Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05242022 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 MAY 24, 2022 - 6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 PM CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - PENDING LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) with respect to one matter of pending litigation: Capone v. City of Temecula, Riverside County Superior Court Case No. CVSW 2000825. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — POTENTIAL LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) with respect to one matter 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. Based on existing facts and circumstances, the City Council will decide whether to initiate litigation. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Matt Rahn INVOCATION: Deacon John Gabriele of St. Catherine of Alexandria Church FLAG SALUTE: Mayor Matt Rahn ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart PRESENTATIONS Proclamation for Water Safety Month BOARD / COMMISSION REPORTS Community Services Commission, Planning Commission and Race, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Commission PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Page 1 City Council Agenda May 24, 2022 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 or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding 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 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 or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 1. Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions Recommendation: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. Attachments: Agenda Report 2. Approve Action Minutes of May 10, 2022 Recommendation: Attachments: That the City Council approve the action minutes of May 10, 2022. Action Minutes 3. Approve List of Demands Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: Page 2 City Council Agenda May 24, 2022 4. 5. 6. 7. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Attachments: Agenda Report Resolution List of Demands Approve City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2021 Recommendation: That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2021. Attachments: Agenda Report Treasurer's Report Approve Cooperative Agreement with Non-profit Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley in Support of Various Senior Services Activities Recommendation: That the City Council approve a cooperative agreement with non-profit Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley in support of various senior services activities. Attachments: Agenda Report Agreement Approve Agreement with Temecula Valley Unified School District for Interim Use of Temecula Valley High School Pool Facilities Recommendation: That the City Council approve an agreement with Temecula Valley Unified School District for interim use of Temecula Valley High School pool facilities. Attachments: Agenda Report Agreement Adopt List of Projects to be Funded by Senate Bill One (SB 1) for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Recommendation That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 Page 3 City Council Agenda May 24, 2022 Attachments: Agenda Report RPcnlntinn 8. Approve the Initial Study and Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Diaz Road Expansion Project, PW17-25 Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Approve the Initial Study (IS) and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Diaz Road Expansion Project, PW 17-25; and 2. Direct the Public Works Director to file the Notice of Determination (NOD). Attachments: Agenda Report Final Initial Study Notice of Determination Project Description 9. Approve Purchase and Sale Agreement for Acquisition of Certain Property Interests on Assessor's Parcel Number 910-100-018 in Connection with I-15/French Valley ParkwaX Improvements - Phase II, PW 16-01 Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT AND JOINT ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND LINDA D. HUDDLESTON, TRUSTEE, ROXANNA M. HODGES, TRUSTEE, SUSAN D. RENNO, TRUSTEE, FOURSQUARE FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, INC., AND STEVEN WILLIAMS AND BRENDA JORDAN, SUCCESSOR CO -TRUSTEES IN CONNECTION WITH THE I-15/FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE II (PORTIONS OF APN 910-100-018) 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve and execute all necessary documents, including those in substantially the form attached to the agenda report, and take all necessary actions to effectuate the purchase of the approximate 11,516 square foot partial fee acquisition, the approximate 6,741 square foot temporary construction easement, and the approximate 6,901 square foot temporary construction easement on the real property located at the northwest corner of Elm Street and Jackson Page 4 City Council Agenda May 24, 2022 Avenue in Murrieta, California and identified as Assessor's Parcel Number 910-100-018. Attachments: Agenda Report Resolution Purchase and Sale Agreement Property Depiction Project Description Project Location 10. Approve Agreement for Consultant Services with Dudek for the Citywide Drainage Master Plan, PW19-16 Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Approve the agreement for consultant services with Dudek in the amount of $535,740.50, for professional engineering services on the Citywide Drainage Master Plan, PW 19-16; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve extra work authorizations not to exceed the contingency amount of $53,574.00, which is approximately 10% of the agreement amount. Attachments: Agenda Report Agreement Project Description 11. Approve First Amendments to Annual Professional Services Agreements for Geotechnical and Materials Testing Services for the Department of Public Works/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Years 2020-2024 Recommendation Attnehmvntc That the City Council approve the first amendments to annual professional services agreements for geotechnical and materials testing services for the Department of Public Works/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Years 2020-2024, as follows: - Geocon West, Inc., $1,000,000 total term - Leighton Consulting, Inc., $1,000,000 total term - MTGL, Inc., First Amendment, $1,000,000 total term Agenda Report Geocon - Amendment Leighton - Amendment MTGL - Amendment Page 5 City Council Agenda May 24, 2022 12. Approve First Amendments to Annual Professional Services Agreements for Property Acquisition Services for the Department of Public Works/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Years 2020-2024 Recommendation Attachments That the City Council approve the first amendments to annual professional services agreements for property acquisition services for the Department of Public Works/Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Division for Fiscal Years 2020-2024, as follows: - Overland, Pacific & Cutler, LLC, $300,000 total term - Paragon Partners Consultants, Inc., $300,000 total term Agenda Report OPC - Amendment Paragon - Amendment 13. Approve Second Amendment to the Minor Maintenance Agreement for Landscape Maintenance Services with Nieves Landscape, Inc. Recommendation: That the City Council approve the second amendment to the minor maintenance agreement for landscape maintenance services with Nieves Landscape, Inc., in the amount of $2,748,693.48 for Fiscal Year 2022-23, and approve contingency for extra work in the amount of $549,737, which is approximately 20% of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 amount. Attachments: Agenda Report Amendment 14. Annrove Third Amendment to Agreement with David Evans and Associates. Inc. for the Diaz Road Expansion Project, PW 17-25 Recommendation: That the City Council approve the third amendment to the agreement with David Evans and Associates, Inc., in the amount of $59,279.80, for additional contingency in support of the professional design and environmental services of the Diaz Road Expansion Project, PW 17-25 and increase the City Manager's authority to approve extra work authorizations by the same amount. Attachments: Agenda Report Amendment Project Description 15. Approve the Plans and Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Sidewalks - Citywide - Ynez Road Between Rancho Highland and Tierra Vista Drive, PW 17-28 Recommendation That the City Council: Page 6 City Council Agenda May 24, 2022 16. 17. 1. Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Sidewalks - Citywide - Ynez Road between Rancho Highland and Tierra Vista Road, PW 17-28; and 2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: Agenda Report Project Description Project Location Approve the Plans and Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Fire Station 84 Renovation, PW 19-14 Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Fire Station 84 Renovation, PW19-14; and 2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: Agenda Report Project Description Project Location Approve the Plans and Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Traffic Signal Installation - Citywide, Rancho California Road and Tee Drive, PW 19-19 Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Traffic Signal Installation - Citywide, Rancho California Road and Tee Drive, PW19-19; and 2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. Page 7 City Council Agenda May 24, 2022 18. 19. Attachments: Agenda Report Project Description Project Location Map Approve the Plans and Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Citywide Concrete Repairs Fiscal Year 2021-22 Project, PW22-01 Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Citywide Concrete Repairs Fiscal Year 2021-22 Project, PW22-01; and 2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. Attachments: Agenda Report List of Concrete Repairs School Ramps and Striping Locations Approve the Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Meadowview/Paloma Del Sol Project, PW21-06 Recommendation: Attachments: That the City Council: 1. Approve the specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Pavement Rehabilitation Program - Meadowview/Paloma Del Sol Project, PW21-06; and 2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from the CEQA requirements pursuant to Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. Agenda Report Project Description Project Location Map - Meadowview Project Location Map - Paloma Del Sol 20. Set Public Hearing to Approve Solid Waste and Recycling and SB 1383 Compliance Fee on Commercial Collection Rates for Commercial Customers for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Page 8 City Council Agenda May 24, 2022 TEMECULA SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING AND SB1383 COMPLIANCE FEE ON COMMERCIAL COLLECTION RATES FOR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 Attachments: Agenda Report Resolution CR & R Rate Schedule 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 9 City Council Agenda May 24, 2022 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING CALL TO ORDER: President James Stewart ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, 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 or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the 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 or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 21. Approve Action Minutes of May 10, 2022 Recommendation: That the City Council approve the action minutes of May 10, 2022. Attachments: Action Minutes 22. Set Public Hearin_. to o Approve TCSD Proposed Rates and Charges for Fiscal Year 2022-23 Recommendation: That the Board of Directors adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH Page 10 City Council Agenda May 24, 2022 RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH Attachments: Agenda Report Resolution Exhibit A 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, June 14, 2022, at 4:30 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 11 City Council Agenda May 24, 2022 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - NO MEETING TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY - NO MEETING TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY - NO MEETING 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 read aloud into the record at the meeting. 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. 23. Adopt an Ordinance Repealing and Replacing Title 6 of the Temecula Municipal Code and Make Modifications to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code Regarding the Keeping,. Maintenance, and Possession of Dogs, Cats, Fowl and Other Animals (Long Range Project Number LR21-0130) Recommendation That the City Council introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REPEALING AND REPLACING TITLE 6 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING THE KEEPING, MAINTENANCE, AND POSSESSION OF DOGS, CATS, FOWL, AND OTHER ANIMALS AND PROVIDING FOR THE CONTROL, Page 12 City Council Agenda May 24, 2022 LICENSING, AND WELFARE THEREOF, MODIFYING TITLE 17 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING ANIMAL KEEPING AND MAKING A FINDING THAT THIS ORDINANCE IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) OURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061 (13)(3) (LONG RANGE PLANNING PROJECT NO. LR21-0130) Attachments: Agenda Report Ordinance Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-13 Notice of Public Hearing BUSINESS 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 or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in -person comments will be called in the order received by the City Clerk and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 24. Consider Update Regarding Proposed Memorial and Monument Policy At the Request of Subcommittee Members Alexander and Stewart) Recommendation: That the City Council consider an update for the proposed memorial and monument policy and provide general direction regarding the same. Attachments: Agenda Report 25. Consider Development of an Aquatics Center (At the Request of Council Member Stewart) Recommendation: That the City Council consider opportunities for the development of an aquatics center and provide general direction regarding the same. Attachments: Agenda Report DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS (Receive and File) 26. City Council Travel/Conference Report Attachments: Agenda Report Itinerary 27. Community Development Department Monthly Report Attachments: Agenda Report Planning Activity Report Page 13 City Council Agenda May 24, 2022 28. Fire Department Monthly Report Attachments: Agenda Report Fire Department Report 29. Public Works Department Monthly Report Attachments: Agenda Report Project Status Report 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 unless extended by a majority vote of the City Council. No substantive discussion on the subject of the motion may occur. General discussion amongst the City Council on items listed under this section of the agenda shall be limited to 15 minutes. 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, June 14, 2022, at 4:30 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. 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 14 Item No. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk DATE: May 24, 2022 SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. 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. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the text of standard ordinances and resolutions is waived. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA MAY 10, 2022 - 6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION - 5:00 PM CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — POTENTIAL LITIGATION. The City Council convened in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) with respect to one matter 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. Based on existing facts and circumstances, the City Council will decide whether to initiate litigation. 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 certain permanent maintenance and access easements, temporary construction easements with a term of twelve months, covenants for construction of certain permanent improvements, and a conservation easement on four properties described below in connection with the proposed extension of Nicolas Road from its current termination at Calle Girasol easterly to Butterfield Stage Road, Project Number LD20-1114 ("Project"). 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 31249 Indian Summer Road in the City of Temecula (APN 957-090-022). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 83,324 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of 12 months, covenant authorizing the construction of certain permanent improvements in portions of that 83,234 square foot area, and an approximate 51,003 square foot conservation easement. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owners Lam Ngo and Huyen Lam Tran. 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 at 39622 Liefer Road in the City of Temecula (APN 957-090-023). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 31,168 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of 12 months, covenant authorizing the construction of certain permanent improvements in portions of that 31,168 square foot area. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owners Isaac G. Navejar and Isabel L. Navejar, as Co -Trustees of the Navejar Living Trust, U/A dated July 18, 2019. 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 31270 Tommy Lane in the City of Temecula (APN 957-150-005). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 31,520 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of 12 months and an approximate 26,957 square foot permanent maintenance and access easement. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owners Jose Leonardo Garcia and Mayerling Alida Monteros-Garcia. 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 39280 Deputy Road in the City of Temecula (APN 957-090-019). Specifically, the City seeks to acquire an approximate 29,630 square foot temporary construction easement with a term of 12 months, covenant authorizing the construction of certain permanent improvements in portions of that 29,630 square foot area, an approximate 16,956 square foot permanent maintenance and access easement, and a public utility asement. The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and the property owners Sohan Singh and Kuldip Kaur Singh. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of these property interests. CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 PM: Mayor Matt Rahn INVOCATION: Chaplain Rich Insalaco of Rancho Community Church FLAG SALUTE: Council Member Maryann Edwards ROLL CALL: Alexander, Edwards, Rahn, Schwank, Stewart PRESENTATIONS Proclamation for National Asian American and Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Heritage Month Proclamation for National Fentanyl Awareness Day Proclamation for National Bike Month Proclamation for National Public Works Week Certificate of Recognition for Salvation Army's Service to Temecula for 25 years BOARD / COMMISSION REPORTS Planning Commission and Public/Traffic Safety Commission PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT Riverside County Sheriffs Department PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS The following individual(s) addressed the City Council: • Denise Lanier • Magda Stewart • Slim Killens • Dario Bianchi The following individual(s) submitted an electronic comment: • Gia Rueda • Leah Deltye • Laurel LaMont CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CONSENT CALENDAR Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar. Approved the Staff Recommendation (5-0): Motion by Edwards, Second by Stewart. The vote reflected unanimous approval. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Waive Reading of Standard Ordinances and Resolutions Recommendation: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all standard ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda except as specifically required by the Government Code. Approve Action Minutes of April 26, 2022 Recommendation: That the City Council approve the action minutes of April 26, 2022. Approve List of Demands Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2022-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Adopt Ordinance 2022-08 Amending Section 10.28.010(D) of the Temecula Municipal Code Regarding Prima Facie Speed Limits on Certain Streets (Second Reading) Recommendation: That the City Council adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO.2022-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING SECTION 10.28.010(D) OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS ON CERTAIN STREETS Approve Increase to the Contingency for the Fiber Optic Communication System Upgrade, PW 18-05 Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Approve an increase to the contingency for construction support services for the Fiber Optic Communication System Upgrade project in the amount of $10,013; and 2. Increase the City Manager's authority by the same amount of $10,013. 6. Approve Specifications and Authorize Solicitation of Construction Bids for Citywide Slurry Seal Program - Fiscal Year 2021-2022, PW22-02 Recommendation: That the City Council: 3 1. Approve the specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Citywide Slurry Seal Program - Fiscal Year 2021-2022, PW22-02; and 2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from CEQA per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. 7. Receive and File Temporary Street Closures for 2022 Summerfest Events Recommendation: RECESS: That the City Council receive and file the temporary closure of certain streets for the following 2022 Summerfest Events: JUNETEENTH TACO FESTIVAL 4TH OF JULY PARADE 4TH OF JULY FIREWORKS SHOW At 7:25 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting and the Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting. At 7:31 PM the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS 11. Approve Fourth Amendment to City Manager Aaron Adams' Employment Agreement Recommendation: That the City Council approve the Fourth Amendment to City Manager Aaron Adams' Employment Agreement. Approved the Staff Recommendation (5-0): Motion by Edwards, Second by Schwank. The vote reflected unanimous approval. 12. Approve Creation of a Regional Cancer Task Force, Appoint City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee, and Provide General Direction Regarding the Same (At the Request of Maw Rahn Recommendation: That the City Council approve the creation of a Regional Cancer Task Force, appoint a City Council Ad Hoc Subcommittee, and provide general direction regarding the same. Approved the Staff Recommendation and appointed Mayor Rahn and Council Member Edwards to the Subcommittee (5-0): Motion by Schwank, Second by Edwards. The vote reflected unanimous approval. ITEMS FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS 1. Discussion on Development of an Aquatics Center (At the Request of Council Member Stewart) Council Approved (5-0): Motion Edwards, Second by Alexander. The vote reflected unanimous approval. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT At 7:48 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, May 24, 2022, at 4:30 PM for Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Matt Rahn, 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: May 24, 2022 SUBJECT: Approve the List of Demands PREPARED BY: Pam Espinoza, Accounting Technician I RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2022- 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 RESOLUTION NO.2022- 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 $ 5,581,158.90. 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 24th day of May 2022. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] 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. 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of May 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 04/27/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN: $ 427,219.99 04/28/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 3,902,072.07 05/03/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 233,282.41 05/05/2022 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 376,455.69 05/12/2022 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 642,128.74 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 5/24/2022 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 5,581,158.90 DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL FUND $ 3,633,039.29 125 PEG PUBLIC EDUCATION & GOVERNMENT 392.47 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 17,962.56 165 RDA DEV- LOW/MOD SET ASIDE 756.56 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 85,498.42 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS 23,473.58 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" REFUSE/RECYCLING 29.02 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 20,803.35 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 4,185.49 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND 785,082.86 300 INSURANCE FUND 3,294.55 305 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 2,280.34 320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 255,035.51 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 8,302.51 340 FACILITIES 21,165.39 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 2,100.05 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 1,450.40 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLAND 1,650.40 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 292.07 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 1,500.40 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 750.40 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 500.05 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 6,027.27 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 75.05 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 250.40 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 62.55 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 3,583.03 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP 1,293.17 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 450.05 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATE 400.05 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 958.38 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 70.88 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 3,849.83 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 2,663.76 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 5,732.58 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 10,880.28 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 162.55 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 225.59 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 5,632.79 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 1,766.66 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 62.55 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 250.40 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 12,470.46 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 100.21 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 12,516.00 $ 4,939,030.16 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 001 GENERAL FUND $ 338,544.74 140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT 533.44 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 3,493.23 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 168,302.14 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D REFUSE RECYCLING 1,394.90 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 558.02 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 3,511.26 300 INSURANCE FUND 2,156.19 305 WORKERS' COMPENSATION 2,156.22 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 36,466.08 330 SUPPORT SERVICES 4,298.62 340 FACILITIES 8,431.02 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 0.03 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 0.49 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 0.49 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 0.49 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 0.49 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 0.49 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 0.03 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 273.30 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 0.03 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 0.49 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 0.03 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 136.62 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP. 13.60 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 0.03 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 0.03 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 13.60 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 0.03 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 81.94 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 114.73 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 273.45 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 519.37 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 0.03 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 1.30 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 218.64 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 27.27 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 0.03 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 0.49 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 546.65 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT (0.04) 700 CERBT CALIFORNIA EE RETIREE-GASB45 70,058.75 642,128.74 TOTAL BY FUND: $ 5,581,158.90 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 04/27/2022 3:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description 502177 4/28/2022 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM AFN SHERIFF 502178 4/28/2022 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS, STAFF/LIFEGUARDS CERTS: HEALTH AND SAFETY SVCS AQUATICS 502179 4/28/2022 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE DEC 21 & JAN-FEB 22 ANIMAL CNTRL VALLEYS SVCS:T 502180 4/28/2022 013950 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO APR DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: THEATER APR DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: JRC APR DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: PW APR DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: TPL APR DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: FOC APR DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: TVM APR DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: MPSC APR DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: TCC 502181 4/28/2022 018941 AZTEC LANDSCAPING INC MAR MAINT SVCS: PARKS/SCHOOLS: PW FEB MAINT SVCS: PARKS/SCHOOLS: PVC 502182 4/28/2022 018408 BOB CALLAHAN'S POOL APR POOL MAINT SVC: CRC & TES SERVICE APR POOL MAINT SVC: OLD TOWN & CI\ 502183 4/28/2022 021588 BRAUN PETER, DBA APR PLANTSCAPE SVCS: LIBRARY TEMECULA PLANTSCAPE PLANTSCAPE SVCS: CIVIC CENTER 502184 4/28/2022 022518 BRIGHTON HILL ACADEMY SLC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS DBA, THE FIRST TEE OF THE I.E. 502185 4/28/2022 022596 CITYGATE ASSOCIATES LLC PROF SVC AGREEMENT: PD 502186 4/28/2022 010650 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC ASSESSMENT PLUMBING SVCS: PARKS: PW PLUMBING SVCS: PARKS: PW PLUMBING SVCS: PARKS: PW PLUMBING SVCS: PARKS: PW 502187 4/28/2022 001393 DATA TICKET INC, DBA FEB CITATION PROCESSING: POLICE REVENUE EXPERTS 502188 4/28/2022 020648 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYS: INC, CONVERGINT INFO TEC TECHNOLOGIES MAINT & REPAIR SECURITY SYS: INFO T Amount Paid 1,379.17 875.75 30,000.00 28.28 28.28 28.28 28.28 28.28 28.28 34.75 28.28 9,098.22 7,740.16 1,100.00 950.00 200.00 500.00 997.50 8,145.99 1,012.50 845.00 889.46 675.00 990.92 2,393.88 7,525.05 Check Total 1,379.17 875.75 30,000.00 232.71 16,838.38 2,050.00 700.00 997.50 8,145.99 3,421.96 990.92 9,918.93 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 04/27/2022 3:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 502189 4/28/2022 003945 DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL TEMP FENCING: MINI PUMP TRACK: SRVCS PW21-05 TEMPORARY FENCING: JRC 502190 4/28/2022 019720 DIVERSIFIED WATERSCAPES APR WTR QUALITY MAINT: DUCK INC POND/HARVEST 502191 4/28/2022 004192 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PARK MAINT: PW FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: STREET MAI FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC: PV6 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: FIRE DEPT FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: LAND DEV: P FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CIP: PW FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: LAND DEV FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PW-CIP FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: STREET MAI FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PARK MAINT FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC: PV6 502192 4/28/2022 004068 ECALDRE MANALILI-DE VILLA, TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS AILEEN 502193 4/28/2022 020904 ECONOMIC ALTERNATIVES INC APR CONDENSER WTR SYS PM: CIVIC CTR 502194 4/28/2022 018098 ELITE CLAIMS MANAGEMENT FEB'22 3RD PARTY CLAIM ADMIN: INC WRKRS COM 502195 4/28/2022 022726 FORENSIC NURSING OF SART EXAM: TEM SHERIFF SOCAL INC 502196 4/28/2022 017135 EMPLOYEE #00472 REIMB: ISAARBOR CERT/AUTO SUPPLIES: PAR 502197 4/28/2022 013076 GAUDET YVONNE M, DBA YES TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS YOU CAN DRAW 502198 4/28/2022 021365 GEORGE HILLS COMPANY INC MAR CLAIM ADJUSTER SVCS: HR 502199 4/28/2022 021308 GILLIS + PANICHAPAN EXTERIOR ADA IMPROV'T ARCHITECTS, INC ARCHITECTURAL SVCS ARCHITECTURAL SVCS: CRC PW19-07 502200 4/28/2022 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS MISC OFC SUPPLIES: TCC: FIRE INC 502201 4/28/2022 003792 GRAINGER MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: FACILITIES: PW Amount Paid Check Total 1,246.08 95.00 1,341.08 7,213.00 7,213.00 2,363.37 1,549.00 720.53 485.99 241.92 155.38 172.26 157.90 190.87 836.35 1,526.17 469.03 8,868.77 1,683.00 1,683.00 538.67 538.67 1,250.00 1,250.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 145.19 145.19 385.00 385.00 3,022.02 3,022.02 17,600.00 987.51 18,587.51 124.15 124.15 78.11 78.11 Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 04/27/2022 3:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 502202 4/28/2022 020628 HASA INC POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS: VARIOUS POOLS 502203 4/28/2022 022530 HINER, DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS ADULT SOFTBALL OFFICIATING SVCS: HINER UMPIRING SPORTS 502204 4/28/2022 022056 IDETAIL SUPPLY CO ENGINE MAINT SUPPLIES: FIRE STA 73 ENGINE MAINT SUPPLIES: FIRE STA 95 ENGINE MAINT SUPPLIES: FIRE STA 12 502205 4/28/2022 006914 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT PLOTTER & COPIER SUPPLIES: SOLUTIONS CENTRAL SVCS 502206 4/28/2022 022664 MARIPOSATREE TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY MANAGEMENT INC TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING: PARKS & MEDIANS TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING: CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY 502207 4/28/2022 004951 MIKE'S PRECISION WELDING WELDING: PARKING GARAGE: PW INC 502208 4/28/2022 013827 MIKO MOUNTAINLION INC PUMP TRACK CONSTRUCTION: PW21-05 502209 4/28/2022 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: FIRE DEPT INC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: FOC ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: STATIONS: FIRE ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: LIGHTING CON) ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: THEATER ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR 502210 4/28/2022 004040 MORAMARCO ANTHONY J, TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS DBA BIGFOOT GRAPHICS Amount Paid Check Total 1,418.66 1,418.66 2,982.00 2,982.00 37.48 257.62 375.55 670.65 1,152.75 1,152.75 1,428.00 272.00 1,768.00 1,768.00 1,360.00 340.00 952.00 1,044.00 1,360.00 884.00 2,856.00 14,032.00 2,838.00 2,838.00 13,935.00 13,935.00 192.96 388.89 204.01 1,172.12 549.46 213.18 2,720.62 56.00 56.00 Page:3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 04/27/2022 3:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 502211 4/28/2022 022599 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 502212 4/28/2022 021998 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 502213 4/28/2022 010338 POOLAND ELECTRICAL, PRODUCTS INC 502214 4/28/2022 005075 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 502215 4/28/2022 022537 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES, DISTRIBUTOR 502216 4/28/2022 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT (Continued) Description MAR LDSCP MAINT: PARKS/MEDIANS: PW MAR LDSCP MAINT: CITY FACS MAR LDSCP MAINT: PARKS/MEDIANS PV MAR LDSCP MAINT: PARKS/MEDIANS PV MAR LDSCP MAINT: PW SLOPES MAR LDSCP MAINT: 1-15/79 LOOP IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VAIL RANCH SLOI VEHICLE REPAIR/MAINT: PARK RANGERS:TCSD VEH MAINT & REPAIR: STREET MAINT: P VEH MAINT & REPAIR: PARKS/FACILITIE! VEHICLE REPAIR/MAINTE: PARKS: PW VEHICLE REPAIRS: BLDG & SAFETY SPLASH PAD CHEMICALS & PARTS: PARKS y�•z•� a•r�ryrr•�r�r�a� �a�rlr���rz. FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FOC FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FOC FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FOC FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: SENIOR 3/22 UNIFORM RENTALS: STREETS: PW 4/5 UNIFORM RENTALS: STREETS: PW FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CRC FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CHILDR FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CRC FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CIVIC C FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CRC FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: MPSC UNIFORM SVCS: STREET MAINT: PW FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: SENIOR 4/12 UNIFORM RENTALS: STREETS: PW 3/29 UNIFORM RENTALS: STREETS: PW FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FOC FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FOC FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: FOC FLOOR MATS/TOWEL RENTALS: CIVIC C MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: THEATER HVAC SUPPLIES: CIVC CENTER MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: THEATER MISC HVAC SUPPLIES: THEATER SHOPPING CART CLEAN-UP: STREET MAINT Amount Paid Check Total 20,230.00 10,150.00 54,150.00 74,954.54 58,553.00 6,977.00 1,111.99 40.59 62.56 100.91 248.80 82.61 403.68 9.70 9.70 9.70 9.70 14.05 48.37 48.37 29.51 21.37 29.51 95.70 29.51 23.15 48.15 14.05 48.37 48.37 9.70 9.70 9.70 95.70 269.28 345.09 30.29 110.51 1,774.00 226,126.53 535.47 403.68 662.08 755.17 1,774.00 Page:4 apChkLst 04/27/2022 3:01:32PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 502217 4/28/2022 002412 RICHARDS WATSON AND MAR 2022 LEGAL SERVICES 551.00 GERSHON MAR 2022 LEGAL SERVICES 477.00 MAR 2022 LEGAL SERVICES 270.00 1,298.00 502218 4/28/2022 004274 SAFE AND SECURE LOCKSMITH SERVICES: SOMMERS 2,656.25 LOCKSMITH SRVC BEND LOCKSMITH SERVICES: PARKS: PW 157.50 LOCKSMITH SVCS: THEATER 145.00 LOCKSMITH SVCS: TCSD VEHICLE 484.44 LOCKSMITH SVCC: CIVIC CENTER 130.59 3,573.78 502219 4/28/2022 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC JAZZ @ THE MERC 04/14/22 655.00 655.00 502220 4/28/2022 006145 STENO SOLUTIONS MAR TRANSCRIPTION SVCS: TEM 83.52 83.52 TRANSCRIPTION, SRVCS INC SHERIFF 502221 4/28/2022 001546 STRAIGHT LINE GLASS AND WINDOW TINTING: WEST WING 546.85 MIRROR, COMPANY INC WINDOW TINTING: FIRE STA 73 5,276.25 5,823.10 502222 4/28/2022 003840 STRONG'S PAINTING REPAIRS & PAINT SVC: FIRE STA 73 4,000.00 PAINT MEN'S RESTROOM: FOC: PW 600.00 PAINT SHELTER: HARVESTON LAKE 7,250.00 11,850.00 502223 4/28/2022 004209 TEMECULA SUNRISE ROTARY, JAN-MAR BUS BENCH 2,030.63 2,030.63 FOUNDATION PLACEMENT-MAINT: PW 502224 4/28/2022 000668 TIMMY D PRODUCTIONS INC DJ/MC/SOUND SET-UP: SPEC EVENTS: 800.00 800.00 TCSD 502225 4/28/2022 021580 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS APR STATE LEGISLATIVE CONSULTING 6,000.00 6,000.00 INC AND GRA 502226 4/28/2022 008977 VALLEY EVENTS INC RENTALS/FACE PAINTING: SPEC 225.00 225.00 EVENTS:TCSD 502227 4/28/2022 009101 VISION ONE INC, DBA MAR SHOWARE TICKETING SVCS: 2,472.94 ACCESSO THEATER MAR SHOWARE TICKETING SVCS: THEA 2,357.60 4,830.54 Grand total for EFT UNION BANK: 427,219.99 Page:5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 04/27/2022 3:01:32PM CITY OF TEMECULA checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 427,219.99 Page6 apChkLst 04/28/2022 3:47:27PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 1 Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 13242 4/4/2022 000245 PERS - HEALTH INSUR PERS HEALTH PAYMENT 150,812.44 PREMIUM PERS HEALTH PAYMENT 0.00 150,812.44 13300 3/31/2022 020062 MEDLINE INDUSTRIES INC QE DEC 2021 SALES TAX PHS 362,374.00 362,374.00 208762 4/28/2022 010904 AFECO INC DBA FIRE ETC ENGINE EQUIP: FIRE STA92 8,183.44 TIC REPAIR: FIRE STA73 545.25 8,728.69 208763 4/28/2022 003951 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT WCP PUMP TRACK - CMB BASE 10,717.33 MAT'LS WCP PUMP TRACK - CMB BASE MAT'LS 55.00 ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PVA 247.00 ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PVA 920.07 11,939.40 208764 4/28/2022 007282 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES STAFF UNIFORMS: FIRE 163.05 INC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: MPSC: TCSD 747.45 MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD 176.83 MISC SUPPLIES: SPECIAL EVENTS: TCS 284.45 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CITY CNCL 467.30 MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD 306.74 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PREVENTION: FIR 110.88 MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD 165.82 MISC SUPPLIES TVM: TCSD 95.85 MISC EQUIPMENT: BC/CHIEF: FIRE DEPI 23.67 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: HR/EOC/RISK 248.21 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: CITY COUNCIL 136.32 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PREVENTION: FIR 50.01 MISC SUPPLIES: ACE: TCSD 66.34 TOOLS & EQUIPMENT: CRC: TCSD 260.87 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PREVENTION: FIR 97.82 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PREVENTION: FIR 67.48 TOOLS & EQUIPMENT: CRC: TCSD 674.25 4,143.34 208765 4/28/2022 004623 AQUA SOURCE INC VARIOUS SUPPLIES: AQUATICS 2,544.75 2,544.75 208766 4/28/2022 022703 ATOM ENGINEERING CONST. CONTRACT SVCS: FLOOD 109,725.00 109,725.00 CONSTRUCTION CONTROL REPA 208767 4/28/2022 007065 B&H PHOTO & ELECTRONICS MISC AV EQUIPMENT: PEG SUPPLIES 392.47 392.47 CORP 208768 4/28/2022 015592 BAMM PROMOTIONAL APPAREL FOR P/TS COMMISSION 205.30 PRODUCTS INC STAFF EMBROIDERY: SPORTS APPAREL: TCSD 518.35 STAFF UNIFORMS: INFO TECH 152.16 875.81 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 04/28/2022 3:47:27PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 208769 4/28/2022 015765 BEISTLE COMPANY THE, DBA FIRE HATS: SPECIAL EVENTS: FIRE FIRE SMART PROMOTIONS DEPT 208770 4/28/2022 001323 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC, 03/11-04/10 WTR DLVRY SVC: FOC DBA READYREFRESH 208771 4/28/2022 000319 BSN SPORTS LLC FIELD SUPPLIES/EQUIPMENT: SOMMERSBEND 208772 4/28/2022 020202 CAL FIRE STATE FIRE REGISTRATION: STAFF TRAINING: MARSHAL FIRE 208773 4/28/2022 003138 CAL MAT, DBA VULCAN ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: MATERIALS CO PW 208774 4/28/2022 001054 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS, REGIST: WEBINAR (CALBO) 208775 4/28/2022 001267 CALIF DEPT OF MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION: ATV: FIRE VEHICLES DEPT VEHICLE REGISTRATION: ATV: FIRE DEPT 208776 4/28/2022 018828 CASC ENGINEERING AND, MISC ENG SVS: MRC IMPROV REVIEW CONSULTING INC 17-21 208777 4/28/2022 004462 CDW LLC, DBA CDW MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO GOVERNMENT LLC TECH MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH KEYBOARD & MOUSE REPLACEMENT: IT MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH MISC SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP: INFO TECH 208778 4/28/2022 013379 COSSOU, CELINE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 208779 4/28/2022 001264 COSTCO TEMECULA 491 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: INFO TECH SPECIAL EVENT SUPPLIES: FIRE DEPT MISC SUPPLIES: PREVENTION: FIRE DEPT 208780 4/28/2022 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA491 MISC SUPPLIES:SPECIAL EVENTS:TCSD SUPPLIES: RECREATION: TCSD MISC SUPPLIES: TVM/ACE: TCSD 208781 4/28/2022 001233 DANS FEED AND SEED INC MISC SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PW Amount Paid Check Total 1,522.50 1,522.50 172.19 172.19 2,172.69 2,172.69 410.00 410.00 289.14 289.14 70.00 70.00 54.00 54.00 108.00 741.25 741.25 152.03 44.37 620.80 650.49 -153.77 204.35 620.80 144.53 46.06 2,329.66 147.00 147.00 209.52 245.30 217.34 672.16 341.49 259.91 157.94 759.34 19.60 19.60 Paget apChkLst 04/28/2022 3:47:27PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 208782 4/28/2022 012600 DAVID EVANS AND MAR DSGN SVCS: RONALD REAGAN 715.00 ASSOCIATES INC SPORTS PK MAR DSGN SVCS: DIAZ RD EXP: PW17-2 36,231.55 SURVEY & ENVIRO: TRAFFIC SIGNAL PA 1,618.05 MAR CONST BID SUPPT: SANTA GERTRI 450.00 39,014.60 208783 4/28/2022 002990 DAVID TURCH AND MAR FEDERAL LOBBYING SVCS: CITY 5,500.00 5,500.00 ASSOCIATES MGR 208784 4/28/2022 022798 DS SERVICES OF AMERICA WATER DELIVERY: CMO 59.59 59.59 INC, SPARKLETTS 208785 4/28/2022 000164 ESGIL LLC NOV PLAN CK SVCS: COMDEV DEPT 30,483.06 30,483.06 208786 4/28/2022 015330 FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, OF MAR CDBG SUB -RECIPIENT: FAIR 1,740.93 1,740.93 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INC HOUSING SVC 208787 4/28/2022 019469 FALCON ENGINEERING CNSTRCTN MGMT SVCS: SANTA 28,645.32 28,645.32 SERVICES GERTRUDIS CRK 208788 4/28/2022 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXP MAIL SVCS: CIP: PW 9.11 EXP MAIL SVCS: CLASSES: TCSD 71.67 80.78 208789 4/28/2022 003747 FINE ARTS NETWORK AKA STTLMNT: BARD GOES TO BROADWAY 3,913.27 3,913.27 THEATRE, CO AND BALLET 4/23 THEATER 208790 4/28/2022 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD SUPPORT PAYMENT 50.00 50.00 208791 4/28/2022 014865 FREIZE UHLER KIMBERLY DBA, PROMOTIONAL ITEMS: CITY MGR 2,653.96 2,653.96 CLEAR BLUE PROMOTIONS 208792 4/28/2022 022578 GALBRAITH, PAUL RFRSHMNTS: PERFORMANCE: 20.00 20.00 04/30/22 208793 4/28/2022 014100 GODS FAN CLUB, DBA HOMELESS PREV PRGM: MCGEE 885.00 885.00 PROJECT TOUCH 208794 4/28/2022 009608 GOLDEN VALLEY MUSIC STTLMNT: CLASSICS AT THE MERC: 717.50 717.50 SOCIETY, DBA CA CHAMBER 4/10 & 4/ ORCHESTRA 208795 4/28/2022 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC MISC EQUIPMENT/SUPPLIES: 210.38 SPORTS:TCSD MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: 1,307.49 1,517.87 208796 4/28/2022 013749 HELIXSTORM INC IT INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT: INFO 2,325.00 2,325.00 TECH Page:3 apChkLst 04/28/2022 3:47:27PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 208797 4/28/2022 020698 HICKS AND HARTWICK INC ENG PLAN CK SVCS: LAND DEV: 540.00 540.00 SOLANA WAY 208798 4/28/2022 003198 HOME DEPOT SMALL TOOLS: FIRE STA 73 761.41 MISC HRWDR SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR 237.08 MISC HRWDR SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR 270.79 MISC HRWDR SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR 58.59 1,327.87 208799 4/28/2022 014062 ID CARD GROUP PROXIMITY CARD SUPPLIES: HELP 1,560.73 DESK PROXIMITY CARD SUPPLIES: HELP DES 1,053.79 2,614.52 208800 4/28/2022 022148 IMMORMINO, CHARLES REFUND: ROD RUN 4/29-4/30 35.00 35.00 208801 4/28/2022 020849 IN THE MIX SOUND LLC MISC STAGE SUPPLIES: THEATER 6,315.20 6,315.20 208802 4/28/2022 001091 KEYSER MARSTON Rendezvous Apts PA20-1325 Fiscal 2,760.00 ASSOCIATES INC Impact MAR FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS REVIEW, 3,106.25 5,866.25 208803 4/28/2022 019884 LEONIDA BUILDERS INC SANTA GERTRUDIS CRK PEDESTRIAN 349,079.98 EXT PARTIAL REL STP NTC: SOCAL STORM\A 1,537.50 350,617.48 208804 4/28/2022 022797 LONG RANGE SOLUTIONS LLC PAGING SYSTEM: LIBRARY 1,200.78 1,200.78 208805 4/28/2022 004813 M AND J PAUL ENTERPRISES FACE PAINTING: SPEC EVENTS: TCSD 875.00 875.00 INC, DBA JOLLY JUMPS 208806 4/28/2022 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS, DBA MISC SIGNAGE: PARKS: PW 534.55 ATHACO INC CITY STREET SIGNAGE: STREET MAINT: 107.64 CITY STREET SIGNAGE: STREET MAINT: 1,184.06 CITY STREET SIGNAGE: STREET MAINT: 237.05 CITY STREET SIGNAGE: STREET MAINT: 3,222.64 5,285.94 208807 4/28/2022 013443 MIDWEST TAPE LLC BOOKS ON TAPE: LIBRARY 34.79 34.79 208808 4/28/2022 017861 MYTHOS TECHNOLOGY INC APR-JUN MONITORING SVCS: TVE2 450.00 450.00 208809 4/28/2022 012818 PLANETBIDS INC ONLINE BID SYSTEM RENEWAL: INFO 28,674.00 28,674.00 TECH 208810 4/28/2022 000907 RANCHO TEMECULA CAR VEHICLE WASHING SVCS: INFO TECH 210.00 210.00 WASH 208811 4/28/2022 022494 REVZILLA MOTORSPORTS LLC, MOTOR BOOTS/GLOVES: TRAFFIC: 671.90 671.90 DBA REVZILLA.COM TEM SHERIFF Page:4 apChkLst 04/28/2022 3:47:27PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 5 Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 208812 4/28/2022 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS 2/10-3/4 LAW ENFORCEMENT 2,596,327.52 2,596,327.52 DEPT 208813 4/28/2022 009980 SANBORN GWYNETH A, CO COUNTRY LIVE! @ THE MERC 4/16 686.25 686.25 TEMECULA MUSIC ACADEMY 208814 4/28/2022 017699 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA M PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: HUMAN SVCS: 170.00 PRESTON TCSD PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: SPECIAL EVENT! 170.00 PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: SPECIAL EVENT! 170.00 PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: HUMAN SVCS: Ti 220.00 PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: CITY CNCL 170.00 900.00 208815 4/28/2022 002503 SOUTH COASTAIR QUALITY, FY21/22 ANN'L OPS FEES: MPSC 440.15 MANAGEMENT DISTRICT G67238 FY21/22 ANN'L OPS FEES: MPSC G67238 142.59 582.74 208816 4/28/2022 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST PEST CONTROL SVC: FIRE STA 92 104.00 CONTROL INC PEST CONTROL SVCS: PARKS: PW 49.00 PEST CONTROL: FIRE STA 92 42.00 PEST CONTROL: OVERLAND: FIRE 48.00 PEST CONTROL SVCS: CAMINO CAMPO 94.00 PEST CONTROL SVC: FIRE STA 12 133.00 PEST CONTROL SVC: FIRE STA 12 74.00 PEST CONTROL SVCS: PARKS: PW 94.00 638.00 208817 4/28/2022 019250 ST FRANCIS ELECTRIC LLC REPLACE TRAFFIC CABINET: PW 2,556.60 2,556.60 208818 4/28/2022 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT MISC OFC SUPPLIES: TRAFFIC: PW 52.15 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: MALL STOREFROl' 24.54 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: MALL STOREFROl' 11.61 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: MALL STOREFROr 20.45 108.75 208819 4/28/2022 003000 STATE WATER RESOURCE STORM WATER PERMIT: PW18-11: CIP 548.00 548.00 CONTROL, BOARD 208820 4/28/2022 003599 TY LIN INTERNATIONAL 2/26-4/1 CONSULT: FV PKWY/1-15 PH II 99,138.39 99,138.39 208821 4/28/2022 021609 TEMECULA CREEK VILLAS LP RENTAL ASSISTANCE: CDBG: MACKEY 571.70 571.70 208822 4/28/2022 005970 TEMECULAVALLEY STTLMNT: ENCHANTED EVENINGS 4,921.25 4,921.25 PLAYHOUSE, DBATEMECULA 4/8-4/17 VLY PLAYERS 208823 4/28/2022 003941 TEMECULA WINNELSON PLUMBING SUPPLIES: THEATER: PW 346.41 346.41 COMPANY Page:5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 04/28/2022 3:47:27PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 208824 4/28/2022 020911 T-MOBILE USA, INC. GPS LOCATE SVCS 4/5-4/9/22 208825 4/28/2022 000161 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC TIME & ATTENDANCE SW RENEWAL: FINANCE 208826 4/28/2022 022692 VERSA PRODUCTS INC Standing Desk and Mat 208827 4/28/2022 007987 WALMART REC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD MISC SUPPLIES: ADMIN: TCSD REC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD MISC SUPPLIES: AQUATICS: TCSD REC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD 208828 4/28/2022 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC CLEANING SUPPLIES: VARI FACILITIES: PW CLEANING SUPPLIES: PARKS: PW 208829 4/28/2022 000339 WEST PUBLISHING CLEAR SUBSCRIPTION: TEM SHERIFF CORPORATION, DBA:THOMSON REUTERS 208830 4/28/2022 020193 WHITE CAP LP Amount Paid Check Total 150.00 150.00 3,999.60 3,999.60 482.00 482.00 120.50 252.75 239.71 33.20 133.53 779.69 4,073.39 334.08 4,407.47 984.53 984.53 MISC SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PW 313.20 MISC SUPPLIES: PARKS: PW 354.93 668.13 Grand total for UNION BANK: 3,902,072.07 Page6 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 04/28/2022 3:47:27PM CITY OF TEMECULA checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 3,902,072.07 Page:? apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 05/03/2022 3:54:24PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description 502228 5/5/2022 004802 ADLERHORST INTERNATIONAL MAR K-9 TRAINING: LLC KING/MUSHINSKIE: POLIC 502229 5/5/2022 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM AFN SHERIFF DRUG/ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: TEM SHERIF 502230 5/5/2022 021670 ANLIND OF TEMECULA INC, MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT: TEM TEMECULA HARLEY-DAVIDSON SHERIFF MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT: TEM SHE VEH REPAIR/MAINT: TRAFFIC: POLICE MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT: TEM SHE MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT: TEM SHE MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT: TEM SHE MOTORCYCLE REPAIR/MAINT: TEM SHE 502231 5/5/2022 021400 AYERS ELECTRIC INC ELECTRICAL LABOR- METER PEDESTAL ELECTRIC LABOR SVCS: RRSP RESTRO 502232 5/5/2022 022790 CLEARSTAR INC PRE -EMPLOYMENT SCREENINGS: HR 502233 5/5/2022 003272 DAISYECO INC PRINTER & PLOTTER SUPPLIES: GIS/CIVIC CT 502234 5/5/2022 020648 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 MAINT & REPAIR OF SECURITY SYS: INC, CONVERGINT INFO TEC TECHNOLOGIES 502235 5/5/2022 022726 FORENSIC NURSING OF SART EXAM: TEM SHERIFF SOCAL INC 502236 5/5/2022 014865 FREIZE UHLER KIMBERLY DBA, UNIFORM: PREVENTION STAFF: FIRE CLEAR BLUE PROMOTIONS DEPT 502237 5/5/2022 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS MISC OFC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD INC MISC OFC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD MISC OFC SUPPLIES: INFO TECH MISC OFC SUPPLIES: TCC: FIRE DEPT MISC OFC SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: P1 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: FIRE STA 84 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: FINANCE DEPT 502238 5/5/2022 001135 HEALTHPOINTE MEDICAL MEDICAL SCREENINGS: HR GROUP INC, DBA: FIRST CARE INDUSTRIA 502239 5/5/2022 006914 INNOVATIVE DOCUMENT MAR COPIER MAINT/USAGE/REPAIR: SOLUTIONS CITYWIDE MAR COPIER MAINT/USAGE/REPAIR: Cll Amount Paid Check Total 350.00 350.00 240.80 180.60 421.40 1,541.37 761.02 496.50 380.70 363.55 149.00 94.49 3,786.63 2,500.00 300.00 2,800.00 254.25 254.25 5,433.89 5,433.89 710.00 710.00 1,200.00 1,200.00 93.66 93.66 269.96 237.68 152.24 134.83 47.53 19.56 -392.95 468.85 100.00 100.00 3,450.95 479.80 3,930.75 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 O5/03/2022 3:54:24PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor 502240 5/5/2022 000482 LEIGHTON CONSULTING INC 502241 5/5/2022 018675 MDG ASSOCIATES INC 502242 5/5/2022 004951 MIKE'S PRECISION WELDING INC 502243 5/5/2022 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY INC 502244 5/5/2022 002925 NAPAAUTO PARTS 502245 5/5/2022 022599 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total GEOTECH PEER REVIEW: ROICK 3,831.00 DENTAL GEOTECH SVCS: ARRIVE RANCHO HIGF 2,800.00 6,631.00 MAR CDBG PRGM ADMIN: PLANNING 4,217.50 MAR CDBG-CV ADMIN EMERGNCY RENT 610.50 MAR CDBG-CV EMERGENCY RENTAL A: 571.00 MAR CDBG-CV EMERGENCY MORTGAG 521.00 MAR ADA LABOR COMPLIANCE: PW20-G 386.63 MAR LABOR COMPLIANCE SVCS: PW18- 95.00 6,401.63 WELDING: SPLASH PAD DRAIN 8,764.00 8,764.00 COVER/INSTALL FACILITY REHABILITIATION PROJECT: 9,169.13 PW ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: LIBRARY 162.43 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: LIGHTING CON) 121.53 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR 31.96 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: LIGHTING CON' -13.78 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: LIGHTING CON) -67.36 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES: LIGHTING CON) -74.00 9,329.91 AUTO PARTS & MISC SUPPLIES: FIRE 119.60 119.60 STA 95 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW 1,921.05 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW 572.64 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW 519.03 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: RONALD REAGA( 355.13 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: P28 REDHAWK PE 345.12 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW 313.61 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: RONALD REAGA� 312.74 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW 309.42 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: SLOPES 261.30 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: RONALD REAGA� 250.15 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW 237.09 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: RONALD REAGA( 233.18 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: P-17 VAIL RANCH 233.17 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW 233.17 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: RONALD REAGA� 194.48 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: MPSC 191.28 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: MEDIANS 180.02 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW 173.20 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: SLOPES 134.79 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PAT BIRDSALL PA 118.11 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: SLOPES 66.61 IRRIGATION REPAIR: M-9 MEADOWS 66.60 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PARKS: PW 66.60 7,288.49 Paget apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 O5/03/2022 3:54:24PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: eunion EFT UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 502246 5/5/2022 021998 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE VEH MAINT & REPAIR: STREET MAINT: INC PW VEHICLE REPAIR/MAINT: CITY MGR OFC VEHICLE REPAIRS: LAND DEV: PW 502247 5/5/2022 010338 POOLAND ELECTRICAL, VARIOUS SUPPLIES: SPLASH PAD PRODUCTS INC 502248 5/5/2022 020429 REMOTE SATELLITE SYSTEMS MAR'22 SAT PH AIRTIME/APR FEE: INTL EOC 502249 5/5/2022 002412 RICHARDS WATSON AND MAR 2022 LEGAL SERVICES GERSHON MAR 2022 LEGAL SERVICES MAR 2022 LEGAL SERVICES 502250 5/5/2022 004274 SAFE AND SECURE LOCKSMITH SVCS: PARKS: PW LOCKSMITH SRVC LOCKSMITH SVCS: TEM SHERIFF LOCKSMITH SVCS: PARKS: PW 502251 5/5/2022 009213 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC TIX: JAZZ @ THE MERC 502252 5/5/2022 011351 TRITECH SOFTWARE ASSET MGMT OF SFTWRE: INFO TECH SYSTEMS Amount Paid Check Total 205.81 40.59 26.75 592.28 280.00 6,107.50 241.00 174.00 199.67 193.75 90.00 287.00 166,760.00 Grand total for EFT UNION BANK: 273.15 592.28 280.00 6,522.50 483.42 287.00 166,760.00 233,282.41 Page:3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 O5/03/2022 3:54:24PM CITY OF TEMECULA 25 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 233,282.41 Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 05/05/2022 3:38:46PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 13018 3/9/2022 014486 VERIZON WIRELESS 1/16-2/15 11,616.56 11,616.56 CELLULAR/BROADBAN D:CITYW I DE 13229 4/11/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK AND, NOE PAVEMENT REHAB: PW21-01 50.00 RECORDER 003000 STATE WATER RESOURCE STORM WATER PERMIT: MRC PW17-21 12.60 CONTROL, BOARD 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK AND, NOE WOLF CREEK PARK: LR22-0183 1.14 RECORDER 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK AND, NOE PAVEMENT REHAB: PW21-01 1.14 RECORDER 000161 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC CONFERENCE REGISTRATION: LAND 1,099.00 DEV 000161 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC CONFERENCE REGISTRATION: LAND 1,099.00 DEV 003000 STATE WATER RESOURCE STORM WATER PERMIT: MRC PW17-21 548.00 CONTROL, BOARD 000418 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK AND, NOE WOLF CREEK PARK: LR22-0183 50.00 2,860.88 RECORDER 13231 4/11/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 022516 CALIF EMERGENCY SERVICES CONFERENCE REGISTRATION: RISK 1,198.00 ASSOC MGMT 006937 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES AIRFARE: TYLER CONFERENCE: HR 618.78 006937 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES AIRFARE: TYLER CONFERENCE: LAND 564.90 DEV 005244 SOCIETY FOR HUMAN MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: HR 229.00 RESOURCE MGM, THE S H R M STORE 010724 TOWN & COUNTRY RESORT LODGING: CA EMERGENCY CONF: 213.19 HOTEL, DBA: ATLAS HOTELS EOC 022877 INT'LASSOC OF EMERGENCY, MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: EOC 195.00 MANAGERS 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING JOB ADVERTISEMENT: ASSOC 180.00 ASSOCIATION PLANNER 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING JOB ADVERTISEMENT: ASSOC 150.00 ASSOCIATION PLANNER 020812 INSTACART.COM RFRSHMNTS: RECRUITMENTS: HR 114.39 010570 PLANETIZEN'S JOB ADVERTISEMENT: ASSOC 99.95 PLANNER: HR 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY AND REGISTRATION: COVID WEBINAR: 75.00 WHITMORE RISK 006937 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES AIRFARE: TYLER CONFERENCE: HR 436.82 006937 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES AIRFARE: TYLER CONFERENCE: HR 436.82 Page:1 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 05/05/2022 3:38:46PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK Check # Date Vendor (Continued) Description 006937 SOUTHWEST AIRLINES AIRFARE: TYLER CONFERENCE: HR 022878 WESTERN MEDICAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PUBLISHING JOURNAL: EOC 009833 DISNEYLAND RESORTS LODGING: PARMA CONF: HR 009833 DISNEYLAND RESORTS LODGING: PARMA CONF: HR 13232 4/11/2022 006887 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE WEBINAR REGIST: PUBLIC OFFICERS, ASSOCIATION, PROCUREMENT GFOA 010724 TOWN & COUNTRY RESORT LODGING: CSMFO CONF: FINANCE HOTEL, DBA: ATLAS HOTELS 000413 CALIF DEPT OF FISH & PERMIT APPLICATION: I-15/FVP WILDLIFE IMPRVMNT OVER THE CREDIT LIMIT FEE: FINAP 006952 PAYPAL VERISIGN PAYFLOW PRO TRANS: FINANCE 102118 4/12/2022 020965 ADVANCED PERMIT SERVICES REFUND: CANCELLED PERMIT B22-1417 208831 5/5/2022 007282 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES SMALL TOOLS & EQUIPMENT: CRC: INC TCSD MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD MISC SUPPLIES: AQUATICS: TCSD MISC SUPPLIES: ACE: TCSD MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD MISC SUPPLIES: ACE: TCSD MISC EQUIP: BC/CHIEF: FIRE DEPT MISC OFC SUPPLIES: STREET MAIN TOOLS/EQPMNT: RISK MGMT MISC OFC SUPPLIES: PREVENTION: MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD 208832 5/5/2022 015592 BAMM PROMOTIONAL APPAREL: TRAFFIC DEPT: PW PRODUCTS INC 208833 5/5/2022 004262 BIO TOX LABORATORIES 208834 5/5/2022 001323 BLUETRITON BRANDS INC, DBA READYREFRESH 208835 5/5/2022 011421 BRODART CO PHLEBOTOMY SVCS: TEM SHERIFF PHLEBOTOMY SVCS: TEM SHERIFF PHLEBOTOMY SVCS: TEM SHERIFF 03/23-04/22 WTR DLVRY SVC: PBSP 03/23-04/22 WTR DLVRY SVC: TESC 03/23-04/22 WTR DLVRY SVC: SKATE BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL: TCSD BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL: TCS Amount Paid 382.94 377.00 838.89 649.26 630.00 262.94 13, 509.10 39.00 25.00 68.80 501.63 465.50 438.89 406.74 354.71 73.92 64.70 61.06 58.22 44.15 -14.67 165.37 1,993.00 999.00 531.00 46.67 17.39 9.15 51.24 13.58 Check Total 6,759.94 14,466.04 68.80 2,454.85 165.37 3.523.00 73.21 64.82 Paget apChkLst 05/05/2022 3:38:46PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 3 Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 208836 5/5/2022 003138 CAL MAT, DBA VULCAN ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: 576.65 MATERIALS CO PW ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT 573.80 ASPHALT SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT 195.21 1,345.66 208837 5/5/2022 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES APR COPIER LEASE: LIBRARY 671.56 671.56 INC 208838 5/5/2022 018828 CASC ENGINEERING AND, MAR COMMERCIAL/IND'L 2,740.00 2,740.00 CONSULTING INC INSPECTIONS: NPDES 208839 5/5/2022 021363 CELLEBRITE INC MOBILE PHONE TECHNOLOGY: TEM 2,453.76 2,453.76 SHERIFF 208840 5/5/2022 016446 CHRISTIAN STITCHERY INC, SPORTS AWARDS: SPORTS: TCSD 89.72 89.72 DBA SO CAL IMPRESSIONS 208841 5/5/2022 004329 COSTCO TEMECULA491 KITCHEN SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR 135.91 135.91 208842 5/5/2022 012600 DAVID EVANS AND DSGN CONSULT SVCS: PICKLEBALL 23,985.00 23,985.00 ASSOCIATES INC COURTS 21- 208843 5/5/2022 010461 DEMCO INC MISC SUPPLIES: RHRTPL: TCSD 176.45 176.45 208844 5/5/2022 000164 ESGIL LLC JAN PLAN CK SVCS: BUILDING & 25,049.58 25,049.58 SAFETY 208845 5/5/2022 022898 FUSION CHRISTIAN CHURCH REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 4/24/22 200.00 200.00 208846 5/5/2022 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: CIVIC CTR 7,975.89 MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: VARI FACILI 1,604.72 MISC HRDWR SUPPLIES: FIRE STA 12.55 9,593.16 208847 5/5/2022 019835 JDS CREATIVE ACADEMY REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT CC 200.00 200.00 4/24/22 208848 5/5/2022 022901 JHC TEMECULA REFLECTIONS MRAP RENTAL ASSIST. GRANT 2,049.00 2,049.00 LLC, TEMECULA REFLECTIONS RECIPIENT 208849 5/5/2022 016257 KELLY SPICERS INC, DBA MISC PAPER SUPPLIES: CENTRAL 1,856.45 1,856.45 KELLY SPICERS STORES SVCS 208850 5/5/2022 022716 KOEPFLI, TRISTAN H. Custom helmet paint: tem sheriff 350.00 350.00 208851 5/5/2022 013982 M C I COMM SERVICE APR 7DK89878 XXX-0714 GEN USAGE 37.00 MALL PD APR 7DK90589 XXX-0346 GEN USAC 35.19 72.19 Page:3 apChkLst 05/05/2022 3:38:46PM Final Check List CITY OF TEMECULA Page: 4 Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 208852 5/5/2022 010204 M T G L INC MATUS TESTING SVCS: SLURRY SEAL 20,547.45 20,547.45 PRGM 208853 5/5/2022 013443 MIDWEST TAPE LLC BOOKS ON TAPE: LIBRARY 83.82 BOOKS ON TAPE: LIBRARY 22.94 106.76 208854 5/5/2022 021662 MIG RE INVESTORS I LLC, MRAP RENTAL ASSIST. GRANT 6,651.00 6,651.00 CAPE MAY TEMECULA APTS RECIPIENT 208855 5/5/2022 014490 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC SOFTWARE & MAINT RENEWAL:VESTA 4,500.00 SFTWR & MAINT RENEWAL: INFO TE 2,567.08 7,067.08 208856 5/5/2022 022880 NAVIGATE360 LLC, DBAALICE REGISTRATION: ALICE TRAINING: TEM 749.00 749.00 TRAINING SHERIF 208857 5/5/2022 022494 REVZILLA MOTORSPORTS LLC, MOTOR GLOVES: TRAFFIC: TEM 2,181.91 2,181.91 DBA REVZILLA.COM SHERIFF 208858 5/5/2022 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS 01/01-03/31/22 TOWING SRVCS: 2,048.30 2,048.30 DEPT POLICE 208859 5/5/2022 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS REIMB: JAN SART EXAM: POLICE 1,200.00 1,200.00 DEPT 208860 5/5/2022 004822 RIVERSIDE TRANSITAGENCY MAR TROLLEY SVC: RIDERSHIP 1,736.22 1,736.22 208861 5/5/2022 001365 RIVERSIDE, COUNTY OF, RENEW PERMIT: CIVIC CENTER 900.00 900.00 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPT 208862 5/5/2022 008404 SAFE CHECKS ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECKS: 1,662.67 1,662.67 FINANCE 208863 5/5/2022 017699 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA M PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: HUMAN SVCS: 170.00 170.00 PRESTON TCSD 208864 5/5/2022 011511 SCUBA CENTER TEMECULA TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 1,008.00 1,008.00 208865 5/5/2022 000537 SO CALIF EDISON APR 700116137841 VARIOUS 33,094.96 LOCATIONS APR 700039423268 VARIOUS LOCAT 1,499.48 APR 700276704365 VARIOUS LOCAT 524.17 35,118.61 208866 5/5/2022 012652 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, MAY GEN USAGE: 0141,0839,0978,0979 739.72 739.72 TELEPHONE COMPANY Page:4 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 05/05/2022 3:38:46PM CITY OF TEMECULA Bank: union UNION BANK (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total 208867 5/5/2022 008337 STAPLES BUSINESS CREDIT MISC OFC SUPPLIES: TVM/ACE: TCSD 115.09 MISC OFC SUPPLIES: LAND DEV: PV 110.81 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW - TRA 60.48 MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW - CIP 39.74 326.12 208868 5/5/2022 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS VEHICLE REPAIR/MAINT: TRAFFIC: PD 10.00 10.00 LLC 208869 5/5/2022 006529 TEMECULA VALLEY GARDEN REFUNDS: SECURITY DEPOSIT CRC 200.00 200.00 CLUB 4/23/22 208870 5/5/2022 010046 TV CONVENTION &VISITORS FEB'22 BUS. IMPRV DISTRICT 155,098.52 155,098.52 BUREAU, DBA VISIT TEMECULA ASMNTS VALLEY 208871 5/5/2022 020963 UPTOWN TEMECULAAUTO SPA FEB & MAR VEHICLE DETAILING SVCS: 16.00 LLC PW FEB & MAR VEHICLE DETAILING SVf 12.00 FEB VEHICLE DETAILING SVCS: PW 4.00 MAR VEHICLE DETAILING SVCS: PVC 4.00 36.00 208872 5/5/2022 022899 VILLASENOR, CONNIE REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT CRC 200.00 200.00 4/19/22 208873 5/5/2022 020275 WALLACE & ASSOC CONSTRUCTION MGMT SVCS: 22,675.60 CONSULTING LLC, ANSER PW18-05 ADVISORY MNGMT LLC CONSTRUCTION MGMT SVS: PW19- 2,098.00 24,773.60 208874 5/5/2022 007987 WALMART MISC SUPPLIES: SPORTS: TCSD 202.82 202.82 208875 5/5/2022 000341 WILLDAN ASSOCIATES INC FEB TRAFFIC ENG SVCS: PW TRAF/55 700.00 700.00 SEGMENT Grand total for UNION BANK: 376,455.69 Page:5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 05/05/2022 3:38:46PM CITY OF TEMECULA 50 checks in this report. Grand Total All Checks: 376,455.69 Page.-6 Item No. 4 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: May 24, 2022 SUBJECT: Approve the City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2021 PREPARED BY: Jordan Snider, Senior Accountant RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve and file the City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2021. BACKGROUND: Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 require reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio, receipts, and disbursements respectively. Adequate funds will be available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures of the City for the next six months. Current market values are derived from the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) reports, Union Bank of California trust and custody statements, and from US Bank trust statements. Attached is the City Treasurer's Report that provides this information. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the statement of investment policy and Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635 as of November 30, 2021. