolution 2020-013 on December 7, 2020. The RCA is a joint regional authority formed by the County and the Cities to provide primary policy direction for implementation of the MSHCP. Since July 1, 2008, the RCA has required that locally funded Capital Improvement Projects contribute applicable MSHCP fees within 90-days of construction contract award. Fees outside the public right of way are calculated on a cost per acre of disturbed area basis, while fees for typical right-of-way improvements projects are 5% of construction costs. Maintenance only projects, such as this project, are exempt from MSHCP fees. FISCAL IMPACT: The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Implementation is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2024-28, and is funded with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Measure S. Adequate funds are available in the project account to cover the contract amount of $356,528.53 plus the 15% contingency amount of $53,479.28 for a total encumbrance of $410,007.81. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Contract 2. Project Description 3. Project Location CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT for AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT NO. PW18-16 THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 27'h day of February, 2024, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City", and Ace Capital Engineering, hereinafter referred to as "Contractor." WITNESSETH: That City and Contractor, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree as follows: CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, PROJECT NO. PW18-16, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (latest edition) where specifically referenced in the Plans and Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by Public Works Standards, Inc. (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, PROJECT NO. PW18-16,. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available from the publisher: BNi Building News Division of BNi Publications, Inc. 990 Park Center Drive, Suite E Vista, CA 92081 (760) 734-1113 The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials, and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provision, and Technical Specifications for AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, PROJECT NO. PW18-16. In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in lieu of, such conflicting portions. Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise specified, the Contractor shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract. Contract C-1 The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract. 2. SCOPE OF WORK. Contractor shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, PROJECT NO. PW18-16. All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents hereinabove enumerated and adopted by City. 3. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to the approval of City or its authorized representatives. 4. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. The City agrees to pay, and Contractor agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: THREE HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDREDTWENTY-EIGHT DOLLARS and FIFTY-THREE CENTS ($356,528.53), the total amount of the base bid. Contractor agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed SIXTY (60) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by City. Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by City. 5. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as established by the City Council. 6. PAYMENTS. a. Lump Sum Bid Schedule. Before submittal of the first payment request, the Contractor shall submit to the Director of Public Works a schedule of values allocated to the various portions of the work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the Director of Public Works may require. This schedule, as approved by the Director of Public Works, shall be used as the basis for reviewing the Contractor's payment requests. b. Unit Price Bid Schedule. Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days after submission of a payment request to the City, the Contractor shall be paid a sum equal to 95% of the value of the work completed according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or about the thirtieth (3011) day of each successive month as the work progresses. The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the Contractor filing a one - Contract C-2 year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the City on forms provided by the City. C. Payment for Work Performed. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law, accompanied by a certificate signed by the City Manager, stating that the work for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as an acceptance of any part of the work. d. Payment of Interest. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30) days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference. 7. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES / EXTENSION OF TIME. a. Liquidated Damages. In accordance with Government Code Section 53069.85, Contractor agrees to forfeit and pay to City the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to Contractor. b. Extension of Time. Contractor will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of the Contractor, including delays caused by City. Within ten (10) calendar days of the occurrence of such delay, Contractor shall give written notice to City. Within thirty (30) calendar days of the occurrence of the delay, Contractor shall provide written documentation sufficient to support its delay claim to City. Contractor's failure to provide such notice and documentation shall constitute Contractor's waiver, discharge, and release of such delay claims against City. 8, WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6 above, Contractor shall submit to City, in writing, all claims for compensation as to work related to the payment. Unless the Contractor has disputed the amount of the payment, the acceptance by Contractor of each payment shall constitute a release of all claims against the City related to the payment. Contractor shall be required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment. 9. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract from the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations. Copies may be obtained from the California Department of Industrial Relations Internet website at http:/twww.dir.ca.go. Contractor shall provide a copy of prevailing wage rates to any staff or subcontractor hired, and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1720, 1720.9, 1725.5, 1771.1(a), 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, Contractor shall forfeit to the City, as a penalty, the sum of $200.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each laborer, Contract C-3 worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of the Contract. This project, work, or service will be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) pursuant to Labor Code Section 1771.4. Contractor shall comply with the provisions of Sections 1720, 1720.9, 1725.5, 1771.1(a), 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code. The Federal minimum wage rates for this project as predetermined by the United States Secretary of Labor are included in Exhibit "B" of the project specifications. Future effective general prevailing wage rates which have been predetermined are on file with the California Department of Industrial Relations and are referenced but not printed in the general prevailing wage rates. 10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract. 11. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of Contractor alone. Contractor agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons (Contractor's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by Contractor, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City. The Contractor shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the City for any and all costs incurred by the City as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project. The City shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final payments due to the Contractor. 12. GRATUITIES. Contractor warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to City's employees, agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable treatment with respect thereto. 13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Contractor warrants that none of its partners, members or shareholders are related by blood or marriage to any employee of the City who has participated in the development of the specifications or approval of this project or who will administer this project nor are they in any way financially associated with any City officer or employee, or any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this project. Contractor further warrants that no person in its employ nor any person with an ownership interest in the Contractor has been employed by the City within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids. 14, CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this Contract, Contractor shall file with the City Manager, its affidavit stating that all workmen and persons employed, all firms Contract C_4 supplying materials, and all subcontractors upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California. 15. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES, Whenever the Contractor has knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely performance of the Contract, Contractor shall immediately give notice thereof, including all relevant information with respect thereto, to City. 16. BOOKS AND RECORDS. Contractor's books, records, and plans or such part thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the City. 17, INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by City and its authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and places, including without limitation, the plants of Contractor and any of its suppliers. Contractor shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work. 18. DISCRIMINATION. Contractor represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not, discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national origin, color, sex, age, or handicap. 19. GOVERNING LAW The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. 20. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the Contract or the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. Furthermore, the Contractor covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether contractual, non -contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article Contract C-5 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California. 21, ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this Contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-336, as amended. 22. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, directed to the address of the Contractor as set forth in the Contract Documents, and to the City addressed as follows: Mailing and Delivery Address: Patrick A. Thomas, PE Director of Public Works/ City Engineer City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 23, INSURANCE. The Contractor shall procure and maintain, for the duration of the Contract, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. Minimum Scope of Insurance: Coverage shall be at least as broad as: Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability Form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88. 2. Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Contractor owns no automobiles, a non -owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable. 3. Worker's' Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Contractor has no employees while performing under this Contract, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Contractor shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. Minimum Limits of Insurance: The Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: 1. General Liability: Two Million Dollars $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2. Automobile Liability: One Million Dollars $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One Million Dollars $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. Contract C-6 Deductibles and Self -insured Retentions: Any deductibles or self-insurance retentions shall not exceed Twenty -Five Thousand Dollars $25,000. Other Insurance Provisions: The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: The City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects to liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. 2. For any claims related to this project, the Contractor's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3. Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. 4. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5. Each insurance policy required by this Contract shall be endorsed to state in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be cancelled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than 30 days prior to the cancellation effective date. 6. If insurance coverage is cancelled or reduced in coverage or in limits, the Contractor shall within two business days of notice from the insurer, phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. Acceptability of Insurers: Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A-, VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self- insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. Verification of Coverage: Contractor shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on Contract C_7 forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Contractor's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. Subcontractors: Contractor shall include all subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein. 24. RECOVERED MATERIALS AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT Contractor agrees to comply with all requirements of Section 6002 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 6962), including but not limited to the regulatory provisions of 40 CFR Part 247, and Executive Order 12873, as they apply to the procurement of the items designated in Subpart B of 40 CFR Part 247. 25. TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND VIDEO SURVEILLANCE SERVICES OR EQUIPMENT Contractor shall not procure or obtain, extend or renew a contract to procure or obtain, or enter into a contract to procure or obtain equipment, services, or systems that use covered telecommunications equipment or services as a substantial or essential component of any system, or as critical technology as part of any system. As described in Public Law 115- 232, section 889, covered telecommunications equipment is telecommunications equipment produced by Huawei Technologies Company or ZTE Corporation, or any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities. Covered equipment also includes video surveillance and telecommunications equipment or services provided by Hytera Communications Corporation, Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Company, Dahua Technology Company, any subsidiary or affiliate of such entities, and any entity that the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Director of the National Intelligence or the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, reasonably believes to be an entity owned or controlled by, or otherwise connected to, the government of a covered foreign country. 26. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS The Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, State and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations in force at the time the Contractor performs pursuant to the Contract Documents, and shall comply with all grant or funding terms and conditions applicable to the Contract and/or the work 27. CLAIM DISPUTE RESOLUTION. In the event of any dispute or controversy with the City over any matter whatsoever, the Contractor shall not cause any delay or cessation in or of work, but shall proceed with the performance of the work in dispute. The Contractor shall retain any and all rights provided that pertain to the resolution of disputes and protests between the parties. The disputed work will be categorized as an "unresolved dispute" and payment, if any, shall be as later determined by mutual agreement or a court of law. The Contractor shall keep accurate, detailed records of all disputed work, claims and other disputed matters. All claims arising out of or related to the Contract or this project, and the consideration and payment of such claims, are subject to the Government Claims Act (Government Code Section 810 et seq.) with regard to filing claims. All such claims are also subject to Public Contract Code Section 9204 and Public Contract Code Section 20104 et seq. (Article 1.5), where applicable. This Contract hereby incorporates those provisions as though fully set forth herein. Thus, the Contractor or any Subcontractor must present a claim in accordance Contract C.g with the Government Claims Act as a prerequisite to prosecuting any claim against the City. The filing or prosecution of a claim in compliance with Section 9204 and/or Article 1.5 (if applicable) does not in any way obviate the need to timely present a claim under the Government Claims Act, or in any toll the expiration of any limitations period for the timely presentation of a claim under the Government Claims Act. Contract C_9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the date first above written. DATED:- C121() 2o.2 ej DATED: ATTEST: Rand! Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONTRACTOR: Ace Capital Engineering 21171 Fernleaf Dr. Lake Forest, CA 92630 (949) 333-9322 alim@acerjpitaleng.com By: .0 Rana Allafchian Print or type NAME Chief Executive Officer Print or type TITLE* By: ::::a� Ali Mohammad! Print or type NAME Secretary Print or type TITLE* (*Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations) Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CITY OF TEMECULA m Contract C-10 Mayor James Stewart Adk C7"` The Heart of Southern California Wine Country City of Temecula Fiscal Years 2024-28 Capital Improvement Program AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Infrastructure Project Project Description: The American with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Implementation will utilize the recently completed Transition Plan and implement its recommendations based on the established priorities. The implementation will include improvements to public facilities, programs, and public rights of way to modify/remove identified barriers over a fiscally constrained framework. Benefit: This project furthers the City's Core Values of A Safe and Prepared Community, Transportation Mobility and Connectivity, as well as Equity. Core Value: Equity Project Status: The American With Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Upgrade was completed in Fiscal Year2017-18. The implementation of the Transition Plan recommendation is an ongoing program. Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.265.999.612 / PW18-16 Level: I ADA Compliant 2023-24 Prior Years 2022-23 Proposed 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Total Project Project Cost: Actuals Adjusted Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Cost Administration 87,736 187,601 78,660 78,660 78,660 78,660 78,660 668,637 Construction 506 478,829 245,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 245,000 1,704,335 Design & Environmental 1150,000 1150,000 Total Expenditures 88,242 816,430 323,660 323,660 323,660 323,660 323,660 2,522,972 Source of Funds: CDBG Measure S 98,514 556,158 323,660 323,660 323,660 323,660 323,660 250,000 2,272,972 250,000 Total Funding 98,514 806,158 323,660 323,660 323,660 323,660 323,660 2,522,972 Future Operating & Maintenance Costs: Total Operating Costs r wv r c� � - Tcmenrla _ O y Ih + 4 1 i PROJECT: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transitions Plan Implementation, PW18-16 SUBJECT: Award Construction Contract for work at the Ronald Reagan Sports Park North/South Baseball Fields DATE: February 27, 2024 Item No. 6 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 27, 2024 SUBJECT: Approve an Increase to the Contingency Amount for the Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing at Calle Aragon Park PREPARED BY: Julie Tarrant, Principal Management Analyst Stacey Biddle, Management Assistant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve an increase to the contingency amount for the Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing at Calle Aragon Park, by $17,890; and 2. Increase the City Manager's authority to approve additional work by $17,890. BACKGROUND: On April 25, 2023, City Council approved a Purchase and Installation Agreement with Playcore Wisconsin, Inc., dba GameTime for Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing at Calle Aragon Park, in the amount of $73,736.46, and authorized the City Manager to approve additional work not to exceed a contingency amount of $2,000. During the installation process it was determined that the original proposed scope of work to install engineered wood fiber would not be sufficient to meet ADA compliance and required safety standards. Upon further assessment by staff, an alternative application method to install pour -in - place rubberized safety surfacing was recommended. Due to this change in the type of surfacing, the overall cost of additional work has increased to $19,890. To complete the project and ensure ADA and safety standards are adhered to, staff recommends an increase to the contingency in the amount of $17,890 to cover the cost of additional work. FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available in the Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing project as identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Years 2024-2028. ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 7 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: February 27, 2024 SUBJECT: Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize the Solicitation of Construction Bids for Pickleball Courts, PW21-03 PREPARED BY: Avlin Odviar, Principal Civil Engineer Samantha Preciado, Assistant Engineer II RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Pickleball Courts, Project PW21-03; and 2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. BACKGROUND: The Pickleball Courts Project is a parks/recreation project that will include the construction of a 17-court pickleball facility to replace the existing turf soccer field, also known as "The Pit", at Ronald Reagan Sports Park. The project includes seventeen (17) dedicated concrete pickleball courts (16 standard and 1 championship/ADA) with colored court surfacing, surrounded by a 10-ft-high chain link fence with windscreen. The facility also includes 3.5-ft-high interior chain link fencing to separate courts and contain ball play, outdoor amenities such as a prefabricated shade structure, spectator area, outdoor furniture, and a designated area for portable restrooms with a hand -washing station. Four existing Musco lights will be protected in place and re -focused to light the new facility. The facility will be ADA accessible and comply with current ADA standards. The parking lots will consist of gravel surfacing with solar -powered security lights. This advertisement will include two (2) additive alternative bids. Additive Alternative No. 1 modifies the Base Bid by replacing the westerly parking lot surfacing with asphalt concrete and installing additional solar -powered security lights. Similarly, Additive Alternative No. 2 modifies the Base Bid by replacing the easterly parking lot surfacing with asphalt concrete and installing additional solar -powered security lights. The plans and specifications are complete, and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. The contract documents are available for review in the Director of Public Works' office. The Engineer's estimate of construction cost is $1,980,000.00 for the Base Bid, $226,000.00 for Additive Alternate #1, and $244,000.00 for Additive Alternate #2, for a total of $2,450,000.00. The lowest bid will be determined by the lowest, responsive Base Bid. The construction duration is estimated to be 85 working days (approximately 4 months). The project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15301 states that minor additions to existing structures are Class 1 activities which are exempt from CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT: The Pickleball Court Project is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for Fiscal Years 2024-28, funded through Measure S and Developer Impact Fees (DIF). Sufficient funds are available in the project budget. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Project Description 2. Project Location Ak The Heart of Southern California Wine Country PICKLEBALL COURTS Parks/Recreation Project Project Description: Design and construct new dedicated pickleball courts at Ronald Reagan Sports Park. Benefit: This project will provide City residents with an additional popular amenity for enhanced recreational opportunities. Core Value: Healthy and Livable City Project Status: Project development, design, and environmental through Fiscal Year2023-24. Construction in Fiscal Year2024-25. Department: Public Works - Account No. 210.265.999.5800.PW21-03 / 787 Level: I City of Temecula Fiscal Years 2024-28 Capital Improvement Program Project Cost: Prior Years Actuals 2023-24 2022-23 Adopted 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28 Adjusted Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Project Cost 5801-Administration 31,479 78,521 248,418 358,418 5804-Construction 1,800,000 602,460 2,402,460 5805-Construction Engineering 50,000 50,000 5802-Design & Environmental 67,268 222,732 290,000 5809-Information Technology 200,000 200,000 Total Expenditures 1 98,7471 2,101,253 1,100,878 3,300,878 Source of Funds: 4244-DIF-Park & Rec Improvements 4002-Measure S 1,450,000 750,000 1,100,878 1,450,000 1,850,878 Total Funding - 2,200,000 1,100,878 3,300,878 Future Operating & Maintenance Costs: Total Operating Costs 174 Item No. 8 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 13, 2024 CALL TO ORDER at 7:11 PM: President Zak Schwank ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS -None CSD CONSENT CALENDAR Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar. Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-0): Motion by Stewart, Second by Kalfus. The vote reflected unanimous approval. 11. Approve Action Minutes of January 23, 2024 Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve action minutes of January 23, 2024. CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT At 7:14 PM, the Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 5:00 PM for a Closed Session, with a regular session commencing at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Zak Schwank, President ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] Item No. 9 ACTION MINUTES JOINT TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 13, 2024 CALL TO ORDER at 7:14 PM: Chair/Mayor James Stewart ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart TPFA PUBLIC COMMENTS — None TPFA / COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar. Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-0): Motion by Schwank, Second by Alexander. The vote reflected unanimous approval. 12. Approve Joint Action Minutes of January 23, 2024 Recommendation That the Board of Directors approve the joint action minutes of January 23, 2024. 13. Adopt Resolutions of Intention to Form CFD 23-01 (Altair), Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes on Property in CFD 23-01 (Altair), Incur Bonded Indebtedness for CFD 23-01 (Altair) and Approve Related Documents and Agreements Recommendation: That the Board of Directors and the City Council adopt the resolutions entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 2024-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF SPECIAL TAXES THEREIN - ALTAIR RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 2024-04 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE PROPOSED TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-01 (ALTAIR) RESOLUTION NO. 2024-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING JOINT COMMUNITY FACILITIES AGREEMENT RELATING TO THE FINANCING OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ACQUISITION AGREEMENT TPFA / COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 14. Approve Issuance of Special Tax Bonds for Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 20-01 (Heirloom Farms) Recommendation: That the City Council hold a public hearing relating to the proposed issuance of special tax bonds for the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 20-01 (Heirloom Farms), and that the Board of Directors and the City Council adopt the resolutions entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2023-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA MAKING FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO AND APPROVING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS BY THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 2024-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF SPECIAL TAX BONDS FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 20-01 (HEIRLOOM FARMS), AND APPROVING OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS AND ACTIONS Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-0): Motion by Kalfus, Second by Alexander. The vote reflected unanimous approval. TPFA/COUNCIL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT TPFA/COUNCIL BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS a TPFA/COUNCIL ADJOURNMENT At 7:23 PM, the Joint Temecula Public Financing Authority and City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 27, 2024 at 5:00 PM, for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. James Stewart, Chair/Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] Item No. 10 TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Board of Directors FROM: Aaron Adams, Executive Director DATE: February 27, 2024 SUBJECT: Adopt Resolutions to Form Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) PREPARED BY: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance/Treasurer RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors take the following actions: 1. That the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Board") hold a public hearing regarding the formation of the proposed Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) (the "CFD"), the levy of special taxes in the CFD, and the issuance of bonds by the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") for the CFD, and adopt the following resolutions entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF FORMATION OF TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02 (PRADO), AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN THE DISTRICT, AND PRELIMINARILY ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO. TPFA A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DETERMINING THE NECESSITY TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02 (PRADO) RESOLUTION NO. TPFA A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CALLING SPECIAL ELECTION WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02 (PRADO) 2. That the Board hold an election regarding the CFD, and adopt the resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DECLARING RESULTS OF SPECIAL ELECTION AND DIRECTING RECORDING OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN — COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO) 3. That the Board have the first reading of the ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. TPFA AN ORDINANCE OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY LEVYING SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO) BACKGROUND: In December of last year, in response to a request by Meritage Homes of California, Inc., a California corporation (the "Developer"), the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") adopted Resolution No. TPFA 2023-12 (the "Authority Resolution") and the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-93, pursuant to which they approved a Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement, subsequently executed by the Authority, the City and the Developer, whereby the Developer agreed to pay the costs of the Authority and the City in connection with the formation of a community facilities district. The Authority Resolution also designated various consultants to assist with the formation of the community facilities district. The Authority has now received a petition (including waivers) (the "Petition") from the Developer requesting that it move forward with the formation of the community facilities district for the purpose of financing public facilities, to fund the costs of municipal services, and to prepay special taxes being levied for an existing Authority community facilities district on property in the proposed CFD in connection with the planned Prado development project. The community facilities district is to be designated as the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) (the "CFD"). The CFD is generally located in the northerly portion of the City of Temecula, east of Interstate 15. The territory to be included within the boundaries of the CFD includes several County Assessor's parcels identified in the Petition, totaling 28.71 acres. On January 23, 2024, the Board adopted two resolutions related to the formation of the new CFD and set the date for a public hearing regarding the new CFD for February 27, 2024. On January 23, 2024, the City Council adopted a resolution approving a Joint Community Facilities Agreement with the Authority whereby the City agrees to own and operate certain facilities financed by the CFD, to provide the municipal services to be provided for by the CFD and to assist the Authority administer an Acquisition Agreement with the Developer pursuant to which the Developer will construct public improvements authorized to be funded by the CFD. The CFD will only include land currently owned by the Developer as delineated in the Petition. In the Petition, the Developer has requested that the CFD levy special taxes and issue bonds to provide funds to fund various public improvements identified in the Petition and to finance other costs of issuing the special tax bonds and of providing a reserve fund for the bonds. It is also expected that special taxes will be levied to fund the costs of certain municipal services identified in the Petition. The Authority proposes to use bond proceeds to finance the design, construction and installation of certain public improvements, including related incidental expenses, all as specified in the Resolution of Intention to Establish the CFD adopted by the Board on January 23, 2024. That Resolution authorized the Executive Director of the Authority to enter into Joint Community Facilities Agreements with the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD), pursuant to which the Authority will use the CFD bond proceeds to finance improvements to be designated by EMWD and TVUSD, which entities will then relieve the Developer of certain otherwise applicable fee obligations related to the construction of homes in the CFD. The facilities authorized to be funded by the CFD, when complete, will become the property of and will be maintained by the City, EMWD, and TVUSD, as appropriate. SPECIFIC ACTIONS: It is recommended that the Board receive and file a CFD Report prepared by the City's Public Works Director at the direction of the Authority and conduct a public hearing regarding (a) the establishment of the new CFD, (b) the levy of special taxes on property in the CFD, (c) the necessity to incur bonded indebtedness for the CFD, and (d) the establishment of an appropriation limit for the new CFD. If, following the public hearing, no protest has been filed by the Developer pertaining to the establishment of the CFD or the levy of special taxes within the new CFD, the Board will consider the adoption of the following resolutions: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF FORMATION OF TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02 (PRADO), AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN THE DISTRICT, AND PRELIMINARILY ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE DISTRICT A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DETERMINING THE NECESSITY TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO) A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CALLING SPECIAL ELECTION WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO) Following the adoption of the above resolutions, the City Clerk will open the ballot cast by the Developer, as the sole owner of the property in the CFD in the special election called for the new CFD for the ballot questions regarding (a) the authorization to levy special taxes within the CFD, (b) the authorization to issue bonds secured by the levy of such special taxes and (c) the establishment of an appropriations limit for the CFD. If the results of the special election reveal that the propositions have received the affirmative vote of the Developer, the Authority is then requested to take the following actions. Adopt the following resolution: A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DECLARING RESULTS OF SPECIAL ELECTION AND DIRECTING RECORDING OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN — COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO) Hold the first reading of the following ordinance: AN ORDINANCE OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY LEVYING SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO) FISCAL IMPACT: The Developer has agreed to pay all expenses incurred relative to the proposed formation of the new CFD and the issuance of bonds for the CFD. Costs of issuance of the proposed bond issue will be paid from the proceeds of the bonds expected to be issued by the Authority for the CFD in the future and bond proceeds may be used to reimburse the Developer for funds advanced by it in connection with the formation of the CFD and the bonds. All annual costs of administering the new CFD and the bonds issued for the CFD will be paid from a portion of the special taxes levied on the properties in the CFD. The bonds, if and when issued by the Authority for the new CFD, would be payable from special taxes levied on land in the new CFD and collected by the Authority. All costs of the City and the Authority to administer the Acquisition Agreement and the Joint Community Facilities Agreement will be paid for with proceeds of a portion of the special taxes levied on property of the CFD. ATTACHMENTS: 1. TPFA Resolution — Formation of CFD 2. TPFA Resolution — Incur Bonded Indebtedness 3. TPFA Resolution — Calling Special Election 4. TPFA Resolution — Declaring Special Election Results 5. TPFA Ordinance 6. CFD Report 7. Notice of Special Tax Lien RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY OF FORMATION OF TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO), AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN THE DISTRICT, AND PRELIMINARILY ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE DISTRICT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. On January 23, 2024, this Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. TPFA 2024-01 entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Declaring Its Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein — Prado" (the "Resolution of Intention") stating its intention to form the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) (the "District") pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, constituting Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code (the "Law"). Section 2. The Resolution of Intention, incorporating by reference a map of the proposed boundaries of the District and describing the public improvements (the "Facilities") and municipal services (the "Services"), and the prepayment of certain special taxes (the "Special Taxes"), eligible to be financed by the District, the cost of financing the Facilities and the Services, and the prepayment of the Special Taxes, and the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax to be levied within the District to pay the costs of the Facilities and the Services, and the prepayment of the Special Taxes, and to pay the principal and interest on bonds proposed to be issued with respect to the District, is on file with the Secretary and the provisions thereof are incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth herein. Section 3. On this date, this Board of Directors held the public hearing as required by the Law and the Resolution of Intention relative to the proposed formation of the District. Section 4. At the hearing all interested persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the formation of the District, the Facilities and the Services, and the prepayment of the Special Taxes eligible to be funded by the District, and the levy of the special tax, were heard and a full and fair hearing was held. Section 5. At the hearing evidence was presented to this Board of Directors on the matters before it, including a report by the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula (the "Report") as to the Facilities and the Services, and the prepayment of the Special Taxes eligible to be funded by the District and the costs thereof, a copy of which is on file with the Secretary, and this Board of Directors at the conclusion of the hearing was fully advised regarding the District. Section 6. Written protests with respect to the formation of the District and/or the furnishing of specified types of the Facilities or of the Services, or of the Special Taxes to be prepaid, as described in the Report, have not been filed with the Secretary by fifty percent (50%) or more of the registered voters residing within the territory of the District or the owners of one- half (1/2) or more of the area of land within the District and not exempt from the special tax. Section 7. The special tax proposed to be levied in the District to pay for the costs of the Facilities and the Services and the prepayment of the Special Taxes, as set forth in Exhibit B to the Resolution of Intention, has not been eliminated by protest by fifty percent (50%) or more of the registered voters residing within the territory of the District or the owners of one-half (1/2) or more of the area of land within the District and not exempt from the special tax. Section 8. On April 10, 2001, this Board of Directors adopted a resolution approving Local Goals and Policies for Community Facilities Districts, and this Board of Directors hereby finds and determines that the District is in conformity with said goals and policies. Section 9. All prior proceedings taken by this Board of Directors in connection with the establishment of the District and the levy of the special tax have been duly considered and are hereby found and determined to be valid and in conformity with the Law. Section 10. The community facilities district designated "Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado)" is hereby established pursuant to the Law. Section 11. The boundaries of the District, as described in the Resolution of Intention and set forth in the boundary map of the District recorded on February 7, 2024 at 10:11 a.m. in the Riverside County Recorder's Office in Book 92 of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts at Page 66 (instrument no. 2024-0034988), are hereby approved, are incorporated herein by this reference and shall be the boundaries of the District. Section 12. The types of facilities and services, and the prepayment of the special taxes, eligible to be funded by the District pursuant to the Law are as described in Exhibit A hereto which Exhibit is by this reference incorporated herein. This Board of Directors hereby finds that the Facilities and the Services are necessary to meet increased demands placed upon local agencies as the result of development occurring in the District. Section 13. Except to the extent that funds are otherwise available to the District to pay for the Facilities, the Services, the prepayment of the Special Taxes and/or to pay the principal and interest as it becomes due on bonds of the District issued to finance the Facilities and the prepayment of the Special Taxes, a special tax sufficient to pay the costs thereof, secured by recordation of a continuing lien against all non-exempt real property in the District, will be levied within the District and collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes or in such other manner as this Board of Directors shall determine, including direct billing of the affected property owners. The proposed rate and method of apportionment of the special tax among the parcels of real property within the District, in sufficient detail to allow each landowner within the proposed District to estimate the maximum amount such owner will have to pay, are described in Exhibit B to the Resolution of Intention which Exhibit is by this reference incorporated herein. This Board of Directors hereby finds that the basis for the levy and apportionment of the special tax, as set forth in the Rate and Method, is reasonable. Section 14. The Treasurer of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590, telephone number (951) 693-3945, is the officer of the Authority that will be responsible for preparing annually and whenever otherwise necessary a current roll of special tax levy obligations by assessor's parcel number and which will be responsible for estimating future special tax levies pursuant to Section 53340.2 of the Law. Section 15. Upon recordation of a notice of special tax lien pursuant to Section 3114.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code, a continuing lien to secure each levy of the special tax shall attach to all nonexempt real property in the District and this lien shall continue in force and effect until the special tax obligation is prepaid and permanently satisfied and the lien canceled in accordance with law or until collection of the tax by the Authority ceases. Section 16. In accordance with Section 53325.7 of the Law, the appropriations limit, as defined by subdivision (h) of Section 8 of Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, of the District is hereby preliminarily established at $20,000,000 and said appropriations limit shall be submitted to the voters of the District as provided below. The proposition establishing the appropriations limit shall become effective if approved by the qualified electors voting thereon and shall be adjusted in accordance with the applicable provisions of Section 53325.7 of the Law. Section 17. Pursuant to the provisions of the Law, the proposition of the levy of the special tax and the proposition of the establishment of the appropriations limit specified above shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the District as separate ballot measures at an election, the time, place and conditions of which election shall be as specified by a separate resolution of this Board of Directors. Section 18. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 27th day of February, 2024. James Stewart, Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: I_ : W: I :T97_11 to] 07L1aL10.1a C� ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Randi Johl, Secretary EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL TAXES, FACILITIES AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES ELIGIBLE TO BE FUNDED BY THE DISTRICT SPECIAL TAXES TO BE PREPAID It is proposed that the District be eligible to finance all or a portion of any amount necessary to eliminate any fixed special assessment liens, or to pay, repay, or defease any obligation to pay or any indebtedness secured by any tax, fee, charge, or assessment levied within the area of the CFD (including, but not limited to the lien of special taxes by the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 01-2 (Harveston)), or to pay debt service on any such indebtedness. FACILITIES It is proposed that the District be eligible to finance all or a portion of the costs of the following facilities: The acquisition and construction of: streets (including paving, aggregate base, striping and traffic marking, sidewalks, curbs, gutters and driveways), including Temecula Center Drive, Ynez Road and Date Street within and in the vicinity of the District; stormwater drainage systems (including storm drain lines, inlets, outlets, channels, structures, junctions, manholes, catch basins and related dewatering); street light improvements (including light fixtures, substructures, conduits and service points of connection); and street signage (including traffic, stop and street name signs). The foregoing are to include the acquisition of any related right-of-way and other land needed for the installation of any such improvements, demolition of existing structures and site leveling needed for the installation of any such improvements, erosion control, and other appurtenances. • The acquisition and installation of traffic signal improvements, including traffic signal interconnection and video surveillance systems, at the intersection of Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive. • Landscaping improvements in the public right of way along or in the vicinity of Temecula Center Drive, Date Street and Ynez Road, including related appurtenances. • Capital improvements included in the City of Temecula's adopted Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2024-2028. • School improvements to be designated by the Temecula Valley Unified School District, which may include construction of buildings, equipping of school facilities, and acquisition of support and other appurtenances with a useful life of five years or more. • Sewer system improvements to be designated by the Eastern Municipal Water District. Water facilities to be designated by the Rancho California Water District. A-1 The Facilities include the acquisition of right-of-way, the costs of design, engineering and planning, the costs of any environmental or traffic studies, surveys or other reports, the cost of any required environmental mitigation and any required noise mitigation measures, landscaping and irrigation, soils testing, permits, plan check and inspection fees, insurance, legal and related overhead costs, coordination and supervision and any other costs or appurtenances related to any of the foregoing. MUNICIPAL SERVICES It is proposed that the District be eligible to fund all or a portion of the costs of the following municipal services: • Public safety services, including police and fire protection. • Maintenance of parks, and landscaping in public areas, public easements and public right of way in or near the area of the District, such maintenance to include but not be limited to maintenance of planting areas, trees, bioretention filters, multipurpose trails, and the furnishing of water for irrigation. • Maintenance of public signage in or near the District. • Maintenance of storm drainage systems within or serving the area of the District, and including storm drain pipes, culverts, detention/desilting basins, manholes, catch basins and drop inlets, cleanout of storm drains and catch basin cleaning and inspection. • Maintenance of sidewalks, streets and roadways within or in the vicinity of the area of the District, and including slurry, overlay, curbs and gutters, curb ramps, striping and street sweeping. • Maintenance of street lighting located within or in the vicinity of the District, and including decorative lighting and pull box assemblies. • Maintenance of traffic signals, and traffic interconnection and video surveillance systems, within and in the vicinity of the District, and including electrical, LED replacement, maintenance and replacement. • Graffiti removal from public improvements within and in the area of the District. The District may fund any of the following related to the services described above: the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the improvements, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the improvements, the furnishing of water for the irrigation and the furnishing of electric current or energy, for any lights or irrigation facilities, obtaining, constructing, furnishing, operating and maintaining equipment, apparatus or facilities related to providing the services and/or equipment, apparatus, facilities or fixtures in areas to be maintained, obtaining supplies or appurtenant facilities necessary for such maintenance, paying the salaries and benefits of personnel necessary or convenient to provide the services, payment of insurance costs and other related expenses. The District may also provide for the reimbursement to the City of Temecula to the extent that the City of Temecula advances funds to pay for any of the foregoing services, and may fund reserves for repairs and replacements and for future expected costs of services. It is A-2 expected that the services will be provided by the City of Temecula, either with its own employees or by contract with third parties, or any combination thereof. The services to be financed by the District shall be in addition to those provided in the territory of the District before the date of creation of the District, and will not supplant services already available within that territory when the District is created. OTHER It is expected that the District may also finance any of the following: 1. Bond related expenses, including underwriters discount, appraisal and price point study costs, reserve fund, capitalized interest, bond and disclosure counsel fees and expenses, landowner counsel fees and expenses, and all other incidental expenses related to any special tax bonds (the "Bonds") issued for the District. 2. Administrative fees of the Authority, the City of Temecula and the Bond trustee or fiscal agent related to the District and the Bonds. 3. Reimbursement of costs related to the formation of the District advanced by the Authority, the City of Temecula, any landowner in the District, or any party related to any of the foregoing, as well as reimbursement of any costs advanced by the Authority, the City of Temecula, any landowner in the District or any party related to any of the foregoing, for facilities, fees or other purposes or costs of the District. A-3 RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DETERMINING THE NECESSITY TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02 (PRADO) THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. On January 23, 2024, this Board of Directors adopted Resolution No. TPFA 2024-01 entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Declaring Its Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein — Prado" (the "Resolution of Intention") stating its intention to form the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) (the "District"), pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, California Government Code Section 53311 et seq. (the "Law"), to fund costs of certain public improvements (the "Facilities"), of certain municipal services (the "Services") and the prepayment of certain special taxes (the "Special Taxes"), as described therein. Section 2. On January 23, 2024, this Board of Directors also adopted Resolution No. TPFA 2024-02 entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Declaring Its Intention to Incur Bonded Indebtedness of the Proposed Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado)" (the "Resolution of Intention to Incur Indebtedness") stating its intention to incur bonded indebtedness within the boundaries of the District for the purpose of financing costs of the Facilities and the prepayment of the Special Taxes. Section 3. On this date, this Board of Directors held the public hearing as required by the Law and the Resolution of Intention relative to the determination to proceed with the formation of the District, the provision by the District of funds to pay costs of the Facilities, the Services and the prepayment of the Special Taxes, and the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax to be levied within the District to pay the principal and interest on the proposed indebtedness and the administrative costs of the Authority and the City of Temecula relative to the District. Section 4. At the hearing all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the formation of the District, the provision of funds to pay the costs of the Facilities, the Services and the prepayment of the Special Taxes and the levy of the special tax on property within the District, were heard and a full and fair hearing was held. Section 5. Subsequent to the hearing, this Board of Directors adopted a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority of Formation of Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado), Authorizing The Levy Of A Special Tax Within The District, and Preliminarily Establishing An Appropriations Limit For The District" (the "Resolution of Formation"). Section 6. On this date, this Board of Directors held the public hearing as required by the Law relative to the matters material to the questions set forth in the Resolution of Intention to Incur Indebtedness. Section 7. No written protests with respect to the matters material to the questions set forth in the Resolution of Intention to Incur Indebtedness have been filed with the Secretary. Section 8. This Board of Directors deems it necessary to incur bonded indebtedness in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $20,000,000 within the boundaries of the District. Section 9. The indebtedness is incurred for the purpose of financing costs of the Facilities and the prepayment of the Special Taxes, as provided in the Resolution of Formation including, but not limited to, the costs of issuing and selling bonds to finance costs of the Authority and the City of Temecula in administering the District. Section 10. The whole of the District shall pay for the bonded indebtedness through the levy of the special tax. The special tax is to be apportioned in accordance with the Rate and Method set forth in Exhibit B to the Resolution of Intention. Section 11. The maximum amount of bonded indebtedness to be incurred is $20,000,000 and the maximum term of the bonds to be issued shall in no event exceed forty (40) years. Section 12. The bonds shall bear interest at a rate or rates not to exceed the maximum interest rate permitted by applicable law at the time of sale of the bonds, payable weekly, semiannually or in such other manner as this Board of Directors or its designee shall determine, the actual rate or rates and times of payment of such interest to be determined by this Board of Directors or its designee at the time or times of sale of the bonds. Section 13. The proposition of incurring the bonded indebtedness herein authorized shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the District and shall be on the same ballot, as a separate ballot measure, with elections on the proposition of levying special taxes within the District and the establishment of an appropriations limit for the District. The time, place and conditions of said election shall be as specified by separate resolution of this Board of Directors. Section 14. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. N PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 27th day of February, 2024. James Stewart, Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: I_ : W: I :T97_11 to] 07L1aL10.1a C� ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Randi Johl, Secretary RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CALLING SPECIAL ELECTION WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02 (PRADO) THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. On this date, this Board of Directors adopted a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority of Formation of Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado), Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax Within the District, and Preliminarily Establishing an Appropriations Limit for the District" (the "Resolution of Formation"), ordering the formation of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) (the "District"), authorizing the levy of a special tax on property within the District and preliminarily establishing an appropriations limit for the District. Section 2. On this date, this Board of Directors also adopted a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Determining the Necessity to Incur Bonded Indebtedness of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado)" (the "Resolution to Incur Indebtedness"), determining the necessity to incur bonded indebtedness in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $20,000,000 upon the security of the special tax to be levied within the District. Section 3. Pursuant to Sections 53325.7, 53326 and 53351 of the California Government Code (the "Law"), the issues of the levy of said special tax, the incurring of bonded indebtedness and the establishment of said appropriations limit shall be submitted to the qualified electors of the District at an election called therefor as provided below. Section 4. The three propositions described in Section 3 above shall be separate ballot measures included on a single ballot, the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and by this reference incorporated herein. The form of ballot is hereby approved. Section 5. This Board of Directors hereby finds that fewer than 12 persons have been registered to vote within the territory of the District for each of the ninety (90) days preceding the close of the public hearings heretofore conducted and concluded by this Board of Directors for the purposes of these proceedings. Accordingly, and pursuant to Section 53326(b) of the Law, this Board of Directors finds that for purposes of these proceedings the sole qualified elector is the owner of all of the land within the District and that the vote shall be by said landowner or its authorized representative, having one vote for each acre or portion thereof such landowner owns in the District as of the close of the public hearings. Section 6. This Board of Directors hereby calls a special election to consider the three ballot measures described in Section 4 above, which election shall be held immediately following adoption of this Resolution in the meeting place of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority"). The Secretary is hereby designated as the official to conduct said election. It is hereby acknowledged that the Secretary has on file the Resolution of Formation, a map of the proposed boundaries of the District, and a sufficient description to allow the Secretary to determine the boundaries of the District. Section 7. Pursuant to Section 53327 of the Law, the election shall be conducted by mail or hand delivered ballot pursuant to applicable provisions of the California Elections Code. The voted ballot shall be returned to the Secretary no later than immediately following the adoption of this Resolution; and when the qualified elector has voted, the election shall be closed. Section 8. This Board of Directors acknowledges that the Secretary has delivered the ballot to the sole qualified elector of the District in the form set forth in Exhibit A hereto. The ballot indicated the number of votes to be voted by the landowner. The ballot was accompanied by all supplies and written instructions necessary for the use and return of the ballot. The envelope to be used to return ballot was enclosed with the ballot, had the return postage prepaid, and contained the following: (a) the name and address of the landowner, (b) a declaration, under penalty of perjury, stating that the voter is the owner of record or authorized representative of the landowner entitled to vote and is the person whose name appears on the envelope, (c) the printed name, signature and address of the voter, (d) the date of signing and place of execution of the declaration pursuant to clause (b) above, and (e) a notice that the envelope contains an official ballot and is to be opened only by the Secretary. Analysis and arguments with respect to the ballot measures were waived by the landowner in its petition to the Authority to create the District and are expected to be waived by the landowner in its voted ballot, as permitted by Section 53327(b) of the Law. Section 9. The Secretary shall accept the ballot of the qualified elector upon and prior to the adoption of this Resolution, whether the ballot be personally delivered or received by mail. The Secretary shall have available a ballot which may be marked in the Board of Directors meeting room on the election day by the qualified elector. Section 10. This Board of Directors hereby further finds that the provision of the Law requiring a minimum of 90 days following the adoption of the Resolution of Formation to elapse before said special election is for the protection of the qualified elector of the District. The petition previously submitted by the landowner in the District and the voted ballot of the sole qualified elector of the District contain waivers of notices of hearings and notices of election, waiting periods for the election, ballot analysis and arguments in connection with the election, and any otherwise required form of the ballot. Accordingly, this Board of Directors finds and determines that the qualified elector has been fully apprised of and has agreed to the shortened time for the election and waiver of analysis and arguments, and has thereby been fully protected in these proceedings. This Board of Directors also finds and determines that the Secretary has concurred in the shortened time for the election. Section 11. Pursuant to the Local Agency Special Tax and Bond Accountability Act, Sections 50075.1 et. seq. and Sections 53410 et. seq. of the California Government Code, (a) (i) N the ballot measure pertaining to the levy of special taxes referred to in Sections 3 and 4 above contains a statement indicating the specific purposes of the special tax, (ii) the proceeds of the special tax shall be applied only to the purposes specified in the ballot measure, (iii) there shall be created by the Treasurer an account into which proceeds of the special tax levies will be deposited, and (iv) the Treasurer is hereby directed to provide an annual report to this Board of Directors as required by Section 50075.3 of the California Government Code; and (b) (i) the ballot measure pertaining to the incurring of bonded indebtedness contains a statement indicating the specific purposes of the bonds, (ii) the proceeds of the bonds shall be applied only to the purposes specified in the ballot measure, (iii) there shall be created by the Treasurer an account into which the proceeds of the bonds will be deposited, and (iv) the Treasurer is hereby directed to provide an annual report to this Board of Directors as required by Section 53411 of the California Government Code. Section 12. The Secretary is hereby directed to cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation circulating within the District a copy of this Resolution and a copy of the Resolution to Incur Indebtedness, as soon as practicable after the date of adoption of this Resolution. Section 13. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 27th day of February, 2024. James Stewart, Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Randi Johl, Secretary EXHIBIT A TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO) OFFICIAL BALLOT Special Tax and Bond Election (February 27, 2024) This ballot is for a special, landowner election. You must return this ballot in the enclosed postage paid envelope to the Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority no later than immediately after adoption of the resolution of the Board of Directors calling said election, either by mail or in person. To vote, mark a cross (X) on the voting line after the word "YES" or after the word "NO". All marks otherwise made are forbidden. All distinguishing marks are forbidden and make the ballot void. If you wrongly mark, tear, or deface this ballot, return it to the Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority and obtain another. BALLOT MEASURE A: Shall the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado), in order to finance facilities, services, special tax prepayment, and administrative expenses, be authorized to Yes: ❑ levy Special Tax A, Special Tax B and Special Tax C at rates from $3,740 — $4,220 per dwelling unit and $83,890 per acre increasing 2% each fiscal year No: ❑ through fiscal year 2065-66, plus initially $420 per unit and $8,904 per acre increasing in transition year and at 5.6% each fiscal year in perpetuity, as specified in Resolution TPFA 2024-06 adopted February 27, 2024? BALLOT MEASURE B: Shall the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado), in order to finance certain Yes: ❑ facilities, prepayment of special taxes, fund a reserve fund and pay costs of issuance, be authorized to incur bonded indebtedness in a maximum amount of No: ❑ not to exceed $20,000,000 as specified in Resolution TPFA 2024-07 adopted February 27, 2024? BALLOT MEASURE C: Shall the annual appropriations limit, as defined by subdivision (h) of Section 8 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution, of the Yes: ❑ Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) be established at $20,000,000, as specified in Resolution TPFA 2024- No: ❑ 06 adopted February 27, 2024? By execution in the space provided below, you also indicate your waiver of the time limit pertaining to the conduct of the election and any requirement for analysis and arguments with respect to the ballot measures, as such waivers are described and permitted by Section 53326(a) and 53327(b) of the California Government Code. Number of Votes for each Ballot Measure: 29 Property Owner: Meritage Homes of California, Inc., a California corporation By: Its: RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DECLARING RESULTS OF SPECIAL ELECTION AND DIRECTING RECORDING OF NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN — COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO) THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. In proceedings heretofore conducted by this Board of Directors pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code (the "Law"), this Board of Directors on this date adopted a resolution entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Calling Special Election Within Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado)", calling for a special election of the qualified electors within the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) (the "District"). Section 2. Pursuant to the terms of said resolution, which are by this reference incorporated herein, the special election was held on this date, and the Secretary has on file a Canvass and Statement of Results of Election, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Section 3. This Board of Directors has reviewed the canvass and hereby approves it. Section 4. The issues presented at the special election were the incurring of a bonded indebtedness in the maximum aggregate principal amount of $20,000,000, the levy of a special tax within the District to be levied in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes heretofore approved by this Board of Directors by its resolution adopted this date entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority of Formation of Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado), Authorizing Levy of a Special Tax Within the District, and Preliminarily Establishing an Appropriations Limit for the District," and the approval of an appropriations limit of not to exceed $20,000,000 pursuant to said Resolution. Section 5. Pursuant to the canvass of the special election on file with the Secretary, the issues presented at the special election each were approved by the sole qualified elector of the District by its votes cast at the special election. Section 6. Pursuant to the voter approval, the District is hereby declared to be fully formed with the authority to incur bonded indebtedness and to levy special taxes as heretofore provided in these proceedings and in the Law. Section 7. It is hereby found that all prior proceedings and actions taken by this Board of Directors with respect to the District were valid and in conformity with the Law. Section 8. The Secretary is hereby directed to execute and cause to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Riverside a notice of special tax lien in the form required by the Law, said recording to occur no later than fifteen days following adoption by the Board of Directors of this Resolution. Section 9. This Resolution shall take effect upon its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 27th day of February, 2024. James Stewart, Chair ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the 27th day of February, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: NOES: BOARD MEMBERS: I_ : W: I :T97_11 to] 07L1aL10.1a C� ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Randi Johl, Secretary EXHIBIT A CANVASS AND STATEMENT OF RESULT OF ELECTION TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO) I hereby certify that on February 27, 2024, 1 canvassed the returns of the special election held on February 27, 2024, in the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) and the total number of ballots cast in said District and the total number of votes cast for and against the ballot measures are as follows and the totals as shown for and against each measure are full, true and correct: BALLOT MEASURE A: Shall the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado), in order to finance facilities, services, special tax prepayment, and administrative expenses be authorized to levy Special Tax A, Special Tax B and Special Tax C at rates from $3,740 — $4,220 per dwelling unit and $83,890 per acre increasing 2% each fiscal year through fiscal year 2065-66, plus initially $420 per unit and $8,904 per acre increasing in transition year and at 5.6% each fiscal year in perpetuity, as specified in Resolution TPFA 2024-06 adopted February 27, 2024? Qualified Landowner Votes Votes Cast YES NO 29 Qualified Landowner Votes Votes Cast YES NO BALLOT MEASURE B: Shall the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado), in order to finance certain facilities, prepayment of special 29 taxes, fund a reserve fund and pay costs of issuance, be authorized to incur bonded indebtedness in a maximum amount of not to exceed $20,000,000 as specified in Resolution TPFA 2024-07 adopted February 27, 2024? A-1 Qualified Landowner Votes Votes Cast YES NO BALLOT MEASURE C: Shall the annual appropriations limit, as defined by subdivision (h) of Section 8 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution, of the Temecula Public 29 Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) be established at $20,000,000, as specified in Resolution TPFA 2024-06 adopted February 27, 2024? IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND this 27th day of February, 2024. M Secretary, Temecula Public Financing Authority A-2 ORDINANCE NO. TPFA 2024- AN ORDINANCE OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY LEVYING SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02 (PRADO) THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. On January 23, 2024, this Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") adopted Resolution No. TPFA 2024-01 entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Declaring Its Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein — Prado" (the "Resolution of Intention"), stating its intention to establish the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code (the "Law"), to finance the costs of certain public improvements (the "Facilities") and of certain municipal services (the "Services"), and the cost to prepay certain special taxes (the "Special Taxes"). Section 2. Notice was published as required by the Law of the public hearing called pursuant to the Resolution of Intention relative to the intention of this Board of Directors to form the District and to provide for the costs of the Facilities, the Services and the prepayment of the Special Taxes. Section 3. The Resolution of Intention called for a public hearing on the District to be held on February 27, 2024 and on such date this Board of Directors held the public hearing relative to the determination to proceed with the formation of the District. Section 4. At the public hearing all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the formation of the District and the levy of special taxes in the District were heard, substantial evidence was presented and considered by this Board of Directors and a full and fair hearing was held. Section 5. Subsequent to said hearing, this Board of Directors adopted resolutions entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority of Formation of Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado), Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax Within the District, and Preliminarily Establishing an Appropriations Limit for the District" (the "Resolution of Formation"), "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Determining the Necessity to Incur Bonded Indebtedness of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado)" (the "Resolution of Necessity") and "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Calling Special Election Within Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado)", which resolutions established the District, authorized the levy of a special tax on property within the District, and called an election within the District on the proposition of incurring indebtedness, levying the special tax and establishing an appropriations limit for the District. Section 6. On February 27, 2024 an election was held within the District in which the sole eligible landowner elector approved said propositions. Section 7. By the passage of this Ordinance this Board of Directors hereby authorizes and levies special taxes within the District, pursuant to the Law, at the rate and in accordance with the rate and method of apportionment of special taxes for the District approved by the Resolution of Formation (the "Rate and Method") which Resolution is by this reference incorporated herein. The special taxes are hereby levied commencing in Fiscal Year 2024-2025 and in each fiscal year thereafter until payment in full of any bonds issued by the Authority for the District (the "Bonds") as contemplated by the Resolution of Formation and the Resolution of Necessity, payment in full of all costs of administering the District, and so long as necessary to pay for the Services. Section 8. The Authority Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to work with the Finance Director for the City of Temecula (who is identified as the "CFD Administrator" in the Rate and Method) each fiscal year to determine the specific special tax rate and amount to be levied for each parcel of real property within the District, in the manner and as provided in the Rate and Method. Section 9. Properties or entities of the State, federal or local governments shall be exempt from any levy of the special taxes, to the extent set forth in the Rate and Method attached as Exhibit B to the Resolution of Intention. In no event shall the special taxes be levied on any parcel within the District in excess of the maximum tax specified in the Rate and Method. Section 10. All of the collections of the special tax shall be used as provided for in the Law and in the Resolution of Formation including the payment of principal and interest on the Bonds, the replenishment of the reserves for the Bonds, the payment of the costs to provide the Facilities and the Services, and to prepay the Special Taxes, the costs of the Authority and the City of Temecula in administering the District, and the costs of collecting and administering the special tax. Section 11. The special taxes shall be collected from time to time as necessary to meet the financial obligations of the District on the secured real property tax roll in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem taxes are collected. The special taxes shall have the same lien priority, and be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in cases of delinquency as provided for ad valorem taxes. In addition, the provisions of Section 53356.1 of the California Government Code shall apply to delinquent special tax payments. The Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to provide all necessary information to the auditor/tax collector of the County of Riverside and to otherwise take all actions necessary in order to effect proper billing and collection of the special tax, so that the special tax shall be levied and collected in sufficient amounts and at the times necessary to satisfy the financial obligations of the District in each fiscal year. N Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Treasurer may collect one or more installments of the special taxes on any one or more parcels in the District by means of direct billing by the Authority of the property owners within the District, if any of the Bonds bear interest at a variable interest rate, or otherwise if, in the judgment of the Treasurer, such means of collection will reduce the administrative burden on the Authority in administering the District or is otherwise appropriate in the circumstances. In such event, the special taxes shall become delinquent if not paid when due as set forth in any such respective billing to the applicable property owners. Section 12. If for any reason any portion of this Ordinance is found to be invalid, or if the special tax is found inapplicable to any particular parcel within the District, by a Court of competent jurisdiction, the balance of this Ordinance, and the application of the special tax to the remaining parcels within the District shall not be affected. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority this 27th day of February, 2024. ATTEST: Randi Johl, Secretary [SEAL] James Stewart, Chair 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Randi Johl, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. TPFA 2024- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority on the 271h day of February, 2024, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting thereof held on the day of , , by the following vote: AYES: BOARD MEMBERS: loco] T97_11to] 07L1aL10.1a C� ABSTAIN: BOARD MEMBERS: ABSENT: BOARD MEMBERS: Randi Johl, Secretary Quint & Thimmig LLP 2/4/24 2/13/24 TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02 (PRADO) COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT REPORT CONTENTS Introduction A. Description of Special Taxes eligible to be Prepaid, and the Facilities and the Municipal Services eligible to be Funded B. Proposed Boundaries of the Community Facilities District C. Cost Estimate Exhibit A — Description of Special Taxes eligible to be Prepaid, and the Facilities and the Municipal Services eligible to be Funded Exhibit B — Cost Estimate 20009.24:J19205 TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO) INTRODUCTION. The Board of Directors (the "Board of Directors") of the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority") did, pursuant to the provisions of the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the "Law"), on January 23, 2024, adopt Resolution No. TPFA 2024-01 entitled "A Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority Declaring Its Intention to Establish a Community Facilities District and to Authorize the Levy of Special Taxes Therein — Prado" (the "Resolution of Intention"). In the Resolution of Intention, the Board of Directors expressly ordered the preparation of a written Community Facilities District Report (the "Report"), for the proposed Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) (the "District"). The Resolution of Intention ordering the Report did direct that the Report generally contain the following: 1. A brief description of the special taxes eligible to be prepaid and the facilities and the municipal services eligible to be funded by the District; and 2. An estimate of the fair and reasonable cost of providing for the prepayment of the special taxes, and the funding of the facilities and the municipal services, including the incidental expenses in connection therewith, including the costs of the proposed bond financing, any Authority or City of Temecula administrative costs and all other related costs. For particulars, reference is made to the Resolution of Intention, as previously approved and adopted by the Board of Directors. NOW, THEREFORE, 1, the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula, do hereby submit the following data: A. DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL TAXES ELIGIBLE TO BE PREPAID, AND THE FACILITIES AND THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES ELIGIBLE TO BE FUNDED. A brief description of the special taxes eligible to be prepaid and the facilities and municipal services that the Authority has determined to be eligible to be funded by the District are as shown in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. B. PROPOSED BOUNDARIES OF THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT. The proposed boundaries of the District are those properties and parcels in which special taxes may be levied to pay for the cost to prepay certain special taxes, and the costs and expenses of the facilities and municipal services to be funded by the District. The proposed boundaries of the District are described in the map of the District recorded on February 7, 2024 at the hour of 10:11 o'clock a.m. in Book 92 at Page 66 of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts in the office of the County Recorder for the County of Riverside (instrument no. 2024- 0034988), a copy of which map is on file with the Secretary. -1- C. COST ESTIMATE. The cost estimate of the funding for the prepayment of the special taxes, the facilities, and the annual municipal services is set forth in Exhibit 'B" attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. Dated: 2024 as Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula -2- EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL TAXES, FACILITIES AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES ELIGIBLE TO BE FUNDED BY THE DISTRICT SPECIAL TAXES TO BE PREPAID It is proposed that the District be eligible to finance all or a portion of any amount necessary to eliminate any fixed special assessment liens, or to pay, repay, or defease any obligation to pay or any indebtedness secured by any tax, fee, charge, or assessment levied within the area of the CID (including, but not limited to the lien of special taxes by the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 01-2 (Harveston)), or to pay debt service on any such indebtedness. FACILITIES It is proposed that the District be eligible to finance all or a portion of the costs of the following facilities: • The acquisition and construction of: streets (including paving, aggregate base, striping and traffic marking, sidewalks, curbs, gutters and driveways), including Temecula Center Drive, Ynez Road and Date Street within and in the vicinity of the District; stormwater drainage systems (including storm drain lines, inlets, outlets, channels, structures, junctions, manholes, catch basins and related dewatering); street light improvements (including light fixtures, substructures, conduits and service points of connection); and street signage (including traffic, stop and street name signs). The foregoing are to include the acquisition of any related right-of-way and other land needed for the installation of any such improvements, demolition of existing structures and site leveling needed for the installation of any such improvements, erosion control, and other appurtenances. • The acquisition and installation of traffic signal improvements, including traffic signal interconnection and video surveillance systems, at the intersection of Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive. • Landscaping improvements in the public right of way along or in the vicinity of Temecula Center Drive, Date Street and Ynez Road, including related appurtenances. • Capital improvements included in the City of Temecula's adopted Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2024-2028. • School improvements to be designated by the Temecula Valley Unified School District, which may include construction of buildings, equipping of school facilities, and acquisition of support and other appurtenances with a useful life of five years or more. • Sewer system improvements to be designated by the Eastern Municipal Water District. • Water facilities to be designated by the Rancho California Water District. The Facilities include the acquisition of right-of-way, the costs of design, engineering and planning, the costs of any environmental or traffic studies, surveys or other reports, the cost of any required environmental mitigation and any required noise mitigation measures, landscaping and irrigation, soils testing, permits, plan check and inspection fees, insurance, legal and related overhead costs, coordination and supervision and any other costs or appurtenances related to any of the foregoing. A-1 MUNICIPAL SERVICES It is proposed that the District be eligible to fund all or a portion of the costs of the following municipal services: • Public safety services, including police and fire protection. • Maintenance of parks, and landscaping in public areas, public easements and public right of way in or near the area of the District, such maintenance to include but not be limited to maintenance of planting areas, trees, bioretention filters, multipurpose trails, and the furnishing of water for irrigation. • Maintenance of public signage in or near the District. • Maintenance of storm drainage systems within or serving the area of the District, and including storm drain pipes, culverts, detention/desilting basins, manholes, catch basins and drop inlets, cleanout of storm drains and catch basin cleaning and inspection. • Maintenance of sidewalks, streets and roadways within or in the vicinity of the area of the District, and including slurry, overlay, curbs and gutters, curb ramps, striping and street sweeping. • Maintenance of street lighting located within or in the vicinity of the District, and including decorative lighting and pull box assemblies. • Maintenance of traffic signals, and traffic interconnection and video surveillance systems, within and in the vicinity of the District, and including electrical, LED replacement, maintenance and replacement. • Graffiti removal from public improvements within and in the area of the District. The District may fund any of the following related to the services described above: the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the improvements, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the improvements, the furnishing of water for the irrigation and the furnishing of electric current or energy, for any lights or irrigation facilities, obtaining, constructing, furnishing, operating and maintaining equipment, apparatus or facilities related to providing the services and / or equipment, apparatus, facilities or fixtures in areas to be maintained, obtaining supplies or appurtenant facilities necessary for such maintenance, paying the salaries and benefits of personnel necessary or convenient to provide the services, payment of insurance costs and other related expenses. The District may also provide for the reimbursement to the City of Temecula to the extent that the City of Temecula advances funds to pay for any of the foregoing services, and may fund reserves for repairs and replacements and for future expected costs of services. It is expected that the services will be provided by the City of Temecula, either with its own employees or by contract with third parties, or any combination thereof. The services to be financed by the District shall be in addition to those provided in the territory of the District before the date of creation of the District, and will not supplant services already available within that territory when the District is created. It is expected that the District may also finance any of the following: 1. Bond related expenses, including underwriters discount, appraisal and price point study costs, reserve fund, capitalized interest, bond and disclosure counsel fees and expenses, landowner counsel fees and expenses, and all other incidental expenses related to any special tax bonds (the "Bonds") issued for the District. A-2 2. Administrative fees of the Authority, the City of Temecula and the Bond trustee or fiscal agent related to the District and the Bonds. 3. Reimbursement of costs related to the formation of the District advanced by the Authority, the City of Temecula, any landowner in the District, or any party related to any of the foregoing, as well as reimbursement of any costs advanced by the Authority, the City of Temecula, any landowner in the District or any party related to any of the foregoing, for facilities, fees or other purposes or costs of the District. A-3 EXHIBIT B TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02 (PRADO) PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAXES ESTIMATE The cost to prepay the special taxes levied on property in the District for the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 01-2 (Harveston), if the special taxes were prepaid on July 1, 2024, is estimated to be $191,706.97; consisting of the following: bond redemption amount $208,536.25, bond redemption premium $4,170.72, less a reserve fund credit of $21,000.00. BONDS / FACILITIES COST ESTIMATE Acquisition & Construction of Facilities Incidentals (a) Bond Reserve Fund (b) Capitalized Interest (c) Bond Discount/Underwriter Compensation (d) Other Costs of Issuance Subtotal Incidentals: Total Bond Amount Needed $1,311,000 692,000 500,000 400,000 MUNICIPAL SERVICES COST ESTIMATE $17,097,000 $ 2,903,000 $ 20,000,000 The maximum annual special tax that may be levied in the District to pay costs of providing the services eligible to be funded by the District is projected to be $99,540.00 for fiscal year 2024-25 (assuming buildout of 237 homes expected to be constructed in the District), increasing each fiscal year thereafter by an amount equal to five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the amount in effect for the previous fiscal year; to be replaced by a maximum special tax projected to be $4,025.20 per unit for the Transition Year (as defined in the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Taxes for the District), that will increase, each fiscal year following the Transition Year by an amount equal to five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) over the amount in effect for the previous fiscal year. IM Quint & Thimmig LLP 2/4/24 2/13/24 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF TEMECULA 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES Pursuant to Government Code Sections 6103 and 27383 NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02 (PRADO) 20009.24:J19210 NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) Pursuant to the requirements of Section 3114.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code and Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code, the undersigned Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the "Authority"), County of Riverside, State of California, hereby gives notice that a lien to secure payment of a special tax which the Board of Directors of the Authority authorized, is hereby imposed. The special tax secured by this lien is authorized to be levied for the purpose of paying principal and interest on bonds, the proceeds of which are being used to finance the costs of certain public facilities and the prepayment of certain special taxes, as well as pay for the public facilities and certain municipal services and administrative expenses, all as described on Exhibit A attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. The special tax is authorized to be levied within the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) which has now been officially formed and the lien of the special tax is a continuing lien which shall secure each annual levy of the special tax and which shall continue in force and effect until the special tax obligation is permanently satisfied and cancelled in accordance with law or until the special tax ceases to be levied and a notice of cessation of special tax is recorded in accordance with Section 53330.5 of the Government Code. The rate, method of apportionment, and manner of collection of the authorized special tax is as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. Conditions under which the obligation to pay the Special Tax A may be prepaid in part or in full and permanently satisfied in part or in full are as provided in Exhibit B hereto. Special Tax B and Special Tax C may not be prepaid. Notice is further given that upon the recording of this notice in the office of the County Recorder, the obligation to pay the special tax levy shall become a lien upon all nonexempt real property within the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23- 02 (Prado) in accordance with Section 3115.