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: City Treasurer's Report as of November 30, 2021 City of Temecula Portfolio Managment Treasury Report 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Portfolio Manat Management g (951)694-6430 tyHq Portfolio Summary November 30, 2021 Par Market Book % of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Managed Pool Accounts 36,207,510.97 36,207,510.97 36,207,510.97 20.08 1 1 0.024 0.025 Retention Escrow Account 667,226.74 667,226.74 667,226.74 0.37 1 1 0.062 0.063 Letter of Credit 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 1 1 0.000 0.000 Trust Accounts 17,367,630.72 17,367,630.72 17,367,630.72 9.63 1 1 19.844 20.120 Local Agency Investment Funds 104,066,679.38 104,053,531.70 104,066,679.38 57.72 1 1 0.334 0.339 Federal Agency Callable Securities 18,000,000.00 17,785,420.00 17,997,500.00 9.98 1,598 1,339 0.792 0.803 Federal Agency Bullet Securities 4,000,000.00 4,020,310.00 4,000,000.00 2.22 1,233 638 1.397 1.416 180,309,049.81 180,101,632.13 180,306,549.81 100.00% 188 149 2.220 2.250 Investments Cash Passbook/Checking 2,004,436.51 2,004,436.51 2,004,436.51 1 1 0.000 0.000 (not included in yield calculations) Total Cash and Investments 182,313,486.32 182,106,068.64 182,310,986.32 188 149 2.220 2.250 Total Earnings November 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 333,242.60 1,658,892.35 Average Daily Balance 182,777,652.99 181,743,687.24 Effective Rate of Return 2.22% 2.18% Reporting period 11/01/2021-11/30/2021 Portfolio TEME Data Updated: SET_MTH: 05/05/2022 10:06 NL! CP Run Date: 05/05/2022 - 10:06 PM (PRF_PM1) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Portfolio Managment Treasury Report Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments November 30, 2021 Page 1 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 233358001-6 01-2 BOND F First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 5,667.28 5,667.28 5,667.28 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 233358006-6 01-2 REF RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 503,181.47 503,181.47 503,181.47 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 233358000-6 01-2 REF ST First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 120,048.90 120,048.90 120,048.90 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 276213009-6 03-02 COI First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 07/01/2021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 276213008-6 03-02 IMPR First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 517.29 517.29 517.29 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 276213006-6 03-02 RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 740,993.63 740,993.63 740,993.63 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 164741002-6 03-03 BOND F First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 122,485.49 122,485.49 122,485.49 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 164741008-6 03-03IMP First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 194,123.35 194,123.35 194,123.35 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 164741006-6 03-03RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 07/01/2021 296.88 296.88 296.88 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 164741000-6 03-03SPEC First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 213,536.65 213,536.65 213,536.65 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 164742002-6 03-06 BOND F First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 25,651.89 25,651.89 25,651.89 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 164742000-6 03-06SPEC First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 18,068.36 18,068.36 18,068.36 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 229462007-6 03-1 2012 RF First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 229462002--6 03-1 BOND FD First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 2,587.34 2,587.34 2,587.34 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 229462009-6 03-1 COI First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 229462006-6 03-1 RESERV First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 17,219.47 17,219.47 17,219.47 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 229462000-6 03-1SPECF First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 121,640.43 121,640.43 121,640.43 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 94669921-6 03-1ACQ11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.870 0.858 0.870 1 94669911-6 03-1ACQA11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 07/01/2021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669917-6 03-1 RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 07/01/2021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669916-6 03-1 RESB11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669000-6 03-1 SPTAX11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 276213002-6 03-2 REFU First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 227.04 227.04 227.04 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 276213000-6 03-2 SPEC First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 91,515.00 91,515.00 91,515.00 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 94686001-6 03-4ADMIN11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.060 0.059 0.060 1 94686005-6 034PREP11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.070 0.069 0.070 1 94686000-6 034RED11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.050 0.049 0.050 1 94686006-6 034RES11 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.060 0.059 0.060 1 276213022-6 16-01 BOND F First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 07/01/2021 965.91 965.91 965.91 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 276213023-6 16-01 CAPINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.870 0.858 0.870 1 276213029-6 16-01 COI First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 07/01/2021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 276213028-6 16-01 IMP First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 6,723,887.19 6,723,887.19 6,723,887.19 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 276213026-6 16-01 RESERV First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 3,153,202.77 3,153,202.77 3,153,202.77 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 276213020-6 16-01 SPECF First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 311,636.25 311,636.25 311,636.25 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 218848001-6 2017A&B INT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 10.77 10.77 10.77 0.000 0.000 1 218848008-6 2017ABPRIORP First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 17,958.91 17,958.91 17,958.91 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 Data Updated: SET_MTH: 05/05/2022 10:06 Run Date: 05/05/2022 - 10:06 Portfolio TEME NL! CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Report Ver. 7.3.6.1 Portfolio Managment Treasury Report Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments November 30, 2021 Page 2 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 218848013-2 2017B COI First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 218848000-6 2017B DS First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 76.62 76.62 76.62 0.030 0.030 0.030 1 218848002-6 2017B PRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 989.41 989.41 989.41 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 218848009-6 2017B_PROJ First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 13,123,033.50 13,123,033.50 13,123,033.50 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 233358009-6 233358009-6 First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 07/01/2021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94434160-6 RDA-021NT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94434161-6 RDA-02PRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886000-6 RDA-06AINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886001-6 RDA06APRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886010-6 RDA06BINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886011-6 RDA06BPRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.680 0.671 0.680 1 107886016-6 RDA06BRES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.940 0.927 0.940 1 107886020-6 RDA071NT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 107886021-6 RDA07PRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.930 0.917 0.930 1 107886028-6 RDA07PROJ First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.940 0.927 0.940 1 107886026-6 RDA07RES First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.940 0.927 0.940 1 136343008-6 RDA10APROJ First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 136343018-6 RDA10BPROJ First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 136343000-6 RDA10INT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 136343001-6 RDA10PRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 07/01/2021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 136343006-6 RDA10RSRV First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 07/01/2021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 146161000-6 RDA11AINT First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 146161001-6 RDA11APRIN First Amer Govt Oblig Fund Cl 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669902-3 03-1 BOND3 First American Treasury 07/01/2021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94434160-1 RDA 02 INT1 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 94434161-2 RDA 02 PRIN2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 136343018-2 RDA 10B CIP2 First American Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.010 0.010 0.010 1 146161008-3 RDA11APROJ Federated Institutional Tax Fr 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.800 0.789 0.800 1 146161006-3 RDA11ARSRV Federated Institutional Tax Fr 07/01/2021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669921-5 03-01 ACQ11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669911-5 03-01 ACQA11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669917-5 03-01 RES Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94669906-5 03-01 RESA11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.001 0.001 1 94669916-5 03-01 RESB11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669000-5 03-01SPTAX11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 164742006-5 03-06 RES Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 Data Updated: SET_MTH: 05/05/2022 10:06 Run Date: 05/05/2022 - 10:06 Portfolio TEME NL! CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Portfolio Managment Treasury Report Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments November 30, 2021 Page 3 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 164742000-5 03-06 SPEC Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669902-5 03-1 bond fd Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94686001-5 034 ADMIN11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94686005-5 034 PREP11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 07/01/2021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 94686006-5 034 RES11 Federated Tax Free Obligations 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.250 0.247 0.250 1 94669917-1 03-01-1 RES CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.339 0.334 0.339 1 276213008-1 03-02 IMP CA Local Agency Investment Fun 8,155,633.22 8,155,633.22 8,155,633.22 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 164742006-1 03-06 RES-1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 306,943.21 306,943.21 306,943.21 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 229462007-1 03-1 2012 RE CA Local Agency Investment Fun 816,021.53 816,021.53 816,021.53 0.221 0.218 0.221 1 94669911-1 03-1 ACQ A2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.339 0.334 0.339 1 94669921-1 03-1 ACQ B2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.339 0.334 0.339 1 744727011-1 03-3 ACQ 2 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.339 0.334 0.339 1 164741006-1 0303-1 RES CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,418,865.30 1,418,865.30 1,418,865.30 0.020 0.020 0.020 1 107886028-1 RDA 07 PRO-1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.339 0.334 0.339 1 107886026-1 RDA 07 RES-1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.339 0.334 0.339 1 136343018-1 RDA 10B CIP1 CA Local Agency Investment Fun 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.339 0.334 0.339 1 229462020-0 03-01 CASH USBANK 525.91 525.91 525.91 0.000 0.000 1 164742006-0 03-06 Cash USBANK 07/01/2021 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.000 1 233358050-1 01-2 SPECESC U.S. Treasury 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.360 0.355 0.360 1 Subtotal and Average 36,207,510.97 36,207,510.97 36,207,510.97 36,207,510.97 0.024 0.025 1 Retention Escrow Account NOBEL COMPANY 3354 Banner Bank 218848050-0 2002 ESCROW USBANK 218848060-0 2006AESCRO USBANK 218848070-0 2006BESCRO USBANK 218848080-0 2007ESCROW USBANK 229462020-2 03-01 ESCROW U.S. Treasury Subtotal and Average 667,226.74 07/01/2021 07/01/2021 07/01/2021 07/01/2021 Letter of Credit 218848006-1 2017B RESER ASSURED GUARANTY MUNICIPAL COR 07/01/2021 233358006-1 01-2 REFRESI ASSURANCE CO BOND INSURANCE 07/01/2021 Subtotal and Average 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 667,226.74 667,226.74 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 667,226.74 667,226.74 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 667,226.74 667,226.74 1.00 1.00 2.00 0.150 0.148 0.150 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.063 0.062 0.063 1 0.062 0.063 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 0.000 0.000 1 Portfolio TEME Data Updated: SET_MTH: 05/05/2022 10:06 NL! CP Run Date: 05/05/2022 - 10:06 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Portfolio Managment Treasury Report Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments November 30, 2021 Page 4 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Trust Accounts 6746058700 PARS Pension US Bank Trust 17,367,630.72 17,367,630.72 17,367,630.72 20.120 19.844 20.120 1 Subtotal and Average 17,367,630.72 17,367,630.72 17,367,630.72 17,367,630.72 19.844 20.120 1 Local Agency Investment Funds SYSCITY CITY CA Local Agency Investment Fun 48,163,748.58 48,157,663.62 48,163,748.58 0.339 0.334 0.339 1 SYSRDA RDA CA Local Agency Investment Fun 1,892.17 1,891.93 1,892.17 0.339 0.334 0.339 1 SYSTCSD TCSD CA Local Agency Investment Fun 55,901,038.63 55,893,976.15 55,901,038.63 0.339 0.334 0.339 1 Subtotal and Average 104,066,679.38 104,066,679.38 104,053,531.70 104,066,679.38 0.334 0.339 1 Federal Agency Callable Securities 3133EMQGO 01259 Federal Farm Credit Bank 02/10/2021 1,000,000.00 978,560.00 1,000,000.00 0.320 0.316 0.320 1,167 02/10/2025 3133EMK92 01265 Federal Farm Credit Bank 06/23/2021 1,000,000.00 980,260.00 1,000,000.00 0.580 0.572 0.580 1,300 06/23/2025 3133EMN57 01266 Federal Farm Credit Bank 06/28/2021 1,000,000.00 994,200.00 1,000,000.00 0.440 0.434 0.440 940 06/28/2024 3133EMP22 01267 Federal Farm Credit Bank 06/30/2021 1,000,000.00 988,170.00 1,000,000.00 0.910 0.898 0.910 1,672 06/30/2026 3133ENAP5 01273 Federal Farm Credit Bank 10/14/2021 1,000,000.00 984,970.00 1,000,000.00 0.800 0.789 0.800 1,413 10/14/2025 313OAKQ41 01258 Federal Home Loan Bank 01/28/2021 1,000,000.00 982,730.00 1,000,000.00 0.520 0.513 0.520 1,519 01/28/2026 3130ALEU4 01260 Federal Home Loan Bank 02/25/2021 1,000,000.00 984,080.00 1,000,000.00 0.350 0.345 0.350 1,090 11/25/2024 3130ALWV2 01261 Federal Home Loan Bank 04/21/2021 1,000,000.00 993,670.00 1,000,000.00 0.550 1.011 1.025 1,602 04/21/2026 3130AM2V3 01262 Federal Home Loan Bank 04/29/2021 1,000,000.00 994,610.00 1,000,000.00 0.700 0.690 0.700 1,245 04/29/2025 3130AMNMO 01263 Federal Home Loan Bank 05/27/2021 1,000,000.00 992,960.00 1,000,000.00 0.500 0.493 0.500 1,638 05/27/2026 3130AMM90 01264 Federal Home Loan Bank 06/10/2021 1,000,000.00 991,890.00 1,000,000.00 0.500 1.973 2.000 1,652 06/10/2026 3130AN4N7 01268 Federal Home Loan Bank 07/14/2021 1,000,000.00 984,840.00 1,000,000.00 0.720 0.710 0.720 1,321 07/14/2025 3130ANAZ3 01269 Federal Home Loan Bank 07/28/2021 1,000,000.00 988,940.00 1,000,000.00 0.600 0.592 0.600 1,244 04/28/2025 3130AP3M5 01270 Federal Home Loan Bank 09/28/2021 1,000,000.00 991,930.00 1,000,000.00 0.550 0.542 0.550 1,213 03/28/2025 3134GBGZ9 01232 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 04/27/2017 1,000,000.00 1,002,970.00 1,000,000.00 2.000 1.964 1.991 57 01/27/2022 3134GXJL9 01257 Federal Home Loan Mtg Corp 12/30/2020 1,000,000.00 980,000.00 1,000,000.00 0.500 0.493 0.500 1,490 12/30/2025 3130APBV6 01271 Union Bank 10/07/2021 1,000,000.00 988,990.00 999,000.00 1.000 1.007 1.021 1,771 10/07/2026 3130APAM7 01272 Union Bank 10/14/2021 1,000,000.00 981,650.00 998,500.00 0.900 0.918 0.931 1,778 10/14/2026 Subtotal and Average 17,997,500.00 18,000,000.00 17,785,420.00 17,997,500.00 0.792 0.803 1,339 Federal Agency Bullet Securities 3133EJT74 01249 Federal Farm Credit Bank 11/15/2018 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.050 3.008 3.050 15 11/15/2021 3133ELMA9 01254 Federal Farm Credit Bank 02/07/2020 1,000,000.00 1,015,040.00 1,000,000.00 1.420 1.401 1.420 614 08/07/2023 3133ELTU8 01256 Federal Farm Credit Bank 03/18/2020 1,000,000.00 1,005,610.00 1,000,000.00 0.920 0.907 0.920 838 03/18/2024 3133ENCA6 01274 Federal Farm Credit Bank 10/25/2021 1,000,000.00 996,750.00 1,000,000.00 0.700 0.690 0.700 1,059 10/25/2024 Portfolio TEME Data Updated: SET_MTH: 05/05/2022 10:06 NL! CP Run Date: 05/05/2022 - 10:06 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Portfolio Managment Treasury Report Portfolio Management Page Portfolio Details - Investments November 30, 2021 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Date Federal Agency Bullet Securities 3135GOU92 01250 Federal National Mtg Assn 01/11/2019 1,000,000.00 1,002,910.00 1,000,000.00 2.625 2.589 2.625 41 01/11/2022 Subtotal and Average 4,466,666.67 4,000,000.00 4,020,310.00 4,000,000.00 1.397 1.416 638 Total and Average 182,777,652.99 Data Updated: SET_MTH: 05/05/2022 10:06 Run Date: 05/05/2022 - 10:06 180,309,049.81 180,101,632.13 180,306,549.81 2.220 2.250 149 Portfolio TEME NL! CP PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Portfolio Managment Treasury Report Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Cash November 30, 2021 Page 6 Average Purchase Stated YTM YTM Days to CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 360 365 Maturity Passbook/Checking Accounts 1453718479 WORKERS BANK OF AMERICA MERRILL LYNC 07/01/2021 20,924.68 20,924.68 20,924.68 0.000 0.000 1 SYSPetty Cash Petty Cash City of Temecula 07/01/2021 3,911.00 3,911.00 3,911.00 0.000 0.000 1 SYSGenCkAcct Gen CkAcct Union Bank of California 1,961,931.69 1,961,931.69 1,961,931.69 0.000 0.000 1 SYSParking Ck PARKING CITA Union Bank of California 07/01/2021 17,669.14 17,669.14 17,669.14 0.000 0.000 1 Average Balance 0.00 Total Cash and Investments 182,777,652.99 III 182,313,486.32 182,106,068.64 182,310,986.32 2.220 2.250 149 Portfolio TEME Data Updated: SET_MTH: 05/05/2022 10:06 NL! CP Run Date: 05/05/2022 - 10:06 PM (PRF_PM2) 7.3.0 Cash and Investments Report CITY OF TEMECULA Through November 2021 Fund # Fund Name Beginning Balance Receipts Disbursements Fund Total 001 GENERAL FUND $ 42,902,236.12 $ 8,005,270.07 $ 5,450,207.36 $ 45,457,298.83 002 MEASURE S FUND 25,720,548.84 3,122,661.08 28,843,209.92 100 STATE GAS TAX FUND 875,551.78 430,475.06 1,306,026.84 102 RMRA-ROAD MAINTENANCE REHABILITATION ACT 2,165,035.54 186,963.79 2,351,999.33 103 STREETS MAINTENANCE FUND 3,962,392.89 7.55 3,962,400.44 106 UPTOWN TEMECULA NEW STREETS IN LIEU FEES 895,653.80 1.71 895,655.51 108 ARPA 7,039,753.50 - 7,039,753.50 120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND 4,462,113.04 86,392.99 - 4,548,506.03 125 PEG PUBLIC EDUCATION & GOVERNMENT 609,171.97 35,219.12 705.28 643,685.81 145 TEMECULA ENERGY EFFICIENCY ASSET TEAM 839,934.74 1.60 - 839,936.34 150 AB 2766 FUND 172,002.96 0.31 10,000.00 162,003.27 160 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES 199,269.83 8,333.33 - 207,603.16 161 TEMECULA MAJOR CRIMES REWARD FUND 27,208.09 0.05 - 27,208.14 165 AFFORDABLE HOUSING 2,009,205.11 3.79 20,343.65 1,988,865.25 170 MEASURE A FUND 8,714,764.87 277,703.68 32,538.05 8,959,930.50 190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 959,756.59 240,936.22 802,942.50 397,850.31 192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS 699,959.68 1.29 23,293.21 676,667.76 194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" REFUSE/RECYCLING 223,116.82 0.40 13,130.48 209,986.74 195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "R" STREET/ROAD MAINT 27,479.16 0.05 - 27,479.21 196 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT. 380,044.15 2,207.06 17,004.46 365,246.75 197 TEMECULA LIBRARY FUND 566,384.14 2,943.33 66,863.34 502,464.13 198 PUBLIC ART 103,587.74 1,826.50 - 105,414.24 210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND 11,019,324.06 371,751.54 1,517,215.25 9,873,860.35 275 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK IMPROVEMENT FUND 211,411.02 3.33 211,414.35 277 CFD-RORIPAUGH 8,300,332.75 0.28 8,300,333.03 278 CFD-RORIPAUGH II 6,723,772.97 114.22 - 6,723,887.19 300 INSURANCE FUND 1,191,803.46 2.20 39,115.31 1,152,690.35 305 WORKER'S COMPENSATION 1,873,522.74 3.54 15,051.37 1,858,474.91 310 VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT FUND 2,236,395.95 4.26 - 2,236,400.21 320 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1,305,385.24 486.90 666,312.88 639,559.26 325 TECHNOLOGY REPLACEMENT FUND 1,744,941.41 3.33 - 1,744,944.74 330 CENTRAL SERVICES 4,209.15 - 27,637.17 (23,428.02) 335 CENTRAL SERVICES 327,745.60 0.58 - 327,746.18 340 FACILITIES 606,746.14 2,364.10 101,279.65 507,830.59 350 FACILITY REPLACEMENT FUND 128,320.97 0.24 - 128,321.21 380 SARDA DEBT SERVICE FUND 13,141,847.95 223.26 295,000.00 12,847,071.21 381 REDEVELOPMEN PROPERTY TAX TRUST 2,733,380.58 4.65 - 2,733,385.23 460 CFD 88-12 DEBT SERVICE FUND 95,422.01 0.18 - 95,422.19 472 CFD 01-2 HARVESTON A&B DEBT SERVICE 660,262.09 10.75 106.55 660,166.29 473 CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,652,555.91 311.37 106.55 1,652,760.73 474 AD 03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE 4,997.48 0.01 - 4,997.49 475 CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND 1,805,552.18 5.82 319.51 1,805,238.49 476 CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 386,706.57 0.83 106.55 386,600.85 477 CFD 03-02 RORIPAUGH DEBT SERVICE FUND 857,444.49 14.19 319.59 857,139.09 478 CFD-RORIPAUGH II 3,490,908.43 58.93 213.08 3,490,754.28 501 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 1 SADDLEWOOD 5,568.97 0.01 2,452.43 3,116.55 502 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 2 WINCHESTER CREEK 105,104.89 0.20 1,719.18 103,385.91 503 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 3 RANCHO HIGHLANDS 37,300.05 0.07 2,393.96 34,906.16 504 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 4 THE VINEYARDS 3,468.28 0.01 381.45 3,086.84 505 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 5 SIGNET SERIES 21,533.99 0.04 2,198.38 19,335.65 506 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 6 WOODCREST COUNTRY 33,204.00 0.06 995.42 32,208.64 507 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 7 RIDGEVIEW 6,697.95 0.01 826.71 5,871.25 508 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 8 VILLAGE GROVE 77,329.77 0.13 8,683.54 68,646.36 509 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 9 RANCHO SOLANA 30,515.55 0.06 167.70 30,347.91 510 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 10 MARTINIQUE 11,906.39 0.02 466.66 11,439.75 511 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 11 MEADOWVIEW 3,464.97 0.01 129.61 3,335.37 512 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 12 VINTAGE HILLS 95,485.84 0.17 6,866.27 88,619.74 513 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 13 PRESLEY DEVELOP 23,372.58 0.04 2,094.94 21,277.68 514 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 14 MORRISON HOMES 9,023.31 0.02 848.61 8,174.72 515 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 15 BARCLAY ESTATES 10,385.60 0.02 530.82 9,854.80 516 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 16 TRADEWINDS 62,284.23 0.12 1,172.39 61,111.96 517 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 17 MONTE VISTA 1,868.84 - 125.78 1,743.06 518 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 18 TEMEKU HILLS 44,604.86 0.08 4,692.90 39,912.04 519 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 19 CHANTEMAR 74,494.66 0.14 3,641.08 70,853.72 520 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 20 CROWNE HILL 198,554.85 0.36 8,719.45 189,835.76 521 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 21 VAIL RANCH 144,384.28 0.25 14,567.99 129,816.54 522 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 22 SUTTON PLACE 9,733.38 0.02 281.91 9,451.49 523 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 23 PHEASENT RUN 22,532.02 0.06 332.19 22,199.89 524 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 24 HARVESTON 21,624.94 0.02 9,000.35 12,624.61 525 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 25 SERENA HILLS 60,708.62 0.11 2,418.78 58,289.95 526 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 26 GALLERYTRADITION 1,523.52 - 122.08 1,401.44 527 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 27 AVONDALE 6,984.99 0.01 500.35 6,484.65 528 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 28 WOLF CREEK 585,328.15 1.08 17,110.87 568,218.36 529 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 29 GALLERY PORTRAIT 4,599.54 1,758.59 167.76 6,190.37 530 SERVICE LEVEL"C"ZONE 30 FUTURE ZONES 36,306.09 0.07 - 36,306.16 701 PENSION RATE STABILIZATION FUND $ 17,367,630.72 4,000,000.00 2,247,454.87 $ 19,120,175.85 Grand Total: $ 183,175,686.34 $ 16,778,075.27 $ 11,440,776.22 $ 188,512,985.39 Journal Entries completed after October's Treasurer's Report was issued are reflected In the Receipts / Disbursements columns. Item No. 5 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Erica Russo, Director of Community Services DATE: May 24, 2022 SUBJECT: Approve Cooperative Agreement with Non-profit Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley in Support of Various Senior Services Activities PREPARED BY: Yvette Martinez, Community Services Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a cooperative agreement with non- profit Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley in support of various senior services activities. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula incorporated in 1989 with a population of less than 30,000 residents and a senior population of less than 10%. Since then, the City's population has grown over three times that amount to an estimated 110,000 with a senior population of approximately 25%. The City of Temecula recognizes the need to assist in providing services and amenities to enrich quality of life, provide information and education, and support the emotional and physical needs of aging adults within our community. For the past 29 years, the Mary Phillips Senior Center (MPSC) has grown along with the community by providing hundreds of programs, activities, and services for aging adults and those with special needs. It is the City's goal to provide the commitment and leadership to identify residents' needs, increase access to existing programs, develop tangible solutions, and plan for the future. The facility has become a place to socialize and participate, earning a reputation as "The Place Where Friends Meet". The Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley (SGY) is a non-profit organization dedicated to the improvement of the lives of Temecula Valley Seniors through social, educational, and nutritional activities. SGY has played an integral part in the City's senior services since the formation of the MPSC in 1989. The Partnership between the City of Temecula and Senior Golden Years exists to leverage resource opportunities; create, expand, and improve activities and services; and promote senior support. The City of Temecula and Senior Golden Years have worked cooperatively to host various activities for residents of Temecula and surrounding cities. The City will sponsor the use of space at the Mary Phillips Senior Center in order for the non-profit to conduct their services. This partnership will continue through the following: • Board Meetings: The City will sponsor the use of space at the Mary Phillip's Senior Center to conduct the non -profit's monthly board meetings. The Board Meetings are closed to the public and are for members of the board to conduct business. • Member Meetings: The City will sponsor the use of space at the Mary Phillips Senior Center to conduct the non -profit's bi-monthly member meetings. The Member Meetings are open to members of the club or anyone interested in joining. Meetings serve on average 50-60 seniors. • Bingo Activity: The City will sponsor the use of space at the Mary Phillips Senior Center to conduct a Bingo Activity. The activity is open to all seniors ages 55 and over. The non- profit is required to obtain a Charitable Organization Bingo License in order to perform this activity. This activity serves on average 50-75 seniors. • Social Activities: The City will sponsor the use of space at the Mary Phillips Senior Center to hold various social events like Saturday Socials. These activities will be open to all seniors ages 55 and over. These activities serve on average 25-100, people depending on the event. In order to fulfill the desired outcomes of the Human Services Division to serve seniors and active adults, the City seeks to formalize the cooperative partnership between the City of Temecula and Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley, which is essential in continuing to provide these types of activities to the senior population. This two-year agreement entails the use of in -kind Community Services facility and staff support valued at $3,000 and $1,000 respectively. The non- profit Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley shall provide the following benefits and in -kind services for the citizens of Temecula which include City of Temecula logo/name on advertisements, press releases, and all other promotional materials, and coordinate various Senior Social Activities as described above. FISCAL IMPACT: In -kind Community Services facility and staff support valued at $3,000 and $1,000 respectively. Current funding has been allocated in the FY 2021-22 TCSD Budget. Funding for the balance of the term will be requested as part of the Annual Operating Budget process. ATTACHMENTS: Cooperative Agreement COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND SENIOR GOLDEN YEARS THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of this 24th day of May, 2022, by and between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Nonprofit'). In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and undertakings set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: RECITALS This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which each of the parties acknowledge and agree are true and correct: a.) The Nonprofit shall operate their Board Meetings (hereinafter referred to as the "Event") on 2"d Wednesday of each month from 12:00 — 12:30 pm at the Mary Phillips Senior Center (room based on availability). i. The Board Meetings are closed to the general public for members of the board to conduct business. ii. City Staff will setup and breakdown meetings. iii. The Nonprofit is responsible for clean up. b.) The Nonprofit shall operate their Member Meetings on the 4th Wednesday of each month from 12:30 — 1:00 pm at the Mary Phillips Senior Center (room based on availability). i. The Member Meetings are open to members of the Senior Golden Years. ii. The City will sponsor coffee and condiments. iii. City Staff will setup and breakdown meetings. iv. The Nonprofit is responsible for clean up. c.) The Nonprofit shall operate their Bingo Activity on the 4th Wednesday of each month from 1:00 — 3:00 pm at the Mary Phillips Senior Center. i. This activity is open to the general public for seniors ages 55 and over. ii. City Staff will setup and breakdown event. iii. The Nonprofit is responsible for clean up. iv. The Nonprofit may store their Bingo machine in the Multipurpose Room closet. v. The Nonprofit is required to obtain a Charitable Organization Bingo License from the City of Temecula. d.) Alcohol will not be served at any of the above mentioned events/programs. e.) The City desires to be a Co -Sponsor of all the above mentioned activities/events, providing in -kind support including facilities, staff support, refreshments, storage use, and advertising as described in Exhibit B. 2. TERM This Agreement shall commence on May 24, 2022, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than May 23, 2024 unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 3. CONSIDERATION a. As a Co -Sponsor the City shall receive sponsor benefits as listed in Exhbit A b. WRITTEN REPORT Within ninety (90) days after the conclusion of the Event, the Nonprofit shall prepare and submit to the Director of Community Services a written report evaluating the Event, its attendance, media coverage, and description of the materials in which the City has listed as a Co -Sponsor. 4. PERMITS The Nonprofit shall file applications for a Charitable Organization Bingo License with the City no later than thirty (30) days prior to the first day of the Event. The City retains its governmental jurisdiction to determine whether to issue the permits and the nature and scope of Conditions of Approval. The Nonprofit shall comply with all conditions of approval for the Charitable Organization Bingo License, or any other City -issued permits. Failure to comply with the Conditions of Approval of such permits shall constitute a default of this Agreement and is grounds for termination of this Agreement. 5. MEETING ATTENDANCE The Nonprofit shall attend all City pre -event planning meetings and event recap meetings if warranted. 6. INDEMNIFICATION The Nonprofit shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and representatives from any and all suits, claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, actions, liability or damages of whatsoever kind and nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of the Nonprofit's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non- performance of this Agreement. 7. INSURANCE The Nonprofit shall secure and maintain from a State of California admitted insurance company, pay for and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement an insurance policy of comprehensive general liability against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by May 24, 2022, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as: 1) 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 Recipient 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 Recipient has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than: 1) General Liability: One million ($1,000,000) 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) Worker's Compensation insurance is required only if Consultant employs any employees. Consultant warrants and represents to the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agencythat it has no employees and that it will obtain the required Worker's Compensation Insurance upon the hiring of any employees. C. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions shall not exceed Twenty Five Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($25,000). d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1) The City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the NonProfit; products and completed operations of the Recipient; premises owned, occupied or used by the Nonprofit; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Nonprofit. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2) For any claims related to this project, the Nonprofit's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self -insured maintained by the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant'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, the Temecula Community Services District, the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Nonprofit'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 agreement shall be endorsed to state: should the policy be canceled before the expiration date the issuing insurer will endeavor to mail thirty (30) days prior written notice to the City. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Nonprofit shall within two (2) business days of notice from insurer phone, fax, and/or notify the City via certified mail, return receipt requested of the changes to or cancellation of the policy. e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A-:Vl I or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. f. Verification of Coverage. Nonproft 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 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 Nonprofit's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. 8. GOVERNING LAW The City and the Nonprofit understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted. 9. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Nonprofit shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Nonprofit shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Nonprofit to comply with this section. 10. ASSIGNMENT The Nonprofit shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. 11. NOTICES Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice: Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: City Manager 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Recipient: Senior Golden Years Attn: Caroline Hoelzle PO BOX 69 Wildomar, CA 92595 15. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. The Nonprofit shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit shall at all times be under the Nonprofit's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Recipient or any of the Nonprofit's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. The Nonprofit shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. The Nonprofit shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. No employee benefits shall be available to the Nonprofit in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to the Nonprofit as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to the Nonprofit for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to the Nonprofit for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. 17. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Nonprofit and has the authority to bind the Nonprofit to the performance of its obligations hereunder. The City Manager is authorized to enter into an amendment on behalf of the City to make the following non -substantive modifications to the agreement: (a) name changes; (b) extension of time; (c) non -monetary changes in scope of work; (d) agreement termination. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA By: Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney SENIORS' GOLDEN YEARS OF TEMECULA VALLEY, INC. (Two Signatures of corporate officers required unless corporate documents authorize only one person to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation.) By! Caroline Hoelzle, President y Ron Hoelzle , Treas rer NONPROFIT Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley, Inc. Caroline Hoelzle PO Box 69 VAIdomar, CA 92696 (961 ) 244-6409 Sweetcc41(a)-yahoo.com PM Initials: Date: � J EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF TEMECULA SPONSORSHIP BENEFITS CO-SPONSOR Seniors' Golden Years of Temecula Valley Inc. shall provide the following benefits and services for the citizens of the City of Temecula: ■ City of Temecula logo/name on advertisements, press releases, and other promotional materials ID Bingo Activity for City of Temecula and patrons of the senior community 0 Social events for City of Temecula and patrons of the senior community EXHIBIT "B" IN -KIND SERVICES ESTIMATED VALUE OF CITY SUPPORT SERVICES AND COSTS Based on the input from City departments we received estimated cost projections for the Board Meetings, Member Meetings, Bingo Activity, Saturday Socials, and Craft Boutique event. The following expenses can be anticipated for the event: Mary Phillips Senior Center Facility Rental: $ 3,000.00 Community Services Staff Hours: $ 1,000.00 TOTAL: $ 4,000.00 Item No. 6 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Erica Russo, Director of Community Services DATE: May 24, 2022 SUBJECT: Approve Agreement with Temecula Valley Unified School District for Interim Use of Temecula Valley High School Pool Facilities PREPARED BY: Gwen Willcox, Community Services Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an agreement with Temecula Valley Unified School District for interim use of Temecula Valley High School pool facilities. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula has a robust Aquatics program which provides year-round instructional, recreational, water safety, and competitive programming to the community. This award -winning Aquatics programming is a cornerstone of the City's efforts to improve the health, wellbeing, and safety of its residents. In addition to the City -owned pool at the Community Recreation Center, the City enters into Joint Use Agreements with Temecula Valley Unified School District to share facilities in the interest of better serving the community. For summer swim programs, the City typically utilizes the pools at Temecula Elementary School and Chaparral High School. This summer, the CHS pool will be going under renovation, so in lieu of that facility, the District is permitting the City to utilize the pool at Temecula Valley High School to minimize impacts to busy summer aquatics programming. This agreement will provide for interim use of that facility for the summer of 2022. FISCAL IMPACT: All costs associated with using the pool through the end of this fiscal year are included in the current annual operating budget. Costs associated with next fiscal year have been included in the FY 2022-23 Annual Operating Budget process. ATTACHMENTS: Agreement AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR INTERIM USE OF TEMECULA VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL POOL FACILITIES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of May 24, 2022, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City"), and the Temecula Valley Unified School District ("District"). In consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties do hereby agree as follows: 1. Recitals. This Agreement is entered into with respect to the following facts and for the following purposes, each of which is acknowledged as true and correct by the parties: a. Title I, Division 1, Part 7, Chapter 10, commencing with Section 10900 of the Education Code, authorizes public school districts and cities to cooperate with one another for the purpose of authorizing, promoting and conducting programs of community recreation which will contribute to the attainment of general recreational and educational objectives for children and adults of the State. In this regard, school districts and cities may enter into agreements with each other to aid and cooperate in carrying out these objectives. The governing body of any school district is authorized by these provisions to use the buildings, grounds, and equipment of the district, or any of them, to carry out the recreational and educational objectives, or may grant the use of any building, grounds, or equipment of the district to any other public authority for such purposes, whenever the use of the buildings, grounds, or equipment for community recreational purposes will not interfere with use of the buildings, grounds, and equipment for any other purpose of the public school system. Accordingly, the District and City are authorized to enter into this Agreement. b. The City and District entered into a "Joint Use Agreement between the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Unified School District for the Joint Use of a Portion of Temecula Elementary School," which as amended, currently allows the City to use the pool facilities located at Temecula Elementary School and Chaparral High School. C. The District is currently renovating the pool facilities at Chaparral High School and such pool facilities will not be available for the City to use during the 2022 summer season. d. The District has agreed to allow the City to use the pool facilities at Temecula Valley High School on an interim basis while the Chaparral High School pool facilities are unavailable. The pool facilities ("Pool Facilities") are located on the Temecula Valley High School property, 31555 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, CA 92592, and are described and depicted on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference ("Property"). 2. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall begin on June 1, 2022 and shall terminate on August 31, 2022 ("Term"), unless sooner terminated or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. -1- 11086-0007\a6sn 18vLdoc 3. Use of Pool Facilities. District hereby grants the City a license for use of the Pool Facilities during the Term of the Agreement. City shall have exclusive access to the pool Facilities pursuant to the schedule set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Use of the Pool Facilities includes the pool and surrounding fenced -in pool area, the storage room on the west side, and the equipment room on the east side, the parking lot adjacent to the fenced -in pool area and the restrooms located outside the fenced -in pool area. The City will use its own pool equipment, except that the City may use the lifeguard towers located in the fenced -in pool area. City may store its pool equipment in the storage room and equipment room at any time during the Term of this Agreement. City shall be responsible for the safe storage and maintenance of its pool equipment during the term of this Agreement. With the exception of lifeguard towers, the District shall not leave any District pool equipment at the Pool Facilities during the City's hours of use. Notwithstanding the above, all safety equipment, including but not limited to items such as life rings, throw ropes, rescue poles, first aid kits, backboards, operating phone, and AED units, shall remain at the Pool Facilities and be available for use by the City during the City's use. City shall be responsible for staffing life guards, attendants and other staff necessary for the City's use of the Pool Facilities at its sole cost and expense. City agrees to provide lifeguard staff while the Pool Facilities are used by the District's Temecula Valley High School students during the hours outside of City use listed in Exhibit B at its sole cost and expense. 4. Maintenance and Cleanup of Pool Facilities. a. During the term of this Agreement, the District shall, at its sole cost and expense, perform all routine and major maintenance at the Pool Facilities. Such maintenance shall include, but not be limited to: (1) the maintenance and repairs of the deck and pool, pump room equipment, filtration and chlorination systems, restrooms and locker rooms, and other structures and facilities on the Property; and (2) payment of all utility costs for operation of the pool and (3) emptying trash receptacles. b. During the term of this Agreement, the City shall, at its sole cost and expense, perform daily cleanup of the Pool Facilities after each use. Such clean up shall include picking up and throwing away trash and cleaning any spills. 5. Fees. Fees paid by the City to the District pursuant to the "Joint Use Agreement between the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Unified School District for the Joint Use of a Portion of Temecula Elementary School" shall cover City's use of the pool Facilities and no additional fees shall be due under this Agreement. 6. Indemnification. a. District agrees to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold harmless, City, its officers, agents, and employees, against all actions, claims, or demands for injury, death, loss, or damages, regardless of fault or cause, by anyone whomsoever, whenever such injury, death, loss, or damage is a consequence of, or arises out of, or incidental to, the use or maintenance of the Property by District or any other persons or parties (other than City) authorized to so use the Property by District pursuant to this Agreement, except to the extent said damage is caused by the misconduct or active negligence of the City, its officers, agents and employees. b. City agrees to defend, indemnify, protect, and hold harmless, District, its officers, agents, and employees, against all actions, claims, or demands for injury, -2- I I086-0007\26571I8vLdoc death, loss or damages, regardless of fault or cause, by anyone whomsoever, whenever such injury, death, loss or damage is a consequence of, or arises out of, or is incidental to, the use or maintenance of the Property by City or any other persons or parties (other than District) authorized to so use or maintain the Property by City pursuant to this Agreement, except to the extent said damage is caused by the misconduct or active negligence of the District, its officers, agents and employees. 7. Defaults and Remedies. a. Subject to the extensions of time approved in writing by a party, failure or delay by either party to perform any term or provision of this Agreement constitutes a default under this Agreement. A party claiming a default (claimant) shall give written notice of default to the other party, specifying the default complained of. b. The claimant shall not institute proceedings against the other party nor be entitled to damages if the other party within fourteen (14) days from receipt of such notice immediately, with due diligence, commences to cure, correct or remedy such failure or delay and shall complete such cure, correction or remedy within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of such notice. Such cure, correction and remedy shall include payment of any costs, expenses (including attorney fees) or damages incurred by the non -defaulting party resulting from the default or during the period of default. C. Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the parties are cumulative, and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party. d. Any failure or delays by either party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies, or deprive either such party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies. e. If a default is not fully cured by the defaulting party as provided in this Paragraph, the defaulting party shall be liable to the other party for any damages caused by such default, and the nondefaulting party may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for damages against the defaulting party with respect to such default. f. If a default under this Agreement is not fully cured by the defaulting party as provided in this Section, the nondefaulting party at its option may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for specific performance of terms of this Agreement. g. In the event litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court's judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses incurred in pursuing its remedies and prosecuting or defending the litigation. 8. Insurance. Each party to this Agreement shall carry public liability insurance in a reasonable amount satisfactory to the other party to protect itself and the other party, its officers, agents, servants, and employees, against claims for damage to persons and/or property, -3- I I086-0007\26571 I8vLdoc including death, arising from that party's use of the Property as provided in this Agreement. The form of the insurance shall be satisfactory to the other party and may include self-insurance at levels reasonably acceptable to the other party. The City will provide the District with an insurance certificate naming the District as an additional insured 9. Force Majeure. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, if the performance of any act required by this Agreement to be performed by either District or City is prevented or delayed by reason of any act of God, strike, lockout, pandemic, labor trouble, inability to secure materials, or any other cause (except financial difficulty or inability) not the fault of the party required to perform the act, the time for performance of the act will be extended for a period equivalent to the period of delay and performance of the act during the period of delay will be excused. However, nothing contained in this Section shall excuse the prompt payment by a party as required by this Agreement or the performance of any act rendered difficult or impossible solely because of the financial condition of the party required to perform the act. 10. Notices to Parties. Written notices, demands and communications among the District and City, shall be sufficiently given by either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by notice: District: Temecula Valley Unified School District 31350 Rancho Vista Road Temecula, California 92592 Attention: Superintendent City: City of Temecula 4100 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Attention: City Manager Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may from time to time designate by mail as provided in this Section. 11. Agreement Binding on Successors. This Agreement shall be binding on and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and lawful assigns of the parties hereto. 12. Assignment. Neither Party shall assign or transfer this Agreement or any portion thereof without the prior written amendment of this Agreement by City and District. 13. Sole and Only Agreement. With the exception of the Joint Use Agreement between the City of Temecula and Temecula Valley Unified School District for the Joint Use of a Portion of Temecula Elementary School noted above, this Agreement constitutes the sole and only agreement between District and City respecting the use of the Pool Facilities. Any agreements or representations, either oral or written, respecting the matters discussed in this ME I I086-0007\26571I8vLdoc Agreement pertaining to the Property which are not expressly set forth in this Agreement are null and void. 14. Time of Essence. Time is expressly declared to be of the essence of this Agreement. 15. Authority to Execute. Each person executing this agreement expressly warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of his or her governmental entity and warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to bind his or her entity to the performance of its obligations hereunder. -5- 11086-0007\a6sn 18vLdoc IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA By: Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Temecula Valley Unified School District By: By: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: President of School Board Secretary to School Board By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney DISTRICT Temecula Valley Unified School District 31350 Rancho Vista Road Temecula, CA 92592 Attn: Superintendent PM Initials: Date: -6- 11 086-0007\2657118vl.doc ea n Jwmcgvc Lj 01 _,T,emecula Valiey �yU gh Schoolno- T t — 1.0011- ti F,XHIRIT R CITY USE SCHEDULE Summer Schedule for Temecula Valley High School for City of Temecula Use from June 1, 2022 through August 14, 2022 Monday through Thursday: 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Friday: 6:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday: 6:30 a.m. to 8:00p.m. TVHS will have use of the facility during the following times, however, the City will provide Lifeguard staff during these times: Monday through Thursday: 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. (Staff will arrive at 5:30 a.m.) Friday: 2:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. 11086-0007\2657118v1.doc Item No. 7 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: May 24, 2022 SUBJECT: Adopt List of Projects to be Funded by Senate Bill One (SB 1) for Fiscal Year 2022-23 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Engineering Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 BACKGROUND: Senate Bill One (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the legislature and signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi -modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide. The City of Temecula has been receiving SB-1 revenue from the newly created Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) since Fiscal Year 2017-18. The City is set to receive $2,335,769 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 and $2,570,577 for Fiscal Year 2022-23 based on the latest estimate. The City intends to use SB 1 revenues to supplement the City's pavement rehabilitation program. On March 24, 2021, the California Transportation Commission (CTC) adopted the Local Streets and Roads Funding Program 2021 Reporting Guidelines. Section IV, Project List Submittal, Subsection 9, Content and Format of Project List, of the guidelines states: "Prior to receiving an apportionment of RMRA funds from the Controller in a fiscal year (funds collected from July I to June 30 and apportioned September I to August 31), a city or county must submit to the Commission a list of projects proposed to be funded with these funds pursuant to an adopted resolution by the city council or county board of supervisors at a regular public meeting. Each year, a city or county must adopt and submit to the Commission a project list resolution for the upcoming fiscal year's funds to comply with the eligibility requirements for that fiscal year's apportionment. " For Fiscal Year 2018-19 and subsequent years, in order for an agency to receive SB 1 funds, a list of proposed projects must be submitted to the CTC by May 1, 2018 and every year thereafter pursuant to an annually adopted resolution. In 2021, the CTC extended the deadlines for the submittal of the list of projects to July 1 st. The City does have the ability to change projects from the ones on the list submitted to the CTC. Having this flexibility would enable the City to designate projects that are ready for construction to receive SB 1 RMRA funds. The City have completed the update to the Pavement Management Program (PMP) in 2018. Utilizing the PMP, staff have developed a list of project that will rehabilitate a number of streets in the next few years. This list will be included in the upcoming Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget for Fiscal Years 2023-27. As projects are ready for construction, staff will designate sufficient number of projects to exhaust the SB 1 RMRA funds the City is set to receive annually. FISCAL IMPACT: According to the Local Streets and Roads Funding Program 2021 Reporting Guidelines adopted by the CTC on March 24, 2021, in order to receive SB 1 funds, the City must submit a list of projects for Fiscal Year 2022-23 to the CTC by July 1, 2022. By submitting the list of projects to the CTC by the specified deadline, the City is set to receive approximately $2,570,577 for Fiscal Year 2022-23 from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA) funded by SB 1. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution RESOLUTION NO.2022- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING A LIST OF PROJECTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 FUNDED BY SB 1: THE ROAD REPAIR AND ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 2017 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that: A. Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) was passed by the Legislature and Signed into law by the Governor in April 2017 in order to address the significant multi -modal transportation funding shortfalls statewide; and B. SB 1 includes accountability and transparency provisions that will ensure the residents of the City of Temecula are aware of the projects proposed for funding in our community and which projects have been completed each fiscal year; and C. The City of Temecula must adopt by resolution a list of projects proposed to receive fiscal year funding from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by SB 1, which must include a description and the location of each proposed project, a proposed schedule for the project's completion, and the estimated useful life of the improvement; and D. The City of Temecula will receive an estimated $2,570,577 in RMRA funding in Fiscal Year 2022-23 from SB 1; and E. This is the sixth year in which the City of Temecula is receiving SB 1 funding and will enable the City to continue essential road maintenance and rehabilitation projects, that would not have otherwise been possible without SB 1; and F. The City of Temecula used a Pavement Management Program (PMP) to develop the SB 1 project list to ensure revenues are being used on the most high -priority and cost-effective projects that also meet the communities priorities for transportation investment; and G. The funding from SB 1 will help the City of Temecula maintain and rehabilitate three major streets/roads in the City this year and a number of similar projects into the future; and H. The 2020 California Statewide Local Streets and Roads Needs Assessment found that the City of Temecula streets and roads are in an "good" condition and this revenue will help the City increase the overall quality of our road system and bring "at risk" streets/roads into "good" condition over the next decade; and I. The SB 1 project list and overall investment in our local streets and roads infrastructure with a focus on basic maintenance and safety, investing in complete streets infrastructure, and using cutting -edge technology, materials and practices, will have significant positive co -benefits statewide. Section 2. Adoption of the SB 1 Project List for Fiscal Year 2022-23 A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct. B. The following list of newly proposed projects will be funded in -part or solely with Fiscal Year 2022-23 Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account revenues: 1. Project Title: Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide, PW21-10 Project Description: The roadway rehabilitation shall generally consist of 2 to 4 inches of cold milling and placement of 2 to 4 inches of asphalt concrete. The project also includes the removal and replacement of existing roadway striping, pavement markings, and traffic signal loops, the removal and reconstruction of existing pedestrian ramps in order to comply with current ADA standards, and adjustment of existing utilities to grade. Project Location: Roadway rehabilitation of the full width of Winchester Road from Jefferson Avenue to Enterprise Circle West Estimated Project Schedule: Start (08/2022) — Completion (03/2023) based on the component being funded with RMRA funds Estimated Project Useful Life: 10-20 years 2. Project Title: Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide, PW21-10 Project Description: The roadway rehabilitation shall generally consist of 2 to 4 inches of cold milling and placement of 2 to 4 inches of asphalt concrete. The project also includes the removal and replacement of existing roadway striping, pavement markings, and traffic signal loops, the removal and reconstruction of existing pedestrian ramps in order to comply with current ADA standards, and adjustment of existing utilities to grade. Project Location: Roadway rehabilitation of the full width of Ynez Road from approximately 860 feet north of county Center Drive to the Northern Citylimits Estimated Project Schedule: Start (08/2022) — Completion (03/2023) based on the component being funded with RMRA funds Estimated Project Useful Life: 10-20 years 3. Project Title: Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide, PW21-10 Project Description: The roadway rehabilitation shall generally consist of 2 to 4 inches of cold milling and placement of 2 to 4 inches of asphalt concrete. The project also includes the removal and replacement of existing roadway striping, pavement markings, and traffic signal loops, the removal and reconstruction of existing pedestrian ramps in order to comply with current ADA standards, and adjustment of existing utilities to grade. Project Location: Roadway rehabilitation of the full width of Solana Way between Ynez Road and Margarita Road Estimated Project Schedule: Start (08/2022) — Completion (03/2023) based on the component being funded with RMRA funds Estimated Project Useful Life: 10-20 years 4. Project Title: Pavement Rehabilitation Program — Citywide, PW21-10 Project Description: The roadway rehabilitation shall generally consist of 2 to 4 inches of cold milling and placement of 2 to 4 inches of asphalt concrete. The project also includes the removal and replacement of existing roadway striping, pavement markings, and traffic signal loops, the removal and reconstruction of existing pedestrian ramps in order to comply with current ADA standards, and adjustment of existing utilities to grade. Project Location: Roadway rehabilitation of the full width of Nicolas Road between Winchester Road and North General Kearny Road Estimated Project Schedule: Start (08/2022) — Completion (03/2023) based on the component being funded with RMRA funds Estimated Project Useful Life: 10-20 years Section 3. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 24th day of May, 2022. Matt Rahn, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] 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. 2022- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 24th day of May, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Item No. 8 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works / City Engineer DATE: May 24, 2022 SUBJECT: Approve the Initial Study and Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Diaz Road Expansion Project, PW17-25 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Engineering Manager Avlin R. Odviar, Senior Civil Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Approve the Initial Study (IS) and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Diaz Road Expansion Project, PW17-25; and 2. Direct the Public Works Director to file the Notice of Determination (NOD) BACKGROUND: The Diaz Road Expansion project (Project), includes development and construction of improvements along Diaz Road, between Rancho California Road and Cherry Street, bringing it to its ultimate Major Arterial classification. Design and construction will take place in two phases with Phase 1 covering Diaz Road from Rancho California Road to Winchester Road and Phase 2 covering Diaz Road from Winchester Road to Cherry Street. The subject environmental document encompasses both phases. A project Initial Study (IS) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The IS characterizes the following environmental factors as being subject to "No Impact" and/or "Less Than Significant Impact" by the Project: • Aesthetics • Agricultural and Forestry Resources • Air Quality • Energy • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards & Hazardous Materials • Hydrology / Water Quality • Land Use / Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population / Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation • Utilities / Service Systems • Wildfire The IS identifies the following environmental factors as being subject to "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" by the Project: • Biological Resources: Potential impacts to Burrowing Owls, Least Bell's Vireo, nesting birds, riparian habitat, and other sensitive natural communities will be mitigated through a combination of measures including pre -construction surveys, avoidance of active burrows/nests, delineation of work limits, avoidance of certain construction activities during nesting season(s), biological monitoring, acoustical monitoring, worker education, restricted work hours, sound attenuation for heavy equipment, implementation of BMPs, pre -construction tree surveys, restriction of plant species, payment of impact fees, compensatory mitigation, on- or off -site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation. • Cultural Resources (incl. Tribal): Potential impacts to archaeological resources and human remains will be mitigated through a combination of measures including development of a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Program, monitoring of ground -disturbing activities by a qualified archaeological monitor and Pechanga tribal monitor, and coordination with the Riverside County Coroner and the Native American most likely descendant(s). • Geology/Soils: Potential impacts related to ground shaking, liquefaction, soil stability, and paleontological feature(s) will be mitigated through a combination of measures including performing a site -specific geotechnical investigation, preparation of a paleontological resource monitoring and mitigation plan, and monitoring of excavations by a qualified paleontologist. Under CEQA guidelines, the Initial Study determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) be completed for the Project. The MND includes mitigations measures to reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant. Details of the proposed mitigation measures are included in the attached Final IS-MND. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted on January 31, 2022. The corresponding public review comment period commenced on January 31, 2022 and concluded on March 1, 2022. Signs were placed on the project site and a notice was placed in the local newspaper. The City received written comments from Eastern Municipal Water District, Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, and Riverside Transit Agency. The Final IS-MND was provided to commenting agencies in compliance with State Law. FISCAL IMPACT: The Diaz Road Expansion Project is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for Fiscal Years 2022-26, and is funded with DIF (Street Improvements), Measure S, and TUMF (WRCOG). There are sufficient funds in the project account to cover the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Mitigated Negative Declaration fee of $2,598.00 (includes $50.00 County filing fee). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Final Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration 2. Notice of Determination 3. Project Description Diaz Road Extension Project Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2022 | 00207.00012.001 Submitted to: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Prepared for: David Evans and Associates, Inc. 41951 Remington Ave., Suite 220 Temecula, CA 92590 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 16485 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 This page intentionally left blank i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 Project Information .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Initial Study Information Sheet ........................................................................................... 1 1.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ....................................................................... 4 1.3 Determination ..................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts .............................................................................................. 6 3.0 Environmental Checklist .................................................................................................................. 8 I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................ 8 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................................................................. 10 III. Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 12 IV. Biological Resources ......................................................................................................... 17 V. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 32 VI. Energy ............................................................................................................................... 35 VII. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................................. 37 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................... 41 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................... 44 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ........................................................................................... 47 XI. Land Use and Planning ...................................................................................................... 50 XII. Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................ 51 XIII. Noise ................................................................................................................................. 52 XIV. Population and Housing .................................................................................................... 54 XV. Public Services................................................................................................................... 55 XVI. Recreation ......................................................................................................................... 56 XVII. Transportation .................................................................................................................. 57 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 62 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................ 63 XX. Wildfire ............................................................................................................................. 65 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance .................................................................................. 67 4.0 References ..................................................................................................................................... 70 5.0 Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND .................................................................................... 72 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) LIST OF APPENDICES A Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Energy Impact Assessment B General Biological Resources Assessment C Cultural Resources Study D Geotechnical Exploration E Paleontological Technical Study F Phase I Environmental Site Assessment G Acoustical Analysis Report H Traffic Impact Analysis I Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis J Native American Consultation Correspondence K Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Follows Page 1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................................... 2 2 USGS Topography ......................................................................................................................... 2 3 Aerial Photograph ......................................................................................................................... 2 LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 1 SCAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Thresholds ..................................................................... 14 2 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions ........................................................................................ 15 3 Maximum Localized Daily Construction Emissions ........................................................................ 16 4 Impacts to Vegetation and Land Uses ........................................................................................... 24 5 Impacts to CDFW Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................ 24 6 Impacts to USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction ......................................................................................... 26 7 Impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas .................................................................................. 29 8 Construction Energy Consumption ................................................................................................ 36 9 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................... 42 10 Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................................................ 43 11 Existing Intersection Operations .................................................................................................... 58 12 Existing Roadway Segment Operations ......................................................................................... 58 13 Long-Term Year 2040 Intersection Operations.............................................................................. 59 14 Long-Term Year 2040 Roadway Segment Operations ................................................................... 60 iii ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill Agreement Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement APE Area of Potential Effect AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMPs Best Management Practices Btu British thermal unit BUOW Burrowing Owl CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAP Climate Action Plan CARB California Air Resources Board CAS Climate Action Strategies CASSA Criteria Area Species Survey Area CBC California Building Code CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CGS California Geological Survey CH4 methane CIP Capital Improvement Program CMP Congestion Management Plan CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CO carbon monoxide CO2 carbon dioxide CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent CRPR California Rare Plant Rank CWA Clean Water Act dBA A-weighted decibels DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GHG greenhouse gas GWP global warming potential HFCs hydrofluorocarbons IBC International Building Code LBVI Least Bell’s Vireo LEQ one-hour equivalent LOS level of service iv ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS (cont.) LRA Local Responsibility Area LST Localized Significance Threshold MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MBtu million Btu MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan MT metric tons N2O nitrous oxide NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NEPSSA Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area NOX oxides of nitrogen NSLU noise-sensitive land use NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PFCs perfluorocarbons PM particulate matter PPV peak particle velocity PRMMP paleontological resource monitoring and mitigation plan RCA Regional Conservation Authority RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SB Senate Bill SCAB South Coast Air Basin SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SLF Sacred Lands File SOX oxides of sulfur SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SSC Species of Special Concern SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board SWFL Southwestern Willow Flycatcher TAC toxic air contaminant TCA traditionally culturally affiliated TIA Traffic Impact Analysis USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v ACRONYMS & ABBREVIATIONS (cont.) VHFHSZ Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled VOCs volatile organic compounds WQMP Water Quality Management Plan vi This page intentionally left blank Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 1 1.0 Project Information 1.1 Initial Study Information Sheet 1. Project Title: Diaz Road Expansion Project 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Temecula, 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 3. Contact person and phone number: Avlin Odviar, P.E., Senior Civil Engineer (951) 693-3969 4. Project location: The approximately 2.2-linear mile project site is bordered by Rancho California Road to the south, Cherry Street to the north, and Murrieta Creek to the east (see Figure 1, Regional Location, and Figure 2, USGS Topography). 5. Project sponsor’s name and address: City of Temecula 6. General plan designation: N/A 7. Zoning: N/A 8. Description of project: The Diaz Road Expansion Project (project) is located in the northwestern portion of the City of Temecula (City) in Riverside County, California (refer to Figure 1, Regional Location). The project proposes to improve Diaz Road to meet the roadway classification requirements of a major arterial with four divided lanes, as specified by City Standard No. 101, between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road. The standards call for a 100-foot minimum right-of-way, 76-foot roadway with a 14-foot raised median, and 12-foot parkways on each side of the road. The approximately 2.2-mile segment would be improved on its current horizontal alignment and as depicted in the City’s General Plan, Circulation Element, Figure C-2 Roadway Plan. As such, the proposed project would widen the existing Diaz Road segment and extend the northwestern end of Cherry Street. The project would complete the City’s only existing north-south corridor west of Murrieta Creek. North of Cherry Street, this north-south corridor is planned to continue as Washington Avenue within the City of Murrieta. The project site encompasses the existing Diaz Road segment between Rancho California Road and Cherry Street and the adjacent areas into which the roadways would be widened (refer to Figure 2, USGS Topography, and Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). At the northernmost end of the project site (north of Dendy Parkway), Diaz Road transitions to an unimproved dirt road. All widening activities would occur on the northeast side of Diaz Road, which would infringe upon public walking and biking pathways associated with the Murrieta Creek Regional Trail, as well as several small fenced/walled enclosures containing existing utility and water infrastructure (i.e., wells, piping, tanks, and small outbuildings). With the exception of the small outbuildings in these utility enclosures, there are no existing buildings on the project site. Land uses at the project site include mostly existing public roadway, a small portion of dirt road, portions of an adjoining public walking/biking pathway, and Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 2 some undeveloped land. Land uses in the vicinity of the project site consist of industrial and commercial developments to the west and south, Murrieta Creek and public walking/biking pathways to the northeast, and mostly undeveloped land to the north. The elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 1,000 to 1,040 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and the topography is relatively flat as a graded roadway, with an overall downward slope toward the southeast, and some localized sloping toward Murrieta Creek, which is located 200 feet to the northeast. Signing and striping improvements for intersecting streets would be provided to the extent necessary to safely transition lane configurations and turning movements to existing improvements. These improvements would be in accordance with the latest edition(s) of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and the City’s requirements and specifications. Signal modifications would be needed at the intersection of Winchester Road and Rancho Way to accommodate revised turning movements and the Diaz Road widening. Landscape and planting improvements would include decorative rock, boulders and hardscape improvements for the center median, easterly parkway, and westerly parkway where existing landscape improvements do not exist. The median and parkway improvements would be in accordance with the City’s landscape guidelines. In addition, streetlights would be installed as appropriate according to the City’s design standards for type, location, and spacing. Storm drains would also be installed as appropriate along the expanded roadway to include catch basins and low impact development improvements. Construction is anticipated to begin in Fall 2022 and last approximately 16 months. Construction activities would include site preparation, demolition of existing roadway, grading, installation of drainage and utilities, retaining walls, and paving. During construction, material such as vegetation, soil, old asphalt and concrete may be exported from the site and material such as soil, aggregate, asphalt and concrete may be imported to the site. Construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) would include maintaining existing slope stabilization measures, stabilizing all slopes greater than three feet in height, and providing inlet protection, gravel bags, and silt fences where applicable. In addition, a Traffic Control Plan would be implemented during construction of the project to maintain traffic flow and safety during project construction activities. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The approximately 2.2 linear mile project site is bordered by Rancho California Road to the south, Cherry Street to the north, and Murrieta Creek to the east. The walking/biking pathway adjoining northeast of Diaz Road and several small walled/fenced enclosures containing utility and water company infrastructure are along the northeast side of Diaz Road at several locations between Rancho California Road and Cherry Street. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement): State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB): National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit) 11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan San B e r n a r d i n o M o u n t a i n s !!!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! Littl e S a n B e r n a ! ! ! O R A N G E C O San t ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! A U N a TY na M o u n t a i n s ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! rdi San J no M o u n a t cin t o M ains ou n t a i n s ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ?å Big Bear Lake ?ø SAN BERNARDINO ONTARIO ?¥ ! ! !?a Diaz Road Expansion Project AÔ CoyoteLake MesquiLake te YUCCAVALLEY ?¡ TWENTYNINEPALMS !"`$%&h( ?RIVER zSIDE !"a$ NORCO MORENOVALLEY !! AÆ?lvord ?z!SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY !"`$ BANNING ?¡!"`$ CORONA LakeMathews %&h( !"a$PERRIS \PROJECTS\D\DEA\DEA-12_DiazRd\Map\NAHC\Fig1_Regional.mxd DEA-12 4/21/2020 - RK AÎ !LeeLake ?± E LAKE CanyonLSINORE Lake E Lakelsinore MISSIONVIEJO %&h( !"a$ A MURRIETA ?± C SANLEMENTE Project Site !"^$ PacificOcean CAMPPENDLETON PerrisReservo ?± ?¹ EMECU ?³!BEAUMONT ir ?¹ AÐ SAN JACINTO SPRPAILMNGS ?¹ AÙ HEMET PALM DESERT COACHELLA DiamondValley Lake !"`$ HemeLake t LakeCahuill?