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code. The name(s) of the owner(s) of the real property included within the area of this community facilities district and the assessor's tax parcel(s) numbers of all parcels or any portion thereof which are included within the area of this community facilities district, in each case which are not exempt from the special tax and as they appear on the latest secured assessment roll as of the date of recording of this or as otherwise known to the Authority, are as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. Reference is made to the boundary map of the community facilities district recorded on February 7, 2024 at 10:11 a.m. in Book 92 of Maps of Assessment and Community Facilities Districts at Page 66 (instrument no. 2024-0034988), in the office of the County Recorder for the County of Riverside, State of California, which map is now the final boundary map of the community facilities district. -2- For further information concerning the current and estimated future tax liability of owners or purchasers of real property subject to this special tax lien, interested persons should contact the Treasurer of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, Temecula Public Financing Authority, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, CA 92590, telephone number (951) 693-3945. Dated: 2024 51 Secretary, Temecula Public Financing Authority -3- EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF SPECIAL TAXES, FACILITIES AND MUNICIPAL SERVICES ELIGIBLE TO BE FUNDED BY THE DISTRICT SPECIAL TAXES TO BE PREPAID It is proposed that the District be eligible to finance all or a portion of any amount necessary to eliminate any fixed special assessment liens, or to pay, repay, or defease any obligation to pay or any indebtedness secured by any tax, fee, charge, or assessment levied within the area of the CFD (including, but not limited to the lien of special taxes by the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 01-2 (Harveston)), or to pay debt service on any such indebtedness. FACILITIES It is proposed that the District be eligible to finance all or a portion of the costs of the following facilities: • The acquisition and construction of: streets (including paving, aggregate base, striping and traffic marking, sidewalks, curbs, gutters and driveways), including Temecula Center Drive, Ynez Road and Date Street within and in the vicinity of the District; stormwater drainage systems (including storm drain lines, inlets, outlets, channels, structures, junctions, manholes, catch basins and related dewatering); street light improvements (including light fixtures, substructures, conduits and service points of connection); and street signage (including traffic, stop and street name signs). The foregoing are to include the acquisition of any related right-of-way and other land needed for the installation of any such improvements, demolition of existing structures and site leveling needed for the installation of any such improvements, erosion control, and other appurtenances. • The acquisition and installation of traffic signal improvements, including traffic signal interconnection and video surveillance systems, at the intersection of Ynez Road and Temecula Center Drive. • Landscaping improvements in the public right of way along or in the vicinity of Temecula Center Drive, Date Street and Ynez Road, including related appurtenances. • Capital improvements included in the City of Temecula's adopted Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2024-2028. • School improvements to be designated by the Temecula Valley Unified School District, which may include construction of buildings, equipping of school facilities, and acquisition of support and other appurtenances with a useful life of five years or more. • Sewer system improvements to be designated by the Eastern Municipal Water District. • Water facilities to be designated by the Rancho California Water District. The Facilities include the acquisition of right-of-way, the costs of design, engineering and planning, the costs of any environmental or traffic studies, surveys or other reports, the cost of any required environmental mitigation and any required noise mitigation measures, landscaping and irrigation, soils testing, permits, plan check and inspection fees, insurance, legal and related overhead costs, coordination and supervision and any other costs or appurtenances related to any of the foregoing. A-1 MUNICIPAL SERVICES It is proposed that the District be eligible to fund all or a portion of the costs of the following municipal services: • Public safety services, including police and fire protection. • Maintenance of parks, and landscaping in public areas, public easements and public right of way in or near the area of the District, such maintenance to include but not be limited to maintenance of planting areas, trees, bioretention filters, multipurpose trails, and the furnishing of water for irrigation. • Maintenance of public signage in or near the District. • Maintenance of storm drainage systems within or serving the area of the District, and including storm drain pipes, culverts, detention/desilting basins, manholes, catch basins and drop inlets, cleanout of storm drains and catch basin cleaning and inspection. • Maintenance of sidewalks, streets and roadways within or in the vicinity of the area of the District, and including slurry, overlay, curbs and gutters, curb ramps, striping and street sweeping. • Maintenance of street lighting located within or in the vicinity of the District, and including decorative lighting and pull box assemblies. • Maintenance of traffic signals, and traffic interconnection and video surveillance systems, within and in the vicinity of the District, and including electrical, LED replacement, maintenance and replacement. • Graffiti removal from public improvements within and in the area of the District. The District may fund any of the following related to the services described above: the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the improvements, including repair, removal or replacement of all or part of any of the improvements, the furnishing of water for the irrigation and the furnishing of electric current or energy, for any lights or irrigation facilities, obtaining, constructing, furnishing, operating and maintaining equipment, apparatus or facilities related to providing the services and / or equipment, apparatus, facilities or fixtures in areas to be maintained, obtaining supplies or appurtenant facilities necessary for such maintenance, paying the salaries and benefits of personnel necessary or convenient to provide the services, payment of insurance costs and other related expenses. The District may also provide for the reimbursement to the City of Temecula to the extent that the City of Temecula advances funds to pay for any of the foregoing services, and may fund reserves for repairs and replacements and for future expected costs of services. It is expected that the services will be provided by the City of Temecula, either with its own employees or by contract with third parties, or any combination thereof. The services to be financed by the District shall be in addition to those provided in the territory of the District before the date of creation of the District, and will not supplant services already available within that territory when the District is created. It is expected that the District may also finance any of the following: 1. Bond related expenses, including underwriters discount, appraisal and price point study costs, reserve fund, capitalized interest, bond and disclosure counsel fees and expenses, landowner counsel fees and expenses, and all other incidental expenses related to any special tax bonds (the "Bonds") issued for the District. A-2 2. Administrative fees of the Authority, the City of Temecula and the Bond trustee or fiscal agent related to the District and the Bonds. 3. Reimbursement of costs related to the formation of the District advanced by the Authority, the City of Temecula, any landowner in the District, or any party related to any of the foregoing, as well as reimbursement of any costs advanced by the Authority, the City of Temecula, any landowner in the District or any party related to any of the foregoing, for facilities, fees or other purposes or costs of the District. A-3 EXHIBIT B RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF SPECIAL TAX TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO) The following sets forth the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax for the levy and collection of an Annual Special Tax A, an Annual Special Tax B, and an Annual Special Tax C in the Temecula Public Financing Authority ("Authority") Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) ("CFD No. 23-02"). An Annual Special Tax A, an Annual Special Tax B, and an Annual Special Tax C shall be levied on property in CFD No. 23-02 and collected in CFD No. 23-02 each Fiscal Year, in an amount determined through the application of the Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax described below. All of the real property within CFD No. 23-02, unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes, to the extent, and in the manner herein provided. SECTION A DEFINITIONS The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meanings: "Acre" or "Acreage" means the land area of an Assessor's Parcel as shown on an Assessor's Parcel Map, or if the land area is not shown on the Assessor's Parcel Map, the land area as shown on the applicable Final Map, or if the land area is not shown on the applicable Final Map, the land area as calculated by or on behalf of the CFD Administrator. "Act" means the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter 2.5, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California. "Administrative Expenses" means the actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to the administration of CFD No. 23-02, including but not limited to the following: (i) the costs of computing Special Tax A, Special Tax B, and/or Special Tax C (collectively, the "Special Taxes") and of preparing the annual Special Tax A, Special Tax B, and Special Tax C collection schedules (whether by the CFD Administrator or designee thereof, or both); (ii) the costs of collecting the Special Taxes (whether by the Authority, County, City, or otherwise); (iii) the costs of remitting the Special Taxes to the fiscal agent or trustee for any Bonds; (iv) the costs of commencing and pursuing to completion any foreclosure action arising from delinquent Special Taxes; (v) the costs of the fiscal agent or trustee (including its legal counsel) in the discharge of the duties required of it under any Indenture; (vi) the costs of the Authority, City, or designee of either in complying with arbitrage rebate, mandated reporting and disclosure requirements of applicable federal and State of California laws, and responding to property owner or Bond owner inquiries regarding the Special Taxes or Bonds; (vii) the costs associated with the release of funds from any escrow account established under an Indenture; (viii) the costs of the Authority, City, or designee of either related to any appeal of a Special Tax; (ix) an allocable share of the salaries of the City staff and City overhead expense directly relating to the foregoing and (x) any other expense eligible under the Act to be charged for the administration of CFD 23-02 or any Bonds. Administrative Expenses shall also include amounts advanced by the City or the Authority for any administrative purposes of CFD No. 23-02. "Annual Special Tax A" means for each Assessor's Parcel, the Special Tax A actually levied in a given Fiscal Year on such Assessor's Parcel. "Annual Special Tax B" means for each Assessor's Parcel, the Special Tax B actually levied in a given Fiscal Year on such Assessor's Parcel. "Annual Special Tax C" means for each Assessor's Parcel, the Special Tax C actually levied in a given Fiscal Year on such Assessor's Parcel. "Approved Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property other than Provisional Exempt Property: (i) that are included in a Final Map that was recorded prior to the January 1st immediately preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax A is being levied, and (ii) that have not been issued a Building Permit on or before the April 1 st immediately preceding the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax A is being levied. "Assessor" means the Assessor of the County. "Assessor's Parcel" or "Parcel" means a lot or parcel of land designated on an Assessor's Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor's Parcel Number within the boundaries of CFD No. 23-02. "Assessor's Parcel Map" means an official map of the Assessor designating parcels by Assessor's Parcel Number. "Assessor's Parcel Number" means that number assigned to a lot or parcel of land by the Assessor for purposes of identification. "Assigned Annual Special Tax A" means the Special Tax A as described in Section D below. "Authority" means the Temecula Public Financing Authority. "Authorized Facilities" means the public facilities authorized to be financed, in whole or in part, by CFD No. 23-02, as identified in the list of authorized facilities approved by the Resolution of Formation of the CFD adopted by the Board of Directors when the CFD No. 23-02 was formed or as it may be modified by proceedings under the Act. "Authorized Services" means the services authorized to be funded, in whole or in part, by the CFD No. 23-02, as identified in the list of authorized services approved by the Resolution of Formation of the CFD adopted by the Board of Directors when the CFD No. 23-02 was formed or as it may be modified by proceedings under the Act. "Backup Annual Special Tax A" means the Special Tax A as described in Section E below. "Board of Directors" means the Board of Directors of the Authority, acting as the legislative body of CFD No. 23-02, or its designee. "Bonds" means any bonds or other indebtedness (as defined in the Act), whether in one or more series, the repayment of which is secured by a pledge of the proceeds of the levy of Special Tax A on Assessor's Parcels within CFD No. 23-02. "Boundary Map" means a recorded map which indicates the boundaries of CFD No. 23-02. "Building Permit" means the first legal document issued by the City giving official permission for new construction of improvements on an Assessor's Parcel in CFD No. 23-02. For purposes of this In definition, "Building Permit" may or may not include any subsequent building permits issued or changed after the first issuance, as determined by the CFD Administrator. "Building Square Footage" or "BSF" means the square footage of assessable internal living space, exclusive of garages or other structures not used as living space, as determined by the CFD Administrator by reference to the building permit application for such Assessor's Parcel. "Calendar Year" means the period commencing January 1 of any year and ending the following December 31. "CFD No. 23-02" or "CFD" means the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) formed by the Authority under the Act. "CFD Administrator" or "Administrator" means the Finance Director of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for, among other things, determining the Special Tax A Requirement, the Special Tax B Requirement, and the Special Tax C Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of said Special Tax A, Special Tax B, and Special Tax C. "City" means the City of Temecula, California. "County" means the County of Riverside, California. "Developed Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property: (i) that are included in a Final Map that was recorded prior to January 1 st preceding the Fiscal Year in which Special Tax A, Special Tax B or Special Tax C are being levied, and (ii) for which a building permit was issued on or before April 1 st preceding the Fiscal Year in which any or all of the Special Taxes are being levied. "Exempt Property" means all Assessor's Parcels designated as being exempt from the Special Taxes as provided for in Section P. "Exempt Welfare Exemption Property" means, for each Fiscal Year, an Assessor's Parcel that is (a) receiving a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code (or any successor statute), as indicated in the County's Assessor's roll finalized as of January 1 of the previous Fiscal Year, and (b) exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to Section 53340(c) of the Act. Pursuant to Section 53340(c) of the Act, after the issuance of the first series of Bonds, any Assessor's Parcels that receive welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code (or any successor statute) shall not be classified as Exempt Welfare Exemption Property and will be subject to the Special Tax. "Final Map" means a subdivision of property by recordation of a final map, parcel map, or lot line adjustment, pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 66410 et seq.) or recordation of a condominium plan pursuant to California Civil Code 4285 that creates individual lots that do not need, and are not expected, to be further subdivided prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. "Fiscal Year" means the period commencing July 1 of any year and ending the following June 30. "Indenture" means the bond indenture, fiscal agent agreement, trust agreement, resolution, or other instrument pursuant to which Bonds are issued, as modified, amended and/or supplemented from time to time, and any instrument replacing or supplementing the same. I:c "Land Use Type" means Residential Property, Multifamily Residential Property, or Non -Residential Property. "Maximum Special Tax A" means for each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property, the maximum Special Tax A, determined in accordance with Section C that can be levied on each such Assessor's Parcel. "Maximum Special Tax B" means for each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property, the maximum Special Tax B, determined in accordance with Section I that can be levied on each such Assessor's Parcel. "Maximum Special Tax C" means for each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property, the maximum Special Tax C, determined in accordance with Section L that can be levied on each such Assessor's Parcel. "Multifamily Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit has been issued for the purpose of constructing a building or buildings comprised of attached Units available for rental by the general public, not for sale to an end user, and which attached units are under common ownership, as determined by the CFD Administrator. "Non -Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit was issued for any type of use other than Residential Property and or Multifamily Residential Property. "Partial Prepayment Amount" means the amount required to prepay a portion of the Special Tax A obligation for an Assessor's Parcel, as described in Section H. "Prepayment Amount" means the amount required to prepay the Special Tax A obligation in full for an Assessor's Parcel, as described in Section G. "Proportionately" means for Special Tax A that the ratio of the Annual Special Tax A to the applicable Assigned Annual Special Tax A is equal for all applicable Assessor's Parcels. In the case of Special Tax B and Special Tax C, "Proportionately" means that the ratio of the Annual Special Tax B to the applicable Maximum Special Tax B and the Annual Special Tax C to the applicable Maximum Special Tax C, respectively, is equal for all applicable Assessor's Parcels. In the case of Developed Property subject to the apportionment of the Annual Special Tax A under Step Four of Section F, "Proportionately" means that the quotient of (a) Annual Special Tax A less the Assigned Annual Special Tax A divided by (b) the Backup Annual Special Tax A less the Assigned Annual Special Tax A, is equal for all applicable Assessor's Parcels. "Provisional Exempt Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property subject to Special Tax A that would otherwise be classified as Exempt Property pursuant to the provisions of Section P, but cannot be classified as Exempt Property because to do so would reduce the Acreage of all Taxable Property below the required minimum Acreage set forth in Section P. "Residential Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property for which a building permit has been issued for purposes of constructing one or more residential dwelling units, and which are not Multifamily Residential Property. "RMA" means this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax "Special Tax(es)" means any of the special taxes authorized to be levied on Taxable Property within and for CFD No. 23-02 pursuant to the Act to fund the Special Tax A Requirement, Special Tax B Requirement, and/or the Special Tax C Requirement. "Special Tax A" means any of the Special Taxes authorized to be levied on Taxable Property within and by CFD No. 23-02 pursuant to the Act to fund the Special Tax A Requirement. "Special Tax B" means any of the Special Taxes authorized to be levied on Taxable Property within and by CFD No. 23-02 pursuant to the Act to fund the Special Tax B Requirement. "Special Tax C" means any of the Special Taxes authorized to be levied on Taxable Property within and by CFD No. 23-02 pursuant to the Act to fund the Special Tax C Requirement. "Special Tax A Requirement" means, subject to the Maximum Special Tax A, the amount required in any Fiscal Year to pay: (i) the debt service or the periodic costs on all outstanding Bonds due in the Calendar Year that commences in such Fiscal Year, (ii) Administrative Expenses for such Fiscal Year (apportioned between Special Tax A and Special Tax B), (iii) any amount required to establish or replenish any reserve funds established in association with the Bonds, and (iv) the collection or accumulation of funds for the acquisition or construction of Authorized Facilities, provided that the inclusion of such amount does not cause an increase in the levy of Special Tax A on Approved Property or Undeveloped Property as set forth in Step Two and Three of Section F, less (v) any amount available to pay debt service or other periodic costs on the Bonds pursuant to any applicable Indenture. "Special Tax B Requirement" means, subject to the Maximum Special Tax B, that amount to be collected in any Fiscal Year to pay for Authorized Services as required to meet the needs of CFD No. 23-02. The costs of services to be covered shall be the direct costs for (i) Authorized Services, and (ii) Administrative Expenses (apportioned between Special tax A and Special Tax B); less (iii) a credit for funds available to reduce the Annual Special Tax B levy, if any, as determined by the CFD Administrator. Under no circumstances shall the Special Tax B Requirement include amounts needed to repay Bonds. "Special Tax C Requirement" means, subject to the Maximum Special Tax C, that amount to be collected in any Fiscal Year to pay for Authorized Services as required to meet the needs of CFD No. 23-02. The costs of services to be covered shall be the direct costs for (i) Authorized Services, and (ii) Administrative Expenses; less (iii) a credit for funds available to reduce the Annual Special Tax C levy, if any, as determined by the CFD Administrator. Under no circumstances shall the Special Tax C Requirement include amounts needed to repay Bonds. "Special Tax Category" means any of the individual categories of BSF set forth in Table 1 in Section D below. "Taxable Property" means (i) with respect to Special Tax A, all Assessor's Parcels within CFD No. 23-02, which are not Exempt Property or for which the Special Tax A obligation has not been prepaid in full, and (ii) with respect to Special Tax B and Special Tax C, all Assessor's Parcels within CFD No. 23-02, which are not Exempt Property. "Temecula Public Financing Authority" or "PFA" or "Authority" means the Temecula Public Financing Authority, or its designee. "Transition Event" shall be deemed to have occurred when the CFD Administrator determines that the following events have occurred: (i) all Bonds secured by the levy and collection of Special Tax A in the CFD have been fully repaid, or legally defeased, pursuant to the Indenture; (ii) all Administrative Expenses from prior Fiscal Years have been paid or reimbursed; and (iii) there are no other Authorized Facilities that the Authority or the CFD intends to fund with proceeds of Bonds or of Special Tax A as confirmed in writing by the CFD Administrator. "Transition Year" means the earlier of: (i) the first Fiscal Year in which the Administrator determines that the Transition Event occurred in the prior Fiscal Year, or (ii) Fiscal Year 2065-66. "Undeveloped Property" means all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property which are not Developed Property, Approved Property, or Provisional Exempt Property. "Unit" means any residential dwelling unit excluding dwelling units within Multifamily Residential Property. SECTION B CLASSIFICATION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCELS Each Fiscal Year, beginning with Fiscal Year 2024-25, each Assessor's Parcel within CFD No. 23-02 shall be classified as Taxable Property or Exempt Property. In addition, each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property shall be further classified as Developed Property, Approved Property, Undeveloped Property, or Provisional Exempt Property. In addition, each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property shall further be classified as Residential Property, Multifamily Residential Property or Non -Residential Property. Assessor's Parcels of Residential Property shall be further categorized based on the Building Square Footage of each such Assessor's Parcel. SECTION C MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX A 1. Developed Property For each Fiscal year, the Maximum Special Tax A for each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property, Multifamily Residential Property or Non -Residential Property shall be the greater of (i) the Assigned Annual Special Tax A or (ii) the Backup Annual Special Tax A. 2. Approved Property, Undeveloped Property, and Provisional Exempt Property For each Fiscal year, the Maximum Special Tax A for each Assessor's Parcel classified as Approved Property, Undeveloped Property, or Provisional Exempt Property shall be the Assigned Annual Special Tax A. 3. Increase in the Maximum Special Tax A On each July 1, commencing July 1, 2025, the Maximum Special Tax A shall be increased by an amount equal to two percent (2.0%) of the amount in effect for the previous Fiscal Year. 4. Maximum Special Tax A at Transition Year For the Transition Year and each Fiscal Year thereafter, the Maximum Special Tax A for any Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property shall be $0.00. Notwithstanding the forgoing, if there are delinquent Special Tax A taxes on a Parcel, such delinquent Special Tax A taxes will continue to constitute a lien against the Parcel until they are collected. SECTION D ASSIGNED ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX A 1. Developed Property Each Fiscal Year prior to the Transition Year, each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property, Multifamily Residential Property or Non -Residential Property shall be subject to an Assigned Annual Special Tax A. The Assigned Annual Special Tax A applicable to an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property shall be determined using the table below. TABLE 1 ASSIGNED ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX A RATES FOR DEVELOPED PROPERTY FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 Land Use Type Building Square Footage Assigned Special Tax A Residential Property Less than 1,500 $3,740 per Unit Residential Property 1,500 — 1,599 $3,860 per Unit Residential Property 1,600 — 1,699 $3,980 per Unit Residential Property 1,700 — 1,799 $4,100 per Unit Residential Property Greater than 1,799 $4,220 per Unit Multifamily Residential Property N/A $83,890 per Acre Non -Residential Property N/A $83,890 per Acre 2. Approved Property, Undeveloped Property and Provisional Exempt Property Each Fiscal Year, prior to the Transition Year, each Assessor's Parcel of Approved Property, Undeveloped Property, and Provisional Exempt Property shall be subject to an Assigned Annual Special Tax A. The Assigned Annual Special Tax A rate for an Assessor's Parcel classified as Approved Property, Undeveloped Property, or Provisional Exempt Property shall be determined pursuant to Table 2 below. TABLE 2 ASSIGNED ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX RATES FOR APPROVED PROPERTY, UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY, AND PROVISIONAL EXEMPT PROPERTY FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 Assigned Special Tax A $83,890 per Acre 3. Increase in the Assigned Annual Special Tax A On each July 1, commencing July 1, 2025, the Assigned Annual Special Tax A for any Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property shall be increased by an amount equal to two percent (2.0%) of the amount in effect for the previous Fiscal Year. IM 4. Assianed Annual Special Tax A at Transition Year For the Transition Year and each Fiscal Year thereafter, the Assigned Annual Special Tax A for all Taxable Property shall be $0.00. Notwithstanding the forgoing, if there are delinquent Special Tax A taxes on a Parcel, such delinquent Special Tax A taxes will continue to constitute a lien against the Parcel until they are collected. SECTION E BACKUP ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX A At the time a Final Map is recorded, the CFD Administrator shall determine the Backup Annual Special Tax A for all Assessor's Parcels classified or reasonably expected to be classified as Residential Property within such Final Map by multiplying the Maximum Special Tax A rate for Undeveloped Property by the total Acreage of Taxable Property, excluding the Provisional Exempt Property Acreage, Non -Residential Property Acreage, Multifamily Residential Property Acreage and any Acreage reasonably expected to be classified as Exempt Property, and dividing such amount by the total number of such Assessor's Parcels which are classified or reasonably expected to be classified as Residential Property. The Backup Annual Special Tax A rate for Multifamily Residential Property or Non -Residential Property shall be its Assigned Annual Special Tax A rate. On each July 1, commencing July 1, 2024, the Backup Annual Special Tax A shall be increased by an amount equal to two percent (2.0%) of the amount in effect for the previous Fiscal Year. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if Assessor's Parcels which are classified or to be classified as Residential Property, Non -Residential Property or Multifamily Property are subsequently changed by recordation of a lot line adjustment, Final Map amendment, new Final Map or similar instrument, then the Backup Annual Special Tax A shall be recalculated within the area that has been changed to equal the amount of Backup Annual Special Tax A that would have been generated if such change did not take place. SECTION F METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX A Commencing Fiscal Year 2024-25 and for each subsequent Fiscal Year, the Board of Directors shall levy the Annual Special Tax A in accordance with the following steps: Step One: The Annual Special Tax A shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property at up to 100% of the applicable Assigned Annual Special Tax A rates in Table 1 to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement. Step Two: If additional moneys are needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Annual Special Tax A shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Approved Property at up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Annual Special Tax A to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement. Step Three: If additional moneys are needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement after the first two steps have been completed, the Annual Special Tax A shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property up to 100% of the Maximum Annual Special Tax A for Undeveloped Property applicable to each such Assessor's Parcel as needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement. Step Four: If additional moneys are needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement after the first three steps have been completed, the Annual Special Tax A on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property for which the Maximum Special Tax A is the Backup Annual Special Tax A shall be increased Proportionately from the Assigned Annual Special Tax A up to 100% of the Backup Annual Special Tax A as needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement. Step Five: If additional moneys are needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement after the first four steps have been completed, the Annual Special Tax A shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Provisional Exempt Property up to 100% of the Maximum Annual Special Tax A applicable to each such Assessor's Parcel as needed to satisfy the Special Tax A Requirement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, pursuant to Section 53321 (d) of the Act, the Special Tax A levied against an Assessor's Parcel used for private residential purposes shall under no circumstances increase more than ten (10%) as a consequence of delinquency of default by the owner of any other Assessor's Parcel or Assessor's Parcels and shall, in no event, exceed the Maximum Special Tax A in effect for the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax A is being levied. SECTION G PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX A The following definitions apply to this Section G: "Business Day" means days Temecula City Hall is open for business. "CFD Public Facilities Amount" means $13,486,000 expressed in 2024 dollars, which shall increase by the Construction Inflation Index on July 1, 2024, and on each July 1 thereafter, or such lower number as (i) shall be determined by the CFD Administrator as sufficient to provide the Authorized Facilities under the authorized bonding program, or (ii) shall be determined by the Board of Directors concurrently with a covenant that the CFD will not issue any more Bonds. "Construction Inflation Index" means the annual percentage change in the Engineering News - Record Building Cost Index for the City of Los Angeles, measured as of the calendar year which ends in the previous Fiscal Year. In the event this index ceases to be published, the Construction Inflation Index shall be another index as determined by the CFD Administrator that is reasonably comparable to the Engineering News -Record Building Cost Index for the City of Los Angeles. "Future Facilities Costs" means the CFD Public Facilities Amount minus (i) Bond proceeds deposited in an Improvement Fund and (ii) other amounts (proceeds of the levy of Special Tax A, interest earnings, etc.) held in an Improvement Fund that were available to fund such CFD Public Facilities Amount prior to the date of prepayment. "Improvement Fund" means any fund or account established under an Indenture to hold funds which were or continue to be available for expenditure to pay costs of Authorized Facilities and any fund or account established prior to the issuance of Bonds for such purpose. :• "Outstanding Bonds" means the principal amount of all previously issued Bonds which will remain outstanding after the payment from the amount of any Special Tax A that has therefore been levied, excluding Bonds to be redeemed at a later date with the proceeds of prior prepayments of Special Tax A. Prepayment in Full The Special Tax A obligation may be prepaid and permanently satisfied for (i) Assessor's Parcels of Developed Property, (ii) Assessor's Parcels of Approved Property or Undeveloped Property for which a Building Permit has been issued, (iii) Approved or Undeveloped Property for which a Building Permit has not been issued, and (iv) Assessor's Parcels of Provisional Exempt Property that are not Exempt Property pursuant to Section P. The Special Tax A obligation applicable to an Assessor's Parcel may be fully prepaid and the obligation to pay the Special Tax A for such Assessor's Parcel permanently satisfied as described herein; provided that a prepayment may be made only if there is no delinquent Special Tax A with respect to such Assessor's Parcel at the time of prepayment. An owner of an Assessor's Parcel intending to prepay the Special Tax A obligation for such Assessor's Parcel shall provide the CFD Administrator with written notice of intent to prepay, and within 5 business days of receipt of such notice, the CFD Administrator shall notify such owner of the amount of the non- refundable deposit determined by the CFD Administrator to cover the cost to be incurred for the CFD in calculating the Prepayment Amount (as defined below) for the Assessor's Parcel. Within 15 business days of receipt of such non-refundable deposit, the CFD Administrator shall notify such owner of the Prepayment Amount for the Assessor's Parcel. Prepayment must be made not less than 60 days prior to the redemption date for any Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed with the proceeds of such prepaid Special Taxes. The Prepayment Amount (defined below) shall be calculated as follows (capitalized terms are defined below): Bond Redemption Amount plus Redemption Premium plus Future Facilities Amount plus Defeasance Amount plus Administrative Fees and Expenses less Reserve Fund Credit Equals: Prepayment Amount The Prepayment Amount shall be determined by the CFD Administrator as of the proposed prepayment date as follows: Confirm that no Special Tax A delinquencies apply to such Assessor's Parcel. 2. For Developed Property, compute the Maximum Special Tax A for the Assessor's Parcel. For Approved Property or Undeveloped Property for which a Building Permit has been issued, compute the Maximum Special Tax A for the Assessor's Parcel as though it was already designated as Developed Property, based upon the Building Permit which has been issued for the Assessor's Parcel. For Approved Property or Undeveloped Property for which a Building Permit has not been issued or Provisional Exempt Property, compute the Maximum Special Tax A for the Assessor's Parcel. 3. Divide the Maximum Special Tax A derived pursuant to paragraph 2 by the 1 total amount of Special Tax A that could be levied on all Taxable Property based on the applicable Maximum Special Tax A, including for Approved Property or Undeveloped Property for which a Building Permit has been issued, the Maximum Special Tax A for the Assessor's Parcel as though it was already designated as Developed Property. The calculation of the total amount of Maximum Special Tax A shall exclude Assessor's Parcels for which the Special Tax A obligation has been previously prepaid in full or the portion thereof that has been previously prepaid in part. 4. Multiply the quotient derived pursuant to paragraph 3 by the principal amount of the Outstanding Bonds to determine the amount of Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed with the Prepayment Amount (the "Bond Redemption Amount"). 5. Multiply the Bond Redemption Amount by the applicable redemption premium, if any, on the Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed (the "Redemption Premium"). 6. Determine the Future Facilities Costs. 7. Multiply the quotient derived pursuant to paragraph 3 by the amount determined pursuant to paragraph 6 to determine the amount of Future Facilities Costs for the Assessor's Parcel (the "Future Facilities Amount"). 8. Determine the amount needed to pay interest on the Bond Redemption Amount from the first bond interest and/or principal payment date following the current Fiscal Year until the earliest redemption date for the Outstanding Bonds on which Bonds can be redeemed from Special Tax prepayments. 9. Determine the Special Tax A levied on the Assessor's Parcel in the current Fiscal Year which have not yet been paid. 10. Determine the amount the CFD Administrator reasonably expects to derive from the investment of the Bond Redemption Amount and the Redemption Premium from the date of prepayment until the redemption date for the Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed with the Prepayment Amount. 11. Add the amounts derived pursuant to paragraphs 8 and 9 and subtract the amount derived pursuant to paragraph 10 (the "Defeasance Amount"). 12. Verify the administrative fees and expenses of the CFD, including the cost of computation of the Prepayment Amount not funded from the deposit, the cost to invest the Prepayment Amount, the cost of redeeming the Outstanding Bonds, and the cost of recording notices to evidence the prepayment of the Special Tax A obligation for the Assessor's Parcel and the redemption of Outstanding Bonds (the "Administrative Fees and Expenses"). 13. The reserve fund credit (the "Reserve Fund Credit") shall equal the lesser of: (a) the expected reduction in the reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture), if any, associated with the redemption of Outstanding Bonds as a result of the prepayment, or (b) the amount derived by subtracting the new reserve requirement (as defined in the Indenture) in effect after the redemption of Outstanding Bonds as a result of the prepayment from the balance in the B-11 reserve fund on the prepayment date, but in no event shall such amount be less than zero. 14. The Prepayment Amount is equal to the sum of the Bond Redemption Amount, the Redemption Premium, the Future Facilities Amount, the Defeasance Amount and the Administrative Fees and Expenses, less the Reserve Fund Credit. 15. From the Prepayment Amount, the Bond Redemption Amount, the Redemption Premium, and Defeasance Amount shall be deposited into the appropriate fund as established under the Indenture and be used to redeem Outstanding Bonds or make debt service payments. The Future Facilities Amount shall be deposited into the Improvement Fund. The Administrative Fees and Expenses shall be retained by the CFD to be used for payment thereof. The Prepayment Amount may be sufficient to redeem other than a $5,000 increment of Bonds. In such event, the increment above $5,000 or an integral multiple thereof will be retained in the appropriate fund established under the Indenture to be used with the next redemption from other Special Tax A prepayments of Outstanding Bonds or to make debt service payments. As a result of the payment of the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax A levy as determined pursuant to paragraph 9 above, if applicable and possible, the CFD Administrator shall remove the current Fiscal Year's Special Tax A levy for the Assessor's Parcel from the County tax roll. With respect to any Assessor's Parcel for which the Special Tax A obligation is prepaid, the Board of Directors shall cause a suitable notice to be recorded in compliance with the Act, to indicate the prepayment of Special Tax A obligation and the release of the lien securing the payment of Special Tax A for the Assessor's Parcel, and the obligation to pay the Special Tax A for such Assessor's Parcel shall cease. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no Special Tax A prepayment (whether in full pursuant to this Section G or in part pursuant to Section H below) shall be allowed unless the amount of Maximum Special Tax A that may be levied on all Assessor's Parcels of Taxable Property, excluding all Provisional Exempt Property and all Assessor's Parcels with delinquent Special Taxes, after the proposed prepayment will be at least 1.1 times maximum annual debt service on the Bonds that will remain outstanding after the prepayment plus the estimated annual Administrative Expenses, all as determined by the CFD Administrator. Tenders of Bonds in prepayment of the Maximum Special Tax A obligation may be accepted upon the terms and conditions established by the Board of Directors pursuant to the Act. However, the use of Bond tenders shall only be allowed on a case -by -case basis as specifically approved by the Board of Directors. SECTION H PARTIAL PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX A The Special Tax A obligation for an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property, Approved Property or Undeveloped Property may be partially prepaid. For purposes of determining the partial prepayment amount, the provisions of Section G shall be modified as provided by the following formula: PP = ((PE —A) x F) + A B-12 These terms have the following meaning PP = Partial Prepayment PE = the Prepayment Amount calculated according to Section G F = the percent by which the owner of the Assessor's Parcel(s) is partially prepaying the Maximum Special Tax A obligation A = the Administrative Fees and Expenses determined pursuant to Section G The owner of an Assessor's Parcel who desires to partially prepay the Special Tax A obligation for the Assessor's Parcel shall notify the CFD Administrator of (i) such owner's intent to partially prepay the Maximum Special Tax A obligation, and (ii) the percentage of the Maximum Special Tax A obligation such owner wishes to prepay. Within 5 Business Days of receipt of such notice, the CFD Administrator shall notify such property owner of the amount of the non-refundable deposit determined to cover the cost to be incurred by the CFD in calculating the amount of a partial prepayment. Within 15 Business Days of receipt of such non-refundable deposit, the CFD Administrator shall notify such owner of the amount of the Partial Prepayment for the Assessor's Parcel. A Partial Prepayment must be made not less than 60 days prior to the redemption date for any Outstanding Bonds to be redeemed with the proceeds of the Partial Prepayment. With respect to any Assessor's Parcel for which the Maximum Special Tax A obligation is partially prepaid, the CFD Administrator shall (i) distribute the Partial Prepayment as provided in Paragraph 15 of Section G and (ii) indicate in the records of the CFD that there has been a Partial Prepayment for the Assessor's Parcel and that a portion of the Special Tax A obligation equal to the remaining percentage (1.00 - F) of Special Tax A obligation will continue to be levied on the Assessor's Parcel pursuant to Section F. SECTION I MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX B 1. Developed Property Maximum Special Tax B Each Fiscal Year, each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property, Multifamily Residential Property, or Non -Residential Property shall be subject to a Maximum Annual Special Tax B. The Maximum Annual Special Tax B applicable to an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property shall be determined using the table below. TABLE 3 MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX B RATES FOR DEVELOPED PROPERTY FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 Land Use Type Maximum Special Tax B Residential Property $420 per Unit Multifamily Residential Property $8,904 per Acre Non -Residential Property $8,904 per Acre B-13 2. Approved Property, Undeveloped Property and Provisional Exempt Property No Special Tax B shall be levied on Approved Property, Undeveloped Property, and Provisional Exempt Property. 3. Increase in the Maximum Special Tax B On each July 1, commencing July 1, 2025, the Maximum Special Tax B shall be increased by an amount equal to five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the amount in effect for the previous Fiscal Year. 4. Maximum Special Tax B at Transition Year For the Transition Year and each Fiscal Year thereafter, the Maximum Special Tax B for any Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property shall be $0.00. SECTION J METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX B Commencing with Fiscal Year 2024-25 and for each following Fiscal Year, the Authority shall levy the Special Tax B at up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax B, Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property until the amount of Special Tax B equals the Special Tax B Requirement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, pursuant to Section 53321 (d) of the Act, the Special Tax B levied against an Assessor's Parcel used for private residential purposes shall under no circumstances increase more than ten (10%) as a consequence of delinquency of default by the owner of any other Assessor's Parcel or Assessor's Parcels and shall, in no event, exceed the Maximum Special Tax B in effect for the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax B is being levied. SECTION K PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX B No prepayments of Special Tax B are permitted. SECTION L MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX C 1. Developed Property Maximum Special Tax C For the Transition Year and each Fiscal Year thereafter, each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property, Multifamily Residential Property, or Non -Residential Property shall be subject to a Maximum Special Tax C. The Maximum Special Tax C applicable to an Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property shall be determined using the table below. B-14 TABLE 4 MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAX C RATES FOR DEVELOPED PROPERTY FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 Land Use Type Maximum Special Tax C Residential Property $785 per Unit Multifamily Residential Property $16,641 per Acre Non -Residential Property $16,641 per Acre 2. Approved Property, Undeveloped Property and Provisional Exempt Property No Special Tax C shall be levied on Approved Property, Undeveloped Property, and Provisional Exempt Property. 3. Increase in the Maximum Special Tax C On each July 1, commencing July 1, 2025, the Maximum Special Tax C shall be increased by an amount equal to five and six -tenths percent (5.6%) of the amount in effect for the previous Fiscal Year. SECTION M METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX C For the Transition Year and each Fiscal Year thereafter, the Authority shall levy the Special Tax C at up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Special Tax C, Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Developed Property until the amount of Special Tax C equals the Special Tax C Requirement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, pursuant to Section 53321 (d) of the Act, the Special Tax C levied against an Assessor's Parcel used for private residential purposes shall under no circumstances increase more than ten (10%) as a consequence of delinquency of default by the owner of any other Assessor's Parcel or Assessor's Parcels and shall, in no event, exceed the Maximum Special Tax C in effect for the Fiscal Year in which the Special Tax C is being levied. SECTION N PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX C No prepayments of Special Tax C are permitted. SECTION O TERM OF THE SPECIAL TAX A, SPECIAL TAX B, AND SPECIAL TAX C For each Fiscal Year that any Bonds are outstanding the Special Tax A shall be levied on all Assessor's Parcels subject to the Special Tax A. If any delinquent Annual Special Tax A amounts remain uncollected prior to or after the Transition Year, the Special Tax A may be levied to the extent necessary to reimburse CFD 23-02 for uncollected Annual Special Tax A amounts associated with the levy of such Special Tax A amounts, but not later than the 2064-65 Fiscal Year. Prior to the Transition Year, Special Tax B shall be levied as long as the Authorized Services are being provided. Special Tax B shall not be levied during or after the Transition Year. B-15 For the Transition Year and each Fiscal Year thereafter, Special Tax C shall be levied in perpetuity as long as the Authorized Services are being provided. SECTION P EXEMPT PROPERTY The CFD Administrator shall classify as Exempt Property (i) Assessor's Parcels which are owned by, irrevocably offered for dedication, encumbered by or restricted in use by the State of California, Federal or other local governments, including school districts, (ii) Assessor's Parcels which are used as places of worship and are exempt from ad valorem property taxes because they are owned by a religious organization, (iii) Assessor's Parcels which are owned by, irrevocably offered for dedication, encumbered by or which make use as a dwelling unit, or otherwise, infeasible by a homeowners' association, (iv) Assessor's Parcels with public or utility easements making impractical their utilization for other than the purposes set forth in the easement, (v) Assessor's Parcels which are privately owned and are encumbered by or restricted solely for public uses, or (vi) other types of public uses determined by the CFD Administrator. The CFD Administrator shall classify such Assessor's Parcels as Exempt Property in the chronological order in which property becomes Exempt. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the CFD Administrator for purposes of levying the Special Tax shall not, except for any Assessor's Parcel on which the Special Tax cannot be levied pursuant to the Mello -Roos Act, classify an Assessor's Parcel as Exempt Property if such classification would reduce the sum of all Taxable Property to less than the Acreage amounts listed in Table 5 below. Assessor's Parcels which cannot be classified as Exempt Property because such classification would reduce the Acreage of all Taxable Property to less than the Acreage amounts listed in Table 5 will be classified as Provisional Exempt Property, and will be subject to the levy of Special Tax pursuant to Step Five in Section F. No Special Tax shall be levied on any Assessor's Parcel in any Fiscal Year in which such Assessor's Parcel is classified as Exempt Welfare Exemption Property. TABLE 5 MINIMUM TAXABLE ACRES Acres 11.18 SECTION Q APPEALS AND INTERPRETATIONS Any property owner claiming that the amount or application of the Annual Special Tax A, Annual Special Tax B, or Annual Special Tax C is not correct may file a written notice of appeal with the CFD Administrator not later than twelve months after having paid the first installment of the Annual Special Tax A, Annual Special Tax B, or Annual Special Tax C that is disputed. The CFD Administrator shall promptly review the appeal, and if necessary, meet with the property owner, consider written and oral evidence regarding the amount of the Annual Special Tax A, Annual Special Tax B, or Annual Special Tax C in dispute and rule on the appeal. If the CFD Administrator's decision requires that the Annual Special Tax A, Annual Special Tax B, or Annual Special Tax C for an Assessor's Parcel be modified or changed in favor of the property owner, a cash refund shall not be made (except for the last year of levy in the case of the Annual Special Tax A), but an adjustment shall be made to the Annual Special Tax A, Annual Special Tax B, or Annual Special Tax C on that Assessor's Parcel in the subsequent Fiscal Year(s). B-16 The Board of Directors may interpret this Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax for purposes of clarifying any ambiguity or to correct or supplement any defective or inconsistent provision hereof. SECTION R MANNER OF COLLECTION The Annual Special Tax A, Annual Special Tax B, and Annual Special Tax C shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes, provided, however, that CFD 23-02 may collect the Annual Special Tax A, Annual Special Tax B, and Annual Special Tax C at a different time or in a different manner if necessary to meet its financial obligations. B-17 EXHIBIT C TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.23-02 (PRADO) ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS AND OWNER OF LAND WITHIN THE DISTRICT County Assessor's Parcel Numbers Owner of Record of Parcels 916-400-051 Meritage Homes of California, Inc. 5 Peters Canyon Road, Suite 310 916-400-052 Irvine, CA 92606 916-400-053 916-400-070 C-1 Item No. 11 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: February 27, 2024 SUBJECT: Approve Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-25 User Fee Schedule RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE SCHEDULE AND AMENDING FEES AND CHARGES FOR CITY SERVICES, INCLUDING BUILDING AND SAFETY, PLANNING, LAND DEVELOPMENT, FIRE PREVENTION, POLICE, AND OTHER CITY SERVICES AND MAKING RELATED DETERMINATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula currently imposes various User Fees on private development related services provided by the City. The current Fee Schedule is based on a User Fee Study conducted in 2005 with annual inflationary adjustments applied each year since. The City worked with Wohlford Consulting to review the current User Fees and prepare the attached 2023 Full Cost of Services/User Fee Study (Study), which comprehensively analyzes the full cost for each fee service provided by the Building and Safety, Planning, Land Development, Fire Prevention and Police departments. The Study analyzes nearly 900 separate and distinct fees to determine the full cost of each fee, including overhead and support service costs. Additionally, the Study determined that the City is currently recovering less than 50 percent of its cost to provide these services, as summarized in the adjacent table. TOTALS: 1 $ 15,823,200 1 1 $ 7,640,661 $ 8,182,539 48% Staff worked in tandem with Wohlford Consulting to provide estimates of staff time required for each service studied in the analysis and the projected annual volume for each fee. Utilizing the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Annual Budget, the cost of each service was calculated and compared to the current fees charged. The Full Cost compared to the Current Revenue collected resulted in a total subsidy of approximately $8.2 million annually, for a 48% Cost Recovery Rate. While setting a fee with a 100% Cost Recovery Rate would generate the most revenue and ensure that the City's costs are covered, maximizing cost recovery may not be the only goal of the Study. Encouraging compliance and providing a public benefit to the greater community are just two factors to consider in determining the recommended fees. For example, subsidizing fees related to Hazmat chemical plan check are common to achieve compliance by the businesses by setting the fee at an affordable level. It is for the benefit of the overall community to ensure safety and setting reasonable fee amounts can help achieve this goal. Staff collectively set the recommended cost recovery rate at 75% of the Full Cost for each fee. In the cases where the City's current fee exceeded the Full Cost, then the fee was reduced to match the Full Cost, pursuant Government Code Section 66013, which states the fees shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is imposed. The aggregated result of this methodology would generate a 67% cost recovery rate, as indicated in the table below: PROJECTED REVENUE SURPLUS/ (SUBSIDY) RECOMMENDED COSTRECOVERY PROJECTED RATE REVENUE @ Recommended Fees (Projected Revenue — Full Coat) (Rewmm / Full INCREASE/ Cost) (DECREASE) $ 196,1461 $ 807,5291 $ 6948921 11. $ 1,226:4321 $ 109,856' TOTALS: $ 15 823 200 $ 7 640 661 $ 8 182 539 48% $ 10 675 515 $ 5 147 685 67% The recommended fees have been summarized in the attached Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-25 User Fee Schedule. The Study not only analyzes the Full Cost of nearly 900 fees, but it also includes a simplified restructuring of the complex Building and Safety Fee matrix, which greatly reduces the number of fees imposed and makes the Fee Schedule much more user friendly. Additionally, the Study includes several new fee categories not currently in the City's Fee Schedule: a. Annual Fire Inspection Program (Fire Prevention) b. Annual NPDES Inspection Program (Land Development) C. Weed Abatement Administration (Building) d. Wireless Antenna Facilities (Planning) e. Drainage Tributary (Land Development) In accordance with Government Code 66016, 66017 and 66018, the specific fees to be charged for certain regulations, services and products must be adopted by resolution, following notice and public hearing. Notice of public hearing has been provided pursuant to Government Code Section 6062a, 66016, 66017 and 66018 and written notice has been provided to those interested parties who filed written requests for mailed notice of meetings on new or increased development -related fees or service charges. Per Government Code Section 66017, the fees may become effective 60 days following City Council approval. The attached Resolution includes an annual Cost of Living Adjustment for the User Fee Schedule, to ensure the fees track with inflation until a subsequent User Fee Study is implemented. The City's User Fees are collected via a permitting software known as Energov. The Proposed Fee Schedule will require a re -programming of Energov, which may take several months depending on the structural changes in the Fee Schedule. As such, a phased implementation, by department, may be necessary to implement the Proposed Fee Schedule. FISCAL IMPACT: The Proposed Fee Schedule has the potential of creating approximately $3 million in additional General Fund Revenue per year, depending on the volume of User Fees processed. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-25 User Fee Schedule 3. User Fee Study Fact Sheet 4. 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study — FINAL REPORT 5. Notice of Public Hearing RESOLUTION NO.2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE SCHEDULE AND AMENDING FEES AND CHARGES FOR CITY SERVICES, INCLUDING BUILDING AND SAFETY, PLANNING, LAND DEVELOPMENT, FIRE PREVENTION, POLICE, AND OTHER CITY SERVICES AND MAKING RELATED DETERMINATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula ("City Council") hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. The City Council has determined that it is necessary to assess fees for the process of private development related requests, planning, engineering, public works, police, fire, building and safety related requests, and other City services; B. The City Council has conducted an extensive analysis of its services, the costs reasonably borne by the City in providing those services, the beneficiaries of those services, and the revenues produced by those paying fees and charges for special services; C. The City Council has determined that City staff provides many types of services ("Services") involving requests by City customers ("Applicants"); D. The City currently imposes various user fees (the "User Fees") upon Applicants to recover the costs of staff time and other expenses related to providing these Services; E. Current User Fees charged for the City's Services do not adequately recoup the City's costs of providing certain Services and thus, a certain amount of these costs are currently paid out of the City's General Fund and, therefore, borne by the general public; F. The City Council desires to better recover the costs of providing these Services from Applicants who have sought the City's Services by revising its schedule of User Fees; G. The proposed User Fees are based upon the information contained in "2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study," dated as of September 27, 2023, prepared by Wohlford Consulting ("User Fee Study") that comprehensively analyzed the full cost for each fee service, the cost analysis incorporates the following "full cost" components: direct salaries & benefits, services and supplies, indirect and support activities, supervision and support, cross -department support; department/division administration; citywide administration; facility use, capital (annualized),and anticipated growth; H. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 66016, 66017 and 66018, the specific fees to be charged for certain regulations, services and products must be adopted by resolution, following notice and public hearing; I. Notice of public hearing has been given pursuant to Government Code Section 6062a, 66016, 66017 and 66018 and written notice has been provided to those interested parties who filed written requests for mailed notice of meetings on new or increased development -related fees or service charges; J. On February 27, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly noticed Public Hearing, at which time the public was invited to make oral and written presentations as part of the regularly scheduled meeting prior to the adoption of this Resolution; K. The proposed User Fees do not exceed the reasonable and actual cost to the City of providing those services and the proceeds of those User Fees will not be used for any purposes other than the reimbursement of those actual costs. Section 2. Adoption of Fees and Charges. The City Council hereby adopts the City of Temecula User Fee Schedule ("User Fee Schedule") as set forth in attached Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference. Unless otherwise stated in the User Fee Schedule, all User Fees shall be paid to the City by the Applicant prior to the City's performance of the requested Services. Section 3. Annual Cost of Living Adjustment. The amount of the User Fees set forth in the User Fee Schedule shall be adjusted annually, without Council action, on July I" of each year by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Riverside -San Bernardino -Ontario (or any successor index). The calculation for that annual adjustment shall be made using the month of April over the month of April in the prior year. The User Fees shall not be decreased based on the changes in the Consumer Price Index. Section 4. Repeal of Conflicting Resolutions. It is the desire of the City Council that all fees and charges for services, programs or products be set forth in one document for ease of reference. Accordingly, any and all provisions of prior Resolutions of the City Council establishing or modifying fees for the services, programs or products set forth in Exhibit "A," are hereby repealed and replaced as of the effective dates as set forth in Section 7 of this Resolution, in the manner set forth in Exhibit "A;" provided, however, that such repeal shall not excuse or affect the failure of any person or entity to pay any fee heretofore imposed upon such person or entity. The City Council desires to clarify that in adopting this Resolution, it is taking action only on those fees for the services, programs or products set forth in Exhibit A which have been modified from prior resolutions of the City Council. To the extent any remaining fees that have not been modified from prior resolutions shall remain in full force and effect and are hereby restated for convenience so that all fees are set forth in one document. Section 5. Policies and Procedures. Staff is hereby authorized and directed to establish policies and procedures for implementation and collection of User Fees. Section 6. CEQA. The approval of the User Fees established in this Resolution does not constitute a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(4) because such actions involve the creation of a government funding mechanism which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Furthermore, the approval of the User Fees established in this Resolution is statutorily exempt from CEQA under CEQA guidelines Section 15273 (a)(1) because the approval of the User Fees is merely establishing fees to meet operating expenses. Section 7. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution or any part hereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Resolution or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 8. Effective Date. The User Fees listed in the User Fee Schedule in Exhibit A, which are imposed on a development project and which apply to the filing, accepting, reviewing, approving or issuing of an application, permit, or entitlement to use shall be effective no sooner than 60 days following the date this Resolution is adopted. Section 9. Certification. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify to the passage and adoption thereof. EXHIBIT "A" City of Temecula User Fee Schedule 2024-25 PROPOSED USER FEE SCHEDULE 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 951.694.6430 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Building - Miscellaneous Fee Description Fee# NEW OCCUPANCIES: NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - up to 5,000 si 1 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - 5,001-15,000 si 2 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - 15,001-50,000 si 3 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 4 NC - Commercial with interior improvements - up to 5,000 si 5 NC - Commercial with interior improvements - 5,001-15,000 si 6 NC - Commercial with interior improvements - 15,001-50,000 si 7 NC - Commercial with interior improvements - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 8 NC - Warehouse - up to 5,000 sf 9 NC - Warehouse - 5,001-15,000 sf 10 NC - Warehouse - 15,001-50,000 sf 11 NC - Warehouse - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 12 NC - Commercial High Rise - up to 10,000 sf 13 NC - Commercial High Rise - 10,001-50,000 sf 14 NC - Commercial High Rise - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 15 NC - Parking Structure - up to 100,000 sf 16 NC - Parking Structure - 100,001-500,000 sf 17 NC - Parking Structure - each additional 10,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 500,000 SF 1 18 NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - up to 1,000 sf 19 NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - 1,001-2,500 sf 20 NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - 2,501-5,000 sf 21 NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, over 5,000 SF 22 NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - up to 1,000 sf 23 NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - 1,001-2,500 sf 24 NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - 2,501-5,000 sf 25 NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, over 5,000 SF 26 NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - up to 5,000 sf 27 NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - 5,001-10,000 sf 28 NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - 10,001-15,000 sf 29 NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 15,000 SF 30 NC - Hotels/Motels - up to 10,000 sf 31 NC - Hotels/Motels - 10,001-50,000 sf 32 NC - Hotels/Motels - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 33 TI - Tenant Improvements - up to 2,500 sf 34 TI - Tenant Improvements - 2,501- 5,000 sf 35 TI - Tenant Improvements - 5,001-20,000 sf 36 TI - Tenant Improvements - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 20,000 SF 1 37 NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - up to 5,000 sf 38 NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 5,001-15,000 sf 39 NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 15,001-50,000 sf 40 NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 41 TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - up to 5,000 sf 42 TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 5,001-15,000 sf 43 TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 15,001-50,000 sf 1 44 TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 45 NC - UTILITY BUILDING - up to 500 sf 46 NC - UTILITY BUILDING - 501-1,000 sf 47 NC - UTILITY BUILDING - 1,001-2,500 sf 48 NC - UTILITY BUILDING - each additional 500 sf. or portion thereof, over 2.500 SF 49 Proposed Fees - Plan Check Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase / (Decrease) $ 2,336.98 $ 2,994.67 $ 2,994.67 $ 657.69 $ 3,209.46 $ 3,847.86 $ 3,847.86 $ 638.40 $ 5,639.44 $ 4,967.14 $ 4,967.14 $ (672.30) $ 112.65 $ 123.44 $ 123.44 $ 10.79 $ 4,520.09 $ 4,187.49 $ 4,187.49 $ (332.60) $ 5,669.16 $ 5,255.87 $ 5,255.87 $ (413.29) $ 8,813.43 $ 7,147.36 $ 7,147.36 $ (1,666.07) $ 247.36 $ 123.65 $ 123.65 $ (123.71) $ 4,058.92 $ 4,164.22 $ 4,164.22 $ 105.30 $ 4,474.07 $ 4,726.36 $ 4,726.36 $ 252.29 $ 7,515.74 $ 5,589.09 $ 5,589.09 $ (1,926.65) $ 170.18 $ 123.65 $ 123.65 $ (46.53) $ 3,209.46 $ 5,965.75 $ 5,965.75 $ 2,756.29 $ 5,639.44 $ 8,563.97 $ 8,563.97 $ 2,924.53 $ 112.65 $ 123.65 $ 123.65 $ 11.00 $ 16,488.80 $ 6,663.96 $ 6,663.96 $ (9,824.84) $ 82,445.45 $ 8,368.70 $ 8,368.70 $ (74,076.75) $ 320.90 $ 165.07 $ 165.07 $ (155.83) $ 944.86 $ 2,185.05 $ 1,638.79 $ 693.93 $ 1,207.08 $ 2,483.58 $ 1,862.69 $ 655.60 $ 1,826.44 $ 3,065.87 $ 2,299.40 $ 472.96 $ 472.43 $ 100.68 $ 100.68 $ (371.75) $ - $ 228.24 $ 171.18 $ 171.18 $ $ 240.31 $ 180.23 $ 180.23 $ $ 251.69 $ 188.77 $ 188.77 $ $ 59.26 $ 44.45 $ 44.45 $ 4,048.86 $ 4,211.23 $ 4,211.23 $ 162.37 $ 5,134.65 $ 4,953.94 $ 4,953.94 $ (180.71) $ 6,094.38 $ 5,527.38 $ 5,527.38 $ (567.00) $ 221.47 $ 107.66 $ 107.66 $ (113.81) $ 5,134.65 $ 6,101.42 $ 6,101.42 $ 966.77 $ 8,817.74 $ 10,426.67 $ 10,426.67 $ 1,608.93 $ 242.40 $ 108.26 $ 108.26 $ (134.14) $ 991.12 $ 1,651.24 $ 1,651.24 $ 660.12 $ 3,249.97 $ 2,512.61 $ 2,512.61 $ (737.36) $ 6,253.89 $ 3,202.33 $ 3,202.33 $ (3,051.56) $ 258.87 $ 104.48 $ 104.48 $ (154.39) $ 3,758.35 $ 6,131.79 $ 6,131.79 $ 2,373.44 $ 4,907.43 $ 7,430.61 $ 7,430.61 $ 2,523.18 $ 10,320.60 $ 11,283.03 $ 11,283.03 $ 962.43 $ 1,005.74 $ 107.67 $ 107.67 $ (898.07) $ 2,351.85 $ 2,766.60 $ 2,766.60 $ 414.75 $ 3,767.94 $ 3,957.07 $ 3,957.07 $ 189.13 $ 7,997.28 $ 5,569.22 $ 5,569.22 $ (2,428.06) $ 743.52 $ 107.67 $ 107.67 $ (635.85) $ 247.84 $ 752.34 $ 752.34 $ 504.50 $ 321.43 $ 956.55 $ 956.55 $ 635.12 $ 499.99 $ 1,105.28 $ 1,105.28 $ 605.29 $ 34.76 $ 72.52 $ 72.52 $ 37.76 Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 2 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Building - Miscellaneous Fee Description Fee# MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING FEES (NON-MPE): 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 Accessory Structure 0 to 500 sf Accessory Structure 500 to 1000 sf Accessory Structure 1001 sf+ Cellular Tower - free-standing Cellular Tower with Equipment Shelter Adding Antenna's to existing tower - first 5 each additional 5 Carport - First 200 sf Carport - each additional 200 sf Non Construction Certificate of Occupancy: 0 - 1,500 sf Non Construction Certificate of Occupancy: Over 1,500 sf Commercial Coach (per unit) Demolition Door - New (non structural) Door - New (structural shear wall/masonry) Duplicate / Replacement Job Card Freestanding Wall (fence)(non-masonry): 5 - 10 feet in height 66 Each additional 100 If 67 Over 10 feet in height 68 69 Each additional 100 If up to 6' high - first 100 If 70 Each additional 100 If 71 Over 6' high (engineered) - first 100 It 72 each additional 100 If 73 Fireplace - Masonry 74 Fireplace - Pre -Fabricated / Metal [DELETED] 75 Flag pole (over 30 feet in height) 76 Lighting pole - first pole 77 Lighting pole - each add'I pole (at same location] 78 Res/Com Engineered: Deck, Patio Cover, Awning, Balcony, Covered Porch, Enclosed Patio - First 300 sf 79 Res/Com Engineered: Deck, Patio Cover, Awning, Balcony, Covered Porch, Enclosed Patio - Each additional 100 sf 80 City Standard Patio/Deck (includes ICC products) - First 300 sf 81 City Standard Patio/Deck (includes ICC products) - Each additional 100 sf 82 Mobile Homes - Site Preparation 83 Mobile Homes - Foundation 84 Mobile Homes - Installlation 85 Partition - Commercial, Interior (up to 30 I.f.) 86 Additional partition (each 30 If) 87 Partition - Residential, Interior (up to 301.f.) 88 Additional partition (each 30 If) 89 Photovoltaic System: Residential Roof Mounted 90 Residential Ground Mounted 91 Commercial Roof Mounted 92 Commercial Ground Mounted 93 nnmg wan (concrete or masonry): 94 95 96 97 98 99 Standard (up to 50 If) i additional 50 If of retaining wall neered first 50 If up to 8' high i additional 50 If neered first 50 If over 8' high i additional 50 If ,n Addition First Story up to 300 sf 100 i additional 100 sf 101 ,n Addition Multi Story up to 300 sf 102 i additional 100 sf 103 odel - Residential - up to 300 s.f. 104 odel - Residential - each additional 300 sf 105 iof up to 5000 sf (50 squares) 106 Proposed Fees - Plan Check Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase / (Decrease) $ 247.84 $ 598.25 $ 448.69 $ 200.85 $ 321.43 $ 648.19 $ 486.14 $ 164.72 $ 499.99 $ 840.99 $ 630.74 $ 130.75 $ 561.84 $ 1,053.73 $ 790.30 $ 228.46 $ 239.21 $ 1,625.94 $ 1,219.46 $ 980.24 $ 55.13 $ 471.73 $ 353.80 $ 298.67 $ - $ 47.26 $ 35.45 $ 35.45 $ 110.26 $ 460.55 $ 345.41 $ 235.15 $ - $ 43.41 $ 32.56 $ 32.56 $ 135.66 $ 483.32 $ 362.49 $ 226.83 $ 110.26 $ 276.23 $ 207.17 $ 96.91 $ 49.38 $ 92.88 $ 69.66 $ 20.28 $ 60.88 $ 147.55 $ 110.66 $ 49.78 $ 41.95 $ 51.26 $ 38.45 $ (3.50) $ 87.73 $ 167.01 $ 125.26 $ 37.53 $ 23.01 $ 40.35 $ 30.26 $ 7.25 $ 87.73 $ 361.38 $ 271.04 $ 183.31 $ 23.01 $ 53.60 $ 40.20 $ 17.19 $ 95.88 $ 167.01 $ 125.26 $ 29.38 $ 12.46 $ 40.35 $ 30.26 $ 17.80 $ 142.38 $ 402.79 $ 302.09 $ 159.72 $ 12.46 $ 66.85 $ 50.14 $ 37.67 $ 161.55 $ 358.47 $ 268.85 $ 107.30 $ 78.14 $ 222.82 $ 167.12 $ 88.98 $ 70.95 $ 196.38 $ 147.29 $ 76.34 $ 12.46 $ 14.20 $ 10.65 $ (1.81) $ 93.96 $ 300.29 $ 93.09 $ (0.87) $ 14.38 $ 47.44 $ 14.71 $ 0.32 $ 78.14 $ 83.14 $ 78.98 $ 0.84 $ 7.19 $ 10.38 $ 7.27 $ 0.08 $ 160.59 $ 532.26 $ 399.20 $ 238.60 $ 160.59 $ 479.80 $ 359.85 $ 199.26 $ 160.59 $ 256.80 $ 192.60 $ 32.01 $ 87.73 $ 345.52 $ 259.14 $ 171.41 $ 10.55 $ 44.11 $ 33.08 $ 22.54 $ 55.13 $ 307.42 $ 230.57 $ 175.44 $ 37.87 $ 47.04 $ 35.28 $ (2.59) or 9 $ 122.24 $ 413.50 $ 310.13 $ 187.88 $ 186.48 $ 519.60 $ 389.70 $ 203.22 $ 321.19 $ 867.66 $ 650.75 $ 329.56 $ 449.66 $ 1,133.65 $ 850.24 $ 400.58 $ 86.29 $ 188.08 $ 86.52 $ 0.23 $ 12.46 $ 37.52 $ 12.76 $ 0.29 $ 135.66 $ 242.76 $ 135.95 $ 0.28 $ 60.88 $ 42.49 $ 42.49 $ (18.39) $ 177.37 $ 256.01 $ 179.21 $ 1.84 $ 60.88 $ 42.49 $ 42.49 $ (18.39) $ 263.66 $ 647.31 $ 485.48 $ 221.82 $ 87.73 $ 66.09 $ 66.09 $ (21.64) $ 263.66 $ 873.60 $ 655.20 $ 391.54 $ 87.73 $ 66.09 $ 66.09 $ (21.64) $ 110.26 $ 507.57 $ 111.67 $ 1.41 $ 78.14 $ 103.70 $ 78.81 $ 0.67 $ 95.40 $ 97.10 $ 95.16 $ (0.24) Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 3 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Building - Miscellaneous Fee Description Fee# each additional 1,000 sf (10 squares) 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 Sauna - steam (actual time at staff hourly rates) Siding - Stone/Brick Veneer/ Stucco first 400 sf Siding - each additional 400 sf Signs: Directional Each additional Directional Sign Monument Each additional Monument Sign Pole 115 116 117 118 Each additional Pole Sign Wall Sign - Illuminated Each additional Illuminated sign Wall Non -Illuminated 119 Each additional Wall Sign 120 Skylight - Residential (each) 121 Skylight - Commercial (each) 122 Stairs - First Flight 123 124 125 126 127 128 Each additional flight Storage Racks 0-8' high (up to 100 If) each additional 100 If over 8' high (up to 100 If) each additional 100 If Swimming Pool / Spa 129 130 131 132 133 Vinyklined (up to 800 s.f.) Fiberglass Gunite (up to 800 s.f.) Each additional 800 s.f. Commercial pool (up to 800 sf) Each additional 800 sf 134 Window or Sliding Glass Door Replacement First 5 135 Each additional 5 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 New window (structural shear wall/masonry) first 5 Each additional 5 Disabled Access Compliance Inspection (Permit Issuance is flat fee, Inspection is actual time at staff hourly rates) Address Assignment (hourly) NEW: Weed Abatement Contract Administrative Fee (Code Enforcement; HOURLY RATES: After Hours Inspection Fee (4 hours minimum) - at applicable staff hourly rate [Fee shown is the minimum fee] Records Research (first 1/2 hour) 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) Supplemental Plan Check Fee (first 1/2 hour) Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) Supplemental Inspection Fee (first 1/2 hour) Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) Community Development Tech (per hour) Community Development Proc. Supervisor (per hour) Building Inspector II (per hour) Building Official (per hour) Community Development Director (per hour) Sr. Administrative Assistant (per hour) Administrative Assistant (per hour) Principal Management Analyst (per hour) Sr. Office Specialist (per hour) 157 Code Enforcement Officer I / II (per hour) 158 Proposed Fees - Plan Check Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase / (Decrease) $ 1.44 $ 20.87 $ 1.46 $ 0.02 $ 64.24 $ 113.35 $ 85.01 $ 20.78 $ 64.24 $ 33.54 $ 33.54 $ (30.70) $ 110.26 $ 168.96 $ 126.72 $ 16.46 $ 37.87 $ 37.92 $ 28.44 $ (9.43) $ 93.48 $ 357.68 $ 268.26 $ 174.78 $ 12.46 $ 85.31 $ 63.98 $ 51.52 $ 70.95 $ 146.21 $ 109.66 $ 38.71 $ 13.42 $ 34.12 $ 25.59 $ 12.17 $ 90.60 $ 180.71 $ 135.53 $ 44.93 $ 25.41 $ 43.63 $ 32.72 $ 7.32 $ 80.06 $ 167.40 $ 125.55 $ 45.49 $ 25.41 $ 20.87 $ 15.65 $ (9.75) $ 64.24 $ 164.44 $ 123.33 $ 59.09 $ 103.55 $ 192.74 $ 144.56 $ 41.01 $ 109.78 $ 222.95 $ 167.21 $ 57.43 $ 55.13 $ 23.64 $ 17.73 $ (37.40) $ 87.73 $ 245.79 $ 184.34 $ 96.62 $ 18.22 $ 33.54 $ 25.16 $ 6.94 $ 128.95 $ 468.11 $ 351.08 $ 222.13 $ 32.12 $ 74.96 $ 56.22 $ 24.10 $ 122.24 $ 107.86 $ 80.90 $ (41.35) $ 116.01 $ 107.86 $ 80.90 $ (35.12) $ 118.89 $ 153.70 $ 115.28 $ (3.61) $ 60.88 $ 16.65 $ 12.49 $ (48.39) $ 187.44 $ 871.03 $ 653.27 $ 465.83 $ - $ 103.70 $ 77.78 $ 77.78 $ 37.87 $ 79.56 $ 59.67 $ 21.80 $ 37.87 $ 16.65 $ 12.49 $ (25.38) $ 103.55 $ 164.70 $ 123.53 $ 19.98 $ 103.55 $ 20.87 $ 15.65 $ (87.89) $ - $ 45.70 $ 34.28 $ 34.28 $ 160.59 $ 150.23 $ 112.67 $ (47.92) $ - $ 340.67 $ 255.50 $ 255.50 $ 91.08 $ 117.96 $ 88.47 $ (2.61) $ 45.54 $ 94.41 $ 70.81 $ 25.27 $ 91.08 $ 138.06 $ 103.55 $ 12.46 $ 45.54 $ 100.30 $ 75.23 $ 29.68 $ 160.59 $ 166.46 $ 124.85 $ (35.75) $ 160.59 $ 211.18 $ 158.39 $ (2.21) $ 160.59 $ 179.84 $ 134.88 $ (25.71) $ 160.59 $ 235.53 $ 176.65 $ 16.05 $ 160.59 $ 358.15 $ 268.61 $ 108.02 $ 160.59 $ 154.46 $ 115.85 $ (44.75) $ 160.59 $ 156.46 $ 117.35 $ (43.25) $ 160.59 $ 208.36 $ 156.27 $ (4.32) $ 160.59 $ 155.09 $ 116.32 $ (44.28) $ 160.59 $ 167.95 $ 125.96 $ (34.63) Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 4 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Building - Miscellaneous Fee Description NEW OCCUPANCIES: NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - up to 5,000 si NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - 5,001-15,000 si NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - 15,001-50,000 si NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF NC - Commercial with interior improvements - up to 5,000 si NC - Commercial with interior improvements - 5,001-15,000 si NC - Commercial with interior improvements - 15,001-50,000 si NC - Commercial with interior improvements - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF NC - Warehouse - up to 5,000 sf NC - Warehouse - 5,001-15,000 sf NC - Warehouse - 15,001-50,000 sf NC - Warehouse - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF NC - Commercial High Rise - up to 10,000 sf NC - Commercial High Rise - 10,001-50,000 sf NC - Commercial High Rise - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF NC - Parking Structure - up to 100,000 sf NC - Parking Structure - 100,001-500,000 sf NC - Parking Structure - each additional 10,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 500,000 SF NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - up to 1,000 sf NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - 1,001-2,500 sf NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - 2,501-5,000 sf NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, over 5,000 SF NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - up to 1,000 si NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - 1,001-2,500 sf NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - 2,501-5,000 sf NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, over 5,000 SF NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - up to 5,000 sf NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - 5,001-10,000 sf NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - 10,001-15,000 sf NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 15,000 SF NC - Hotels/Motels - up to 10,000 sf NC - Hotels/Motels - 10,001-50,000 sf NC - Hotels/Motels - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF TI - Tenant Improvements - up to 2,500 sf TI - Tenant Improvements - 2,501- 5,000 sf TI - Tenant Improvements - 5,001-20,000 sf TI - Tenant Improvements - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 20,000 SF NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - up to 5,000 sf NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 5,001-15,000 sf NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 15,001-50,000 sf NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - up to 5,000 sf TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 5,001-15,000 sf TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 15,001-50,000 sf TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF NC - UTILITY BUILDING - up to 500 sf NC - UTILITY BUILDING - 501-1,000 sf NC - UTILITY BUILDING - 1,001-2,500 sf NC - UTILITY BUILDING - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, over 2,500 SF Fee# 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 Proposed Fees - Inspection Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase / (Decrease) $ 3,505.48 $ 1,567.19 $ 1,567.19 $ (1,938.29) $ 4,814.19 $ 2,038.11 $ 2,038.11 $ (2,776.08) $ 8,459.16 $ 3,677.95 $ 3,677.95 $ (4,781.21) $ 168.98 $ 160.03 $ 160.03 $ (8.95) $ 6,780.13 $ 2,051.55 $ 2,051.55 $ (4,728.58) $ 8,503.75 $ 2,890.01 $ 2,890.01 $ (5,613.74) $ 13,220.14 $ 4,075.53 $ 4,075.53 $ (9,144.61) $ 371.04 $ 160.03 $ 160.03 $ (211.01) $ 6,088.38 $ 1,411.00 $ 1,411.00 $ (4,677.38) $ 6,711.10 $ 1,935.86 $ 1,935.86 $ (4,775.24) $ 11,273.61 $ 3,243.01 $ 3,243.01 $ (8,030.60) $ 255.27 $ 160.03 $ 160.03 $ (95.24) $ 4,814.19 $ 4,328.70 $ 4,328.70 $ (485.49) $ 8,459.16 $ 7,743.28 $ 7,743.28 $ (715.88) $ 168.98 $ 160.03 $ 160.03 $ (8.95) $ 24,733.20 $ 5,985.25 $ 5,985.25 $ (18,747.95) $ 123,668.18 $ 11,386.45 $ 11,386.45 $ (112,281.73) $ 481.35 $ 448.35 $ 448.35 $ (33.00) $ 1,417.29 $ 2,613.34 $ 1,960.01 $ 542.71 $ 1,810.62 $ 2,885.74 $ 2,164.31 $ 353.68 $ 2,739.66 $ 3,431.04 $ 3,431.04 $ 691.38 $ 708.65 $ 115.07 $ 115.07 $ (593.58) $ 932.40 $ 2,068.43 $ 1,551.32 $ 618.93 $ 1,031.87 $ 2,341.77 $ 1,756.33 $ 724.46 $ 1,695.81 $ 2,633.10 $ 1,974.83 $ 279.01 $ 475.19 $ 115.07 $ 115.07 $ (360.12) $ 6,073.28 $ 3,378.91 $ 3,378.91 $ (2,694.37) $ 7,701.98 $ 3,966.72 $ 3,966.72 $ (3,735.26) $ 9,141.56 $ 4,383.68 $ 4,383.68 $ (4,757.88) $ 332.21 $ 160.03 $ 160.03 $ (172.18) $ 7,701.98 $ 6,828.93 $ 6,828.93 $ (873.05) $ 13,226.61 $ 12,210.86 $ 12,210.86 $ (1,015.75) $ 338.25 $ 160.03 $ 160.03 $ (178.22) $ 1,486.08 $ 887.63 $ 887.63 $ (598.45) $ 4,874.95 $ 1,247.30 $ 1,247.30 $ (3,627.65) $ 9,379.94 $ 2,906.40 $ 2,906.40 $ (6,473.54) $ 390.70 $ 177.33 $ 177.33 $ (213.37) $ 5,637.53 $ 3,695.01 $ 3,695.01 $ (1,942.52) $ 7,361.14 $ 4,859.36 $ 4,859.36 $ (2,501.78) $ 15,480.90 $ 6,383.62 $ 6,383.62 $ (9,097.28) $ 1,508.61 $ 160.03 $ 160.03 $ (1,348.58) $ 3,527.77 $ 2,277.89 $ 2,277.89 $ (1,249.88) $ 5,651.91 $ 3,379.31 $ 3,379.31 $ (2,272.60) $ 11,995.32 $ 4,980.89 $ 4,980.89 $ (7,014.43) $ 1,115.28 $ 160.03 $ 160.03 $ (955.25) $ 371.76 $ 578.59 $ 578.59 $ 206.83 $ 480.34 $ 695.69 $ 695.69 $ 215.35 $ 749.99 $ 819.32 $ 819.32 $ 69.33 $ - $ 137.55 $ 137.55 $ 137.55 Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 5 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Building - Miscellaneous Fee Description MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING FEES (NON-MPE): Accessory Structure 0 to 500 sf Accessory Structure 500 to 1000 sf Accessory Structure 1001 sf+ Cellular Tower - free-standing Cellular Tower with Equipment Shelter Adding Antenna's to existing tower - first 5 each additional 5 Carport - First 200 sf Carport - each additional 200 sf Non Construction Certificate of Occupancy: 0 - 1,500 sf Non Construction Certificate of Occupancy: Over 1,500 sf Commercial Coach (per unit) Demolition Door - New (non structural) Door - New (structural shear wall/masonry) Duplicate / Replacement Job Card Freestanding Wall (fence)(non-masonry): 6 - 10 feet in height Each additional 100 If Over 10 feet in height Each additional 100 If Freestanding Wall (masonry): up to 6' high - first 100 If Each additional 100 If Over 6' high (engineered) - first 100 It each additional 100 If Fireplace - Masonry Fireplace - Pre -Fabricated / Metal [DELETED] Flag pole (over 30 feet in height) Lighting pole - first pole Lighting pole - each add'I pole (at same location] Res/Com Engineered: Deck, Patio Cover, Awning, Balcony, Covered Porch, Enclosed Patio - First 300 sf Res/Com Engineered: Deck, Patio Cover, Awning, Balcony, Covered Porch, Enclosed Patio - Each additional 100 sf City Standard Patio/Deck (includes ICC products) - First 300 sf City Standard Patio/Deck (includes ICC products) - Each additional 100 sf Mobile Homes - Site Preparation Mobile Homes - Foundation Mobile Homes - Installlation Partition - Commercial, Interior (up to 30 I.f.) Additional partition (each 30 If) Partition - Residential, Interior (up to 30 I.f.) Additional partition (each 30 If) Photovoltaic System: Residential Roof Mounted Residential Ground Mounted Commercial Roof Mounted Commercial Ground Mounted Retaining Wall (concrete or masonry): City Standard (up to 50 If) each additional 50 If of retaining wall Engineered first 50 If up to 8' high Each additional 50 If Engineered first 50 If over 8' high Each additional 50 If Room Addition First Story up to 300 sf Each additional 100 sf Room Addition Multi Story up to 300 sf Each additional 100 sf Remodel - Residential - up to 300 s.f. Remodel - Residential - each additional 300 sf Reroof up to 5000 sf (50 squares) Fee# 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 Proposed Fees - Inspection Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase / (Decrease) $ 371.76 $ 652.53 $ 489.40 $ 117.64 $ 480.34 $ 729.40 $ 547.05 $ 66.71 $ 749.99 $ 833.24 $ 833.24 $ 83.25 $ 842.75 $ 640.44 $ 640.44 $ (202.31) $ 358.82 $ 831.90 $ 623.93 $ 265.11 $ 82.69 $ 368.89 $ 276.67 $ 193.97 $ - $ 60.22 $ 45.17 $ 45.17 $ 165.39 $ 329.33 $ 247.00 $ 81.61 $ - $ 110.41 $ 82.81 $ 82.81 $ 80.30 $ 234.53 $ 82.09 $ 1.79 $ 160.59 $ 324.45 $ 162.23 $ 1.63 $ 203.50 $ 435.91 $ 326.93 $ 123.44 $ 165.39 $ 323.94 $ 242.96 $ 77.57 $ 74.06 $ 157.89 $ 118.42 $ 44.35 $ 91.32 $ 233.42 $ 175.07 $ 83.74 $ 131.59 $ 320.10 $ 240.08 $ 108.48 $ 34.52 $ 79.24 $ 59.43 $ 24.91 $ 131.59 $ 437.24 $ 327.93 $ 196.34 $ 34.52 $ 79.24 $ 59.43 $ 24.91 $ 143.81 $ 438.77 $ 329.08 $ 185.26 $ 18.70 $ 146.68 $ 110.01 $ 91.31 $ 213.56 $ 652.99 $ 489.74 $ 276.18 $ 18.70 $ 200.63 $ 150.47 $ 131.78 $ 242.33 $ 586.96 $ 440.22 $ 197.89 $ 117.21 $ 363.98 $ 272.99 $ 155.78 $ 106.42 $ 362.19 $ 271.64 $ 165.22 $ 18.70 $ 45.83 $ 34.37 $ 15.68 $ 140.94 $ 458.58 $ 142.16 $ 1.22 $ 21.57 $ 118.97 $ 22.60 $ 1.03 $ 117.21 $ 339.96 $ 118.99 $ 1.78 $ 10.79 $ 51.30 $ 10.77 $ (0.01) $ 160.59 $ 349.84 $ 262.38 $ 101.79 $ 160.59 $ 366.03 $ 274.52 $ 113.93 $ 160.59 $ 437.96 $ 328.47 $ 167.88 $ 131.59 $ 361.44 $ 271.08 $ 139.49 $ 15.82 $ 70.12 $ 52.59 $ 36.77 $ 82.69 $ 316.24 $ 237.18 $ 154.49 $ 56.81 $ 55.74 $ 55.74 $ (1.07) $ 183.36 $ 307.51 $ 230.63 $ 47.27 $ 279.72 $ 422.59 $ 316.94 $ 37.22 $ 481.78 $ 487.35 $ 487.35 $ 5.57 $ 674.49 $ 706.49 $ 706.49 $ 3200. $ 147.41 $ 444.17 $ 151.02 $ 3.61 $ 18.70 $ 102.50 $ 18.45 $ (0.25) $ 203.50 $ 512.27 $ 204.91 $ 1.41 $ 91.32 $ 115.07 $ 92.06 $ 0.73 $ 266.06 $ 641.49 $ 269.43 $ 3.37 $ 91.32 $ 115.07 $ 92.06 $ 0.73 $ 395.49 $ 876.73 $ 657.55 $ 262.06 $ 131.59 $ 67.41 $ 67.41 $ (64.18) $ 395.49 $ 998.76 $ 749.07 $ 353.58 $ 131.59 $ 67.41 $ 67.41 $ (64.18) $ 165.39 $ 713.54 $ 171.25 $ 5.86 $ 117.21 $ 113.29 $ 113.29 $ (3.92) $ 143.10 $ 485.54 $ 145.66 $ 2.57 Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 6 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Building - Miscellaneous Fee Description each additional 1,000 sf (10 squares) Sauna - steam (actual time at staff hourly rates) Siding - Stone/Brick Veneer/ Stucco first 400 sf Siding - each additional 400 sf Signs: Directional Each additional Directional Sign Monument Each additional Monument Sign Pole Each additional Pole Sign Wall Sign - Illuminated Each additional Illuminated sign Wall Non -Illuminated Each additional Wall Sign Skylight - Residential (each) Skylight - Commercial (each) Stairs - First Flight Each additional flight Storage Racks 0-8' high (up to 100 If) each additional 100 If over 8' high (up to 100 If) each additional 100 If Swimming Pool / Spa Vinyl -lined (up to 800 s.f.) Fiberglass Gunite (up to 800 s.f.) Each additional 800 s.f. Commercial pool (up to 800 sf) Each additional 800 sf Window or Sliding Glass Door Replacement First 5 Each additional 5 New window (structural shear wall/masonry) first 5 Each additional 5 Disabled Access Compliance Inspection (Permit Issuance is flat fee, Inspection is actual time at staff hourly rates) Address Assignment (hourly) NEW: Weed Abatement Contract Administrative Fee (Code Enforcement; HOURLY RATES: After Hours Inspection Fee (4 hours minimum) - at applicable staff hourly rate [Fee shown is the minimum fee] Records Research (first 1/2 hour) Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) Supplemental Plan Check Fee (first 1/2 hour) Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) Supplemental Inspection Fee (first 1/2 hour) Each Additional 1/2 hour (or portion thereof) Community Development Tech (per hour) Community Development Proc. Supervisor (per hour) Building Inspector II (per hour) Building Official (per hour) Community Development Director (per hour) Sr. Administrative Assistant (per hour) Administrative Assistant (per hour) Principal Management Analyst (per hour) Sr. Office Specialist (per hour) Code Enforcement Officer I / II (per hour) Fee# 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 Proposed Fees - Inspection Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase / (Decrease) $ 2.16 $ 71.92 $ 2.16 $ 0.00 $ 96.36 $ 291.57 $ 218.68 $ 122.32 $ 96.36 $ 60.22 $ 60.22 $ (36.14) $ 165.39 $ 300.31 $ 225.23 $ 59.85 $ 56.57 $ 117.77 $ 88.33 $ 31.76 $ 140.22 $ 467.56 $ 350.67 $ 210.45 $ 18.70 $ 166.32 $ 124.74 $ 106.04 $ 106.42 $ 332.68 $ 249.51 $ 143.09 $ 20.13 $ 88.99 $ 66.74 $ 46.61 $ 135.90 $ 300.31 $ 225.23 $ 89.33 $ 38.11 $ 81.80 $ 61.35 $ 23.24 $ 120.09 $ 271.53 $ 203.65 $ 83.56 $ 38.11 $ 76.41 $ 57.31 $ 19.20 $ 96.36 $ 258.95 $ 194.21 $ 97.86 $ 136.14 $ 303.90 $ 227.93 $ 91.78 $ 187.44 $ 289.52 $ 217.14 $ 29.70 $ 82.69 $ 106.98 $ 80.24 $ (2.46) $ 131.59 $ 346.00 $ 259.50 $ 127.91 $ 27.32 $ 70.12 $ 52.59 $ 25.27 $ 193.43 $ 390.95 $ 293.21 $ 99.78 $ 48.18 $ 86.31 $ 64.73 $ 16.55 $ 183.36 $ 461.91 $ 346.43 $ 163.07 $ 175.21 $ 461.91 $ 346.43 $ 171.22 $ 178.33 $ 564.16 $ 423.12 $ 244.79 $ 91.32 $ 103.38 $ 77.54 $ (13.79) $ 281.16 $ 857.03 $ 642.77 $ 361.62 $ - $ 103.38 $ 77.54 $ 77.54 $ 56.81 $ 259.19 $ 194.39 $ 137.59 $ 56.81 $ 119.57 $ 89.68 $ 32.87 $ 155.32 $ 349.11 $ 261.83 $ 106.51 $ 155.32 $ 88.99 $ 66.74 $ (88.58) $ 160.59 $ 247.54 $ 185.66 $ 25.06 $ 642.37 $ 719.35 $ 719.35 $ 76.98 $ 91.08 $ 127.68 $ 95.76 $ 4.68 $ 45.54 $ 89.92 $ 67.44 $ 21.90 $ $ 179.84 $ 134.88 $ 134.88 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ 167.95 $ 125.96 $ 125.96 $ $ - $ - $ Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.2724) Page - 7 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Building - MP&E Fee Description Fee# rmit Issuance Fees: 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 rmit Issuance - Simple Project (includes 1 inspection visit) - Base Fee (Plus individual it fees for each inspection listed below) e for Each Additional Trip (Plus individual unit fees for each inspection listed below) ECHANICAL PERMIT FEES 3ndard Mechanical Item (Each common mechanical item and system, with the ception of those listed below.) - each item ;tall/Relocate each forced air or gravity -type furnace or burner and/or boiler or mpressor (including attached ducts and vents) up to and including 100,000 Btu/h ;tall/Relocate each forced air or gravity -type furnace or burner and/or boiler or mpressor (including attached ducts and vents) over 100,000 Btu/h UMBING / GAS PERMIT FEES 3ndard Plumbing Item (Each common plumbing item and system, with the exception those listed below.) - each item ch Water Heater and/or vent aallation, alteration, or repair of piping for water, gas, drainage and/or venting - each m or system (per building/structure) ch building or trailer park sewer or private sewage disposal system - each item or stem (per building/structure) ch Industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, excepting chen-type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps vate, Residential, In -ground Swimming Pools (each new) (Includes a complete system necessary branch circuit wiring, bonding, grounding, underwater lighting, water mping and other similar electrical equipment directly related to the operation of a imming pool. For all other types of swimming pools, therapeutic whirlpools, spas, d alterations to existing swimming pools, use the UNIT FEE schedule.) 170 mporary Power Service - Power pole or pedestal, including all pole or pedestal- )unted receptacle outlets and appurtenances. Also includes temporary power tribution system and temporary lighting and receptacle outlets for constructions =s, decorative light, Christmas tree sales lots, firework stands, etc. 171 ceceptacle, �.wiccn, ana ugnung uuueis Ineaaerl, ugnung rimures, socKels, or omer amp -holding devices, (Receptacle, switch, lighting, or other outltes at which current is ised or controlled, except services, feeders, and meters.): First 10 (or portion thereof) For multi -outlet assemblies, each 5 feet or fraction thereof may be considered as one cutlet.) 172 ach Additional 10 (or portion thereof) 173 kppliances: Residential and Non -Residential (see details below' 174 Jp to and including 1(each) 175 )ver 1 and not over 10 (each) 176 )ver 10 and not over 50 (each) 177 )ver 50 and not over 100 (each) 178 )ver 100 (each) ,ign Power (not included as a Miscellaneous Fee) - Signs, Outline Lighting, or Marquees ier each branch circuit 179 180 ,ervices ,ervices of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in ratine (each! 181 vices of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1000 amperes in rating (each) 1 182 vices over 600 volts or over 1000 amperes in rating (each) 183 -cellaneous Apparatus, Conduits, and Conductors: Electrical apparatus, conduits, I conductors for which a permit is required, but for which no fee is herein set forth is fee is not applicable when a fee is paid for one or more services, outlets, fixtures, diances, power apparatus, busways, signs, or other equipment.) - each item 184 Proposed Fees Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase / (Decrease) $ 121.88 $ 135.93 $ 135.93 $ 14.05 $ 67.71 $ 70.11 $ 70.11 $ 2.40 $ 49.28 $ 114.55 $ 85.91 $ 36.63 $ 108.34 $ 191.88 $ 143.91 $ 35.57 $ 135.43 $ 222.45 $ 166.84 $ 31.41 $ 13.54 $ 107.26 $ 13.94 $ 0.40 $ 27.09 $ 154.02 $ 29.26 $ 2.18 $ 22.33 $ 73.38 $ 55.04 $ 32.71 $ 67.71 $ 182.79 $ 137.09 $ 69.38 $ 67.71 $ 234.52 $ 175.89 $ 108.18 $ 67.71 $ 88.85 $ 71.08 $ 3.37 $ 57.56 $ 187.50 $ 140.63 $ 83.06 $ 27.09 $ 55.41 $ 41.56 $ 14.47 $ 13.54 $ 27.70 $ 13.85 $ 0.31 $ 8.13 $ 90.87 $ 8.18 $ 0.05 $ 27.09 $ 128.18 $ 28.20 $ 1.11 $ 54.17 $ 160.55 $ 54.59 $ 0.42 $ 81.26 $ 189.32 $ 81.41 $ 0.15 $ 108.34 $ 221.69 $ 108.63 $ 0.29 $ 135.43 $ 252.26 $ 136.22 $ 0.80 $ - $ 34.36 $ 25.77 $ 25.77 $ 65.00 $ 91.57 $ 68.68 $ 3.67 $ 40.63 $ 118.54 $ 88.91 $ 48.28 $ 81.26 $ 136.53 $ 102.40 $ 21.14 $ 27.09 $ 128.18 $ 96.14 $ 69.05 Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 8 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Planning Fee Description Fee# Adult Business Adult Business - Conditional Use Permit 185 Adult Business - Employee Permit 186 Adult Business - Owner Permit 187 Annexation Annexation / Detachment (Actual Time @ Staff Cost Recovery Hourly Rates) [calculated cost is the potential deposit] 188 Pre -Annexation Agreement (Actual Time @ Staff Cost Recovery Hourly Rates) [calculated cost is the potential deposit] 189 Appeal 190 ADDeal License ive Declaration (Without Mitigation) 191 192 193 194 195 196 ve Declaration (With Mitigation) anaged EIR ?mental EIR dum to EIR tificate Of Historical Appropriateness 197 iditional Use Permits iditional Use Permit - No Site Changes 198 iditional Use Permit with Development Plar 199 P - Modification of Existing CUP 200 RtR Review &R Review (staff) 201 ✓elopment Agreement ✓elopment Agreement - New 202 ✓elopment Agreement - Modification 203 ✓elopment Plan ✓elopment Plan - Larger than 100,000 SF 204 205 206 ✓elopment Plan - 10,000-100,000 SF ✓elopment Plan - Less than 10,000 SF Credit Or Reduction Credit Or Reduction 207 ension of Time ension Of Time 208 ding of Public Convenience Or Necessity ding Of Public Convenience or Necessity (without DP or CUP) 209 neral Plan Amendment neral Plan Amendment - Text Or Exhibit 210 neral Plan Amendment - Zoning & and/or Land Map 211 :al Impact Analysis [NEW] 212 idscape Construction Plan idscape Construction Plan (City administration and processing fee --in addition to isultant review fee charged directly to applicant) 213 ps tificate Of Compliance (in addition to any Public Works fees) 214 ndominium Conversion (Actual Time at Staff Cost -Recovery Hourly Rates) [Calculated ;t is to establish a potential deposit amount.] 