± a Skinner ?±Reservoir ?¿ !!A A¨ AÙñ T LA VailLake Salton Sea !"a$?¹ RIVERSIDE COUNTY ?¿ SAN DIEGO COUNTY O'NeillLake Clark Lake I:0 10 Miles K Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013) Regional Location Figure 1 \GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\BUOW\Fig2_USGS.mxd DEA-12 10/13/2020 - SAB H: Diaz Road Expansion Project Project Site Source: MURRIETA & TEMECULA 7.5' Quad (USGS) Figure 2 USGS Topography 2,000 Feet K 0 \PROJECTS\D\DEA\DEA-12_DiazRd\Map\NAHC\Fig3_Aerial.mxdDEA-12 10/2/2020 -RK I: Diaz Road Expansion Project Project Site WINCHESTER RD WINCHESTER RD OVERLAND DR JE F F E R S O N A V E YN E Z R D AVENIDA ALVARADO DENDY PKWY REMINGTON AVE ZEVO DR RIO NEDO JEFF E R S O N A V E DE L R I O R D BUSI N E S S P A R K D R RANCHO CALIFORNIA R D VINCENT MORAGA DR DIA Z RD ENTER P R I S E C I R AD A M S A V E CHERRY ST !"a$ Source: Aerial (RCIT 2016)0 800 Feet K Figure 3 Aerial Photograph Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 3 for consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.? The City provided formal notification for the proposed project under AB 52 on June 30, 2020 to 17 tribal contacts. Responses were received from six tribes; Pechanga and Rincon both formally requested to begin consultation. The Juaneño Band of Mission Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians both deferred to Pechanga. The Quechan Indian Tribe and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians deferred to local tribes without naming a specific tribe. During AB 52 consultation, the draft of this cultural resources study was provided to Pechanga and Rincon for review and comment, as was the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Rincon indicated they agreed with the mitigation measures and had no further comments. Pechanga provided minor comments/ revisions to the detailed mitigation measures in the IS/MND; their comments have been incorporated. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022  4  1.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected The environmental factors checked below (  ) would be potentially affected by this project, involving  at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Less than Significant With Mitigation  Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.   Aesthetics  Agricultural and Forestry  Resources   Air Quality   Biological Resources  Cultural Resources  Energy   Geology/Soils  Greenhouse Gas Emissions    Hazards & Hazardous  Materials   Hydrology/Water  Quality   Land Use/Planning  Mineral Resources   Noise  Population/Housing  Public Services   Recreation  Transportation  Tribal Cultural Resources   Utilities/Service  Systems   Wildfire  Mandatory Findings of  Significance  Diaz Road Expansion Project | January 2022 5 1.3 Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: ☐ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☒ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Printed name For Avlin R. Odviar, Project Manager January 25, 2022 Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 6 2.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in item 5 below, may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063©(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 7 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 8 3.0 Environmental Checklist I. Aesthetics Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?     b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?     c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?     d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?     a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than Significant Impact. A scenic vista is generally defined as a view of undisturbed natural lands exhibiting a unique or unusual feature that comprises an important or dominant portion of the viewshed for the benefit of the general public. Temecula’s natural setting offers a variety of vistas and viewsheds. The City of Temecula General Plan Community Design Element designates the southern, eastern, and western rolling hills surrounding the City, as well as Murrieta and Temecula Creeks, as significant natural features, and indicates that public views of these features should be protected and enhanced. However, no scenic vistas are listed in the city’s General Plan. Views of the hillsides are available to vehicular passengers and pedestrians traveling along Diaz Road within the project alignment. The General Plan explains that all public or private development projects are subject to City review to ensure that they will not obstruct public views of scenic resources, and projects may be subject to redesign or height limitations if it is determined that development would block public views. The project would encroach upon portions of the adjacent Murrieta Creek Regional Use Trail northeast of Diaz Road and project development would introduce paved surfaces and related roadway improvements to some previously undeveloped land. The presence of construction equipment would be temporary and would not substantially impact the viewshed. The project, once constructed, would be consistent with the surrounding development and views to Murrieta Creek would not be significantly obstructed. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 9 b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The project is not located within a designated scenic highway corridor. The project is located near Interstate 15 (I-15), which is designated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) as an Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, it is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway (Caltrans 2015). Due to the distance and topography, the project would not be visible to those traveling on I-15. In addition, the proposed project would not involve damage to scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings as none occur within or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway. c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located in a primarily urbanized area. The project would result in a temporary change of appearance along the project alignment during construction. Construction equipment, fencing/signage, vehicles, and soil stockpiles in the construction work and staging areas would be visible predominately to those traveling along Diaz Road. These impacts would be temporary. Permanent changes to the existing visual character of the alignment would occur from the project’s addition of a wider roadway, lighting poles, street signals, storm drains, and sidewalks. These components would change the area’s visual character by adding development to non-developed portions of the project alignment consistent with the existing roadway and urbanized nature of the project site and adjacent commercial uses. These roadway improvement changes, however, would not drastically alter the use or general character of the existing roadway corridor, which is mostly developed, and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of quality of the area. Landscaping and planting improvements would include decorative rock, boulders and hardscape improvements for the center median, easterly parkway, and westerly parkway where existing landscape improvements do not exist. In addition, the improved roadway would be of similar character to other roadways in the area. Therefore, impacts after construction would be less than significant. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less than Significant Impact. Project construction lighting would be directed to the work site to avoid unnecessary spill and would provide a level of lighting that is appropriate for work and safety for workers. Construction lighting would be shielded and/or directed away from sensitive receptors to minimize lighting impacts during construction. The proposed roadway expansion includes the addition of new streetlights along Diaz Road, which could generate additional light and glare in the area. However, the lighting would be directed downward to confine potential glare. Project design would conform to the City’s Municipal Code and County of Riverside Palomar Light Pollution Ordinance No. 655. Therefore, impacts from lighting and glare would be less than significant. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 10 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use?     b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?     c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526 (g)), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g))?     d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?     e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?     a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact. The project site is located in an urbanized, developed area. According to the California Department of Conservation’s California Important Farmland Finder, the project site is classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land,” which does not contain agricultural uses or areas designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation 2016). As a result, the project would not result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. As discussed above in Item II.a, the project site is in a developed area where there are no farmlands or agricultural resources. Land uses in the vicinity of the project site consist of industrial and Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 11 commercial developments to the west and south, Murrieta Creek and public walking/biking pathways to the northeast, and mostly undeveloped land to the north. The project site is not eligible for designation under a Williamson Act contract. The areas surrounding the project site are developed with urban or suburban uses and do not support existing Williamson Act contracts. The land does not include existing Williamson Act contracts (California Department of Conservation 2013). As a result, no impacts would occur. c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section l 2220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. As discussed above in item II.b, the project site is in a developed area where there is no farmland. The project site and surrounding area does not support agricultural activities. As such, the proposed project would not involve changes that would result in the conversion of farmland to non- agricultural use. Therefore, there would be no impact. d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. As discussed above in item II.c, the project site is located in a developed area where there are no farmlands or forest resources. Additionally, the project would largely occur on existing paved or graded surfaces. The project site and surrounding area are classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land” and are not zoned as forest land, timberlands, or timberland zoned Timberland Production (California Department of Conservation 2016). As such, the proposed project would not result in a loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. Therefore, there would be no impact. e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would have no impact on agriculture and/or forestry resources. The project site is within developed areas where there are no farmlands or forest resources. The project site and surrounding areas are classified as “Urban and Built-Up Land,” which do not contain agricultural uses or areas designated Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (California Department of Conservation 2016). Furthermore, there are no Williamson Act contracts or forest lands in the project vicinity (California Department of Conservation 2013). There would be no changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location and nature, would result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use with implementation of the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 12 III. Air Quality Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?     b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?     c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?     d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people)?     The following analysis is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Letter Report prepared for the proposed project by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX; 2020a; Appendix A). a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange counties. Air quality in the SCAB is regulated by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), County transportation commissions, and local governments, as well as cooperates actively with all federal and state government agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. It has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). An AQMP establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at attaining the National Ambient Air Quality Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The regional plan applicable to the proposed project is the SCAQMD’s AQMP. The latest AQMP was adopted in March of 2017 (SCAQMD 2017). SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties, and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, economy, community development, and environment. Regarding air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), a long-range transportation plan that uses growth forecasts to project trends over a 20-year period to identify regional transportation Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 13 strategies to address mobility needs. These growth forecasts form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. These documents are utilized in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the AQMP. Both the RTP/SCS and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with County and City General Plans. The two principal criteria for conformance to the AQMP are (1) whether a project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations, cause or contribute to new violations, or delay timely attainment of air quality standards; and (2) whether a project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP (SCAQMD 1993). With respect to the first criterion, the analyses described under response III.b, below, demonstrate that the project would not generate short-term or long-term emissions that could potentially cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay timely attainment of air quality standards. With respect to the second criterion, the proposed project is improving and widening a roadway and would not result in population or employment increases and, therefore, would not exceed the growth projections assumptions in the AQMP. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the City General Plan Circulation Element roadway design guidelines. The project would support the City General Plan Policy 3.3 by providing Class II bicycle lanes along both sides of Diaz Road, and Policy 3.5 by providing space for future bus stops along Diaz Road. Because the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the growth assumptions used in developing the AQMP, pursuant to SCAQMD guidelines, the proposed project is considered consistent with the region’s AQMP. As such, proposed project-related emissions are accounted for in the AQMP, which is crafted to bring the basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants. Accordingly, the proposed project would be consistent with the emissions projections in the AQMP, thus resulting in a less than significant impact. b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less than Significant Impact. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), the SCAQMD’s approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the federal and State Clean Air Acts. If a project is not consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the SCAB into attainment for all criteria pollutants, that project can be considered cumulatively considerable. Additionally, if the mass regional emissions calculated for a project exceed the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds that are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards, that project can be considered cumulatively considerable. The SCAQMD thresholds of significance for construction and operational air emissions are shown in Table 1, SCAQMD Criteria Air Pollutant Emission Thresholds. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 14 Table 1 SCAQMD CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSION THRESHOLDS Criteria Pollutant Emission Threshold (pounds per day) Construction Emission Threshold (pounds per day) Operation Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 75 55 Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 100 55 Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550 Particulate Matter (PM10) 150 150 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) 550 55 Oxides of Sulfur (SOX) 150 150 Lead 3 3 Source: SCAQMD 2019 Construction Impacts The project’s construction emissions were estimated using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s (SMAQMD) Roadway Construction Emissions Model (RCEM), version 9.0 (SMAQMD 2018). This model utilizes 2017 EMFAC factors and OFFROAD factors to calculate vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust emissions. Fugitive dust emissions are calculated estimating the maximum area (acres) of land disturbed daily. Roadway widening construction would disturb a total of 12 acres of currently undeveloped land over an approximately 16-month period (352 working days). Project-specific input was based on general project information, assumptions provided by the project civil engineer, and default model settings to estimate reasonably conservative conditions. Construction would commence as early as Fall 2022 and require approximately 16 months to complete. Construction activities would include site preparation, demolition of existing roadway, grading, installation of drainage and utilities, retaining walls, and paving. During construction, material such as vegetation, soil, old asphalt and concrete may be exported from the site and material such as soil, aggregate, asphalt and concrete may be imported to the site. The emissions generated from construction activities would include dust (particulate matter less than 10 microns [PM10] and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns [PM2.5]), primarily from fugitive sources such as soil disturbance and vehicle travel over unpaved surfaces, and combustion emissions of air pollutants (reactive organic gas [ROG], nitrogen oxides [NOX], PM10, PM2.5, carbon monoxide (CO), and sulfur oxides [SOX]), primarily from operation of heavy-duty off-road equipment. Emission estimates assume the use of water trucks, yielding a 50 percent control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures. The results of the calculations for project construction are shown in Table 2, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the SCAQMD thresholds. As shown in the table, construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 15 Table 2 MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Phase VOC* NOX* CO* SO2* PM10* PM2.5* Site Preparation/Land Clearing 1.4 18.1 12.2 <0.1 10.8 2.7 Grading/Excavation 6.0 68.3 49.0 0.1 12.9 4.6 Underground Drainage/Utilities 3.5 36.9 31.7 <0.1 11.7 3.6 Paving 1.6 16.3 19.1 <0.1 0.8 0.7 Maximum Daily Emissions 6.0 68.3 49.0 0.1 12.9 4.6 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No Source: HELIX 2020a VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District * Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Operational Impacts The project proposes widening and improving an existing roadway and would only generate emissions during construction in the near term. Because the project would result in additional lanes on Diaz Road and, therefore, increase the total available miles of roadways in the region, the TIA concluded that the project would result in a regional increase in vehicles miles traveled (VMT) of 7,277 miles in the year 2040 (DEA 2020b). The calculated maximum daily emissions as a result of the increase in VMT would be less than 0.1 pounds per day for all pollutants and would not exceed any of the SCAQMD emission thresholds. Therefore, the project’s operational criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Impacts would be less than significant. c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Criteria Pollutants Impacts to sensitive receptors would have the potential to occur as a result of criteria pollutant and toxic air contaminant (TAC) emissions during construction. The localized effects from the on-site portion of daily construction emissions were evaluated at sensitive receptor locations potentially impacted by the project according to the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) method (SCAQMD 2009). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; they are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each Source Receptor Area (SRA). The LST methodology is recommended to be limited to projects of five acres or less and to avoid the need for complex dispersion modeling. For projects that exceed five acres, such as the proposed project, the five-acre LST look-up values can be used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants require detailed analysis. This approach is conservative as it assumes that all on-site emissions would occur within a five-acre area and over-predicts potential localized impacts (i.e., more pollutant emissions occurring within a smaller area and within closer proximity to potential sensitive receptors). If a project exceeds the LST look up values, then the SCAQMD recommends that project- specific localized air quality modeling be performed. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 16 The project is in SRA 26, Temecula Valley, and sensitive receptors are located within 500 meters (1,640 feet) south of the 2.2-mile long project site. Therefore, the LSTs being applied to the project are based on SRA 26, receptors located within 500 meters, and a disturbed area not to exceed 5 acres to provide a conservative analysis as noted above. Consistent with the LST guidelines, when quantifying mass emissions for localized analysis, only emissions that occur on-site are considered. Emissions related to off-site delivery/haul truck activity and construction worker trips are not considered in the evaluation of construction-related localized impacts, as these do not contribute to emissions generated on a project site. As shown in Table 3, Maximum Localized Daily Construction Emissions, localized emissions for all criteria pollutants would remain below their respective SCAQMD LSTs. Table 3 MAXIMUM LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Phase NOX* CO* PM10* PM2.5* Site Preparation/Land Clearing 1.3 10.5 10.6 2.6 Grading/Excavation 5.8 45.7 12.7 4.5 Underground Drainage/Utilities 3.3 29.2 11.5 3.5 Paving 1.5 17.4 0.7 0.7 Maximum Daily Emissions 5.8 45.7 13.7 4.5 SCAQMD LSTs 1,072 29,265 207 105 Significant Impact? No No No No Source: HELIX 2020a NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter; PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; LST = Localized Significance Threshold * Pollutant Emissions (pounds/day) Toxic Air Contaminants The greatest potential for TAC emissions during construction would be related to diesel particulate matter associated with heavy equipment operations during earth-moving activities. SCAQMD does not consider diesel-related cancer risks from construction equipment to be an issue due to the short-term nature of construction activities. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would be sporadic, transitory, and short term in nature, lasting approximately 16 months. The closest sensitive receptors to the project site are multi- and single-family homes approximately 1,600 feet south of Rancho California Road (the southernmost extent of the proposed roadway improvements). The assessment of cancer risk is typically based on a 30-year exposure period. Because exposure to diesel exhaust would be well below the 30-year exposure period, construction of the proposed project is not anticipated to result in an elevated cancer risk to exposed persons. As such, project-emission impacts during construction would be less than significant. As relates to long-term operations, the expanded roadway would not notably increase the number or frequency of truck trips or associated emission in the immediate area compared to existing conditions, as truck activity would not be generated by the project. Rather, some trucks may utilize the expanded right of way along Diaz Road for localized trips that would otherwise have occurred on other nearby roadways. While the truck activity in the immediate area of the project site could be incrementally increased due to the expanded traffic capacity, the increase would not result in a notable increase in the concentration of TACs that could adversely affect sensitive population. As such, operational impacts would also be less than significant. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 17 d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors adversely affecting a substantial number of people)? Less than Significant Impact. The project could produce odors during proposed construction activities resulting from heavy diesel equipment exhaust and application of asphalt; however, standard construction practices would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. The increase of construction odors would be minimal, as vehicle exhaust is already prevalent in the area due to its proximity to I-15. Furthermore, any odors emitted during construction would be temporary, short- term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the completion of the respective phase of construction. Therefore, odor impacts from construction of the project would be less than significant due to the duration of exposure. The project proposes widening and improvement of an existing roadway. Odors generated by traffic on the improved portion of Diaz Road would be similar to existing odors from traffic on streets and highways in the area. Therefore, long-term operation of the project would not result in a change to existing odors in the project vicinity, and there would be no impact. IV. Biological Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?     b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?     c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?     d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?     Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 18 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Conflict with any applicable policies protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?     f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?     The following analysis is based on the General Biological Resources Assessment (GBRA) prepared for the proposed project by HELIX in July 2021 (Appendix B). a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The discussion presented under the subheadings below addresses the potential impacts to the various sensitive habitats or species in the project area. Rare Plant Species According to the database search results presented in the project GBRA (Appendix B of this Draft IS/MND), total of 17 of the 29 rare plant species recorded within the vicinity of the study area were not considered to have a potential to occur based on geographic range, elevation range, and/or lack of suitable habitat (see Appendix E of the GBRA). Of the remaining 12 species, nine of the species with a potential to occur are either fully or conditionally covered species under the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The species include Coulter’s goldfields, little mousetail, long-spined spineflower, Orcutt’s brodiaea, Parry’s spineflower, prostrate vernal pool navarretia, San Diego ambrosia, spreading navarretia, and vernal barley. Since the study area is not located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) or Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA), focused surveys were not warranted, and project impacts (if present) would be covered. One Riparian/Riverine plant species (smooth tarplant) was observed within Drainage A2.1 in the northern portion of the study area. Smooth tarplant is a conditionally covered species under the MSHCP. Surveys for this species are required if a project occurs within a CASSA 1, 2,3, or 4. Since the study area is not located within a CASSA, impacts to this species would be covered under the MSHCP. Two species (alkali marsh aster and San Bernardino aster) are considered to have a low potential to occur in the study area and are not covered under the MSHCP. Alkali marsh aster is a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 2B.2 species and San Bernardino aster is a CRPR 1B.2 species. Although potentially suitable habitat is present, these two species are not expected to occur since records within the vicinity of the study area are historical records from the early 1900s. There are no recent observations of alkali marsh aster in Riverside County. The most recent observation of San Bernardino aster in Riverside County was 2015 in the San Jacinto Mountains, approximately 29 miles to the northeast of the project site. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 19 Sensitive Animal Species Of the 29 sensitive animal species recorded within the vicinity of the study area, 15 species were considered to have no potential to occur on the study area due to lack of suitable habitat (see Appendix F). Therefore, no significant impacts to these 15 sensitive wildlife species are anticipated by the project. Fourteen of the remaining 29 species (in addition to the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher [SWFL]) were determined to have a potential to occur on the study area. Potential project impacts to these species are discussed in detail below. Low Potential Species Four species have a low potential to occur based on the presence of low quality and isolated habitat, limited acreage of habitat, surrounding development, and lack of recent observations within the immediate vicinity of the study area. These species include coast range newt, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, Swainson’s hawk (foraging potential only), and western mastiff bat (foraging potential only). The project would have a low potential to affect these species. Coast range newt, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, and Swainson’s hawk are fully covered species under the MSHCP. With payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF), no additional mitigation is required for potential impacts to these species. Western mastiff bat is not an MSHCP covered species and does not carry a federal or state listing as threatened or endangered. This species is listed as a Species of Special Concern (SSC) by CDFW. The study area does not support suitable roosting habitat for this species. There is some potential for foraging habitat on the study area, although the habitat is considered low quality based on the presence of surrounding development. The nearest observation recorded on the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was made in 2001, approximately 0.25 mile to the southeast of the study area. Based on the presence of surrounding development, lack of recent observations, and absence of suitable roosting habitat, no significant impacts to western mastiff bat are anticipated by the project. Moderate Potential Species Six species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur based on the presence of suitable habitat and recent observations within the vicinity of the study area. These include red diamond rattlesnake, Southern California legless lizard, southwestern pond turtle, Stevens Kangaroo Rat (SKR), two-striped gartersnake, and western spadefoot. Red diamond rattlesnake, southwestern pond turtle, and western spadefoot are fully covered species under the MSHCP. With payment of the MSHCP LDMF, no additional mitigation is required for potential impacts to these species. SKR is a fully covered species under the MSHCP. In addition, the study area is located within the SKR HCP and is required to pay an SKR mitigation fee for incidental take authorization under the SKR HCP. Southern California legless lizard and two-striped gartersnake are SSC and are not covered species under the MSHCP. Although the study area supports potentially suitable habitat for these species, the habitat is considered low quality due to its small extent and heavily disturbed surrounding areas. The project would impact less than 0.5 acre of potentially suitable habitat, which overlaps with CDFW jurisdictional areas. Since the study area supports low quality habitat, the study area is not expected Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 20 to support large populations of these species. If present, a loss of a few individuals would not be expected to reduce regional population numbers. Impacts to these species would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are considered required. High Potential Species Coastal whiptail and white-tailed kite are fully covered species under the MSHCP. With payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF), no additional mitigation is required for potential impacts to these species. Potential direct and/or indirect impacts to white-tailed kite during the nesting season (January 15 through August 31) would be avoided by implementing Measure BIO-3. Presumed Absent Burrowing Owl (BUOW) and SWFL are conditionally covered species under the MSHCP. Focused surveys were conducted in 2020. Survey results were negative, and these species are presumed absent from the study area (Appendices G and I of the GBRA). Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts are anticipated to these species. Since the study area supports suitable habitat for BUOW, focused surveys were conducted in accordance with the County’s survey protocol (2006). No BUOWs or BUOW sign were observed on the study area during the focused survey; therefore, BUOW is currently presumed absent from the study area. However, consistent with the requirements of the MSCHP, a measure requiring a pre- construction survey and avoidance of active nests and/or relocation of BUOW (if BUOWs are observed) is included as Mitigation Measure BIO-1 below. With the implementation of Measure BIO-1, the project would not result in significant impacts to BUOW. Presumed Present Least Bell’s Vireo (LBVI) is a federally and state endangered species and an MSHCP conditionally covered species. Since the study area supports suitable habitat, focused surveys were conducted during the 2020 season in accordance with USFWS’ survey protocol (2001). Four males and one pair were observed within the study area (see Appendix H of the GBRA). The project would not permanently or temporarily impact suitable LBVI habitat (Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland, arroyo willow thicket). However, LBVI was observed within the study area. Since project construction could have indirect impacts to LBVI that occupy habitat adjacent to Diaz Road, an avoidance/minimization measure is provided as Measure BIO-2 below, to avoid potential indirect impacts to LBVI during construction. The measure requires construction activities to be conducted outside of the LBVI nesting season (September 1 through March 14), as feasible. If construction activities are proposed within the nesting season (March 15 through August 31), weekly pre- construction surveys must be conducted ahead of project construction and a 300-foot avoidance buffer from occupied habitat must be established if LBVI are observed. If construction is proposed within the 300-foot buffer, a biological monitor would be required at all times and would have the authority to stop work. Additionally, daily noise monitoring would be required. Noise levels at the edge of occupied LBVI habitat may not exceed 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA), or an hourly average increase of 3 dBA if existing ambient noise levels already exceed 60 dBA. Please see Measure BIO-2 for more details. With the implementation of Measure BIO-2, the project would not result in significant impacts to LBVI. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 21 Mitigation Measures Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce potentially significant impacts to sensitive species and habitats to a less-than-significant level: BIO-1 Burrowing Owl: In compliance with the MSHCP, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted on the study area within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to determine presence of burrowing owls. If the pre-construction survey is negative and burrowing owl is confirmed absent, then ground-disturbing activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) shall be allowed to commence and no further mitigation would be required. If BUOW is observed during the pre-construction survey, active burrows shall be avoided by the project in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) or CDFW’s most recent guidelines. The Project Proponent shall immediately inform the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) of BUOW observations. A BUOW Protection and Relocation Plan (plan) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist, which must be sent for approval by RCA prior to initiating ground disturbance. The RCA will coordinate directly with CDFW as needed to ensure that the plan is consistent with the MSHCP and CDFW guidelines. The plan shall detail avoidance measures that shall be implemented during construction and passive or active relocation methodology. Relocation shall only occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 through January 31). The RCA may require translocation sites to be created within the MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies. If required, the translocation sites must take into consideration unoccupied habitat areas, presence of burrowing mammals, existing colonies, and effects to other MSHCP Covered Species in order to successfully create suitable habitat for BUOW. The translocation sites must be developed in consultation with RCA. If required, translocation sites would also be described in the agency-approved plan. BIO-2 Least Bell’s Vireo: Due to presence of LBVI in the vicinity of the study area, the following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented to avoid potential impacts: (1) To the extent feasible, construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) shall occur outside of the nesting season for LBVI (September 1 through March 14). (2) If construction activities are proposed within the LBVI nesting season (March 15 through August 31), the following measures (a. through g.) shall be implemented to avoid potential indirect impacts. (a) At the start of each new stretch of construction, weekly limits will be identified by the contractor, and a qualified biologist will conduct weekly pre-construction surveys to determine the presence of LBVI nest-building activities, egg incubation activities, or brood-rearing activities within 300 feet of anticipated construction activities for the coming week. Surveys will be conducted more frequently if construction could progress beyond the limits of the weekly surveyed area. (b) If nesting LBVI is observed during the weekly pre-construction surveys, a qualified biological monitor shall clearly delineate a 300-foot avoidance buffer around occupied habitat. The 300-foot avoidance buffer shall be clearly marked with flags and/or fencing prior to commencement of construction. No construction activities Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 22 shall occur within the 300-foot buffer during the nesting season without the presence of a biological monitor. (c) If construction activities (e.g., ground disturbance and canopy trimming) must occur within 300 feet of occupied habitat, the following measures shall be implemented: (i) A biological monitor shall be present to perform daily surveys for LBVI and monitor construction activities. The biological monitor shall have the authority to stop work and notify the construction supervisor if the biologist feels construction activities could alter the birds’ normal behavior. The activities shall cease until additional minimization measures have been determined through coordination with CDFW and/or USFWS. (ii) A qualified acoustician shall also be retained to determine ambient noise levels and construction-related noise levels at the edge of occupied habitat. Noise levels at the edge of the occupied habitat shall not exceed an hourly average of 60 dBA, or an hourly average increase of 3 dBA if existing ambient noise levels exceed 60 dBA. If project-related noise levels exceed the threshold described above, construction activities shall cease until additional minimization measures, such as visual and auditory barriers (e.g., sound wall), are taken to reduce project-related noise levels to below an hourly average of 60 dBA, or below an hourly average increase of 3 dBA if existing ambient noise levels exceed 60 dBA. If additional measures do not decrease project-related noise levels below the thresholds described above, construction activities shall cease until CDFW and/or USFWS are contacted to discuss alternative methods. (d) All project personnel shall attend a Workers Environmental Awareness Program training presented by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities. The training program will inform project personnel about the life history of LBVI and all avoidance and minimization measures. (e) The construction contractor shall only allow construction activities to occur during daylight hours. (f) The construction contractor shall require functional mufflers on all construction equipment (stationary or mobile) used within or immediately adjacent to any 300-foot avoidance buffers to reduce construction equipment noise. Stationary equipment shall be situated so that noise generated from the equipment is not directed towards any occupied habitat for the LBVI. (g) The construction contractor shall place staging areas as far as possible from any suitable occupied habitat for the LBVI. (h) The biological monitor shall prepare written documentation of all monitoring activities at the completion of construction activities, which shall be submitted to CDFW and/or USFWS. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 23 BIO-3 Nesting Birds: To the extent possible, construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) shall occur outside of the general bird nesting season for migratory birds, which is March 15 through August 31 for songbirds and January 15 to August 31 for raptors. If construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) must occur during the general bird nesting season for migratory birds (March 15 to August 31) and raptors (January 15 to August 31), a qualified biologist shall be retained to perform a pre-construction survey of potential nesting habitat to confirm the absence of active nests belonging to migratory birds and raptors afforded protection under the MBTA and CFG Code. The pre- construction survey shall be performed no more than seven days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The results of the pre-construction survey shall be documented by a qualified biologist. If construction is inactive for more than seven days, an additional survey shall be conducted. If the qualified biologist determines that no active migratory bird or raptor nests occur, the activities shall be allowed to proceed without any further requirements. If the qualified biologist determines that an active migratory bird or raptor nest is present, no impacts within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the active nest shall occur until the young have fledged the nest, and the nest is confirmed to no longer be active, or as determined by the qualified biologist. The biological monitor may modify the buffer as applicable for the specific bird species and type of work, or propose other recommendations to avoid indirect impacts to nesting birds. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitats The majority of permanent impacts are proposed within existing developed areas (25.28 acres; 79 percent; see Table 4, Impacts to Vegetation and Land Uses, below, and Figures 8a-h, Impacts to Vegetation, in the project GBRA). The majority of temporary impacts are proposed within areas that support upland mustards (0.16 acre; 80 percent). The project would entirely avoid permanent and temporary impacts within CDFW sensitive vegetation communities, including Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland and arroyo willow thicket. Therefore, no mitigation is warranted. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 24 Table 4 IMPACTS TO VEGETATION AND LAND USES Vegetation Community/Land Use Temporary Impacts (acres)1 Permanent Impacts (acres)1 Arroyo Willow Thicket2 0.00 0.00 Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland2 0.00 0.00 Riverwash 0.00 0.00 Developed 0.01 25.28 Disturbed 0.02 2.51 Eucalyptus Grove 0.01 0.49 Upland Mustards 0.16 3.69 TOTAL 0.20 31.97 1 Acreage is rounded to the nearest hundredth 2 Sensitive habitats pursuant to CDFW’s Natural Communities List (2020) California Department of Fish and Wildlife Riparian Habitat and Streambed The Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) survey area supports approximately 1.495 acres of jurisdictional streambeds pursuant to Section 1602 of the CFG Code as regulated by CDFW. The project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.265 acre and temporary impacts to 0.076 acre of CDFW jurisdiction on the study area (see Table 5, Impacts to CDFW Jurisdiction, below, and Figures 9a-f, Impacts to Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas, in the project GBRA). CDFW jurisdiction within Murrieta Creek would be entirely avoided. Table 5 IMPACTS TO CDFW JURISDICTION Drainage Temporary Impacts (acres)1 Permanent Impacts (acres)1 Murrieta Creek 0.000 0.000 A1 0.000 0.000 A2 0.000 0.000 A2.1 0.026 0.064 B 0.000 0.000 C 0.005 0.027 D 0.006 0.027 E 0.009 0.036 F 0.000 0.000 G 0.006 0.021 H 0.007 0.024 I 0.005 0.020 I1 0.001 0.010 J 0.006 0.016 K 0.005 0.020 TOTAL 0.076 0.265 1 Acreage is rounded to the nearest thousandth Impacts to CDFW jurisdiction will require a Section 1602 Stream Alteration Agreement from the CDFW, as described in Measure BIO-4 included in Section 6.0 below. Compensatory mitigation for Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 25 permanent impacts to CDFW jurisdiction would be required as part of subsequent Section 1602 permitting requirements. Permanent impacts to CDFW jurisdiction shall be mitigated through on-site or off-site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation of jurisdictional streambed at a ratio of no less than 2:1 as detailed in Measure BIO-4. With the implementation of Measure BIO-4, the project would not result in significant impacts to jurisdictional resources. Mitigation Measures Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-4 would reduce potentially significant impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community to a less-than-significant level: BIO-4 Jurisdictional Resources: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for impacts to jurisdictional resources, the City shall obtain regulatory permits from USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW (collectively, the “Resource Agencies”). Compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts to jurisdiction shall be required as part of subsequent permitting requirements. Permanent impacts to jurisdictional resources shall be mitigated through on-site or off-site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation of jurisdictional streambed at a mitigation-to-impact ratio of no less than 2:1. The following minimization measures will be implemented during construction: • Use of standard BMPs to minimize the impacts during construction. • Construction-related equipment will be stored in developed areas, outside of drainages. • Source control and treatment control BMPs will be implemented to minimize the potential contaminants that are generated during and after construction. Water quality BMPs will be implemented throughout the project to capture and treat potential contaminants. • To avoid attracting predators during construction, the project shall be kept clean of debris to the extent possible. All food-related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site. • Employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction material to the proposed project footprint, staging areas, and designated routes of travel. • Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of construction activities. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) survey area supports approximately 0.096 acre of USACE/RWQCB non-wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.093 acre of wetlands pursuant to Sections 404/401 of the CWA as regulated by USACE and RWQCB, respectively. The project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.032-acre non-wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.018 acre of wetlands (see Table 6, Impacts to USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction, below, and Figure 9 in the GBRA). The project would also require temporary impacts to approximately 0.005 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.005 acre of wetlands. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 26 Table 6 IMPACTS TO USACE/RWQCB JURISDICTION Drainage Permanent Impacts Non-Wetland (acres)1 Permanent Impacts Wetland (acres)1 Temporary Impacts Non-Wetland (acres)1 Temporary Impacts Wetland (acres)1 A1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 A2 <0.0002 0.000 0.000 0.000 A2.1 0.001 0.000 <0.0003 0.000 B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 C 0.005 0.004 0.000 0.001 D 0.003 0.007 0.000 0.002 E 0.012 0.000 0.003 0.000 F 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 G 0.003 0.000 <0.0004 0.000 H 0.003 0.000 <0.0005 0.000 I 0.001 0.004 0.000 0.001 I1 0.002 0.000 <0.0006 0.000 J 0.002 0.000 <0.0007 0.000 K 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.001 TOTAL 0.032 0.018 0.005 0.005 1 Acreage is rounded to the nearest thousandth 2 Actual acreage is 0.0004 acre 3 Actual acreage is 0.0003 acre 4 Actual acreage is 0.0004 acre 5 Actual acreage is 0.0004 acre 6 Actual acreage is 0.00003 acre 7 Actual acreage is 0.0004 acre Impacts to USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction will require a Section 404 permit from USACE and a Section 401 permit from RWQCB, as described in Measure BIO-4. Compensatory streambed mitigation for permanent impacts to USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction will be required as part of subsequent Section 404/401 permitting requirements. Permanent impacts to USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction shall be mitigated through on-site or off-site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation of jurisdictional streambed at a ratio of no less than 2:1 as required by Measure BIO-4. With the implementation of Measure BIO-4, the project would not result in significant impacts to jurisdictional resources. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Wildlife Movement The study area is located within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, which consists of Murrieta Creek. Regional wildlife movement is expected to occur within Murrieta Creek. However, the project would avoid Murrieta Creek and most of its tributaries. The proposed impacts within the project site are mostly restricted to existing developed areas. The project will implement Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines to reduce potential indirect impacts to wildlife movement through Proposed Linkage 13, Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 27 which includes Murrieta Creek. Therefore, the project will not significantly impact movement of wildlife or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Migratory Species Development of the proposed project could disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests, including eggs and young. Disturbance to or destruction of migratory bird eggs, young, or adults is in violation of the MBTA and is considered a potentially significant impact. Although suitable habitat for nesting birds on the study area is limited, herbaceous ground cover, shrubs, and trees located throughout the study area could provide habitat for protected nesting bird species. A mitigation measure is provided as Measure BIO-3, which would help ensure the project is in compliance with MBTA regulations. With implementation of Measure BIO-3, the project would reduce impacts to migratory bird species to less than significant. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project will comply with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance (Section 8.48 of the City’s Municipal Code). The study area supports trees that may be subject to tree protection measures. In accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-5, prior to impacts, a tree survey will be conducted prior to construction. If protected trees are located within the project site and must be damaged or removed, a Heritage Tree Removal or Relocation Permit must be obtained. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would reduce any direct impacts to City-protected trees to less than significant. Mitigation Measures Implementation of mitigation measure BIO-5 would reduce potentially significant impacts to protected trees to a less-than-significant level: BIO-5 Protected Trees: Prior to impacting any trees within the project site, a tree survey shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Temecula’s Heritage Tree Ordinance (Section 8.48 of the City’s Municipal Code). If trees subject to this ordinance must be damaged or removed within the project site, a Heritage Tree Removal or Relocation Permit must be obtained prior to damage or removal. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated. As above, the project site is located within the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP. The following sections demonstrate the project’s compliance with MSHCP requirements. MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements The study area is located within the Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) of the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP. The study area includes portions of Criteria Cells 6656, 6781, 6782, 6783, 6890, 6891, 7021, and 7078 (Figure 7 of the project GBRA). The conservation requirements for these Criteria Cells are Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 28 presented in Table 3, Conservation Requirement of the MSHCP Criteria Cells, of the project GBRA. Although the study area is within several Criteria Cells, the project site is mostly within existing developed areas. The project site is not targeted for conservation or is an area that would contribute to the MSHCP reserve assembly. Furthermore, Diaz Road is considered a “covered road” under the MSCHP. According to MSHCP Section 7.3.4, “safety improvements to other publicly maintained existing roadways within the Criteria Area are Covered Activities. The proposed road widening is considered a safety improvement and is, therefore, a “covered activity.” Implementation of the proposed project would avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive species and habitats adjacent to the existing roadway. To minimize and avoid impacts to sensitive species and habitats occurring adjacent to the project site, the project will comply with Best Management Practices (BMPs), as detailed in Section 7.5.3 and Appendix C of the MSHCP. Ultimately, the project would not conflict with the MSHCP reserve assembly. Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) The identification of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources is based on the potential for the habitat to support, or be a tributary to habitat that supports, Riparian/Riverine Covered Species. Riparian/Riverine Covered Species are identified in MSHCP Section 6.1.2. The MSHCP defines Riparian/Riverine habitat as “lands which contain Habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year” (Dudek and Associates 2003). The MSHCP defines Vernal Pools as “seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season” (Dudek and Associates 2003). Artificially created wetlands, except for those created intentionally to provide habitat or resulting from the creation of open waters or alteration of natural stream courses, are not considered MSHCP Vernal Pools. Riparian/Riverine Habitat The MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas mapped on the study area are equivalent to CDFW jurisdiction. Implementation of the proposed project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.256 acre of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine habitat and temporary impacts to 0.076 acre of Riparian/Riverine habitat (see Figure 9 in the GBRA and Table 7, Impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas). Since the project proposes impacts to Riparian/Riverine Areas, the project is required to prepare a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation, which provides a detailed account of impacts and proposed mitigation to compensate for impacts. Mitigation for permanent impacts to the Riparian/Riverine Areas would be met by implementing required mitigation for impacts to CDFW jurisdiction. Mitigation would include off-site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation at a ratio of no less than 2:1, as required by Measure BIO-4. With the implementation of Measure BIO-4, the project would not result in significant impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 29 Table 7 IMPACTS TO MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AREAS Drainage Permanent Impacts (acres)1 Temporary Impacts (acres)1 Murrieta Creek 0.000 0.000 A1 0.000 0.000 A2 0.000 0.000 A2.1 0.064 0.026 B 0.000 0.000 C 0.027 0.005 D 0.027 0.006 E 0.036 0.009 F 0.000 0.000 G 0.021 0.006 H 0.024 0.007 I 0.020 0.005 I1 0.010 0.001 J 0.016 0.006 K 0.020 0.005 TOTAL 0.265 0.07 1 Acreage is rounded to the nearest thousandth Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Species One Riparian/Riverine plant species (smooth tarplant) was observed within Drainage A2.1 in the northern portion of the study area. Smooth tarplant is a conditionally covered species under the MSHCP. Surveys for this species are required if a project occurs within a CASSA 1, 2,3, or 4. Since the study area is not located within a CASSA, impacts to this species would be covered under the MSHCP. Four other Riparian/Riverine plant species were determined to have a low potential to occur within the study area. These species were not incidentally observed within the study area during field surveys. Four males and one pair were observed within the study area. The project would not permanently or temporarily impact suitable LBVI habitat (Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland, arroyo willow thicket). However, project construction could have indirect impacts to LBVI that occupy habitat adjacent to Diaz Road. Indirect impacts to this species during the nesting season (March 1 through August 31) would be a significant impact. To avoid potential indirect impacts to LBVI, an avoidance/minimization measure is provided as Measure BIO-2. No other Riparian/Riverine animal species are expected to occur on the study area. Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Section 6.1.3) The study area is not located within a NEPSSA; therefore, no focused surveys were required, and the proposed project is consistent with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines (MSHCP Section 6.1.4) Proposed developments adjacent to MSHCP Conservation Areas may create edge effects that can impact conserved biological resources. The MSHCP provides several guidelines that address potential Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 30 indirect effects from proposed developments that are in proximity to MSHCP Conservation Areas. These guidelines include measures addressing the quantity and quality of runoff generated by the development (i.e., drainage and toxics), night lighting, noise, non-native invasive plant species, barriers to humans and animal predators, and grading/land development encroachment. The eastern portion of the study area is located within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, which consists of Murrieta Creek. As discussed below, the project will comply with each applicable guideline to ensure consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.4. Drainage The project will incorporate measures to avoid the discharge of untreated surface runoff into downstream waters. Measures will include those required for construction pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Storm Water Permit and the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program, while post-construction water quality measures will be implemented in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Municipal Storm Drain Permit requirements, and subsequent 401 Water Quality Certification from RWQCB for the project. The project will be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes downstream from the study area. In addition, post-construction BMPs are intended to help ensure that post-project hydrologic conditions remain consistent with pre-project conditions, therefore minimizing the potential for downstream erosion and/or sedimentation that could otherwise result from implementation of the proposed project. Toxics Land uses that use chemicals or generate bio-products that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge into downstream waters. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues would be implemented by the proposed project to avoid the potential impacts of toxics. Lighting Temporary construction lighting and ambient lighting from the proposed development are required to be selectively placed, directed, and shielded away from the MSHCP Conservation Area. In addition, large spotlight-type lighting directed into conserved habitat will be prohibited. Noise Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. Temporary construction-related noise impacts will be reduced by the implementation of a number of measures, including the following: Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 31 • During all excavation and grading, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards to reduce construction equipment noise to the maximum extent possible. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the study area. • The construction contractor shall stage equipment in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the study area during all project construction. • All construction work shall occur during the daylight hours. The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels according to the construction hours to be determined by the County. • The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment. To the extent feasible, haul routes shall not pass through sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. Invasives The project shall not use invasive plants for erosion control, landscaping, wind rows, or other purposes. Mitigation Measure BIO-6 requires the project to comply with the MSHCP and avoid the use of invasive, non-native plants in accordance with MSHCP Table 6.2. Barriers Since the project consists of widening an existing road, barriers and signage are not necessary. Grading/Land Development Since the project consists of widening an existing road, manufactured slopes are not necessary. Additional Surveys (MSHCP Section 6.3.2) The study area is not within a CASSA or an Amphibian or Mammal Species Survey Area. No impacts to CASSA species or sensitive amphibian or mammal species are proposed. The study area is within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area, and the study area supports suitable habitat. Focused surveys were conducted in accordance with the County’s survey protocol. No burrowing owls or sign of burrowing owls were observed within the study area. Due to the presence of suitable habitat, a pre-construction survey is required within 30 days of ground disturbance pursuant to the MSHCP. A mitigation measure requiring a pre-construction survey, avoidance or replacement of burrowing owl habitat and individuals (if three or more pairs are observed), and avoidance of active nests and/or relocation of burrowing owl (if burrowing owls are observed) is included as Measure BIO-1. As discussed above, the proposed project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.3.2. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 32 Fuels Management (MSHCP Section 6.4) Because the proposed project consists of widening an existing road within a heavily developed portion of the City, a fuel modification zone is not incorporated into the proposed project. The proposed project is consistent with Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Fees In order for the project to participate in the MSHCP, the project proponent is required to pay an LDMF in order to finance the acquisitions of conservation areas to provide habitat for MSHCP covered species (County 2003). The LDMF must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall pay the LDMF as determined by the County. Final fee credits shall be determined through coordination with the County. The study area is also within the SKR HCP but is not located within any of the core reserves (County 1996). Therefore, the project is required to pay an SKR mitigation fee for incidental take authorization under the SKR HCP. Mitigation Measure BIO-7 requires the project proponent to pay the MSHCP LDMF and SKR HCP fees, which would reduce SKR impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures Implementation of mitigation measures BIO-6 and BIO-7 would reduce potentially significant impacts to adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans to a less-than-significant level: BIO-6 MSHCP Landscaping Restrictions: In accordance with MSHCP Section 6.1.4, no species listed in Table 6-2, Plants that Should Be Avoided Adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, of the project GBRA shall be used in the project landscape plans (including hydroseed mix used for interim erosion control). BIO-7 Habitat Conservation Plan Fees: The City is subject to the MSHCP LDMF and the SKR HCP Fee, which shall be paid prior to issuance of any grading permit. V. Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?     b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?     c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?     Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 33 The following analysis is based on the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the proposed project by HELIX (2020b; Appendix C). a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? No Impact. As part of the Cultural Resources Study (HELIX 2020b), HELIX requested a record search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) on April 23, 2020. The records search results were received on September 9, 2020. The records search covered a one-mile radius around the project alignment and included the identification of previously recorded cultural resources and locations and citations for previous cultural resources studies. The records search did not identify any historic resources in proximity to the project site. Furthermore, no historic resources that could be directly or indirectly affected by implementation of the proposed project are located within or adjacent to the proposed alignment or areas to be disturbed during construction activities. As such, because no historic resources have been identified in the area that could potentially be adversely affected by project implementation, no impacts would occur. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. HELIX contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on April 24, 2020 for a Sacred Lands File search and list of Native American contacts for the project area. The NAHC indicated in a response dated April 27, 2020 that the results were positive and that the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians should be contacted. Also provided was a list of 15 Native American tribal contacts who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. Letters were sent on May 7, 2020 to Native American representatives and interested parties identified by the NAHC. Two responses have been received to date. The Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians (Rincon) stated that, while the project area is within the territory of the Luiseño people and Rincon’s “specific area of Historic interest,” they have no knowledge of any cultural resources within the project area. The Quechan Indian Tribe responded stating that they do not wish to comment on the project and defer to local Tribes. If any additional responses are received, they will be forwarded to City staff. A pedestrian survey was conducted at the project alignment by HELIX and a Native American monitor on May 28, 2020. Most of the project alignment and surrounding area is built upon, disturbed, or paved, thus reducing the likelihood for the presence of archaeological resources. The survey covered the areas located adjacent to the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries of the alignment. The northern and southern portions of the alignment were heavily disturbed due to recent trenching for an underground pipeline. The eastern edge of Diaz Road was also disturbed; ground visibility in this area was minimal due to presence of the bike/walking path and landscaped areas. No cultural material was observed during the survey. The project site is located within an area where alluvial soils occur. Based on the presence of young alluvial deposits, cultural resources may be present within the project site. Grading and other ground- disturbing activities would therefore have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource, and impacts would be potentially significant. Therefore, the Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 34 project would implement an archaeological and Native American monitoring program, as detailed in mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-5, to reduce impacts to less than significant. Mitigation Measures Implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-5 would reduce potentially significant impacts to cultural resources to a less-than-significant level: CUL-1 At least 30 days prior to the start any ground-disturbing activities, the City shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement (“Agreement”). The Agreement shall address the treatment and final disposition of any tribal cultural resources, sacred sites, human remains, or archaeological resources inadvertently discovered on the project site; project grading, ground disturbance, and development scheduling; the designation, responsibilities, and participation of tribal monitor(s) during grading, excavation, and ground disturbing activities; and compensation for the tribal monitors, including overtime, weekend rates, and mileage reimbursements. CUL-2 A qualified archaeologist and Pechanga tribal monitor shall attend a pre-construction meeting with City staff, the contractor, and appropriate subcontractors to discuss the monitoring program, including protocols to be followed in the event that cultural material is encountered. CUL-3 A qualified archaeological monitor and a Pechanga tribal monitor shall be present for ground- disturbing activities in areas with a potential for encountering cultural material; monitoring will not be required in areas that have been previously graded/cut to below cultural levels. At least seven business days prior to project grading, the City shall contact the tribal monitors to notify the Tribe of grading/excavation and the monitoring program/schedule, and to coordinate with the Tribe on the monitoring work schedule. Both the archaeologist and the tribal monitor shall have the authority to stop and redirect grading activities in order to evaluate the nature and significance of any archaeological resources discovered within the Area of Potential Effect (APE). Such evaluation shall include culturally appropriate temporary and permanent treatment pursuant to the Agreement, which may include avoidance of cultural resources, in-place preservation, data recovery, and/or reburial so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity, per CUL-1. Any reburial shall occur at a location predetermined between the City and the Pechanga tribe, details of which are to be addressed in the Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement in mitigation measure CUL-1. Treatment may also include curation of the cultural resources at a tribal curation facility, as determined in discussion among the City, the qualified archaeologist, and the tribal representatives and addressed in the Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement referenced in mitigation measure CUL-1. CUL-4 All artifacts discovered at the development site shall be inventoried and analyzed by the qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor(s). A monitoring report will be prepared, detailing the methods and results of the monitoring program, as well as the disposition of any cultural material encountered. CUL-5 The City shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts that are found within the project area, for proper treatment and disposition pursuant to the Agreement required in mitigation measure CUL-1. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 35 c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. No human remains are known to exist within the project area. However, although unlikely, it is possible that ground disturbance associated with the proposed project may encounter and damage or destroy previously undiscovered human remains. Therefore, impacts are assessed as potentially significant, and the project would implement mitigation measure CUL-6. Mitigation Measures Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-6 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to the discovery of human remains to less than significant: CUL-6 If human remains are encountered, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Riverside County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Further, pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b) remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the NAHC must be contacted within 24 hours. The NAHC must then immediately identify the most likely descendant(s) for purposes of receiving notification of discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours of being granted access to the site and engage in consultation concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and the agreement described in mitigation measure CUL-1. VI. Energy Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?     b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?     The following analysis is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment prepared for the proposed project by HELIX (2020a; Appendix A). a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact. Energy usage is typically quantified using the British thermal unit (Btu) and large quantities of energy are often reported as million Btu (MBtu). As a point of reference, the Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 36 approximate amounts of energy contained in common energy sources are gasoline—0.124 MBTU per gallon and diesel—0.139 MBtu per gallon. The project would involve the consumption of energy resources during construction. Construction of the project is estimated to last approximately 16 months during which time diesel and gasoline fuel is anticipated to be the primary energy consumed. It is not anticipated that the project would require significant use of natural gas or electricity (from the electrical grid) during construction. As a result, natural gas and electricity use during construction would be temporary and a negligible portion of the total construction energy. Diesel and gasoline fuel consumption would be associated with heavy-duty equipment, haul trucks involved in the transport of soil and construction materials, and workers commuting to and from the site. The project’s estimated construction energy consumption was calculated using off-road equipment types, horsepower, count and hours from the SMAQMD Road Construction Emissions Model version 9.0 (described in the air quality analysis, above); off-road fuel consumption factors from the CARB OFFROAD2017-ORION Web Database version 1.0.1; and on-road fuel consumption factors from the CARB EMFAC2017 Web Database version 1.0.2. The estimated fuel and total energy consumed during project construction is shown in Table 8, Construction Energy Consumption. Table 8 CONSTRUCTION ENERGY CONSUMPTION Phase Fuel (gallons) Diesel Fuel (gallons) Gasoline Total (MBtu) Grubbing/Land Clearing 4,909 494 744 Grading/Excavation 43,605 5,384 6,729 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 21,364 2,765 3,312 Paving 4,676 1,100 786 Construction Total 74,554 9,741 11,571 Source: HELIX 2020a Totals may not sum due to rounding MBtu = million British thermal units The total petroleum consumption would be temporary and would cease upon completion of project implementation, would be typical of similar roadway construction projects, and would not require the development of new energy resources and distribution infrastructure. Once operational, the project would not result in notably increased energy usage beyond the energy usage of the road segment without implementation of the project. Based on these considerations, the project would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources and the impact would be less than significant. b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? Less than Significant Impact. Federal and state agencies regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs. Federal and state agencies influence and regulate transportation energy consumption through the establishment and enforcement of fuel economy standards for automobiles and light trucks, funding of energy-related research and development projects, and funding for transportation infrastructure improvements. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 37 There are no state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency directly applicable to the construction energy consumption from a roadway improvement project. However, a project’s energy consumption is closely related to a project’s GHG emissions. A described in the GHG analysis, below, the project’s amortized GHG construction emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold, and the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, including the City’s CAP. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency and the impact would be less than significant. VII. Geology and Soils Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.     ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?     iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?     iv) Landslides?     b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?     c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?     d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?     e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?     f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological feature?     Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 38 The following analysis is based on the Geotechnical Design Report prepared for the proposed project by David Evans and Associates, Inc. (2020a; Appendix D). a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? Less than Significant Impact. The City, like the rest of southern California, is located within a seismically active region as a result of being located near the active margin between the North American and Pacific tectonic plates. The most significant known active fault zones that are capable of seismic ground shaking and can impact the City are the Elsinore Fault Zone, San Jacinto Fault Zone, Newport-Inglewood Fault Zone, and the San Andreas Fault Zone. The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act requires the State Geologist to identify earthquake fault zones along traces of both recently and potentially active major faults. Cities and counties that contain such zones must inform the public regarding the location of these zones, which are usually one-quarter mile or less in width. Proposed development plans within these earthquake fault zones must be accompanied by a geotechnical report prepared by a qualified geologist describing the likelihood of surface rupture. As shown on Figure PS-1 of the City General Plan (City 2005), the Elsinore Fault Zone is an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone that passes through the City to the west of Interstate 15. The fault is located approximately 0.3 miles east the project site near Jefferson Avenue. Due to this distance, it is unlikely that the project would be subjected to fault rupture at the Elsinore Fault Zone. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. As described under response VI.a.i, the Elsinore Fault Zone is located approximately 0.3 miles east of the project site along Jefferson Avenue. This fault, and other faults in the region, could create seismic ground shaking at the project site. Ground- shaking could affect the integrity of the project’s components (e.g., retaining walls, roadway, etc.); therefore, the proposed project would potentially be subject to severe ground shaking hazards from earthquake events. Accordingly, ground shaking could potentially result in significant impacts to the proposed project roadway structures. This impact would be mitigated through implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1. iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Liquefaction is the phenomenon where saturated granular soils develop high-pore water pressures during seismic shaking and behave like a heavy fluid. This phenomenon generally occurs in areas of high seismicity where groundwater is shallow and loose granular soils or hydraulic fill soils subject to liquefaction are present. For liquefaction to occur, loose granular sediments below the groundwater table must be present and shaking of sufficient magnitude and duration must occur. As shown on Figure PS-1 of the City General Plan (2005), the vast majority of the project alignment is located within a Liquefaction Hazard Zone. Therefore, the project components (e.g., retaining walls, roadway, etc.) may be at risk from liquefaction, which could affect the integrity Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 39 of the project components. Potentially significant impacts related to liquefaction would be mitigated through implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1. iv. Landslides? No Impact. According to the City’s General Plan Public Safety Element, the site is not identified as being in an area where landslides have occurred (City 2005). While the Murrieta Creek runs parallel to the alignment, appropriate slope retention methods and retaining walls would be used to prevent slope instability. Therefore, no impact from landslides would occur. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. Potential short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts would be addressed through a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), prepared specifically for the proposed roadway improvements, in accordance with the NPDES permit. The SWPPP would incorporate BMPs in accordance with the California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook to control erosion and protect the quality of surface water runoff during project construction. Due to the proximity of Murrieta Creek, the use of sediment controls to prevent off-site sediment transport would be employed, potentially including silt fencing, fiber rolls, gravel bags, temporary sediment basins, street sweeping, sediment stockpiles, and use of properly fitted covers for sediment transport vehicles. Based upon compliance with the NPDES permit and implementation of a SWPPP, impacts would be less than significant. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. See responses VI.a and VI.b, above. The project alignment is not located in an area that would be exposed to landslides. The project alignment has a high potential for liquefaction and is located near earthquake faults that may generate strong seismic ground shaking (City 2005); therefore, the project components (e.g., retaining walls, roadway, etc.) may be exposed to unstable geologic conditions, and impacts would be potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant. d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less than Significant Impact. Expansive soils are fine-grained soils (generally high-plasticity clays) that can undergo a significant increase in volume with an increase in water content and a significant decrease in volume with a decrease in water content. Changes in the water content of an expansive soil can result in severe distress to structures constructed upon the soil. Development would occur within soils with some potential for expansion. The soil underneath the project alignment is identified as a variety of sandy and silty loam soil types, which have a low clay content and are not identified as having a shrink-swell potential (United States Department of Agriculture 2017). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 40 e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? No Impact. As a roadway improvement project, the proposed project does not include septic tanks. No impacts would occur. f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A Paleontological Technical Study was prepared for the proposed project (Paleo Solutions, Inc. 2020; Appendix E). The technical study involved an analysis of existing paleontological data as well as a field survey of the project site. The analysis of existing data included a geologic map review, a literature search, and a museum records search at the Western Science Center (WSC) in Hemet, California. Geologic mapping indicates that the project area is primarily underlain by Holocene- and late Pliocene-age young alluvial valley deposits (Qyva) and Pleistocene-age older alluvial flood plain deposits (Qoa). Within a half mile of the project area, Pleistocene-age Pauba Formation, Sandstone Member (Qp, Qpfs), Pleistocene-age Pauba Formation, Fanglomerate Member (Qpf, Qpff), Cretaceous-age tonalite undivided (Kt), and Cretaceous- and Jurassic-age metavolcanics and metasedimentary rocks (KJm) are present and may underlie the geologic units mapped at the surface within the project area at shallow depth. In addition, recent artificial fill (af) from previous development may be present within the bounds of the project area. Of these geologic units, two, the Pleistocene-age Pauba Formation and Fanglomerate Member (Qpf, Qpff), have high paleontological potentials. One unit, the Pleistocene-age older alluvial flood plain deposits (Qoa), has moderate paleontological potential. The remaining four units have either low or very low paleontological potentials. Due to the presence of geologic units with moderate and high paleontological potentials, grading and other ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of the proposed project would have the potential to destroy a paleontological resource, and impacts would be potentially significant. Therefore, the project would implement a paleontological monitoring program, as detailed in mitigation measures PAL-1 and PAL-2. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measure GEO-1 would mitigate the potentially significant impacts associated with seismic hazards identified under this section to less than significant. GEO-1 Site-specific Geotechnical Investigation. A site-specific geotechnical investigation shall be completed prior to final site design approval by the City to identify site-specific criteria related to considerations such as grading, excavation, fill, and structure/facility design. All applicable results and recommendations from the geotechnical investigation will be incorporated into the project design and construction documents to address identified potential geologic and soil hazards, including but not necessarily limited to: (1) seismic hazards including ground rupture, ground acceleration (ground shaking), soil liquefaction (and related issues such as dynamic settlement and lateral spreading), landslides/slope instability, and seiche effects; and (2) non-seismic hazards including manufactured slope instability, subsidence/compressible soils, expansive or corrosive soils, and trench/excavation instability. The final project design and construction documents will also encompass applicable standard design and construction practices from established regulatory/ industry sources including the California Building Code (CBC), International Building Code (IBC), California Geological Survey (CGS), Greenbook standards, as well as the results/recommendations of geotechnical review and field Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 41 observations/testing to be conducted during project excavation, grading, and construction activities (with all related requirements to be included in applicable engineering/design drawings and construction contract specifications). Implementation of the following mitigation measures PAL-1 and PAL-2 would reduce potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources to less than significant: PAL-1 Prior to construction, a paleontological resource monitoring and mitigation plan (PRMMP) shall be prepared. It shall provide detailed recommended monitoring locations; a description of a paleontological resources worker environmental awareness program to inform construction personnel of the potential for fossil discoveries and of the types of fossils that may be encountered; detailed procedures for monitoring, fossil recovery, laboratory analysis, and museum curation; and notification procedures in the event of a fossil discovery by a paleontological monitor or other project personnel. In the event that paleontological resources are discovered during the construction phase of the project, a curation agreement from the Western Science Center, or another accredited repository, shall also be obtained. PAL-2 Construction excavations that disturb the Pleistocene-age Pauba Formation, Fanglomerate Member, or Pleistocene-age older alluvial flood plain deposits shall be monitored full-time by a qualified paleontologist. Additionally, artificial fill, young alluvial fan deposits, and young alluvial channel deposits shall be initially spot-checked to determine if older, more paleontologically sensitive deposits are disturbed at depth. If older sedimentary geologic units are not disturbed by construction activities in these areas, then monitoring can be reduced or ceased at the discretion of a qualified paleontologist in consultation with the City. VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.     b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?     The following analysis is based on the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Letter Report prepared for the proposed project by HELIX (2020a; Appendix A). a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. Greenhouse gases (GHG) include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). GHGs vary widely in the power of their climatic effect; therefore, climate scientists have established a Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 42 unit called global warming potential (GWP). The GWP of a gas is a measure of both potency and lifespan in the atmosphere as compared to CO2. For example, since CH4 and N2O are approximately 25 and 298 times more powerful than CO2, respectively, in their ability to trap heat in the atmosphere, they have GWPs of 25 and 298, respectively (CO2 has a GWP of 1). Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) is a quantity that enables all GHG emissions to be considered as a group despite their varying GWP. The GWP of each GHG is multiplied by the prevalence of that gas to produce CO2e. There are no established federal, state, or local quantitative thresholds applicable to the project to determine the quantity of GHG emissions that may have a significant effect on the environment. The California Air Resources Board (CARB), the SCAQMD, and various cities and agencies have proposed, or adopted on an interim basis, thresholds of significance that require the implementation of GHG emission reduction measures. For the proposed project, the most appropriate screening threshold for determining GHG emissions is the SCAQMD proposed Tier 3 screening threshold (SCAQMD 2010), as the project construction period and equipment is similar to a commercial or residential project to which Tier 3 applies. Therefore, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would exceed the SCAQMD proposed Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year. Construction Impacts Construction GHG emissions would be generated by vehicle engine exhaust from construction equipment, on-road hauling trucks, and worker commuting trips. Construction GHG emissions were calculated by using RCEM. The estimated construction GHG emissions for the project are shown in Table 9, Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions. For construction emissions, SCAQMD recommends that the emissions be amortized (i.e., averaged) over 30 years and added to operational emissions. Averaged over 30 years, the proposed construction activities would contribute approximately 37.8 MT CO2e emissions per year. Therefore, the proposed project would generate GHG emissions below the SCAQMD threshold and impacts would be less than significant. Table 9 ESTIMATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Phase CO2e (MT) Site Preparation/Land Clearing 35.0 Grading/Excavation 668.5 Underground Drainage/Utilities 261.4 Paving 64.6 Total Emissions 1,134.7 Amortized Emissions 37.8 SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 Significant Impact? No Source: HELIX 2020a CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; MT = metric tons; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District Operational Emissions The project proposes widening and improving an existing roadway and would only generate emissions during construction in the near term. Because the project would result in additional lanes on Diaz Road and, therefore, increase the total available miles of roadways in the region, the TIA concluded Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 43 that the project would result in a regional increase in VMT of 7,277 miles in the year 2040 (DEA 2020b). The GHG emissions resulting from the increase in VMT were calculated using data from EMFAC2017. As shown in Table 10, Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the combined operational emissions from the increased VMT and the amortized construction emissions would be 40.0 MT CO2e per year and would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. The impact would be less than significant. Table 10 OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Source Emissions (MT CO2e ) Operational Emissions from VMT Increase 2.2 Amortized Construction Emissions 37.8 Total Operational Emissions 40.0 SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 Significant Impact? No Source: Helix 2020a MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact. There are numerous state plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall state plan and policy is Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Senate Bill (SB) 32 would require further reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB 1493), the low carbon fuel standard, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the statewide level; as such, compliance at the project level is not addressed. The twelve cities of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), which includes the City of Temecula, adopted a Subregional Climate Action Plan (CAP) in September 2014. The CAP provides a 2010 baseline inventory of GHG emissions for the subregion cities of 5,834,400 MT of CO2e. Approximately 57 percent of the GHG inventory was from transportation sources, 21 percent from commercial/industrial energy use, 20 percent from residential energy use, and the remaining from wastewater and solid waste sources. The CAP established a target of reducing subregional GHG emissions 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 and 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2035. To achieve the 2020 reduction target, the CAP identifies 14 State and regional measures, 3 local energy sector measures, 18 local transportation sector measures, and 2 solid waste sector measures. The CAP does not identify GHG reduction measures for achieving goals beyond 2020 (WRCOG 2014). The CAP does not include thresholds for determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions, nor does it include a checklist or other methodology for determining consistency of a project with the goals and measures in the CAP. The project would involve widening and improvements to an existing roadway and only the transportation sector local reduction measures would be potentially applicable. The project would support the CAP local transportation sector measures T-1, Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements, and T-5 Transit Service Expansion, by providing. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 44 • Class II bicycle lanes in both directions of Diaz Road. • Improved crossings and signal-controlled crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists using the multi-use trail paralleling the north side of Diaz Road to the north. • Conformance with the latest ADA standards throughout the corridor. • Space for future bus stops out of the traffic lanes that improve transit safety and operational efficiency. In addition, as the project involves widening and improving an existing roadway to accommodate existing and future projected traffic volumes, and would not generate new vehicle trips itself, the proposed project would not result in an increase to population or employment and would therefore be consistent with the growth projections in the GHG emissions inventory projections. As previously discussed, the project’s increase in GHG emissions from construction activities would also not exceed the SCAQMD screening threshold, which was crafted to comply with the reduction goals of AB 32. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Impacts would be less than significant. IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?     b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?     c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?     d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?     Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 45 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?     f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?     g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?     The following analysis is based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) prepared for the proposed project by Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton 2020; Appendix F). a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact. Project construction would require the use of materials that are typically associated with construction activities, such as diesel fuels, hydraulic liquids, oils, solvents, and paint. Hazardous materials used during project construction would be transported, used, and stored in accordance with state and federal regulations regarding hazardous materials. The use of these materials would be temporary, and impacts during construction would be less than significant. With regard to long-term operation, the project would not increase the use or disposal of hazardous materials in the area once constructed and operational. While the project would facilitate increased traffic capacity along the affected segment of Diaz Road, it would not substantially increase the number or frequency of trucks or other vehicles transporting hazardous materials through the project area such that it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore, operational impacts in this regard would be less than significant. b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The Phase I ESA prepared for the project site indicated that no known or potential Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), including the presence of notable amounts of hazardous materials, exist within or adjacent to the proposed alignment. Further, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a release of hazardous materials into the environment. During the temporary, short-term construction period, there is the possibility of accidental release of hazardous substances such as spilling of hydraulic fluid or diesel fuel associated with construction equipment maintenance. The level of risk associated with the accidental release of these hazardous substances is not considered significant due to the small volume and low concentration of hazardous materials. The construction contractor would be required to use standard construction controls and safety procedures to avoid or minimize the potential for accidental release of such substances into the Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 46 environment. Therefore, the impact of the proposed project with respect to exposing the public or the environment to hazardous materials through upset and accident conditions would be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. The school nearest to the project alignment is Vail Elementary School, located approximately 1.2 miles to the east of the project alignment. Hazardous materials used during construction would not be handled within one-quarter mile of the school. Furthermore, the use of these materials would be temporary and in accordance with applicable standards and regulations. Therefore, impacts related to the handling of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school would not occur. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No Impact. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List) requirements, and as part of the Phase I ESA records review, the SWRCB GeoTracker database (SWRCB 2020) and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database (DTSC 2020) were searched for hazardous materials sites within the project area. According to these databases, there are no listed hazardous materials sites within or adjacent to the project alignment. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The French Valley Airport is located approximately 5 miles north of the project alignment. The project alignment is not located within the Airport Influence Area (Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission 2004). Furthermore, the project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impacts would occur. f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact. During construction, parts of the roadway would be closed to vehicular traffic; however, a Traffic Control Plan would be implemented to identify traffic control measures through the duration of project construction activities. The Traffic Control Plan would maintain adequate access and the project would therefore not interfere with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Upon completion of construction, the improved roadway would include more lanes and would therefore allow for improved access to the surrounding areas. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 47 g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? No Impact. The project site is not located within or near an area designated as a state responsibility area (California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection [CAL FIRE] 2007, 2011) nor is it classified as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) or located near a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2007, 2011). The project site is mapped as Non-VHFHSZ per the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps prepared under the Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP). According to the VHFHSZ Maps prepared by the City in collaboration with CAL FIRE, the nearest VHFHSZ is located approximately one mile west of the project near the City’s western boundary. Furthermore, the proposed roadway improvements would not house people and would not be at risk from wildlife. Therefore, no impacts would occur. X. Hydrology and Water Quality Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?     b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?     c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of imperious surfaces, in a manner which would:     i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite;     ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;     iii. create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or     iv. impede or redirect flood flows?     d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk or release of pollutants due to project inundation?     Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 48 Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?     a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less than Significant Impact. Potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed project would be generally limited to short-term construction-related erosion and sedimentation. During operation, the discharge of minor amounts of fuels or other pollutants associated with automobiles into storm drains during rain events may occur. As the roadway is widened, the project would construct catch basins and storm drains in compliance with City design standards. Furthermore, the project would prepare a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to illustrate how low impact development BMPs have been incorporated into project construction and design. The WQMP would incorporate BMPs in accordance with the California Stormwater BMPs Handbook and the City’s BMP Design Manual to control erosion and protect the quality of surface water runoff. This would result in operational effects to water quality that are similar or improved compared to existing conditions. Therefore, operational impacts to water quality would be less than significant. As required under the NPDES, a SWPPP would be created specifically for construction of the proposed roadway improvements. The plan would address erosion control measures that would be implemented to avoid or minimize erosion impacts to exposed soil associated with construction activities, particularly given the project’s proximity to Murrieta Creek. The SWPPP would include a program of BMPs to provide erosion and sediment control and reduce potential impacts to water quality that may result from construction activities. BMPs would include maintaining existing slope stabilization measures and providing gravel bags and silt fences where applicable. Implementation of the SWPPP for the proposed roadway improvements and associated BMPs would reduce or eliminate the discharge of potential pollutants from stormwater runoff to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the use of groundwater. While the proposed project would result in additional impervious surfaces on the site, the project size would have a minimal effect on the existing groundwater infiltration. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge or Murrieta Creek such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin and impacts would be less than significant. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 49 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of imperious surfaces, in a manner which would: i. result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; Less than Significant Impact. No streams or rivers are present within the project alignment; however, the Murrieta Creek channel is immediately northeast of the project alignment. While the project would not alter the course of a stream or river, it would increase the number of impervious surfaces and alter the existing drainage pattern of the area in a manner that would increase the amount of surface runoff. However, the increase in the amount of runoff would be minimal and the runoff would be accommodated by the proposed catch basins, storm drains, and low impact development improvements which would be designed in conformance with the City’s requirements and specifications. Implementation of the design standards as described in the City’s BMP Design Manual and the project-specific WQMP would ensure substantial erosion and siltation would not occur on or off site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; Less than Significant Impact. Murrieta Creek is located immediately northeast of the project alignment; however, the project would not alter the course of the creek. An increase in impervious surfaces resulting from the roadway improvements would alter the existing drainage pattern of the area in a manner that would increase the amount of surface runoff. However, the increase in the amount of runoff would be minimal and accommodated by the proposed catch basins and storm drains, which would be designed in conformance with City design standards. The project would follow the City’s BMP Design Manual standards for low impact development and include the implementation of a project-specific WQMP. Therefore, flooding would not occur on or off site. Impacts would be less than significant. iii. create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or Less than Significant Impact. An increase in impervious surfaces resulting from the roadway improvements would increase the amount of surface runoff on site. This runoff may contain pollutants such as fuels and oils from automobiles; however, the increase in the amount of runoff would be minimal and the runoff would be sufficiently accommodated by the proposed catch basins, storm drains, and low impact development improvements. Therefore, the project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; impacts would be less than significant. iv. impede or redirect flows? Less than Significant Impact. An increase in impervious surfaces resulting from the roadway improvements would alter the existing drainage of the area in a manner that would change flows from existing conditions; however, the changes would be minimal. The project involves improvements to existing roadways, which would not substantially impede or redirect flows. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 50 d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk or release of pollutants due to project inundation? Less than Significant Impact. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Map Service Center (FEMA 2020), the majority of the project site is mapped within a special flood hazard area given its proximity to Murrieta Creek. The project alignment runs parallel to the creek boundary along the northeast side of Diaz Road. This portion is mapped as Zone A and AE, which signify a special flood hazard area and base floodplain. However, it is not anticipated that the project would result in the release of pollutants due to inundation associated with mapped flood hazard areas. While the project area would be subject to potential flooding, the project would improve conveyance of storm water due to the implementation of low impact development and catch basins. In addition, the loading and staging area for construction equipment would be protected from flood hazards by locating them in areas with higher ground elevation and adequate drainage, reducing the likelihood of construction equipment releasing pollutants during a potential creek channel flood, and BMPs would ensure that hazardous materials equipment would not be in the area during a flood event. For these reasons, impacts associated with flooding would be less than significant. The possibility of seiches and tsunamis impacting the City is considered remote due to the great distance to large bodies of water. Therefore, the potential for the project to result in the release of pollutants associated with inundation from tsunamis and seiches is considered remote. As such, impacts related to the release of pollutants due to project site inundation in flood hazard, tsunami, and seiche zones would be less than significant. e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? Less than Significant Impact. As specified above, the project would comply with applicable City of Temecula and County of Riverside stormwater requirements and would be required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit. In addition, the project would not adversely impact a groundwater management plan because project-related runoff would not otherwise impede groundwater replenishment in the Murrieta-Temecula Groundwater Basin. In addition, as noted above, project implementation would not have the potential to result in significant adverse impacts to surface water and groundwater quality or otherwise conflict with or obstruct implementation of the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (Basin Plan). XI. Land Use and Planning Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community?     b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?     Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 51 a) Physically divide an established community? No Impact. The project would widen and extend an existing roadway and other elements within the right-of-way to a total width of 100 feet, which is consistent with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, no impacts would occur. b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. The project would widen and extend an existing roadway consistent with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and thus would not conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, no impacts would occur. XII. Mineral Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?     b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?     a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Less Than Significant Impact. The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 required the State Geologist to initiate mineral land classification to help identify and protect mineral resources in areas within the state. In accordance with guidelines established by the State Mining and Geology Board, mineral deposits in western Riverside County have been classified into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ). According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the project area has been classified by the State Division of Mines and Geology as MRZ-3a. This area contains sedimentary deposits that have the potential to supply sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, these areas are not considered to contain deposits of significant economic value. Given the limited area the project would disturb and the fact that the surrounding area is generally developed or zoned for future development, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource valuable to the region or state. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 52 XIII. Noise Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in: a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in any applicable plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?     b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?     c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?     The following analysis is based on the Acoustical Analysis Report prepared for the proposed project by HELIX (2020c; Appendix G). a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less Than Significant Impact. All noise level or sound level values presented herein are expressed in terms of decibels (dB), with A-weighting (dBA) to approximate the hearing sensitivity of humans. Time-averaged noise levels are expressed by the symbol LEQ, with a specified duration. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average, where noise levels during the evening hours of 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. have an added 5 dBA weighting, and sound levels during the nighttime hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. have an added 10 dBA weighting. This is similar to the Day Night sound level (LDN), which is a 24-hour average with an added 10 dBA weighting on the same nighttime hours but no added weighting on the evening hours. Sound levels expressed in CNEL are always based on dBA. The maximum sound level (LMAX) is the maximum level during a measurement period or noise event. These metrics are used to express noise levels for both measurement and municipal regulations, as well as for land use guidelines and enforcement of noise ordinances. Construction Noise The City’s Municipal Code states that construction noise limits apply to projects within one quarter mile of an occupied residence. According to the Acoustical Analysis, the hotels located along Jefferson Road, Marriott SpringHill Suites and Hampton Inn Suites, located approximately 1,000 feet and 700 feet from the nearest portion of the project alignment, were conservatively analyzed as occupied residences for the purposes of this analysis (HELIX 2020c). The most substantial noise increases from construction activities that may affect off-site uses would occur during the grading phase. The loudest Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 53 equipment used during this phase would be a grader and excavator. The equipment would be in operation for 40 percent of a typical construction hour. At a distance of 700 feet, the grading equipment would generate a noise level of 58.1 dBA LEQ. The City does not adopt noise level standards for construction noise. However, construction would not occur between the hours of 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Saturday, and all-day Sunday, as required by the Municipal Code. Therefore, noise generated by construction equipment would be less than significant. Traffic Noise A significant increase in noise levels would occur if project-added traffic results in an increase of 3 CNEL or more. The project’s primary operational noise source would be vehicular traffic. According to the TIA prepared for the proposed project by David Evans and Associates, Inc., the project would not result in a doubling of average daily trips (ADT; David Evans and Associates, Inc. 2020b). A doubling of ADT would cause a doubling in noise (a 3 CNEL increase), which is often noticeable to sensitive receptors and would be perceived as a significant increase. The project would not generate nearly enough trips to result in a doubling of roadway noise. The nearest noise-sensitive land uses (NSLUs) to the project site are two hotels along Jefferson Road, Marriott SpringHill Suites and Hampton Inn Suites, located approximately 1,000 feet and 700 feet from the nearest portion of the project alignment. According to the Acoustical Analysis, at a distance of 700 feet, the existing noise level with 9,000 daily trips is approximately 60.6 CNEL. The project would result in a long-term increase to 14,300 daily trips, which corresponds to a noise level of approximately 62.4 CNEL (HELIX 2020c). An increase of 1.8 CNEL would not exceed 3 CNEL and would not be discernable to the human ear. In addition, given the comparatively small change in distance associated with expanding the road from two lanes to four lanes, the topography and intervening distance across Murrieta Creek would contribute to the negligible change in noise levels. Since project-added trips would not increase existing noise levels by 3 CNEL, transportation noise impacts to off-site land uses would be less than significant. b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less Than Significant Impact. According to the project’s Acoustical Analysis, construction activities known to generate excessive ground-borne vibration, such as pile driving or blasting, would not be conducted by the project. A possible source of vibration during general project construction activities would be a vibratory roller, which may be used for ground compaction beneath the roadway surface. A vibratory roller would generate approximately 0.046 inch per second peak particle velocity (PPV) at a distance of 100 feet (HELIX 2020c). At this distance, vibration generated by the project would be lower than what is considered a “severe” impact for humans of 0.4 inches per second PPV, and the structural damage impact to older residential structures of 0.5 inches per second PPV. Furthermore, the nearest vibration-sensitive land uses, the Hampton Inn Suites Hotel and Home2 Suites Temecula, would both be located approximately 700 feet from the project alignment. Therefore, given the intervening distance between where a vibratory roller may be used and the nearest vibration sensitive land uses, impacts associated with the roller (and other potential equipment) would be less than significant. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 54 c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airship or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project is subject to some distant aircraft noise, though the site is not located near an active airport. The nearest airports are the Bear Creek Airport, located approximately 4 miles to the north, and the French Valley Airport, located approximately 5 miles to the northeast. At these distances, no effects related to airport noise would occur at the project site, and impacts would be less than significant. XIV. Population and Housing Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?     b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?     a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is designed to meet the roadway classification requirements of a major arterial with four divided lanes, as specified by City Standard No. 101 and included in the City’s General Plan Circulation Element Figure C-2. The expanded roadway will accommodate future traffic levels projected under buildout of the General Plan. Therefore, although the project involves the expansion of infrastructure, it would accommodate planned growth rather than induce growth. The project does not include land uses, such as homes or business, that would directly induce population growth. As such, the project would not induce direct or indirect population growth, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed project would involve improvements to an existing roadway. There are no existing residences within the project alignment and no people or housing units would be displaced. No impact would occur. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 55 XV. Public Services Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection?     b) Police protection?     c) Schools?     d) Parks?     e) Other public facilities?     a) Fire protection? Less than Significant Impact. Operation of the roadway would not generate an increased demand for fire protection services beyond existing conditions. During construction, fire protection may be required in the case of accident conditions, but these would be short-term demands and would not require increases in the level of service offered or affect these agencies’ response times. Because of the low probability and short-term nature of potential fire protection needs during construction, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts. b) Police protection? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in an increase in demand for police protection services beyond existing conditions, and therefore, would not have operational impacts to police protection or cause a need for new or altered police protection facilities. A police protection need could occur during project construction if theft or crime associated with the construction equipment or construction site would occur; however, these types of events would not trigger an increase above provided police protection levels. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts. c) Schools? No Impact. The proposed project would place no demand on school services because it would not involve the construction of facilities that would generate school-aged children and would not involve the introduction of a temporary or permanent population into this area. Therefore, the project would have no impact on schools. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 56 d) Parks? No Impact. The proposed project would place no demand on parks because it would not involve the introduction of a temporary or permanent population into the area that would use parks. Therefore, the project would have no impact on parks. e) Other public facilities? No Impact. The proposed project would not involve the introduction of a temporary or permanent human population into this area. Therefore, the project would have no impact on other public facilities. XVI. Recreation Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?     b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?     a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project would not generate a population that would increase demand for parks or recreational facilities. Therefore, the proposed project would not affect use of existing facilities. No impacts to recreation would occur. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed roadway improvements would not generate a population that would increase demand for parks or recreational facilities. The project would include the removal of portions of the adjoining public walking/biking pathway along the northeast side of Diaz Road. However, these would be replaced in the currently undeveloped buffer area between Diaz Road and Murrieta Creek. The analysis associated with constructing these facilities is included this document. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities that would have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Impacts to recreation would be less than significant. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022  57  XVII. Transportation   Potentially  Significant  Impact  Less Than  Significant Impact  with Mitigation  Incorporated  Less Than  Significant  Impact  No  Impact  Would the project:      a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or  policy addressing the circulation system,  including transit, roadway, bicycle and  pedestrian facilities?       b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent  with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3,  subdivision (b)?       c) Substantially increase hazards due to a  geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves  or dangerous intersections) or incompatible  uses (e.g., farm equipment)?       d) Result in inadequate emergency access?        The following analysis is based on the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the proposed project  by DEA (DEA 2020b; Appendix H) and a project‐specific Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Analysis  prepared by Urban Crossroads, Inc. (Urban Crossroads 2021, Appendix I).  a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including  transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?  Less than Significant Impact. A TIA was prepared for the project (DEA 2020b) to describe the existing  roadway and intersection functions under current conditions and to analyze future roadway and  intersection functions following implementation of the proposed project, which involves improving  Diaz Road from two lanes to four lanes between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road. The City’s  General Plan Circulation Element classifies Diaz Road as a Major Arterial (4 Lanes Divided), per City  Standard No. 101. The typical cross‐section calls for a 100‐foot minimum right‐of‐way, 76‐foot  roadway with a 14‐foot raised median, and 12‐foot parkways on each side of the road. This segment  of Diaz Road would complete the City’s only existing north‐south corridor west of Murrieta Creek. In  addition, per the City’s Circulation Element, project intersections shall be designed to include two  through lanes, two left‐turn lanes, and one right‐turn lane. The study is summarized below, and the  complete TIA is included as Appendix H of this Initial Study.   Roadway segment and intersection operating conditions are typically described in terms of level of  service (LOS). LOS is a scale used to indicate the quality of traffic flow on roadway segments and at  intersections, with a range from LOS A (free flow, little congestion) to LOS F (forced flow, extreme  congestion). The City General Plan Circulation Element (City 2005) identifies LOS E as the acceptable  LOS for roadway segment operations and LOS D as the acceptable LOS for peak hour intersection  operations.   Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 58 Existing Operations Intersections Intersection operations under existing conditions are shown in Table 11, Existing Intersection Operations. As shown in the table, one intersection operates at an unacceptable LOS under existing conditions, Diaz Road at Via Montezuma. Table 11 EXISTING INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection Peak Hour Existing Delay1 Existing LOS2 Diaz Road at Rancho California Road AM 36.2 D PM 39.4 D Diaz Road at Rancho Way AM 8.0 A PM 4.3 A Diaz Road at Via Montezuma AM 44.5 E PM 28.4 D Diaz Road at Avenue Alvarado AM 13.5 B PM 13.2 B Diaz Road at Winchester Road AM 29.4 C PM 17.8 B Source: David Evans and Associates, Inc. 2020b 1 Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle 2 Level of Service Roadway Segments Roadway segment operations under the existing conditions are shown in Table 12, Existing Roadway Segment Operations. As shown in Table 12, all five roadway segments operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS E or better) under existing conditions. In addition, the project would improve the roadway segments LOS. Table 12 EXISTING ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS Intersection Classification Capacity Existing ADT Existing LOS Rancho California Road to 1,600 feet +/- north of Rancho California Road Major Arterial (4 Lanes Divided) 36,000 8,800 E or better 1,600 feet +/- north of Rancho California Road to Via Montezuma Major Arterial (4 Lanes Divided) 36,000 9,000 E or better Via Montezuma to 300 feett south of Avenue Alvarado/Overland Drive Limited Secondary Arterial (2 Lanes Divided) 16,000 9,100 E or better South of Avenue Alvarado/Overland Drive to Dendy Parkway Major Arterial (4 Lanes Divided) 36,000 3,700 E or better Dendy Parkway to Cherry Street Future Segment NA NA NA Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 59 Long-Term Year 2040 Scenario To determine intersection and roadway segment operations under the Long-Term Year 2040 scenario, the TIA used forecasted regional growth from the Riverside County Travel Analysis Model (RIVTAM) travel demand forecasting model. Intersections Intersection operations under the Long-Term Year 2040 scenario are shown in Table 13, Long-Term Year 2040 Intersection Operations. As shown in the table, three intersections would operate at an unacceptable LOS (LOS E) under the Long-Term Year 2040 scenario without the project: • Diaz Road/Rancho Way intersection; • Diaz Road/Via Montezuma intersection; and • Diaz Road/Avenue Alvarado intersection. Under the Long-Term Year 2040 With Project scenario, all intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS. The project would reduce delays at these intersection during the AM and PM peak hour scenarios. Therefore, no impacts would occur to the intersections under the Long-Term Year 2040 With Project scenario. Table 13 LONG-TERM YEAR 2040 INTERSECTION OPERATIONS Intersection Peak Hour Long-Term Year 2040 Delay1 Long-Term Year 2040 LOS2 Long-Term Year 2040 With Project Delay Long-Term Year 2040 With Project LOS ∆ Delay3 Diaz Road/ AM 40.4 D 37.8 D -2.6 Rancho California Road PM 39.6 D 36.6 D -3.0 Diaz Road/ AM 56.8 E 33.5 C -23.3 Rancho Way PM 38.4 D 31.9 C -6.5 Diaz Road/ AM 5253.5 F -- -- N/A Via Montezuma PM 353.7 F -- -- N/A Diaz Road/ AM 633.8 F 41.9 D -591.1 Avenue Alvarado PM 360.5 F 37.0 D -323.0 Diaz Road/ AM 36.9 D 36.0 D -0.9 Winchester Road PM 35.4 D 32.0 D -3.4 Diaz Road/ AM 9.7 A 9.2 A -0.5 Dendy Parkway PM 9.6 A 9.1 A -0.5 Source: David Evans and Associates, Inc. 2020b 1 Average delay expressed in seconds per vehicle 2 Level of Service 3 Change in delay due to project N/A = not applicable Roadway Segments Roadway segment operations under the Long-Term Year 2040 scenario are shown in Table 14, Long- Term Year 2040 Roadway Segment Operations. As shown in Table 14, all five roadway segments would operate at an acceptable LOS (LOS E or better) under the Long-Term Year 2040 Without Project Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 60 scenario. Under the Year 2040 With Project scenario, the same five roadway segments would operate at an acceptable LOS. This analysis concludes that intersections on Diaz Road, rather than the roadway segments themselves, are the choke points requiring expansion of Diaz Road. Despite growth in traffic volumes, all segments of Diaz Road would operate under the capacity of a major four lane arterial. Therefore, no impacts to roadway segments would occur under the Long-Term Year 2040 scenario. Table 14 LONG-TERM YEAR 2040 ROADWAY SEGMENT OPERATIONS Intersection Classification Capacity Existing ADT Existing LOS Rancho California Road to 1,600 feet +/- north of Rancho California Road Major Arterial (4 Lanes Divided) 36,000 8,900 E or better 1,600 feet +/- north of Rancho California Road to Via Montezuma Major Arterial (4 Lanes Divided) 36,000 14,300 E or better Via Montezuma to 300 feet south of Avenue Alvarado / Overland Drive Major Arterial (4 Lanes Divided) 36,000 13,400 E or better South of Avenue Alvarado / Overland Drive to Dendy Parkway Major Arterial (4 Lanes Divided) 36,000 7,000 E or better Dendy Parkway to Cherry Street Major Arterial (4 Lanes Divided) 36,000 4,500 E or better With regard to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and alternative transportation, the project would maintain public access during construction to allow for continued use of the right-of-way by pedestrians and cyclists. With regard to the Murrieta Creek Regional Trail, the construction specifications will require that the contractor maintain access to the trail at all times to the extent feasible. Any temporary closures to portions of the trail would require approval by the City Engineer and would only be allowed when necessary to perform work in the immediate area or for public safety purposes. The duration of any temporary closures would be minimized. Use of alternative transportation such as transit and ridesharing services would not be notably affected, as traffic access would also be maintained throughout construction activities. Once constructed, the new relocated regional trail and new parkway facilities would provide enhanced access for pedestrian and bicycle users, while the expanded roadway would facilitate transportation via transit and ridesharing services, to the extent these are already available in the project area. Overall, the widening of Diaz Road would result in improved traffic operations in both the near-term and long-term timeframes. The volume-to-capacity ratios would be improved, allowing for a more efficient and effective circulation system, including improvements to alternative transportation facilities. As such, the project would not conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact. The analysis of VMT in CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 provides that transportation impacts of projects are, in general, best measured by evaluating the project's VMT. VMT reflects both the number and the distance of the trips taken. Construction activities would require the delivery of construction equipment and materials to the project site, in addition to the Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 61 removal of construction waste from the site; however, such trips would be both brief and infrequent; as such, construction-related VMT impact would be less than significant. As relates to long-term operational VMT impacts, according to the VMT analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads (2020, Appendix I of this Draft IS/MND), the City’s guidelines state that the threshold of significance for VMT impacts related to a transportation project is a net increase in total existing VMT for the area. Temecula is located in western Riverside County, which is also known as the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Region. Consistent with Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR)’s Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) recommendations, it is appropriate to measure the total net change in VMT related to the implementation of a transportation project like the proposed project. To determine whether or not there is a significant impact, the WRCOG Region’s total VMT with the project’s proposed additional lanes is compared to without project conditions. The WRCOG Region without Project lanes is estimated at 45,506,338, whereas with the Project’s additional lanes, the WRCOG Region VMT is estimated at 45,503,455. Because the project results in a cumulative sub-region VMT decrease under the project condition compared to the no project condition, the project’s effect on VMT is not considered significant. As such, the project would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 and impacts would be less than significant. c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. During construction, a Traffic Control Plan would be implemented to maintain safe roadway conditions for travelers along Diaz Road. Upon completion of construction, the proposed median, streetlights, bike lanes, and sidewalks would minimize hazards to vehicular travelers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. During construction, certain lanes and/or parts of the roadway may be closed to vehicular traffic; however, a Traffic Control Plan would be implemented and would maintain adequate access to areas along portions of Diaz Road. Upon completion of construction, the improved roadway would include more lanes and would therefore allow for improved access to the surrounding areas. As such, impacts would be less than significant. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 62 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or     ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.     The following analysis is based on the Cultural Resources Study prepared for the proposed project by HELIX (2020b; Appendix C). City correspondence with affected tribal groups as part of the AB 52 consultation process are provided in Appendix J of this Draft IS/MND. a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 63 Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Public Resources Code Section 5020.1, or determined to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. As discussed in response V.b, cultural resources (including tribal cultural resources) may be present within the project alignment based on the presence of young alluvial deposits, the NAHC’s indication of the area’s cultural sensitivity, and tribal importance of the project area. Grading and other ground-disturbing activities would therefore have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, and impacts would be potentially significant. Therefore, the project would implement an archaeological and Native American monitoring program, as detailed in mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-5, which would reduce potentially significant impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less-than-significant level. XIX. Utilities and Service Systems Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?     b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?     c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?     d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?     e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?     Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 64 a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not generate wastewater, require wastewater service, or result in the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities. The project would use a minimal amount of water required for dust control during the temporary construction period and landscaping during project operation; the project would not require a substantial water supply that would require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. However, the proposed project would include the construction of storm drains within the project alignment. In addition, the project would infringe upon several small fenced/walled enclosures containing existing utility and water infrastructure (i.e., wells, piping, tanks, and small outbuildings) on the northeast side of Diaz Road. These facilities would be entirely reconstructed in the existing buffer zone adjacent to the roadway. Since the project would return the utility infrastructure to preconstruction conditions, impacts would be less than significant. b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Less than Significant Impact. The project would use a minimal amount of water required for dust control during the temporary construction period and landscaping during project operation. The project would not require a substantial water supply, and sufficient water supplies would be available to serve the project in the reasonably foreseeable future during normal, dry and multiple dry years. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? No Impact. The proposed project would not require wastewater service. Therefore, the project would not exceed the wastewater capacity of the local wastewater treatment provider. No impact would occur. d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? No Impact. The proposed project would generate a minimal amount of construction waste. All non- recyclable solid waste generated during construction would be taken to a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity. During operation, the project would not generate substantial solid waste; the limited waste generated along public roadways is typically diffuse litter. As a result, the proposed project would have a negligible effect on landfill capacity. Based on this small quantity of material, the proposed project would not generate solid waste in excess of federal, state, and local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, no impacts would occur. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 65 e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. The proposed project would generate a minimal amount of construction waste and no ongoing operational waste. Concrete and asphalt waste would be recycled and reused to the extent feasible to limit the volume of construction wastes requiring off-site disposal. Solid waste produced by the proposed project would be disposed of at a properly permitted facility in accordance with federal, state, and local laws. Therefore, no impacts would occur. XX. Wildfire Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project: a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?     b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?     c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?     d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?     a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less than Significant Impact. Emergency management services are overseen by the Temecula Fire Department composed of one Division Chief, two Battalion Chiefs, and sixty firefighting personnel that serve from five fire stations located within the city limits. The closest station to the project area is at 27415 Enterprise Circle West, south of Winchester Road and east of Diaz Road. The Temecula Fire Department fire engines are all four-person staffed, paramedic assessment engines, which ensures that a minimum of one paramedic and three emergency medical technician (EMT)- level personnel at the scene of all emergencies (City 2020). Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project would temporarily restrict access for emergency vehicles due to the closure of segments of Diaz Road while under construction. However, construction would be required to comply with the County of Riverside’s Emergency Operations Plan to ensure the appropriate emergency access by means of adjacent Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 66 roadways. Furthermore, a Traffic Control Plan would be implemented to identify traffic control measures through the duration of project construction activities. Operations associated with the widened roadway would be similar to existing conditions, but would provide incrementally increased traffic capacity to accommodate future traffic volumes, which would also facilitate emergency response and evacuation activities in the project area. As such, implementation of the project would not impair an emergency response or evacuation plan, and impacts would be less than significant. b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less than Significant Impact. The City is subject to both wildland and urban fires due to its climate, topography, and native vegetation. The extended droughts characteristic of the region’s Mediterranean climate and increasingly severe dry periods associated with global warming result in large areas of dry native vegetation that provide fuel for wildland fires. State law requires that all local jurisdictions identify VHFHSZs within their areas of responsibility (California Government Code Sections 51175–51189). Inclusion within these zones is based on vegetation density, slope severity, and other relevant factors that contribute to fire severity. The project site is not located within or near an area designated as a state responsibility area (CAL FIRE, 2007, 2011) nor is it classified as or located near a VHFHSZ (CAL FIRE 2007, 2011). The project site is mapped as Non-VHFHSZ per the CAL FIRE Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps prepared under the FRAP. According to the VHFHSZ Maps prepared by the City in collaboration with CAL FIRE, the nearest VHFHSZ is located approximately one mile west of the project near the City’s western boundary. In addition, the proposed project would not result in an increase in the City’s population which could potentially result in the expose of additional people. As a result, project implementation would not exacerbate wildlife risk, and impacts would be less than significant. c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? Less than Significant Impact. As stated above in item XX.a, the project site is not located within a VHFHSZ so the site is not considered to be at a great risk for wildfires (CAL FIRE 2007, 2011). The proposed project includes the expansion of an existing roadway, which would infringe upon public walking and biking pathways as well as several small fenced/walled enclosures containing existing utility and water infrastructure (i.e., wells, piping, tanks, and small outbuildings). However, the majority of the land impacted by the roadway expansion is currently undeveloped. While the project would relocate the impacted utility infrastructure and public walking and biking pathways, such activities would not exacerbate wildfire risk as they would be installed in the existing buffer zone adjacent to the roadway. Operation and maintenance of the project would not differ from the current usage as a public right-of-way. Therefore, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risk or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. No impacts would occur. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 67 d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less than Significant Impact. As stated in item XX.a, above, the project site is not located within a VHFHSZ so the site is not considered to be at a great risk for wildfires (CAL FIRE 2007, 2011). Additionally, the project would include construction BMPs which would minimize impacts related to downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, including maintaining the existing slope near Murrieta Creek and providing silt fences where applicable. As such, impacts would be less than significant. XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?     b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of past, present and probable future projects)?     c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?     a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Although no burrowing owls or burrowing owl signs were observed on the project alignment or potential off-site staging areas, the project alignment does contain on-site burrows with potential to support burrowing owl. In addition, LBV and SWFL Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 68 were observed within the study area. The project alignment also contains vegetation that may provide nesting habitat for migratory birds, which are protected under the MBTA and could be affected if construction occurs during the breeding season. Mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to burrowing owl, LBV, SWFL, and migratory birds to a less-than-significant level. The project would also implement mitigation measures BIO-6 and BIO-7 to ensure consistency with the Western Riverside MSHCP. Therefore, impacts to biological resources would be less than significant. Although cultural and tribal cultural resources were not identified within the project alignment, the potential for such resources exists due to the sensitivity of the area. Therefore, the project would implement mitigation measures CUL-1 through CUL-5 to reduce potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. Similarly, potential impacts to paleontological resources would be addressed through implementation of mitigation measures PAL-1 and PAL-2; as such, impacts to paleontological resources would be less than significant. b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Only one project has been identified to potentially occur within the vicinity of the project alignment during the time of the proposed construction. This project, the Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Project, would extend Overland Drive from its existing southwestern terminus at Enterprise Circle West across Murrieta Creek to connect with Diaz Road. While the timing of implementation of this project has not been determined, its construction would entail activities similar in nature to the proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project but would be more limited in terms of footprint and duration. If the bridge project and proposed project were constructed concurrently, there would be the potential for additive effects in the vicinity of the bridge location. However, it is not anticipated that these additive effects would result in significant cumulative impacts given the mitigation measures that would be required to be implemented for both projects. Such measures, as well as compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, would limit the individual impacts of each project such that even if performed concurrently the combined impacts would not be significant. Further, because both projects would be undertaken by the City, the activities of each project would be coordinated as to minimize the potential for cumulative impacts to occur. Potential impacts have been identified in the categories of biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils (including paleontological resources), and Tribal Cultural Resources. The evaluation contained in this document determined that potential impacts to the environment can be reduced to a less than significant level with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. Based on data provided in this document, including the type of project proposed and its location, it is concluded that implementation of the proposed project will not result in impacts that are either individually or cumulatively considerable or significant when viewed in relation to past, present or probable future projects. c) Have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will not result in any identifiable substantial adverse effects on humans either directly or indirectly. The goal of the proposed Project is to provide better circulation within the City of Temecula as envisioned by the City’s General Plan. Exposure to environmental effects associated with geology and soils (e.g., seismic Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 69 shaking and liquefaction) may result in substantial adverse effects to humans. Implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1 would ensure adherence to regulatory codes, ordinances, regulations, standards, and guidelines for geology and soils. With implementation of the required mitigation no substantial adverse effect to humans will result from carrying out the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts from construction and operation of the proposed project to human beings would be less than significant with mitigation. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 70 4.0 References California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) 2009 Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA As Recommended by CAL FIRE, Murrieta. December 21. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2018 List of eligible and officially designated State Scenic Highways. Available at: https://dot.ca.gov/Configuration/Error-Pages/Error-404- Page?item=%2fprograms%2fdesign%2flandscape-architecture- programs&user=extranet%5cAnonymous&site=Caltrans. Accessed October 17, 2018. 2013 Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Waste, Air, Noise, Paleontology Office. September. Coffman Associates, Inc. 2009 Airport Master Plan for French Valley Airport, Riverside County, California. Draft Final Technical Report. April. Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) 2020 EnviroStor. Available from: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. David Evans and Associates 2020a Geotechnical Design Report Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW 17-25) City of Temecula, California. July 6. 2020b Traffic Impact Analysis for Diaz Road Widening Project. June 26. Dudek and Associates 2003 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Final MSHCP, Volume I. Prepared for the County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency. Approved June 17. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2020 FEMA Flood Map Service Center. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery=murrieta#searchresultsanchor. Accessed October 12, 2021. HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) 2021 General Biological Resources Assessment. July. 2020a Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment for Diaz Road Extension Project. October. 2020b Diaz Road Extension Project Cultural Resources Survey. September. 2020c Diaz Road Expansion Project Acoustical Analysis Report. December. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 71 Leighton Consulting, Inc. (Leighton) 2020 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Between Rancho California Road and Cherry Street Temecula, California 92590. February 11. Paleo Solutions, Inc. (Paleo Solutions) 2020 Paleontological Technical Study - Diaz Road Expansion Project. June 5. Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission 2004 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. October 14. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) 2016 Roadway Construction Emissions Model Version 8.1.0. Available at: http://www.airquality.org/businesses/ceqa-land-use-planning/ceqa-guidance-tools. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 2017 SCAQMD Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. March. 2015 SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. March. Available at: www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 2010 Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15 (slide presentation). Diamond Bar, CA. SCAQMD. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2010/sept28mtg/ghgmtg15-web.pdf. September 28. 2009 Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds Look-up Tables. October. Available at: www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook (as amended). State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) 2020 GeoTracker. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Urban Crossroads, Inc. 2021 Dias Road Widening RIVTAM Modeling and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Calculations. May 6. U.S. Department of Agriculture 2017 Web Soil Survey. Accessed October 8, 2020. Available at: https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 72 5.0 Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND A Notice of Intent to adopt a MND was posted at the project site, published in The Press-Enterprise newspaper, and filed with the Riverside County Clerk on January 31, 2022. The Draft IS/MND was submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) of the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and circulated for a 30-day public review period beginning January 31, 2022, ending March 1, 2022 (SCH No. 2022010554). Written comments were received on the Draft IS/MND from Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD), and Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). The comment letters and responses to the comments follow. COMMENTS RESPONSES 73 A-1 A-2 A-1 The commenter provides an introduction to the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and the comments presented in the comment letter to follow. A-2 The commenter suggests that the proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project would increase impervious surface area within the area tributary to Murrieta Creek and therefore would contribute to an existing drainage impact, and further, that this impact must be addressed in the City’s CEQA document. However, as discussed in Responses to Comments A-3 and A-5 below, implementation of the project would not notably change the existing drainage conditions upstream of Diaz Road. The commenter also describes flooding events at the Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility (TVRWRF) to provide background on the general drainage conditions at that facility and surrounding area. The commenter further asserts that these flooding events and drainage conditions are due in part to inadequate conveyance capacity in drainage facilities serving the TVRWRF, including facilities that convey stormwater to the east under existing Diaz Road to their respective discharge points at Murrieta Creek. COMMENTS RESPONSES 74 A-3 A-4 A-5 A-3 The commenter notes that the Draft IS/MND describes the future installation of stormwater facilities including storm drains, catch basins, and other facilities in compliance with applicable regulations and also acknowledges the incremental increase in overall impervious surface area within the project site that would result from project implementation. The commenter then suggests that the Draft IS/MND states that the project would result in increased surface drainage that would be conveyed to planned facilities but does not provide adequate information to conclude that the increased runoff would not result in a significant drainage impact. However, such details as requested by the commenter were not available at the time the Draft IS/MND was prepared and thus specific design for stormwater facilities were not provided. Nonetheless, future stormwater facilities constructed as part of the project would be required, as noted in the Draft IS/MND, to adequately capture and convey the increased flows from the project, irrespective of the specific design of such facilities. Further, only a very small fraction of the increased impervious surface area associated with the project would be tributary to the culverts or earthen channel cited by the commenter (i.e., contributing drainage to the west side of Diaz Road requiring conveyance under the street to outlet at Murrieta Creek). The vast majority of the increased impervious surface and potential surface drainage would occur on the east side of Diaz Road (i.e., would not be combined with upstream flows including those from the TVRWRF that flow under Diaz Road). As such, while the project would contribute a very minute incremental amount of additional stormwater volume to the channel and culverts crossing under Diaz Road, the issues cited by the commenter are associated with an existing hydrologic condition which would be minimally impacted by project implementation. A-4 The commenter cites a technical study prepared for EMWD regarding the existing flooding and drainage conditions at the TVRWRF and indicates that the study notes the existing drainage channel is unmaintained and undersized, which potentially leads to stormwater backup and overflowing over Diaz Road, thereby leading to flooding at the TVRWRF as has occurred in the past during large storm events. However, this existing condition is not a result of the Diaz Road project and would be Continued on next page COMMENTS RESPONSES 75 A-5 cont. A-6 A-7 minimally affected by project implementation given the anticipated future drainage improvements for the Diaz Road project, which would convey almost all project-related stormwater flows directly to Murrieta Creek. A-5 The commenter suggests that the lack of details regarding future stormwater facilities for the project would preclude the City from making the determination and flooding impacts of the project would be less than significant. To the contrary, however, as noted above in Response to Comment A-3 and in the Draft IS/MND, all future stormwater facilities would be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable stormwater regulations and permit requirements to the satisfaction of various agencies, including the City, Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). While the specific location and design of these facilities has not been determined at this stage of the project, such facilities would be required to adequately convey all project-related flows subject to review and approval by these agencies. Therefore, because the project would not exceed the capacity of stormwater facilities serving the project site given compliance with applicable regulations and the agency review/approval process, regardless of the upstream flooding conditions, impacts were concluded to be less than significant. In addition, CEQA requires that a project mitigate impacts that are a result of that project, and not to address existing conditions not caused by the project itself or in conjunction with other current, future, or probably future projects (i.e., cumulative effects). Furthermore, mitigation measures, when required for a project, must directly address the impact at issue and must also be proportional to the impact caused by the project. As such, because the project is not causing the flooding impact cited by the commenter, and thus does not warrant mitigation, the City is not obligated to alleviate the existing upstream flooding conditions as part of the Diaz Road project, as suggested by the commenter. COMMENTS RESPONSES 76 A-6 The commenter indicates that flooding of the TVRWRF could potentially continue to occur and that it would be exacerbated by project implementation, thereby causing damage to the TVRWRF resulting in impacts to the plant’s operation or potential sewage spills. However, this assertion is based on the assumption that the Diaz Road Expansion. Project would, in fact, measurably increase the potential for flooding at the TVRWRF. For reasons noted above in Responses to Comments A-3 and A-5, the project is not anticipated to contribute notable stormwater flows to the facilities cited by the commenter as having capacity issues that have led to past flooding events at the TVRWRF. While the minor increase in impervious surface area along the west side of Diaz Road associated with the project would incrementally increase stormwater flows tributary to the earthen channel and culvert(s) in that location, the contribution to the overall flow volume at this location would be minimal compared to the upstream flows being conveyed through and generated on the TVRWRF property. The project’s de minimis increase in stormwater flows at this location would not result in a substantial increase in the potential for flooding or other adverse effects relative to existing conditions. Therefore, impacts associated with flooding and stormwater conveyance were concluded in the Draft IS/MND to be less than significant. Accordingly, the project would not be required to mitigate impacts in this regard and would not be required to improve the existing culvert(s) or channel as suggested by the commenter. A-7 The commenter provides a concluding statement regarding the comments provided in this letter. COMMENTS RESPONSES 77 COMMENTS RESPONSES 78 COMMENTS RESPONSES 79 B-1 B-2 B-1 The commenter provides an introduction to the comments contained in the comment letter, and also provides a brief summary of the proposed project. Because this comment does not raise a substantive issue regarding the project or the analysis presented in the Draft IS/MND, no further comment is warranted. B-2 The commenter notes that the RCFC&WCD has jurisdiction over Murrieta Creek, and thus any work in areas within its jurisdiction will require the issuance of an encroachment permit, which requires review and approval of various documents. These documents include CEQA documentation, regulatory permits, nesting bird plan, and potentially other documents. The commenter also indicates that the RCFC&WCD should be listed as a Responsible Agency in the Final IS/MND. The City will provide all necessary documentation and permits to the RCFC&WCD as part of the review and permitting process, as requested by the commenter, and comply with all permit conditions. Because this comment does not raise a substantive issue regarding the project or the analysis presented in the Draft IS/MND, no further comment is warranted. COMMENTS RESPONSES 80 B-2 cont. B-3 B-3 The commenter provides additional information to assist the City with future permitting efforts and also provides a concluding statement regarding the comments provided in the letter. Because this comment does not raise a substantive issue regarding the project or the analysis presented in the Draft IS/MND, no further comment is warranted. COMMENTS RESPONSES 81 C-1 C-1 The commenter acknowledges receipt and review of the project plans and documentation but offers no other comments. Because this comment does not raise a substantive issue regarding the project or the analysis presented in the Draft IS/MND, no further comment is warranted. Diaz Road Expansion Project | April 2022 82 This page intentionally left blank HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com October 5, 2020 DEA-12 Mr. Gavin Powell, PE David Evans and Associates, Inc 41951 Remington Avenue, Suite 220 Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment for Diaz Road Extension Project, City of Temecula, CA Dear Mr. Powell, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) has assessed air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts associated with the construction of the proposed Diaz Road Extension Project (project). In addition, the analysis also addresses impacts to sensitive receptors from exposure to toxic air contaminants (TACs). This letter summarizes the findings of the air quality and GHG emissions assessment. PROJECT LOCATION The project is located in the City of Temecula (City) in southwestern Riverside County. The project is located south of the Interstate 215 (I-215) and Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange and west of I-15, within Township 7 South Range 3 West and Township 8 South Range 3 West of the Temecula Land Grant, on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5' Murrieta quadrangle. The approximately 2.2-linear mile project site is bordered by Rancho California Road to the south, Cherry Street to the north, and Murrieta Creek to the east. The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) identified as being associated with the project site include segments of Diaz Road (APNs 909-120-006 and 909-370-050), the walking/biking pathway adjoining northeast of Diaz Road (APNs 921-740-004 and -005, and 909-120-016, -021, -040, -051 and -055), and several small walled/fenced enclosures containing utility and water company infrastructure along the northeast side of Diaz Road at several locations between Rancho California Road and Cherry Street (APNs 909-370- 051, 909-120-044 and -056, and 921-740-002). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to improve Diaz Road to meet the roadway classification requirements of a major arterial with four divided lanes, as specified by City Standard No. 101, between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road. The standards call for a 100-foot minimum right-of-way, 76-foot roadway with a 14-foot raised median, and 12-foot parkways on each side of the road. The approximately 2.2-mile segment would be improved on its current horizontal alignment and as depicted in the City’s General Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 2 of 18 October 5, 2020 Plan, Circulation Element, Figure C-2 Roadway Plan. As such, the proposed project would widen the existing Diaz Road segment and extend the northwestern end of Cherry Street. The project would complete the City’s only existing north-south corridor west of Murrieta Creek. North of Cherry Street, this north-south corridor is planned to continue as Washington Avenue within the City of Murrieta. The project site encompasses the existing Diaz Road segment between Rancho California Road to the south and Cherry Street to the north, and the adjacent areas into which the roadways would be widened. At the northernmost end of the project site (from Dendy Parkway to Cherry Street), Diaz Road transitions to an unimproved dirt road. All widening activities would occur on the northeast side of Diaz Road, which would infringe upon public walking and biking pathways as well as several small fenced/walled enclosures containing existing utility and water infrastructure (i.e., wells, piping, tanks, and small outbuildings). With the exception of the small outbuildings in these utility enclosures, there are no existing buildings on the project site. Land uses at the project site include mostly existing public roadway, a small portion of dirt road, portions of an adjoining public walking/biking pathway, and some undeveloped land. Land uses in the vicinity of the project site consist of industrial and commercial developments to the west and south, Murrieta Creek and public walking/biking pathways to the northeast, and mostly undeveloped land to the north. The elevation of the project site ranges from approximately 1,000 to 1,040 feet above mean sea level (AMSL) and the topography is relatively flat as a graded roadway, with an overall downward slope toward the southeast, and some localized sloping toward Murrieta Creek, which is located 200 feet to the northeast. Signing and striping improvements for intersecting streets would be provided to the extent necessary to safely transition lane configurations and turning movements to existing improvements. These improvements would be in accordance with the latest edition(s) of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) and the City’s requirements and specifications. Signal modifications would be needed at the intersection of Winchester Road and Rancho Way to accommodate revised turning movements and the Diaz Road widening. Landscape and planting improvements would include decorative rock, boulders and hardscape improvements for the center median, easterly parkway, and westerly parkway where existing landscape improvements do not exist. The median and parkway improvements would be in accordance with the City’s landscape guidelines. In addition, streetlights would be installed as appropriate according to the City’s design standards for type, location, and spacing. Storm drains would also be installed as appropriate along the expanded roadway to include catch basins and low impact development improvements. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS Construction would commence as early as January 2021 and require approximately 16 months to complete. Construction activities would include site preparation, demolition of existing roadway, grading, installation of drainage and utilities, retaining walls, and paving. During construction, material such as vegetation, soil, old asphalt and concrete may be exported from the site and material such as soil, aggregate, asphalt and concrete may be imported to the site. Table 1, Phases and Material Import/Export, shows the anticipated construction phases, lengths, and amount of material imported or exported to/from the project site. Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 3 of 18 October 5, 2020 Table 1 PHASES AND MATERIAL IMPORT/EXPORT Phase Phase Length (workdays) Import Volume (CY per Day) Export Volume (CY per Day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 35 0 433 Grading/Excavation 158 55 293 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-grade/Retaining Wall 106 205 60 Paving 53 151 0 CY = cubic yards The project’s construction emissions were estimated using the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District’s (SMAQMD) Roadway Construction Emissions Model (RCEM), version 9.0 (SMAQMD 2018). This model utilizes the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) 2017 EMFAC and OFFROAD data to calculate vehicle exhaust and fugitive dust emissions. Emission estimates assume the use of water trucks, yielding a 50 percent control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures to meet the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Rule 403, Fugitive Dust (SCAQMD 2005). Project-specific input was based on general project information, assumptions provided by the project engineers, and default model settings to estimate reasonably conservative conditions. Fugitive dust emissions are calculated using the estimated maximum area (acres) of land disturbed daily, approximately 1 acre per day for the project. Roadway widening construction would disturb a total of 12 acres over approximately 16 months (352 working days). Construction would require the use of off-road equipment. Because the off-road equipment required for construction of the project had not been determined at the time of this analysis, the RCEM default equipment for a road widening project was used in the modeling. Table 2, Construction Equipment Assumptions, presents a summary of the assumed equipment that would be involved in each stage of construction. Table 2 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS Phase Equipment Number Horsepower Grubbing/Land Clearing Crawler Tractors 1 212 Excavators 2 158 Signal Boards 5 6 Grading/Excavation Crawler Tractors 1 212 Excavators 3 158 Graders 2 187 Rollers 2 80 Rubber Tired Loaders 1 203 Scrapers 2 367 Signal Boards 5 6 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 97 Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 4 of 18 October 5, 2020 Table 2 (cont.) CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS Phase Equipment Number Horsepower Drainage/Utilities/Sub-grade/ Retaining Wall Air Compressors 1 78 Generator Sets 1 84 Graders 1 187 Plate Compactors 1 8 Pumps 1 84 Rough Terrain Forklifts 1 100 Scrapers 1 367 Signal Boards 5 6 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 97 Paving Pavers 1 130 Paving Equipment 1 132 Rollers 2 80 Signal Boards 5 6 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 97 Source: RCEM PROJECT OPERATION METHODLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS The project’s operational emissions resulting from the change in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) were estimated using emission factor data for off-road equipment in Riverside County from the California Air Resources Board’s (CARB) Mobile Source Emissions and Emission Rates Database EMFAC2017 (CARB 2020). The emission factors were multiplied by the estimated change in VMT as a result of the project, as reported in the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA; David Evans and Associates [DEA] 2020). AIR QUALITY Climate and Meteorology The project site is within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which consists of all or part of four counties: Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange. The distinctive climate of the SCAB is determined by its terrain and geographic location. The SCAB is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills. It is bound by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and high mountains around the rest of its perimeter. The general region lies in the semi-permanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific, resulting in a mild climate tempered by cool sea breezes with light, average wind speeds. The usually mild climatological pattern is interrupted occasionally by periods of extremely hot weather, winter storms, or Santa Ana winds. Winds in the project area are usually driven by the dominant land/ sea breeze circulation system. Regional wind patterns are dominated by daytime onshore sea breezes. At night, the wind generally slows and reverses direction traveling toward the sea. Local canyons can also alter wind direction, with wind tending to flow parallel to the canyons. The vertical dispersion of air pollutants in the SCAB is hampered by the presence of persistent temperature inversions. High pressure systems, such as the semi-permanent high-pressure zone in which the SCAB is located, are characterized by an upper layer of dry air that warms as it descends, restricting the mobility of cooler marine- influenced air near the ground surface, and resulting in the formation of subsidence inversions. Such Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 5 of 18 October 5, 2020 inversions restrict the vertical dispersion of air pollutants released into the marine layer and, together with strong sunlight, can produce worst-case conditions for the formation of photochemical smog. The basin-wide occurrence of inversions at 3,500 feet above mean sea level or less averages 191 days per year (SCAQMD 1993). Regulatory Framework Criteria Pollutants Ambient air quality is described in terms of compliance with state and national standards, and the levels of air pollutant concentrations considered safe, to protect the public health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect people most sensitive to respiratory distress, such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the federal agency that administrates the Federal Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended in 1990, has established national ambient air quality standards for several air pollution constituents known as criteria pollutants, including: ozone (O3); carbon monoxide (CO); coarse particulate matter (PM10; particles 10 microns or less) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5; particle 2.5 microns or less); sulfur dioxide (SO2); and lead (Pb). As permitted by the Clean Air Act, California has adopted the more stringent California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) and expanded the number of regulated air constituents. Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the environment but is generated from complex chemical and photochemical reactions between precursor pollutants, primarily reactive organic gases (ROGs; also known as volatile organic compounds [VOCs]), 1 and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). PM10 and PM2.5 are generated from a variety of sources, including road dust, diesel exhaust, fuel combustion, tire and brake wear, construction operations and windblown dust. In addition, PM10 and PM2.5 can also be formed through chemical and photochemical reactions of precursor pollutants in the atmosphere. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is required to designate areas of the state as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified for the ambient air quality standards. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations do not violate the standard for that pollutant in that area. A “nonattainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once. The air quality attainment status of the SCAB is shown in Table 3, South Coast Air Basin – Attainment Status. 1 CARB defines and uses the term ROGs while the USEPA defines and uses the term VOCs. The compounds included in the lists of ROGs and VOCs and the methods of calculation are slightly different. However, for the purposes of estimating criteria pollutant precursor emissions, the two terms are often used interchangeably. Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 6 of 18 October 5, 2020 Table 3 SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN – ATTAINMENT STATUS Pollutant Federal Attainment Status State of California Attainment Status 1-hour Ozone (O3) (No federal standard) Nonattainment 8-hour Ozone (O3) Extreme Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment (Maintenance) Attainment Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Attainment (Maintenance) Nonattainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Serious Nonattainment Nonattainment Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) Attainment (Maintenance) Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Attainment Attainment Lead (Pb) Attainment Attainment Sulfates (No federal standard) Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide (No federal standard) Attainment Visibility (No federal standard) Attainment Source: SCAQMD 2016 The SCAB is currently in nonattainment for federal and/or state ozone (O3), suspended particulate matter (PM10) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) standards. Concentrations of all other pollutants meet state and federal standards. The SCAQMD is responsible for implementing emissions standards and other requirements of federal and state laws in the SCAB. As a regional agency, the SCAQMD works directly with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), County transportation commissions, and local governments, and cooperates actively with all federal and state government agencies. The SCAQMD develops rules and regulations; establishes permitting requirements for stationary sources; inspects emissions sources; and enforces such measures through educational programs or fines, when necessary. The SCAQMD is directly responsible for reducing emissions from stationary (area and point), mobile, and indirect sources. As required by the California Clean Air Act, the SCAQMD has responded to this requirement by preparing a sequence of Air Quality Management Plans (AQMPs). On March 3, 2017, the SCAQMD adopted the 2016 AQMP, which is a regional and multi-agency effort (SCAQMD, CARB, SCAG, and USEPA). The 2016 AQMP represents a comprehensive analysis of emissions, meteorology, atmospheric chemistry, regional growth projections, and the impact of existing control measures. The plan seeks to achieve multiple goals in partnership with other entities promoting reductions in criteria pollutant, greenhouse gases, and toxic risk, as well as efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement (SCAQMD 2017). The AQMP is incorporated into the State Implementation Plan, which is subsequently submitted to the USEPA. Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are a diverse group of air pollutants that may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness, or that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs can cause long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis, or genetic damage, or short-term acute effects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), runny nose, throat pain, and headaches. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 7 of 18 October 5, 2020 For carcinogenic TACs, there is no level of exposure that is considered safe and impacts are evaluated in terms of overall relative risk expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals. Noncarcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur. These levels are determined on a pollutant-by- pollutant basis. Diesel engines emit a complex mixture of air pollutants, including both gaseous and solid material. The solid material in diesel exhaust is known as diesel particulate matter (DPM). Almost all DPM is 10 microns or less in diameter, and 90 percent of DPM is less than 2.5 microns in diameter (CARB 2018). Because of their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung. In 1998, CARB identified DPM as a TAC based on published evidence of a relationship between diesel exhaust exposure and lung cancer and other adverse health effects. DPM has a significant impact on California’s population—it is estimated that about 70 percent of total known cancer risk related to air toxics in California is attributable to DPM (CARB 2018). Sensitive Receptors CARB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) have identified the following groups of individuals as the most likely to be affected by air pollution: the elderly over 65, children under 14, infants (including in utero in the third trimester of pregnancy), and persons with cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis (CARB 2005, OEHHA 2015). Some land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved and are referred to as sensitive receptors. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers. The project site is located in a commercial and industrial area with no adjacent sensitive land uses. The closest existing sensitive receptors to the project site are multi- and single-family homes approximately 1,600 feet (0.30 mile) south of Rancho California Road. The closest school (with students under 14) to the project site is the Temecula Elementary School, approximately 4,900 feet (0.93 mile) to the east. Significance Criteria The following significance thresholds are based on Appendix G of the state CEQA Guidelines. A significant impact is identified if the project would result in any of the following: (1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan; (2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; (3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or (4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines states that the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above determinations. The SCAQMD has established significance thresholds to assess the regional and Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 8 of 18 October 5, 2020 localized impacts of project-related air pollutant emissions. The significance thresholds are updated, as needed, to appropriately represent the most current technical information and attainment status in the SCAB. Table 4, SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds, presents the most current significance thresholds, including regional daily thresholds for short-term construction and long-term operational emissions; maximum incremental cancer risk and hazard indices for TACs; and maximum ambient concentrations for exposure of sensitive receptors to localized pollutants. A project with daily emission rates, risk values, or concentrations below these thresholds is generally considered to have a less than significant effect on air quality. Table 4 SCAQMD AIR QUALITY SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS Pollutant Construction Operation Mass Daily Thresholds (lbs/day) VOC 75 55 NOX 100 55 CO 550 550 PM10 150 150 PM2.5 55 55 SOX 150 150 Lead 3 3 Toxic Air Contaminants TACs Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk ≥ 10 in 1 million Cancer Burden > 0.5 excess cancer cases (in areas ≥ 1 in 1 million) Chronic & Acute Hazard Index ≥ 1.0 (project increment) Ambient Air Quality for Criteria Pollutants NO2 1-hour average ≥ 0.18 ppm Annual average ≥ 0.03 ppm CO 1-hour average ≥ 20.0 ppm (state) 8-hour average ≥ 9.0 ppm (state/federal) PM10 24-hour average ≥ 10.4 µg/m3 (construction) 24-hour average ≥ 2.5 µg/m3 (operation) Annual average ≥ 1.0 µg/m3 PM2.5 24-hour average ≥ 10.4 µg/m3 (construction) 24-hour average ≥ 2.5 µg/m3 (operation) SO2 24-hour average ≥ 25 µg/m3 Source: SCAQMD 2019 SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; lbs/day = pounds per day; VOC = volatile organic compound; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SOX = sulfur oxides; TACs = toxic air contaminants; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; ppm = parts per million; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter Project Air Quality Analysis (1) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties, and addresses regional issues relating to transportation, economy, community development, and environment. With regard to air quality Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 9 of 18 October 5, 2020 planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), a long-range transportation plan that uses growth forecasts to project trends out over a 20-year period to identify regional transportation strategies to address mobility needs. These growth forecasts form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the AQMP. These documents are utilized in the preparation of the air quality forecasts and consistency analysis included in the AQMP. Both the RTP/SCS and AQMP are based, in part, on projections originating with County and City General Plans.2 The two principal criteria for determining conformance to the AQMP are: 1. Whether the project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay timely attainment of air quality standards; and 2. Whether the project would exceed the assumptions in the AQMP. With respect to the first criterion, the analyses presented below demonstrate that the project would not generate short-term or long-term emissions that could potentially cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations; cause or contribute to new violations; or delay timely attainment of air quality standards. With respect to the second criterion, the proposed project is improving and widening a roadway and would not result in population or employment increases and, therefore, would not exceed the growth projection assumptions in the AQMP. In addition, the proposed project would be consistent with the City General Plan Circulation Element roadway design guidelines. The project would support the City General Plan Policy 3.3 by providing Class II bicycle lanes along both sides of Diaz Road, and Policy 3.5 by providing space for future bus stops along Diaz Road. Because the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and the growth assumptions used in developing the AQMP, pursuant to SCAQMD guidelines, the proposed project is considered consistent with the region’s AQMP. As such, proposed project-related emissions are accounted for in the AQMP, which is crafted to bring the basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants. Accordingly, the proposed project would be consistent with the emissions projections in the AQMP, thus resulting in a less than significant impact. (2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Construction Emissions Less than Significant Impact. The project’s construction emissions were estimated using the RCEM, as described above. The emissions generated from construction activities include: 2 SCAG serves as the federally designated metropolitan planning organization for the southern California region. Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 10 of 18 October 5, 2020 • Dust (including PM10 and PM2.5) primarily from fugitive sources such as soil disturbance and vehicle travel over unpaved surfaces; and • Combustion emissions of air pollutants (including ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, CO, and sulfur oxides [SOX]), primarily from operation of heavy off-road equipment. The results of the calculations for project construction are shown in Table 5, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions. The data are presented as the maximum anticipated daily emissions for comparison with the SCAQMD thresholds, the model output is included as Attachment A to this letter. As shown in Table 5, the project’s construction emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds and would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The impact would be less than significant. Table 5 MAXIMUM DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Phase Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) VOC NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation/Land Clearing 1.4 18.1 12.2 <0.1 10.8 2.7 Grading/Excavation 6.0 68.3 49.0 0.1 12.9 4.6 Underground Drainage/Utilities 3.5 36.9 31.7 <0.1 11.7 3.6 Paving 1.6 16.3 19.1 <0.1 0.8 0.7 Maximum Daily Emissions 6.0 68.3 49.0 0.1 12.9 4.6 SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55 Significant Impact? No No No No No No Source: RCEM; SCAQMD 2019 lbs/day = pounds per day; ROG = reactive organic gas; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; SO2 = sulfur dioxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District Operational Emissions Less than Significant Impact. The project proposes widening and improving an existing roadway and would only generate emissions during construction in the near term. Because the project would result in additional lanes on Diaz Road and, therefore, increase the total available miles of roadways in the region, the TIA concluded that the project would result in a regional increase in VMT of 7,277 miles in the year 2040 (DEA 2020). The criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions were calculated using data from EMFAC2017, as described above. The calculated maximum daily emissions as a result of the increase in VMT would be less than 0.1 pounds per day for all pollutants and would not exceed any of the SCAQMD emission thresholds shown in Table 4. The calculation sheets are included as Attachment B to this letter. Therefore, the project’s operational criteria pollutant and ozone precursor emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. The impact would be less than significant. Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 11 of 18 October 5, 2020 (3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Criteria Pollutants Less than Significant Impact. The localized effects from the on-site portion of daily construction emissions were evaluated at sensitive receptor locations potentially impacted by the project according to the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) method (SCAQMD 2009). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; they are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area (SRA). The LST methodology is recommended to be limited to projects of five acres or less and to avoid the need for complex dispersion modeling. For projects that exceed 5 acres, such as the proposed 12-acre project, the 5-acre LST look-up values can be used as a screening tool to determine which pollutants require detailed analysis. This approach is conservative as it assumes that all on-site emissions would occur within a 5-acre area and over-predicts potential localized impacts (i.e., more pollutant emissions occurring within a smaller area and within closer proximity to potential sensitive receptors). If a project exceeds the LST look up values, then the SCAQMD recommends that project-specific localized air quality modeling be performed. The project is in SRA 26, Temecula Valley, and sensitive receptors are located within 500 meters (1,640 feet) south of the 2.2-mile long project site. Therefore, the LSTs being applied to the project are based on SRA 26, receptors located within 500 meters, and a disturbed area not to exceed 5 acres. Consistent with the LST guidelines, when quantifying mass emissions for localized analysis, only emissions that occur on-site are considered. Emissions related to off-site delivery/haul truck activity and construction worker trips are not considered in the evaluation of construction-related localized impacts, as these do not contribute to emissions generated on a project site. As shown in Table 6, Maximum Localized Daily Construction Emissions, localized emissions for all criteria pollutants would remain below their respective SCAQMD LSTs. Therefore, impacts would be a less than significant. Table 6 MAXIMUM LOCALIZED DAILY CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS Phase Pollutant Emissions (lbs/day) NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 Site Preparation/Land Clearing 1.3 10.5 10.6 2.6 Grading/Excavation 5.8 45.7 12.7 4.5 Underground Drainage/Utilities 3.3 29.2 11.5 3.5 Paving 1.5 17.4 0.7 0.7 Maximum Daily Emissions 5.8 45.7 13.7 4.5 SCAQMD LST 1,072 29,265 207 105 Significant Impact? No No No No Source: RCEM; SCAQMD 2009 lbs/day = pounds per day; NOX = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with a diameter of 10 microns or less; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 microns or less; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; LST = Localized Significance Threshold Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 12 of 18 October 5, 2020 Toxic Air Contaminants Construction of the project would result in the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, haul trucks, and construction worker vehicles. These vehicles and equipment could generate DPM, which is a TAC. Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a localized area (e.g., near locations with multiple pieces of heavy construction equipment working in close proximity) for a short period of time. Because construction activities and subsequent emissions vary depending on the phase of construction, the construction-related emissions to which nearby receptors are exposed to would also vary throughout the construction period. Concentrations of DPM emissions are typically reduced by 70 percent at approximately 500 feet (CARB 2005). As discussed above, the closest sensitive receptors to the project site are multi- and single-family homes approximately 1,600 feet south of Rancho California Road (the southernmost extent of the proposed roadway improvements). The dose of TACs to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance in the environment and the extent of exposure a person has with the substance; a longer exposure period to a fixed amount of emissions would result in higher health risks. Current models and methodologies for conducting cancer health risk assessments are associated with longer-term exposure periods (typically 30 years for individual residents based on guidance from OEHHA) and are best suited for evaluation of long duration TAC emissions with predictable schedules and locations. These assessment models and methodologies do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities. Cancer potency factors are based on animal lifetime studies or worker studies where there is long-term exposure to the carcinogenic agent. There is considerable uncertainty in trying to evaluate the cancer risk from projects that will only last a small fraction of a lifetime (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment [OEHHA] 2015). Considering this information, the distance to the nearest sensitive receptors, and the fact that any concentrated use of heavy construction equipment would occur at various locations throughout the project site only for short durations, construction of the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations, and the impact would be less than significant. (4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. The project could produce odors during proposed construction activities resulting from heavy diesel equipment exhaust and application of asphalt; however, standard construction practices would minimize the odor emissions and their associated impacts. The increase of construction odors would be minimal, as vehicle exhaust is already prevalent in the area due to its proximity to I-15. Furthermore, any odors emitted during construction would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and would cease upon the completion of the respective phase of construction. Therefore, odor impacts from construction of the project would be less than significant due to the duration of exposure. The project proposes widening and improvement of an existing roadway. Odors generated by traffic on the improved portion of Diaz Road would be similar to existing odors from traffic on streets and highways in the area. Therefore, long-term operation of the project would not result in a change to existing odors in the project vicinity, and there would be no impact. Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 13 of 18 October 5, 2020 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Setting Greenhouse gases, as defined under California’s Assembly Bill (AB) 32, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, recognizes that California is a source of substantial amounts of GHG emissions. The statute states that: Global warming poses a serious threat to the economic wellbeing, public health, natural resources, and the environment of California. The potential adverse impacts of global warming include the exacerbation of air quality problems, a reduction in the quality and supply of water to the state from the Sierra snowpack, a rise in sea levels resulting in the displacement of thousands of coastal businesses and residences, damage to marine ecosystems and the natural environment, and an increase in the incidences of infectious diseases, asthma, and other human health-related problems. In order to help avert these potential consequences, AB 32 established a State goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, which is a reduction of approximately 16 percent from forecasted emission levels, with further reductions to follow. In addition, AB 32 required CARB to develop a Scoping Plan to help the State achieve the targeted GHG emission reductions. In 2015, Executive Order (EO) B-30-15 established a California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California’s GHG emission reduction targets with those of leading international governments, including the 28 nation European Union. California is on track to meet or exceed the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in AB 32. As a follow-up to AB 32 and in response to EO-B-30-15, Senate Bill (SB) 32 was passed by the California legislature in 2016 to codify the EO’s California GHG emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The most recent update to the Scoping Plan was adopted in December 2017 and establishes a proposed framework for California to meet the EO-B-30-15 reduction target (CARB 2017). Significance Criteria Given the relatively small levels of emissions generated by a typical development in relationship to the total amount of GHG emissions generated on a national or global basis, individual development projects are not expected to result in significant, direct impacts with respect to climate change. However, given the magnitude of the impact of GHG emissions on the global climate, GHG emissions from new development could result in significant, cumulative impacts with respect to climate change. Thus, the potential for a significant GHG emissions impact is limited to cumulative impacts. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant environmental impact if it would: (1) Generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs? Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 14 of 18 October 5, 2020 There are no established federal, state, or local quantitative thresholds applicable to the project to determine the quantity of GHG emissions that may have a significant effect on the environment. CARB, the SCAQMD, and various cities and agencies have proposed, or adopted on an interim basis, thresholds of significance that require the implementation of GHG emission reduction measures. For the proposed project, the most appropriate screening threshold for determining GHG emissions is the SCAQMD proposed Tier 3 screening threshold (SCAQMD 2010). Therefore, a significant impact would occur if the proposed project would exceed the SCAQMD proposed Tier 3 screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons (MT) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year. Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis (1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. Construction would result in GHG emissions generated by vehicle engine exhaust from construction equipment, on-road hauling trucks, and worker commuting trips. Construction GHG emissions were calculated by using the RCEM, as described above. Input details and output are provided in Attachment A to this letter. The estimated construction GHG emissions for the project are shown in Table 7, Construction GHG Emissions. For construction emissions, SCAQMD recommends that the emissions be amortized (i.e., averaged) over the anticipated lifespan of the project (30 years) and added to operational emissions. Averaged over 30 years, the proposed construction activities would contribute approximately 37.8 MT CO2e emissions per year. Table 7 CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS Source Emissions (MT CO2e ) Site Preparation/Land Clearing 35.0 Grading/Excavation 668.5 Underground Drainage/Utilities 261.4 Paving 64.6 Total Construction Emissions1 1,134.7 Amortized Construction Emissions 37.8 Source: RCEM; SCAQMD 2010 1 Total may not sum due to rounding. MT = metric tons; CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent The project proposes widening and improving an existing roadway and would only generate emissions during construction in the near term. Because the project would result in additional lanes on Diaz Road and, therefore, increase the total available miles of roadways in the region, the TIA concluded that the project would result in a regional increase in VMT of 7,277 miles in the year 2040 (DEA 2020). The GHG emissions resulting from the increase in VMT were calculated using data from EMFAC2017, as described above. As shown in Table 8, Operational GHG Emissions, the combined operational emissions from the increased VMT and the amortized construction emissions would be 40.0 MT CO2e per year and would not exceed the SCAQMD threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e per year. The impact would be less than significant. Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 15 of 18 October 5, 2020 Table 8 OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS Source Emissions (MT CO2e ) Operational Emissions from VMT Increase 2.2 Amortized Construction Emissions 37.8 Total Operational Emissions 40.0 SCAQMD Threshold 3,000 Significant Impact? No Source: DEA 2020; EMFAC2017; SCAQMD 2010 CO2e: carbon dioxide equivalent; MT: metric tons; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District (2) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact. There are numerous State plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. The principal overall State plan and policy is AB 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. The quantitative goal of AB 32 is to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. SB 32 would require further reductions of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Statewide plans and regulations such as GHG emissions standards for vehicles (AB 1493), the low carbon fuel standard, and regulations requiring an increasing fraction of electricity to be generated from renewable sources are being implemented at the statewide level; as such, compliance at the project level is not addressed. The twelve cities of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), which includes the City of Temecula, adopted a Subregional Climate Action Plan (CAP) in September 2014. The CAP provides a 2010 baseline inventory of GHG emissions for the subregion cities of 5,834,400 MT of CO2e. Approximately 57 percent of the GHG inventory was from transportation sources, 21 percent from commercial/industrial energy use, 20 percent from residential energy use, and the remaining from waste water and solid waste sources. The CAP established a target of reducing subregional GHG emissions 15 percent below 2010 levels by 2020 and 49 percent below 2010 levels by 2035. To achieve the 2020 reduction target, the CAP identifies 14 State and regional measures, 3 local energy sector measures, 18 local transportation sector measures, and 2 solid waste sector measures. The CAP does not identify GHG reduction measures for achieving goals beyond 2020 (WRCOG 2014). The CAP does not include thresholds for determining the significance of a project’s GHG emissions, nor does it include a checklist or other methodology for determining consistency of a project with the goals and measures in the CAP. The project would involve widening and improvements to an existing roadway and only the transportation sector local reduction measures would be potentially applicable. The project would support the CAP local transportation sector measuresT-1, Bicycle Infrastructure Improvements, and T-5 Transit Service Expansion, by providing: • Class II bicycle lanes in both directions of Diaz Road. • Improved crossings and signal-controlled crossings for pedestrians and bicyclists using the multi- use trail paralleling the north side of Diaz Road to the north. Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 16 of 18 October 5, 2020 •Conformance with the latest ADA standards throughout the corridor. •Space for future bus stops out of the traffic lanes that improve transit safety and operational efficiency. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. SUMMARY As described above, emissions of criteria pollutants would be below SCAQMD thresholds and the project would be consistent with the AQMP. Sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of TACs or odors. Thus, impacts to air quality would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. Operational GHG emissions, including amortized construction GHG emissions, would be below SCAQMD thresholds. The project would be consistent with the WRCOG Subregional CAP and would not conflict with applicable State GHG reduction plans or policies. Therefore, GHG impacts would be less than significant no mitigation measures would be required. Sincerely, Victor Ortiz Senior Air Quality Specialist Attachments: Attachment A: SMAQMD Roadway Construction Model Output Attachment B: Operational Emissions Calculations Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 17 of 18 October 5, 2020 REFERENCES California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2020. EMFAC2017 Web Database. Available at: https://www.arb.ca.gov/emfac/2017. Accessed August 2020. 2018. Overview: Diesel Exhaust and Health. Available at: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. April. Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/ch/handbook.pdf. David Evans and Associates (DEA). 2020. Traffic Impact Analysis for: Diaz Road Widening Project. June 26. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). 2015. Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. February. Available at: https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/crnr/2015guidancemanual.pdf. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2018. Roadway Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0. Available at: http://www.airquality.org/businesses/ceqa-land-use- planning/ceqa-guidance-tools. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2019. SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. April. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. 2017. Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. March. Available: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2016-aqmp. 2016. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf. February. 2010. Greenhouse Gas CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group Meeting #15 (slide presentation). Diamond Bar, CA. SCAQMD. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/ceqa/handbook/GHG/2010/sept28mtg/ghgmtg15-web.pdf. September 28. 2009. Mass Rate Localized Significance Thresholds Look-up Tables. October. Available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance- thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-lst-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2. Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 18 of 18 October 5, 2020 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) (cont.) 2005. Rule 403, Fugitive Dust. Amended June 3, 2005. Available at: https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/rule-book/rule-iv/rule-403.pdf?sfvrsn=4. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April. Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG). 2014. Subregional Climate Action Plan. Available at: http://www.wrcog.cog.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/188/Subregional-Climate-Action-Plan- CAP-PDF. Attachment A SMAQMD Roadway Construction Model Output Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0 Daily Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Pounds)ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) CH4 (lbs/day) N2O (lbs/day) CO2e (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.43 12.24 18.11 10.75 0.75 10.00 2.68 0.60 2.08 0.05 5,056.05 0.61 0.46 5,207.73 Grading/Excavation 5.99 49.02 68.33 12.92 2.92 10.00 4.65 2.57 2.08 0.12 12,193.69 2.89 0.48 12,408.77 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 3.50 31.66 36.94 11.68 1.68 10.00 3.57 1.49 2.08 0.08 7,846.21 1.22 0.38 7,989.66 Paving 1.62 19.14 16.26 0.85 0.85 0.00 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.04 4,027.09 0.77 0.20 4,107.05 Maximum (pounds/day)5.99 49.02 68.33 12.92 2.92 10.00 4.65 2.57 2.08 0.12 12,193.69 2.89 0.48 12,408.77 Total (tons/construction project)0.73 6.28 8.11 1.85 0.36 1.50 0.62 0.31 0.31 0.02 1,575.32 0.32 0.07 1,604.71 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2021 Project Length (months) -> 16 Total Project Area (acres) -> 12 Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 1 Water Truck Used? -> Yes Phase Soil Asphalt Soil Hauling Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute Water Truck Grubbing/Land Clearing 215 218 330 330 400 40 Grading/Excavation 263 85 420 150 1,000 40 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 245 50 390 90 760 40 Paving 0 151 0 240 600 40 CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs. Total Emission Estimates by Phase for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Tons for all except CO2e. Metric tonnes for CO2e)ROG (tons/phase) CO (tons/phase) NOx (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) SOx (tons/phase) CO2 (tons/phase) CH4 (tons/phase) N2O (tons/phase) CO2e (MT/phase) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.03 0.22 0.32 0.19 0.01 0.18 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.00 88.99 0.01 0.01 83.15 Grading/Excavation 0.47 3.88 5.41 1.02 0.23 0.79 0.37 0.20 0.16 0.01 965.74 0.23 0.04 891.57 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.18 1.67 1.95 0.62 0.09 0.53 0.19 0.08 0.11 0.00 414.28 0.06 0.02 382.70 Paving 0.04 0.51 0.43 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 106.32 0.02 0.01 98.36 Maximum (tons/phase)0.47 3.88 5.41 1.02 0.23 0.79 0.37 0.20 0.16 0.01 965.74 0.23 0.04 891.57 Total (tons/construction project)0.73 6.28 8.11 1.85 0.36 1.50 0.62 0.31 0.31 0.02 1575.32 0.32 0.07 1,455.78 CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs. The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase. Daily VMT (miles/day) Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K. DEA-12 Diaz Road All Sources PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified. DEA-12 Diaz Road All Sources PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified. Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K. Total Material Imported/Exported Volume (yd3/day) Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 8/7/2020 Road Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0.0 Data Entry Worksheet Optional data input sections have a blue background. Only areas with a yellow or blue background can be modified. Program defaults have a white background. The user is required to enter information in cells D10 through D24, E28 through G35, and D38 through D41 for all project types. Please use "Clear Data Input & User Overrides" button first before changing the Project Type or begin a new project. Input Type Project Name DEA-12 Diaz Road All Sources Construction Start Year 2021 Enter a Year between 2014 and 2040 (inclusive) Project Type 1) New Road Construction : Project to build a roadway from bare ground, which generally requires more site preparation than widening an existing roadway 2) Road Widening : Project to add a new lane to an existing roadway 3) Bridge/Overpass Construction : Project to build an elevated roadway, which generally requires some different equipment than a new roadway, such as a crane 4) Other Linear Project Type: Non-roadway project such as a pipeline, transmission line, or levee construction Project Construction Time 16.00 months Working Days per Month 22.00 days (assume 22 if unknown) Predominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 1) Sand Gravel : Use for quaternary deposits (Delta/West County) 2) Weathered Rock-Earth : Use for Laguna formation (Jackson Highway area) or the Ione formation (Scott Road, Rancho Murieta) 3) Blasted Rock : Use for Salt Springs Slate or Copper Hill Volcanics (Folsom South of Highway 50, Rancho Murieta) Project Length 2.20 miles Total Project Area 12.00 acres Maximum Area Disturbed/Day 1.00 acre Water Trucks Used? 1 1. Yes 2. No Material Hauling Quantity Input Material Type Phase Haul Truck Capacity (yd3) (assume 20 if unknown)Import Volume (yd3/day) Export Volume (yd 3/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 215.00 Grading/Excavation 20.00 55.00 208.00 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 185.00 60.00 Paving Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 218.00 Grading/Excavation 20.00 85.00 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 50.00 Paving 20.00 151.00 Mitigation Options On-road Fleet Emissions Mitigation Select "2010 and Newer On-road Vehicles Fleet" option when the on-road heavy-duty truck fleet for the project will be limited to vehicles of model year 2010 or newer Off-road Equipment Emissions Mitigation Select "Tier 4 Equipment" option if some or all off-road equipment used for the project meets CARB Tier 4 Standard Will all off-road equipment be tier 4? The remaining sections of this sheet contain areas that can be modified by the user, although those modifications are optional. Select "20% NOx and 45% Exhaust PM reduction" option if the project will be required to use a lower emitting off-road construction fleet. The SMAQMD Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to confirm compliance with this mitigation measure (http://www.airquality.org/Businesses/CEQA-Land-Use-Planning/Mitigation). Please note that the soil type instructions provided in cells E18 to E20 are specific to Sacramento County. Maps available from the California Geologic Survey (see weblink below) can be used to determine soil type outside Sacramento County. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/information/geologic_mapping/ Pages/googlemaps.aspx#regionalseries 2 Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background. Soil Asphalt All Tier 4 Equipment (for project within "Sacramento County", follow soil type selection instructions in cells E18 to E20 otherwise see instructions provided in cells J18 to J22) 1 To begin a new project, click this button to clear data previously entered. This button will only work if you opted not to disable macros when loading this spreadsheet. Data Entry Worksheet 1 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 8/7/2020 Note: The program's estimates of construction period phase length can be overridden in cells D50 through D53, and F50 through F53. Program Program User Override of Calculated User Override of Default Construction Periods Construction Months Months Phase Starting Date Phase Starting Date Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.60 1.60 1/1/2021 Grading/Excavation 7.20 6.40 2/19/2021 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 4.80 5.60 9/26/2021 Paving 2.40 2.40 2/19/2022 Totals (Months) Note: Soil Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D61 through D64, and F61 through F64. Soil Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 30.00 11 330.00 Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 30.00 14 420.00 Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 30.00 13 390.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 30.00 0 0.00 Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.06 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,779.29 0.00 0.28 1,862.69 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.06 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,779.29 0.00 0.28 1,862.69 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.07 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,768.77 0.00 0.28 1,851.67 Paving (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.08 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,748.57 0.00 0.27 1,830.52 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Hauling Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.03 0.31 2.31 0.08 0.04 0.01 1,294.48 0.00 0.20 1,355.15 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.78 0.00 0.00 23.85 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.04 0.39 2.95 0.10 0.05 0.02 1,647.52 0.00 0.26 1,724.74 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.03 0.23 0.01 0.00 0.00 130.48 0.00 0.02 136.60 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.04 0.36 2.74 0.10 0.04 0.01 1,520.80 0.00 0.24 1,592.07 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00 80.30 0.00 0.01 84.06 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total tons per construction project 0.01 0.06 0.42 0.01 0.01 0.00 233.56 0.00 0.04 244.51 Note: Asphalt Hauling emission default values can be overridden in cells D91 through D94, and F91 through F94. Asphalt Hauling Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Input Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Round Trips/Day Round Trips/Day Daily VMT Miles/round trip: Grubbing/Land Clearing 30.00 11 330.00 Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation 30.00 5 150.00 Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 30.00 3 90.00 Miles/round trip: Paving 30.00 8 240.00 Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.06 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,779.29 0.00 0.28 1,862.69 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.06 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,779.29 0.00 0.28 1,862.69 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.07 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,768.77 0.00 0.28 1,851.67 Paving (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.08 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,748.57 0.00 0.27 1,830.52 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.03 0.31 2.31 0.08 0.04 0.01 1,294.48 0.00 0.20 1,355.15 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.78 0.00 0.00 23.85 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.01 0.14 1.05 0.04 0.02 0.01 588.40 0.00 0.09 615.98 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.60 0.00 0.01 48.79 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.01 0.08 0.63 0.02 0.01 0.00 350.95 0.00 0.06 367.40 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.53 0.00 0.00 19.40 Pounds per day - Paving 0.02 0.22 1.70 0.06 0.03 0.01 925.19 0.00 0.15 968.55 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.42 0.00 0.00 25.57 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.03 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 112.34 0.00 0.02 117.60 16 Data Entry Worksheet 2 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 8/7/2020 Note: Worker commute default values can be overridden in cells D121 through D126. Worker Commute Emissions User Override of Worker User Input Commute Default Values Default Values Miles/ one-way trip 20 Calculated Calculated One-way trips/day 2 Daily Trips Daily VMT No. of employees: Grubbing/Land Clearing 10 20 400.00 No. of employees: Grading/Excavation 25 50 1,000.00 No. of employees: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 19 38 760.00 No. of employees: Paving 15 30 600.00 Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.02 1.10 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 339.80 0.00 0.01 342.28 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.02 1.10 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.00 339.80 0.00 0.01 342.28 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.02 1.07 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.00 336.00 0.00 0.01 338.40 Paving (grams/mile)0.02 1.00 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.00 328.72 0.00 0.01 330.96 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)1.18 2.95 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.81 0.08 0.04 85.39 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)1.18 2.95 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.81 0.08 0.04 85.39 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)1.15 2.91 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 72.03 0.08 0.03 84.37 Paving (grams/trip)1.11 2.85 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.54 0.08 0.03 82.43 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.07 1.10 0.10 0.04 0.02 0.00 302.86 0.01 0.01 305.60 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.33 0.00 0.00 5.38 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.17 2.75 0.25 0.10 0.04 0.01 757.15 0.02 0.02 764.01 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.01 0.22 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 59.97 0.00 0.00 60.51 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.13 2.03 0.18 0.08 0.03 0.01 569.01 0.01 0.02 574.07 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.01 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.04 0.00 0.00 30.31 Pounds per day - Paving 0.10 1.51 0.13 0.06 0.03 0.00 439.49 0.01 0.01 443.23 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.60 0.00 0.00 11.70 Total tons per construction project 0.02 0.38 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 106.94 0.00 0.00 107.90 Note: Water Truck default values can be overridden in cells D153 through D156, I153 through I156, and F153 through F156. Water Truck Emissions User Override of Program Estimate of User Override of Truck Default Values Calculated User Override of Default Values Calculated User Input Default # Water Trucks Number of Water Trucks Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Round Trips/Vehicle/Day Trips/day Miles/Round Trip Miles/Round Trip Daily VMT Grubbing/Land Clearing - Exhaust 1 5 5 8.00 40.00 Grading/Excavation - Exhaust 1 5 5 8.00 40.00 Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 1 5 5 8.00 40.00 Paving 1 5 5 8.00 40.00 Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.06 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,779.29 0.00 0.28 1,862.69 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.06 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,779.29 0.00 0.28 1,862.69 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.07 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,768.77 0.00 0.28 1,851.67 Paving (grams/mile)0.04 0.42 3.08 0.11 0.05 0.02 1,748.57 0.00 0.27 1,830.52 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip)0.00 0.00 3.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Emissions ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Pounds per day - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.00 156.91 0.00 0.02 164.26 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.76 0.00 0.00 2.89 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.00 156.91 0.00 0.02 164.26 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.43 0.00 0.00 13.01 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.04 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.00 155.98 0.00 0.02 163.29 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.24 0.00 0.00 8.62 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.04 0.32 0.01 0.00 0.00 154.20 0.00 0.02 161.42 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.07 0.00 0.00 4.26 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.50 0.00 0.00 28.78 Note: Fugitive dust default values can be overridden in cells D183 through D185. User Override of Max Default PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 Acreage Disturbed/Day Maximum Acreage/Day pounds/day tons/per period pounds/day tons/per period Fugitive Dust - Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.00 10.00 0.18 2.08 0.04 Fugitive Dust - Grading/Excavation 1.00 10.00 0.79 2.08 0.16 Fugitive Dust - Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 1.00 10.00 0.53 2.08 0.11 Fugitive Dust Data Entry Worksheet 3 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 8/7/2020 Off-Road Equipment Emissions Default Grubbing/Land Clearing Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.55 2.44 6.97 0.26 0.24 0.01 760.36 0.25 0.01 768.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.46 6.54 4.31 0.21 0.19 0.01 1,000.38 0.32 0.01 1,011.17 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.29 1.51 1.80 0.07 0.07 0.00 246.57 0.03 0.00 247.82 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grubbing/Land Clearing pounds per day 1.30 10.48 13.07 0.54 0.50 0.02 2,007.32 0.60 0.02 2,027.55 Grubbing/Land Clearing tons per phase 0.02 0.18 0.23 0.01 0.01 0.00 35.33 0.01 0.00 35.68 Mitigation Option 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 Number of Vehicles 0.00 N/A N/A N/A Equipment Tier Data Entry Worksheet 4 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 8/7/2020 Default Grading/Excavation Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.55 2.44 6.97 0.26 0.24 0.01 760.36 0.25 0.01 768.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.69 9.82 6.46 0.31 0.29 0.02 1,500.58 0.49 0.01 1,516.76 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.91 3.53 11.85 0.38 0.35 0.01 1,283.37 0.42 0.01 1,297.19 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.38 3.76 3.85 0.24 0.22 0.01 508.18 0.16 0.00 513.65 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.34 1.60 3.86 0.13 0.12 0.01 605.23 0.20 0.01 611.76 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 1.86 14.01 21.41 0.83 0.77 0.03 2,935.83 0.95 0.03 2,967.48 5 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.29 1.51 1.80 0.07 0.07 0.00 246.57 0.03 0.00 247.82 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.75 9.04 7.58 0.45 0.41 0.01 1,203.60 0.39 0.01 1,216.56 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation pounds per day 5.76 45.70 63.78 2.66 2.46 0.09 9,043.71 2.87 0.08 9,139.78 Grading/Excavation tons per phase 0.46 3.62 5.05 0.21 0.19 0.01 716.26 0.23 0.01 723.87 Mitigation Option N/A Number of Vehicles 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Equipment Tier Data Entry Worksheet 5 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 8/7/2020 Default Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.29 2.42 1.98 0.12 0.12 0.00 375.26 0.03 0.00 376.74 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.35 3.68 3.08 0.16 0.16 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.21 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.44 1.75 5.70 0.18 0.17 0.01 641.55 0.21 0.01 648.46 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.04 0.21 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.00 34.48 0.00 0.00 34.65 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.37 3.74 3.13 0.17 0.17 0.01 623.04 0.03 0.00 625.26 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.12 2.29 1.57 0.06 0.05 0.00 333.76 0.11 0.00 337.36 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.89 6.79 10.10 0.39 0.36 0.02 1,468.73 0.48 0.01 1,484.56 5 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.29 1.51 1.80 0.07 0.07 0.00 246.57 0.03 0.00 247.82 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.54 6.76 5.46 0.31 0.29 0.01 903.05 0.29 0.01 912.77 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade pounds per day 3.32 29.15 33.07 1.48 1.40 0.06 5,249.47 1.20 0.04 5,292.83 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade tons per phase 0.18 1.54 1.75 0.08 0.07 0.00 277.17 0.06 0.00 279.46 Mitigation Option 0.00 0.00 Number of Vehicles 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A Equipment Tier N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Data Entry Worksheet 6 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 8/7/2020 Default Paving Number of Vehicles Override of Default ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Override of Default Number of Vehicles Program-estimate Default Equipment Tier (applicable only when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected)Equipment Tier Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Air Compressors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Bore/Drill Rigs 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cement and Mortar Mixers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Concrete/Industrial Saws 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Cranes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crawler Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Crushing/Proc. Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Excavators 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Generator Sets 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Graders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Tractors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Off-Highway Trucks 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Construction Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other General Industrial Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Other Material Handling Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pavers 0.21 2.88 2.10 0.10 0.09 0.00 455.26 0.15 0.00 460.17 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Paving Equipment 0.18 2.55 1.74 0.08 0.08 0.00 394.47 0.13 0.00 398.73 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Plate Compactors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pressure Washers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Pumps 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rollers 0.33 3.72 3.45 0.20 0.18 0.01 508.21 0.16 0.00 513.68 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rough Terrain Forklifts 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Dozers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Rubber Tired Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Scrapers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Signal Boards 0.29 1.51 1.80 0.07 0.07 0.00 246.57 0.03 0.00 247.82 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Skid Steer Loaders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Surfacing Equipment 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Sweepers/Scrubbers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 0.49 6.71 5.03 0.27 0.25 0.01 903.72 0.29 0.01 913.44 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Trenchers 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 User-Defined Off-road Equipment If non-default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non-default Off-road Equipment' tab ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 SOx CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Type pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day pounds/day 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving pounds per day 1.50 17.37 14.11 0.72 0.67 0.03 2,508.22 0.76 0.02 2,533.84 Paving tons per phase 0.04 0.46 0.37 0.02 0.02 0.00 66.22 0.02 0.00 66.89 Total Emissions all Phases (tons per construction period) =>0.69 5.80 7.40 0.32 0.30 0.01 1,094.98 0.32 0.01 1,105.91 Mitigation Option 0.00 0.00 Number of Vehicles 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A N/A Equipment Tier N/A N/A N/A N/A Data Entry Worksheet 7 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 8/7/2020 Equipment default values for horsepower and hours/day can be overridden in cells D403 through D436 and F403 through F436. User Override of Default Values User Override of Default Values Equipment Horsepower Horsepower Hours/day Hours/day Aerial Lifts 63 8 Air Compressors 78 8 Bore/Drill Rigs 221 8 Cement and Mortar Mixers 9 8 Concrete/Industrial Saws 81 8 Cranes 231 8 Crawler Tractors 212 8 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 85 8 Excavators 158 8 Forklifts 89 8 Generator Sets 84 8 Graders 187 8 Off-Highway Tractors 124 8 Off-Highway Trucks 402 8 Other Construction Equipment 172 8 Other General Industrial Equipment 88 8 Other Material Handling Equipment 168 8 Pavers 130 8 Paving Equipment 132 8 Plate Compactors 8 8 Pressure Washers 13 8 Pumps 84 8 Rollers 80 8 Rough Terrain Forklifts 100 8 Rubber Tired Dozers 247 8 Rubber Tired Loaders 203 8 Scrapers 367 8 Signal Boards 6 8 Skid Steer Loaders 65 8 Surfacing Equipment 263 8 Sweepers/Scrubbers 64 8 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 97 8 Trenchers 78 8 Welders 46 8 END OF DATA ENTRY SHEET Data Entry Worksheet 8 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0 Daily Emission Estimates for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Pounds)ROG (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) NOx (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM10 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) PM2.5 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) CO2 (lbs/day) CH4 (lbs/day) N2O (lbs/day) CO2e (lbs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.30 10.52 13.55 10.55 0.55 10.00 2.59 0.51 2.08 0.02 2,164.22 0.60 0.04 2,191.82 Grading/Excavation 5.77 45.74 64.23 12.67 2.67 10.00 4.54 2.46 2.08 0.10 9,200.62 2.87 0.11 9,304.04 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 3.32 29.18 33.51 11.49 1.49 10.00 3.48 1.40 2.08 0.06 5,405.45 1.20 0.07 5,456.12 Paving 1.50 17.41 14.50 0.73 0.73 0.00 0.68 0.68 0.00 0.03 2,662.42 0.76 0.05 2,695.26 Maximum (pounds/day)5.77 45.74 64.23 12.67 2.67 10.00 4.54 2.46 2.08 0.10 9,200.62 2.87 0.11 9,304.04 Total (tons/construction project)0.69 5.81 7.48 1.82 0.32 1.50 0.61 0.30 0.31 0.01 1,122.47 0.32 0.01 1,134.69 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2021 Project Length (months) -> 16 Total Project Area (acres) -> 12 Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 1 Water Truck Used? -> Yes Phase Soil Asphalt Soil Hauling Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute Water Truck Grubbing/Land Clearing 215 218 0 0 0 40 Grading/Excavation 263 85 0 0 0 40 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 245 50 0 0 0 40 Paving 0 151 0 0 0 40 CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs. Total Emission Estimates by Phase for ->Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Tons for all except CO2e. Metric tonnes for CO2e)ROG (tons/phase) CO (tons/phase) NOx (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM10 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) PM2.5 (tons/phase) SOx (tons/phase) CO2 (tons/phase) CH4 (tons/phase) N2O (tons/phase) CO2e (MT/phase) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.02 0.19 0.24 0.19 0.01 0.18 0.05 0.01 0.04 0.00 38.09 0.01 0.00 35.00 Grading/Excavation 0.46 3.62 5.09 1.00 0.21 0.79 0.36 0.19 0.16 0.01 728.69 0.23 0.01 668.49 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.18 1.54 1.77 0.61 0.08 0.53 0.18 0.07 0.11 0.00 285.41 0.06 0.00 261.35 Paving 0.04 0.46 0.38 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 70.29 0.02 0.00 64.55 Maximum (tons/phase)0.46 3.62 5.09 1.00 0.21 0.79 0.36 0.19 0.16 0.01 728.69 0.23 0.01 668.49 Total (tons/construction project)0.69 5.81 7.48 1.82 0.32 1.50 0.61 0.30 0.31 0.01 1122.47 0.32 0.01 1,029.39 CO2e emissions are estimated by multiplying mass emissions for each GHG by its global warming potential (GWP), 1 , 25 and 298 for CO2, CH4 and N2O, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs. The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase. Daily VMT (miles/day) Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K. DEA-12 Diaz Road On-Site Only PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified. DEA-12 Diaz Road On-Site Only PM10 and PM2.5 estimates assume 50% control of fugitive dust from watering and associated dust control measures if a minimum number of water trucks are specified. Total PM10 emissions shown in column F are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns G and H. Total PM2.5 emissions shown in Column I are the sum of exhaust and fugitive dust emissions shown in columns J and K. Total Material Imported/Exported Volume (yd3/day) Attachment B Operational Emissions Calculations Emissions from Change in VMT VMT/Year Increase (miles) 7,277 ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e (MT) Emissions Factor (tons/VMT)1.359E-08 2.594E-07 8.044E-07 3.095E-09 6.023E-08 2.534E-08 3.201E-04 1.168E-08 2.234E-08 - Pounds per Day 0.0005 0.0103 0.0321 0.0001 0.0024 0.0010 12.7632 0.0005 0.0009 - Tons Per Year 0.0001 0.0019 0.0059 0.0000 0.0004 0.0002 2.3293 0.0001 0.0002 2.16 Notes: 1. Emission factors claulated from EMFAC2017 data for Riverside County in 2023. 2. Pounds per day = Emissions Factor * VMT * 2,000 pounds per ton / 365 days per year. 3. Ton per year = Emissions Factor * VMT. 4. 1 Metric Ton (MT) = 0.9071847 Tons. 5. CO2e = C02 + (CH4 * 25) + (N20 * 298) EMFAC2017 (v1.0.2) Emissions Inventory Region Type: County Region: RIVERSIDE Calendar Year: 2040 Season: Annual Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories Units: miles/day for VMT, trips/day for Trips, tons/day for Emissions, 1000 gallons/day for Fuel Consumption. Note 'day' in the unit is operation day. Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model Year Speed Fuel Population VMT Trips NOx_TOTEX PM2.5_TOTAL PM10_TOTAL CO2_TOTEX CH4_TOTEX N2O_TOTEX ROG_RUNEX ROG_TOTAL TOG_RUNEX CO_TOTEX SOx_TOTEX RIVERSIDE 2040 HHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 13.4955351 1502.956936 270.0186671 0.005052478 5.38059E-05 0.000137254 2.550870358 0.000110931 0.000219958 0.000485645 0.000584549 0.000708651 0.046511818 2.52429E-05 RIVERSIDE 2040 HHDT Aggregated Aggregated DSL 33740.3646 5125739.993 397160.6275 13.65580031 0.331368057 0.684767002 5813.086777 0.016451078 0.913736289 0.100245556 0.354187205 0.114121934 4.61593784 0.054919161 RIVERSIDE 2040 HHDT Aggregated Aggregated NG 873.934732 35622.84889 3408.345453 0.038009475 0.001521266 0.00397267 105.9091571 0.159481462 0.021590274 0.002772269 0.002790705 0.162197004 0.595468002 0 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDA Aggregated Aggregated GAS 1108066.28 36538843.09 5196954.759 1.333743811 0.739334502 1.828956864 8123.267416 0.137647546 0.222611838 0.075916033 1.891695587 0.110776498 23.98599135 0.080386316 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDA Aggregated Aggregated DSL 13559.5635 452844.9096 63948.00621 0.004322658 0.009250974 0.022746389 75.12090368 9.2479E-05 0.01180796 0.001991019 0.001991019 0.002266643 0.063805979 0.000710163 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDA Aggregated Aggregated ELEC 68820.7814 2229326.743 327950.8584 0 0.043619065 0.109969191 0 0 0 0 0.005271528 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 124317.605 3991479.588 571692.0612 0.169219328 0.081155581 0.200219485 1039.275829 0.017427344 0.02658306 0.0117021 0.29880174 0.017075677 2.804560497 0.010284477 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 16.4950165 540.9481873 76.81539067 2.19859E-05 1.30808E-05 2.92936E-05 0.171241099 3.69063E-07 2.69167E-05 7.9457E-06 7.9457E-06 9.04565E-06 8.35887E-05 1.61884E-06 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDT1 Aggregated Aggregated ELEC 4410.05464 141311.682 20922.17446 0 0.002764908 0.006970684 0 0 0 0 0.000344478 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 367885.395 12076450.32 1709980.89 0.4949696 0.244817471 0.604988776 3105.187732 0.062942009 0.07765479 0.041532161 0.925231462 0.060603632 9.846643204 0.03072835 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 3673.24758 122980.1122 17286.90631 0.003777252 0.002936008 0.006620146 27.16552065 8.12921E-05 0.004270042 0.001750171 0.001750171 0.001992454 0.018097844 0.000256812 RIVERSIDE 2040 LDT2 Aggregated Aggregated ELEC 15825.108 353454.734 75258.36179 0 0.006915704 0.017435368 0 0 0 0 0.001236857 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE 2040 LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 22405.1162 688032.6771 333802.8475 0.132436866 0.02717587 0.064925693 494.357758 0.006804271 0.013088972 0.002272919 0.165043775 0.003316637 0.670844351 0.004892071 RIVERSIDE 2040 LHDT1 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 23560.0154 710299.8344 296355.355 0.199018955 0.033231843 0.074715387 303.1736935 0.001272594 0.047654683 0.02454768 0.02739819 0.027945901 0.148595135 0.002866082 RIVERSIDE 2040 LHDT2 Aggregated Aggregated GAS 3550.37349 106473.3752 52895.27501 0.02156409 0.004844581 0.011540663 87.97608172 0.001047709 0.002108602 0.00035179 0.024372507 0.000513331 0.105617373 0.000870595 RIVERSIDE 2040 LHDT2 Aggregated Aggregated DSL 9795.87525 281664.4863 123219.7875 0.112065559 0.016659151 0.035450229 132.5547719 0.000544057 0.020835764 0.010528029 0.011713225 0.011985461 0.065013144 0.001253119 RIVERSIDE 2040 MCY Aggregated Aggregated GAS 47247.186 292741.8543 94494.37198 0.382864675 0.002900876 0.006106327 73.27539529 0.12467375 0.022236656 0.668585796 1.335568659 0.839297791 6.404104763 0.000725119 RIVERSIDE 2040 MDV Aggregated Aggregated GAS 246415.858 7829871.319 1131403.364 0.374961278 0.159017169 0.392562554 2457.675821 0.045971363 0.054526368 0.030930692 0.799955936 0.045133993 6.654780591 0.024320695 RIVERSIDE 2040 MDV Aggregated Aggregated DSL 8556.49655 279529.0953 39930.24913 0.003175844 0.0057755 0.014108805 80.78331077 6.76762E-05 0.012698011 0.001457028 0.001457028 0.00165873 0.045473954 0.000763693 RIVERSIDE 2040 MDV Aggregated Aggregated ELEC 11772.3789 262736.6526 55979.26723 0 0.005140712 0.012960387 0 0 0 0 0.00091966 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE 2040 MH Aggregated Aggregated GAS 4023.88514 34354.58806 402.5494699 0.003935481 0.002263118 0.005427449 50.3728262 0.000125884 0.000468055 0.000312092 0.000910114 0.000455404 0.006755012 0.00049848 RIVERSIDE 2040 MH Aggregated Aggregated DSL 2286.70808 16374.34879 228.670808 0.03982502 0.001922617 0.003521628 14.22992014 3.36101E-05 0.002236745 0.000723606 0.000723606 0.000823778 0.002785015 0.000134524 RIVERSIDE 2040 MHDT Aggregated Aggregated GAS 3502.92858 164277.7286 70086.59508 0.041034078 0.010858818 0.025993342 242.5430621 0.003858451 0.003841237 0.001560729 0.043009574 0.002277413 0.305817696 0.00240016 RIVERSIDE 2040 MHDT Aggregated Aggregated DSL 19856.1096 1135629.238 198906.9573 1.669847358 0.08565233 0.190695257 895.014082 0.000467998 0.14068375 0.008790863 0.010075864 0.010007728 0.124317813 0.008455649 RIVERSIDE 2040 OBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 675.155661 26159.47605 13508.51446 0.00779342 0.001727881 0.004137781 38.46265614 0.000603993 0.000654337 0.000343791 0.008152805 0.000501659 0.048083069 0.000380619 RIVERSIDE 2040 OBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 572.896073 36818.77261 5337.513754 0.06626394 0.002930043 0.006342611 35.71364457 3.70369E-05 0.005613688 0.000397826 0.000797394 0.000452894 0.009974149 0.000337405 RIVERSIDE 2040 SBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 593.063228 22007.46711 2372.252911 0.005706821 0.007824711 0.018297794 19.87447654 0.001765047 0.000527748 0.000289198 0.010020795 0.000421998 0.075642739 0.000196674 RIVERSIDE 2040 SBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 1439.54404 45936.41379 16612.13859 0.165490289 0.016609772 0.038629605 51.39911703 7.08774E-05 0.008079225 0.001095932 0.00152597 0.001247635 0.024856009 0.000485593 RIVERSIDE 2040 UBUS Aggregated Aggregated GAS 181.921075 25613.54248 727.6843 0.004881618 0.001378976 0.003280134 31.19193068 0.000143881 0.000482262 0.000286841 0.000759864 0.000418558 0.009797262 0.000308669 RIVERSIDE 2040 UBUS Aggregated Aggregated DSL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RIVERSIDE 2040 UBUS Aggregated Aggregated NG 348.058852 47081.12942 1392.235408 0.021251269 0.002307701 0.005759671 90.32703332 0.271457382 0.018413757 0.004046426 0.004046426 0.277225404 2.104263639 0 Total VMT 73075699.93 Tons/VMT 2.59416E-07 2.53432E-08 6.02289E-08 0.000320088 1.16753E-08 2.23419E-08 1.35876E-08 8.11534E-08 2.31737E-08 8.04424E-07 3.09544E-09 Diaz Road Improvement Project General Biological Resources Assessment July 2021 | 00207.00012.001 Submitted to: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Prepared for: David Evans and Associates, Inc. 41951 Remington Avenue, Suite 220 Temecula, CA 92590 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 16485 Laguna Canyon Road Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 This page intentionally left blank Diaz Road Improvement Project General Biological Resources Assessment Submitted to: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Prepared for: David Evans and Associates, Inc. 41951 Remington Avenue, Suite 220 Temecula, CA 92590 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 16485 Laguna Canyon Road Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 July 2021 | 00207.00012.001 i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................................. S-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Purpose of the Report ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Area Location ............................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1 2.0 METHODS ......................................................................................................................................... 1 2.1 Nomenclature ..................................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Literature Review ................................................................................................................ 2 2.3 Field Surveys ....................................................................................................................... 2 2.3.1 General Biological Survey ...................................................................................... 3 2.3.2 Focused Species Surveys ........................................................................................ 3 2.3.3 Jurisdictional Delineation....................................................................................... 4 2.3.4 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment ........................................ 6 3.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................ 6 3.2 Topography and Soils .......................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Vegetation Communities .................................................................................................... 6 3.3.1 Arroyo Willow Thicket ........................................................................................... 7 3.3.2 Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland ........................................................ 7 3.3.3 Riverwash ............................................................................................................... 8 3.3.4 Developed .............................................................................................................. 8 3.3.5 Disturbed ............................................................................................................... 8 3.3.6 Eucalyptus Grove ................................................................................................... 8 3.3.7 Upland Mustards ................................................................................................... 9 3.4 Plants .................................................................................................................................. 9 3.5 Animals ............................................................................................................................... 9 3.6 Sensitive Biological Resources ............................................................................................ 9 3.6.1 Rare Plant Species .................................................................................................. 9 3.6.2 Sensitive Animal Species ...................................................................................... 10 3.6.3 Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitats ....................................................... 12 3.6.4 Habitat and Wildlife Corridor Evaluation ............................................................. 12 3.6.5 Jurisdictional Waters ........................................................................................... 12 3.7 Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ................................................. 18 3.7.1 Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (Section 6.1.1) ........... 18 3.7.2 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) . 19 3.7.3 Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (MSHCP Section 6.1.3) ................... 24 3.7.4 Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP Section 6.3.2) ...................... 24 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Section Page 4.0 REGIONAL AND REGULATORY CONTEXT ....................................................................................... 25 4.1 Federal Regulations .......................................................................................................... 25 4.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act .......................................................................... 25 4.1.2 Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404 ................................................................. 25 4.1.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act .................................................................................... 26 4.1.4 Critical Habitat ..................................................................................................... 26 4.2 State Regulations .............................................................................................................. 26 4.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act .................................................................. 26 4.2.2 California Endangered Species Act ...................................................................... 26 4.2.3 Protection of Raptor Species ............................................................................... 27 4.2.4 California Fish and Game Code, Section 1602 ..................................................... 27 4.3 Local Regulations .............................................................................................................. 27 4.3.1 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency ................................... 27 4.3.2 Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan ............................................ 27 4.3.3 Protection of City Street Trees ............................................................................ 27 5.0 PROJECT EFFECTS ........................................................................................................................... 28 5.1 Sensitive Species ............................................................................................................... 29 5.1.1 Rare Plant Species ................................................................................................ 29 5.1.2 Sensitive Animal Species ...................................................................................... 29 5.2 Sensitive Vegetation Communities ................................................................................... 31 5.2.1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitats ......................................................................................... 31 5.2.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Riparian Habitat and Streambed .... 32 5.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Regional WAter Quality Control Board Jurisdiction ......... 33 5.4 Wildlife Movement and Migratory Species ...................................................................... 34 5.4.1 Wildlife Movement .............................................................................................. 34 5.4.2 Migratory Species ................................................................................................ 34 5.5 City-Protected Trees ......................................................................................................... 35 5.6 Adopted Habitat Conservation Plans ................................................................................ 35 5.6.1 MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements ............................................................ 35 5.6.2 Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) ...................... 35 5.6.3 Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Section 6.1.3) ....................................... 37 5.6.4 Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines (MSHCP Section 6.1.4) ............................. 37 5.6.5 Additional Surveys (MSHCP Section 6.3.2) .......................................................... 39 5.6.6 Fuels Management (MSHCP Section 6.4) ............................................................ 39 5.6.7 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Fees . 39 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES ................................................................................................................ 40 7.0 CERTIFICATION/QUALIFICATION .................................................................................................... 44 8.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 45 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) LIST OF APPENDICES A Plant Species Observed B Animal Species Observed or Detected C Site Photographs D Drainage Photographs E Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur F Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur G Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report H Least Bell’s Vireo Focused Survey Report I Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Follows Page 1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................................. 2 2 USGS Topography ............................................................................................................................ 2 3 Aerial Photograph ............................................................................................................................ 2 4 Site Plan ........................................................................................................................................... 2 5a-h Vegetation ........................................................................................................................................ 8 6a-f Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian Areas ....................................................................... 14 7 MSHCP Criteria Cell ........................................................................................................................ 20 8a-h Impacts to Vegetation .................................................................................................................... 34 9a-f Impacts to Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas ...................................... 34 LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 1 Vegetation and Land Uses ............................................................................................................... 7 2 Existing Jurisdictional Features ...................................................................................................... 12 3 Conservation Requirement of the MSHCP Criteria Cells ............................................................... 18 4 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Plant Species .............................................................. 21 5 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Animal Species ........................................................... 22 6 Impacts to Vegetation And Land Uses ........................................................................................... 32 7 Impacts to CDFW Jurisdiction ........................................................................................................ 32 8 Impacts to USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction ......................................................................................... 33 9 Impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas .................................................................................. 36 iv ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AMSL above mean sea level BMPs Best Management Practices BUOW Burrowing Owl CASSA Criteria Area Species Survey Area CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFG Code California Fish and Game Code City City of Temecula CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society County County of Riverside CRPR California Rare Plant Rank CWA Clean Water Act Dudek Dudek & Associates EPA Environmental Protection Agency FESA Federal Endangered Species Act HANS Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation Strategy HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. JD Jurisdictional Delineation LBVI Least Bell’s Vireo LDMF Local Development Mitigation Fee LF linear feet MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCV Manual of California Vegetation MSHCP Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan NEPSSA Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area NPPA Native Plant Protection Act NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark Project Diaz Road Improvement Project v ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS (cont.) RCA Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority ROW Right-of-way RPW Relatively Permanent Water Body RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SKR Stephens’ kangaroo rat SSC Species of Special Concern SWFL Southwestern Willow Flycatcher TNW Traditional Navigable Waters USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geologic Survey WIFL Willow Flycatcher vi This page intentionally left blank General Biological Resources Assessment for the Diaz Road Improvement Project | July 2021 S-1 SUMMARY The 32-acre Diaz Road Improvement Project (project) is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The project and a 500-foot survey buffer make up the 326-acre study area which is located within the Southwest Area Plan of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The study area is located within the Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) of the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP. The study area includes portions of Criteria Cells 6656, 6781, 6782, 6783, 6890, 6891, 7021, and 7078. Although the study area is within several Criteria Cells, the project site is mostly within existing developed areas and is not targeted for conservation or in an area that would contribute to the MSHCP reserve assembly. Furthermore, Diaz Road is considered a “covered road” under the MSCHP. The study area is not located within or adjacent to an MSHCP Criteria Area or MSHCP Conservation Area. The study area is located within the Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia; BUOW) Survey Area and supports potentially suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; LBVI) and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; SWFL). HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) conducted a general biological survey, including vegetation mapping and a general habitat assessment; an MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool habitat assessment; a habitat assessment and a jurisdictional delineation, including mapping of any MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Areas encountered on the study area; and focused surveys for BUOW, LBVI, and SWFL. The study area mostly comprises existing development (163.04 acres) and uplands mustard (68.67 acres). In addition, the study area supports native arroyo willow thicket (27.63 acres) and Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland (0.37 acre). Riverwash (47.70 acres), disturbed habitat (14.56 acres), and eucalyptus grove (3.78 acres) were also mapped within the study area. Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis) was observed in the northern portion of the study area. Nine fully covered species under the MSHCP were determined to have a potential to occur on the study area, including Coast range newt (Taricha torosa), coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida), San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii), Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi; SKR), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi), two-striped gartersnake (Thamnophis hammondii), and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus; foraging potential only) were determined to have a potential to occur on the study area and are not covered by the MSHCP. Focused BUOW and LBVI surveys were negative. Four males and one pair of LBVIs were observed within suitable habitat on the study area. The study area also supports suitable habitat for nesting migratory bird species. Two sensitive plant communities (arroyo willow thicket [27.63 acres] and southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest [0.37 acre]) were mapped on the study area. The study area supports 12 major drainage features (Murrieta Creek and Drainages A through K). The Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) survey area supports a total of 0.096 acre of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers/Regional Water Quality Control Board non-wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.093 acre of wetland. The JD survey area also supports and 1.49 acres of California Department of Fish and Wildlife jurisdictional streambed and riparian vegetation. MSHCP Riparian Areas were identified within the study area, which are consistent with the limits of CDFW jurisdiction. No other special aquatic sites were observed on the study area. The study area supports trees that may be subject to City tree protection measures. The project proposes to permanently impact 31.97 acres, including 25.28 acres of existing developed areas, 2.51 acres of disturbed habitat, 0.49 acre of eucalyptus grove, and 3.69 acres of upland mustards. Temporary impacts are also proposed 0.20 acre, including 0.01 acre of existing developed areas, General Biological Resources Assessment for the Diaz Road Improvement Project | July 2021 S-2 0.02 acre of disturbed habitat, 0.01 acre of eucalyptus grove, and 0.16 acre of upland mustards. Potential significant impacts were identified for BUOW (if present during focused surveys or the 30-day pre-construction survey), LBVI (indirect impacts only), jurisdictional resources, MSHCP Riparian Areas, and nesting bird species. The project is required to comply with the regulations of the MSHCP and SKR HCP. The project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.032 acre of non-wetland waters of the U.S and 0.018 acre of wetlands, and temporary impacts to approximately 0.005 acre of non- wetland waters of the U.S and 0.005 acre of wetlands. In addition, the project would result in permanent impacts to 0.265 acre and temporary impacts to 0.076 acre of CDFW jurisdiction. Since the study area supports trees that may be subject to City tree protection measures, a tree survey will be conducted prior to construction. If protected trees are located within the project site and must be damaged or removed, a Heritage Tree Removal or Relocation Permit must be obtained. Measures related to the following topics are proposed herein to fully mitigate potential impacts of the project: BUOW, LBVI, jurisdictional resources and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas, migratory nesting bird species, City-protected street trees, compliance with MSHCP landscaping restrictions, and payment of MSHCP and SKR HCP fees. Successful implementation of these measures would mitigate potential impacts to below a level of significance. General Biological Resources Assessment for the Diaz Road Improvement Project | July 2021 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSE OF THE REPORT This report provides the City of Temecula (City; California Environmental Quality Act [CEQA] lead agency), resource agencies, and the public with current biological data to satisfy review of the proposed Diaz Road Improvement Project (project), located in the City of Temecula (City) in Riverside County (County), California. The purpose of this report is to document the existing biological conditions on and in the immediate vicinity of the project site, and to provide an analysis of potential impacts to sensitive biological resources with respect to local, state, and federal policy. This report provides the biological resources technical documentation necessary for project review under CEQA by the City and demonstrates project consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP; Dudek and Associates [Dudek] 2003). 1.2 STUDY AREA LOCATION The approximately 32-acre project site comprises 2.2 miles along Diaz Road in the western portion of the City (Figure 1, Regional Location). It lies within Township 7 South, Range 3 West; and Township 8 South Range 3 West on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Murrieta and Temecula quadrangle maps (Figure 2, USGS Topography). The project site located along Diaz Road, between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road, and mostly occurs within an existing City right-of-way (ROW), but also includes areas immediately outside and along the ROW boundary (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). Due to the linear nature of the project, a 500-foot buffer surrounding the project site was also assessed (study area). 1.3 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is for the widening and improvement of Diaz Road (Figure 4, Site Plan). The project proposes to improve Diaz Road to meet the roadway classification requirements of a major arterial with four divided lanes, as specified by City Standard No. 101, between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road. The standards call for a 100-ft minimum right-of-way, a 76-ft roadway with a 14-ft raised median, and 12-ft parkways on each side of the road. The approximately 2.2-mile segment would be improved on its current horizontal alignment, as depicted in the City’s General Plan, Circulation Element, Figure C- 2 Roadway Plan (City 1993). As such, the proposed project would widen the existing Diaz Road segment and extend the northwestern end of Cherry Street. The project would complete the City’s only existing north-south road corridor west of Murrieta Creek. North of Cherry Street, this north-south road corridor is planned to continue as Washington Avenue within the City of Murrieta. 2.0 METHODS Project evaluation included a review of project plans; a literature review of biological resources occurring on the study area and surrounding vicinity; a general biological survey, including vegetation mapping and a general habitat assessment; focused surveys for sensitive species, including burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; BUOW), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; LBVI), and southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; SWFL); a jurisdictional delineation, including mapping of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Areas; and an MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Resources 2 habitat assessment. The methods used to evaluate the biological resources present on the study area are discussed in this section. 2.1 NOMENCLATURE Nomenclature for this report follows Baldwin et al. (2012) for plants, and the MSHCP (Dudek 2003) for vegetation community classifications, with additional vegetation community information taken from Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV; Sawyer et al. 2009) and Oberbauer (2008). Animal nomenclature follows Emmel and Emmel (1973) for butterflies, California Herps (2021) for reptiles and amphibians, American Ornithological Society (2020) for birds, and Baker et al. (2003) for mammals. Rare plant and sensitive animal statuses are from the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (2021) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2021). Rare plant species’ habitats and flowering periods are from the Jepson Manual (Baldwin et al. 2012), MSHCP (Dudek 2003), CNPS (2021), and CNDDB (CDFW 2021). Soil classifications were obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (2021). 2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW Prior to conducting the site visit, HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) reviewed regional planning documents, Google Earth aerials (2020), Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2021), and sensitive species database records, including the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2021), CNDDB (CDFW 2021), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) critical habitat maps (2021a). A two-quadrangle database search, which included Murrieta and Temecula, was conducted on CNDDB and CNPS. In addition, the MSHCP (Dudek 2003) and the Regional Conservation Authority’s MSHCP Information Tool (Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 2021) were consulted to determine project compliance with the MSHCP. 2.3 FIELD SURVEYS Field surveys were conducted to document the existing condition of the study area and surrounding lands. The general biological survey included vegetation mapping, during which dominant plant species were noted. A habitat assessment was also conducted on the study area to determine habitat suitability for rare plant and animal species in addition to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Species. Focused surveys for BUOW, LBVI, and SWFL were also conducted. A jurisdictional delineation was conducted to determine the existing jurisdictional limits regulated by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW, in addition to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas. A list of plant and animal species observed and/or detected during the field surveys are provided as Appendix A, Plant Species Observed, and Appendix B, Animal Species Observed and/or Detected. Noted animal species were identified by direct observation, vocalizations, or the observance of scat, tracks, or other signs. However, the list of animal species identified is not necessarily a comprehensive account of all species that use the study area, as species that are nocturnal, secretive, or seasonally restricted may not have been observed. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?z ?Æ !"a$ !"a$ %&h( ?± !"a$ !"a$?¹ ?¹ %&h( ?± ?z ?¹AÐ !"`$ Añ ?¡ AÙ ?±?¿ A¨ ?¿ AÙ ?± ?¹ !"`$ !"`$ ?ø !"a$ ?a ?± AÎ !"^$ ?å Añ ?¥%&h( !"`$ ?¡ AÔ ?³!Project Site SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CAMPPENDLETON MISSIONVIEJO SANCLEMENTE LAGUNABEACH ONTARIO RIVERSIDE CORONA LAKEELSINORE SAN BERNARDINO San t a A n a M o u n t a i n s San Be r n a r d i n o M o u n t a i n s RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTYRIVERSIDE COUNTY O R A N G E C O U N T Y San J a c i n t o M o u n t a i n s Littl e S a n B e r n a r d i n o M o u n t a i n s YUCCAVALLEY TWENTYNINEPALMS TEMECULA MURRIETA NORCO MORENOVALLEY BANNING BEAUMONT PALM DESERTHEMET SAN JACINTO COACHELLA PALMSPRINGSPERRIS Pacific Ocean Big Bear Lake MesquiteLake CoyoteLake LeeLake Alvord PerrisReservoir LakeMathews CanyonLake HemetLake LakeElsinore LakeCahuilla SkinnerReservoir Salton SeaVailLake Clark LakeO'NeillLake DiamondValley Lake Figure 1 Regional LocationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig1_Regional.mxd DEA-12 2/25/2021 - ECSource: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 10 Miles Figure 2 USGS TopographyH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig2_USGS.mxd DEA-12 2/25/2021 - ECSource: MURRIETA & TEMECULA 7.5' Quad (USGS) Diaz Road Expansion 0 2,000 Feet K Project Site Study Area JEFFERSO N A V E Y N E ZRD R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A R DBUSINESSPARKDR DIAZ R D W INCHESTERRDD E L R I ORD DE N DY P K W Y¬«79 §¨¦15 Figure 3 Aerial PhotographH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig3_Aerial.mxd DEA-12 2/25/2021 - ECSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 1,200 Feet Project Site Study Area W IN C H ESTER R D J E F F E R S O N A V EYN E Z RDOLDTOWNFRONTSTRANCHO CALIFORNIA R D B U S IN E SS PARKDR DIAZ R D WINCHE S T E R R D DELR I O RD ¬«79 §¨¦15 Figure 4 Site PlanH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig4_SitePlan.mxd DEA-12 2/25/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 800 Feet Study Area Project Site Plan Lines 3 2.3.1 General Biological Survey A general biological survey of the study area was conducted by HELIX Regulatory Specialist Ezekiel Cooley and Biologists Daniel Torres and Jessica Lee on March 27, 2020, in accordance with vegetation community classification described in Section 2.1.3 of the MSHCP (Dudek 2003) and with additional information from MCV (Sawyer et al. 2009) and Oberbauer (2008). Vegetation was mapped on a 175- foot (1 inch = 175 feet) aerial photograph of the study area. Vegetation communities and land uses were mapped by HELIX to one-hundredth of an acre (0.10 acre). The entire study area was surveyed on foot with the aid of binoculars. Representative photographs of the site were taken, with select photographs included in this report as Appendix C, Site Photographs. Plant and animal species observed or otherwise detected were recorded in field notebooks. Animal identifications were made in the field by direct, visual observation or indirectly by detection of calls, burrows, tracks, or scat. Plant identifications were made in the field or in the lab through comparison with voucher specimens or photographs. 2.3.2 Focused Species Surveys 2.3.2.1 Burrowing Owl The study area is located within an MSHCP BUOW Survey Area. In accordance with the County’s survey protocol, a Step I-Habitat Assessment for BUOW was conducted on the study area and within a 150-meter (approximately 500-foot) buffer zone around the periphery of the study area (survey area; County of Riverside [County] 2006). Mr. Dimson completed the habitat assessment on June 5, 2020, during which potential suitable habitat for BUOW was observed. After completing the habitat assessment, Step II surveys were conducted within the survey area. Step II surveys, which consist of a focused burrow survey (Part A) and four focused BUOW surveys (Part B), were conducted to determine whether the survey area supports suitable burrows and/or BUOWs. The focused burrow survey was conducted concurrently with the first focused BUOW survey. Since suitable burrows were observed within the survey area, three additional focused BUOW surveys were conducted. The biologist walked transects spaced no greater than 30 meters apart (approximately 100 feet) to allow for 100 percent visual coverage of all suitable habitat within the survey area. The biologist walked slowly and methodically, closely checking habitat for suitable burrows, BUOW diagnostic sign (e.g., molted feathers, pellets/castings, or whitewash at or near a burrow entrance), and individual BUOWs. Inaccessible areas of the survey area were visually assessed using binoculars. The focused burrow survey and four BUOW surveys were conducted by Mr. Dimson and HELIX Biologist Daniel Torres between June 5 and August 6, 2020. 2.3.2.2 Least Bell’s Vireo The study area supports potentially suitable LBVI habitat. Focused surveys for LBVI were conducted in accordance with current USFWS survey protocol (USFWS 2001). The survey consisted of eight site visits conducted by Mr. Cooley, Mr. Torres, and HELIX Biologists Erica Harris and Lauren Singleton between April 28 and July 27, 2020. Surveys were conducted in accordance with the current USFWS survey protocol. The surveys were conducted by walking along the edges of, as well as within, potential LBVI habitat within 500 feet of the study area (survey area) while listening for LBVI and viewing birds with the aid of binoculars. The survey route was designed to ensure complete survey coverage of habitat potentially occupied by LBVI. Accessible potentially suitable habitat within the survey area was 4 surveyed, which included approximately 28.0 acres of arroyo willow thicket along Murrieta Creek and Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland along a tributary to Murrieta Creek. 2.3.2.3 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused surveys for SWFL were performed by Ms. Erica Harris (TE-778195-13) in accordance with the current USFWS approved survey protocol (Sogge et al. 2010). The survey protocol requires that five survey visits be conducted at least five days apart, between the hours of sunrise and 10:30 a.m., and within three identified survey periods. One survey was conducted between Survey Period 1 (May 15 through 31), two surveys were conducted during Survey Period 2 (June 1 through 24), and two surveys were conducted during Survey Period 3 (June 25 through July 17), totaling five surveys. The surveys were conducted by walking within and along the perimeter of suitable SWFL habitat on the study area. Surveys were conducted with binoculars to aid in bird detection. Recorded SWFL vocalizations were played every 20 meters (approximately 65 feet) to 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) followed by a one-minute silent period to listen for a response. The survey route was arranged to ensure complete survey coverage of habitat with potential for SWFL occupancy. Accessible potentially suitable habitat within the survey area was surveyed, which included approximately 28.0 acres of arroyo willow thicket along Murrieta Creek and Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland along a tributary to Murrieta Creek. 2.3.3 Jurisdictional Delineation Prior to beginning fieldwork, aerial photographs (1 inch = 175 feet), topographic maps (1 inch = 175 feet), USGS quadrangle maps, and National Wetlands Inventory maps (USFWS 2021b) were reviewed to assist in determining the location of jurisdictional waters on the study area. Mr. Cooley conducted the jurisdictional delineation field work on March 27, 2020. Only jurisdictional features occurring within an approximately 50-foot buffer of the project site were delineated as project disturbance beyond the buffer is not anticipated. The assessment was conducted to identify jurisdictional waters subject to USACE jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), RWQCB jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, and streambed habitats subject to CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFG Code). Data collection was targeted in areas that were deemed to have the potential to support jurisdictional resources, such as the presence of an ordinary high water mark (OHWM), the presence of a bed/bank and streambed associated vegetation, and/or other surface indications of streambed hydrology. Formal wetland soil pits were not conducted due to the presence of obvious hydric soil indicators. The limits of wetlands were identified based on the presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydrogen sulfide odor in the soils. A hand auger was used to confirm hydrogen sulfur odor in the upper column of the soil profiles. The final determination of jurisdiction will be made by USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW through subsequent processing of regulatory permits for the project. Representative photographs were taken of jurisdictional features and are included as Appendix D, Drainage Photographs. A summary of the regulatory framework is provided below. 5 2.3.3.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction The USACE waters of the U.S. were determined using current USACE guidelines (Environmental Laboratory 1987, USACE 2008a). Areas were determined to be waters of the U.S. if there was evidence of regular surface flow (e.g., bed and bank). Jurisdictional limits for these areas were measured according to the presence of a discernible OHWM, which is defined in 33 Code of Federal Regulations Section 329.11 as “that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of the soil; destruction of terrestrial vegetation; the presence of litter or debris; or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” The USACE has issued further guidance on the OHWM (Riley 2005; USACE 2008b), which also was considered in this jurisdictional delineation. The jurisdictional delineation was conducted in accordance with court decisions (i.e., Rapanos v. United States, Carabell v. United States, and Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. USACE), as outlined and applied by the USACE (USACE 2007; Grumbles and Woodley 2007); and USACE and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA; 2007). These publications explain that the EPA and USACE will assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters (TNW) and tributaries to TNWs that are a relatively permanent water body (RPW), which has year-round or continuous seasonal flow. For water bodies that are not RPWs, a significant nexus evaluation is used to determine if the non-RPW is jurisdictional. As an alternative to the significant nexus evaluation process, a preliminary jurisdictional delineation may be submitted to the USACE. The preliminary jurisdictional delineation treats all waters and wetlands on a site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. (USACE 2008a). A significant nexus evaluation or preliminary jurisdictional delineation are typically only required for projects that propose impacts to jurisdictional features and, therefore, require a Section 404 permit from the USACE. The RWQCB asserts regulatory jurisdiction over activities affecting wetland and non-wetland waters of the State pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. RWQCB jurisdiction found within the study area follows the boundaries of USACE jurisdiction for waters of the U.S. and extends them to the top of bank. There are no areas supporting isolated waters of the State subject to exclusive RWQCB jurisdiction pursuant to the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. 2.3.3.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction The CDFW jurisdictional boundaries were determined based on the presence of riparian vegetation or regular surface flow, if present. Streambeds within CDFW jurisdiction were delineated based on the definition of streambed as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses with surface or subsurface flow that supports riparian vegetation” (Title 14, Section 1.72). This definition for CDFW jurisdictional habitat allows for a wide variety of habitat types to be jurisdictional, including some that do not include wetland species (e.g., oak woodland and alluvial fan sage scrub). Jurisdictional limits for CDFW streambeds were defined by the top of bank. Vegetated CDFW habitats were mapped at the limits of streambed-associated vegetation, if present. 6 2.3.4 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment In accordance with the MSHCP, a Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool habitat assessment was conducted by Mr. Cooley on March 27, 2020. This habitat assessment was conducted concurrently with the jurisdictional delineation. The identification of Riparian/Riverine habitats is based on potential for the habitat to support, or be tributary to habitat that support, Riparian/Riverine Covered Species identified in MSHCP Section 6.1.2. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The study area mostly consists of paved roads within the Diaz Road ROW. The study area also supports commercial use and some undeveloped land. Diaz Road within the study area has existed as a dirt road since 1978 and has been paved since at least 1996 (Historic Aerials 1978, 1996). The study area supports 16 drainage features, including Murrieta Creek and its tributaries. Arroyo willow thicket was observed along the edges of Murrieta Creek and Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland within the upstream portion of a small tributary to Murrieta Creek. Surrounding land uses include mostly commercial development with some undeveloped parcels along the western study area boundary and Murrieta Creek along the eastern boundary. 3.2 TOPOGRAPHY AND SOILS The topography of the study area is mostly flat, with elevations ranging from approximately 1,016 feet (310 meters) above mean sea level (AMSL) near the southern boundary to 1,037 feet (316 meters) AMSL near the northern boundary. The MSHCP lists nine sensitive soil types that occur within the Plan Area (Dudek 2003). Two of these soil types (Domino and Willows soil series) are mapped within the study area. Specifically, six soil types were mapped within the project site, with the majority of the study area dominated by Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkaline). The other five soil types included Domino silt loam (strongly saline-alkaline), Grangeville fine sandy loam (drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes; saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes), Grangeville sandy loam (sand substratum, drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes), riverwash, and Willows silty clay (saline-alkaline; deep, saline-alkaline; deep, strongly saline-alkaline; NRCS 2021). The Grangeville soil component in the northern portion of the study area consists of well-drained soils and are associated with alluvial fans. The Chino soil component within the central portion of the study area is somewhat poorly drained and is associated with floodplains. The Domino and Willows soil component within the southern portion of the project site is poorly drained and are associated with alluvial fans and basin floors. 3.3 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Seven vegetation communities and land uses were mapped on the study area, including Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland, arroyo willow thicket, riverwash, developed, disturbed, eucalyptus grove, and upland mustards (Table 1, Vegetation and Land Uses; Figures 5a-h, Vegetation). A brief description of each vegetation community and land use mapped on the study area is provided below. 7 The CDFW CaCodes and Oberbauer Element Codes are provided in parentheses next to each community name. Table 1 VEGETATION AND LAND USES MSHCP Vegetation Community Classification1 MCV/Oberbauer Acres2 Collapsed Uncollapsed Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest Southern Willow Scrub Arroyo Willow Thicket (CaCode3 61.201.01)4 27.63 Southern Cottonwood/ Willow Riparian Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland (CaCode 61.130.23)4 0.37 N/A N/A Riverwash (O5 64140) 47.70 Developed/Disturbed Land Residential/Urban/Exotic Developed (O 12000) 163.04 Disturbed (O 11300) 14.56 Eucalyptus Grove (CaCode 79.100.02) 3.78 Upland Mustards (CaCode 42.011.05) 68.67 TOTAL 325.75 1 Collapsed and uncollapsed community classifications are terms from MSHCP Table 2-1. 2 Acreages are rounded to the nearest hundredth. 3 CDFW CaCodes 4 Sensitive community pursuant to CDFW’s Natural Communities List (CDFW 2020). 5 Oberbauer Element Code. 3.3.1 Arroyo Willow Thicket Arroyo willow thicket consists of dense, broad-leaved, winter-deciduous stands of trees dominated by shrubby willows (Salix spp.) in association with mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), scattered Fremont cottonwoods (Populus fremontii), and western sycamores (Platanus racemosa). This vegetation community occurs on loose, sandy, or fine gravelly alluvium deposited near stream channels during flood flows. Frequent flooding maintains this early seral community, preventing succession to a riparian woodland or forest. Arroyo willow thicket was observed along the edges of Murrieta Creek, totaling 27.63 acres. This community was dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), with some intermixed sandbar willow (Salix exigua). Native species observed in the understory included mule fat, hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), and cattails (Typha sp.). 3.3.2 Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland consists of tall, open, broad-leaved, winter-deciduous riparian species and is dominated by cottonwood species (e.g., Populus fremontii and Populus trichocarpa), with willow species (Salix spp.) comprising the main understory. This vegetation community is dense, structurally diverse, and similar to southern arroyo willow riparian forest, although it contains a greater amount of cottonwoods and western sycamores (Holland 1986). Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland was observed in one area in the central portion of the study area, totaling 0.37 acre. This plant community was dominated by Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and arroyo willow. 8 3.3.3 Riverwash Riverwash is mostly unvegetated streambed that typically consists of coarse-textured substrate, which ranges from sand to gravel. The coarse-textured substrate is transported and deposited by stream flows. The majority of Murrieta Creek consisted of unvegetated and sparsely vegetated riverwash, totaling 47.70 acres within the study area. The riverwash consisted of mostly unvegetated sandy streambed. Some mule fat and non-native grasses were scattered throughout this area. 3.3.4 Developed Developed land is included under the Urban/Residential/Exotic classification in the uncollapsed MSHCP Vegetation Community Classification. This land use includes areas where permanent structures and/or pavement have been placed, which prevents the growth of vegetation, or where landscaping is clearly tended and maintained. The majority of the study area includes existing developed land, which totaled 163.04 acres. The developed land consisted of commercial developments, roads, sidewalks, and associated ornamental vegetation. 3.3.5 Disturbed Disturbed land is included under the Urban/Residential/Exotic classification in the uncollapsed MSHCP Vegetation Community Classification. This land use includes land cleared of vegetation (e.g., dirt roads), land containing a preponderance of non-native plant species such as ornamentals or ruderal exotic species that take advantage of disturbance (previously cleared or abandoned landscaping), or land showing signs of past or present animal usage that removes any capability of providing viable habitat. Disturbed land was observed throughout the study area, which totaled 14.56 acres. These areas consisted of compact dirt adjacent to the paved roads and were mostly unvegetated due to heavy perpetual disturbance. 3.3.6 Eucalyptus Grove Eucalyptus grove is included under the Urban/Residential/Exotic classification in the uncollapsed MSHCP Vegetation Community Classification. Eucalyptus grove is dominated by eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.), an introduced species that has often been planted purposely for wind blocking, ornamental, and hardwood production purposes. The understory within well-established groves is usually very sparse due to the closed canopy and allelopathic nature of the abundant leaf and bark litter. A total of 3.78 acres of eucalyptus grove was mapped throughout the study area. The canopy of this plant community was dominated by red river gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis). Other non-native tree species observed in the canopy included Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis) and lemon-scented gum (Eucalyptus citriodora). The understory comprised scattered non-native herbaceous species, such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), and short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). E!(DENDY PKWYDI A Z R D 1 Figure 5a VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig5_Veg.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 150 Feet Study Area Project Site F!(Photo Point Vegetation Arroyo Willow Thicket Developed Disturbed River Wash Upland Mustards a b c d e f g hPage Locator ZEVODRREMINGTON AVEDIAZRD Figure 5b VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig5_Veg.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 150 Feet Study Area Project Site Vegetation Arroyo Willow Thicket Developed Disturbed River Wash Upland Mustards a b c d e f g hPage Locator E!(E!( ENTERPRISECIR RIONEDODIAZ R D W INCHESTERRD2 3 Figure 5c VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig5_Veg.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 150 Feet Study Area Project Site F!(Photo Point Vegetation Arroyo Willow Thicket Developed Disturbed River Wash Upland Mustards a b c d e f g hPage Locator E!(E!( ENT E R P R I S E C I R RIDER WAYSARAH WAYA Q U A V I S T A W A Y BLACKDEER LOOPRIO NEDOAVENIDA ALVARADODIAZ R DWINCHESTERRD2 3 Figure 5d VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig5_Veg.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 150 Feet Study Area Project Site F!(Photo Point Vegetation Arroyo Willow Thicket Developed River Wash Upland Mustards a b c d e f g hPage Locator C OMM E R C E C E N T E R D R BLACKDEER LOOPSARAH WAYENTERPRISE CIRD I A Z R D Figure 5e VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig5_Veg.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 150 Feet Study Area Project Site Vegetation Arroyo Willow Thicket Developed River Wash Upland Mustards a b c d e f g hPage Locator RANCHO WAYVIA MONTEZUMAD E L R I O R D VIA DOS PICOSDI A Z R D B US I NESS PARK DR Figure 5f VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig5_Veg.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 150 Feet Study Area Project Site Vegetation Arroyo Willow Thicket Developed Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland River Wash Upland Mustards a b c d e f g hPage Locator E!(D E L R I O R D LAS HACIENDAS STRANCHO WAYC A L L E C O R T E Z JEFFERSON AVE DI A Z R D D EL RI O R D §¨¦15 4 Figure 5g VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig5_Veg.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 150 Feet Study Area Project Site F!(Photo Point Vegetation Arroyo Willow Thicket Developed River Wash Upland Mustards a b c d e f g hPage Locator VINCENT MORAGA DRSI NGL E O A K D R FELIX VALDEZ RD R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A R D BUSINESSPARK DR JEFFERSONAVEDIAZ RD Figure 5h VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig5_Veg.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 150 Feet Study Area Project Site Vegetation Arroyo Willow Thicket Developed Disturbed Eucalyptus Grove River Wash Upland Mustards a b c d e f g hPage Locator 9 3.3.7 Upland Mustards The upland mustards community is included under the Urban/Residential/Exotic classification in the uncollapsed MSHCP Vegetation Community Classification. This vegetation community is typically associated with land that has been heavily influenced by human activities, including areas adjacent to roads, manufactured slopes, and abandoned lots. Upland mustards are dominated by ornamental and exotic species that take advantage of previously cleared or abandoned landscaping or land showing signs of past or present animal usage that removes any capability of providing viable habitat. Upland mustards totaled 68.67 acres. This community mostly comprised non-native short-pod mustard. Other non-native species observed in this community included red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens) and tocalote (Centaurea melitensis). 3.4 PLANTS HELIX identified a total of 85 plant species on the study area during surveys to date, of which 51 (approximately 60 percent) are non-native species (Appendix A). The predominance of non-native species is indicative of the high degree of disturbance on the site and the presence of surrounding development. 3.5 ANIMALS A total of 66 animal species were detected on the study area during surveys to date, including 57 bird species, two reptile species, five insect species, and two mammal species (Appendix B). In addition to those listed in Appendix B, other animal species that are expected to occur but were not observed during surveys conducted on the study area, include reptile species, such as woodland alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata webbii) and San Diego gophersnake (Pituophis catenifer annectens), and mammal species such as Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), coyote (Canis latrans), raccoon (Procyon lotor), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). 3.6 SENSITIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.6.1 Rare Plant Species Rare plant species are uncommon or limited in that they: (1) are only found in the western Riverside County region; (2) are a local representative of a species or association of species not otherwise found in the region; or (3) are severely depleted within their ranges or within the region. Rare plant species include those species listed by CNPS with a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 1, 2, or 3 (2021), federally and state listed endangered and threatened species, or those species that require additional surveys by the MSHCP (Dudek 2003). Since the study area does not occur within any MSHCP rare plant survey overlays, no focused surveys were warranted. The MSHCP survey requirements for rare plant species are discussed in Sections 3.7.2 and 3.7.3.1 below. A total of 29 rare plant species were recorded within the Murrieta and Temecula quadrangles based on a database search conducted on CNDDB and CNPS (CDFW 2021, CNPS 2021). These species are included in Appendix E, Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur. Of the 29 rare plant species recorded within the vicinity of the study area, 17 species were considered to have no potential to occur based on geographic range, elevation range, and/or lack of suitable habitat on the study area. 10 Ten of these species (alkali marsh aster [Almutaster pauciflorus], Coulter's goldfields [Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri], little mousetail [Myosurus minimus ssp. apus], Orcutt’s brodiaea [Brodiaea orcuttii], Parry's spineflower [Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi], long-spined spineflower [Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina], prostrate vernal pool navarretia [Navarretia prostrata], San Bernardino aster [Symphyotrichum defoliatum], spreading navarretia [Navarretia fossalis], and vernal barley [Hordeum intercedens]) were determined to have a low potential to occur on the study area based on the presence of low-quality habitat within the study area and/or lack of recent observations within the vicinity of the study area. All but two of these species are either fully or conditionally covered under the MSCHCP. Alkali marsh aster and San Bernardino aster are not covered under the MSHCP. Although potentially suitable habitat is present, these two species are not expected to occur since records within the vicinity of the study area are historical records from the early 1900s. There are no recent observations of alkali marsh aster in Riverside County. The most recent observation of San Bernardino aster in Riverside County was 2015 in the San Jacinto Mountains, approximately 29 miles to the northeast of the project site. One of these species (San Diego ambrosia [Ambrosia pumila]) was determined to have a high potential to occur on the study area based on mapped sandy soils, and this species’ affinity for disturbance and observations within one mile of the study area (CDFW 2021). This species is a federally endangered species and is conditionally covered under the MSHCP. One of these species (smooth tarplant [Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis]) was observed within the study area during the general biological survey. Smooth tarplant was observed within Drainage A2.1 in the northern portion of the study area north of Diaz road. This species is a CPRP 1B.1 species and is conditionally covered under the MSHCP. 3.6.2 Sensitive Animal Species Sensitive animal species include federally and state listed endangered and threatened, candidate species for listing by USFWS or CDFW, and/or are species of special concern (SSC) pursuant to CDFW. Additional MSHCP survey requirements for LBVI, SWFL, and BUOW are discussed below in Sections 3.7.1.1 and 3.7.3.3. A total of 29 sensitive animal species were recorded within the Murrieta and Temecula quadrangles based on a database search conducted on CNDDB (CDFW 2021). These species are included in Appendix F, Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur. Of the 29 sensitive animal species recorded within the vicinity of the study area, 15 species were determined to have no potential to occur on the study area due to lack of suitable habitat. The remaining 14 species (in addition to SWFL) are discussed in further detail below and in Appendix F. Four of these species were determined to have a low potential to occur on the study area, based on the presence of low quality and isolated habitat, limited acreage of habitat, surrounding development, and lack of recent observations within the immediate vicinity of the study area. These species include coast range newt (Taricha torosa; SSC), San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii; SSC), Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni; state endangered; foraging potential only), and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus; SSC; foraging potential only). All species but western mastiff bat are fully covered species under the MSHCP. 11 Six of these species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur based on the presence of suitable habitat and recent observations within the vicinity of the study area. These species include red diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber; SSC), Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi; SSC), southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida; SSC), Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi; SKR; federally endangered and state threatened), two-striped gartersnake (Thamnophis hammondii; SSC), and western spadefoot (Spea hammondii; SSC). All species but Southern California legless lizard and two-striped gartersnake are fully covered species under the MSHCP. Two of these species were determined to have a high potential to occur, based on the presence of suitable habitat and recent observations within the vicinity of the study area. The species include coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri; SSC) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus; state fully protected). Both of these species are fully covered species under the MSHCP. Focused surveys for BUOW, LBVI, and SWFL were conducted in 2020. The survey results are summarized below. Burrowing Owl Focused surveys for BUOW were conducted in accordance with the County’s survey protocol (2006), as previously described in Section 2.3.2.1 above. No BUOWs or BUOW sign were observed within the survey area. Therefore, the study area does not currently support BUOWs. The survey methods and results are discussed in detail in a separate letter report, which is provided as Appendix G, Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report. Least Bell’s Vireo Focused surveys for LBVI were conducted in accordance with USFWS’s survey protocol (USFWS 2001), as previously described in Section 2.3.2.2 above. Four males and one pair of LBVIs were observed within suitable habitat on the study area. Therefore, this species is currently presumed present within the study area. The survey methods and results are discussed in detail in a separate letter report, which is provided as Appendix H, Least Bell’s Vireo Focused Survey Report. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Although SWFL was not recorded within the Murrieta or Temecula quadrangles on CNDDB, suitable habitat was observed within the study, and focused surveys were conducted to comply with MSHCP requirements. The focused SWFL surveys were conducted in accordance with the USFWS approved survey protocol (Sogge et al. 2010), as previously described in Section 2.3.2.3 above. No breeding SFWL were detected during the survey effort. One willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii; WIFL) was detected during the first survey in May. A single male WIFL was heard signing along the eastern bank of Murrieta Creek, between Dendry Road and Winchester Road, near its confluence with Santa Gertrudis Creek. Although the male could not be identified to subspecies, the male was not detected during the subsequent four surveys, and no other WIFLs were detected during any of the surveys. The single observation of a male WIFL is presumed to be a migrating individual. The detailed report findings for the SWFL surveys are included as Appendix I, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Focused Survey Report. 12 3.6.3 Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitats Sensitive vegetation communities/habitats are considered either rare within the region or sensitive by CDFW (CDFW 2018, Holland 1986). Communities are given a Global and State ranking on a scale of 1 to 5. Communities afforded a rank of 5 are most common while communities with a rank of 1 are considered highly periled. CDFW considers sensitive communities as those with a rank between 1 and 3. The study area supports two sensitive plant communities pursuant to CDFW, including 0.37 acre of Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland (CDFW CaCode 61.130.23) and 27.63 acres of arroyo willow thicket (CDFW CaCode 61.130.23; Figures 5a-h). 3.6.4 Habitat and Wildlife Corridor Evaluation Wildlife corridors connect otherwise isolated pieces of habitat and allow movement or dispersal of plants and animals. Corridors can be local or regional in scale; their functions may vary temporally and spatially based on conditions and species presence. Local wildlife corridors allow access to resources such as food, water, and shelter within the framework of their daily routine. Animals use these corridors, which are often hillsides or tributary drainages, to move between different habitats. Regional corridors provide these functions over a larger scale and link two or more large habitat areas, allowing the dispersal of organisms and the consequent mixing of genes between populations. The study area consists of mostly developed land (Diaz Road, commercial development), with disturbed land along the periphery. Native vegetation is limited to Murrieta Creek and its tributaries. The study area is constrained by commercial development to the west. Portions of the northern boundary of the study area are adjacent to water retention ponds. The eastern portion of the study area is located within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, which consists of Murrieta Creek (Dudek 2003). Regional wildlife movement is expected to occur within Murrieta Creek, which is within the study area but outside of the project site. 3.6.5 Jurisdictional Waters Based on the results of the jurisdictional delineation, 16 jurisdictional features were observed within the jurisdictional survey area (JD survey area; Figures 6a-f, Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian Areas; Table 2, Existing Jurisdictional Features). Representative drainage photographs are included as Appendix D. Table 2 EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES Drainage USACE/RWQCB1 CDFW1 (acres)2 Non-Wetland (acres)2 Wetland (acres)2 Murrieta Creek 0.000 0.000 0.577 A 0.014 0.000 0.074 A1 0.008 0.000 0.008 A2 0.002 0.000 0.002 A3 0.005 0.000 0.183 B 0.001 0.029 0.027 C 0.005 0.013 0.059 D 0.003 0.023 0.083 13 Table 2 (cont.) EXISTING JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES Drainage USACE/RWQCB1 CDFW1 (acres)2 Non-Wetland (acres)2 Wetland (acres)2 E 0.036 0.000 0.109 F 0.001 0.000 0.004 G 0.005 0.002 0.063 H 0.007 0.000 0.086 I 0.001 0.016 0.079 I1 0.002 0.000 0.011 J 0.006 0.000 0.073 K 0.000 0.010 0.057 TOTAL 0.096 0.093 1.495 1 Jurisdictional acreages overlap and are not cumulative (e.g., USACE/RWQCB acreages are included in the CDFW acreages. 2 Acreages are rounded to the nearest thousandth The JD survey area supports a total of 0.096 acre of USACE/RWQCB non-wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.093 acre of wetland. The JD survey area also supports and 1.49 acres of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and riparian vegetation. The jurisdictional features are described in detail below. 3.6.5.1 Murrieta Creek Murrieta Creek is a USGS mapped blueline stream that originates approximately 8.3 miles to the northwest of the JD survey area. The creek flows from northwest to the southeast for roughly 2.1 miles within the JD survey area. Murrieta Creek flows through the JD survey area as a soft-bottomed channel and continues for approximately 1.9 miles, where Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek meet to form the Santa Margarita River. The Santa Margarita River ultimately drains into the Pacific Ocean, approximately 24 miles to the southwest of the JD survey area. Murrieta Creek is dominated by riverwash and also supports arroyo willow thicket along the edges. Soils within Murrieta Creek consist of Chino silt loam (drained, strongly saline-alkali), Grangeville fine sandy loam (saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes), Grangeville sandy loam (sandy substratum, drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes), riverwash, Willows silty clay (deep, strongly saline-alkali), and Willows silty clay (saline-alkali; NRCS 2021). Within the JD survey area, Murrieta Creek supports approximately 0.577 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and riparian vegetation. Waters of the U.S. associated with Murrieta Creek were not located within the 50-foot buffer surrounding the project site. 3.6.5.2 Drainage A Drainage A is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek, located in the northwestern portion of the JD survey area. Drainage A initiates in the vicinity of a reservoir approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the JD survey area. The drainage appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the slopes adjacent to the reservoir and adjacent undeveloped areas, southwest of the JD survey area. The drainage begins as a cement V- ditch before converting to a small cement drainage. The drainage enters the JD survey area as an earthen drainage and flows northwest for approximately 110 linear feet (LF) before it continues under Diaz Road. Drainage A flows under Diaz Road within a culvert for approximately 75 LF. The drainage daylights on the northside of Diaz Road and flows approximately 50 LF northwest until it meets Murrieta 14 Creek. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation and a small area of arroyo willow thicket. Soils within Drainage A consist of Grangeville sandy loam (sandy substratum, drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes) and Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali; NRCS 2021). Within the JD survey area, Drainage A supports approximately 0.014 acre of USACE/RWQCB of non- wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.074 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and riparian vegetation. 3.6.5.3 Drainage A1 Drainage A1 is a small ephemeral tributary to Drainage A, which initiates in the northwestern portion of the JD survey area. The drainage extends for approximately 45 LF prior to joining Drainage A. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation and some arroyo willow thicket. Soils within Drainage A1 consist of Grangeville sandy loam (sandy substratum, drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes; NRCS 2021). Within the JD survey area, Drainage A1 supports approximately 0.008 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.008 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and riparian vegetation. 3.6.5.4 Drainage A2 Drainage A2 is a small ephemeral tributary to Drainage A, which initiates in the northwestern portion of the JD survey area. The drainage extends for approximately 25 LF northwest until jurisdictional indicators are no longer discernable. It is assumed that this drainage sheet flows for approximately 215 LF before joining Drainage A. The drainage primarily consists of saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima). Soils within Drainage A2 consist of Grangeville sandy loam (sandy substratum, drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes; NRCS 2021). Within the JD survey area, Drainage A2 supports approximately 0.002 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.002 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation. 3.6.5.5 Drainage A2.1 Drainage A2.1 is a small ephemeral tributary to Drainage A, which initiates 450 feet southeast of the JD survey area. The drainage flows northeast within the JD survey area for approximately 215 LF until jurisdictional indicators are no longer discernable. This portion of the drainage is located on private property, which was fenced and had active construction activities occurring during the survey. Due to inaccessibility, the connection is assumed to be through surface flow and not a direct connection through a culvert. It is assumed that the drainage sheet flows across unpaved portions of Diaz Road for approximately 100 feet before it enters a roadside swale that runs parallel to Diaz road. The roadside swale continues for approximately 230 feet before indicators end. Surface runoff is expected to join Drainage 2. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation. Soils within Drainage A2.1 consist of Grangeville fine sandy loam (drained, 0 to 2 percent slopes) and Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali; NRCS 2021). Within the JD survey area, Drainage A2.1 supports approximately 0.005 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.183 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation. A2 A A2.1 A1 DENDY PKWYDI A Z R D Figure 6a Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig6_JD.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 100 Feet Study Area Project Site USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas a b c d e f Page Locator Murrieta Creek B RIO NEDOENT E R P R I S E C I R ENTERPRISECIRWINCHESTER RDDIAZ R D Figure 6b Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig6_JD.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 100 Feet Study Area Project Site USACE Jurisdictional Wetland USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas a b c d e f Page Locator C DBLACKDEER LOOPSARAH WAYENTERPRISE CIRD I A Z R D Figure 6c Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig6_JD.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 100 Feet Study Area Project Site USACE Jurisdictional Wetland USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas a b c d e f Page Locator F G E D E L R I O R DVIA MONTEZUMADI A Z R D Figure 6d Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig6_JD.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 100 Feet Study Area Project Site USACE Jurisdictional Wetland USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas a b c d e f Page Locator I H I1 D E L R I O R DLAS HACIENDAS STCALLE CORTEZRANCHO WAYDI A Z R D D E L R I O R D Figure 6e Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig6_JD.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 100 Feet Study Area Project Site USACE Jurisdictional Wetland USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas a b c d e f Page Locator Murrieta Creek K J JEFFERSONAVEDELRIORD D I A Z R DFigure 6f Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig6_JD.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 100 Feet Study Area Project Site USACE Jurisdictional Wetland USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas a b c d e f Page Locator 15 3.6.5.6 Drainage B Drainage B is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the central portion of the JD survey area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage B enters the JD survey area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 80 LF before joining Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports southwestern willow scrub, hardstem bulrush, and cattails with some non- native vegetation. Soils within Drainage B consist of Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali; NRCS 2021). Within the JD survey area, Drainage B supports approximately 0.001 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S. in addition to 0.029 acre of wetlands. Drainage B also supports approximately 0.027 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation. 3.6.5.7 Drainage C Drainage C is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the central portion of the JD survey area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage C enters the JD survey area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 100 LF before exiting the JD survey area. Drainage C continues off-site for approximately 130 feet before flowing into Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation with hardstem bulrush and cattails in the bed of the drainage. Soils within Drainage C consist of Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali; NRCS 2021). Within the JD survey area, Drainage C supports approximately 0.005 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S. in addition to 0.013 acre of wetlands. Drainage C also supports approximately 0.059 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation. 3.6.5.8 Drainage D Drainage D is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the central portion of the JD survey area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage D enters the JD survey area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 100 LF before exiting the JD survey area. Drainage D continues off-site for approximately 130 feet before flowing into Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports willows and mule fat in the bed of the drainage. Soils within Drainage D consist of Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali; NRCS 2021). Within the JD survey area, Drainage D supports approximately 0.003 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S., in addition to 0.023 acre of wetlands. Drainage D also supports approximately 0.083 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation. 3.6.5.9 Drainage E Drainage E is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the central portion of the JD survey area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage E enters the JD survey area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 100 LF before exiting the JD survey area. Drainage E continues off-site for approximately 150 feet before flowing into Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation. Soils within Drainage E consist of Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali; NRCS 2021). 16 Within the JD survey area, Drainage E supports approximately 0.036 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S. and approximately 0.109 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation. 3.6.5.10 Drainage F Drainage F is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the central portion of the JD survey area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage F enters the JD survey area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 50 LF before jurisdictional indicators cease. Drainage F presumably sheet flows for approximately 170 feet until joining Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation. Soils within Drainage F consist of Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali; NRCS 2021). Within the JD survey area, Drainage F supports approximately 0.001 acre of USACE/RWQCB non-wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.004 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation. 3.6.5.11 Drainage G Drainage G is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the central portion of the JD survey area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage G enters the JD survey area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 100 LF before exiting the JD survey area. Drainage G continues off-site for approximately 250 feet before flowing into Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation, with small mule fat shrubs, and hardstem bulrush in the drainage bed. Soils within Drainage G consist of Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkali; NRCS 2021). Within the JD survey area, Drainage G supports approximately 0.005 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S. in addition to 0.002 acre of wetlands. Drainage G also supports approximately 0.063 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation. 3.6.5.12 Drainage H Drainage H is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the southeastern portion of the JD survey area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage H enters the JD survey area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 100 LF before exiting the JD survey area. Drainage H continues off-site for approximately 150 feet before flowing into Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation. Soils within Drainage H consist of Domino silt loam (strongly saline-alkali; NRCS 2021). Within the JD survey area, Drainage H supports approximately 0.007 acre of USACE/RWQCB non- wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.086 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation. 3.6.5.13 Drainage I Drainage I is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the southeastern portion of the JD survey area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage I enters the JD survey area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 90 LF before exiting the JD survey area. Drainage I continues off-site for approximately 100 feet before flowing into Murrieta Creek. The 17 drainage primarily supports willows and hardstem bulrush in the drainage bed. Soils within Drainage I consist of Willows silty clay (deep, strongly saline-alkali; NRCS 2021). Within the JD survey area, Drainage I supports approximately 0.001 acre of USACE/RWQCB non-wetland waters of the U.S. in addition to 0.016 acre of wetlands. In addition, Drainage I supports approximately 0.079 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation. 3.6.5.14 Drainage I1 Drainage I1 is a small ephemeral tributary to Drainage I, which initiates in the southeastern portion of the study area. The drainage extends for approximately 20 LF prior to joining Drainage I. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation. Soils within Drainage I1 consist of Willows silty clay (deep, strongly saline-alkali; NRCS 2021). Within the study area, Drainage I1 supports approximately 0.002 acre of USACE/RWQCB non-wetland waters of the U.S. and approximately 0.011 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation. 3.6.5.15 Drainage J Drainage J is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the southeastern portion of the study area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage J enters the study area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 90 LF before exiting the study area. Drainage J continues off-site for approximately 150 feet before flowing into Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports non-native vegetation. Soils within Drainage J consist of riverwash (NRCS 2021). Within the study area, Drainage J supports approximately 0.006 acre of USACE/RWQCB non-wetland waters of the U.S. and approximately 0.073 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian vegetation. 3.6.5.16 Drainage K Drainage K is a small tributary to Murrieta Creek in the southeastern portion of the study area and appears to be fed by nuisance flows from the adjacent development to the southwest. Drainage K enters the study area via a concrete culvert and flows for approximately 70 LF before exiting the study area. Drainage K continues off-site for approximately 130 feet before flowing into Murrieta Creek. The drainage primarily supports willows in the drainage bed and some eucalyptus grove. Soils within Drainage K consist of riverwash and Grangeville fine sandy loam (drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes; NRCS 2021). Within the study area, Drainage K supports approximately 0.010 acre of USACE/RWQCB wetland waters of the U.S and approximately 0.057 acre of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and riparian vegetation. 18 3.7 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 3.7.1 Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (Section 6.1.1) The MSHCP Plan Area is divided into 16 Area Plans, within which 153,000 acres were identified as potential areas for conservation that would contribute to the overall existing MSHCP Conservation Area. The areas identified for conservation within the MSHCP Plan Area are called Criteria Areas, and include Core Areas that support habitat for covered species and Linkages that provide a connection between Core Areas. The Criteria Areas are divided into 160-acre cells, which each have their own conservation goal. All projects within a cell or cell group are required to be assessed through the Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process to determine the amount of MSHCP conservation required. The HANS processes aid in the acquisition of lands that will contribute to the assembly of the MSHCP Reserve. The study area is located within the Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) of the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP. The study area includes portions of Criteria Cells 6656, 6781, 6782, 6783, 6890, 6891, 7021, and 7078 (Figure 7, MSHCP Criteria). The conservation requirements for these Criteria Cells are presented below in Table 3, Conservation Requirement of the MSHCP Criteria Cells. Although the study area is within several Criteria Cells, the project site is mostly within existing developed areas. The project site is not targeted for conservation or in an area that would contribute to the MSHCP reserve assembly. Furthermore, Diaz Road is considered a “covered road” under the MSCHP. According to MSHCP Section 7.3.4, “safety improvements to other publicly maintained existing roadways within the Criteria Area are Covered Activities. The proposed road widening is considered a safety improvement and is, therefore, a “covered activity.” Implementation of the proposed project would avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive species and habitats adjacent to the existing roadway. Overall, the project would be consistent with the MSHCP. Table 3 CONSERVATION REQUIREMENT OF THE MSHCP CRITERIA CELLS Criteria Cell Conservation Criteria 6656 Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Conservation within this Cell will focus on the existing Murrieta Creek channel and adjacent grassland habitat and agricultural land to the extent feasible. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6528 to the north and to grassland habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6782 to the southeast. Conservation within this Cell will range from 5%-15% of the Cell, focusing in the southwestern portion of the Cell. 6781 Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 10. Conservation within this Cell will focus on chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and grassland habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6780 to the west and #6888 to the south. Conservation within this Cell will range from 35%-45% of the Cell, focusing in the southwestern portion of the Cell. 19 Table 3 (cont.) CONSERVATION REQUIREMENT OF THE MSHCP CRITERIA CELLS Criteria Cell Conservation Criteria 6782 Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Conservation within this Cell will focus on the existing Murrieta Creek channel and adjacent grassland habitat to the extent feasible. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6656 to the northwest and to grassland and adjacent habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6783 to the east. Conservation within this Cell be approximately 5% of the Cell, focusing in the northeastern portion of the Cell. 6783 Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Conservation within this Cell will focus on the existing Murrieta Creek channel and adjacent riparian scrub, woodland forest and grassland habitat to the extent feasible. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to grassland and adjacent habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6782 to the west and to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6890 to the south. Conservation within this Cell will be approximately 5% of the Cell, focusing in the southwestern portion of the Cell. 6890 Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland, forest, and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub habitat along Murrieta Creek. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6783 to the north and to Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6891 to the east. Conservation within this Cell will range from 10%-20% of the Cell, focusing in the northeastern portion of the Cell. 6891 Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland, forest, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub and grassland habitat along Murrieta Creek. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6890 to the west and to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7021 to the south. Conservation within this Cell will range from 15%-25% of the Cell, focusing in the southwestern portion of the Cell. 7021 Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat along Murrieta Creek. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #6891 to the north and in Cell #7078 to the south. Conservation within this Cell will range from 20%-30% of the Cell, focusing in the eastern portion of the Cell. 7078 Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Conservation within this Cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat along Murrieta Creek. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #7021 to the north and in Cell #7079 to the east. Conservation within this Cell will range from 15%-25% of the Cell, focusing in the northeastern portion of the Cell. 3.7.2 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat Assessment (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) The identification of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources is based on the potential for the habitat to support, or be a tributary to habitat that supports, Riparian/Riverine Covered Species. Riparian/Riverine 20 Covered Species are identified in MSHCP Section 6.1.2. The MSHCP defines Riparian/Riverine habitat as “lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year” (Dudek 2003). The MSHCP defines Vernal Pools as “seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season” (Dudek 2003). Artificially created features, except for those created intentionally to provide wetland habitat or resulting from the creation of open waters or alteration of natural stream courses, are not considered MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas or Vernal Pools. In accordance with the MSHCP, a Riparian/Riverine habitat assessment was conducted by Mr. Cooley on March 27, 2020. The Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool habitat assessment was conducted concurrently with the jurisdictional delineation. MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas were identified within the study area, which are consistent with the limits of CDFW jurisdictional vegetation. The Riparian/Riverine Areas mapped on the study area are equivalent to the total area of CDFW jurisdiction within Murrieta Creek and Drainages A through K (1.49 acres; Figure 6). The study area does not support any areas considered MSHCP Vernal Pool Habitat. 3.7.2.1 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Species Through the protection of Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool habitats, the MSHCP aims to conserve several plant and animal species within the Plan Area. During the Riparian/Riverine habitat assessment discussed above, each plant and animal species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP was evaluated to determine the potential to occur on the study area. Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool species are discussed in detail below. Plant Species The MSHCP lists 23 rare plant species that have a potential to occur in Riparian/Riverine and/or Vernal Pool habitats within the MSHCP Plan Area, which are listed below in Table 4, MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Plant Species. Of these, 17 species were determined to have no potential to occur within the study area based on geographic range, elevation range, and/or lack of suitable habitat on the study area. Although the study area is within the geographic range and supports potentially suitable habitat, Southern California black walnut (Juglans californica) is a conspicuous tree species and was not observed within the study area during any of the site visits. Of the remaining five species, smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis) was observed within Drainage A2.1 in the northern portion of the study area during the general biological survey. The remaining four species (Orcutt’s brodiaea [Brodiaea orcuttii], Prostrate navarretia [Navarretia prostrata], spreading [Navarretia fossalis], and vernal barley [Hordeum intercedens]) have a low potential to occur based on the presence of some wetland habitat (see Appendix F). A list of plant species observed during the field surveys is provided as Appendix A. NICOL E L N JEFFERSO N AVE S O L A N A W A Y YN E Z R DWINCHESTERRD OLDTOWNFR O N T S T RANCHO CALIFORNIA R DBUSINESSPARKDR DIAZ R D W INCHESTERRDDATESTDE L RIORD ¬«79 J' K' 6781 6782 6783 65256528 6656 6888 0 6890 6891 7005 7008 0 7021 7075 7076 7077 7078 7079 7158 7161 7164 7166 §¨¦15 Figure 7 MSHCP CriteriaH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig7_MSHCP.mxd DEA-12 2/25/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 1,000 Feet Study Area Project Site MSHCP Criteria Cell MSHCP Cell Group Burrowing Owl Survey Area 21 Table 4 MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AND VERNAL POOL PLANT SPECIES Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Brand’s phacelia Phacelia stellaris Sandy washes and/or benches in alluvial flood plains. California Orcutt grass Orcuttia californica Vernal pools. Coulter’s matilija poppy Romneya coulteri Dry washes and canyons in chaparral and coastal sage scrub communities and disturbed areas. Engelmann oak Quercus engelmannii Woodlands, mixed chaparral, and savannah grasslands. Fish’s milkwort Polygala cornuta var. fishiae Shaded, rocky places in canyons associated with woodlands and chaparral. graceful tarplant Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata Coastal mesas and foothills with grassland habitats. lemon lily Lilium parryi Moist montane meadows. Mojave tarplant Deinandra mohavensis Drainages within arid montane chaparral. mud nama Nama stenocarpum Marshes, swamps, lake margins, and riverbanks along muddy embankments. ocellated Humboldt lily Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum Shaded montane canyons. Orcutt’s brodiaea Brodiaea orcuttii Vernally moist grasslands and vernal pools; occasionally occurs along stream embankments within clay soils. Parish’s meadowfoam Limnanthes gracilis var. parishii Montane meadows with abundant annual and herbaceous perennials and lack of shrubs. prostrate navarretia Navarretia prostrata Coastal sage scrub, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools. San Diego button-celery Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii Vernal pools. San Jacinto Valley crownscale Atriplex coronata var. notatior Highly alkaline and silty-clay soils associated with alkali sink scrub, alkali playa, vernal pool, and annual alkali grassland habitats. San Miguel savory Clinopodium chandleri Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands. Santa Ana River woolly-star Eriastrum densifolium spp. sanctorum Sandy soils on flood plains and terraces within coastal scrub and chaparral communities. slender-horned spineflower Dodecahema leptoceras Sandy soil associated with alluvial scrub; is often found on stream terraces and banks. smooth tarplant Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis Alkali scrubs, playas, and grasslands; riparian woodland and streams. 22 Table 4 (cont.) MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AND VERNAL POOL PLANT SPECIES Common Name Scientific Name Habitat spreading navarretia Navarretia fossalis Vernal pools, depressions, and ditches. southern California black walnut Juglans californica Open savannahs, creek beds, alluvial terraces, and north-facing slopes. thread-leaved brodiaea Brodiaea filifolia Clay soils in vernally moist grasslands and vernal pool periphery are typical locales. vernal barley Hordeum intercedens Saline flats and depressions in grasslands or vernal pools. Source: Dudek (2003). Animal Species The MSHCP lists 12 sensitive animal species that have a potential to occur in Riparian/Riverine and/or Vernal Pool habitats within the MSHCP Plan Area, which are listed in Table 5, MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Animal Species. The MSHCP requires focused surveys to be conducted for projects that propose impacts to three invertebrates and three bird species, as described in detail below. The study area supports suitable habitat for two of the sensitive bird species (LBVI and SWFL). Table 5 MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AND VERNAL POOL ANIMAL SPECIES Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni Deep vernal pools and other ephemeral basins that hold water for typically 30 or more days. Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp Linderiella santarosae Limited to vernal pools within the Santa Rosa Plateau. vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi Vernal pools and other ephemeral basins within patches of grassland and agriculture interspersed in coastal sage scrub and chaparral. arroyo toad Anaxyrus californicus Washes and intermittent streams with open-canopy riparian forest. California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii Perennial streams with dense, shrubby riparian vegetation. mountain yellow-legged frog Rana muscosa Perennial waterways, often within open riparian vegetation. Santa Ana sucker Catostomus santaanae Clear, cool perennial streams with loose sand, gravel, cobble, and boulders with algae, aquatic emergent vegetation, macroinvertebrates, and riparian vegetation. bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Within close proximity to lakes or other water bodies. least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Well-developed riparian scrub, woodland, or forest. 23 Table 5 (cont.) MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AND VERNAL POOL ANIMAL SPECIES Common Name Scientific Name Habitat peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Generally, areas with cliffs or tall buildings near water where prey (shorebirds and ducks) is concentrated. southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus Breeds within thickets of willows or other riparian understory usually along streams, ponds, lakes, or canyons. western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Extensive stands of mature riparian woodland. Source: Dudek (2003). Invertebrates There are three sensitive fairy shrimp species that occur in the MSHCP Plan Area, including Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). Vernal pool fairy shrimp occurs throughout the Central Valley and in several disjunct populations in the County. This species exists in vernal pools and other ephemeral basins, often located in patches of grassland and agriculture interspersed in coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Riverside fairy shrimp occurs in Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties as well as in northern Baja California, Mexico. This species is typically found in deeper vernal pools and other ephemeral basins that hold water for long periods of time (30 or more days). Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp is limited to the Santa Rosa Plateau in the County. The MSHCP requires focused surveys to be conducted for projects that propose impacts to suitable habitat for the three sensitive fairy shrimp species discussed above. The study area does not support suitable habitat for fairy shrimp species; therefore, no focused surveys were required. Birds Riparian/Riverine Areas within the MSHCP Plan Area provide suitable habitat for sensitive bird species, such as LBVI, SWFL, western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), and peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus). Typical habitat for LBVI consists of well-developed riparian scrub, woodland, or forest dominated by willows, mule fat, and Fremont cottonwood. LBVI will also use small patches of trees adjacent to dense, riparian habitat. Southwestern willow flycatcher and western yellow-billed cuckoo require mature riparian forest with a stratified canopy and nearby water. Both the bald eagle and peregrine falcon occur primarily in and adjacent to open water habitats, with peregrine falcon occurring in riparian areas. The MSHCP requires focused surveys to be conducted for projects that propose impacts to suitable habitat for LBVI, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow-billed cuckoo. The study area supports suitable habitat for LBVI and SWFL; therefore, focused surveys were required. As discussed in Section 3.6.2 above, four males and one pair of LBVIs were observed within suitable habitat on the study area. Focused surveys for SWFL were negative. 24 3.7.3 Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (MSHCP Section 6.1.3) The MSHCP requires focused plant surveys to be conducted for projects located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA). There are 14 narrow endemic plant species that are associated with 10 different NEPSSAs located throughout the MSHCP Plan Area (see Table 6-1 in the MSHCP). The MSHCP requires a habitat assessment for projects located within a NEPSSA to determine whether the study area supports suitable habitat for plant species listed for the NEPSSA species. Focused surveys for species listed for the NEPSSA must be conducted if suitable habitat is present. If focused surveys are positive, 90 percent of the property that supports habitat suitable for long-term conservation of the species must be avoided until conservation goals for the species are satisfied. The study area is not within a NEPSSA; therefore, focused NEPSSA surveys were not required. 3.7.4 Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP Section 6.3.2) The MSHCP requires additional surveys for projects that support suitable habitat for certain conditionally-covered species. The survey results provide species-specific information in order for the MSHCP to satisfy the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) issuance criteria. If focused surveys are positive for conditionally-covered species, 90 percent of the property that supports habitat suitable for long-term conservation of the species must be avoided until conservation goals for the species are satisfied. Additional survey requirements are discussed in detail below. 3.7.4.1 Criteria Area Species Focused surveys for rare plant species must be conducted for projects located within a Criteria Area Species Survey Area (CASSA). There are 13 criteria area species, which are associated with eight CASSAs located throughout the MSHCP Plan Area (see Table 6-1 in the MSHCP). Prior to conducting focused surveys, a habitat assessment should be conducted to determine whether the study area supports suitable habitat for plant species listed for the CASSA. If suitable habitat is present, focused surveys for species listed for the CASSA should be conducted. The study area is not within a CASSA; therefore, focused CASSA surveys were not required. 3.7.4.2 Amphibian Species Focused surveys for arroyo toad (Bufo californicus), California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), and mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) must be conducted for projects located within an Amphibian Species Survey Area. The study area is not within the Amphibian Species Survey Area; therefore, focused surveys were not required. 3.7.4.3 Bird Species The study area is located within the BUOW Survey Area. Therefore, BUOW focused surveys were required in accordance with the County’s survey protocol (County 2006). As discussed in Section 3.6.2, no BUOWs or BUOW sign were observed during the focused surveys. 25 3.7.4.4 Mammal Species Focused surveys for Aguanga kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami collinus), San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus), and Los Angeles pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) must be conducted for projects located within a Mammal Species Survey Area. The study area is not within the Mammal Species Survey Area; therefore, focused surveys were not required. 4.0 REGIONAL AND REGULATORY CONTEXT Biological resources located within the study area are subject to regulatory review by federal, state, and local agencies. Biological resources-related laws and regulations that apply to the project include the FESA, Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), CWA, California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and CFG Code. 4.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS 4.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act Administered by the USFWS, the FESA provides the legal framework for the listing and protection of species (and their habitats) identified as being endangered or threatened with extinction. Actions that jeopardize endangered or threatened species and the habitats upon which they rely are considered a “take” under the FESA. Section 9(a) of the FESA defines take as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” “Harm” and “harass” are further defined in federal regulations and case law to include actions that adversely impair or disrupt a listed species’ behavioral patterns. Sections 4(d), 7, and 10(a) of the FESA regulate actions that could jeopardize endangered or threatened species. Section 7 describes a process of federal interagency consultation for use when federal actions may adversely affect listed species. A biological assessment is required for any major construction activity if it may affect listed species. In this case, take can be authorized via a letter of biological opinion issued by the USFWS for non-marine related listed species issues. A Section 7 consultation is required when there is a nexus between federally listed species’ use of the site and impacts to USACE jurisdictional areas. Section 10(a) allows issuance of permits for “incidental” take of endangered or threatened species. The term “incidental” applies if the taking of a listed species is incidental to and not the purpose of an otherwise lawful activity. The MSHCP is the Section 10(a) permit for the City, which includes the study area. 4.1.2 Federal Clean Water Act, Section 404 Federal wetland regulation (non-marine issues) is guided by the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and the CWA. The Rivers and Harbors Act deals primarily with discharges into navigable waters, while the purpose of the CWA is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of all waters of the U.S. Permitting for projects filling waters of the U.S., including wetlands and vernal pools, is overseen by USACE under Section 404 of the CWA. Projects may be permitted on an individual basis or may be covered under one of several approved Nationwide Permits. Individual Permits are assessed individually based on the type of action, amount of fill, etc. Individual Permits typically require 26 substantial time (often longer than six months) to review and approve, while Nationwide Permits are pre-approved if a project meets the appropriate conditions. A CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, which is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board, must be issued prior to any 404 Permit. 4.1.3 Migratory Bird Treaty Act All migratory bird species that are native to the United States or its territories are protected under the Federal MBTA, as amended under the Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act of 2004 (FR Doc. 05-5127). The MBTA is generally protective of migratory birds but does not actually stipulate the type of protection required. In common practice, the MBTA is used to place restrictions on disturbance of active bird nests during the nesting season, which is generally defined as March 1 to August 31. In addition, the USFWS commonly places restrictions on disturbances allowed near active raptor nests (January 15 to August 31). 4.1.4 Critical Habitat As described by the FESA, critical habitat is the geographic area occupied by a threatened or endangered species essential to species conservation that may require special management considerations or protection. Critical habitat also may include specific areas not occupied by the species but that have been determined to be essential for species conservation. Critical habitat does not occur on the study area. The nearest critical habitat to the study area includes San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila), which is approximately 0.8 mile to the south of the study area (USFWS 2021). 4.2 STATE REGULATIONS 4.2.1 California Environmental Quality Act Primary environmental legislation in California is found in CEQA and its implementing guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines), which require that projects with potential adverse effects (i.e., impacts) on the environment undergo environmental review. Adverse environmental impacts are typically mitigated as a result of the environmental review process in accordance with existing laws and regulations. 4.2.2 California Endangered Species Act The CESA is similar to the FESA in that it contains a process for listing species and regulating potential impacts to listed species. Section 2081 of the California ESA authorizes the CDFW to enter into a memorandum of agreement for take of listed species for scientific, educational, or management purposes. The MSHCP is the regional 2081 for this portion of the County, which includes the study area. The golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and white-tailed kite are considered state fully protected species. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time, and no state licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting the species necessary for scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock (Fish and Game Code Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515). 27 The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) enacted a process by which plants are listed as rare or endangered. The NPPA regulates the collection, transport, and commerce of plants that are listed. The California ESA followed the NPPA and covers both plants and animals that are determined to be endangered or threatened with extinction. Plants listed as rare under NPPA were designated threatened under the California ESA. 4.2.3 Protection of Raptor Species Raptors (birds of prey) and owls and their active nests are protected by California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5, which states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds of prey or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird unless authorized by the CDFW. 4.2.4 California Fish and Game Code, Section 1602 The California Fish and Game Code (Section 1600 et seq.) requires an agreement with the CDFW for projects affecting riparian and wetland habitats through the issuance of a Streambed Alteration Agreement. 4.3 LOCAL REGULATIONS 4.3.1 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency The MSHCP is a comprehensive multi-jurisdictional effort that includes the City and multiple other cities throughout the western portion of the County. Rather than addressing sensitive species on an individual basis, the MSHCP focuses on the conservation of 146 species, proposing a reserve system of approximately 500,000 acres and a mechanism to fund and implement the reserve system (Dudek 2003). Most importantly, the MSHCP allows participating entities to issue take permits for listed species so that individual applicants need not seek their own permits from the USFWS and/or CDFW. The MSHCP was adopted on June 17, 2003, by the County Board of Supervisors. The Incidental Take Permit was issued by both the USFWS and CDFW on June 22, 2004. Section 3.6 above and Section 5.6 below demonstrate the project’s consistency with the MSHCP. 4.3.2 Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan The SKR HCP describes the conservation, mitigation, and monitoring measures that are implemented within core reserves. Within the HCP, there are seven core reserves, totaling 41,221 acres for conservation of SKR and associated habitat. The HCP provides a 30-year incidental take authorization for SKR on lands within its boundaries, which includes 533,954 acres within the County and the Cities of Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Perris, Riverside, and Temecula. The study area is within the SKR HCP but is not located within any of the core reserves. Therefore, the project is required to pay a mitigation fee for incidental take authorization under the SKR HCP. 4.3.3 Protection of City Street Trees The City has implemented regulatory measures to protect street trees. Ord. 09-05 § 1, Chapter 8.48 of the Temecula Municipal Code states “no person shall cut, remove, or relocate a Heritage Tree, or encroach into the protected zone of any Heritage Tree without first obtaining a Heritage Tree Removal 28 or Relocation Permit from the city in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.” Conditions of the permit may include the relocation or replacement of any trees removed. One or more trees of the same kind or type may be acceptable as replacement. Final permit conditions will be specified in the Heritage Tree Removal and/or Relocation Permit. 5.0 PROJECT EFFECTS This section describes potential direct and indirect impacts associated with the proposed project. Direct impacts immediately alter the affected biological resources such that those resources are eliminated temporarily or permanently. Indirect impacts consist of secondary effects of a project, including noise, decreased water quality (e.g., through sedimentation, urban contaminants, or fuel release), fugitive dust, colonization of non-native plant species, animal behavioral changes, and night lighting. The magnitude of an indirect impact can be the same as a direct impact; however, the effect may take a longer time to become apparent. The significance of impacts to biological resources present, or those with potential to occur, was determined based upon the sensitivity of the resource and the extent of the anticipated impacts. For certain highly sensitive resources (e.g., a federally listed species), any impact would be significant. Conversely, other resources that are of low sensitivity (e.g., species with a large, locally stable population in the County but declining elsewhere) could sustain some impact with a less than significant effect. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, project impacts to biological resources would be considered significant if they would: (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified by local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the CWA (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means. (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident, or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. (e) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. (f) Conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 29 5.1 SENSITIVE SPECIES 5.1.1 Rare Plant Species Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated A total of 17 of the 29 rare plant species recorded within the vicinity of the study area were not considered to have a potential to occur based on geographic range, elevation range, and/or lack of suitable habitat (see Appendix E). Of the remaining 12 species, nine of the species with a potential to occur are either fully or conditionally covered species under the MSHCP. The species include Coulter’s goldfields, little mousetail, long-spined spineflower, Orcutt’s brodiaea, Parry’s spineflower, prostrate vernal pool navarretia, San Diego ambrosia, spreading navarretia, and vernal barley. Since the study area is not located within a NEPSSA or CASSA, focused surveys were not warranted, and project impacts (if present) would be covered. One Riparian/Riverine plant species (smooth tarplant) was observed within Drainage A2.1 in the northern portion of the study area. Smooth tarplant is a conditionally covered species under the MSHCP. Surveys for this species are required if a project occurs within a CASSA 1, 2,3, or 4. Since the study area is not located within a CASSA, impacts to this species would be covered under the MSHCP. Two species (alkali marsh aster and San Bernardino aster) are considered to have a low potential to occur on the study area and are not covered under the MSHCP. Alkali marsh aster is a CRPR 2B.2 species and San Bernardino aster is a CRPR 1B.2 species. Although potentially suitable habitat is present, these two species are not expected to occur since records within the vicinity of the study area are historical records from the early 1900s. There are no recent observations of alkali marsh aster in Riverside County. The most recent observation of San Bernardino aster in Riverside County was 2015 in the San Jacinto Mountains, approximately 29 miles to the northeast of the project site. 5.1.2 Sensitive Animal Species Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated Of the 29 sensitive animal species recorded within the vicinity of the study area, 15 species were considered to have no potential to occur on the study area due to lack of suitable habitat (see Appendix F). Therefore, no significant impacts to these sensitive wildlife species are anticipated by the project. Fourteen of the remaining 29 species (in addition to SWFL) were determined to have a potential to occur on the study area. Potential project impacts to these species are discussed in detail below. Low Potential Species Four species have a low potential to occur based on the presence of low quality and isolated habitat, limited acreage of habitat, surrounding development, and lack of recent observations within the immediate vicinity of the study area. These species include coast range newt, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, Swainson's hawk (foraging potential only), and western mastiff bat (foraging potential only). 30 Coast range newt, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, and Swainson’s hawk are fully covered species under the MSHCP. With payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF), no additional mitigation is required for potential impacts to these species. Western mastiff bat is not an MSHCP covered species and does not carry a federal or state listing as threatened or endangered. This species is listed as SSC by CDFW. The study area does not support suitable roosting habitat for this species. There is some potential for foraging habitat on the study area, although the habitat is considered low quality based on the presence of surrounding development. The nearest observation recorded on CNDDB was made in 2001, approximately 0.25 mile to the southeast of the study area (CDFW 2021). Based on the presence of surrounding development, lack of recent observations, and absence of suitable roosting habitat, no significant impacts to western mastiff bat are anticipated by the project. Moderate Potential Species Six species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur based on the presence of suitable habitat and recent observations within the vicinity of the study area. These include red diamond rattlesnake, Southern California legless lizard, southwestern pond turtle, SKR, two-striped gartersnake, and western spadefoot. Red diamond rattlesnake, southwestern pond turtle, and western spadefoot are fully covered species under the MSHCP. With payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF), no additional mitigation is required for potential impacts to these species. SKR is a fully covered species under the MSHCP. In addition, the study area is located within the SKR HCP and is required to pay an SKR mitigation fee for incidental take authorization under the SKR HCP. See Section 5.6.7 below for a more detailed discussion. Southern California legless lizard and two-striped gartersnake are SSC and are not covered species under the MSHCP. Although the study area supports potentially suitable habitat for these species, the habitat is considered low quality due to its small extent and heavily disturbed surrounding areas. The project would impact less than 0.5 acre of potentially suitable habitat, which overlaps with CDFW jurisdictional areas. Since the study area supports low quality habitat, the study area is not expected to support large populations of these species. If present, a loss of a few individuals would not be expected to reduce regional population numbers. Impacts to these species would be considered less than significant, and no mitigation measures are considered required. High Potential Species Coastal whiptail and white-tailed kite are fully covered species under the MSHCP. With payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF), no additional mitigation is required for potential impacts to these species. Direct and/or indirect impacts to white-tailed kite during the nesting season (January 15 through August 31) would be avoided by implementing Measure Bio-4 (see Section 5.4.2 below). 31 Presumed Absent BUOW and SWFL are conditionally covered species under the MSHCP. Focused surveys were conducted in 2020. Survey results were negative, and these species are presumed absent from the study area (Appendices G and I). Therefore, no direct or indirect impacts are anticipated to these species. Since the study area supports suitable habitat for BUOW, focused surveys were conducted in accordance with the County’s survey protocol (2006). No BUOWs or BUOW sign were observed on the study area during the focused survey; therefore, BUOW is currently presumed absent from the study area. A measure requiring a pre-construction survey and avoidance of active nests and/or relocation of BUOW (if BUOWs are observed) is included as Measure BIO-1 below. With the implementation of Measure BIO-1, the project would not result in significant impacts to BUOW. Presumed Present LBVI is a federally and state endangered species and an MSHCP conditionally covered species. Since the study area supports suitable habitat, focused surveys were conducted during the 2020 season in accordance with USFWS’ survey protocol (2001). Four males and one pair were observed within the study area (Appendix H). The project would not permanently or temporarily impact suitable LBVI habitat (Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland, arroyo willow thicket). However, LBVI was observed within the study area. Since project construction could have indirect impacts to LBVI that occupy habitat adjacent to Diaz Road, an avoidance/minimization measure is provided as Measure BIO-2 in Section 6.0 below, to avoid potential indirect impacts to LBVI during construction. The measure requires construction activities to be conducted outside of the LBVI nesting season (September 1 through March 14), as feasible. If construction activities are proposed within the nesting season (March 15 through August 31), weekly pre-construction surveys must be conducted ahead of project construction and a 300-foot avoidance buffer from occupied habitat must be established if LBVI are observed. If construction is proposed within the 300-foot buffer, a biological monitor would be required at all times and would have the authority to stop work. Additionally, daily noise monitoring would be required. Noise levels at the edge of occupied LBVI habitat may not exceed 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA), or an hourly average increase of 3 dBA if existing ambient noise levels already exceed 60 dBA. Please see Measure BIO-2 for more details. With the implementation of Measure BIO-2, the project would not result in significant impacts to LBVI. 5.2 SENSITIVE VEGETATION COMMUNITIES 5.2.1 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Sensitive Vegetation Communities/Habitats Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The majority of permanent impacts are proposed within existing developed areas (25.28 acres; 79 percent; Table 6, Impacts to Vegetation and Land Uses; Figures 8a-h, Impacts to Vegetation). The majority of temporary impacts are proposed within areas that support upland mustards (0.16 acre; 80 percent). The project would entirely avoid permanent and temporary impacts within CDFW sensitive vegetation communities, including Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland and arroyo willow thicket. Therefore, no mitigation is warranted. 32 Table 6 IMPACTS TO VEGETATION AND LAND USES Vegetation Community/Land Use Temporary Impacts (acres)1 Permanent Impacts (acres)1 Arroyo Willow Thicket2 0.00 0.00 Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland2 0.00 0.00 Riverwash 0.00 0.00 Developed 0.01 25.28 Disturbed 0.02 2.51 Eucalyptus Grove 0.01 0.49 Upland Mustards 0.16 3.69 TOTAL 0.20 31.97 1 Acreage is rounded to the nearest hundredth. 2 Sensitive habitats pursuant to CDFW’s Natural Communities List (2020). 5.2.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Riparian Habitat and Streambed Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The JD survey area supports approximately 1.495 acres of jurisdictional streambeds pursuant to Section 1602 of the CFG Code as regulated by CDFW. The project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.265 acre and temporary impacts to 0.076 acre of CDFW jurisdiction on the study area (Table 7, Impacts to CDFW Jurisdiction; Figures 9a-f, Impacts to Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas). CDFW jurisdiction within Murrieta Creek would be entirely avoided. Impacts to CDFW jurisdiction will require a Section 1602 Stream Alteration Agreement from the CDFW, as described in Measure BIO-3 included in Section 6.0 below. Compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts to CDFW jurisdiction would be required as part of subsequent Section 1602 permitting requirements. Permanent impacts to CDFW jurisdiction shall be mitigated through on-site or off-site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation of jurisdictional streambed at a ratio of no less than 2:1 as detailed in Measure BIO-3. With the implementation of Measure BIO-3, the project would not result in significant impacts to jurisdictional resources. Table 7 IMPACTS TO CDFW JURISDICTION Drainage Permanent Impacts (acres)1 Temporary Impacts (acres)1 Murrieta Creek 0.000 0.000 A1 0.000 0.000 A2 0.000 0.000 A2.1 0.064 0.026 B 0.000 0.000 C 0.027 0.005 D 0.027 0.006 E 0.036 0.009 F 0.000 0.000 G 0.021 0.006 33 Table 7 (cont.) IMPACTS TO CDFW JURISDICTION Drainage Permanent Impacts (acres)1 Temporary Impacts (acres)1 H 0.024 0.007 I 0.020 0.005 I1 0.010 0.001 J 0.016 0.006 K 0.020 0.005 TOTAL 0.265 0.076 1 Acreage is rounded to the nearest thousandth 5.3 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS/REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD JURISDICTION Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The JD survey area supports approximately 0.096 acre of USACE/RWQCB non-wetland waters of the U.S. and 0.093 acre of wetlands pursuant to Sections 404/401 of the CWA as regulated by USACE and RWQCB, respectively. The project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.032 acre non- wetland waters of the U.S and 0.018 acre of wetlands (Table 8, Impacts to USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction; Figure 9). The project would also require temporary impacts to approximately 0.005 acre of non- wetland waters of the U.S and 0.005 acre of wetlands. Impacts to USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction will require a Section 404 permit from USACE and a Section 401 permit from RWQCB, as described in Measure BIO-3 included in Section 6.0 below. Compensatory streambed mitigation for permanent impacts to USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction will be required as part of subsequent Section 404/401 permitting requirements. Permanent impacts to USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction shall be mitigated through on-site or off-site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation of jurisdictional streambed at a ratio of no less than 2:1 as required by Measure BIO-3. With the implementation of Measure BIO-3, the project would not result in significant impacts to jurisdictional resources. Table 8 IMPACTS TO USACE/RWQCB JURISDICTION Drainage Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Non-Wetland (acres)1 Wetland (acres)1 Non-Wetland (acres)1 Wetland (acres)1 A1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 A2 <0.0002 0.000 0.000 0.000 A2.1 0.001 0.000 <0.0003 0.000 B 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 C 0.005 0.004 0.000 0.001 D 0.003 0.007 0.000 0.002 E 0.012 0.000 0.003 0.000 F 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 G 0.003 0.000 <0.0004 0.000 34 Table 8 (cont.) IMPACTS TO USACE/RWQCB JURISDICTION Drainage Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Non-Wetland (acres)1 Wetland (acres)1 Non-Wetland (acres)1 Wetland (acres)1 H 0.003 0.000 <0.0005 0.000 I 0.001 0.004 0.000 0.001 I1 0.002 0.000 <0.0006 0.000 J 0.002 0.000 <0.0007 0.000 K 0.000 0.003 0.000 0.001 TOTAL 0.032 0.018 0.005 0.005 1 Acreage is rounded to the nearest thousandth. 2 Actual acreage is 0.0004 acre. 3 Actual acreage is 0.0003 acre. 4 Actual acreage is 0.0004 acre. 5 Actual acreage is 0.0004 acre. 6 Actual acreage is 0.00003 acre. 7 Actual acreage is 0.0004 acre. 5.4 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT AND MIGRATORY SPECIES 5.4.1 Wildlife Movement Less than Significant Impacts The study area is located within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, which consists of Murrieta Creek. Regional wildlife movement is expected to occur within Murrieta Creek. However, the project would avoid Murrieta Creek and most of its tributaries. The proposed impacts within the project site are mostly restricted to existing developed areas. The project will implement Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines to reduce potential indirect impacts to wildlife movement through Proposed Linkage 13, which includes Murrieta Creek. Therefore, the project will not significantly impact movement of wildlife or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. 5.4.2 Migratory Species Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated Development of the proposed project could disturb or destroy active migratory bird nests, including eggs and young. Disturbance to or destruction of migratory bird eggs, young, or adults is in violation of the MBTA and is considered a potentially significant impact. Although suitable habitat for nesting birds on the study area is limited, herbaceous ground cover, shrubs, and trees located throughout the study area could provide habitat for protected nesting bird species. A mitigation measure is provided as Measure BIO-4 in Section 6.0 below, which would help ensure the project is in compliance with MBTA regulations. With implementation of Measure BIO-4, the project would not result in significant impacts to migratory bird species. E!(DENDY PKWYDI A Z R D 1 Figure 8a Impacts to VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig8_VegImps.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 150 Feet Study Area Project Site Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts F!(Photo Point Vegetation Arroyo Willow Thicket Developed Disturbed River Wash Upland Mustards a b c d e f g hPage Locator ZEVODRREMINGTON AVEDIAZRD Figure 8b Impacts to VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig8_VegImps.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 150 Feet Study Area Project Site Permanent Impacts Vegetation Arroyo Willow Thicket Developed Disturbed River Wash Upland Mustards a b c d e f g hPage Locator E!(E!( ENTERPRISECIR RIONEDODIAZ R D W INCHESTERRD2 3 Figure 8c Impacts to VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig8_VegImps.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 150 Feet Study Area Project Site Permanent Impacts F!(Photo Point Vegetation Arroyo Willow Thicket Developed Disturbed River Wash Upland Mustards a b c d e f g hPage Locator E!(E!( ENT E R P R I S E C I R RIDER WAYSARAH WAYA Q U A V I S T A W A Y BLACKDEER LOOPRIO NEDOAVENIDA ALVARADODIAZ R DWINCHESTERRD2 3 Figure 8d Impacts to VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig8_VegImps.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 150 Feet Study Area Project Site Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts F!(Photo Point Vegetation Arroyo Willow Thicket Developed River Wash Upland Mustards a b c d e f g hPage Locator C OMM E R C E C E N T E R D R BLACKDEER LOOPSARAH WAYENTERPRISE CIRD I A Z R D Figure 8e Impacts to VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig8_VegImps.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 150 Feet Study Area Project Site Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Vegetation Arroyo Willow Thicket Developed River Wash Upland Mustards a b c d e f g hPage Locator RANCHO WAYVIA MONTEZUMAD E L R I O R D VIA DOS PICOSDI A Z R D B US I NESS PARK DR Figure 8f Impacts to VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig8_VegImps.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 150 Feet Study Area Project Site Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Vegetation Arroyo Willow Thicket Developed Disturbed Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland River Wash Upland Mustards a b c d e f g hPage Locator E!(D E L R I O R D LAS HACIENDAS STRANCHO WAYC A L L E C O R T E Z JEFFERSON AVE DI A Z R D D EL RI O R D §¨¦15 4 Figure 8g Impacts to VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig8_VegImps.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 150 Feet Study Area Project Site Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts F!(Photo Point Vegetation Arroyo Willow Thicket Developed River Wash Upland Mustards a b c d e f g hPage Locator VINCENT MORAGA DRSI NGL E O A K D R FELIX VALDEZ RD R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A R D BUSINESSPARK DR JEFFERSONAVEDIAZ RD Figure 8h Impacts to VegetationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig8_VegImps.mxd DEA-12 3/11/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 150 Feet Study Area Project Site Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Vegetation Arroyo Willow Thicket Developed Disturbed Eucalyptus Grove River Wash Upland Mustards a b c d e f g hPage Locator A2 AA1 A2.1 DENDY PKWYDI A Z R D Figure 9a Impacts to Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig9_JDImps.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 100 Feet Study Area Project Site Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts USACERWQCB Jurisdiction CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas a b c d e f Page Locator Murrieta Creek B RIO NEDOENT E R P R I S E C I R ENTERPRISECIRWINCHESTER RDDIAZ R D Figure 9b Impacts to Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig9_JDImps.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 100 Feet Study Area Project Site Permanent Impacts USACE Jurisdictional Wetland USACERWQCB Jurisdiction CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas a b c d e f Page Locator C DBLACKDEER LOOPSARAH WAYENTERPRISE CIRD I A Z R D Figure 9c Impacts to Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig9_JDImps.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 100 Feet Study Area Project Site Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts USACE Jurisdictional Wetland USACERWQCB Jurisdiction CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas a b c d e f Page Locator F G E D E L R I O R DVIA MONTEZUMADI A Z R D Figure 9d Impacts to Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig9_JDImps.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 100 Feet Study Area Project Site Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts USACE Jurisdictional Wetland USACERWQCB Jurisdiction CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas a b c d e f Page Locator I H I1 D E L R I O R DLAS HACIENDAS STCALLE CORTEZRANCHO WAYDI A Z R D D E L R I O R D Figure 9e Impacts to Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig9_JDImps.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 100 Feet Study Area Project Site Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts USACE Jurisdictional Wetland USACERWQCB Jurisdiction CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas a b c d e f Page Locator Murrieta Creek K J JEFFERSONAVEDELRIORD D I A Z R DFigure 9f Impacts to Jurisdictional Features and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine AreasH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\GBRA\Fig9_JDImps.mxd DEA-12 3/23/2021 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 100 Feet Study Area Project Site Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts USACE Jurisdictional Wetland USACERWQCB Jurisdiction CDFW Jurisdiction/MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas a b c d e f Page Locator 35 5.5 CITY-PROTECTED TREES Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The project will comply with the City’s Heritage Tree Ordinance (Section 8.48 of the City’s Municipal Code). The study area supports trees that may be subject to tree protection measures. In accordance with Measure BIO-5, prior to impacts, a tree survey will be conducted prior to construction. If protected trees are located within the project site and must be damaged or removed, a Heritage Tree Removal or Relocation Permit must be obtained. Therefore, implementation of MM BIO-5 would reduce any direct impacts to City-protected trees to less than significant. 5.6 ADOPTED HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS Less than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated As discussed in Section 3.7.1 above, the study area is within the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP. The following sections demonstrate the project’s compliance with MSHCP requirements. 5.6.1 MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements The study area is located within the Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) of the Southwest Area Plan of the MSHCP. The study area includes portions of Criteria Cells 6656, 6781, 6782, 6783, 6890, 6891, 7021, and 7078 (Figure 7). The conservation requirements for these Criteria Cells are presented below in Table 3, Conservation Requirement of the MSHCP Criteria Cells. Although the study area is within several Criteria Cells, the project site is mostly within existing developed areas. The project site is not targeted for conservation or is an area that would contribute to the MSHCP reserve assembly. Furthermore, Diaz Road is considered a “covered road” under the MSCHP. According to MSHCP Section 7.3.4, “safety improvements to other publicly maintained existing roadways within the Criteria Area are Covered Activities. The proposed road widening is considered a safety improvement and is, therefore, a “covered activity.” Implementation of the proposed project would avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive species and habitats adjacent to the existing roadway. To minimize and avoid impacts to sensitive species and habitats occurring adjacent to the project site, the project will comply with Best Management Practices (BMPs), as detailed in Section 7.5.3 and Appendix C of MSHCP. Ultimately, the project would not conflict with the MSHCP reserve assembly. 5.6.2 Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) The identification of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources is based on the potential for the habitat to support, or be a tributary to habitat that supports, Riparian/Riverine Covered Species. Riparian/Riverine Covered Species are identified in MSHCP Section 6.1.2. The MSHCP defines Riparian/Riverine habitat as “lands which contain Habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year” (Dudek 2003). The MSHCP defines Vernal Pools as “seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season” (Dudek 2003). Artificially created wetlands, except for those created intentionally to provide habitat or 36 resulting from the creation of open waters or alteration of natural stream courses, are not considered MSHCP Vernal Pools. Riparian/Riverine Habitat The MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas mapped on the study area are equivalent to CDFW jurisdiction. Implementation of the proposed project would result in permanent impacts to approximately 0.256 acre of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine habitat and temporary impacts to 0.076 acre of Riparian/Riverine habitat (Figure 9; Table 9, Impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas; Table 9, Impacts to MSHCP Riparian Area Vegetation). Since the project proposes impacts to Riparian/Riverine Areas, the project is required to prepare a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation, which provides a detailed account of impacts and proposed mitigation to compensate for impacts. Mitigation for permanent impacts to the Riparian/Riverine Areas would be met by implementing required mitigation for impacts to CDFW jurisdiction. Mitigation would include off-site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation at a ratio of no less than 2:1, as required by Measure BIO-3 included in Section 6.0 below. With the implementation of Measure BIO-3, the project would not result in significant impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas. Table 9 IMPACTS TO MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AREAS Drainage Permanent Impacts (acres)1 Temporary Impacts (acres)1 Murrieta Creek 0.000 0.000 A1 0.000 0.000 A2 0.000 0.000 A2.1 0.064 0.026 B 0.000 0.000 C 0.027 0.005 D 0.027 0.006 E 0.036 0.009 F 0.000 0.000 G 0.021 0.006 H 0.024 0.007 I 0.020 0.005 I1 0.010 0.001 J 0.016 0.006 K 0.020 0.005 TOTAL 0.265 0.076 1 Acreage is rounded to the nearest thousandth. Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Species One Riparian/Riverine plant species (smooth tarplant) was observed within Drainage A2.1 in the northern portion of the study area. Smooth tarplant is a conditionally covered species under the MSHCP. Surveys for this species are required if a project occurs within a CASSA 1, 2,3, or 4. Since the study area is not located within a CASSA, impacts to this species would be covered under the MSHCP. Four other 37 Riparian/Riverine plant species were determined to have a low potential to occur within the study area. These species were not incidentally observed within the study area during field surveys. Four males and one pair were observed within the study area. The project would not permanently or temporarily impact suitable LBVI habitat (Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland, arroyo willow thicket). However, project construction could have indirect impacts to LBVI that occupy habitat adjacent to Diaz Road. Indirect impacts to this species during the nesting season (March 1 through August 31) would be a significant impact. To avoid potential indirect impacts to LBVI, an avoidance/minimization measure is provided as Measure BIO-2 in Section 6.0 below. No other Riparian/Riverine animal species are expected to occur on the study area. 5.6.3 Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Section 6.1.3) The study area is not located within a NEPSSA; therefore, no focused surveys were required, and the proposed project is consistent with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. 5.6.4 Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines (MSHCP Section 6.1.4) Proposed developments adjacent to MSHCP Conservation Areas may create edge effects that can impact conserved biological resources. The MSHCP provides several guidelines that address potential indirect effects from proposed developments that are in proximity to MSHCP Conservation Areas. These guidelines include measures addressing the quantity and quality of runoff generated by the development (i.e., drainage and toxics), night lighting, noise, non-native invasive plant species, barriers to humans and animal predators, and grading/land development encroachment. The eastern portion of the study area is located within Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, which consists of Murrieta Creek. As discussed below, the project will comply with each applicable guideline to ensure consistency with MSHCP Section 6.1.4. Drainage The project will incorporate measures to avoid the discharge of untreated surface runoff into downstream waters. Measures will include those required for construction pursuant to the State Water Resources Control Board General Construction Storm Water Permit and the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Program, while post-construction water quality measures will be implemented in compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, Municipal Storm Drain Permit requirements, and subsequent 401 Water Quality Certification from RWQCB for the project. The project will be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem processes downstream from the study area. In addition, post-construction BMPs are intended to help ensure that post-project hydrologic conditions remain consistent with pre-project conditions, therefore minimizing the potential for downstream erosion and/or sedimentation that could otherwise result from implementation of the proposed project. Toxics Land uses that use chemicals or generate bio-products that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge into downstream waters. Measures such as those employed to 38 address drainage issues would be implemented by the proposed project to avoid the potential impacts of toxics. Lighting Temporary construction lighting and ambient lighting from the proposed development are required to be selectively placed, directed, and shielded away from the MSHCP Conservation Area. In addition, large spotlight-type lighting directed into conserved habitat will be prohibited. Noise Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards. Temporary construction-related noise impacts will be reduced by the implementation of a number of measures, including the following: • During all excavation and grading, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards to reduce construction equipment noise to the maximum extent possible. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the study area. • The construction contractor shall stage equipment in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the study area during all project construction. • All construction work shall occur during the daylight hours. The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels according to the construction hours to be determined by the County. • The construction contractor shall limit haul truck deliveries to the same hours specified for construction equipment. To the extent feasible, haul routes shall not pass through sensitive land uses or residential dwellings. Invasives The project shall not use invasive plants for erosion control, landscaping, wind rows, or other purposes. Measure BIO-6 is provided in Section 6.0 below, which requires the project to comply with the MSHCP and avoid the use of invasive, non-native plants in accordance with MSHCP Table 6.2. Barriers Since the project consists of widening an existing road, barriers and signage are not necessary. 39 Grading/Land Development Since the project consists of widening an existing road, manufactured slopes are not necessary. 5.6.5 Additional Surveys (MSHCP Section 6.3.2) The study area is not within a CASSA or an Amphibian or Mammal Species Survey Area. No impacts to CASSA species or sensitive amphibian or mammal species are proposed. The study area is within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area, and the study area supports suitable habitat. Focused surveys were conducted in accordance with the County’s survey protocol. No burrowing owls or sign of burrowing owls were observed within the study area. Due to the presence of suitable habitat, a pre-construction survey is required within 30 days of ground disturbance pursuant to the MSHCP. A mitigation measure requiring a pre-construction survey, avoidance or replacement of burrowing owl habitat and individuals (if three or more pairs are observed), and avoidance of active nests and/or relocation of burrowing owl (if burrowing owls are observed) is included as Measure BIO-1 below. As discussed above, the proposed project is consistent with MSHCP Section 6.3.2. 5.6.6 Fuels Management (MSHCP Section 6.4) Because the proposed project consists of widening an existing road within a heavily developed portion of the City, a fuel modification zone is not incorporated into the proposed project. The proposed project is consistent with Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. 