215 idominium Map 216 Line Adjustment (in addition to any Public Works fees] 217 nor Change To Approved Tentative Map 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 -cel Merger (support to Public Works fee) ising Plan For Tentative Map iersion To Acreage A Commercial Industrial Standard A Commercial Industrial with Waiver A Residential Standard A Residential wth Waiver - Final Map Proposed Fees Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Feelncrease (Decrease) $ 14,894.80 $ 21,714.10 $ 21,714.10 $ 6,819.30 $ 217.50 $ 1,968.44 $ 1,968.44 $ 1,750.94 $ 316.50 $ 2,548.71 $ 2,548.71 $ 2,232.21 $ 48,781.70 $ 113,593.52 $ 113,593.52 $ 64,811.82 $ 59,112.90 $ 107,312.79 $ 107,312.79 $ 48,199.89 $ 536.80 $ 16,353.30 $ 750.00 $ 213.20 $ 50.00 $ 1,029.81 $ 50.00 $ - $ 6,107.20 $ 18,143.57 $ 13,607.68 $ 7,500.48 $ 8,349.00 $ 24,036.47 $ 18,027.35 $ 9,678.35 $ 65,792.10 $ 115,164.35 $ 86,373.26 $ 20,581.16 $ - $ 57,881.46 $ 43,411.10 $ 43,411.10 $ - $ 30,656.24 $ 22,992.18 $ 22,992.18 $ 618.00 $ 4,345.26 $ 750.00 $ 132.00 $ 4,498.10 $ 11,262.07 $ 5,631.04 $ 1,132.94 $ 1,433.20 $ 5,674.65 $ 2,837.33 $ 1,404.13 $ - $ 10,541.55 $ 5,270.78 $ 5,270.78 $ - $ 4,331.41 $ 4,331.41 $ 4,331.41 $ 72,402.00 $ 71,048.70 $ 71,048.70 $ (1,353.30) $ 16,585.80 $ 39,860.36 $ 29,895.27 $ 13,309.47 $ 17,686.10 $ 35,767.19 $ 26,825.39 $ 9,139.29 $ 14,702.60 $ 29,155.81 $ 21,866.86 $ 7,164.26 $ 10,822.90 $ 18,929.76 $ 14,197.32 $ 3,374.42 $ 1,210.00 $ 7,607.62 $ 3,803.81 $ 2,593.81 $ 3,771.90 $ 5,509.63 $ 4,132.22 $ 360.32 $ 1,186.00 $ 7,450.47 $ 3,725.24 $ 2,539.24 $ 10,215.70 $ 34,007.31 $ 25,505.48 $ 15,289.78 $ 8,005.80 $ 28,845.47 $ 21,634.10 $ 13,628.30 $ - $ 19,187.63 $ 14,390.72 $ 14,390.72 $ 782.00 $ 1,969.35 $ 1,477.01 $ 695.01 $ 1,753.40 $ 217.06 $ 217.06 $ (1,536.34) $ 6,076.40 $ 34,589.54 $ 25,942.16 $ 19,865.76 $ 15,758.60 $ 10,121.08 $ 10,121.08 $ (5,637.52) $ 1,773.20 $ 1,230.84 $ 1,230.84 $ (542.36) $ 2,686.20 $ 5,248.38 $ 3,936.29 $ 1,250.09 $ - $ 148.39 $ 111.29 $ 111.29 $ 4,802.60 $ 6,623.61 $ 4,967.71 $ 165.11 $ 1,023.00 $ 15,704.93 $ 11,778.70 $ 10,755.70 $ 7,517.40 $ 12,836.41 $ 9,627.31 $ 2,109.91 $ 5,056.70 $ 10,427.19 $ 7,820.39 $ 2,763.69 $ 5,394.40 $ 15,708.12 $ 11,781.09 $ 6,386.69 $ 4,319.70 $ 12,713.93 $ 9,535.45 $ 5,215.75 Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 9 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Planning Fee Description Fee# TPM Revised 226 TPM Vesting 227 TTM Standard - 5-34 Lots/Units (flat fee) 228 TTM Standard - Additional Unit Fee per lot above 34 lots 229 TTM Standard Revised Map 230 TTM Vesting 5 - 34 lots/units (flat fee) 231 TTM Vesting - Additional Unit Fee per lot above 34 lots 232 TTM Vesting Revised Map 233 Massage Permits Massage Establishment Permit 234 Massage Establishment Permit Renewal 235 Minor Exception Minor Exception - General 236 237 238 239 240 241 Minor Exception - Individual Homeowner Modifications Major Modification Minor Modification Minor Modification - Plan Review Only Minor Modification - Plan Review Only (Individual Homeowner; Municipal Code Amendment Municipal Code Amendment 242 Planned Development Overlay 243 Planned Development Overlay 244 Planned Development Overlay - Amendment 245 Residential Tract Home Product Review Residential Tract Home Product Review 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 Accessory Dwelling Unit Accessory Dwelling Unit Signage Sign Program Amendment Sign Program - New Specific Plan J1110011116- Specific Plan - New Specific Plan Amendment - Major Specific Plan Amendment- Minor Temporary Use Permits Temporary Use Permit - Minor Regular 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 Temporary Use Permit - Major Regular Temporary Use Permit - Major Non Profit Temporary Use Permit - Minor Non Profit Temporary Use Permit - Model Home Complex Temporary Use Permit - Sales / Construction Trailer Variance Variance rs License 260 ss Antenna Facility ss Antenna Facility - Administrative Review 261 ss Antenna Facility - Revision with Public Hearing 262 ss Antenna Facility - New ;Letter Letter Fees iling Permit 263 264 265 266 267 bution to Non -Planning Fees: )rary Sign Permit Occupation Permit Proposed Fees Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase (Decrease) $ 4,699.20 $ 9,955.03 $ 7,466.27 $ 2,767.07 $ 4,728.00 $ 15,570.00 $ 11,677.50 $ 6,949.50 $ 16,019.30 $ 20,733.83 $ 16,587.06 $ 567.76 $ - $ 419.01 $ 314.26 $ 314.26 $ 8,021.20 $ 11,735.71 $ 8,801.78 $ 780.58 $ 20,181.70 $ 23,630.21 $ 21,267.19 $ 1,085.49 $ - $ 419.01 $ 314.26 $ 314.26 $ 11,288.20 $ 12,843.61 $ 11,559.25 $ 271.05 $ 816.00 $ 2,626.30 $ 1,969.73 $ 1,153.73 $ 331.00 $ 1,734.03 $ 867.02 $ 536.02 $ 697.00 $ 4,371.45 $ 3,278.59 $ 2,581.59 $ 174.00 $ 1,332.12 $ 100.00 $ (74.00) $ 8,311.60 $ 15,300.12 $ 11,475.09 $ 3,163.49 $ 3,595.90 $ 6,308.79 $ 4,731.59 $ 1,135.69 $ 221.00 $ 3,427.79 $ 300.00 $ 79.00 $ 221.00 $ 2,270.92 $ 200.00 $ (21.00) $ 8,006.90 $ 39,629.22 $ 29,721.92 $ 21,715.02 $ 42,203.70 $ 57,257.64 $ 42,943.23 $ 739.53 $ - $ 33,649.81 $ 25,237.36 $ 25,237.36 $ 13,894.00 $ 23,468.53 $ 17,601.40 $ 3,707.40 $ 1,027.40 $ 4,226.82 $ 2,113.41 $ 1,086.01 $ - $ 5,738.25 $ 2,869.13 $ 2,869.13 $ 3,469.00 $ 13,614.99 $ 10,211.24 $ 6,742.24 $ 114,706.90 $ 157,802.08 $ 118,351.56 $ 3,644.66 $ 45,526.80 $ 80,431.26 $ 60,323.45 $ 14,796.65 $ 15,885.10 $ 43,362.65 $ 32,521.99 $ 16,636.89 $ 150.00 $ 1,851.28 $ 150.00 $ $ 300.00 $ 3,292.35 $ 300.00 $ $ 100.00 $ 3,109.99 $ 100.00 $ $ 75.00 $ 1,851.20 $ 75.00 $ $ 17.00 $ 4,764.82 $ 3,573.62 $ 3,556.62 $ 17.00 $ 4,364.64 $ 3,273.48 $ 3,256.48 $ 5,204.10 $ 25,970.92 $ 12,985.46 $ 7,781.36 $ 66.00 $ 1,667.87 $ 75.00 $ 9.00 $ - $ 5,527.07 $ 4,145.30 $ 4,145.30 $ $ 9,995.16 $ 7,496.37 $ 7,496.37 $ $ 13,476.98 $ 10,107.74 $ 10,107.74 $ 34.00 $ 657.03 $ 200.00 $ 166.00 $ - $ 7,663.49 $ 5,747.62 $ 5,747.62 $ 35.00 $ 216.41 $ 20.00 $ (15.00) $ 20.00 $ 54.50 $ 20.00 $ Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.2724) Page - 10 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Planning Fee Description Fee# COST RECOVERY RATES (HOURLY STAFF RATES: ling / Community Development Technician (per hour) 268 nunity Dev Svcs Processing Sup. (per hour) 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 tant Planner (per hour) :late Planner (per hour) ,r Planner (per hour) led Planner (per hour) nunity Development Director (per hour) nistrative Assistant (per hour) ipal Management Analyst (per hour) tant Director of Community Development (per hour) Proposed Fees Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Feelncrease (Decrease) $ 52.83 $ 203.72 $ 152.79 $ 99.96 $ 65.39 $ 252.26 $ 189.20 $ 123.81 $ 62.74 $ 211.26 $ 158.45 $ 95.71 $ 69.35 $ 240.53 $ 180.40 $ 111.05 $ 93.55 $ 287.17 $ 215.38 $ 121.83 $ 65.81 $ 227.58 $ 170.69 $ 104.88 $ 144.73 $ 384.61 $ 288.46 $ 143.73 $ 48.28 $ 175.53 $ 131.65 $ 83.37 $ 91.97 $ 230.77 $ 173.08 $ 81.11 $ - $ 336.87 1 $ 252.65 1 $ 252.65 Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.2724) Page - 11 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Land Development Fee Description Fee# -EARING (per acre) 278 RAIDING: JBDIVISION PRECISE GRADING PLAN (excluding Custom Lots) - Base Fee 279 JBDIVISION PRECISE GRADING PLAN (excluding Custom Lots) - Per Lot 280 AN REVISION (per sheet) 281 In and SUBSEQUENT REVIEW (per sheet) N / OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS PLAN CHECK: NSITE PLANCHECK: 63%of Engineer's Construction Security Worksheet (CSW) 282 283 Example project: (CSW = $76,000) FFSITE PLANCHECK: 63% of Engineer's Construction Security Worksheet (CSW) 284 Example project: (CSW = $102,000) 285 286 1AFFIC CONTROL PLAN: 1AFFIC CONTROL PLAN (per sheet) affic Control Plan - 4th and each subsequent review [NEW CATEGORY] :GAL DOCUMENT REVIEW �rtificate of Correction 287 all General Vacation 288 immary Vacation 289 290 291 292 293 294 ■ iblic Dedication - not related to a map iscellaneous Legal Document ?rtificate Of Compliance A Line Adjustment ircel Merger NAL MAP REVIEW (Parcel and Tract Maps) ise Fee 295 :R SHEET (NEW STRUCTURE) 296 onument Review 297 mended Maps (Parcel and Tract) per sheet 298 nal Map - 4th and subsequent review (per sheet) 299 :MA STUDIES Aq 300 301 302 303 mditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) Review Ater of Map Amendment (LOMA) Review Ater of Map Revision (LOMR) Review ood Certification Review [NEW FEE] YDROLOGY rainage tributary area up to 20 acres [NEW CATEGORY] 304 rainage tributary area over 20 acres [NEW CATEGORY] 305 ydrology Revision (NEW) 306 A Standard A Priority Development ' Revision [NEW FEE] 307 308 309 310 311 Impact Analysis: and MAINTENANCE: 3.63%of Engineer's Construction Security Worksheet (CSW) 312 Example project: (CSW = $50,000) PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION FEES CLEARING (per acre) 313 ON / OFF -SITE IMPROVEMENTS INSPECTION: ONSITE INSPECTION: 3.63%of Engineer's Construction Security Worksheet (CSW) 314 Example project: (CSW = $76,000) OFFSITE INSPECTION: 3.63% of Engineer's Construction Security Worksheet (CSW) 315 Example project: (CSW = $102,000) Proposed Fees Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase / (Decrease) $ 218.00 $ 348.59 $ 261.44 $ 43.44 $ 349.49 $ 1,717.42 $ 1,288.07 $ 938.58 $ 42.00 $ 582.45 $ 436.84 $ 394.84 $ 342.00 $ 400.72 $ 400.72 $ 58.72 $ 132.00 $ 167.87 $ 167.87 $ 35.87 $ 2,760.00 $ 7,199.44 $ 2,758.80 $ 2,639.58 $ 3,665.00 $ 6,753.39 $ 3,702.60 $ 1,400.04 $ 82.00 $ 510.48 $ 382.86 $ 300.86 $ - $ 128.33 $ 96.25 $ 96.25 $ 922.00 $ 2,894.55 $ 2,170.91 $ 1,248.91 $ 4,967.60 $ 4,341.52 $ 4,341.52 $ (626.08) $ 2,001.00 $ 3,471.86 $ 2,603.90 $ 602.90 $ 1,452.00 $ 3,044.15 $ 2,283.11 $ 831.11 $ 485.10 $ 2,317.45 $ 869.04 $ 383.94 $ 1,755.00 $ 2,497.20 $ 1,872.90 $ 117.90 $ 1,774.00 $ 3,005.78 $ 2,254.34 $ 480.34 $ 2,663.00 $ 3,894.90 $ 2,921.18 $ 258.18 $ 5,868.00 $ 10,162.52 $ 10,162.52 $ 4,294.52 $ - $ 1,575.67 $ 1,181.75 $ 1,181.75 $ 452.00 $ 4,805.14 $ 3,603.86 $ 3,151.86 $ 587.00 $ 1,505.28 $ 1,128.96 $ 541.96 $ 286.00 $ 707.09 $ 530.32 $ 244.32 $ 6,865.00 $ 3,805.50 $ 3,805.50 $ (3,059.50) $ 2,390.00 $ 3,805.50 $ 2,854.13 $ 464.13 $ 2,195.00 $ 3,513.15 $ 2,634.86 $ 439.86 $ - $ 2,426.73 $ 1,820.05 $ 1,820.05 $ 2,829.00 $ 3,662.32 $ 2,929.86 $ 100.86 $ 4,125.00 $ 5,693.09 $ 4,269.82 $ 144.82 $ - $ 1,953.89 $ 1,465.42 $ 1,465.42 $ 1,653.87 $ 1,504.98 $ 1,504.98 $ (148.89) $ 2,742.06 $ 3,479.99 $ 2,783.99 $ 41.93 $ - $ 3,949.58 $ 2,962.19 $ 2,962.19 or $ 3,309.00 $ 2,310.67 $ 2,310.67 $ (998.33) $ 827.00 $ 6,764.19 $ 5,073.14 $ 4,246.14 $ 1,850.00 $ 6,770.21 $ 1,815.00 $ 3,227.66 $ 166.00 $ 119.31 $ 119.31 $ (46.69) $ 2,760.00 $ 7,175.36 $ 2,758.80 $ 2,621.52 $ 3,665.00 $ 5,171.00 $ 3,702.60 $ 213.25 Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 12 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Land Development Fee Description Fee# PARKS AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE: PARKS & MAINTENANCE INSPECTION: 3.63% of Engineer's Construction Security Worksheet (CSW) 316 Example project: (CSW = $50,000) Encroachment Fees: Block Party 317 Driveway - Residential 318 Driveway - Commercial 319 Excavation: Base Fee Excavation: Parallel / Street Crossing - Depth up to 5 feet - per 100 If (in addition to the Excavation Base Fee) 320 321 Excavation: Parallel / Street Crossing - Depth greater than 5 feet - per 100 If (in addition to the Excavation Base Fee) 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 Utility Access Movie Filming Parkway Drain (maximum 2 per lot) Street Closure Utility Company -Annual Blanket Haul Route Tree trimming 329 Soil Study [NEW FEE) 330 NPDES Fees (potential new fees): ■ Annual Industrial Inspection - annual service per site 330 Permanent BMP's Inspection (developer placed) - annual service per site 331 Proposed Fees Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase / (Decrease) $ 1,850.00 $ 7,175.36 $ 2,758.80 $ 7,501.24 $ 37.00 $ 118.98 $ 37.00 $ - $ 78.00 $ 487.94 $ 105.00 $ 27.00 $ 104.00 $ 487.95 $ 365.96 $ 261.96 $ 276.00 $ 1,687.39 $ 1,265.54 $ 989.54 $ 276.00 $ 447.32 $ 335.49 $ 59.49 $ 276.00 $ 1,108.90 $ 831.68 $ 555.68 $ 42.00 $ 562.37 $ 421.78 $ 379.78 $ 1,233.00 $ 821.84 $ 821.84 $ (411.16) $ 78.00 $ 226.68 $ 78.00 $ - $ 166.00 $ 718.94 $ 539.21 $ 373.21 $ 479.00 $ 3,609.69 $ 2,707.27 $ 2,228.27 $ 42.00 $ 472.88 $ 354.66 $ 312.66 $ 42.00 $ 119.84 $ 42.00 $ - $ - $ 651.95 $ 488.96 $ 488.96 $ $ 250.04 $ 250.04 $ 250.04 $ $ 250.04 $ 250.04 $ 250.04 Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.2724) Page - 13 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Fire Prevention Fee Description Fee# nkler Plan Check New 1- 50 heads 331 nkler Plan Check New 51-100 332 nkler Plan Check New 101-200 333 nkler Plan Check New 201-300 334 nkler Plan Check New 301-400 335 nkler Plan Check New 401-500 336 nkler Plan Check New - each additional 50 heads, or portion thereof, above 500 337 nkler Inspection New 1- 50 heads 338 nkler Inspection New 51-100 339 nkler Inspection New 101-200 340 nkler Inspection New 201-300 341 nkler Inspection New 301-400 342 nkler Inspection New 401-500 343 sprinkler Inspection New - each additional 50 heads, or portion thereof, above 500 344 Sprinkler Plan Check Ti 1-10 heads 345 Sprinkler Plan Check Ti 11-50 346 Sprinkler Plan Check Ti 51-100 347 Sprinkler Plan Check Ti - each additional 50 heads, or portion thereof, above 100 348 Sprinkler Inspection Ti 1-10 349 Sprinkler Inspection Ti 11-50 350 Sprinkler Inspection Ti 51-100 351 Sprinkler Inspection Ti - each additional 50 heads, or portion thereof, above 100 352 Alarm Plan Check New 1-10 353 Alarm Plan Check New 11-25 354 Alarm Plan Check New 26-50 355 Alarm Plan Check New 51-75 356 alarm Plan Check New 76-100 357 alarm Plan Check New - each additional 25 units, or portion thereof, above 100 358 Alarm Inspection New 1-10 359 Alarm Inspection New 11-25 360 Alarm Inspection New 26-50 361 Alarm Inspection New 51-75 362 alarm Inspection New 76-100 363 alarm Inspection New - each additional 25 units, or portion thereof, above 100 364 Alarm Plan Check Ti 1-10 365 Alarm Plan Check Ti 11-25 366 Alarm Plan Check Ti 26-50 367 alarm Plan Check Ti 51-75 368 alarm Plan Check Ti 76-100 369 Alarm Plan Check Ti -each additional 25 units, or portion thereof, above 100 370 Nireless Communicator Alarm Ti PC 371 Alarm Inspection Ti 1-10 372 Alarm Inspection Ti 11-25 373 Alarm Inspection Ti 26-50 374 Alarm Inspection Ti 51-75 375 Alarm Inspection Ti 76-100 376 Alarm Inspection Ti - each additional 25 units, or portion thereof, above 100 377 Nireless Communicator Alarm Inspection 378 Underground Sprinkler Plan Check 379 Underground Hydrants Plan Check 380 Underground Combo Plan Check 381 Underground Sprinkler Insp 382 Underground Hydrants Insp 383 Underground Combo Insp 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 *PA 13D Plan Check (Single Family/Duplex) *PA 13R Plan Check (Multi-Family/3 or more units) *PA 13D Inspection (Single Family/Duplex) *PA 13R Inspection (Multi-Family/3 or more units) Hood & Duct Sys Plan Check (Per System) Hood & Duct Sys Insp (Per System) Fire Pumps Plan Check Proposed Fees Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase / (Decrease) $ 12.57 $ 699.90 $ 949.95 $ 712.46 $ 699.90 $ 1,098.31 $ 823.73 $ 123.84 $ 921.61 $ 1,230.53 $ 922.90 $ 1.29 $ 921.61 $ 1,328.36 $ 996.27 $ 74.66 $ 1,142.13 $ 1,571.05 $ 1,178.29 $ 36.16 $ 1,142.13 $ 1,669.95 $ 1,252.46 $ 110.34 $ 699.90 $ 345.31 $ 345.31 $ (354.59) $ 769.41 $ 563.00 $ 563.00 $ (206.41) $ 769.41 $ 743.51 $ 743.51 $ (25.90) $ 1,172.09 $ 832.71 $ 832.71 $ (339.38) $ 1,172.09 $ 1,016.44 $ 1,016.44 $ (155.65) $ 1,574.77 $ 1,060.83 $ 1,060.83 $ (513.94) $ 1,574.77 $ 1,105.70 $ 1,105.70 $ (469.07) $ 769.41 $ 234.75 $ 234.75 $ (534.66) $ 370.32 $ 788.81 $ 591.61 $ 221.29 $ 481.78 $ 838.27 $ 628.70 $ 146.92 $ 699.90 $ 887.72 $ 710.18 $ 10.28 $ 481.78 $ 241.20 $ 241.20 $ (240.58) $ 473.39 $ 569.00 $ 512.10 $ 38.71 $ 672.33 $ 837.69 $ 753.92 $ 81.59 $ 874.87 $ 932.75 $ 932.75 $ 57.88 $ 672.33 $ 102.87 $ 102.87 $ (569.46) $ 481.78 $ 669.10 $ 501.83 $ 20.05 $ 699.90 $ 718.55 $ 718.55 $ 18.65 $ 699.90 $ 817.45 $ 735.71 $ 35.81 $ 1,249.99 $ 965.81 $ 965.81 $ (284.18) $ 1,913.93 $ 1,110.25 $ 1,110.25 $ (803.68) $ 699.90 $ 361.35 $ 361.35 $ (338.55) $ 672.33 $ 668.34 $ 668.34 $ (3.99) $ 971.95 $ 713.21 $ 713.21 $ (258.74) $ 971.95 $ 1,027.32 $ 1,027.32 $ 55.37 $ 1,475.30 $ 1,117.06 $ 1,117.06 $ (358.24) $ 1,475.30 $ 1,476.04 $ 1,476.04 $ 0.74 $ 971.95 $ 501.82 $ 501.82 $ (470.13) $ 481.78 $ 656.22 $ 492.17 $ 10.39 $ 699.90 $ 705.68 $ 705.68 $ 5.78 $ 699.90 $ 804.58 $ 804.58 $ 104.68 $ 1,249.99 $ 952.94 $ 952.94 $ (297.05) $ 1,249.99 $ 1,051.85 $ 1,051.85 $ (198.14) $ 699.90 $ 472.20 $ 472.20 $ (227.70) $ 481.00 $ 516.62 $ 464.96 $ (16.04) $ 672.33 $ 659.33 $ 659.33 $ (13.00) $ 971.95 $ 704.20 $ 704.20 $ (267.75) $ 971.95 $ 1,018.31 $ 1,018.31 $ 46.36 $ 1,475.30 $ 1,108.05 $ 1,108.05 $ (367.25) $ 1,475.30 $ 1,467.03 $ 1,467.03 $ (8.27) $ 971.95 $ 601.00 $ 601.00 $ (370.95) $ 198.00 $ 570.67 $ 428.00 $ 230.00 $ 811.35 $ 888.16 $ 888.16 $ 76.81 $ 811.35 $ 1,036.52 $ 829.22 $ 17.86 $ 1,033.07 $ 1,036.52 $ 1,036.52 $ 3.45 $ 769.41 $ 908.67 $ 817.80 $ 48.40 $ 874.87 $ 1,046.02 $ 941.42 $ 66.55 $ 1,072.62 $ 1,042.80 $ 1,042.80 $ (29.82) $ 576.46 $ 797.30 $ 597.98 $ 21.52 $ 699.90 $ 986.37 $ 739.78 $ 39.88 $ 254.07 $ 767.74 $ 575.81 $ 321.73 $ 769.41 $ 857.54 $ 857.54 $ 88.13 $ 547.69 $ 658.17 $ 592.35 $ 44.66 $ 378.71 $ 723.76 $ 542.82 $ 164.11 $ 825.73 $ 1,170.40 $ 877.80 $ 52.07 Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 14 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Fire Prevention Fee Description Fee# Fire Pumps Insp Spray Booth Plan Check (Per System) Spray Booth Insp (Per System) 392 393 394 FM200 Plan Check (Per System) 395 FM200 Inspection (Per System) 396 Dry Chem Systems Plan Check (Per System) 397 Dry Chem Systems Insp (Per System) 398 Cot Systms Plan Check (Per System) 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 Cot Systems Insp (Per System) Halogenated Extinguishing Systems Plan Check Halogenated Extinguishing Systems Insp Medical Gases Plan Check (Per System) Medical Gases Insp (Per System) UST Plan Check UST Inspection AST Plan Check AST Inspection Tank/Piping Removal Plan Check Tank/Piping Removal Insp Smoke Control System Plan Check Smoke Control System Insp Dust Collection Plan Check Dust Collection Insp Industrial Ovens/Furnace Plan Check Industrial Ovens/Furnace Insp Hazmat Chemical Classificaton 1-5 chemicals Plan Check 417 Hazmat Chemical Classificaton 6-15 chemicals Plan Check 418 Hazmat Chemical Classificaton 16-50 chemicals Plan Check 419 Hazmat Chemical Classificaton 51-100 chemicals Plan Check Hazmat Chemical Classificaton - each additional 10 chemicals, or portion thereof, above 100 420 421 Hazmat Chemical Classificaton 1-5 chemicals Insp 422 Hazmat Chemical Classificaton 6-15 chemicals Insp 423 Hazmat Chemical Classificaton 16-50 chemicals Insp 424 Hazmat Chemical Classificaton 51-100 chemicals Insp Hazmat Chemical Classificaton - each additional 10 chemicals, or portion thereof, above 100 425 426 HPS Plan Check 427 HPS Inspection 428 Minor Technical Report Review (1-10 Pages) 429 Major Technical Report Review (over 10 Pages) 430 Adult Care Facility 6 or fewer clients Inspection 431 Residential Care Facility Inspection 432 Large Family Day Care 9-14 children Inspection 433 Small Family Day Care 8 or fewer children Inspection 434 OTHER FEES: Plan Revision Fee (1st Hour) 434 Plan Revision Fee (ea addtl. 1/2 Hour or portion thereof; 435 Plan resubmittal: fee charged on 4th and each subsequent submittal 436 Penalty for Failure to Cancel Scheduled Inspection & No Show 437 Job Card Reprint Fee 438 Works (Actual Time at Staff Hourly Rates) - Calculated cost is potential deposit. ) 439 Proposed Fees Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase / (Decrease) $ 1,290.73 $ 1,306.56 $ 1,306.56 $ 15.83 $ 601.62 $ 832.27 $ 624.20 $ 22.58 $ 738.25 $ 542.72 $ 542.72 $ (195.53) $ 608.00 $ 1,080.13 $ 540.07 $ (67.93) $ 601.00 $ 872.26 $ 566.97 $ (34.03) $ 384.70 $ 783.41 $ 587.56 $ 202.85 $ 378.71 $ 542.72 $ 407.04 $ 28.33 $ 607.62 $ 783.41 $ 313.36 $ (294.25) $ 749.03 $ 542.72 $ 217.09 $ (531.95) $ 711.00 $ 1,080.13 $ 810.10 $ 99.10 $ 749.00 $ 542.72 $ 407.04 $ (341.96) $ 498.56 $ 995.71 $ 448.07 $ (50.49) $ 372.72 $ 826.43 $ 702.47 $ 329.75 $ 810.15 $ 995.71 $ 896.14 $ 85.98 $ 1,249.99 $ 1,066.23 $ 1,066.23 $ (183.76) $ 810.15 $ 995.71 $ 896.14 $ 85.98 $ 1,249.99 $ 737.76 $ 737.76 $ (512.23) $ 384.70 $ 583.67 $ 233.47 $ (151.24) $ 530.91 $ 634.61 $ 253.84 $ (277.07) $ 920.41 $ 1,910.85 $ 1,433.14 $ 512.73 $ 2,434.06 $ 1,770.82 $ 1,770.82 $ (663.24) $ 711.88 $ 897.28 $ 717.82 $ 5.94 $ 430.24 $ 544.92 $ 435.94 $ 5.69 $ 699.90 $ 897.28 $ 717.82 $ 17.93 $ 421.86 $ 544.92 $ 435.94 $ 14.08 $ 149.81 $ 777.82 $ 388.91 $ 239.10 $ 359.54 $ 990.60 $ 445.77 $ 86.23 $ 1,198.45 $ 1,321.81 $ 1,255.72 $ 57.27 $ 2,241.11 $ 1,628.66 $ 1,628.66 $ (612.45) $ 119.85 $ 596.43 $ 447.32 $ 327.48 $ - $ 516.62 $ 258.31 $ 258.31 $ $ 619.42 $ 340.68 $ 340.68 $ $ 827.51 $ 620.63 $ 620.63 $ $ 1,157.88 $ 868.41 $ 868.41 $ $ 471.75 $ 353.81 $ 353.81 $ 1,160.10 $ 1,549.52 $ 852.24 $ (307.87) $ 587.24 $ 816.59 $ 694.10 $ 106.86 $ 485.37 $ 702.06 $ 526.55 $ 41.17 $ 1,155.31 $ 1,150.58 $ 1,150.58 $ (4.73) $ 388.30 $ 610.00 $ 457.50 $ 69.20 $ 388.30 $ 879.24 $ 659.43 $ 271.13 $ 388.30 $ 610.00 $ 457.50 $ 69.20 $ 116.25 $ 520.26 $ 260.13 $ 143.88 $ 260.06 $ 318.59 $ 286.73 $ 26.67 $ 87.49 $ 228.85 $ 114.43 $ 26.94 $ 260.06 $ 318.05 $ 286.25 $ 26.18 $ 143.81 $ 365.72 $ 274.29 $ 130.48 $ 41.95 $ 13.36 $ 13.36 $ (28.59) $ 280.44 $ 682.39 $ 272.96 $ (7.48) Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.2724) Page - 15 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Fire Prevention Fee Description ANNUAL INSPECTION PROGRAM FEES: _ A-1 Occupancies up to 10,000 sq ft A-1 Occupancies each additional 10,000 sq ft, or portion therot A-2 Occupancies up to 10,000 sq ft A-2 Occupancies each additional 10,000 sq ft, or portion therot A-3 Occupancies up to 10,000 sq ft A-3 Occupancies each additional 10,000 sq ft, or portion therot A-4 Occupancies up to 10,000 sq ft A-4 Occupancies each additional 10,000 sq ft, or portion therot A-5 Occupancies up to 50,000 sq ft A-5 Occupancies each additional 10,000 sq ft, or portion therot E Occupancies Schools - Elementary E Occupancies Schools - Middle E Occupancies Schools - High E Occupancies Schools - Private I Occupancy - up to 10,000 square feet I Occupancy - each additional 10,000 sq ft, or portion therot B or M Occupancies - up to 3,600 sq ft B or M Occupancies - 3,601- 50,000 sq ft B or M Occupancies - 50,001- 350,000 sq ft B or M Occupancies - each additional 50.000 sq ft, or portion therot F or S Occupancies - up to 3,600 sq ft F or S Occupancies - 3,601 - 50,000 sq ft F or S Occupancies - 50,001 - 350,000 sq ft F or S Occupancies - each additional 50.000 sq ft, or portion therot H Occupancies - up to 10,000 sq ft H Occupancies - each additional 10,000 sq ft, or portion therot High Rise - greater than 75 feet from grade (Prohibited by City Ordir L Occupancies R-1 Occupancies - first 25 units R-1 Occupancies - 26-50 units R-1 Occupancies - 51-75 units R-1 Occupancies - 76-100 units R-1 Occupancies - each additional 25 units R-2 Occupancies - 1-5 Buildings R-2 Occupancies - 6-10 Buildings R-2 Occupancies - 11-15 Buildings R-2 Occupancies - 16-20 Buildings R-2 Occupancies - 21-30 Buildings R-2 Occupancies - 30-50 Buildings R-2 Occupancies ->50 Buildings Re -inspection fee (after initial and first inspection; ANNUAL INSPECTION AND OPERATING PERMITS (IFC 105 PERMITS) the Annual Inspection Program Fee: Combustible Dust Producing Operation Fire hydrants and Valves dustrial Ovens tuid or gas fueled vehicles or euipment in assembly building itdoor assembly event rtting and/or Welding !mporary membrane structures and tents rcraft refueling Vehicle/Avation Facilities arosol Products !Ilulose Nitrate Film rmbustible Fiber Storage rmpressed Gases yogenic Fluids plosives 105.6.15 ,rotechnic Special Effects material 3mmable and Combustible Liquids rzardous Materials gh Piled Storage to Fee# 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 Proposed Fees Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase / (Decrease) $ $ 471.78 $ 235.89 $ 235.89 $ $ 97.75 $ 73.31 $ 73.31 $ $ 619.04 $ 247.62 $ 247.62 $ $ 97.75 $ 73.31 $ 73.31 $ $ 663.92 $ 252.29 $ 252.29 $ $ 97.75 $ 73.31 $ 73.31 $ $ 501.22 $ 260.63 $ 260.63 $ $ 97.75 $ 73.31 $ 73.31 $ $ 681.44 $ 286.20 $ 286.20 $ $ 97.75 $ 73.31 $ 73.31 $ $ 1,069.17 $ 534.59 $ 534.59 $ $ 2,146.19 $ 858.48 $ 858.48 $ $ 3,223.22 $ 1,289.29 $ 1,289.29 $ $ 1,158.92 $ 579.46 $ 579.46 $ $ 636.51 $ 477.38 $ 477.38 $ $ 97.75 $ 73.31 $ 73.31 $ $ 412.18 $ 247.31 $ 247.31 $ $ 681.44 $ 511.08 $ 511.08 $ $ 816.07 $ 693.66 $ 693.66 $ $ 322.10 $ 161.05 $ 161.05 $ $ 455.80 $ 227.90 $ 227.90 $ $ 681.44 $ 477.01 $ 477.01 $ $ 816.07 $ 612.05 $ 612.05 $ $ 375.00 $ 187.50 $ 187.50 $ $ 606.05 $ 454.54 $ 454.54 $ $ 232.37 $ 116.19 $ 116.19 $ $ 1,399.33 $ 1,049.50 $ 1,049.50 $ $ 606.05 $ 303.03 $ 303.03 $ $ 410.93 $ 246.56 $ 246.56 $ $ 576.07 $ 432.05 $ 432.05 $ $ 710.70 $ 533.03 $ 533.03 $ $ 845.33 $ 634.00 $ 634.00 $ $ 142.62 $ 142.62 $ 142.62 $ $ 426.54 $ 319.91 $ 319.91 $ $ 591.69 $ 443.77 $ 443.77 $ $ 726.32 $ 544.74 $ 544.74 $ $ 860.94 $ 645.71 $ 645.71 $ $ 995.57 $ 746.68 $ 746.68 $ $ 1,130.20 $ 847.65 $ 847.65 $ $ 1,399.46 $ 1,049.60 $ 1,049.60 $ $ 299.66 $ 224.75 $ 224.75 ;; $ 281.80 $ 84.54 $ 84.54 $ 281.80 $ 84.54 $ 84.54 $ 236.92 $ 59.23 $ 59.23 $ 281.80 $ 84.54 $ 84.54 $ 236.92 $ 59.23 $ 59.23 $ 251.28 $ 125.64 $ 125.64 $ 371.55 $ 185.78 $ 185.78 $ 251.28 $ 125.64 $ 125.64 $ 371.55 $ 185.78 $ 185.78 $ 251.26 $ 188.45 $ 188.45 $ 233.74 $ 70.12 $ 70.12 $ 236.90 $ 71.07 $ 71.07 $ 281.77 $ 70.44 $ 70.44 $ 251.26 $ 75.38 $ 75.38 $ 251.26 $ 75.38 $ 75.38 $ 281.77 $ 140.89 $ 140.89 $ 1,203.27 $ 360.98 $ 360.98 $ 326.64 $ 81.66 $ 81.66 $ 326.64 $ 65.33 $ 65.33 $ 371.52 $ 92.88 $ 92.88 Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 16 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Fire Prevention Fee Description Fee# Amusement Building 499 500 501 502 Carnival and Fairs Exhibits and Trade Shows Waste Handling FULL COST RECOVERY RATES (HOURLY STAFF RATES: ■ Assistant Fire Marshal (per hour) 502 Fire Safety Specialist (per hour) 503 Fire Plan Check - (per hour) 504 Fire Inspection (per hour) 505 Community Development Tech. (per hour) 506 Adminstrative Assistant (per hour) 507 NEW OCCUPANCIES: NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - up to 5,000 sf 507 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - 5,001-15,000 sf 508 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - 15,001-50,000 sf 509 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - each additional 1,000 sf, or )ortion thereof, over 50,000 SF 510 NC - Commercial with interior improvements - up to 5,000 sf 511 NC - Commercial with interior improvements - 5,001-15,000 sf 512 NC - Commercial with interior improvements - 15,001-50,000 sf 513 NC - Commercial with interior improvements - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion :hereof, over 50,000 SF 514 NC - Warehouse - up to 5,000 sf 515 NC - Warehouse - 5,001-15,000 sf 516 NC - Warehouse - 15,001-50,000 sf 517 NC - Warehouse - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 518 NC - Commercial High Rise - up to 10,000 sf 519 NC - Commercial High Rise - 10,001-50,000 sf 520 NC - Commercial High Rise - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 iF 521 NC - Parking Structure - up to 100,000 sf 522 NC - Parking Structure - 100,001-500,000 sf 523 NC - Parking Structure - each additional 10,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 500,000 SF 1 524 NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - up to 1,000 sf 525 NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - 1,001-2,500 sf 526 NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - 2,501-5,000 sf NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, wer 5,000 SF 527 528 NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - up to 1,000 sf 529 NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - 1,001-2,500 sf 530 NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - 2,501-5,000 sf NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, wer 5,000 SF 531 532 NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - up to 5,000 sf 533 NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - 5,001-10,000 sf 534 NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - 10,001-15,000 sf 535 NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over L5,000 SF 536 NC - Hotels/Motels - up to 10,000 sf 537 NC - Hotels/Motels - 10,001-50,000 sf 538 NC - Hotels/Motels - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 539 TI - Tenant Improvements - up to 2,500 sf 540 TI - Tenant Improvements - 2,501- 5,000 sf 541 TI -Tenant Improvements - 5,001-20,000 sf 542 TI - Tenant Improvements - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 20,000 SFJ 543 NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - up to 5,000 sf 544 NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 5,001-15,000 sf 545 NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 15,001-50,000 sf NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - each additional 1,000 ;f, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 546 547 TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - up to 5,000 sf 548 Proposed Fees Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase / (Decrease) $ 576.32 $ 230.53 $ 230.53 $ 576.32 $ 230.53 $ 230.53 $ 576.32 $ 230.53 $ 230.53 $ 236.90 $ 118.45 $ 118.45 $ 180.97 $ 211.46 $ 158.60 $ (22.37) $ 106.66 $ 197.81 $ 148.36 $ 41.70 $ 99.47 $ 179.49 $ 134.62 $ 35.15 $ 99.47 $ 179.49 $ 134.62 $ 35.15 $ 99.47 $ 160.91 $ 120.68 $ 21.21 $ 99.47 $ 317.35 $ 158.42 $ 369.20 $ 118.82 $ 369.20 $ 19.34 $ 51.85 $ 317.35 $ 533.97 $ 400.48 $ 83.13 $ 721.95 $ 682.33 $ 682.33 $ (39.62) $ 14.43 $ 175.08 $ 131.31 $ 116.88 $ 723.39 $ 385.61 $ 385.61 $ (337.78) $ 887.49 $ 533.97 $ 533.97 $ (353.52) $ 1,636.45 $ 682.33 $ 682.33 $ (954.12) $ 14.47 $ 175.08 $ 131.31 $ 116.84 $ 1,023.48 $ 385.61 $ 385.61 $ (637.87) $ 1,139.65 $ 533.97 $ 533.97 $ (605.68) $ 785.07 $ 682.33 $ 682.33 $ (102.74) $ 20.47 $ 175.08 $ 131.31 $ 110.84 $ 1,281.39 $ 929.60 $ 929.60 $ (351.79) $ 1,917.65 $ 1,226.31 $ 1,226.31 $ (691.34) $ 282.72 $ 323.44 $ 323.44 $ 40.72 $ 974.51 $ 632.88 $ 632.88 $ (341.63) $ 1,332.13 $ 929.60 $ 929.60 $ (402.53) $ 101.63 $ 197.81 $ 148.36 $ 46.73 $ 276.60 $ 369.00 $ 276.75 $ 0.15 $ 276.60 $ 434.28 $ 325.71 $ 49.11 $ 276.60 $ 517.95 $ 388.46 $ 111.86 $ 276.60 $ 197.81 $ 197.81 $ (78.79) $ - $ 385.46 $ 289.10 $ 289.10 $ $ 434.91 $ 326.18 $ 326.18 $ $ 372.70 $ 279.53 $ 279.53 $ $ 98.91 $ 74.18 $ 74.18 $ 254.07 $ 534.61 $ 400.96 $ 146.89 $ 376.31 $ 732.42 $ 549.32 $ 173.00 $ 368.40 $ 880.78 $ 660.59 $ 292.18 $ 4.24 $ 233.76 $ 175.32 $ 171.08 $ 376.31 $ 732.42 $ 549.32 $ 173.00 $ 561.36 $ 880.78 $ 660.59 $ 99.23 $ 11.22 $ 233.76 $ 175.32 $ 164.10 $ 357.86 $ 459.79 $ 367.83 $ 9.97 $ 448.94 $ 533.97 $ 480.57 $ 31.63 $ 761.26 $ 682.42 $ 682.42 $ (78.84) $ 150.53 $ 233.76 $ 175.32 $ 24.79 $ 355.22 $ 550.59 $ 412.94 $ 57.72 $ 969.79 $ 698.95 $ 698.95 $ (270.84) $ 886.86 $ 847.31 $ 847.31 $ (39.55) $ 70.95 $ 332.67 $ 249.50 $ 178.55 $ 637.90 $ 551.22 $ 551.22 $ (86.68) Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 17 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Fire Prevention Fee Description Fee# TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 5,001-15,000 sf 549 TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 15,001-50,000 sf 1 550 TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - each additional L,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 551 NC - UTILITY BUILDING (Garage) - up to 500 sf 552 VC - UTILITY BUILDING (Garage) - 501-1,000 sf 553 554 555 NC - UTILITY BUILDING (Garage) - 1,001-2,500 sf NC - UTILITY BUILDING (Garage) - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, over 2,500 iF MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING FEES (NON-MPE): Accessory Structure 0 to 500 sf Accessory Structure 500 to 1000 sf Accessory Structure 1001 sf+ Cellular Tower - free-standing 555 556 557 558 559 Cellular Tower with Equipment Shelter adding Antenna's to existing tower - first 5 560 each additional 5 561 :arport - First 200 sf 562 :arport - each additional 200 sf 563 Non Construction Certificate of Occupancy: 0 - 1,500 sf 564 Non Construction Certificate of Occupancy: Over 1,500 sf 565 Commercial Coach (per unit) 566 Demolition 567 Door - New (non structural) 568 Door - New (structural shear wall/masonry) 569 ratio - First 300 sf 570 Res/Com Engineered: Deck, Patio Cover, Awning, Balcony, Covered Porch, Enclosed 'atio - Each additional 100 sf 571 Mobile Homes - Installlation 572 Partition - Commercial, Interior (up to 30 I.f.) 573 Additional partition (each 30 If) 574 Partition - Residential, Interior (up to 30 I.f.) 575 575 576 576 577 578 578 579 580 Photovoltaic System: Residential Ground Mounted Commercial Ground Mounted Retaining Wall (concrete or masonry): Room Addition First Story up to 300 sf Room Addition Multi Story up to 300 sf Remodel - Residential - up to 300 s.f. Storage Racks 0-8' high (up to 100 If) each additional 100 If over 8' high (up to 100 If) each additional 100 If 581 CONTRIBUTIONS TO PUBLIC WORKS FEES: SUBDIVISION PRECISE GRADING PLAN (excluding Custom Lots) - Base Fee 581 SUBDIVISION PRECISE GRADING PLAN (excluding Custom Lots) - Per Lot 582 ONSITE PLANCHECK: Percentage of Engineer's Construction Security Worksheet (CSW)l 583 Small project: Example Size = $76,000 584 Medium project: Example Size = $517,000 585 Large project: Example Size = $3,055,500 586 OFFSITE PLANCHECK Percentage of Engineer's Construction Security Worksheet (CSW) 587 Small project: Example Size = $ 102,000 588 Medium project: Example Size = $ 497,500 589 Large project: Example Size = $4,200,000 590 Lot Line Adjustment 591 Base Fee 592 PER SHEET (NEW STRUCTURE) Monument Review (min) Amended Maps (Parcel and Tract) per sheet 593 594 595 Proposed Fees Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase / (Decrease) $ 737.13 $ 698.95 $ 698.95 $ (38.18) $ (439.19) $ 1,286.50 $ 847.31 $ 847.31 $ 12.75 $ 372.89 $ 279.67 $ 266.92 $ 173.06 $ 253.67 $ 190.25 $ 17.20 $ 213.97 $ 302.53 $ 226.90 $ 12.93 $ 266.06 $ 303.13 $ 303.13 $ 37.07 $ 8.19 $ 175.08 $ 131.31 $ 123.12 $ - $ 254.31 $ 190.73 $ 190.73 $ $ 303.17 $ 227.38 $ 227.38 $ $ 302.64 $ 226.98 $ 226.98 $ $ 89.53 $ 67.15 $ 67.15 $ $ 287.34 $ 215.51 $ 215.51 $ $ 238.04 $ 178.53 $ 178.53 $ $ 174.10 $ 130.58 $ 130.58 $ $ 53.58 $ 40.19 $ 40.19 $ $ 53.58 $ 40.19 $ 40.19 $ $ 53.58 $ 40.19 $ 40.19 $ $ 53.58 $ 40.19 $ 40.19 $ $ 53.58 $ 40.19 $ 40.19 $ $ 286.71 $ 215.03 $ 215.03 $ $ 40.23 $ 30.17 $ 30.17 $ $ 40.23 $ 30.17 $ 30.17 $ $ 220.64 $ 165.48 $ 165.48 $ $ 220.64 $ 165.48 $ 165.48 $ $ 220.64 $ 165.48 $ 165.48 $ $ 53.58 $ 40.19 $ 40.19 $ $ 25.75 $ 19.31 $ 19.31 $ $ 53.58 $ 40.19 $ 40.19 $ $ 289.49 $ 217.12 $ 217.12 $ $ 454.27 $ 340.70 $ 340.70 $ $ 53.58 $ 40.19 $ 40.19 $ $ 53.58 $ 40.19 $ 40.19 $ $ 53.58 $ 40.19 $ 40.19 $ $ 511.92 $ 383.94 $ 383.94 $ $ 188.76 $ 141.57 $ 141.57 $ $ 511.92 $ 383.94 $ 383.94 $ $ 188.76 $ 141.57 $ 141.57 $ $ 429.32 $ 429.32 $ $ 429.32 $ 429.32 $ $ 230.50 $ 230.50 $ $ 270.72 $ 270.72 $ $ 270.72 $ 270.72 $ $ 270.72 $ 270.72 $ $ 230.50 $ 230.50 $ $ 270.72 $ 270.72 $ $ 270.72 $ 270.72 $ $ 270.72 $ 270.72 $ $ 270.72 $ 270.72 $ $ 158.65 $ 158.65 $ $ 158.65 $ 158.65 $ $ 158.65 $ 158.65 $ $ 158.65 $ 158.65 Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 18 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Fire Prevention Fee Description Final Map - 4th and subsequent review (per sheet) Driveway - Residential Driveway - Commercial Utility Access Movie Filming Fee# 596 597 598 599 600 Proposed Fees Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase / (Decrease) $ $ $ $ $ 158.65 $ 158.65 $ 251.69 $ 251.69 $ 251.69 $ 251.69 $ 198.82 $ 198.82 $ $ 323.59 $ 323.59 Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.27.24) Page - 19 City of Temecula Proposed User Fee Schedule Effective Fiscal Year 2024-25 Department: Police Fee Description Fee# 1. ABC PERMIT (plus Fingerprint fee and state or county fees, if applicable; 601 2. CITATION COPY 602 3. FINGERPRINTS (per Penal Code 13300 (e) rolling maximum) 603 4. MASSAGE PERMIT (not a PD fee) (plus Fingerprint fee and state or county fees, if applicable) 604 5. REPORT COPY 605 5 SOLICITOR'S PERMIT (plus Fingerprint fee and state or county fees, if applicable) 606 7. TAXI DRIVER PERMIT (plus Fingerprint fee and state or county fees, if applicable) 607 9. VEHICLE RELEASE 608 REPOSSESSION RECOVERY FEE 609 TAXI CAB INSPECTION / PERMIT (plus Fingerprint fee and state or county fees, if applicable) 610 LIVESCAN 611 RV permits 612 Proposed Fees Current Fee Full Cost Proposed Fee Fee Increase / (Decrease) $ 34.00 $ 311.97 $ 100.00 $ 66.00 $ 19.00 $ 16.77 $ 16.77 $ (2.23) $ 10.00 $ 50.95 $ 25.48 $ 15.48 $ 81.00 $ - $ - $ (81.00) $ 26.00 $ 96.18 $ 50.00 $ 24.00 $ 34.00 $ 76.55 $ 50.00 $ 16.00 $ 81.00 $ 119.39 $ 89.54 $ 8.54 $ 166.00 $ 175.75 $ 175.75 $ 9.75 $ 15.00 $ 89.83 $ 50.00 $ 35.00 $ 91.00 $ 73.06 $ 73.06 $ (17.94) $ 10.00 $ 50.95 $ 20.00 $ 10.00 $ - $ 47.36 $ 35.52 $ 35.52 Red Text = New Fees/Fee Categories User Fee Schedule - Consolidated.xlsx (V. 2.2724) Page - 20 City of Temecula User Fee Study Fact Sheet February 2024 The City of Temecula has recently completed a User Fee Study, prepared by Wohlford Consulting. The Study calculates the full cost of services provided for nearly 900 individual fees, projected volume and revenue for each fee as well as the City's current percentage of cost recovery. City Staff has reviewed the Study and made recommendations for all fees reflected in the Study. 1. The User Fee Study analyzes development -related fees for the following departments: a. Building & Safety b. Planning c. Land Development d. Fire Prevention e. Police 2. The City's existing fees are based on a Fee Study adopted September 24, 2005, with annual inflationary adjustments applied each year. a. A User Fee Study was conducted in 2010, however it was not implemented due to the Great Recession. 3. The Study includes the results of an Indirect Cost Allocation Plan used to determine overhead rates reflected in the Study. 4. The Study calculates the full cost of services using the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Annual Operating Budget, using the following formula: a. Staff Hours X Personnel Costs = Direct Costs + Overhead + Support Costs = Full Cost 5. The Potential Revenue from each fee is calculated using the following formula: a. Full Cost X Annual Volume of Fees = Potential Annual Revenue 6. The Potential Revenue is compared to the Current Revenue to determine the percentage of cost recovery the City is obtaining from each fee. Below is a consolidated table showing the results of the Study. TOTALS: $ 15,823,200 $ 7 640 661 $ 8 182 539)1 1 $ 10,714,432 1 $ 5 108 768 67.7% I 7. Currently, the City is recovering 48.3% of its costs. The Recommended Fee Schedule would recover 67.7% of its cost, in aggregate. a. Target cost recovery rate was set at 75% with individual fees modified if the target exceeded the cost of providing the service. b. In no case does the fee exceed the cost of providing the service. City of Temecula User Fee Study Fact Sheet, Continued February 2024 8. Building and Safety Fees have been restructured and are more simplified than the previous Fee Schedule. 9. Many new fee categories were added: a. Annual Fire Inspection Program (Fire Prevention) b. Annual NPDES Inspection Program (Land Development) c. Weed Abatement Administration (Building) d. Wireless Antenna Facilities (Planning) e. Drainage Tributary (Land Development) 10. City Council will hold a Public Hearing to consider the adoption of the new Fee Schedule at their February 27, 2024 meeting. a. If approved, Fees would be effective in Fiscal Year 2024-25 b. Fee implementation may be phased -in by department, due to system re -programming. c. Fees Schedule Resolution will continue to include annual inflationary adjustments 2023 FULL COST OF SERVICES (USER FEE) STUDY for the City of FINAL REPORT September 27, 2023 WOHLFORD CONSULTING Sacramento, CA (916) 205-7050 chad(cr�,wohlfordconsulting. com [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] �=. 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study c� FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Table: Summary Results.................................................................I Table: Sample Unit Fee Cost Results.............................................2 PROJECT BACKGROUND 3 Purposeand Intent.................................................................................................3 Scopeof the Study..................................................................................................4 Purposeof the Report............................................................................................4 About Wohlford Consulting.................................................................................4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT USER FEE ISSUES 5 UserFees Defined...................................................................................................5 FeeBackground.....................................................................................................5 Impetus for User Fees and Increased Scrutiny...................................................6 BasicUser Fee Principles......................................................................................8 PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 10 ConceptualApproach..........................................................................................10 SummarySteps of the Study...............................................................................I I Basic Assumptions and Standards.....................................................................13 QualityControl....................................................................................................16 FINDINGS AND RESULTS 17 Basis.......................................................................................................................17 Summaryof Results.............................................................................................17 Table: Summary Results — All Departments................................17 Graph: Current Funding Sources of Fee Services ......................18 Other Results Information and Explanations...................................................19 Results for Building & Safety.............................................................................23 Resultsfor Planning.............................................................................................24 Results for Land Development...........................................................................25 Resultsfor Fire Prevention.................................................................................26 Resultsfor Police..................................................................................................28 Opportunitiesfor Greater Cost Recovery.........................................................29 Impact of Fee Activity Levels..............................................................................29 Results for Staff Hourly Rates (Full Cost Recovery Rates) .............................30 Potential Cost Changes from Prior Studies and Fee -Setting ...........................33 Considerations Concerning Recommended Fees..............................................33 Limitations for Use of Revenue Results.............................................................34 Other Beneficial Outcomes of the Study............................................................34 Wohlford Consulting i September 27, 2023 c�c 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) OTHER ISSUES AND INFORMATION Fee Setting Considerations..................................................................................36 FeeComparison Issues........................................................................................38 Cost "Reasonableness"........................................................................................39 EnhancedFee Flexibility.....................................................................................40 ImplementationIssues.........................................................................................40 Potential Implementation Strategies..................................................................42 FutureUpdates.....................................................................................................45 36 CONCLUSION 48 ThankYou to City Staff......................................................................................48 ClosingComments...............................................................................................48 APPENDICES Appendix 1: Cost Results for Building & Safety Appendix 2: Cost Results for Planning Appendix 3: Cost Results for Land Development Appendix 3: Cost Results for Fire Prevention Appendix 3: Cost Results for Police Wohlforrd Consulting ii September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Temecula engaged Wohlford Consulting to conduct an objective analysis of the full costs incurred by selected departments in support of various activities for which the departments charges user fees. In order to ensure accuracy and establish a clear nexus between the cost of those services and the fees, the study utilized a unit cost build-up methodology to identify the full cost for individual fee activities, based upon staff time and associated direct and indirect costs. By projecting an estimated average annual volume for each fee activity, the study also identified the annual cost of the services and the potential annual revenue for the fee activities at full cost levels. Through comparisons of the full costs and current fees, the study identified existing unit and annual subsidies. The following table illustrates the results for the individual departments: Summary Results FULL COST: PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROGRAM AREA Annual Cost of REVENUE AT SURPLUS / COST Fee -Related CURRENT (DEFICIT) RECOVERY Services FEES RATE Building & Safety $ 3,911,000 $ 2,801,000 ($ 1,110,000) 71.6% Planning $ 3,386,000 $ 1,192,000 ($ 2,194,000) 35.2% Land Development $ 2,812,000 $ 1,881,000 ($ 931,000) 66.9% Fire Prevention $ 5,161,000 $ 1,780,000 ($ 3,381,000) 34.5% Police $ 554,000 $ 234,000 ($ 320,000) 42.2% TOTALS: $ 15,824,000 $ 7,888,000 ($ 7,9369000) 49.8% As the table shows, the current total cost of fee activities included in this study is approximately $15.8 million annually. Given the current fee levels charged by the departments, the potential annual revenue (assuming a consistent activity level and complete collection) is $7.9 million, which represents a current cost -recovery ratio of 49.8% overall and an annual fund deficit (subsidy) of $7.9 million. The projected revenue at current fees shown in the table above assumes that the City will charge existing fees in all possible instances. However, for practical and customer service reasons (to facilitate good community relations and encourage overall compliance), as well as collection inefficiencies, the City likely does not actually charge for every situation where fees could be levied. Consequently, projected current fee revenues and full cost recovery levels will likely be less than shown in the table, so the table figures should be considered the maximum potential amounts. The overall annual cost recovery is comprised of approximately 879 individual fee results calculated in the study. In most cases (76%), the current unit fees are less than the full cost of providing the service, resulting in fee subsidies. Some examples of this situation are presented in the table below: Wohlford Consulting Page 1 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT Sample Unit Fee Cost Results Current Full Cost Surplus / Full Cost Program and Fee Title Fee per Unit (Subsidy) Recovery per Unit Rate Conditional Use Permit with $ 1,433 $ 5,675 $ (4,242) 25% Development Plan(Planning) New Single -Family Dwelling: 2,501- $ 1,826 $ 3,066 $ (1,240) 60% 5,000 sf(Building) Water Heater (includes Permit Issuance $ 149 $ 290 $(141) 51% Fee(Building) On -Site Improvements Plan Check: $ 20,556 $ 24,555 $ (3,999) 84% Medium project Land Development) Sprinkler Plan Check: 51-100 heads $ 700 $ 1,098 $ (398) 64% Fire Prevention Sprinkler Inspection: 51-100 heads (Fire $ 769 $ 744 $ 26 103% Prevention Vehicle Release Police $ 166 $ 176 $ 10 94% While the average cost recovery rate for all fees is 49.8%, the individual recovery rates for subsidized fees vary widely. Some fees are at 0% cost recovery (i.e., no current fee exists), and some fee levels are currently greater than the cost of services (over 100%). The appendix to this report presents the results for each fee and service in a format similar to the above table. The results of the study demonstrate the potential for improved cost recovery and revenue enhancement through fee increases (offset by some potential decreases). The reality of the local government fee environment, however, is that large increases to achieve 100% cost recovery in a single year are often not feasible, desirable, or appropriate. In addition, some of the "fee" activities, while technically possible to establish as full cost fees, are likely not feasible to charge full cost (e.g., appeals). In recognition of this situation in Temecula, staff will develop recommended fees that will likely result in less than full cost recovery in the first year. The annual amount of revenue from the recommended fees and the actual cost -recovery ratio will not be known until City staff prepares their analysis and submits recommendations to the City Council. It is important to note that these results will not match the entire budget and operations of each department, some of which may have non -fee programs and/or services intentionally funded by the General Fund or external sources, such as grants or state funds. In addition, in some instances, the total costs and/or revenues shown are greater than the department budgets, because the anticipated annual workload is greater than current staff resources can fulfill or the task hours used to calculate unit costs are based on a "minimum professional standard" that may be greater than current staff capacity currently allows. This situation was particularly pronounced in the Fire Prevention results. The Findings and Results section of this report addresses these issues in more detail, primarily in the Other Results Information and Explanations section starting on page 19. The details and explanations behind these summary results are contained in the body of this report and the appendix. The background and comprehensive data analysis for the Cost of Services Study was provided to the City and is available for review. Wohlford Consulting Page 2 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT PROJECT BACKGROUND Purpose and Intent In its effort to manage resources wisely, meet service demands, and meet regulatory obligations, the City of Temecula utilizes a variety of tools to ensure that it has the best information to make good decisions, fairly and legitimately set fees, affect revenues, maintain compliance with state law and local policies, and address the needs of the City administration and the public. Given the limitations on raising revenue in local government, the City recognized that a Cost of Service (User Fee) Study is the most cost-effective way to understand its total cost of services and identify potential fee changes and revenue impacts. A quality Cost of Service Study is much more than a method to identify the cost of service and potential fee increases. This type of analysis can also become a management tool, providing information and perspectives that can help the City better understand its operations and financial circumstances. Other important outcomes from the study processes and results include the ability to: • Calculate specific fee subsidies and revenue impacts of current and potential fees; • Identify new fees and cost recovery strategies and delete obsolete or ineffective fees; • Enhance internal understanding of program operations and support activities; • Allow the City to compare its costs or fee levels with neighboring jurisdictions; • Quantify productivity and staffing shortages, inefficiencies, or overages; • Measure the distribution of staff effort of specific positions to individual tasks and service areas, which can help managers more effectively prioritize work tasks; • Ensure that fees are fair and defensible; • Ensure that the City's fees are consistent with state law; • Ensure that City fees are defensible to the public, interest groups, and the courts; and • Foster a better understanding of workflow and staff involvement in specific activities. The principal goal of the consultant study was to determine the full cost of the services provided by the department program areas that charge fees for their services. Other objectives of the project included: ✓ Establish objective and transparent fee information ✓ Develop insight and a rational basis for setting fees ✓ Understand individual fee subsidies and overall funding deficits ✓ Balance revenues and/or cost -recovery ✓ Understand the context and principles of user fees ✓ Improve fairness and equity ✓ Ensure compliance with state law Wohlford Consulting Page 3 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT The City can use the study results to better understand its true costs and as the basis for making informed policy decisions regarding the most appropriate charges (fees), if any, to levy against individuals and organizations that require discretionary services from the City. Scope of the Study The scope of this study encompasses a review and calculation of the user fees charged by the City of Temecula, including the following program areas: • Building & Safety • Planning • Land Development (PW) • Fire Prevention • Police The study involved the identification of existing and potential new fees, fee schedule restructuring, data collection and analysis, orientation and consultation, quality control, communication and presentations, project management, and calculation of individual service costs (fees). The Study focused on the cost of department services at anticipated service and staffing levels. This study was not a management study intended to identify, evaluate, or quantify potential cost savings opportunities, efficiency and effectiveness improvements, performance or productivity, staffing or organizational structure, process changes, risk mitigation, or other factors that could later influence operating practices and the cost of the services. The analysis did not seek to compare the service levels, fee structures, quality, or operating practices of Temecula departments to other cities or counties. This study also did not address potential economic or social impacts of possible fee increases on the community. Purpose of the Report This report presents a summary of the study results and a general description of the approach and methods used to determine the cost of services. Some issues are presented as background for the results and the study processes. However, the report is not intended to document all of the issues and discussions involved with the study, nor is it intended to provide persuasive discourse on the relative merits of the tools, techniques, methods, or other approaches used in the study. The main source of detailed information from this study is the series of worksheets and workbooks that contain the source data and calculations that lead to the final results. About Wohlford Consulting The consultant for this study, Chad Wohlford, has over 36 years of experience analyzing and managing government costs and operations, including 12 years of direct government management and analytical service. He has personally engaged in over 250 cost analysis studies with more than 80 different government clients (many of them for multiple projects) in at least eight states. Before founding Wohlford Consulting, Chad Wohlford was a state director of the cost services practice for a large international consulting corporation. Wohlford Consulting Page 4 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT LOCAL GOVERNMENT USER FEE ISSUES User Fees Defined A User Fee is: A fee or rate charged to an individual or group that receives a private benefit from services provided by the City. The defining principle behind a user fee is the nature of the individual or private benefit that results from the service for which the fee is charged. With the inflexibility and categorical requirements of many funding sources, taxes (as embodied by the General Fund) are generally levied and used to pay for services that benefit the public as a whole (i.e., community benefit). Of course, a number of gray areas exist to complicate the specific categorization of charges, since many services that appear to benefit a single group may have secondary benefits to others. It is the prerogative of the City Council or other governing body to determine the final fee levels that reflect the local policies and intent regarding cost recovery and subsidies. As a point of clarification, utility rates are a type of local government fees that are similar in nature to, but otherwise separated from, user fees. Utility rates seek to recover for the usage of a particular commodity provided by the government agency, such as water or sewage treatment. In contrast, the traditional user fees addressed in this study relate to services for which employee time is the most prominent feature of the service and regulatory approval is the normal product of the transaction. The departments included in this study do not charge utility rates or fees. Development Impact Fees (DIFs) are also sometimes confused or mistakenly conflated with user fees, since they are usually charged in association with development -related user fees. However, impact fees are also not "user fees," because DIFs are designed to fund future infrastructure (capital) costs and are prohibited from being applied to normal operating costs and services. Fee Background As part of an overall funding strategy, local government relies upon user fees to fund programs and services that provide limited or no direct benefit to the community as a whole. With rising demands for services and restrictions on most other funding sources, counties and cities have increased scrutiny of subsidies provided by the General Fund (or external funding sources or reserves) to other funds and to service recipients that reap a disproportionate share of the benefits. To the extent that the government uses general tax monies (General Fund) or other non -fee funds to provide an individual with a private benefit and not require the individual to pay the cost of the service (and, therefore, receive a subsidy), the government is unable to use those resources to provide benefits to the community as a whole. In effect, then, the government is using community funds to pay for a private benefit. Unlike other revenue sources, counties and cities have greater control over the amount of user fees they charge to recover costs. Wohlford Consulting Page 5 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Ir FINAL REPORT Impetus for User Fees and Increased Scrutiny Prior to Proposition 13, California cities were not as concerned as they are today with potential subsidies and recovering the cost of their services from individual fee payers. In times of fiscal shortages, cities could raise property taxes, which funded everything from Animal Control and recreation to development -related services. However, this situation changed with the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. Proposition 13 ushered in the era of revenue limitation in California local government. In subsequent years, the state saw a series of additional limitations to local government revenues. Proposition 4 (1979) defined the difference between a tax and a fee: a fee can be no greater than the cost of providing the service; and Proposition 218 (1996) further limited the imposition of taxes for certain classes of fees. As a result, cities were required to secure a supermajority vote in order to enact or increase taxes. Since significant resistance usually emerges to any efforts to raise local government taxes, cities have little control and very few successful options for new revenues. To compound the revenue problems faced by local government, the state of California took a series of actions in the 1990's and 2000's to improve the state's fiscal situation —at the expense of local government. The "Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund" (ERAF) take -away of property taxes and the reduction of Vehicle License Fees severely reduced local tax revenues. Cities (and counties) faced significant funding troubles in the face of rising and sometimes uncontrollable costs, increased citizen demands, and continued imposition of state mandates. The flexibility of local government budgets to address their own priorities was hampered by categorical grants, earmarked funds, mandates, maintenance of effort requirements, and funding match requirements. As expected, cities and counties sought relief. To cope with the funding shortages, local government was forced to enact service reductions, seek reimbursement from the state for more and more mandated services (SB 90 Mandated Cost Reimbursement), and impose a wider range and higher levels of user fees and impact fees. In turn, to placate local government and transfer some control and responsibility, the state delegated more authority to charge user fees. The state also codified limitations to user fee levels and administration and put more of the responsibility and liability for user fees to the local level. With greater need and authority to charge fees, many local governments took to the concept readily and enacted new and increased fees. After a series of real and/or perceived abuses, a focused and influential user fee backlash occurred in the mid-1990's that required further clarification and limitation of user fee practices. Special interest groups challenged fees (primarily development - related) in a number of cities and counties, resulting in a series of lawsuits, special studies, and formal opinions from the California Attorney General (1995) and Legislative Counsel of California (1997). The end result of all of these user fee actions is an environment of significant scrutiny of any and all fee actions. Local government has been forced to pay greater attention to the methods and bases for new fees, since they can be readily challenged. The focus of fee -setting decisions has shifted from the revenue needs to the actual cost of the services provided. "Pay to play" principles Wohlford Consulting Page 6 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT have become more prominent as a way to ensure equity and fairness for all citizens. In addition, the issue of subsidies has come to the forefront, since it has become less tolerable to use general taxpayer funds to subsidize the private activities and profits of developers (for example), business owners, and other individual beneficiaries of City services —at the expense of more public safety and social services. Most Recent Change: Proposition 26 In 2010 the trend to limit fee progression continued when California voters approved Proposition 26. This measure attempted to further define and clarify which local government charges are to be considered taxes (subject to public vote) and which are fees (subject only to city council or board of supervisors approval). In summary, the measure established that any "levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local government" is a tax, unless it falls into one of seven categories (exceptions): (1) A charge imposed for a specific benefit conferred or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of conferring the benefit or granting the privilege. (2) A charge imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the service or product. (3) A charge imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof. (4) A charge imposed for entrance to or use of local government property or the purchase rental or lease of local government property. (5) A fine, penalty, or other monetary charge imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government as a result of a violation of law, including late payment fees, fees imposed under administrative citation ordinances, parking violations, etc. (6) A charge imposed as a condition of property development. (7) Assessments and property related fees imposed in accordance with the provisions of Article XIII D (Proposition 218). Wohlford Consulting Page 7 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT According to analyses by the League of California Cities, the "vast majority of fees that cities would seek to adopt will most likely fall into one or more of these exemptions."' City fees fall under the same general status and conditions, so the analysis should be applicable to counties also, so most or all properly structured and calculated user fees will be exempt from Proposition 26"2 under exception numbers one, two, three or six. As a cost of services study, this analysis sought to evaluate the cost of a wide range of services and activities conducted by the departments regardless of whether the services are associated with specific fees. While this study includes cost analysis of services that could be considered for fee adoptions, it does not, in and of itself, establish fees or fee levels for the City, which is the purview of the City Council. If recommended fees are provided in the study, the types of fees and charges that are likely to be considered "taxes" under Proposition 26 are normally and intentionally excluded. (Note: In rare instances where a recommendation would be provided to set a cost recovery level for a service considered a "tax" under Proposition 26 definitions, the recommendation assumes that the City will implement those taxes in compliance with state law. There are no such instances in this study for the City of Temecula.) While the study evaluates the cost of many direct services, including some that are unrecoverable and/or may not ever become recommended fees, the fees likely to be adopted are designed to recover the reasonable cost of providing the service to the individual fee payers. As noted above and as defined in Proposition 26, these fees fall within the definitions of the exceptions. However, it is unknown to the consultant whether Proposition 26 has yet been subject to sufficient review by the courts to eliminate all uncertainties regarding its application. Regardless, prior to any new fee implementation, it would be prudent for the City's own legal counsel to evaluate the impact of Proposition 26 (and all other related laws) to ensure full compliance with state law. A more recent resource for the City's consideration is the League of California Cities: Proposition 26 and 218 Implementation Guide (May 2019). Basic User Fee Principles The definition of a user fee, the modern environment for their existence and administration, and general public administration concepts all affect a Cost of Service Study. Wohlford Consulting considered a variety of related principles to assist the City in the determination of user fee structures, service costs, and implementation. Under these principles, User Fees should be: • Based on the Cost of Services: ✓ Not arbitrary ✓ Not unintentionally subsidized ✓ Not unfairly subsidized • Fair and Equitable • Consistent with City Goals / Objectives • Compliant with State Law • Dynamic (for updates & anomalies) 'Living with Proposition 26 of 2010: Many Local Fees Will Fit Within Seven Categories of Exemptions, November 2010, Page 1 2 Proposition 26 Implementation Guide, April 2011, Page 43 Wohlford Consulting Page 8 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT For most development -related user fees, state law establishes that "...fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged..." (Government Code §66014). The "fee" exceptions in Proposition 26 also state that the charge must "not exceed the reasonable costs" to provide the service. Although it specifically applies to development - related fees, this code and associated sections are commonly referenced for other fee areas, so this general admonition is the dominating principle in this User Fee Study. Other sections of state law authorize the City to charge "...the department's costs incurred in undertaking the activity..." for inspections and other regulatory services related to the public health -related programs, for example (Health and Safety Code § 113717). Similar guidelines are imparted in Health and Safety Code § 17951. The methodology, approach, data collection, quality control, and other efforts of the study are intended to establish compliance with these principles. The costs calculated in the study represent the estimated reasonable full cost for each service and, therefore, the maximum fee the City may charge for its services. User fee activities are primarily discretionary services provided only to those who request the services or cause the services to be required. These services are not provided to the public at large, which is why local government and taxpayers often consider it appropriate to recover the full cost of the services from those applicants that receive the services. The alternative is for taxpayers (through the General Fund, typically) to subsidize the services on behalf of the individuals or entities that benefit directly from the services. Wohlford Consulting Page 9 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT PROJECT APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY Conceptual Approach The basic concept of a User Fee Study is to determine the full cost of each service provided by the City for which the City charges a user fee. The full cost may not necessarily become the City's fee, but it serves as the objective basis from which the City can make informed decisions regarding the final fee level. In order to determine the full cost for each fee service, the cost analysis incorporates the following "full cost" components: • Direct Salaries & Benefits • Services and Supplies • Indirect and Support Activities • Supervision and Support • Cross -Department Support • Department / Division Administration • Citywide Administration • Facility Use • Capital (annualized) • Anticipated Growth A critical method to ensure full cost recovery rates is to establish annual billable (productive / available) hours for staff. The Study reduces the full-time annual hours (2,080) for each position classification by non -billable hours, such as holiday, vacation, and sick leave, staff meetings, mandated breaks, and training. In studies conducted by Wohlford Consulting, the typical number of billable hours for the average full-time employee is approximately 1,400 hours per year, but this figure might normally range from 1,200 to 1,500, depending on the type of position. Each department study calculated a separate billable hour total for each position classification in the study, which was used to calculate individual hourly position costs. By using the billable hours, rather than the full 2,080 hours of full-time pay, the Study ensures that hourly rates and the resultant costs reflect the levels necessary to recover the full cost of services in a particular year given the practical availability of staff to provide services. The standard fee limitation we abided in this study is the "reasonable cost" principle. In order to maintain compliance with this standard, every major component of the fee study process included a related review. The use of budget figures and time estimates indicates reliance upon estimates for some data. In other areas, the study includes actual known figures that exceed the reasonable standard. The key to the defensibility of the study, therefore, is a dedication to the reasonableness of the data and results. The quality control measures implemented ensure the study satisfies the reasonableness standard. The study does not utilize arbitrary data or other information that would not satisfy the estimated/reasonable standard. In those cases where it was possible to establish reasonably consistent time/workload standards for specific services, the analysis develops the cost of the service as a "flat" or "fixed" fee. In addition to providing consistent cost information, this approach is the most common method for developing the full cost of City services within the selected departments. Wohlford Consulting Page 10 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT The alternative to fixed fees is to track actual staff time for every staff member for every service. This approach creates an administrative burden and leaves the City and the fee payer unable to predict the final fee amount. An "actual staff time" billing approach is appropriate, however, when the fee activity varies widely between occurrences and would thus cause fixed fees to be unfair and unreasonable in a significant number of cases. In those cases where actual time billing might be most effective, the City can choose to require a deposit to ensure a minimum fee is received. The Study established a few of these fees to be based on actual billing charges, by using staff time estimates for common service levels, and the resulting amount calculated for the "fees" could be used as potential deposit levels. The cost figures used as the basis for the study were from the City's FY 2022-23 final approved budget. Summary Steps of the Study The methodology used to determine individual user fee costs is straightforward. This analysis employs a "unit cost build-up" approach to determine the cost of individual services. The approach uses the following factors: • Staff time to complete activities and services • Direct cost of individual staff positions (converted to productive hourly rates) • Rational distribution of overhead and support costs Multiplying the first two factors (# of hours by hourly rate) identifies the direct cost for each service. By distributing the remaining indirect/overhead costs, the analysis establishes the full cost. The following list provides a summary of the study process steps: Fee Studv Process Outline 1. Establish the inventory of fee services (current and potential) 2. Identify the staff positions that work on each fee service 3. Calculate the direct productive hourly rate for each position 4. Determine the time necessary for each position to perform fee tasks 5. Calculate the direct cost of the staff time for each fee 6. Distribute indirect and overhead costs to each fee 7. Sub -allocate supporting activities to fee services 8. Perform quality control processes (constant) 9. Calculate revenue impacts 10. Perform the "gap analysis" (unit and total subsidies/deficits) 11. Perform review processes 12. Document and present results To ensure a high degree of accuracy and thoroughness for the study, each of these steps in the process involves a rigorous set of subtasks, iterations, reviews, and quality control requirements. Both the City staff and the consultant were involved with the performance and/or review of each of these steps. Wohlford Consulting Page 11 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT The following table illustrates the methodology using hypothetical information in a simplified format: Simplified Unit Cost Calculation Time to Full Cost Annual Annual Service ("Fee" or Complete Productive (per Unit Volume Cost or Program) / I X Hourly —of Fee X of = Potential Activity Activity Rate Activity) Activity Annual (hours) Revenue FEE #1: 10 Intake 0.5 $ 100 $ 50 10 $ 500 Plan Check 1 $ 100 �F $ 100 [ 10 $ 1,000 Inspection 2 $ 100 $ 200 10 $ 2,000 Filing 0.5 L $ 100 $ 50 J 10 1 $ 500 Salaries & 4 $ 100 $ 400 n 10 $ 4,000 Benefits Total: Indirect Costs I PF $ 5017 710[11 $ 500 TOTAL COST $ 450 �L] 10 L ] The above table of hypothetical data indicates that Fee #1 takes staff a total of four hours to complete the necessary services, so at $100 per hour, the direct staff cost is $400 per unit. The addition of $50 for indirect and overhead costs brings the total unit cost to $450. With 10 units a year, the total annual cost for the service is $4,500. It is important to note that this simple example indicates only a single position at four hours consumed per unit. The actual time analysis is much more detailed, and includes individual time estimates for each employee who works on each service for which the City charges a fee. Consequently, there were thousands of individual time datum identified for these studies. By multiplying the unit costs by the annual number of fee activities, the analysis estimates the total annual cost of the fee -related activities. By using the same annual activity volumes and multiplying them by current fees, the Study establishes potential cost recovery from current fees. The difference between the two figures is the actual cost -current fee gap. If the current fees are greater than the actual cost, the gap is an over collection or profit. If the full cost is greater than the current fees, the gap represents a subsidy, or individual fee deficit. The following table illustrates a simplified example of a gap analysis: Wohlford Consulting Page 12 of 48 September 27, 2023 All 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT Simplified Annual Subsidy/Gap Analysis Annual Annual Annual Current Fee Volume X Current Revenue @ _ Revenue Annual of Fee Current @ Full (Subsidy) Activity Fee Cost Surplus Fee #1 10 $ 100 $ 1,000 $ 4,500 ($ 3,500) Fee #2 15 �F-S 75F $ 1,125 $ 2,000 �FF(S 875) Fee #4 20 $ 50 $ 1,000 $ _500111 $ 500 Fee #4 25 $ 25 $ 625 $ 100 $ 525 Total: $ 3,750 1 J$7,100 ($ 3,350) The above table indicates that hypothetical Fee #1 is currently subsidized $3,500 per year, while the City is charging fee payers $500 more per year than the cost for the service represented by Fee #4. Basic Assumptions and Standards The study relied upon a series of underlying assumptions and basic considerations to achieve the results. These issues are described below: Time Data & Estimates: One of the principal building blocks of this cost analysis was the time data provided by department staff to represent their workload related to each fee service and/or subordinate activity. The principal source of the time data was the department program area staff. For the individual time data points for each service, qualified staff provided time estimates based upon their professional experience. The use of staff -provided time estimates is necessary in the absence of actual time data, such as the kind that could be developed through a long-term time and motion study or other more formal methods. A study to determine actual time consumed for each project type is not feasible for a local government user fee study, as it would take several years for every service and project type to occur (in order to collect the associated data), and the variability between instances of each type would render the actual data unreliable anyway. Furthermore, the cost to conduct such an analysis to achieve useful data would be extensive and would greatly offset any value of the User Fee Study —all without improving the acceptability, defensibility, or accuracy of the cost study results. If conscientiously considered by qualified staff, time estimates should satisfy the standard that a fee must not exceed the "reasonable cost" of providing the service for which the fee is charged. For this study, department staff provided time estimates that represent a normal level of effort for each fee activity, as determined by past experience, and necessary to perform an acceptable professional level of Wohlford Consulting Page 13 of 48 September 27, 2023 All 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT service. This data was reviewed by other experienced staff in the organization, in order to utilize other perspectives and experiences and further ensure reasonableness. This approach is "industry standard" for cost of service and user fee analysis. Full Cost: The study determines the full cost of services. To this end, the analysis includes all direct costs for City services, such as the salaries and benefits of the employees who perform the services. The analysis also includes the appropriate distribution of legitimate indirect and overhead costs that support the operations and personnel that perform the services. These costs include general supplies and services, utilities, insurance, facility and equipment costs, technology upgrades, City, department, and/or division overhead, annualized capital costs, annualized supporting plan maintenance, and Citywide overhead (cost allocation) —all whenever applicable. Citywide overhead is comprised of central service costs, such as City Manager, Finance, City Attorney, and Human Resources. These costs are universally accepted as components to be included in service cost (fee) calculations, because the underlying services provide the organizational and operational support necessary for the employees and administrative infrastructure to exist and conduct the fee activities. It is important to note that all of these costs are distributed to the fee -related services, as well as the non -fee -related services. In other words, the costs for fee -related services are not burdened with all of the cost, but only their fair share of the cost. The costs assigned to most direct non -fee services are considered unrecoverable. Non -Fee Services: As a full cost of service analysis, the study for each department/fee area also calculates the cost of non -fee services. These services include areas such as public information and support to other City departments, which do not have associated fees. The purpose of including these other services is to ensure the fair and appropriate distribution of overhead and indirect costs to all areas, instead of concentrating these costs only on the fee -related activities. This approach also allows the analysis to distribute staff hours across all activities to ensure a true picture of the utilization of staff time and cost and provide a quality control check. The detailed study results in the appendices indicate whether a summary total includes "All Services" (including non -fee categories) or "Fee Services Only" (excluding non -fee services). The figures in the body of this report only include the "Fee Services" totals. Service Level Assumptions: The entire analysis was based upon the current organization and business practices in each department. The study assumed continued consistency in the time consumption for each service, as well as future staffing, quality, productivity, efficiency, and all other qualitative and quantitative standards. The analysis is also based upon a level of service determined by department management to be the minimum professional standard. As a result, in some cases, Wohlford Consulting Page 14 of 48 September 27, 2023 All 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT the time estimates may represent a higher level of service than that of the current department organization and business practices. The study assumed consistency in the future time consumption for each service, as well as future staffing, quality, productivity, efficiency, and all other qualitative and quantitative standards. Consistent Workload: Most of the service costs in this study were developed as "flat" or fixed fees. Under this approach, the Study calculates the cost of the services after assuming that all services for a specific fee will require the same workload (time), regardless of the characteristics of the particular fee activity or the applicant. Time estimates that reflect the "typical" level of effort required for a particular fee activity. The flat fee approach ignores the variance in time that may exist from applicant to applicant, due to qualitative or other differences in the applicants themselves or their submitted materials. The overall efficacy of this approach relies upon the assumption that the variances will average out over the course of time, resulting in a consistent and reasonably fair fee for all. Subsidy: A deficit exists when the cost of a particular service is greater than the fee charged and recovered for that service. This deficit creates the need for a subsidy from another funding source, so the use of either term in this report or in subsequent discussions is appropriate for the same meaning. Individual fee subsidies can take different forms. In cases where different size fees within the same category are set at different cost -recovery levels, one fee payer may subsidize another for the same type of service. This situation exists, because the individual fees are not each priced to recover the individual costs of the services (i.e., one payer is overcharged and one is undercharged). In these instances, there is a basic imbalance and/or unfairness between fee payers built into the system. Other fee subsidies are more general or larger in overall scope, such as when all of the fee levels are set below the costs of the individual services. The overall cost of services is very real, so if the recipients of the services are not asked to pay full cost, the balance must be borne by one or more City funding sources, so the concept of a subsidy is not just theoretical. In local government, subsidies are normally covered by General Fund revenues, since most other funding sources are limited in what they can be used to fund. This reliance upon General Fund revenues or reserves to fund private -benefit services, such as septic system inspections, creates some criticism, since it reduces the availability of those revenues for other public benefit services or priorities. However, subsidies can also reflect positive public policy goals, since they can be used to encourage or reward certain desired activities. This study identifies existing subsidies for individual fee activities, as well as the resulting annual operating deficits for each department. The purpose of the subsidy analysis is to inform the City regarding current subsidy levels and give City leaders information to help make informed fee setting and policy decisions. Wohlford Consulting Page 15 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT Costs vs. Fees: The Study and appendices reference "fees" in titles and descriptions. In the context of the full cost analysis, the terms "cost" and "fees" are interchangeable. The full cost of a service serves as the potential fee until the City has an opportunity to review the results and establish new fee levels for implementation. This study does not presume to establish City fees, since the decisions about fee levels are the purview of the City Council and require additional information (e.g., community input, economic impacts, etc.) that was not evaluated as part of this study. Quality Control The quality of a cost study is dependent on the data that is used for the analysis. All study components are interrelated, so it is critical that the study utilize good data. To avoid accuracy problems and other quality flaws, the study incorporated a rigorous quality control process with checks at every step in the analysis. The quality control measures ensure that the study covers all of the issues, appropriately accounts for positions and resources in the models, and factors all other data fairly and accurately. The elements of the quality control process used for the User Fee calculations include: Quality Control Steps /Initiatives ✓ Involvement of knowledgeable ✓ Normalcy/expectation ranges City staff and managers (data inputs and results) ✓ Clear instructions and guidance ✓ Challenge and questioning to City staff and managers ✓ Utilization of staff hours ✓ Process checklists ✓ FTE balancing ✓ Reasonableness tests and ✓ Internal and external reviews validation ✓ Cross-checking Wohlford Consulting Page 16 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT FINDINGS AND RESULTS Basis The Departments and Divisions analyzed through this cost study charge fees to the citizens and businesses of Temecula that receive various discretionary services from the City, such as plan reviews, inspections, and permits. These fees consist of a mix of flat (fixed) fees and time and materials fees (variable @ staff hourly rates). In this study, for those fees where the staff could identify a typical or standard project with only slight variability of staff effort (i.e., cost) between projects, we established fixed costs. In contrast, services where significant variability of staff effort exists between projects were designated as "actual staff time". For the actual time fees, we used the calculated staff hourly rates to establish the "cost" of a typical project (which can also be used as a starting deposit). City staff and the consultant worked together to develop the fees through a unit cost build-up approach, whereby the analysis calculated the cost of each unit of service (e.g., permitting process, inspections, plan review) using staff time and cost -recovery hourly rates. To develop the annual deficit or surplus figures, the analysis multiplied the unit costs and current unit fees by the anticipated annual volume of each service. This extrapolation of the unit fees into a one-year period indicates the potential revenue impacts to each department included in the study, as well as the City as a whole. Summary of Results The current total cost of City fee activities included in this study is approximately $$15.8 million annually. Given the current fee levels charged by the City, the potential annual revenue (assuming a consistent activity level and complete collection) is $7.9 million, which represents a current cost - recovery ratio of 49.8% overall and an annual fund deficit (subsidy) of $7.9 million. In other words, if the City set fee levels at the full cost of each service, (100% cost -recovery) the City could collect an additional $7.9 million in revenue from fee activities in these departments each year. The following table illustrates these results for the departments: Summary Results - All Departments FULL COST: PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROGRAM AREA Annual Cost of REVENUE AT SURPLUS / COST Fee -Related CURRENT (DEFICIT) RECOVERY Services FEES RATE Building & Safety $ 3,911,000 $ 2,801,000 $ 1,110,000 71.6% Planning $ 3,386,000 $ 1,192,000 $ 2,194,000 35.2% Land Development $ 2,812,000 $ 1,881,000 $ 931,000 66.9% Fire Prevention $ 5,161,000 $ 1,780,000 $ 3,381,000 34.5% Police 1 $ 554,000 1 $ 234,000 $ 320,000 42.2% TOTALS: 1 $ 15,824,000 1 $ 7,888,000 $ 7,936,000 49.8% Wohlford Consulting Page 17 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT In addition to the overall annual funding deficit (subsidy), 741 out of 940 (79%) of the current fees are less than the full cost of providing the services, thus providing individual subsidies to fee payers. The remaining 199 current fees are set equal to or higher than full cost. If the City elects to set all fees to recover full cost (and no more), most of the current fees would increase, and some might be reduced. Given the projected annual volume of permit activity for the individual fees, the City would experience an overall increase in annual revenue of approximately $7.9 million. Another way to view these results is to consider the funding sources for the full cost of fee -related activities. In the following graph, the bottom portion of each program (solid blue) indicates the amount of the fees funded by current fees, and the upper portion (red/white striped) represents the funding provided by the General Fund, reserves. or other non -fee sources: $5,500,000 $5,000,000 $4,500,000 $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 Current Funding Sources of Fee Services Building Planning Land Fire Police Development Prevention The potential ("Projected") revenue at current fees shown in the table above assumes that the City will charge existing fees in all possible instances. However, for practical and customer service reasons (to facilitate good community relations and encourage overall compliance), as well as collection inefficiencies, the City likely does not actually charge for every situation where fees could be levied. Consequently, projected current fee revenues and full cost recovery levels will most likely be less than shown in the table, so the table figures should be considered the maximum potential amounts. The reality of the local government fee environment, however, is that large increases to achieve 100% cost recovery are often not feasible, desirable, or appropriate. In recognition of this situation Wohlford Consulting Page 18 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT in Temecula, City staff will likely develop recommended fees that will initially result in less than full cost recovery. The annual amount of revenue from the recommended fees and the actual cost - recovery ratio will not be known until the City staff prepares their analysis and recommendations to the City Council. In a cost of service (user fee) analysis, the principal output and findings are the full cost figures for the fee activities. The appendices to this report contain the unit cost results individually by department / division, as well as the summary results for each. To achieve these results, the consultant prepared and utilized a variety of worksheets and workbooks to document and calculate the full costs of each service. Printouts and electronic files of these materials comprise the background documentation of the study and were provided separately to the City. Other Results Information and Explanations Clarifications It should be noted that the "full cost" figures presented in the table reflect only the total annual cost of the fee -related activities. The departments also have some non -fee activities or services funded by external sources that are not included in this table. Therefore, the table's focused cost figures will not match any budgets or other financial documents that include every component of the City or individual departments. This report presents a variety of cost and revenue figures to demonstrate and explain various elements of the City's costs and revenues. Given the complex revenue situation, the different figures presented, and the potential for confusion, it may be beneficial to briefly clarify some of the key revenue issues at this point in the report: • The study focused on the fee -related services provided by the City, so most cost figures only on those services, and not the entire City or department budgets. • The summary revenue shown in the first table above and in the Executive Summary is based only on the fee -related services. • The revenues are "potential" levels, based on the assumption that the City will charge the appropriate fees for each eligible instance, with no waivers. • The revenues are "potential" levels, based on the assumed collection of all fees. • The City does not always charge for all fee -related services, in order to meet customer service and operational policy goals, so the actual revenue collections have been less than the potential fees would indicate. • Non -fee -related services were included in the analysis and form the overall picture of department costs, revenues, and subsidies. • Table titles and descriptions in the paragraphs differentiate between the results being discussed. Wohlford Consulting Page 19 of 48 September 27, 2023 A �4 Cost Study Results vs. The Budget 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT It is important to note that the subsidies identified in the study may differ from any previously identified or existing budget subsidies, because the analysis included factors that are not necessarily part of the budget process. These factors may include: direct staff support, updated annual workload data, and anticipated service and staffing levels, which may differ from previous assumptions employed for the budget. Definition of Results The results of this Study reflect the full cost of fee -related services provided by the City. The results are not necessarily the fees that the City will charge. The City Council has the authority and responsibility to set the fee levels following receipt of staff recommendations, public meetings, and deliberations, and the process for development of recommended fee levels for Board consideration will occur later. Potential Utilization Gap Revenue Adjustment In order to establish the cost of providing individual services, key department staff were directed to provide time estimates or data to indicate the typical time it takes to complete one unit of each service. In many instances the time associated with the current typical level of service was insufficient to provide an adequate or acceptable quality or service level according to a "minimum professional standard" of department staff and management. The most likely cause for this situation is a lack of sufficient resources (primarily, staff hours available) to provide the minimum standard of service. Rather than collect time estimates that would establish fee/cost levels at this unacceptable level (and perpetuate funding at the deficient level), the data collectors agreed to provide time estimates that would meet the minimum professional standard. Since these time estimates sometimes exceeded the actual current efforts, the annualized projection of staff utilization for some positions ultimately exceeded the available time of the staff, resulting in a "utilization gap" in the study. In those cases, the overutilization shown in the study represents an amount of additional staff resources necessary to meet the minimum professional standard of service. However, the cost for these staff hours/positions does not currently reside in the department budgets. Instead, they represent additional resource needs that could be funded by the potential fee increases demonstrated in the study. As a result, the total full cost shown in the summary results exceeds the actual cost inputs by the amount represented by the utilization gap —although it represents the true cost of providing the services indicated. To be more specific, the total cost of the extra position time in the study is approximately $3.7 million. The impacts of these additional costs are included in the base unit costs shown in the results, as well as the annualized results. In other words, the $15.3 million in overall costs (seen in the summary tables) includes the $3.7 million cost associated with Wohlford Consulting Page 20 of 48 September 27, 2023 All 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT the additional time estimates included in the study for over -utilized positions. Of this total, 86% ($3.2 million) is produced in Fire Prevention. Inclusion of the utilization gap costs into the summary tables is necessary to understand the true cost of the services provided by the City at minimum professional standard levels. However, it may create an apparent inconsistency if someone were to attempt to compare the total costs from the study with a department's budget along with other reasonable cost inputs. Therefore, the following table is presented to show the costs from the study if the utilization gap cost was discounted from the overall totals: Alternate Summary Results (Adjusted for Overudlization) Department / Division FULL COST: Annual Cost of Fee -Related Services CURRENT REVENUE: Projected (annual) @ Current Fees POTENTIAL FEE REVENUE CHANGE: (Full Cost - Current) CURRENT COST RECOVERY RATE (Current / Full Cost Full Cost Study Results: Building & Safety $ 3,911,000 $ 2,801,000 $ 1,110,000 71.6% Planning $ 3,386,000 $ 1,192,000 $ 2,194,000 35.2% Land Development $ 2,812,000 $ 1,881,000 $ 931,000 66.9% Fire Prevention $ 5,161,000 $ 1,780,000 $ 3,381,000 34.5% Police $ 554,000 $ 234,000 $ 320,000 42.2% Study Totals: $15,824,000 $ 7,888,000 ($ 7,936,000) 49.8% Potential Utilization Gal) Adjustments: Building & Sae $ 334,000 $ 0 $ 334,000 Planning $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Land Development $ 178,000 $ 0 $ 178,000 Fire Prevention $ 3,150,000 $ 0 $ 3,150,000 Police $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Total Adjustments: $ 3,662,000 $ 0 $ 3,552,000 Adjusted Study Total: $ 12,162,000 $ 7,888,000 ($ 4,274,000) 64.9% The following chart provides a visual representation of the results when the cost of overutilized staff is removed. As with the previous graph, the bottom portion of each program (solid blue) indicates the amount of the fees funded by current fees, and the upper portion (red/white striped) represents the funding provided by the General Fund, reserves. or other non -fee sources: Wohlford Consulting Page 21 of 48 September 27, 2023 All $4,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,000,000 $2,500,000 $2,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,000,000 $500,000 4 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT Current Funding Sources of Fee Services (Adjusted for Overudlization) Building L` FUND SUBSIDY ■ PROJECTED REVENUE FROM CURRENT FEES Planning Land Fire Development Prevention Police The resultant net cost shown in the above table and chart is more consistent with the City's approved current budget. Nevertheless, because they represent a truer picture of the overall cost for services at a minimum professional standard (as defined by each department), all of the results discussed in this report refer to the original cost and revenue figures, which include the utilization gap totals. Wohlford Consulting Page 22 of 48 September 27, 2023 A �4 Results for Building & Safety 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT FULL COST: PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED Annual Cost of COST REVENUE AT SURPLUS / Fee -Related RECOVERY CURRENT FEES (DEFICIT) Services RATE $ 3,911,000 1 $ 2,801,000 ($1,110,000) 71.6% Summary of Results The cost analysis for Building & Safety revealed an overall annual funding deficit (subsidy) of approximately $1.1 million for fee -related activities, with an overall cost -recovery rate of 72%. (Note: Non -fee activities were included in the analysis to ensure proper distribution of all costs, but are excluded from the summary figures presented in this report.) In addition, 237 out of 320 (74%) of the current fees are less than the full cost of providing the services, thus providing a subsidy to fee payers. The remaining 83 current fees are set equal to or higher than full cost. If the City elects to set all fees to recover full cost (and no more), most of the current fees would increase, and some might be reduced or remain the same. Given the projected annual volume of permit activity for the fees, the City would experience an overall increase in annual revenue of approximately $1.1 million. In addition to the unit fee calculations, the fee study also calculated the hourly cost (hourly rate) for each individual position classification in Building & Safety (e.g., Building Inspector hourly rate). The study found that almost all (15 of 17) of the full hourly costs were greater than the hourly rates currently charged. The current hourly rates are up to 55% less than the cost and average 29% less than full cost, which means that most hourly charges currently result in significant subsidies. In instances where Building & Safety would rely upon hourly rates (e.g., real-time charges), sufficient staff rates are critical for full cost -recovery. Appendix 1 contains the detailed results for Building & Safety. Potential Cost -Recovery / Revenue Limitations The cost results for Building indicate a potential for significant additional revenue —as much as $1.1 million annually —if all fees are adjusted to full cost. However, the total potential revenue reflects very large increases to many individual fees that may not be feasibly attainable in the first year, so this large figure should be discounted according to the City's plans for increases. To the extent that the City does not increase all fees to their full cost levels, the City will not realize the associated additional annual revenue. For example, the combined cost (plan check and inspection) for a residential roof -mounted photovoltaic system is $721, but the current combined fee is $306. Given the annual volume of these fees, the gap between the annual cost and projected revenue from the current fees is $609,000. As portrayed in the study results, this indicates that the City could raise the fee to recover an additional $609,000 annually in new revenue. However, the Wohlford Consulting Page 23 of 48 September 27, 2023 A �4 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT state of California restricts the fees that can be charged for these services to $450 to $500 (or so, depending on the size of the system). Therefore, the actual potential increase in cost recovery/revenue is likely closer to $200,000 and the overall potential revenue is overstated by approximately $400,000. As an additional example of potential fee limitations, the study includes a "new" fee for Weed Abatement Contract Administrative Fee associated with Code Enforcement (managed within Building & Safety) that projects additional revenue of $114,000. This revenue is possible only if the City enacts this new fee. Due to the unknown outcomes of the fee -setting decisions, it is not possible to firmly establish the probable revenue impact of the Building & Safety results. Once the City staff prepare recommended fees and/or receives specific direction from the City Council, better predictions may be possible. Until then, it is important to understand that the revenue projections in the study represent the full cost of services and potential maximum revenue increases, and not the likely true cost -recovery results. Results for Planning FULL COST: PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED Annual Cost of REVENUE AT SURPLUS / COST Fee -Related RECOVERY CURRENT FEES (SUBSIDY) Services RATE $ 3,386,000 $1,192,000 ($ 2,194,000) 35.2% Summary of Results The cost analysis for Planning revealed an overall annual funding deficit (subsidy) of approximately $2.2 million for fee -related activities, with an overall cost -recovery rate of 35%. In addition, 89 out of 93 (95%) of the current fees are less than the full cost of providing the services, thus providing a subsidy to fee payers. The remaining four current fees are set equal to or higher than full cost. If the City elects to set all fees to recover full cost (and no more), most of the current fees would increase, and some might be reduced. Given the projected annual volume of permit activity for the fees, the City would experience an overall increase in annual revenue of approximately $2.2 million. In addition to the unit fee calculations, the fee study also calculated the hourly cost (hourly rate) for each individual position classification in Planning (e.g., Senior Planner hourly rate). The study found that of the full hourly costs were greater than the hourly rates currently charged. The current hourly rates are up to 74% less than the cost and average 69% less than full cost, which means that all hourly charges currently result in significant subsidies. In instances where Planning would rely upon hourly rates (e.g., real-time charges against deposits, such as Annexations), sufficient staff rates are critical for full cost -recovery. Appendix 2 contains the detailed results for Planning fee activities. Wohlford Consulting Page 24 of 48 September 27, 2023 All 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT Potential Cost -Recovery / Revenue Limitations The cost results for Planning indicate a theoretical potential for significant additional cost recovery (revenue) —as much as $2.2 million annually —if all fees are adjusted to full cost. However, the total potential revenue reflects very large increases to many individual fees that may not be feasibly attainable in the first year. For example, achieving full cost recovery for any of the Temporary Use Permits (to increase cost recovery by $157,000 annually) would require at least a ten -fold increase in each of the current fees, with the Temporary Use Permit - Minor Regular increasing from $150 to $1,850, for example. As another example, a Minor Modification - Plan Review Only would need to increase from the current fee of $221 to $3,428 to recover full cost, with both Minor Modifications fee types representing $389,000 of the total potential additional cost recovery. The overall large figure for additional revenue recovery should be discounted according to the City's plans for increases. To the extent that the City does not increase all fees to their full cost levels, the City will not realize the $2.2 million of additional annual revenue. Furthermore, in some local government situations, only a reduced portion of this kind of potential revenue is likely to be realized, due to "fee" areas that are traditionally heavily subsidized, such as appeals (current fee = $537; full cost = $16,353), architectural or historical review, subsidies for certain industry types, and pre -application reviews. However, in Temecula there is not a lot of volume for these types of fees, so the overall subsidy is more related to fees that are more traditionally charged closer to full cost. Without any increase in fees, Planning will continue to operate with a 65% subsidy from the General Fund, reserves, other program areas, or other external sources. More accurate or detailed predictions regarding the amount of revenue expected are not feasible, as too many unknown factors are present at this time. Results for Land Development FULL COST: PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED Annual Cost of COST REVENUE AT SURPLUS / Fee -Related RECOVERY CURRENT FEES (SUBSIDY) Services RATE $ 2,812,000 $1,881,000 ($ 931,000) 66.9% Summary of Results The cost analysis for Land Development revealed an overall annual funding deficit of approximately $931,000 for all fee -related activities combined, with an overall cost - recovery rate of 67%. In addition, 86% (69 out of 80 fees, by tally) of the current fees are less than the full cost of providing the services, thus providing a subsidy to fee payers. The remaining 11 current fees are currently set equal to or higher than full cost. In other words, if the City elects to set all fees to recover full cost (and no more), the majority of the current fees would increase, and a small minority would be reduced or remain the same. Given Wohlford Consulting Page 25 of 48 September 27, 2023 All 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT the projected annual volume of permit activity for the fees, the City would experience an overall increase in annual revenue of approximately $931,000. In addition to the unit fee calculations, the fee study also calculated the hourly cost (hourly rate) for each individual position classification in Land Development (e.g., Associate Civil Engineer hourly rate). The study found that all of the full hourly costs were greater than the hourly rates currently charged. The current hourly rates are up to 67% less than the cost and average 53% less than full cost, which means that all hourly charges currently result in significant subsidies. In instances where Land Development would rely upon hourly rates (e.g., real-time charges), sufficient staff rates are critical for full cost -recovery. Appendix 3 contains the detailed results for Land Development fee activities. Potential Cost -Recovery / Revenue Limitations The cost results for Land Development indicate a potential for significant additional cost recovery (revenue)as much as $931,000 annually —if all fees are adjusted to full cost. However, the total potential revenue reflects very large increases to many individual fees that may not be feasibly attainable in the first year. For example, a Subdivision Precise Grading Plan (per lot) has a current fee of $42 and a full cost of $582 which, extrapolated annually, represents a potential increase of $59,000 in annual revenue if the fee is set a full cost. A Traffic Control Plan (per sheet) currently charged at $81, but the full cost is $510, representing a potential annual revenue increase of $151,000. An Excavation Base Fee would need to increase from $276 to $1,687 to achieve full cost recovery and $169,000 in new revenue. Another $139,000 in potential additional annual revenue is associated with potential new NPDES (stormwater pollution mitigation) fees. To the extent that the City does not adjust these and all other fees to their full cost levels, the City will not realize the $931,000 in additional annual revenue. Without any increase in fees, Land Development will continue to operate with a 33% subsidy from the General Fund, reserves, other program areas, or other external sources. More accurate or detailed predictions regarding the amount of revenue expected are not feasible, as too many unknown factors are present at this time. Results for Fire Prevention FULL COST: PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED Annual Cost of COST REVENUE AT SURPLUS / Fee -Related RECOVERY CURRENT FEES (SUBSIDY) Services RATE $ 5,161,000 $ 1,780,000 ($ 3,381,000) 34.5% Summary of Results The cost analysis for Fire Prevention revealed an overall annual funding deficit of approximately $3.4 million for fee -related activities, with an overall cost -recovery rate of Wohlford Consulting Page 26 of 48 September 27, 2023 A �4 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT 35%. The analysis also revealed that 70% (265 out of 376 fees, by tally) of the current fees are less than the full cost of providing the services, thus providing a subsidy to fee payers. The remaining fees (30%) are currently set equal to or higher than full cost. Given the projected annual volume of permits and other activity for Fire Prevention fees, if the City elects to set all fees to recover full cost (and no more), the City would experience an overall increase in annual Fire Prevention revenue of approximately $3.4 million. In addition to the unit fee calculations, the fee study also calculated the hourly cost (hourly rate) for each individual position classification in Fire Prevention (e.g., Fire Safety Specialist hourly rate). The study found that all of the full hourly costs were greater than the hourly rates currently charged. The current hourly rates are up to 46% less than the cost and average 38% less than full cost, which means that all hourly charges currently result in significant subsidies. In instances where Fire Prevention would rely upon hourly rates (e.g., real-time charges), sufficient staff rates are critical for full cost -recovery. Appendix 4 contains the detailed results for Fire Prevention fee activities. Potential Cost -Recovery / Revenue Limitations The cost results for Fire Prevention indicate a potential for significant additional cost recovery (revenue) from new and increased fees —as much as $3.4 million annually —if all fees are adjusted to full cost. For Fire agencies, only a reduced portion of this kind of potential revenue is typically realized, due to potential "fee" areas that are traditionally heavily subsidized. For example, in this Fire Prevention analysis, the cost of services related to annual inspections of businesses and other occupancies totals $1.8 million annually. The City currently does not charge for these services, so any fee would be new to the fee payers, which would include schools, businesses, and some residential care facilities. The entire $3.4 million in potential revenue is theoretically attainable if the City sets fees at the full cost levels. However, the total potential revenue reflects very large increases to many individual fees that may not be feasibly attainable in the first year. As a simple example, the fee for Fire hydrants and Valves Permits would need to increase from $96 to $282 to achieve full cost recovery and the full annual amount of $465,000 in new revenue (resulting from a very high annual volume). Consequently, the overall large revenue figure should be discounted according to the City's plans for increases. To the extent that the City does not increase all fees to their full cost levels, the City will not realize the associated additional annual revenue. Without any increase in fees, Fire Prevention will continue to operate with a 65% subsidy from the General Fund, reserves, other program areas, or other external sources. More accurate or detailed predictions regarding the amount of revenue expected are not feasible, as too many unknown factors are present at this time. None of the comments or discussions in this report are intended to assert that the City should exclude or avoid charging any of the Fire Prevention fees included in this study. Wohlford Consulting Page 27 of 48 September 27, 2023 All 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT All of the costs for services for fee -related activities are legitimate and associated fees are appropriate. Many Fire fees have historically been subsidized, due to historical precedent, organizational inertia, or established policy bases. However, the trend for many years for other city and county departments, particularly in conjunction with a new fee study, has been to seek greater cost recovery for Fire Prevention services —including 100% cost - recovery for many fee services, especially in development -related categories. Results for Police FULL COST: PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED Annual Cost of REVENUE AT SURPLUS / COST Fee -Related RECOVERY CURRENT FEES (SUBSIDY) Services RATE $ 554,000 1 $ 234,000 1 ($320,000) 42.2% Summary of Results The cost analysis for Police revealed an overall annual funding deficit of approximately $320,000 for fee -related activities, with an overall cost -recovery rate of 42%. The analysis also revealed that 80% (8 out of 10 fees, by tally) of the current fees are less than the full cost of providing the services, thus providing a subsidy to fee payers. The remaining two fees (20%) are currently set equal to or higher than full cost. In other words, if the City elects to set all fees to recover full cost (and no more), the City would experience an overall increase in annual revenue of approximately $320,000. Since the hourly rates for Police personnel are dictated by external contract, the study did not attempt to determine separate hourly rates for cost -recovery. It is important to note that fee -related activities represent only a small portion of the department's overall costs. We included non -fee activities (e.g., patrol, traffic, investigations, etc.) in the analysis to ensure proper distribution of all costs, but we excluded these activities (and related cost results) from the summary figures presented in this report. We excluded the non -fee from the summary results, because there is no fee revenue associated with these programs and/or the revenues associated with these programs will be unaffected by any changes in the fees evaluated in this study. The non -fee portion of the department's cost is approximately $33.6 million. Appendix 5 contains the detailed results for Police fee activities. Potential Cost -Recovery / Revenue Limitations The cost results for the Sheriff's Department indicate a potential for significant additional cost recovery (revenue) —as much as $320,000 annually —if all fees are adjusted to full cost. This potential revenue is theoretically attainable if the City sets fees at the full cost levels. However, the total potential revenue reflects new fees and very large increases to many individual fees that may not be feasibly attainable in the first year. In addition, some Wohlford Consulting Page 28 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT fees are restricted by external requirements, such as fingerprinting. The full cost of each of the two fingerprinting services (rolling and Livescan) is $51, while the current fee is $10. The annual potential revenue increase includes $95,000 for the potential increases to fingerprinting fees. While a small increase may be allowable, the $51 figure may not be, or the Department may elect to retain the lower fee, so the total additional revenue may not be achievable. Consequently, the total revenue figure should be discounted according to the City's plans for increases. Without an increase to any fees, the Sheriff's Department will continue to operate with a 58% subsidy from the General Fund, reserves, other program areas, or other external sources. Opportunities for Greater Cost Recovery The results shown in this study demonstrate the existence of subsidies for the majority of the services provided by the departments evaluated. Opportunities exist for the City to enhance the recovery of costs for individual services and programs through increases to existing fees. The major source of potential new revenue identified by this study is through fee increases from current levels to full cost, as opposed to many areas with no current fees. It is important to note, however, that some of the potential fee -related revenues identified in this study would come from "new" fees. In some of these cases, the Department is providing the service, but does not have a fee currently authorized, and would need to seek City Council approval to set the fee. (These potential new fees can be identified in the study results / appendices by the lack of a current fee, except for those categories that are clearly headed by titles that indicate the subsequent items are non -fee or support services.) The revenue results presented in this report assume that the City will set fees for all potential fee - related services at 100% of full cost. If the City maintains its current cost -recovery practices and does not attempt to recover the cost for all services (e.g., no fees, full subsidy, fee waivers), the potential revenues will be less than indicated by the results shown in the tables of this report. Impact of Fee Activity Levels To the extent that the City increases its fees to the full cost levels, revenue from fee services could increase by the amount described. However, it is important to note that permit or service activity levels will have the greatest impact on the final revenues resulting from fee changes. In addition to the final fee levels, the annual volume of fees (e.g., number of activities or permits) will materially drive the revenues. The study calculated potential revenues based upon the fee activity projections / assumptions provided by the City, which were based on past experience, current trends, and anticipated changes. The potential for additional cost recovery is grounded in a consistent comparison between the current fees and the full cost fees at the same activity levels. Consequently, if economic activity and the resultant fee workload (service demand) decline, the City would experience an overall drop in fee revenues that is unconnected to the results of this study. Wohlford Consulting Page 29 of 48 September 27, 2023 All 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT Results for Staff Hourly Rates (Full Cost Recovery Rates) Full Cost Recovery Hourly Rates The study results include a series of "Full Cost Recovery Rates" associated with various position classifications (e.g., Senior Planner, Building Inspector II). These rates are calculated to recover 100% of each position's fully loaded cost within the hours available to perform billable/direct services to customers and other direct department activities (both fee and non -fee). The cost components factored into these rates are the same as the costs included in the unit fees, as described in the "Full Cost" section above. In addition, these rates take into account the available billable hours for each position (also known as "productive hours"). For example, if a position's fully burdened cost is $150,000, and the position's billable hours are 1,500, the full cost recovery rate would be $100 per hour. These rates should not be confused with pay or other compensation rates. Due to the cost burden added to these rates (e.g., overhead, operating expenditures, indirect costs) and use of billable hours, a Full Cost Recovery rate typically ranges from three to four times the hourly pay rate of the employee. The departments can use these rates to recover full costs whenever an actual cost billing situation is present for fees or charges to grants or other external sources. A salary -only or salary+benefits rate would fail to recover the full cost of the position. Standard Blended Rates The study results include some "standard blended" hourly rates that are not specific to any particular position in a department. These rates enable a department to utilize a general rate for actual direct staff time when specific employee rates are not feasible or desirable, such as when the department is attempting to provide an estimate of cost when the actual employee assignments or project complexity is not fully known or to provide simplified billing to external funding sources. The study calculated each blended rate by using portions of the hourly cost of multiple direct positions that are typically involved in hourly fees, totaling one hour, as well as portions of support or administrative positions as overhead to these rates. To determine the relative portions from each position, the study used a ratio that generally corresponds to the typical work assignments of those employees. Variable Hourly Fee Deposits For some fee -related services (especially anomalous situations) the City may choose to track actual staff time consumed by the project and charge full cost -recovery hourly rates to establish the specific fee level. This "actual staff time billing" process may require the applicant to pay an initial deposit (i.e., down payment) to ensure that the City will collect a base amount of fees for the project. If the project consumes more time/cost than the Wohlford Consulting Page 30 of 48 September 27, 2023 All 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT initial deposit, the City will request an additional infusion of funds from the applicant. Ultimately, the applicant will pay the full cost of all staff time devoted to the project. However, it should be noted that not all departments currently utilize deposits or down - payment -type arrangements. This approach may not be feasible or desirable for the future either, since the nature of some department services and interactions with the public are different from many other City functions, which may present insurmountable difficulties to adapt for these services. Consequently, this discussion merely presents the idea for future potential consideration by the City. This cost analysis calculated the typical cost of each service, which appears in the results as the resultant full cost. If the City wants to establish deposits, instead of fixed fees, the unit costs identified in this study can serve as the deposit levels. When considering fee setting, the City does not need to establish the deposit at this level to ensure full cost recovery, because the fees charged will be based upon the actual time consumed —not the deposit level. The deposit merely serves as the first payment. The City may choose to use the results from the cost study as the basis to set the deposit levels, since they represent "typical" projects. This approach may not be desirable, however, because it could result in a greater number of necessary refunds of overpayments, and because it would "front load" fee payments for projects which have a longer review process. Issues Regarding Comparisons with External Hourly Rates Local government hourly rates are occasionally compared to the rates charged by private contractors or other external agencies, in order to ascertain the "reasonableness" of the counties' or cities' rates. Although an attempt is usually made to compare equivalent positions, the government rates are commonly higher than those from private enterprises. There are a variety of valid reasons for the differences in rates, which contribute to the potential assessment of whether the rates are reasonable. Even when the services and products are similar, significant differences exist in the costs and operations between government agencies and private enterprises, regardless of the purported impacts of employee efficiency, performance, or effectiveness. The differences are most evident in their organizational missions, cost structures, and service levels. Most significantly, the differences are due to the fact that private firms typically do not have to account for the same underlying costs as a government agency, including: • Permit system (purchase and maintenance) • City Council (or other committees and boards) support/meetings (attendance, status reports, etc.) • Supporting plans or documentation (development and maintenance), such as policies and procedures, emergency planning and management, incident response plans, and code updates. Wohlford Consulting Page 31 of 48 September 27, 2023 All 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT • Emergency response and investigations • Code enforcement • Public information (pre -project support) • Routine non -technical training (e.g., sexual harassment, workplace violence) • Administrative oversight tasks (e.g., Economic Interest statements) • Fee studies performed by outside contractors • Employer contributions to defined benefit retirement plans (vs. 401K or no plan) • Competitive comprehensive health insurance coverage and post -employment benefits • Recruitment processes that require extra steps (e.g., exams and formal applications) to ensure fairness and equity, and review processes to prevent issues such as nepotism. (Private firms can use whatever processes they want and can hire anybody they want.) • Purchasing processes that require extra steps to ensure fairness and protect public money (i.e., formal bidding processes). (Private firms can purchase however they choose.) • Additional administrative support, such as Finance and/or Auditor Departments that must track public funds and prepare/publish reports with greater detail than required in private firms (to protect public money and ensure public access to information). All of the above costs (some partially) may be allocated to City fees and cost -recovery rates established in the studies (with exceptions for some positions). Consequently, even when salaries are equal, total City employee costs are greater than private firm employee costs. Even if the City "privatized" some or all of the fee services, most of these costs would still exist in the City and would have to be recovered. Therefore, private firms would have to either raise their rates or bill for more hours —or the City would have to add a premium/surcharge to the private fees. Either way, the cost would be greater than simple public -private rate comparisons would indicate. In addition, the fees (based on worker time) also have the following built into them: Review and approval processes to ensure accountability and protect the public. Systems and processes designed for fairness and equity among customers (can create inefficiencies). (Private firms can provide different service levels to different customers.) Standard fees must also include services to difficult projects and customers, because the City must serve everyone equally and cannot refuse to serve any customers. (Private firms can avoid "unprofitable" or overly burdensome customers.) In summary, private enterprises generally do not have the same level of cost inputs that need to be recovered in rates charged by a city, in order to recover costs and avoid subsidies from non -fee sources. Conversion to privatized services would not necessarily eliminate Wohlford Consulting Page 32 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT those additional costs, as the City would still incur many of them regardless of the final service provider. Potential Cost Changes from Prior Studies and Fee -Setting This cost analysis identified significant gaps (subsidies) between the full cost of individual services (as calculated in the study) and the current fees for almost all fees in the study. This finding may surprise those who assume that the City is already charging full cost for its services. According to staff, the City has not implemented significant fee changes (based on cost/fee analysis) since at least 2004, with annual inflationary adjustments applied since that time. Nevertheless, even if the City established user fees at 100% of full cost following a previous study, and regularly applied an inflation factor, there are a variety of reasons why the cost calculations from this study would identify significant gaps between the current fees and the full cost. This study did not attempt to evaluate and quantify factors that resulted in changes to the gap, but common variables include: • New or changes to state or federal regulatory requirements that must be implemented or enforced through department programs • Current fees may not have been previously set at full cost (policy decisions). • Increases in per -unit workload (i.e., time required to complete tasks) due to new codes and regulations that add complexity and additional required checks and services to tasks. • Increases in City costs that exceed inflationary measures (e.g., CPI) such as: o Employee salaries (COLA's, step increases) o Employee benefits (retirement, healthcare) o Services and supplies (electricity, fuel, insurance) o Citywide overhead costs (Cost Allocation Plan results) • Inclusion of new costs not in existence or identified in the previous study, such as: o Internal administrative and supervision costs (division, department, and City overhead) o Annualized capital or asset replacement costs o Cross-division/department support costs o Support functions authorized to be included in user fees • Changes in technology and/or business processes • Staff turnover resulting in reduced personnel costs. • Improved analytical methodologies with enhanced rigor and comprehensiveness • Improved recognition of the role and treatment of productive / billable hours factors (direct vs. indirect work hours) • Potential decreases due to streamlining/expenditure reductions Considerations Concerning Recommended Fees If the City's primary goal is to maximize cost recovery from user fees, Wohlford Consulting would recommend setting user fees at 100% of the full cost identified in the study, with few exceptions. This approach would reduce the burden on non -fee funding sources, such as the General Fund. Wohlford Consulting Page 33 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT This position reflects a philosophy that fee payers should pay the full share for the services they consume from the City for their private benefit. Maximizing cost recovery may not be the only goal of a User Fee Study, however, and sometimes full -cost recovery is not needed, desired, or appropriate. Other department and City goals, City Council priorities, policy initiatives, past experience, implementation issues, community expectations, and other internal and external factors may influence staff recommendations and City Council decisions. In recognition of these other issues, staff will work to develop recommended fees that address the City's current needs. Wohlford Consulting anticipates that the City Council may provide further direction to staff regarding acceptable fee levels. In the meantime, the cost recovery results shown in the Study are based upon full cost calculations and do not reflect any specific or general fee recommendations provided by Wohlford Consulting. Limitations for Use of Revenue Results The annual results are based upon an estimated annual volume of activity provided by department staff during the study. The purpose of these total figures is to provide a sense of scale that puts the fund deficit and other results in context. These figures are not perfect, since a number of variables will ultimately alter the final cost recovery totals. Variables include: • Fees set at less than full cost • Increased or decreased activity from assumed levels • Change in the blend of service types and fees • Timing of the implementation of the fees and revenue collection • Service activities and fee collections that cross multiple fiscal years • Project tasks (activity volume count) and fee collection which occur in different years This Study presents the potential cost recovery figures and annual costs only to provide a basis for comparison of current fee levels to full cost (as well as a basis to establish recommended fees). Since the impacts of these variable factors are unknown, Wohlford Consulting cautions the City against using the annualized figures for the purpose of revenue projections or other budgeting decisions. Other Beneficial Outcomes of the Study Although it is the primary focus of the Study, the cost analysis is not the only part of this effort that can benefit the City. A series of secondary outcomes and benefits resulted from the steps of the processes used in the Study, the analysis of data, and the myriad of discussions between the consultant and staff. Since these secondary benefits are not the focus of the Study, the descriptions presented below are not intended to fully explain and document all of the elements and benefits of these outcomes. Instead, the intent of the descriptions is to briefly describe their existence and to encourage follow- up in some cases. Wohlford Consulting Page 34 of 48 September 27, 2023 All Orientation and Training 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT The long-term success of the project is affected by the ability of the City staff to continue to understand, use, and explain the study methodologies and results after the consultant is gone. Consequently, as part of the study process, staff spent a considerable amount of time working with the consultant to learn the conceptual and practical elements of the data collection, analysis, and calculations. This informal training process not only ensures the future success of the project, but it also facilitated effective data collection and the City's internal review of the results. Management Information The processes of data collection, analysis, and validation produce beneficial management information. The background documentation and fee models, as well as the discussions with the consultant, highlighted information that is beneficial for managers who wish to pursue additional in-house analysis. Department managers have access to the auxiliary information developed and documented during the Study, including current and potential: • Utilization of Time and Staff (productivity and staffing needs) • Revenue Impacts (potential new revenue) • Distribution of Staff Effort across Services (who does what and for how long) • Total Time for Each Service (workload impacts) • General Staff Productivity (direct vs. indirect activities) Intangibles During the course of this Study, the consultant provided the City with experience -based advice intended to help the City best achieve its current and future fee objectives. Staff and the consultant discussed implementation strategies and alternatives, future steps, common questions and complaints, public policy considerations, economic considerations, legal considerations, how to address criticism and support the study, other analysis needed, and update techniques. These discussions and the other contributions from the consultant do not necessarily appear elsewhere in the formal documentation, such as this report. Wohlford Consulting Page 35 of 48 September 27, 2023 All OTHER ISSUES AND INFORMATION Fee Setting Considerations 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT The principal goal of this Study is to identify the cost of department services to help the City make informed decisions regarding fee levels and charges. Determining appropriate fee levels is an involved and dynamic process. Staff must consider many issues in formulating recommendations, and the City Council must consider those issues and more in making final decisions. City staff will develop fee level recommendations to present to the City Council. Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules to guide the City, since the most important issues are subject to administrative and political discretion. To assist the City's deliberations, Wohlford Consulting offers the following general considerations: Suhsidi�atinn Recalling the definition of a user fee helps guide decisions regarding subsidization. One general principle is that individuals or groups that receive a purely private benefit should pay 100% of the full cost of the services. In contrast, services that provide a purely public benefit should be funded entirely by tax dollars. The complicating reality for local government is that a large number of services fall into the range between these two extremes. The following graphic illustrates the potential decision basis: 100% 0% Source of Service Funding 100% Private Benefit (1) Some Some Public Private Benefit Benefit (2) (3) 100% Public Benefit (4) Examples: (1) Development Permits (2) Youth Programs (3) Long Range Planning (4) Police Patrol A common justification for subsidizing certain fees with general fund contributions is that some fee -related services provide a "public benefit" to the larger community, in addition to the private benefits obtained by the applicants. This approach assumes that, for example, subsidized development activities provide economic, cultural, quality of life, or other community benefits that equal or exceed the costs to the City. Wohlford Consulting Page 36 of 48 September 27, 2023 All 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT Subsidization can also be an effective public policy tool, since it can be used to reduce fees to encourage certain activities or allow some people to afford services they otherwise could not at the full cost. In addition, subsidies may be appropriate to allow citizens access to services (such as appeals) without burdensome costs. Regardless of the intent, it is important for City leaders and the public to understand that subsidies must be covered by another revenue source, such as the General Fund or reserves. Therefore, the general taxpayer will potentially help to fund private benefits, and/or other City services will not receive funds that would otherwise be available. Consistency with City Public Policy and Objectives User fees are part of the fabric of City administration. The fee levels and policies should be consistent with other established policy objectives, strategies, and statements. If the City espouses cost recovery and fairness, City fees should reflect those standards by minimizing subsidies. If the City has stated a desire to encourage specific activities or industries, City fee structures should make allowances to encourage those activities and businesses. In summary, the existing policy stances should influence the fee decisions. Fairness and EquitX The fees should be fair and equitable to all fee payers. Some fee payers should not pay more than the full cost, in order to offset the lower/subsidized fees of others. If City leadership wants to provide subsidies, the extra funding should come from a general source external to each department's fee revenues, such as the General Fund or other distributed revenues, not from other individual fee payers who are already paying their fair share. This general principle is also generally backed by California law, as established through Propositions 218 and 26. Impact on Demand (Elasticity) Economic principles of elasticity suggest that increased costs for services (higher fees) will eventually depress the demand for the services. Lower fees may create an incentive to purchase the services and encourage certain actions. Either of these conditions may be a desirable effect to the City. However, the level of the fees that would cause demand changes is entirely unknown, and the monopolistic nature of some City services (citizens can't go elsewhere for lower prices) could also influence demand in unknown ways. The User Fee Study did not attempt to evaluate the economic or behavioral impacts of higher fees, but the City should consider the potential impacts of these issues when deciding on fee levels. Compliance with Legal Standards By following a non-profit ethic and the applicable general standards (e.g., reasonable cost) set forth in the Government Code, this cost study identified the full -cost -recovery fee levels that the City can use to establish fees in compliance with both the spirit and letter of Wohlford Consulting Page 37 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT established legal standards. (Note: Nothing herein should be construed as legal advice, and the City should consult its own counsel for questions of a legal nature.) Fee Comparison Issues With the availability of the cost results from this study, a comparison of the City's service costs and/or proposed fees to fees from neighboring or comparable jurisdictions is often an attractive concept to local government. However, the City should recognize a number of significant limitations that affect the validity and reliability of comparisons. With the potential for numerous factors to affect the differences in fee levels between counties, it is important to realize that the value of a fee comparison is generally limited to market -based decision -making. There is very little relevance of current fee levels in other counties to the actual costs in Temecula, since fee schedules tend to be highly variable expressions of local policy, rather than true barometers of service costs or cost -recovery intent. Direct comparisons of fee levels across surveyed counties are usually somewhat limited, due to wide differences in fee structures, definitions, and program types. The value of a comparison may be to allow department and City leadership to develop a sense of the City's place in the range of fee levels among comparative jurisdictions, but it does not establish a clear understanding of each City's specific cost circumstances, including actual cost, service levels, or cost -recovery performance. This situation may exist for a variety of reasons, including: • Many counties and cities have not conducted an actual cost study, so their fees may be based upon historical or other subjective factors unrelated to actual cost. • Most counties and cities do not publish their subsidy rates, so their fees may be subsidized (knowingly or unknowingly). Even if they have completed a cost study, there is often no way to know whether cost subsidies exist. • The services included in fees may be combined in some counties and separated in others, thus making direct comparisons unreliable. • The methodology used to determine the fees in other counties may be deficient or designed to recover less than full cost. • Other jurisdictions may have different policy goals and considerations that affect the level of cost they desire to recover. Even if the studies treated the costs equally, there are number of additional qualifying factors that would create legitimate and reasonable variances in costs between different counties and cities. These cost factors include: Wohlford Consulting Page 38 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT ➢ Salaries and benefits ➢ Services and supplies ➢ Overhead levels (department, division, city, and administrative) ➢ Post -Employment Benefits (OPEB) ➢ Leave time (holiday, vacation, sick) ➢ Other non -direct time (training, meetings, breaks) ➢ Capital costs (annualized) ➢ Cross-division/department costs ➢ Cost -recovery of associated services (e.g., incident response, investigations, epidemiology) ➢ Reserve contributions ➢ Staff longevity (affects the time necessary to complete tasks) ➢ Service levels (affect the number of associated tasks and the overall time necessary to complete fee services) ➢ Efficiency Cost "Reasonableness" A common question posed at the conclusion of a User Fee Study, particularly when reviewing the results, is whether the data and results are reasonable. Although the scope of this study did not include an evaluation of the service levels in each department, the following discussion addresses this question and related issues. The notion of "reasonableness" is a function of different definitions and assumptions. The most basic consideration is whether the reasonableness standard applies to the cost of the service or to the fee charged --which can be two entirely different issues. The reasonableness of a fee is largely a policy matter after cost has been established, since each individual's perspective influences his or her definition of reasonableness. For example, whether a particular fee is considered reasonable certainly depends on whether one is the person paying the fee or a disinterested party. Concepts of subsidization are also important to consider, particularly when the fee payer will realize a profit as a result of the City's action (e.g., private developers or businesses). Political considerations, jurisdictional comparisons, economic sympathy, desired incentives and disincentives, and historical trends may also play a part in the determination of fee reasonableness. A User Fee Study establishes the true cost of providing individual services. The most common standard for this analysis, as directed by the California Government Code, is that the fees can be no greater than the "estimated reasonable cost" of providing the service for which a fee is charged. However, there is no best practice or specific "reasonableness" definition or standard for providing individual services —and, by extension, there is no best cost level. Often, the only commonality across different jurisdictions is difference. Attempts to create a standard through rough statistical analysis of past data from other jurisdictions are problematic, and imply a level of accuracy and meaningfulness that does not exist. The cost components, service structures, staffing arrangements, services levels, overhead levels, and many other factors vary widely (and legitimately) among even neighboring jurisdictions. Wohlford Consulting Page 39 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT The City's User Fee Study employed quality control measures to ensure that the analysis identified the most accurate costs for each department's current operations, which represents one commonly accepted measure of reasonableness. However, if the City expands its definition of reasonableness to include consideration of the most efficient and effective operational practices, it is important to note that the scope of this User Fee Study focused on the current operational costs of department services only and did not delve into issues of service performance or quality. In contrast, a true best practices evaluation and determination of cost reasonableness based upon an idealized service approach requires a more robust management and operations study. To be successful, this type of study should involve meaningful observations and evaluations of business processes and management practices, operational reviews, comprehensive line staff interviews, concept definition processes, and a wider scope and intensity of investigation and analysis. Anything short of this full analysis would lack credibility, utility, and relevance. Enhanced Fee Flexibility The time data in this study represent the best estimates for the level of effort necessary to complete each of the fee activities, based on past experience and meeting a minimum professional standard. Since unforeseen circumstances and requests are possible, there is a need for flexibility in fees to address new or anomalous situations. In these situations, a department can identify the need for additional staff time and apply standard or individual position hourly rates to establish charges. The Study calculated full -cost recovery rates for all key positions. To facilitate use of these rates, the City Council should grant the authority to charge these supplemental rates by including them in the approved fee ordinance or resolution. Implementation Issues Following City Council approval of a new fee schedule, the City will be faced with the practical task of implementing the new fees. While the City develops a project plan for implementation, it may wish to consider the information and issues presented below. Timing To ensure more accurate revenue and service expectations, it is important for the City to recognize the realistic limitations to a speedy implementation of new fees. Some possible issues to consider include: 1. In addition to the mandated noticing and public hearing requirements, the City may be prohibited from charging any development -related new fees until at least 60 days following approval by the City Council (Government Code §66017). These fees may include certain plan checks, site plan reviews, or permits that would be considered part of the development process. Other operating fees may be adopted subject to Health and Safety Code §101325 and/or Government Code §54985- Wohlford Consulting Page 40 of 48 September 27, 2023 All 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT 54988, which do not specify timing for implementation. The City should consult its own legal counsel for determination of applicable legal requirements. 2. Based on initial public or leadership reaction to the initial fee proposals, the City may identify the need for additional public hearings/meetings, which would add time for additional noticing and hearing requirements that could also delay full implementation. 3. The City will also be faced with a series of practical and customer service limitations. Fee schedules must be produced and published in the usual places (brochures and handouts, website, staff handbooks). The City's permit systems must be updated to reflect the new fee levels. Staff must be trained on new fee structures and/or procedures in some instances. Fortunately, if planned effectively, City staff can complete many of these administrative tasks while waiting for the other administrative or legal processes to complete. Permit Systems The User Fee Study did more than calculate the full cost of existing services. In many cases the consultant and department staff reorganized or otherwise modified the existing fee structures. We added new fees, deleted obsolete fees, combined fees, and established materially different structures for some. As a result, the City will need to modify the structure and organization of the fees in the permitting systems and structures used by the City before any new fees go into effect. Phasing Due to the large gaps between some current fees and their full cost recovery levels identified in the study, many of the City's fees may be subject to significant increases. If implemented all at once, these increases may surprise local businesses, developers, community -based organizations, citizens, and other fee -payers, and could conceivably have an adverse impact on the local economy. If the City plans to institute significant fee increases for these services, phasing in the fee increases helps to minimize impacts to the community and to give it a chance to plan for, and adapt to, the increases. There are, however, two key downsides to enacting a phased approach to fee increases. The first issue is the delay of cost recovery, since fees will continue to be subsidized at higher levels until the full cost (or desired cost -recovery goal) fee levels are achieved. The second issue is the potential for additional administrative and/or operational cost resulting from more frequent fee changes. Each fee change can result in the need for additional contracted services to modify permit systems, supplemental staff training, reprinting of forms or other documentation, and other additional internal workload. Wohlford Consulting Page 41 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT Public Outreach Public and interest group acceptance of new or increased fees can often be improved through an awareness campaign and direct communication with affected parties. Having the opportunity to review the fees (and perhaps the analysis behind them) builds confidence in the credibility of the analysis and reduces objections. Conversely, last-minute notices cause the community to question the veracity of the fee analysis and City motives behind the apparently rushed approval process. The public outreach needs associated with fee changes vary by department and by the types of fees. Each department should develop a public notification and outreach plan that is appropriate for the types of fees affected, the degree of potential fee changes, and the customer base and others affected by the changes. Potential Implementation Strategies Wohlford Consulting generally recommends setting fees at 100% of cost and implementing the new fees as soon as possible. This approach for the City would result in a large number of individual fee increases, a smaller number of fee decreases, and a significant overall increase in annual revenue. This standard recommendation would minimize individual fee subsidies and maximize cost recovery. However, Wohlford Consulting understands that current economic conditions, and the City's desire to attain community support, warrant the consideration of alternative fee implementation approaches and timing. We recognize that a decline in economic activity and vitality, political desire to spur economic recovery, and anticipated criticism and extraordinary resistance to fee increases, may make the typical fee implementation approach especially difficult. Consequently, Wohlford Consulting has identified several approaches for the City to consider that will facilitate implementation and achievement of the City's cost -recovery objectives. The alternatives are presented below: Option 1: Adopt the Fee Schedule at 100% Cost-RecoverX Under this option, the City would implement almost all fees at 100% of full cost as soon as possible, with a limited number of reasonable exceptions determined by the City for critical areas of public safety or public involvement. This approach would result in the maximum cost recovery (i.e., new revenue gains), absent any impact of price elasticity (which is unknown), and is the only approach that will mitigate the underfunding of department services. However, the full cost recovery approach may not be the most palatable option to the City, as discussed above, so one of the other options may be more appropriate. Option 2: Increase Selected Fees On1X Under this option, the City would select a limited number of fees to increase. To select the fees targeted for increase, the City should consider a variety of factors that affect progress Wohlford Consulting Page 42 of 48 September 27, 2023 A �4 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT towards revenue, subsidy, or policy goals. These factors may include which fees are burdensome to customers, which ones are the most frequently charged, which ones are the least successful at current cost recovery (i.e., most subsidized), potential controversy and opposition, targeted customers, and past experience. While this approach will not result in full cost recovery and will perpetuate subsidization of fee -related services, it may be the most practical and achievable option. It may also result in greater overall success for the City. A successful partial implementation may achieve greater overall cost recovery gains and subsidy reduction than a failed complete implementation. Before selecting this approach, the City should evaluate whether the determination of targeted fees would require a significant secondary analysis that may, in itself, cause considerable controversy and opposition. Option 3: Standard Discount If full cost recovery is not intended, the easiest option to administer is to apply a standard discount to the cost results. For example, the City Council could decide to charge a specified percentage (e.g., 80%) of full cost for all fees. Under this scenario, the City would increase fees that are currently less than the specified percentage of full cost and decrease any fees that are currently greater than that percentage. Even if the percentage cost -recovery rate is standardized, the rate of change for individual fees could be inconsistent, to the extent that these fees are not currently set at a consistent ratio to full cost. As a result, the fee payers could still experience sticker shock and see significant percentage and/or dollar increases to individual fees. However, the notion of a discount applied to fees may have strong appeal to customers and other interested parties. Option 4: Cgpped Increase Under this option, the City Council would limit individual fee increase to a specified percentage increase (cap) above its current level (e.g., a 50% increase only). This approach applies an understandable consistency to the increases, but it separates the fees from a relationship with full cost. Depending on the cap selected, this approach can prevent significant increases to fees that would occur under a full -cost -recovery scenario. However, it also could limit the cost -recovery performance of individual fees, and thus result in continued underfunding of services. Option 5: Phased Implementation The option to phase the implementation of fee changes over time is applicable to each of the other options. Under this approach, the City would select a period of years over which to achieve its overall goal. For example, the City could decide to achieve full cost recovery over a period of three years (or some other desired period), rather than all in the first year. To achieve a "full cost in three years" goal, the City would increase the fees by 33% of the gap between current fees and full cost each year for three years. The City should also consider Wohlford Consulting Page 43 of 48 September 27, 2023 All 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT annual inflation into the annual phased growth factors, to ensure that full cost is included for the duration of the phasing. This approach would smooth out the fee increases, which might allow customers to adjust their business plans, plan for future development projects, absorb the increases over time, and build the increases into their cost calculations. This approach may also stimulate some development activity, as customers schedule their projects earlier to take advantage of reduced fees. However, this approach will also maintain a level of deficit for a longer duration and perpetuate an underfunding of services. Option 6: Hybrid Approach The City has the option to mix and match the components of each of the options to establish a process and an outcome that best meets its needs. Further evaluation and understanding of City objectives would be necessary to more fully define the most appropriate recommendation for the City. Consultant's Recommendation Regarding I_mplementation Strategies The ideal fee implementation strategy for Temecula can only be determined through careful evaluation of City Council priorities, community input, future City budget conditions, City policy, and potential community impact and response. Most of this information is unavailable at this time and is likely to change periodically; so in order to provide a recommendation in the absence of this direct knowledge, Wohlford Consulting must rely upon successful experiences with other communities and knowledge of the departments gained through this Study. To improve the cost -recovery performance of the departments, Wohlford Consulting recommends a blended, or hybrid, implementation approach that combines the full -cost -recovery goals of Option #1 with the customer and community -centric features of a phased approach from Option #5. In recognition that the City Council may not want to set all fees at full cost, this general recommended approach is flexible and acknowledges that the City will likely seek 100% cost - recovery only for certain fees. In addition, the City will likely set different phasing schedules for individual fees, ranging from immediate implementation at 100% of cost to a schedule of increases over many years to achieve a level of full -cost recovery in the future. The phased approach is intended to "soften" the larger fee increases, including many that could increase from zero to hundreds or thousands of dollars at full cost. The potential for "sticker shock" and customer frustration is real, and a phased approach may help the City achieve community acceptance of the fees with less controversy and rancor. The City's revenue goals and financial condition should be the primary driver for determining the specific time frame for the phased approach. Wohlford Consulting Page 44 of 48 September 27, 2023 All 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT Wohlford Consulting believes that this blended/hybrid approach would be most beneficial to the City, because the City can maintain the relationship between fees and full cost (thus facilitating future adjustments), as well as maintain focus on an overall goal of full cost recovery —while retaining flexibility to adapt to changing local conditions. In addition, the phasing of some fee changes will make it easier for customers to accept and adjust to the cost increases, and it will allow time for the economy to continue to recover before the full impact of the final fee increases is borne by customers. Note: This recommendation also recognizes the potential need to continue subsidizing a few specific services, in order to ensure continued public safety and/or reasonable public involvement in some processes. Future Updates This Study represents a snapshot in time of the costs to provide fee related services. This analysis is based upon the FY 2022/23 Adopted Budget, including the staffing and budgeted expenditures. However, the study's specific applicability to the budget and current costs will effectively end when the City experiences significant budget changes. With budget/cost increases over time, the fee levels would fall further behind in future years. Consequently, the City needs a method to keep the fees relatively current with changes in costs over time. Some of the most common approaches include: Status Quo: Many counties and cities simply allow their fees to remain constant over the years. Not only does this approach negatively affect revenue recovery, it also causes potentially dramatic increases when the next update is completed. Wohlford Consulting recommends against the status quo approach. Full Review: The City can elect to conduct a complete User Fee Study each year. This would be the most accurate and defensible update strategy, but it would be the most expensive and time consuming. The payback for this level of effort and scrutiny does not usually warrant this approach, so Wohlford Consulting does not recommend it. Minor Update: A minor update would involve changing only the basic cost factors in the existing fee models to recalculate fees at the new levels. Time estimates, allocation bases, staffing levels, and other key components would remain the same. This level of analysis would require the re -involvement of a consultant. This approach would be more cost-effective than a full review, since consultant fees would be merely a fraction of the cost of an entire study. Wohlford Consulting recommends the minor update approach as the optimal way to stay current and remain defensible. Inflation Factor: One of the easiest and least expensive update approaches is to apply an inflation factor to existing fees in an attempt to mirror cost increases over time. This method simply entails the development of a spreadsheet to apply a percentage increase to current fees. The flaw in this approach is the potential inaccuracy Wohlford Consulting Page 45 of 48 September 27, 2023 All 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT of any inflation factor applied generically to a wide range of cost types. However, this approach is generally accepted (and seldom challenged) as a convenient and reasonable way to modify fees in future years. For this reason, Wohlford Consulting recommends the inflation factor approach, if the City does not wish to conduct a minor update. The key to an effective inflation factor approach is to select the right factor. A variety of CPI -type factors are available for the City to use, with the most common and recognized source being the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (hllp://www.bls.gov/cpi). Another excellent source is the California Department of Industrial Relations (Office of the Director - Research Unit: California Consumer Price Index), whose Consumer Price Index - California, for All Urban Consumer is the current source of annual inflationary adjustments for some other jurisdictions in California. The average annual inflation growth in most California indexes over the past 10 years was approximately 3%, and the annual increases in the top indexes have exceeded 3.5% only two or three times. The West Urban Area CPI (All Urban Consumers, All Items), for example, has experienced an annual rate of increase of 3.0% or less for most of the last decade —and actually demonstrated an overall decline of .4% in 2009—and only exceeded 3% three times in over 10 years (2018 — 3.3%, 2021 — 4.5%, and 2022 — 8.0%). Last two years have been anomalous, and current trends are showing decreases in inflation for the current year, with the first half of 2023 at 5%. In addition, the California Department of Industrial Relations Consumer Price Index- California, for All Urban Consumers, has followed similar trends, with average annual increases of approximately 3% over the past 10 years, including 1.7% in 2020, 4.2% in 2021, and 7.3% in 2022. These figures are similar to the results from the BLS West Urban Area index. Considering payroll increases, energy, health care, retirement, insurance, and other key local government costs, the actual costs for the City have probably far exceeded a 3-4% average annual growth over the past decade. Based on this assumption, Wohlford Consulting recommends that the City establish its own inflation factor that represents local cost growth. The use of an average factor would mitigate radical swings from year to year. The basis for this factor could be one of the following: 1. City labor costs. Labor costs (salaries and benefits) comprise the majority of operating costs and the largest component of fees for the City, so they are the key driver for overall cost increases. In addition, these costs are the most predictable costs, which will allow the City to calculate prospective fee modifications sooner. With faster base information, the City will be able to increase fees earlier and more accurately, which will help to maximize cost recovery performance. To create this factor, the City can calculate the overall percentage increases Wohlford Consulting Page 46 of 48 September 27, 2023 All 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT to salaries and benefits from year to year and apply this same percentage increase to existing fee levels. If there is concern that the labor costs have increased without a corresponding increase in all other budgeted costs, the City can moderate the labor cost factor, by determining the specific ratio of labor costs to all other costs, and applying this ratio to reduce the labor cost factor accordingly. For example, if labor costs are 80% of total costs, and the labor costs increase 10% from one year to the next, the City can apply an 8% increase to all fees. 2. Total Budget Costs. The City could calculate the overall percentage increases to the budget and apply this increase to existing fee levels. These costs may also be predictable, but the City must take special care to exclude cost components from the calculations that are not related to fee activities, as was done in the original fee study. Wohlford Consulting Page 47 of 48 September 27, 2023 A 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study It FINAL REPORT CONCLUSION Thank You to Temecula Staff As part of the study process, the consultant received tremendous support and cooperation from City staff, who contributed and reviewed a variety of components to the study, including: • Staffing structures, budgets, and other cost data • Fee and service structures, organization, and descriptions • Time estimates to complete work tasks • Activity statistics (fee volumes) and current fee levels • Multiple reviews of draft results and other documentation • Information and characterizations of existing relevant issues and policies A User Fee Study requires significant involvement of the managers and line staff from the departments —on top of their existing workloads and competing priorities. The contributions of City staff were critical to the success of the study, and included direct work with the consultant and behind the scenes support and data collection. There were too many individuals involved to list, but the City and the leadership of the fee study departments should commend all of them for their considerable assistance, professionalism, positive attitudes, helpful suggestions, responsiveness, and overall cooperation. Closing Comments The City of Temecula engaged Wohlford Consulting to conduct an objective analysis of the full costs incurred in support of various activities for which the City charges user fees. The consultant used high -quality study processes and a unit cost build-up methodology to identify the full cost for individual fee activities. Through this study, the City of Temecula now has a more complete understanding of the full cost to provide user fee services to the community. With this information, the City can more fully consider the public policy and financial implications of its current approach to cost recovery for these services. The end result can be a new fee schedule that is based upon informed consideration and rational decisions. Wohlford Consulting Page 48 of 48 September 27, 2023 [THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 2023 Full Cost of Services (User Fee) Study FINAL REPORT APPENDIX 1: COST RESULTS FOR BUILDING The follow pages contain a summary of the results from the analysis of Building & Safety Division fee services. Wohlford Consulting Appendix 1 - Final Results September 27, 2023 City of TEMECULA 2023 USER FEE STUDY UPDATED RESULTS BUILDING REVENUE SUMMARY Fee Service Areas Fee Area New Occupancy & Miscellaneous Items Full Cost Results (Annual - All Services) Projected Annual Revenue at Current Fee / Deposit Annual Full Cost Annual Revenue Surplus / (Subsidy) Full Cost Recovery Rate $ 2,435,411 $ 4,750,943 $ (2,315,532) 51 % $ 365,172 $ 543,215 1 $ (178,043) 67% $ 2,800,582 $ 5,294,158 1 $ (2,493,575) 53% Revenue Totals Potential Revenue Results (Fee Services Only) Projected Projected Annual Annual Annual Revenue at Revenue at Revenue Full Cost Current Fee / Full Cost per Surplus / Recovery Deposit Unit (Subsidy) Rate $ 2,435,411 $ 3,367,623 $ (932,21112)1 72% $ 365,172 1 $ 543,215 1 $ (178,043)1 67% $ 2,800,582 1 $ 3,910,837 1 $(1,110,255) 72% Revenue Totals Potential Revenues Potential Revenue at Current Fees Potential Revenue at Rec'd Fees Potential Revenue Growth / (Decline) Rate of Change $ 2,435,411 $ 3,367,623 $ 932,212 38% $ 365,172 $ 543,215 $ 178,043 49% $ 2,800,582 $ 3,910,837 $ 1,110,255 40% Revenue Totals Wohlford Consulting Appendix 1a - Page 1 of 1 September 28, 2023 City of TEMECULA 2023 USER FEE STUDY UPDATED RESULTS BUILDING RESULTS ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Fee Service Information Plan Check Full Cost Results (Unit) I F-Inspection Full Cost Results (Unit) Fee # Fee Title Annual PLAN CHECK Revenue Activity Level Annual INSPECTION Revenue Activity Level Total Current Fee / Deposit Total Full Cost per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) per Unit Full Cost Recovery Rate Department / Division Current Fee I Deposit Total Full Cost per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) per Unit Full Cost Recovery Rate 1 NEW OCCUPANCIES: $ 11111111111111ft $ $ 0% 78% $ - $ - $ 1,567.19 $ $ 1,938.29 0% 2 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - up to 5,000 sf $ 2,336.98 $ 2,994.67 $ (657.69) $ 3,505.48 224% 3 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - 5,001-15,000 sf $ 3,209.46 $ 3,847.86 $ (638.40) 83% $ 4,814.19 $ 2,038.11 $ 2,776.08 236% 4 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - 15,001-50,000 sf 2.0 2.0 $ 5,639.44 $ 4,967.14 $ 672.30 114% $ 8,459.16 $ 3,677.95 $ 4,781.21 230% 5 NC - Commercial w/o interior improvements (shell) - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 1.0 1.0 $ 112.65 $ 123.44 $ (10.79) 91% $ 168.98 $ 160.03 $ 8.95 106% 6 0 - - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 7 NC - Commercial with interior improvements - up to 5,000 sf - - $ 4,520.09 $ 4,187.49 $ 332.60 108% $ 6,780.13 $ 2,051.55 $ 4,728.58 330% 8 NC - Commercial with interior improvements - 5,001-15,000 sf 2.0 2.0 $ 5,669.16 $ 5,255.87 $ 413.29 108% $ 8,503.75 $ 2,890.01 $ 5,613.74 294% 9 NC - Commercial with interior improvements - 15,001-50,000 sf 3.0 3.0 $ 8,813.43 $ 7,147.36 $ 1,666.07 123% $ 13,220.14 $ 4,075.53 $ 9,144.61 324% 10 NC - Commercial with interior improvements - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF - - $ 247.36 $ 123.65 $ 123.71 200% $ 371.04 $ 160.03 $ 211.01 232% 11 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 12 NC - Warehouse - up to 5,000 sf $ 4,058.92 $ 4,164.22 $ (105.30) 97% $ 6,088.38 $ 1,411.00 $ 4,677.38 431% 13 NC - Warehouse - 5,001-15,000 sf $ 4,474.07 $ 4,726.36 $ (252.29) 95% $ 6,711.10 $ 1,935.86 $ 4,775.24 347% 14 NC - Warehouse - 15,001-50,000 sf 2.0 2.0 $ 7,515.74 $ 5,589.09 $ 1,926.65 134% $ 11,273.61 $ 3,243.01 $ 8,030.60 348% 15 NC - Warehouse - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF - - $ 170.18 $ 123.65 $ 46.53 138% $ 255.27 $ 160.03 $ 95.24 160% 16 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 17 0 $ - $ - $ 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 18 NC - Commercial High Rise - up to 10,000 sf $ 3,209.46 $ 5,965.75 $ (2,756.29) 54% $ 4,814.19 $ 4,328.70 $ 485.49 111 % 19 NC - Commercial High Rise - 10,001-50,000 sf $ 5,639.44 $ 8,563.97 $ (2,924.53) 66% $ 8,459.16 $ 7,743.28 $ 715.88 109% 20 NC - Commercial High Rise - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF $ 112.65 $ 123.65 $ (11.00) 91% $ 168.98 $ 160.03 $ 8.95 1061/6 21 0 $ - $ - $ 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 22 0 $ - $ - $ 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 23 NC - Parking Structure - up to 100,000 sf 1.0 1.0 $ 16,488.80 $ 6,663.96 $ 9,824.84 247% $ 24,733.20 $ 5,985.25 $ 18,747.95 413% 24 NC - Parking Structure - 100,001-500,000 sf - - $ 82,445.45 $ 8,368.70 $ 74,076.75 985% $ 123,668.18 $ 11,386.45 $ 112,281.73 1086% 25 NC - Parking Structure - each additional 10,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 500,000 SF $ 320.90 $ 165.07 $ 155.83 194% $ 481.35 $ 448.35 $ 33.00 107% 26 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 27 NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - up to 1,000 sf $ 944.86 $ 2,185.05 $ (1,240.19) 43% $ 1,417.29 $ 2,613.34 $ (1,196.05) 54% Wohlford Consulting Appendix 1 b - Page 1 of 26 September 28, 2023 City of TEMECULA 2023 USER FEE STUDY UPDATED RESULTS BUILDING RESULTS ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Fee Service Information Plan Check Full Cost Results (Unit) I F-Inspection Full Cost Results (Unit) Annual PLAN Annual Department / CHECK INSPECTION Surplus / Full Cost Division Surplus / Full Cost Revenue Revenue Total Current Total Full (Subsidy) per Recovery Current Fee / Total Full (Subsidy) per Recovery Fee # Fee Title Activity Level Activity Level Fee / Deposit Cost per Unit Unit Rate Deposit Cost per Unit Unit Rate NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - 28 1,001-2,500 sf 3.0 3.0 $ 1,207.08 $ 2,483.58 $ (1,276.50) 49% $ 1,810.62 $ 2,885.74 $ (1,075.12) 63% NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - 29 2,501-5,000 sf 6.0 6.0 $ 1,826.44 $ 3,065.87 $ (1,239.43) 60% $ 2,739.66 $ 3,431.04 $ (691.38) 80% NC - New Single Family Custom/ Model - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, over 5,000 30 SF 1.0 1.0 $ 472.43 $ 100.68 $ 371.75 469% $ 708.65 $ 115.07 $ 593.58 6161/6 31 0 - - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - 32 up to 1,000 sf - - $ $ 228.24 $ (228.24) 0% $ 932.40 $ 2,068.43 $ (1,136.03) 45% NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - 33 1,00 1 -2,500 sf 60.0 60.0 $ $ 240.31 $ (240.31) 0% $ 1,031.87 $ 2,341.77 $ (1,309.90) 44% NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - 34 2,501-5,000 sf 28.0 28.0 $ $ 251.69 $ (251.69) 0% $ 1,695.81 $ 2,633.10 $ (937.29) 64% NC - New Single Family - Production (Tract) - each additional 500 sf, or portion thereof, over 35 5,000 SF - - $ $ 59.26 $ (59.26) 0% $ 475.19 $ 115.07 $ 360.12 413% 36 0 $ $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 37 NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - up to 5,000 sf $ 4,048.86 $ 4,211.23 $ (162.37) 96% $ 6,073.28 $ 3,378.91 $ 2,694.37 180% NC -Apartments/Multi- Family- 5,001-10,000 38 sf $ 5,134.65 $ 4,953.94 $ 180.71 104% $ 7,701.98 $ 3,966.72 $ 3,735.26 194% NC -Apartments/Multi- Family- 10,001-15,000 39 sf $ 6,094.38 $ 5,527.38 $ 567.00 110% $ 9,141.56 $ 4,383.68 $ 4,757.88 209% NC - Apartments/Multi- Family - each additional 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 40 15,000 SF $ 221.47 $ 107.66 $ 113.81 206% $ 332.21 $ 160.03 $ 172.18 208% 41 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 42 NC - Hotels/Motels - up to 10,000 sf $ 5,134.65 $ 6,101.42 $ (966.77) 84% $ 7,701.98 $ 6,828.93 $ 873.05 113% 43 NC - Hotels/Motels - 10,001-50,000 sf 1.0 1.0 $ 8,817.74 $ 10,426.67 $ (1,608.93) 85% $ 13,226.61 $ 12,210.86 $ 1,015.75 108% NC - Hotels/Motels - each additional 1,000 sf, 44 or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF 1.0 1.0 $ 242.40 $ 108.26 $ 134.14 224% $ 338.25 $ 160.03 $ 178.22 2110/6 45 0 - - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 46 TI - Tenant Improvements - up to 2,500 sf 73.0 73.0 $ 991.12 $ 1,651.24 $ (660.12) 60% $ 1,486.08 $ 887.63 $ 598.45 167% 47 TI - Tenant Improvements - 2,501- 5,000 sf 40.0 40.0 $ 3,249.97 $ 2,512.61 $ 737.36 129% $ 4,874.95 $ 1,247.30 $ 3,627.65 391 % 48 TI - Tenant Improvements - 5,001-20,000 sf 32.0 32.0 $ 6,253.89 $ 3,202.33 $ 3,051.56 195% $ 9,379.94 $ 2,906.40 $ 6,473.54 323% TI - Tenant Improvements - each additional 49 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 20,000 SF 9.0 9.0 $ 258.87 $ 104.48 $ 154.39 248% $ 390.70 $ 177.33 $ 213.37 220% 50 0 - - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery 51 Centers, Dialysis) - up to 5,000 sf $ 3,758.35 $ 6,131.79 $ (2,373.44) 61% $ 5,637.53 $ 3,695.01 $ 1,942.52 153% NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery 52 Centers, Dialysis) - 5,001-15,000 sf Lj $ 4,907.43 $ 7,430.61 $ (2,523.18) 66% $ 7,361.14 $ 4,859.36 $ 2,501.78 151 % Wohlford Consulting Appendix 1b - Page 2 of 26 September 28, 2023 City of TEMECULA 2023 USER FEE STUDY UPDATED RESULTS BUILDING RESULTS ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Fee Service Information Plan Check Full Cost Results (Unit) I F-Inspection Full Cost Results (Unit) Annual PLAN Annual Department / CHECK INSPECTION Surplus / Full Cost Division Surplus / Full Cost Revenue Revenue Total Current Total Full (Subsidy) per Recovery Current Fee / Total Full (Subsidy) per Recovery Fee # Fee Title Activity Level Activity Level Fee / Deposit Cost per Unit Unit Rate Deposit Cost per Unit Unit Rate NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery 53 Centers, Dialysis) - 15,001-50,000 sf $ 10,320.60 $ 11,283.03 $ (962.43) 91% $ 15,480.90 $ 6,383.62 $ 9,097.28 243 % NC - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - each additional 1,000 sf, or 54 portion thereof, over 50,000 SF $ 1,005.74 $ 107.67 $ 898.07 934% $ 1,508.61 $ 160.03 $ 1,348.58 943% 55 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. 56 Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - up to 5,000 sf $ 2,351.85 $ 2,766.60 $ (414.75) 85% $ 3,527.77 $ 2,277.89 $ 1,249.88 155% TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. 57 Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 5,001-15,000 sf $ 3,767.94 $ 3,957.07 $ (189.13) 95% $ 5,651.91 $ 3,379.31 $ 2,272.60 167% TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. 58 Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - 15,001-50,000 sf $ 7,997.28 $ 5,569.22 $ 2,428.06 144% $ 11,995.32 $ 4,980.89 $ 7,014.43 241% TI - OSHPOD Category 2 and above (i.e. Surgery Centers, Dialysis) - each additional 59 1,000 sf, or portion thereof, over 50,000 SF $ 743.52 $ 107.67 $ 635.85 691% $ 1,115.28 $ 160.03 $ 955.25 697% 60 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 61 NC - UTILITY BUILDING - up to 500 sf $ 247.84 $ 752.34 $ (504.50) 33% $ 371.76 $ 578.59 $ (206.83) 64% 62 NC - UTILITY BUILDING - 501-1,000 sf 6.0 6.0 $ 321.43 $ 956.55 $ (635.12) 34% $ 480.34 $ 695.69 $ (215.35) 69% 63 NC - UTILITY BUILDING - 1,001-2,500 sf 8.0 8.0 $ 499.99 $ 1,105.28 $ (605.29) 45% $ 749.99 $ 819.32 $ (69.33) 92% NC - UTILITY BUILDING - each additional 500 64 sf, or portion thereof, over 2,500 SF 1.0 1.0 $ 34.76 $ 72.52 $ (37.76) 48% $ - $ 137.55 $ (137.55) 00/0 65 0 - - $ - $ - $ 0% $ $ - $ 0% 66 0 - $ - $ - $ 0% $ $ - $ 00/0 Wohlford Consulting Appendix 1b - Page 3 of 26 September 28, 2023 City of TEMECULA 2023 USER FEE STUDY UPDATED RESULTS BUILDING RESULTS ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Fee Service Information Plan Check Full Cost Results (Unit) I F-Inspection Full Cost Results (Unit) Fee # Fee Title Annual PLAN CHECK Revenue Activity Level Annual INSPECTION Revenue Activity Level Total Current Fee / Deposit Total Full Cost per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) per Unit Full Cost Recovery Rate Department / Division Current Fee / Deposit Total Full Cost per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) per Unit Full Cost Recovery Rate 67 MISCELLANEOUS BUILDING FEES (NON- MPE): $ $ $ 0% $ $ $ 0% 68 Accessory Structure 0 to 500 sf 8.0 8.0 $ 247.84 $ 598.25 $ (350.41) 41 % $ 371.76 $ 652.53 $ (280.77) 57% 69 Accessory Structure 500 to 1000 sf 12.0 12.0 $ 321.43 $ 648.19 $ (326.76) 50% $ 480.34 $ 729.40 $ (249.06) 66% 70 Accessory Structure 1001 sf + 6.0 6.0 $ 499.99 $ 840.99 $ (341.00) 59% $ 749.99 $ 833.24 $ (83.25) 90% 71 Cellular Tower - free-standing 2.0 2.0 $ 561.84 $ 1,053.73 $ (491.89) 53% $ 842.75 $ 640.44 $ 202.31 132% 72 Cellular Tower with Equipment Shelter - - $ 239.21 $ 1,625.94 $ (1,386.73) 15% $ 358.82 $ 831.90 $ (473.08) 43% 73 Adding Antenna's to existing tower - first 5 5.0 5.0 $ 55.13 $ 471.73 $ (416.60) 12% $ 82.69 $ 368.89 $ (286.20) 22% 74 each additional 5 4.0 4.0 $ - $ 47.26 $ (47.26) 0% $ - $ 60.22 $ (60.22) 0% 75 0 - - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 76 Carport - First 200 sf 5.0 5.0 $ 110.26 $ 460.55 $ (350.29) 24% $ 165.39 $ 329.33 $ (163.94) 500/6 77 Carport - each additional 200 sf 5.0 5.0 $ - $ 43.41 $ (43.41) 0% $ - $ 110.41 $ (110.41) 0% 78 0 - - $ $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 79 Non Construction Certificate of Occupancy: 0 - 1,500sf 147.0 147.0 $ $ 178.71 $ (178.71) 0% $ 80.30 $ 234.53 $ (154.23) 340/6 80 Non Construction Certificate of Occupancy: Over 1,500 sf 150.0 150.0 $ $ 193.69 $ (193.69) 0% $ 161 $ 324.45 $ (163.86) 49% 81 Commercial Coach (per unit) 6.0 6.0 $ 135.66 $ 483.32 $ (347.66) 28% $ 203 $ 435.91 $ (232.41) 47% 82 0 - - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 83 Demolition 57.0 57.0 $ 110.26 $ 276.23 $ (165.97) 40% $ 165 $ 323.94 $ (158.55) 510/6 84 0 $ - $ - $ 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 85 Door - New (non structural) 35.0 35.0 $ 49.38 $ 92.88 $ (43.50) 539% $ 74 $ 157.89 $ (83.83) 47% 86 Door - New (structural shear wall/masonry) 13.0 13.0 $ 60.88 $ 147.55 $ (86.67) 41 % $ 91.32 $ 233.42 $ (142.10) 390/6 87 Duplicate / Replacement Job Card 38.0 38.0 $ 41.95 $ 51.26 $ (9.31) 82% $ $ $ 0% 88 0 $ - $ $ 0% $ $ $ 0% 89 Freestanding Wall (fence)(non-masonry): - - $ - $ $ 0% $ - $ - $ 0% 90 6 - 10 feet in height 5.0 5.0 $ 87.73 $ 167.01 $ (79.28) 53% $ 132 $ 320.10 $ (188.51) 410/6 91 Each additional 100 If 4.0 4.0 $ 23.01 $ 40.35 $ (17.34) 57% $ 34.52 $ 79.24 $ (44.72) 44% 92 Over 10 feet in height 2.0 2.0 $ 87.73 $ 361.38 $ (273.65) 24% $ 131.59 $ 437.24 $ (305.65) 300/6 93 Each additional 100 If 2.0 2.0 $ 23.01 $ 53.60 $ (30.59) 43% $ 34.52 $ 79.24 $ (44.72) 44% 94 Freestanding Wall (masonry): $ - $ - $ Alk, - 0% $ $ - $ - 0% 95 up to 6' high - first 100 If 151.0 151.0 $ 95.88 $ 167.01 $ (71.13)+880%/o$ 143.81 $ 438.77 $ (294.96) 33% 96 Each additional 100 If 12.0 12.0 $ 12.46 $ 40.35 $ (27.89) 18.70 $ 146.68 $ (127.98) 13% 97 Over 6' high (engineered) - first 100 If 2.0 2.0 $ 142.38 $ 402.79 $ (260.41) 213.56 $ 652.99 $ (439.43) 330/6 98 each additional 100 If 1.0 1.0 $ 12.46 $ 66.85 $ (54.39) 18.70 $ 200.63 $ (181.93) 9% 99 0 - - $ - $ - $ - - $ - $ - 0% 100 101 Fireplace - Masonry ire lace - Pre -Fabricated / Metal [DELETED] 7.0 7.0 - $ $ 161.55 $ 358.47 $ (196.92) 242.33 $ 586.96 $ $ (344.63) 41 % 102 Flag pole (over 30 feet in height) 1.0 1.0 $ 78.14 $ 222.82 $ (144.68) 117.21 $ 363.98 $ (246.77) 32% 103 0 - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0% 104 0 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 0% 105 Lighting pole -first pole 11.0 11.0 $ 70.95 $ 196.38 $ (125.43) 106.42 $ 362.19 $ (255.77) 29% 106 Lighting pole - each add'I pole (at same location) 125.0 220.0 $ 12.46 $ 14.20 $ (1.74)$ 18.70 $ 45.83 $ (27.13) 41% Wohlford Consulting Appendix 1b - Page 4 of 26 September 28, 2023 City of TEMECULA 2023 USER FEE STUDY UPDATED RESULTS BUILDING RESULTS ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Fee Service Information Plan Check Full Cost Results (Unit) I F-Inspection Full Cost Results (Unit) Fee # Fee Title Annual PLAN CHECK Revenue Activity Level Annual INSPECTION Revenue Activity Level Total Current Fee / Deposit Total Full Cost per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) per Unit Full Cost Recovery Rate Department / Division Current Fee / Deposit Total Full Cost per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) per Unit Full Cost Recovery Rate 107 Res/Corn Engineered: Deck, Patio Cover, Awning, Balcony, Covered Porch, Enclosed Patio - First 300 sf 13.0 13.0 $ 93.96 $ 300.29 $ (206.33) 31 % $ 140.94 $ 458.58 $ (317.64) 31 108 Res/Corn Engineered: Deck, Patio Cover, Awning, Balcony, Covered Porch, Enclosed Patio -Each additional 100 sf 10.0 10.0 $ 14.38 $ 47.44 $ (33.06) 30% $ 21.57 $ 118.97 $ (97.40) 18% 109 0 - - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 110 City Standard Patio/Deck (includes ICC products) - First 300 sf 167.0 167.0 $ 78.14 $ 83.14 $ (5.00) 94% $ 117.21 $ 339.96 $ (222.75) 34% III City Standard Patio/Deck (includes ICC products) -Each additional 100 sf 100.0 100.0 $ 7.19 $ 10.38 $ (3.19) 69% $ 10.79 $ 51.30 $ (40.51) 21 % 112 0 - - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 113 Mobile Homes - Site Preparation 1.0 1.0 $ 160.59 $ 532.26 $ (371.67) 30% $ 160.59 $ 349.84 $ (189.25) 46% 114 Mobile Homes - Foundation 1.0 1.0 $ 160.59 $ 479.80 $ (319.21) 33% $ 160.59 $ 366.03 $ (205.44) 44% 115 Mobile Homes - Installlation 1.0 1.0 $ 160.59 $ 256.80 $ (96.21) 63% $ 160.59 $ 437.96 $ (277.37) 37% 116 0 - - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 117 Partition - Commercial, Interior (up to 30 I.f.) 25.0 25.0 $ 87.73 $ 345.52 $ (257.79) 25% $ 131.59 $ 361.44 $ (229.85) 36% 118 Additional partition (each 30 If) 4.0 4.0 $ 10.55 $ 44.11 $ (33.56) 24% $ 15.82 $ 70.12 $ (54.30) 23% 119 Partition - Residential, Interior (up to 30 I.f.) 2.0 2.0 $ 55.13 $ 307.42 $ (252.29) 18% $ 82.69 $ 316.24 $ (233.55) 26% 120 Additional partition (each 30 If) 1.0 1.0 $ 37.87 $ 47.04 $ (9.17) 81% $ 56.81 $ 55.74 $ 1.07 102% 121 0 - $ - $ - $ 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 122 'Photovoltaic System: $ $ - $ - 0% $ $ $ 0% 123 Residential Roof Mounted 1,465.0 1,465.0 $ 122.24 $ 413.50 $ (291.26) 30% $ 183.36 $ 307.51 $ (124.15) 60% 124 Residential Ground Mounted 9.0 9.0 $ 186.48 $ 519.60 $ (333.12) 36% $ 279.72 $ 422.59 $ (142.87) 66% 125 Commercial Roof Mounted 3.0 3.0 $ 321.19 $ 867.66 $ (546.47) 37% $ 481.78 $ 487.35 $ (5.57) 99% 126 Commercial Ground Mounted - - $ 449.66 $ 1,133.65 $ (683.99) 40% $ 674.49 $ 706.49 $ (32.00) 95% 127 0 - - $ - $ - $ 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 128 Retaining Wall (concrete or masonry): $ - $ - $ - 0% $ $ - $ 0% 129 City Standard (up to 50 If) 62.0 62.0 $ 86.29 $ 188.08 $ (101.79) 46% $ 147.41 $ 444.17 $ (296.76) 33% 130 each additional 50 If of retaining wall 12.0 12.0 $ 12.46 $ 37.52 $ (25.06) 33% $ 18.70 $ 102.50 $ (83.80) 18% 131 Engineered first 50 If up to 8' high 31.0 31.0 $ 135.66 $ 242.76 $ (107.10) 56% $ 203.50 $ 512.27 $ (308.77) 40% 132 Each additional 50 If 20.0 20.0 $ 60.88 $ 42.49 $ 18.39 143% $ 91.32 $ 115.07 $ (23.75) 79% 133 Engineered first 50 If over 8' high 10.0 10.0 $ 177.37 $ 256.01 $ (78.64) 69% $ 266.06 $ 641.49 $ (375.43) 41 % 134 Each additional 50 If 5.0 5.0 $ 60.88 $ 42.49 $ 18.39 143% $ 91.32 $ 115.07 $ (23.75) 79% 135 0 - - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 136 Room Addition First Story up to 300 sf 20.0 20.0 $ 263.66 $ 647.31 $ (383.65) 410. $ 395.49 $ 876.73 $ (481.24) 45% 137 Each additional 100 sf 11.0 11.0 $ 87.73 $ 66.09 $ 21.64 1330Yo $ 131.59 $ 67.41 $ 64.18 195% 138 Room Addition Multi Story up to 300 sf 2.0 2.0 $ 263.66 $ 873.60 $ (609.94) 30% $ 395.49 $ 998.76 $ (603.27) 40% 139 Each additional 100 sf 2.0 2.0 $ 87.73 $ 66.09 $ 21.64 133% $ 131.59 $ 67.41 $ 64.18 195% 140 0 - - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 141 Remodel - Residential - up to 300 s.f. 30.0 30.0 $ 110.26 $ 507.57 $ (397.31) 22% $ 165.39 $ 713.54 $ (548.15) 23% 142 Remodel - Residential - each additional 300 sf 6.0 6.0 $ 78.14 $ 103.70 $ (25.56) 75% $ 117.21 $ 113.29 $ 3.92 103% 143 Reroof up to 5000 sf (50 squares) 70.0 70.0 $ 95.40 $ 97.10 $ (1.70) 98% $ 143.10 $ 485.54 $ (342.44) 29% 144 each additional 1,000 sf (10 squares) 8.0 8.0 $ 1.44 $ 20.87 $ (19.43) 7% $ 2.16 $ 71.92 $ (69.76) 3% Wohlford Consulting Appendix 1 b - Page 5 of 26 September 28, 2023 City of TEMECULA 2023 USER FEE STUDY UPDATED RESULTS BUILDING RESULTS ANALYSIS - MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Fee Service Information Plan Check Full Cost Results (Unit) Inspection Full Cost Results (Unit) Fee # Fee Title Annual PLAN CHECK Revenue Activity Level Annual INSPECTION Revenue Activity Level Total Current Fee / Deposit Total Full Cost per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) per Unit Full Cost Recovery Rate Department / Division Current Fee / Deposit Total Full Cost per Unit Surplus / (Subsidy) per Unit Full Cost Recovery Rate 145 Sauna - steam (actual time at staff hourly rates) $ $ $ 0% $ $ $ 0% 146 0 $ $ $ 0% $ $ $ 00/0 147 Siding - Stone/Brick Veneer/ Stucco first 400 sf 17.0 17.0 $ 64.24 $ 113.35 $ (49.11) 57% $ 96.36 $ 291.57 $ (195.21) 33% 148 Siding - each additional 400 sf 4.0 4.0 $ 64.24 $ 33.54 $ 30.70 192% $ 96.36 $ 60.22 $ 36.14 160% 149 Signs: - $ $ - $ - 0% $ - $ $ - 0% 150 Directional 3.0 3.0 $ 110.26 $ 168.96 $ (58.70) 65% $ 165.39 $ 300.31 $ (134.92) 559/6 151 Each additional Directional Sign 19.0 19.0 $ 37.87 $ 37.92 $ (0.05) 100% $ 56.57 $ 117.77 $ (61.20) 48% 152 Monument 26.0 26.0 $ 93.48 $ 357.68 $ (264.20) 26% $ 140.22 $ 467.56 $ (327.34) 30% 153 Each additional Monument Sign 4.0 4.0 $ 12.46 $ 85.31 $ (72.85) 15% $ 18.70 $ 166.32 $ (147.62) 11% 154 Pole 1.0 1.0 $ 70.95 $ 146.21 $ (75.26) 49% $ 106.42 $ 332.68 $ (226.26) 32% 155 Each additional Pole Sign 14.0 14.0 $ 13.42 $ 34.12 $ (20.70) 39% $ 20.13 $ 88.99 $ (68.86) 23% 156 Wall Sign - Illuminated 112.0 112.0 $ 90.60 $ 180.71 $ (90.11) 50% $ 135.90 $ 300.31 $ (164.41) 45% 157 Each additional Illuminated sign 52.0 52.0 $ 25.41 $ 43.63 $ (18.22) 58% 1 $ 38.11 $ 81.80 $ (43.69) 47% 158 Wall Non -Illuminated 19.0 19.0 $ 80.06 $ 167.40 $ (87.34) 48% $ 120.09 $ 271.53 $ (151.44) 44% 159 Each additional Wall Sign 4.0 4.0 $ 25.41 $ 20.87 $ 4.54 122% $ 38.11 $ 76.41 $ (38.30) 50% 160 0 - - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 161 Skylight - Residential (each) $ 64.24 $ 164.44 $ (100.20) 39% $ 96.36 $ 258.95 $ (162.59) 37% 162 Skylight - Commercial (each) $ 103.55 $ 192.74 $ (89.19) 54% $ 136.14 $ 303.90 $ (167.76) 45% 163 0 $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 164 Stairs - First Flight 5.0 5.0 $ 109.78 $ 222.95 $ (113.17) 49% $ 187.44 $ 289.52 $ (102.08) 65% 165 Each additional flight 1.0 1.0 $ 55.13 $ 23.64 $ 31.49 233% $ 82.69 $ 106.98 $ (24.29) 77% 166 Racks $ $ - $ - 0% $ $ - $ - 0% 167 (up to 100 If) 10.0 10.0 $ 87.73 $ 245.79 $ (158.06) 36% $ 131.59 $ 346.00 $ (214.41) 38%168 itional 100 If 7.0 7.0 $ 18.22 $ 33.54 $ (15.32) 54% $ 27.32 $ 70.12 $ (42.80) 39% 169 igh (up to 100 If) r 12.0 12.0 $ 128.95 $ 468.11 $ (339.16) 28% $ 193.43 $ 390.95 $ (197.52) 49% 170 itional 100 If 10.0 10.0 $ 32.12 $ 74.96 $ (42.84) 43% $ 48.18 $ 86.31 $ (38.13) 56% 171 gPool/Spa $ $ - $ $ - $ - $ 0% 172 d (up to 800 s.f.) 0.0 0.0 $ 122.24 $ 107.86 $ 14.38 113% $ 183.36 $ 461.91 $ (278.55) 40% 173 Fiberglass 0.0 0.0 $ 116.01 $ 107.86 $ 8.15 108% $ 175.21 $ 461.91 $ (286.70) 38% 174 Gunite (up to 800 s.f.) 143.0 143.0 $ 118.89 $ 153.70 $ (34.81) 77% $ 178.33 $ 564.16 $ (385.83) 32% 175 Each additional 800 s.f. 3.0 3.0 $ 60.88 $ 16.65 $ 44.23 366% $ 91.32 $ 103.38 $ (12.06) 88% 176 Commercial pool (up to 800 sf) 7.0 7.0 $ 187.44 $ 871.03 $ (683.59) 22% $ 281.16 $ 857.03 $ (575.87) 33% 177 Each additional 800 sf 3.0 3.0 $ - $ 103.70 $ (103.70) 0% $ - $ 103.38 $ (103.38) 00/0 178 0 - - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ 0% 179 Window or Sliding Glass Door - $ $ $ 0% $ - $ $ 0% 180 Replacement First 5 39.0 39.0 $ 37.87 $ 79.56 $ (41.69) 48% $ 56.81 $ 259.19 $ (202.38) 22% 181 Each additional 5 14.0 14.0 $ 37.87 $ 16.65 $ 21.22 227% $ 56.81 $ 119.57 $ (62.76) 48% 182 New window (structural shear wall/masonry) first 5 2.0 2.0 $ 103.55 $ 164.70 $ (61.15) 63% $ 155.32 $ 349.11 $ (193.79) 44% 183 Each additional 5 2.0 2.0 $ 103.55 $ 20.87 $ 82.68 496% $ 155.32 $ 88.99 $ 66.33 175% 184 0 - - $ - $ - $ - 0% $ - $ - $ - 0% 185 Disabled Access Compliance Inspection (Permit Issuance is flat fee, Inspection is actual time at staff hourly rates) 12.0