5.6.7 Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Fees In order for the project to participate in the MSHCP, the project proponent is required to pay an LDMF in order to finance the acquisitions of conservation areas to provide habitat for MSHCP covered species (County 2003). The LDMF must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. The applicant shall pay the LDMF as determined by the County. Final fee credits shall be determined through coordination with the County. The study area is also within the SKR HCP but is not located within any of the core reserves (County 1996). Therefore, the project is required to pay an SKR mitigation fee for incidental take authorization under the SKR HCP. Measure BIO-7 is provided in Section 6.0, which requires the project proponent to pay the MSHCP LDMF and SKR HCP fees. 40 6.0 MITIGATION MEASURES The following provides recommended measures intended to minimize or avoid impacts to biological resources: BIO-1 Burrowing Owl: In compliance with the MSHCP, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted on the study area within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to determine presence of burrowing owls. If the pre-construction survey is negative and burrowing owl is confirmed absent, then ground-disturbing activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) shall be allowed to commence and no further mitigation would be required. If BUOW is observed during the pre-construction survey, active burrows shall be avoided by the project in accordance with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012) or CDFW’s most recent guidelines. The Project Proponent shall immediately inform the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) of BUOW observations. A BUOW Protection and Relocation Plan (plan) shall be prepared by a qualified biologist, which must be sent for approval by RCA prior to initiating ground disturbance. The RCA will coordinate directly with CDFW as needed to ensure that the plan is consistent with the MSHCP and CDFW guidelines. The plan shall detail avoidance measures that shall be implemented during construction and passive or active relocation methodology. Relocation shall only occur outside of the nesting season (September 1 through January 31). The RCA may require translocation sites to be created within the MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies. If required, the translocation sites must take into consideration unoccupied habitat areas, presence of burrowing mammals, existing colonies, and effects to other MSHCP Covered Species in order to successfully create suitable habitat for BUOW. The translocation sites must be developed in consultation with RCA. If required, translocation sites would also be described in the agency-approved plan. BIO-2 Least Bell’s Vireo: Due to presence of LBVI in the vicinity of the study area, the following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented to avoid potential impacts: (1) To the extent feasible, construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) shall occur outside of the nesting season for LBVI (September 1 through March 14). (2) If construction activities are proposed within the LBVI nesting season (March 15 through August 31), the following measures (a. through g.) shall be implemented to avoid potential indirect impacts. (a) At the start of each new stretch of construction, weekly limits will be identified by the contractor, and a qualified biologist will conduct weekly pre-construction surveys to determine the presence of LBVI nest-building activities, egg incubation activities, or brood-rearing activities within 300 feet of anticipated construction activities for the coming week. Surveys will be conducted more frequently if construction could progress beyond the limits of the weekly surveyed area. 41 (b) If nesting LBVI is observed during the weekly pre-construction surveys, a qualified biological monitor shall clearly delineate a 300-foot avoidance buffer around occupied habitat. The 300-foot avoidance buffer shall be clearly marked with flags and/or fencing prior to commencement of construction. No construction activities shall occur within the 300-foot buffer during the nesting season without the presence of a biological monitor. (c) If construction activities (e.g., ground disturbance and canopy trimming) must occur within 300 feet of occupied habitat, the following measures shall be implemented: (i) A biological monitor shall be present to perform daily surveys for LBVI and monitor construction activities. The biological monitor shall have the authority to stop work and notify the construction supervisor if the biologist feels construction activities could alter the birds’ normal behavior. The activities shall cease until additional minimization measures have been determined through coordination with CDFW and/or USFWS. (ii) A qualified acoustician shall also be retained to determine ambient noise levels and construction-related noise levels at the edge of occupied habitat. Noise levels at the edge of the occupied habitat shall not exceed an hourly average of 60 dBA, or an hourly average increase of 3 dBA if existing ambient noise levels exceed 60 dBA. If project-related noise levels exceed the threshold described above, construction activities shall cease until additional minimization measures, such as visual and auditory barriers (e.g., sound wall), are taken to reduce project-related noise levels to below an hourly average of 60 dBA, or below an hourly average increase of 3 dBA if existing ambient noise levels exceed 60 dBA. If additional measures do not decrease project-related noise levels below the thresholds described above, construction activities shall cease until CDFW and/or USFWS are contacted to discuss alternative methods. (d) All project personnel shall attend a Workers Environmental Awareness Program training presented by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities. The training program will inform project personnel about the life history of LBVI and all avoidance and minimization measures. (e) The construction contractor shall only allow construction activities to occur during daylight hours. (f) The construction contractor shall require functional mufflers on all construction equipment (stationary or mobile) used within or immediately adjacent to any 300-foot avoidance buffers to reduce construction equipment noise. Stationary equipment shall be situated so that noise generated from the equipment is not directed towards any occupied habitat for the LBVI. (g) The construction contractor shall place staging areas as far as possible from any suitable occupied habitat for the LBVI. 42 (h) The biological monitor shall prepare written documentation of all monitoring activities at the completion of construction activities, which shall be submitted to CDFW and/or USFWS. BIO-3 Jurisdictional Resources: Prior to issuance of a grading permit for impacts to jurisdictional resources, the City shall obtain regulatory permits from USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW (collectively, the “Resource Agencies”). Compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts to jurisdiction shall be required as part of subsequent permitting requirements. Permanent impacts to jurisdictional resources shall be mitigated through on-site or off-site enhancement, restoration, and/or creation of jurisdictional streambed at a mitigation-to-impact ratio of no less than 2:1. The following minimization measures will be implemented during construction: • Use of standard BMPs to minimize the impacts during construction. • Construction-related equipment will be stored in developed areas, outside of drainages. • Source control and treatment control BMPs will be implemented to minimize the potential contaminants that are generated during and after construction. Water quality BMPs will be implemented throughout the project to capture and treat potential contaminants. • To avoid attracting predators during construction, the project shall be kept clean of debris to the extent possible. All food-related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site. • Employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction material to the proposed project footprint, staging areas, and designated routes of travel. • Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of construction activities. BIO-4 Nesting Birds: To the extent possible, construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) shall occur outside of the general bird nesting season for migratory birds, which is March 15 through August 31 for songbirds and January 15 to August 31 for raptors. If construction activities (i.e., earthwork, clearing, and grubbing) must occur during the general bird nesting season for migratory birds (March 15 and August 31) and raptors (January 15 and August 31), a qualified biologist shall be retained to perform a pre- construction survey of potential nesting habitat to confirm the absence of active nests belonging to migratory birds and raptors afforded protection under the MBTA and CFG Code. The pre-construction survey shall be performed no more than seven days prior to the commencement of construction activities. The results of the pre-construction survey shall be documented by a qualified biologist. If construction is inactive for more than seven days, an additional survey shall be conducted. 43 If the qualified biologist determines that no active migratory bird or raptor nests occur, the activities shall be allowed to proceed without any further requirements. If the qualified biologist determines that an active migratory bird or raptor nest is present, no impacts within 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) of the active nest shall occur until the young have fledged the nest, and the nest is confirmed to no longer be active, or as determined by the qualified biologist. The biological monitor may modify the buffer as applicable for the specific bird species and type of work, or propose other recommendations to avoid indirect impacts to nesting birds. BIO-5 Protected Trees: Prior to impacting any trees within the project site, a tree survey shall be conducted in accordance with the City of Temecula’s Heritage Tree Ordinance (Section 8.48 of the City’s Municipal Code). If trees subject to this ordinance must be damaged or removed within the project site, a Heritage Tree Removal or Relocation Permit must be obtained prior to damage or removal. BIO-6 MSHCP Landscaping Restrictions: In accordance with MSHCP Section 6.1.4, no species listed in Table 6-2, Plants that Should Be Avoided Adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, shall be used in the project landscape plans (including hydroseed mix used for interim erosion control). BIO-7 Habitat Conservation Plan Fees: The City is subject to the MSHCP LDMF and the SKR HCP Fee, which shall be paid prior to issuance of any grading permit. 44 7.0 CERTIFICATION/QUALIFICATION The following individuals contributed to the fieldwork and/or preparation of this report: Ezekiel Cooley B.S., Natural Resources with an emphasis in Wildlife, Central Michigan University, 2004 Matthew Dimson B.S., Environmental Science and Policy, California State University Long Beach, 2017 Linda Garcia M.A., English, National University, 2012 B.A., Literatures in English, University of California, San Diego Erica Harris B.S., Biology, emphasis in Zoology, San Diego State University, 2009 Jessica Lee M.S., Biology with an emphasis in Wetland Ecology, California University, Long Beach, 2018 B.S., Marine Biology, Auburn University, 2013 Amir Morales B.S., Hydrological Sciences, Minor Geographic Information Systems, University of California Santa Barbara, 2001 Lauren Singleton M.S., Biology with an emphasis in Ecology and Entomology, California State University Long Beach, 2014 B.S., Biology with an emphasis in Ecology, California State University Long Beach, 2010 Daniel Torres B.S., Ecology and Natural Resources, Rutgers University, 2013 45 8.0 REFERENCES American Ornithologists’ Union. 2020. AOU checklist of North and Middle America birds. Available from: http://checklist.aou.org/taxa/. Accessed February 5, 2021. Baker, R.J., L.C. Bradley, R.D. Bradley, J.W. Dragoo, M.D. Engstrom, R.S. Hoffmann, C.A. Jones, F. Reid, D.W. Rice, and C. Jones. 2003. Revised checklist of North American mammals north of Mexico. Occasional Papers of the Museum, Texas Tech University 223. Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: Vascular plants of California. 2nd ed. University of California Press, Berkeley. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2021. California Natural Diversity Database and Rarefind. California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Sacramento, California. Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data. Accessed February 28, 2021. 2020. California natural community list. The Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. Wildlife & Habitat Data Analysis Branch. September 2020. Available from: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153398&inline. Accessed February 5, 2021. 2009. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and natural communities. State of California, California Natural Resources Agency. November 24, 2009. 2000. Guidelines for assessing the effects of proposed projects on rare, threatened, and endangered plants and natural communities. State of California, The Resources Agency. December 9, 1983 revised May 8, 2000. California Herps. 2021. A Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of California. Available from: http://www.californiaherps.com. Accessed February 5, 2021. California Native Plant Society. 2021. Inventory of rare and endangered plants of California. California Native Plant Society. Available at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Accessed February 28, 2021. Dudek and Associates. 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Final MSHCP Volume I. Prepared for County of Riverside, Transportation and Land Management Agency. Available at: http://www.rctlma.org/Portals/0/mshcp/index.html. Emmel, T.C. and J.F. Emmel. 1973. The butterflies of Southern California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series 26: 1-148. Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Technical report Y-87-1. Vicksburg (MS): U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 100 p. with Appendices. 46 Google Earth. 2020. Aerial imagery of the Diaz Road Improvement Project, 33.511203°, -117.164899°. Aerial Imagery from January 2020. Available at: https://earth.google.com/web/. Accessed January 8, 2021. Grumbles, B.H. and J.P. Woodley, Jr. 2007. Memorandum: Clean Water Act jurisdiction following the U.S. Supreme Court’s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. June 5. 12 p. Historic Aerials. 1996. Aerial Imagery of the Diaz Road Improvement Project, 33.511203°, -117.164899°. Available at: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed July 16, 2020. 1978. Aerial Imagery of the Diaz Road Improvement Project, 33.511203°, -117.164899°. Available at: https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer. Accessed July 16, 2020. Holland R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 156 pp. Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2021. Web Soil Survey. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.Aspx. Accessed February 515, 2021. Oberbauer, T. 1996. Terrestrial vegetation communities in San Diego County based on Holland’s descriptions, San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego, CA. Riley, D.T. 2005. Ordinary High Water Mark. RGL No. 05-05. 4 p. Riverside, County of. 2006. Burrowing owl survey instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. Environmental Programs Department. Available at: https://www.rctlma.org/Portals/3/EPD/consultant/burrowing_owl_survey_instructions.pdf. Accessed January 6, 2021. 2003. Ordinance 810.2. An Ordinance of the County of Riverside Amending Ordinance 810 to Establish the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation Fee. 1996. Ordinance 663.10. An Ordinance of the County of Riverside Amending Ordinance 663 Establishing the Riverside County Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan, Plan Fee Assessment Area, and Setting Mitigation Fees. Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evens. 2009. A manual of California vegetation. 2nd Ed. Sacramento: California Native Plant Society. Sogge, M.K., Ahlers, D., and Sferra, S.J. 2010. A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 2A-10. 47 Temecula, City of. 2009. Ord. 09-05 § 1 Chapter 8.48, of Temecula Municipal Code. Adopted August 2009. Available at: http://www.qcode.us/codes/temecula/?view=desktop&topic=8-8_48-i- 8_48_130. Accessed January 8, 2021. 1993. Temecula General Plan. Updated in 2005. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008a. Regional supplement to the Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual: Arid west region (Version 2.0). Ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERCD/EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 2008b. A field guide to the identification of the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) in the Arid West region of the Unites States. Technical Report TR-08-12, Ed. R.W. Lichvar, S.M. McColley. Hanover, New Hampshire: Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. 2007. Questions and Answers for Rapanos and Carabell Decisions. June 5. 21 pp. -- and EPA. 2007. Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook. May 30. 60 pp. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2021a. Critical habitat mapping. GIS files provided by USFWS. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html. Accessed January 6, 2021. 2021b. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/google- earth.html. Accessed January 6, 2021. 2001. Least Bell’s vireo survey guidelines. January 19. Available at: https://www.fws.gov/ventura/docs/species/protocols/lbv/leastbellsvireo_survey- guidelines.pdf. Accessed January 6, 2021. 2000. Guidelines for conducting and reporting botanical inventories for federally listed, proposed and candidate plants. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. January 2000. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. 2021. MSHCP information tool. Powered by ESRI. Available at: http://wrcrca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a73e69d2a64d41c29ebd3ac d67467abd. Accessed January 6, 2021. Appendix A Plant Species Observed Diaz Road Improvement Project Appendix A PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED A-1 Family Scientific Name Common Name GYMNOSPERMS Pinus Cupressus sempervirens* Italian cypress Pinus halepensis* Aleppo pine ANGIOSPERMS - EUDICOTS Anacardiaceae Schinus molle* Peruvian peppertree Apocynaceae Nerium oleander* oleander Asteraceae Acourtia microcephala sacapellote Ambrosia psilostachya ragweed Artemisia douglasiana California mugwort Artemisia tridentata big sagebrush Baccharis salicifolia mule fat Centaurea melitensis* tocalote Cirsium vulgare* bull thistle Dimorphotheca sinuate* African daisy Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed Helianthus annuus common sunflower Hypochaeris glabra* smooth cat's ear Isocoma menziesii Menzies' goldenbush Lactuca serriola* prickly lettuce Matricaria discoidea pineapple weed Oncosiphon piluliferum* stinknet Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum* everlasting cudweed Silybum marianum* milk thistle Sonchus oleraceus* common sow thistle Taraxacum officinale* common dandelion Artemisia dracunculus tarragon Aizoaceae Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum* slender iceplant Boraginaceae Amsinckia intermedia common fiddleneck Cryptantha intermedia nievitas Heliotropium curassavicum var. oculatum alkali heliotrope Pectocarya heterocarpa Chuckwalla combseed Brassicaceae Hirschfeldia incana* short-pod mustard Lobularia maritima* sweet alyssum Sisymbrium irio* London rocket Caryophyllaceae Spergularia spp. sandspurry Celastraceae Euonymus japonicus* Japanese spindletree Chenopodiaceae Atriplex semibaccata* Australian saltbush Chenopodium murale* nettle leaf goosefoot Salsola tragus* Russian thistle Cistaceae Cistus incanus* hairy rockrose Crassulaceae Crassula connata pigmy weed Euphorbiaceae Croton californicus California croton Diaz Road Improvement Project Appendix A (cont.) PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED A-2 Family Scientific Name Common Name Fabaceae Acmispon americanus Spanish lotus Acacia redolens* bank catclaw Lupinus succulentus arroyo lupine Melilotus indicus* annual yellow sweetclover Robinia pseudoacacia* black locust Trifolium hirtum* rose clover Vicia villosa ssp. varia* winter vetch Fagaceae Quercus agrifolia coast live oak Geraniaceae Erodium botrys* long beaked filaree Erodium cicutarium* redstem filaree Lamiaceae Rosmarinus officinalis* rosemary Malvaceae Malva parviflora* cheeseweed mallow Myoporaceae Myoporum parvifolium* slender myoporum Myrtaceae Eucalyptus camaldulensis* river red gum Oleaceae Fraxinus uhdei* Shamel ash Orobanchaceae Castilleja exserta purple owl's clover Oxalidaceae Oxalis corniculate* creeping wood sorrel Polygonaceae Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat Rumex crispus* curly dock Platanaceae Platanus × hispanica* London plane Rosaceae Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon Pyracantha coccinea* scarlet firethorn Pyrus calleryana* Callery pear Rhaphiolepis indica* Indian hawthorn Rubiaceae Galium aparine common bedstraw Salicaceae Salix exigua sandbar willow Salix gooddingii Goodding's black willow Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow Solanaceae Nicotiana glauca* tree tobacco Scrophulariaceae Leucophyllum langmaniae Texas sage Tamaricaceae Tamarix ramosissima* saltcedar Ulmaceae Ulmus pumila* Siberian elm Urticaceae Urtica dioica stinging nettle ANGIOSPERMS - MONOCOTS Arecaceae Washingtonia robusta* Mexican fan palm Cyperaceae Schoenoplectus acutus hardstem bulrush Poaceae Avena barbata* slender oat Bromus diandrus* common ripgut grass Bromus hordeaceus* soft brome Hordeum murinum* hare barley Bromus madritensis* red brome Leptochloa fusca ssp. uninervia Mexican sprangletop Polypogon monspeliensis* rabbitsfoot grass Stipa pulchra purple needle grass Vulpia myuros* foxtail fescue Typhaceae Typha spp. cattail * Non-native species Appendix B Animal Species Observed or Detected Diaz Road Improvement Project Appendix B ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED OR DETECTED B-1 Order Family Scientific Name Common Name INVERTEBRATES Insects Lepidoptera Nymphalidae Junonia coenia common buckeye Nymphalis antiopa mourning cloak Vanessa cardui painted lady Papilionidae Papilio rutulus western tiger swallowtail Pieridae Pontia protodice checkered white VERTEBRATES Reptiles Squamata Phrynosomatidae Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard Uta stansburiana common side-blotched lizard Birds Accipitriformes Accipitridae Accipiter cooperii Cooper's hawk Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk Cathartidae Cathartes aura turkey vulture Anseriformes Anatidae Anas platyrhynchos mallard Spatula cyanoptera cinnamon teal Apodiformes Trochilidae Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Charadriiformes Charadriidae Charadrius vociferus killdeer Columbiformes Columbidae Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared dove Zenaida macroura mourning dove Cuculiformes Cuculidae Geococcyx californianus greater roadrunner Falconiformes Falconidae Falco sparverius American kestrel Gruiformes Rallidae Fulica atra Eurasian coot Fulica americana American coot Passeriformes Aegithalidae Psaltriparus minimus bushtit Cardinalidae Passerina amoena lazuli bunting Pheucticus melanocephalus black-headed grosbeak Corvidae Aphelocoma californica California scrub jay Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Corvus corax common raven Fringillidae Haemorhous mexicanus house finch Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch Spinus tristis American goldfinch Hirundinidae Petrochelidon pyrrhonota cliff swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis northern rough-winged swallow Icteridae Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird Icterus bullockii Bullock's oriole Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark Mimidae Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird Passerellidae Chondestes grammacus lark sparrow Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee Parulidae Cardellina pusilla Wilson's warbler Geothlypis trichas common yellowthroat Diaz Road Improvement Project Appendix B (cont.) ANIMAL SPECIES OBSERVED OR DETECTED B-2 Order Family Scientific Name Common Name Birds (cont.) Passeriformes (cont.) Parulidae (cont.) Melospiza melodia song sparrow Melozone crissalis California towhee Setophaga petechia yellow warbler Ptiliogonatidae Phainopepla nitens phainopepla Sturnidae Sturnus vulgaris European starling Troglodytidae Cistothorus palustris marsh wren Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren Turdidae Turdus migratorius American robin Tyrannidae Empidonax traillii willow flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens ash-throated flycatcher Sayornis nigricans black phoebe Sayornis saya Say's phoebe Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird Vireonidae Vireo bellii pusillus Least Bell's Vireo Vireo gilvus warbling vireo Pelecaniformes Ardeidae Ardea alba great egret Ardea herodias great blue heron Egretta thula snowy egret Plegadis chihi white-faced ibis Piciformes Picidae Colaptes auratus northern flicker Dryobates nuttallii Nuttall's woodpecker Mammals Lagomorpha Leporidae Sylvilagus audubonii desert cottontail Rodentia Sciuridae Otospermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel Appendix C Site Photographs H:\PROJECTS\D\DEA-ALL\DEA-12 Diaz Road\_Reports\GBRA\Appendices\Appendix X_PhotosRepresentative Photos Appendix C Diaz Road Improvement Project Photo 1. View of disturbed land in northern portion of the study area, facing southwest. Non-native vegetation can be seen on the left and right. Photo 2. View of southwestern willow scrub habitat in the central portion of the study area, facing northwest. H:\PROJECTS\D\DEA-ALL\DEA-12 Diaz Road\_Reports\GBRA\Appendices\Appendix X_PhotosRepresentative Photos Appendix C Diaz Road Improvement Project Photo 3. View of developed land in the central portion of the study area, facing southwest. Diaz Road can be seen on the right. Photo 4. View of the southern portion of the study area, facing south. Disturbed land can be seen on the lower right and non-native vegetation can be seen on the left. The intersection of Diaz Road and Rancho Way can be seen in the center. Appendix D Drainage Photographs H:\PROJECTS\D\DavidEvansAssoc_00207\DEA-12 Diaz Road\_Reports\GBRA\Appendices\Appendix D_Drainage PhotosDrainage Photos Appendix D Diaz Road Improvement Project Photograph 1: Photograph of Drainage A located in the northern portion of the study area, facing northwest. Photograph 2: Photograph of Drainage A1 located in the northern portion of the study area, facing east. H:\PROJECTS\D\DavidEvansAssoc_00207\DEA-12 Diaz Road\_Reports\GBRA\Appendices\Appendix D_Drainage PhotosDrainage Photos Appendix D Diaz Road Improvement Project Photograph 3: Photograph of Drainage A2 located in the northern portion of the study area, facing northwest. Photograph 4: Photograph of Drainage A2.1 located in the northern portion of the study area, facing southwest. H:\PROJECTS\D\DavidEvansAssoc_00207\DEA-12 Diaz Road\_Reports\GBRA\Appendices\Appendix D_Drainage PhotosDrainage Photos Appendix D Diaz Road Improvement Project Photograph 5: Photograph of Drainages B located in the central portion of the study area, facing northeast. Photograph 6: Photograph of Drainage C located in the central portion of the study area, facing north. H:\PROJECTS\D\DavidEvansAssoc_00207\DEA-12 Diaz Road\_Reports\GBRA\Appendices\Appendix D_Drainage PhotosDrainage Photos Appendix D Diaz Road Improvement Project Photograph 7: Photograph of Drainage D located in the central portion of the study area, facing northeast. Photograph 8: Photograph of Drainage E located in the central portion of the study area, facing northeast. H:\PROJECTS\D\DavidEvansAssoc_00207\DEA-12 Diaz Road\_Reports\GBRA\Appendices\Appendix D_Drainage PhotosDrainage Photos Appendix D Diaz Road Improvement Project Photograph 9: Photograph of Drainage F located in the central portion of the study area, facing east. Photograph 10: Photograph of Drainage G located in the central portion of the study area, facing northeast. H:\PROJECTS\D\DavidEvansAssoc_00207\DEA-12 Diaz Road\_Reports\GBRA\Appendices\Appendix D_Drainage PhotosDrainage Photos Appendix D Diaz Road Improvement Project Photograph 11: Photograph of Drainage H located in the southern portion of the study area, facing northeast. Photograph 12: Photograph of Drainage I located in the southern portion of the study area, facing northeast. H:\PROJECTS\D\DavidEvansAssoc_00207\DEA-12 Diaz Road\_Reports\GBRA\Appendices\Appendix D_Drainage PhotosDrainage Photos Appendix D Diaz Road Improvement Project Photograph 13: Photograph of Drainage J located in the southern portion of the study area, facing east. Photograph 14: Photograph of Drainage K located in the southern portion of the study area, facing east. Appendix E Rare Plant Species Potential to Occurs Diaz Road Expansion Project Appendix E Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur1 E-1 Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Abronia villosa var. aurita chaparral sand-verbena CRPR 1B.1 Annual herb. Occurs on sandy floodplains or flats in generally inland, arid areas of sage scrub and open chaparral. Elevation range 0-1600 m. Flowering period Mar-Aug. None. The study area does not support sage scrub or chaparral habitats. Almutaster pauciflorus alkali marsh aster CRPR 2B.2 Perennial herb. Occurs in meadows and seeps on alkaline soil. Elevation range 200-700 m. Flowering period Jun-Oct. Low. The study area supports highly disturbed mesic areas with alkaline soils. Although the study are supports disturbed habitat, this species has not been recorded in the region since 1937. Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia FE CRPR 1B.1 MSHCP Covered Species (b) Perennial herb. Occurs on clay, sandy loam, and sometimes alkaline soils. Found in grasslands, valley bottoms, and dry drainages. Can occur on slopes, disturbed places, in coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Elevation range 50- 600 m. Flowering period Apr-Jul. High. The study area supports suitable sandy loam and alkaline soils, as well as disturbed habitat for this species. This species was recorded in CNDDB in 2010, approximately 0.8 mile to the southeast of the study area. Arctostaphylos rainbowensis rainbow manzanita CRPR 1B.1 MSHCP Covered Species (e) Shrub. Southern mixed chaparral is preferred habitat with a relatively dense canopy from 6 to 8 feet. Elevation range 150-800 m. Flowering period Jan-Feb. None. The study area does not support chaparral habitat. Diaz Road Improvements Project Appendix E (cont.) Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur E-2 Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri Jaeger’s bush milk- vetch CRPR 1B.1 Perennial shrub. Occurs in sandy or rocky soils. Found in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coast scrub, and valley grassland habitats. Elevation 365-975 m. Flowering period Dec-Jun. None. The study area does not support chaparral habitat. The study area is located outside oof this species’ elevation range. Brodiaea orcuttii Orcutt's brodiaea CRPR 1B.1 MSHCP Covered Species Perennial herb. Occurs in vernally moist grasslands, mima mound topography, and vernal pool periphery are preferred habitat. Occasionally will grow on streamside embankments in clay soils. Elevation range 0- 1600 m. Flowering period Apr- Jul. Low. The study area supports highly disturbed mesic areas, including streamside embankments with clay soils. This species was recorded in CNDDB in 2003, approximately 5.8 miles to the southeast of the study area. Brodiaea santarosae Santa Rosa basalt brodiaea CRPR 1B.2 Perennial herb. Occurs in soils derived from Santa Rosa Basalt within grassland habitat. Elevation range 580-1045 m. Flowering period May-Jun. None. The study area is not located on Santa Rosa Basalt. The study area is located outside of this species’ elevation range. Chaenactis glabriuscula var. orcuttiana Orcutt’s pincushion CRPR 1B1 Annual herb. Occurs in sandy soils within coastal bluff scrub and coastal dunes. Elevation range 0-100 m. Flowering period Apr-Jul. None. The study area does not support coastal bluff scrub or coastal dune habitats. The study area is located outside of this species’ elevation range. Calochortus weedii var. intermedius intermediate mariposa lily CRPR 1B.2 MSHCP Covered Species Perennial herb. Occurs on dry, rocky slopes within openings in chaparral, coastal scrub, and grassland habitats. Elevation range 0-680 m. Flowering period Jun-Jul. None. The study area does not support dry, rocky slopes. Diaz Road Improvements Project Appendix E (cont.) Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur E-3 Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis smooth tarplant CRPR 1B.1 MSHCP Covered Species (d) Annual herb. Occurs within valley and foothill grasslands, particularly near alkaline locales. Elevation range 90-500 m. Flowering period Apr-Sep. Present. The study supports suitable habitat for this species. This species was observed during the general biological survey. Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi Parry's spineflower CRPR 1B.1 MSHCP Covered Species (e) Annual herb. Occurs in sandy soil on flats and foothills in mixed grassland, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral communities. Elevation range 90-800 m. Flowering period May-Jun. Low. The study area supports limited areas of highly disturbed sandy soils. This species was recorded on CNDDB in 2010, approximately 4.8 miles to the northeast of the study area. Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina long-spined spineflower CRPR 1B.2 MSHCP Covered Species Annual herb. Occurs within clay lenses largely devoid of shrubs. Can be occasionally seen on vernal pool and even montane meadows peripheries near vernal seeps. Elevation range 30-1500 m. Flowering period Apr-Jun. Low. The study area supports highly disturbed mesic areas. This species was recorded on CNDDB in 2015, approximately 3.3 miles to the northwest of the study area within the Santa Rosa Plateau. Clinopodium chandleri San Miguel savory CRPR 1B.2 MSHCP Covered Species (b) Perennial herb. Occurs on Gabbro and metavolcanic soils in interior foothills, chaparral, and oak woodland. Elevation range 0-1100 m. Flowering period Mar-Jul. None. The study area does not support Gabbro or metavolcanic soils. Dudleya viscida sticky dudleya CRPR 1B.2 MSHCP Covered Species (f) Perennial herb. Occurs on cliffs and bluffs within chaparral, coastal sage scrub, coastal bluff scrub, and cismontane woodland. Elevation range below 450 m. Flowering period May-Jun. None. The study area does not support cliffs or bluffs. Diaz Road Improvements Project Appendix E (cont.) Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur E-4 Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii San Diego button- celery FE/SE CRPR 1B.1 MSHCP Covered Species Annual or perennial herb. Occurs in San Diego mesa hardpan and clay pan vernal pools, and southern interior basalt flow vernal pools. Elevation range 0-705 m. Flowering period May-Jun. None. The study area is not within the geographic range of this species. Hordeum intercedens vernal barley CRPR 3.2 MSHCP Covered Species Annual grass. Saline flats and depressions in grasslands or in vernal pool basins. Elevation range 5-1000 m. Flowering period Mar.-Jun. Low. The study area supports highly disturbed saline and mesic habitat. This species was recorded in the Consortium of California Herbaria’s database in 2006, approximately 6.3 miles to the northeast of the study area. Horkelia cuneata var. puberula mesa horkelia CRPR 1B.1 Perennial herb. Occurs in sandy or gravelly areas within chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and coastal mesas. Elevation range 70-870. Flowering period Mar-Jul. None. The study area does not support chaparral, coastal sage scrub, or coastal mesa habitats. Juncus luciensis Santa Lucia dwarf rush CRPR 1B.2 Annual grass-like herb. Occurs in mesic sandy soils within seeps, meadows, vernal pools, streams, and roadsides. Elevation 300-1900 m. Flowering period Apr-Jul. None. The study area supports mesic areas. However, the regional occurrences are limited to the Santa Rosa Plateau, approximately 2.75 miles to west of the study area. Diaz Road Improvements Project Appendix E (cont.) Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur E-5 Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter's goldfields CRPR 1B.1 MSHCP Covered Species (d) Annual herb. Occurs in alkaline soils, sinks, and grasslands. Elevation range 0-1000 m. Flowering period Apr-May. Low. The study area supports suitable mesic habitat with alkaline soils, although these areas are highly disturbed. This species was recorded on CNDDB in 1936, within a polygon that includes a small area in the southern portion of the study area. Mielichhoferia shevrockii Shevrock’s copper moss CRPR 1B.2 Moss. Occurs on rocks containing heavy metals and rocks along roadsides on mesic sites within cismontane woodland. Elevation range 750- 1400 m. Capsules mature Apr- Jun. Flowering period N/A. None. The study area is located outside of this species’ the elevation range. Myosurus minimus ssp. apus little mousetail CRPR 3.1 MSHCP Covered Species (d) Annual herb. Vernal pools and alkaline marshes. This cryptic species typically grows in the deeper portions of vernal pool basins, sprouting immediately after the surface water has evaporated. Elevation range 20- 640 m. Flowering period Mar- Jun. Low. The study area does not support vernal pools but does support potential wetland within alkaline soils. This species was recorded in CNDDB in 1990, approximately 3.2 miles to the northwest of the project site within the Santa Rosa Plateau. Diaz Road Improvements Project Appendix E (cont.) Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur E-6 Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Navarretia fossalis spreading navarretia FT CRPR 1B.1 MSHCP Covered Species (b) Annual herb. Occurs in vernal pools, vernal swales, or roadside depressions. Population size is strongly correlated with rainfall. Depth of pool appears to be a significant factor as this species is rarely found in shallow pools. Elevation range 30-1300 m. Flowering period Apr-Jun. Low. The study area supports some areas of highly disturbed roadside depressional areas with soils. This species was recorded in CNDDB in 1998, approximately 2.9 miles to the northwest of the study area. Navarretia prostrata prostrate vernal pool navarretia CRPR 1B.1 MSHCP Covered Species (d) Annual herb. Occurs in alkaline floodplain, meadows, seeps, and vernal pools within coastal scrub and valley and foothill grassland. Elevation range below 700 m. Flowering period Apr-Jul. Low. The study area supports disturbed alkaline floodplain. This species was recorded in CNDDB in 2009, approximately 3.3 miles to the west of the study area. Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass FE/SE CRPR 1B.1 MSHCP Covered Species (b) Annual herb. Occurs in or near vernal pools. This species tends to grow in wetter portions of the vernal pool basin but does not show much growth until the basins become somewhat desiccated. Elevation range 0- 700 m. Flowering period Apr- Aug. None. The study area does not support vernal pools. Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum white rabbit-tobacco CRPR 2B.2 Biennial or short-lived perennial herb. Occurs in sandy and gravelly benches, dry stream and canyon bottoms within woodland, coastal scrub, and chaparral. Elevation range below 500 m. Flowering period Jul-Oct. None. The study area does not support suitable dry streambed habitat. Diaz Road Improvements Project Appendix E (cont.) Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur E-7 Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Scutellaria bolanderi ssp. austromontana southern mountain skullcap CRPR 1B.2 Perennial herb. Occurs within gravelly soils along streambanks in oak and pine woodlands. Elevation 425-2000 m. Flowering period Jun-Aug. None. The study area does not support suitable streambank oak or pine woodlands. The study area is located outside of this species’ elevation range. Symphyotrichum defoliatum San Bernardino aster CRPR 1B.2 Perennial herb. Occurs in vernally mesic soils within cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest, meadows and seeps, marshes and swamps, grasslands, streams, springs, and disturbed ditches. Elevation range 0-2050 m. Flowering period Jul-Nov. Low. The study area does support a limited area of roadside depressional areas and disturbed ditches draining into Murrieta Creek. However, this species has not been recorded in the vicinity of the study area since 1923. Tetracoccus dioicus Parry’s tetracoccus CRPR 1B.2 Shrub. Occurs on stony, decomposed gabbro and dry slopes within chaparral and coastal scrub. Elevation below 1000 m. Flowering period Apr- May. None. The study area does not support chaparral or coastal sage scrub habitats. Diaz Road Improvements Project Appendix E (cont.) Rare Plant Species Potential to Occur E-8 Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Tortula californica California screw-moss CRPR 1B.2 Moss. Occurs in sandy soils within chenopod scrub and grasslands. Elevation 10-1460 m. Flowering Period N/A None. The study area does not support chenopod scrub or grasslands. Source: HELIX (2021) 1 Sensitive species reported within the Murrieta and Temecula quadrangles based on a database search conducted on CNDDB and CNPS. 2 Listing is as follows: F = Federal; S = State of California; E = Endangered; T = Threatened. CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank: 1A – presumed extinct; 1B – rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; 2A – rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere; 2B – rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere. Extension codes: .1 – seriously endangered; .2 – moderately endangered; .3 – not very endangered. MSHCP Conditionally Covered Species (a) through (f): (a) surveys may be required for species as part of wetland mapping (MSHCP Section 6.1.2); (b) surveys may be required for species within Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (MSHCP Section 6.1.3); (c) surveys may be required for species within locations shown on survey maps (MSHCP Section 6.3.2); (d) surveys may be required for species within Criteria Area Species Survey Area (MSHCP Section 6.3.2); (e) covered species will be considered to be covered species adequately conserved when conservation requirements identified in species-specific conservation objectives have been met (MSHCP Table 9-3); and (f) covered species will be conserved covered species adequately conserved when a Memorandum of Understanding is executed with the Forest Service that addresses management for these species on Forest Service Land (MSHCP Table 9-3). 3 Potential to Occur is assessed as follows: None: Habitat suitable for species survival does not occur on the study area, the study area is not within geographic range of the species, and/or the study area is not within the elevation range of the species; Low: Suitable habitat is present on the study area but of low quality and/or small extent. The species has not been recorded recently on or near the study area. Although the species was not observed during surveys for the current project, the species cannot be excluded with certainty; Moderate: Suitable habitat is present on the study area and the species was recorded recently near the study area; however, the habitat is of moderate quality and/or small extent. Although the species was not observed during surveys for the current project, the species cannot be excluded with certainty; High: Suitable habitat of sufficient extent is present on the study area and the species has been recorded recently on or near the study area, but was not observed during surveys for the current project. However, focused/protocol surveys are not required or have not been completed; Presumed Present: The species was observed during focused surveys for the current project and is assumed to occupy the study area; Presumed Absent: Suitable habitat is present on the study area but focused surveys for the species were negative. Appendix F Sensitive Animal Species Potential to Occur Diaz Road Improvements Project Appendix F SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR1 F-1 Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Insects Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee --/SCE Coastal California east to the Sierra- Cascade crest and south into Mexico. Species’ food genera include Antirrhinum sp., Phacelia sp., Clarkia sp., Dendromecon sp., Eschscholzia sp., and Eriogonum sp. None. The study area does not support chaparral or coastal sage scrub habitat. Euphydryas editha quino quino checkerspot butterfly FE/-- MSHCP Covered Species Open, sunny areas within chaparral and coastal sage scrub. Host plants are Plantago spp., Antirrhinum coulterianum, and Cordylanthus rigidus. None. The study area does not support chaparral or coastal sage scrub habitat. Invertebrates Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp FT MSHCP Covered Species (a) Most commonly found in swale, earth slump, or basal-flow depression pools in unplowed grasslands. Requires cool-water pools. None. The study area does not support vernal pools. Branchinecta sandiegonensis San Diego fairy shrimp FE Vernal pools. Endemic to mesas in San Diego and Orange Counties. None. The study area does not support vernal pools. Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp FE MSHCP Covered Species (a) Typically requires deep vernal pools and seasonal wetlands at least 30 centimeters deep. None. The study area does not support vernal pools. Fish Gila orcuttii arroyo chub SSC MSHCP Covered Species Prefers slow moving streams or backwaters with sand or mud bottoms. Streams are typically deeper than 40 centimeters (16 inches). Primary food source is aquatic vegetation and invertebrates. None. The study area does not support perennial stream habitat. Diaz Road Improvements Project Appendix F (cont.) SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR1 F-2 Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Amphibians Spea hammondii western spadefoot SSC MSHCP Covered Species Occurs in open coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland, along sandy or gravelly washes, floodplains, alluvial fans, or playas; requires vernal pools for breeding and friable soils for burrowing; generally excluded from areas with bullfrogs (Rana catesbiana) or crayfish (Procambarus spp.) Moderate. The study area supports limited areas of floodplain habitat within Murrieta Creek. However, there are no observations of this species recorded on CNDDB within Murrieta Creek. This species was recorded in CNDDB in 2017, approximately 0.8 mile to the west of the study area. Taricha torosa Coast Range newt SSC MSHCP Covered Species Breeds in ponds, reservoirs, and slow-moving stream pools; often found in riparian forest, woodlands, chaparral, or grassland within one kilometer of breeding habitat. Low. The study area supports limited areas of habitat within Murrieta Creek. However, there are no observations of this species recorded in CNDDB within Murrieta Creek. This species was recorded in CNDDB in 2001, approximately 5.0 miles to the northwest of the study area within Cole Canyon. Reptiles Anniella stebbinsi Southern California legless lizard SSC Occurs in moist, warm, loose soil with plant cover. May be found in coastal sand dunes, chaparral, pine-oak woodlands, desert scrub, sandy washes, and stream terraces with sycamores, cottonwoods, or oaks. Moderate. The study area supports suitable moist soils with plant cover and sandy wash habitat. This species was recorded in CNDDB in 2000, approximately 5.4 miles to the northeast of the project site. Arizona elegans occidentalis California glossy snake SSC Most common in desert habitats, but also occurs in chaparral, arid scrub, and annual grassland. Associated with sandy open areas with sparse shrub cover, but can also occur in rocky habitats. None. The study area does not support chaparral, grassland, or scrub habitat. Diaz Road Improvements Project Appendix F (cont.) SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR1 F-3 Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri coastal whiptail SSC MSHCP Covered Species Open coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and woodlands. Frequently found along the edges of dirt roads traversing its habitats. Important habitat components include open, sunny areas, shrub cover with accumulated leaf litter, and an abundance of insects, spiders, or scorpions. High. The study area supports suitable habitat within the southern willow scrub and cottonwood-willow riparian habitats. This species was recorded in CNDDB in 2001, approximately 1.9 miles the southeast of the study, at the confluence of Murrieta Creek and the Santa Margarita River. Crotalus ruber red diamond rattlesnake SSC MSHCP Covered Species Occurs in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, along creek banks, particularly among rock outcrops or piles of debris with a supply of burrowing rodents for prey. Moderate. The study area supports suitable habitat within the southern willow scrub and southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest. The nearest occurrence recorded in CNDDB is an undated collection made approximately 2.5 miles to the southeast of the study area. Actinemys pallida southwestern pond turtle SSC MSHCP Covered Species Almost entirely aquatic; occurs in freshwater marshes, creeks, ponds, rivers and streams, particularly where basking sites, deep water retreats, and egg laying areas are readily available. Moderate. The study area supports suitable aquatic habitat for this species. There is an occurrence recorded in CNDDB in 2015 located adjacent to the study area, downstream of the intersection of Diaz Road and Rancho California Road. Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard SSC MSHCP Covered Species Coastal sage scrub and open areas in chaparral, oak woodlands, and coniferous forests with sufficient basking sites, adequate scrub cover, and areas of loose soil; require native ants, especially harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex spp.), and are generally excluded from areas invaded by Argentine ants (Linepithema humile). None. The study area does not support chaparral, oak woodlands, or coniferous forest habitats. Diaz Road Improvements Project Appendix F (cont.) SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR1 F-4 Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Thamnophis hammondii two-striped gartersnake SSC Occurs in or near permanent fresh water bordered by dense riparian vegetation. Occasionally occurs in artificially created aquatic habitats, such as manmade lakes or stock ponds. Moderate. The study area supports suitable aquatic habitat and riparian vegetation. Birds Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle SFP MSHCP Covered Species Typical foraging habitat includes grassy and open, shrubby habitats. Generally nests on remote cliffs; requires areas of solitude at a distance from human habitation. None. The study area does not support suitable open space for this species or remote cliffs for nesting. Athene cunicularia burrowing owl SSC MSHCP Covered Species (c) Typical habitat is grasslands, open scrublands, agricultural fields, and other areas where there are ground squirrel burrows or other areas in which to burrow. Presumed Absent. The study area supports some limited areas of suitable habitat. Focused surveys performed in 2020 were negative. Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk ST MSHCP Covered Species Breeds in open grassland with scattered trees or groves within agricultural/ranch lands. Forages for small mammals, reptiles, birds, and insects in adjacent grassland and agricultural fields. Low. The study area supports a small amount of suitable foraging habitat for this species. This species is not known to nest in southern California with the exception of populations in the Antelope Valley and Mojave Desert. An observation of this species was recorded in eBird in 2015, approximately 2.6 miles to the southwest of the study area within Temecula Creek. Diaz Road Improvements Project Appendix F (cont.) SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR1 F-5 Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Coccyzus americanus western yellow-billed cuckoo FT/SE MSHCP Covered Species (a) Generally occurs along larger river systems, where it nests in riparian forest dominated by willows (Salix sp.) and cottonwoods (Populus sp.). None. Small patches of riparian forest habitat exist on the study area within Murrieta Creek. However, this habitat is patchy and does not support perennial water. This species has not been recorded on CNDDB within the vicinity of the study area since 1950. Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite SFP MSHCP Covered Species Nests in trees with dense canopies within open grasslands, woodlands, and marshes. Forages for small mammals within lightly grazed/ungrazed pastures and grasslands. High. The study area supports a small amount of suitable nesting habitat within the southwestern willow scrub, southern cottonwood- willow riparian forest, and eucalyptus woodland. An observation of this species within the study area was recorded in eBird in 2021. Empidonax traillii extimus southwestern willow flycatcher FE/SE Nests within thickets of willows or other riparian understory usually along streams, ponds, lakes, or canyons. Migrants may be found among other shrubs in wetter areas. Presumed Absent. The study area supports potentially suitable riparian habitat. Focused surveys performed in 2020 were negative. Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher FT/SSC MSHCP Covered Species Occurs in coastal sage scrub and very open chaparral. None. The study area does not support coastal sage scrub or chaparral. Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo FE/SE MSHCP Covered Species (a) Inhabits riparian woodland and is most frequent in areas that combine an understory of dense, young willows or mule fat with a canopy of tall willows. Presumed Present. The study area supports suitable southern willow scrub habitat. Focused surveys performed in 2020 detected four males and one pair within or adjacent to the study area. Diaz Road Improvements Project Appendix F (cont.) SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR1 F-6 Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Mammals Chaetodipus californicus femoralis Dulzura pocket mouse SSC Primarily associated with mature chaparral. It has, however, been trapped in mule fat scrub and is known to occur in coastal sage scrub. None. The study area does not support chaparral, mule fat scrub, or coastal sage scrub. Chaetodipus fallax fallax northwestern San Diego pocket mouse SSC MSHCP Covered Species Herbaceous openings within coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grasslands, and desert scrub. Often associated with sandy, rocky, or gravelly substrates. None. The study area does not support coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grasslands, or desert scrub. Dipodomys merriami parvus San Bernardino kangaroo rat FE/SSC MSHCP Covered Species (c) Generally associated with alluvial fan sage scrub, but also occurs in sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland in proximity to alluvial fan sage scrub habitats. None. The study area does not support alluvial fan sage scrub. Dipodomys stephensi Stephens' kangaroo rat FE/ST MSHCP Covered Species Primarily occurs in sparsely vegetated areas within grassland habitats, but also found in open coastal scrub habitat. Feeds on filaree (Erodium sp.) and brome (Bromus sp.) seeds. Dig burrows in firm soil or use abandoned pocket gopher burrows. Moderate. The study area supports suitable sparsely vegetated areas for this species. The nearest observation of this species was recorded in CNDDB in 1994, approximately 1.5 miles to the southeast of the study area. Eumops perotis californicus western mastiff bat SSC Roosts under exfoliating rock slabs on cliff faces and occasionally in large boulder crevices and building cracks. Forages in a variety of open areas, including washes, floodplains, chaparral, coastal sage scrub, woodlands, ponderosa pine forests, grassland, and agricultural areas. Low. The study area does not support suitable roosting habitat but does support foraging habitat. This species was recorded on CNDDB in 2001, less than 0.3 mile to the southeast of the study area. Lepus californicus bennettii San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit SSC MSHCP Covered Species Occurs primarily in open habitats including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grasslands, croplands, and open, disturbed areas if there is at least some shrub cover present. Low. The study area supports a limited amount of suitable disturbed habitat with some shrub cover. This species was recorded on CNDDB in 2007, approximately 1.4 miles to the north of the study area. Diaz Road Improvements Project Appendix F (cont.) SENSITIVE ANIMAL SPECIES POTENTIAL TO OCCUR1 F-7 Species Name Common Name Status2 Habitat, Ecology, and Life History Potential to Occur3 Perognathus longimembris brevinasus Los Angeles pocket mouse SSC MSHCP Covered Species (c) Sandy, gravelly, or stony soils within coastal scrub, alluvial sage scrub, and grassland habitats. None. The study area does not support suitable habitat for this species. Source: HELIX (2021) 1 Sensitive species reported within the Murrieta and Temecula quadrangles based on a database search conducted on CNDDB. 2 Listing is as follows: F = Federal; S = State of California; E = Endangered; T = Threatened; CE = Candidate Endangered; CT = Candidate Threated; FP = Fully Protected; SSC = State Species of Special Concern. MSHCP Conditionally Covered Species (a) through (f): (a) surveys may be required for species as part of wetland mapping (MSHCP Section 6.1.2); (b) surveys may be required for species within Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (MSHCP Section 6.1.3); (c) surveys may be required for species within locations shown on survey maps (MSHCP Section 6.3.2); (d) surveys may be required for species within Criteria Area Species Survey Area (MSHCP Section 6.3.2); (e) covered species will be considered to be covered species adequately conserved when conservation requirements identified in species-specific conservation objectives have been met (MSHCP Table 9- 3); and (f) covered species will be conserved covered species adequately conserved when a Memorandum of Understanding is executed with the Forest Service that addresses management for these species on Forest Service Land (MSHCP Table 9-3). 3 Potential to Occur is assessed as follows. None: Species is so limited to a particular habitat that it cannot disperse across unsuitable habitat (e.g. aquatic organisms), and habitat suitable for its survival does not occur on the study area; Not Expected: Species moves freely and might disperse through or across the study area, but suitable habitat for residence or breeding does not occur on the study area (includes species recorded during surveys but only as transients); Low: Suitable habitat is present on the study area but of low quality and/or small extent. The species has not been recorded recently on or near the study area. Although the species was not observed during surveys for the current project, the species cannot be excluded with certainty; Moderate: Suitable habitat is present on the study area and the species was recorded recently near the study area; however, the habitat is of moderate quality and/or small extent. Although the species was not observed during surveys for the current project, the species cannot be excluded with certainty; High: Suitable habitat of sufficient extent for residence or breeding is present on the study area and the species has been recorded recently on or near the study area, but was not observed during surveys for the current project. However, focused/protocol surveys are not required or have not been completed; Presumed Present: The species was observed during biological surveys for the current project and is assumed to occupy the study area; Presumed Absent: Suitable habitat is present on the study area but focused/protocol surveys for the species were negative. Appendix G Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 16485 Laguna Canyon Road, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 949.234.8792 tel. 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com October 15, 2020 DEA-12 Mr. Gavin Powell David Evans and Associates, Inc. 41951 Remington Avenue, Suite 220 Temecula, CA 92590 Subject: 2020 Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Survey Report for the Diaz Road Expansion Project Dear Mr. Powell: This letter report presents the results of the 2020 focused burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; BUOW) survey conducted by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) for the Diaz Road Expansion Project (project) located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County (County), California. The survey was conducted in accordance with the County’s Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP; County of Riverside [County] 2006). This survey was conducted to meet applicable conditions under the MSHCP, which was approved in 2003 (Dudek and Associates [Dudek] 2003). The MSHCP is a comprehensive planning effort that includes the County of Riverside and multiple cities. As part of the MSHCP implementation, enrolled jurisdictions are required to impose terms of the MSHCP, including appropriate surveys in accordance with Volume 1, Section 6. The project site is located within the MSHCP BUOW Survey Area; therefore, surveys are required if suitable habitat is present (County 2006). This letter report describes the methods used to perform the survey and the survey results. STUDY AREA LOCATION The project site is located within the City of Temecula in Riverside County, California (Figure 1, Regional Location). It lies within Township 7 South, Range 3 West and Township 8 South, Range 3 West, on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Murrieta and Temecula quadrangle maps (Figure 2, USGS Topography). The project proposes to improve an approximately 2.2-mile segment of Diaz Road located west of Interstate (I-) 15, approximately between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). The survey area includes the project site plus an additional 500 feet (Figure 3). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is for the development and improvement of Diaz Road. Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 2 of 5 October 15, 2020 PROJECT SITE DESCRIPTION The topography of the study area is mostly flat with elevations on the study area range from approximately 1,016 feet (310 meters) above mean sea level (AMSL) near the northern boundary to a high of approximately 1,037 feet (316 meters) AMSL near the northern boundary. Representative photographs of the project site are depicted in Attachment A, Site Photographs. Eight soil types are mapped on the project site, including Chino silt loam (drained, saline-alkaline), Domino silt loam (strongly saline-alkaline), Grangeville fine sandy loam (drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes), Grangeville fine sandy loam (saline-alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes), Grangeville sandy loam (sand substratum, drained, 0 to 5 percent slopes), Riverwash, Willows silty clay (deep, saline-alkaline), Willows silty clay (deep, strongly saline-alkaline Surrounding land uses include commercial development with some undeveloped parcels to the southwest. A park and Murrieta Creek exist along the northeast boundary of the study area. The western portion is bound by Diaz Road and commercial developments. (Figure 3). The project site is located approximately 2.5 miles east of the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve. METHODS A Step I Habitat Assessment and Step II Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls were conducted on the project site by HELIX biologists, Matthew Dimson and Daniel Torres between June 5 and August 6, 2020, in accordance with the County’s survey protocol (County 2006). The specific survey information is provided in Table 1, Survey Information. The habitat assessment and focused burrow and BUOW surveys are described in detail below. Table 1 SURVEY INFORMATION Site Visit Survey Date Biologists Start/Stop Time Start/Stop Weather Conditions Survey Results 11 06/05/20 Matthew Dimson 0515-0735 61F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds 75F, wind 0-1 mph, 10% clouds Suitable habitat and burrows observed; no BUOW detected. 2 07/08/20 Matthew Dimson 0545-0745 65F, wind 1-2 mph, 100% clouds 66F, wind 1-2 mph, 100% clouds No BUOW detected. 3 07/21/20 Matthew Dimson 0550-0750 67F, wind 1-2 mph, 50% clouds 69F, wind 0-1 mph, 50% clouds No BUOW detected. 4 08/06/20 Daniel Torres 0605 - 0800 59 F, wind 1-2 mph, 100% clouds 61F, wind 3-4 mph, 95% clouds No BUOW detected. 1 This visit included the habitat assessment, focused burrow survey, and first focused burrowing owl survey. Step I – Habitat Assessment Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 3 of 5 October 15, 2020 The project site is located within an MSHCP BUOW survey area; therefore, a Step I Habitat Assessment was conducted to determine whether the project site supports suitable BUOW habitat. The habitat assessment was conducted prior to commencement of the Step II surveys described below. The assessment was conducted on the project site and within a 150-meter (approximately 500-foot) buffer zone around the periphery of the project site (collectively, the survey area). The survey area was slowly walked and assessed for suitable BUOW habitat, including: • disturbed low-growing vegetation within grassland and shrublands (less than 30 percent canopy cover); • gently rolling or level terrain; • areas with abundant small mammal burrows, especially California ground squirrel burrows (Otospermophilus beecheyi); • fence posts, rocks, or other low perching locations; and • man-made structures, such as earthen berms, debris piles, and cement culverts. Inaccessible areas of the survey area and buffer zone were visually assessed using binoculars. Step II – Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls Since suitable habitat was observed during the habitat assessment, Step II surveys were conducted within the survey area. Step II surveys, which consist of a focused burrow survey (Part A) and four focused BUOW surveys (Part B), were conducted to determine whether the survey area supports suitable burrows and/or BUOW. The focused burrow survey was conducted concurrently with the first BUOW survey. All potential burrows were checked for signs of recent owl occupation. Signs of occupation include: • pellets/casting (regurgitated fur, bones, and/or insect parts); • white wash (excrement); and/or • feathers. Since suitable burrows were observed within the survey area, three additional BUOW surveys were conducted. The biologists walked transects spaced no greater than 30 meters apart (approximately 100 feet) to allow for 100 percent visual coverage of all suitable habitat within the survey area. The biologists walked slowly and methodically, closely checking suitable habitat within the survey area for suitable burrows, BUOW diagnostic sign (e.g., molted feathers, pellets/castings, or whitewash at or near a burrow entrance), and individual BUOW. Inaccessible areas of the survey area were visually assessed using binoculars. All suitable burrows, burrow surrogates, BUOW sign, and/or BUOW observations were recorded using a handheld Global Positioning System unit (Figure 4, Suitable Burrow and Transect Locations). RESULTS Suitable BUOW habitat was observed within the survey area, including disturbed habitat and non-native grasslands (Attachment A). Suitable burrows that could potentially be used by BUOW were observed within and adjacent to the survey area. No BUOW or sign of BUOW occupation were observed during Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 4 of 5 October 15, 2020 the four focused surveys. Therefore, BUOW does not currently occupy the survey area. Observed burrow locations and transects walked are shown on Figure 4. CONCLUSION No BUOWs were observed or detected within the survey area during the focused surveys. Burrows with potential to support BUOW were noted in the survey area, but no sign of BUOW occupation was observed. A pre-construction survey is required 30 days prior to ground disturbance pursuant to the County’s survey protocol (County 2006). If ground-disturbing activities are delayed more than 30 days after the pre-construction survey has been completed, the survey area must be resurveyed. If you have any questions regarding the information presented in this letter report, please contact Ezekiel Cooley (EzekielC@helixepi.com) or Lauren Singleton (LaurenS@helixepi.com) at (949) 234-8770. Sincerely, Matthew Dimson Daniel Torres Biologist Biologist Attachments: Figure 1: Regional Location Figure 2: USGS Topography Figure 3: Aerial Photograph Figure 4: Suitable Burrow and Transect Locations Attachment A: Site Photographs Letter to Mr. Gavin Powell Page 5 of 5 October 15, 2020 REFERENCES Dudek and Associates. 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Final MSHCP Volume I. Prep. for County of Riverside, Transportation and Land Management Agency. Riverside, County of. 2006. Environmental Programs Department. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. Retrieved from: http://www.wrc- rca.org/species/survey_protocols/Birds/Burrowing%20Owl%20Survey%20Instructions%20compl ete.pdf. March 29. Accessed August 20, 2019. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?z ?Æ !"a$ !"a$ %&h( ?± !"a$ !"a$?¹ ?¹ %&h( ?± ?z ?¹AÐ !"`$ Añ ?¡ AÙ ?±?¿ A¨ ?¿ AÙ ?± ?¹ !"`$ !"`$ ?ø !"a$ ?a ?± AÎ ?Æ !"^$ ?å Añ ?¥%&h( !"`$ ?¡ AÔ ?³!Project Site SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CAMPPENDLETON MISSIONVIEJO SANCLEMENTE LAGUNABEACH ONTARIO RIVERSIDE CORONA LAKEELSINORE SAN BERNARDINO San t a A n a M o u n t a i n s San Be r n a r d i n o M o u n t a i n s RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTYRIVERSIDE COUNTY O R A N G E C O U N T Y San J a c i n t o M o u n t a i n s Littl e S a n B e r n a r d i n o M o u n t a i n s YUCCAVALLEY TWENTYNINEPALMS TEMECULA MURRIETA NORCO MORENOVALLEY BANNING BEAUMONT PALM DESERTHEMET SAN JACINTO COACHELLA PALMSPRINGSPERRIS Pacific Ocean Big Bear Lake MesquiteLake CoyoteLake LeeLake Alvord PerrisReservoir LakeMathews CanyonLake HemetLake LakeElsinore LakeCahuilla SkinnerReservoir Salton SeaVailLake Clark LakeO'NeillLake DiamondValley Lake Figure 1 Regional LocationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\BUOW\Fig1_Regional.mxd DEA-12 10/13/2020 - SABSource: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 10 Miles Figure 2 USGS TopographyH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\BUOW\Fig2_USGS.mxd DEA-12 10/13/2020 - SABSource: MURRIETA & TEMECULA 7.5' Quad (USGS) Diaz Road Expansion 0 2,000 Feet K Project Site JEFFERSO N A V E Y N E ZRD R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A R DBUSINESSPARKDR DIAZ R D W INCHESTERRDDE L R I ORD DE N DY P K W Y¬«79 §¨¦15 Figure 3 Aerial PhotographH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\BUOW\Fig3_Aerial.mxd DEA-12 10/13/2020 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 1,200 Feet Survey Area Project Site NICOLELN JEFFERSO N A V E SOLANA W A Y YNEZRD OLDTOWNFRON T S T W INCHESTERRDBUS IN E S S PARKDR DIAZ R D WINCHESTERRDDATEST D E L R IORD D E N D Y P K W Y¬«79 §¨¦15WarmSpringsCreek MurrietaCreek SantaG e rtru d isC re e kTucalotaCreek Figure 4 Suitable Burrow and Transect LocationsH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\BUOW\Fig4_burrows_transect.mxd DEA-12 10/13/2020 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 1,000 Feet Project Site Survey Area Diaz Road Expansion H:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\BUOW\Att_A_SitePhotos1-4.indd DEA-12 10/09/20 -ECRepresentative Site Photographs Attachment A Source: HELIX 2020 Photograph 1: View of a non-native grassland in the southern portion of the project site, facing southeast. Photograph 3: View of disturbed habitat in the northern portion of the project site, facing north. Photograph 2: View of a suitable burrow in the center of the project site, facing east. Photograph 4: View of an open culvert in the center of the project, facing west. Appendix H Least Bell’s Vireo Focused Survey Report HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 16485 Laguna Canyon Road Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92618 949.234.8792 tel. 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com August 27, 2020 DEA-12 Ms. Stacey Love U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: 2020 Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) Survey Report for the Diaz Road Expansion Project Dear Ms. Love: This letter presents the results of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol presence/absence survey for the federally endangered least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; LBVI) conducted by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) for the Diaz Road Expansion Project (project). This letter describes the survey methods and results and is being submitted to the USFWS in accordance with protocol survey guidelines. PROJECT LOCATION The project is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California (Figure 1, Regional Location). It is depicted within unsectioned lands in Township 7 South, Range 3 West and Township 8 South, Range 3 West, on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Murrieta and Temecula quadrangle maps (Figure 2, USGS Topography). The project proposes to improve an approximately 2.2-mile segment of Diaz Road located west of Interstate (I-) 15, approximately between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). The project study area includes the project site plus an additional 500 feet (Figure 3). The study area does not occur within or adjacent to USFWS-designated critical habitat for the species. METHODS The survey consisted of eight site visits conducted by HELIX biologists Erica Harris, Ezekiel Cooley, Daniel Torres, and Lauren Singleton between April 28 and July 27, 2020 (Table 1, Survey Information), in accordance with the current USFWS survey protocol 1. The LBVI survey area included all suitable habitat 1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines. January 19. Letter to Ms. Stacey Love Page 2 of 11 August 27, 2020 located within study area. Approximately 28.0 acres of the suitable LBVI habitat surveyed was composed of southern willow scrub located along Murrieta Creek, as well as southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest located in a tributary to Murrieta Creek (Figure 4, 2020 Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Results). The surveys were conducted by walking along the edges of, as well as within, potential LBVI habitat in the survey area while listening for LBVI and viewing birds with the aid of binoculars. The survey route was designed to ensure complete survey coverage of habitat potentially occupied by LBVI. A portion of the surveys were conducted on the same days as the protocol surveys for the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; SWFL). During these survey visits, a permitted biologist for SWFL surveyed the entire survey area for both SWFL and LBVI; however, the surveys were not conducted concurrently. The LBVI survey was conducted sequentially after the SWFL survey. The surveyor surveyed for SWFL as they walked one direction along/within suitable SWFL habitat, and then surveyed for LBVI as they walked back the other direction. A separate survey report is being submitted for the SWFL surveys (HELIX in preparation). Table 1, Survey Information, details the survey dates, times, weather conditions, and survey results. Letter to Ms. Stacey Love Page 3 of 11 August 27, 2020 Table 1 SURVEY INFORMATION Site Survey Biologist Time Approx. Acres Weather Conditions Survey Results Visit Date (Start/Stop) Surveyed/ Acres Per Hour (Start/Stop) Least Bell’s Vireo (LBVI) Brown-Headed Cowbird1 1 4/28/20 Ezekiel Cooley 0700/1030 28.0 ac/ 8.0 ac per hr. 60°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds 78°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds • Male, presumably same male belonging to Pair No. 1, heard singing within northern portion of the study, approx. 1,100 feet northeast of Dendy Parkway. • Male (Male No. 1) heard singing in northern portion of the study area approx. 730 feet northeast of Dendy Parkway and 370 feet south of male from Pair No. 1 • Male No. 2 heard singing to east of intersection of Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway and approx. 820 feet south of Male No. 1. • Male No. 3 singing to east of Diaz Road approx. 1,300 feet north of Winchester Avenue., to south of confluence of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Murrieta Creek. • Male No. 4 heard to east of Diaz Road approx. 765 feet southeast of Winchester Road. 0 Letter to Ms. Stacey Love Page 4 of 11 August 27, 2020 Table 1 (cont.) SURVEY INFORMATION Site Survey Biologist Time Approx. Acres Weather Conditions Survey Results Visit Date (Start/Stop) Surveyed/ Acres Per Hour (Start/Stop) Least Bell’s Vireo (LBVI) Brown-Headed Cowbird1 2 5/9/20 Lauren Singleton 0730/1100 28.0 ac/ 8.0 ac per hr. 60°F, wind 2-3 mph, 30% clouds 72°F, wind 4-5 mph, 20% clouds • Male and female from Pair No. 1 detected. Male heard singing in same general area. Female heard scolding and observed foraging with male within understory. • Male No. 1 heard singing in same general area at northern portion of site. • Male No. 2 heard singing in same general within northern portion of site. • Male No. 3 singing in same general areas near confluence of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Murrieta Creek. • Male No. 4 heard singing in same general area to southeast of Winchester Road. 4 Letter to Ms. Stacey Love Page 5 of 11 August 27, 2020 Table 1 (cont.) SURVEY INFORMATION Site Survey Biologist Time Approx. Acres Weather Conditions Survey Results Visit Date (Start/Stop) Surveyed/ Acres Per Hour (Start/Stop) Least Bell’s Vireo (LBVI) Brown-Headed Cowbird1 3 5/21/20 Erica Harris2 0930/1100 28.0 ac/ 18.7 ac per hr. 60°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds 68°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds • Male from Pair No. 1 heard singing in same general area within northern portion of study area. Counter-singing with Male. No. 1. • Male No. 1 heard singing in same general area in northern portion of study area. Counter-singing with the male from Pair No. 1 and Male No. 2. • Male No. 2 heard singing in same general area in northern portion of study area. Counter-singing with Male No. 1. • Male No. 3 singing in same general area near confluence of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Murrieta Creek. • Male No. 4 heard singing in same general area southeast of Winchester Road. 6 Letter to Ms. Stacey Love Page 6 of 11 August 27, 2020 Table 1 (cont.) SURVEY INFORMATION Site Survey Biologist Time Approx. Acres Weather Conditions Survey Results Visit Date (Start/Stop) Surveyed/ Acres Per Hour (Start/Stop) Least Bell’s Vireo (LBVI) Brown-Headed Cowbird1 4 6/4/20 Erica Harris2 0900/1100 28.0 ac/ 14.0 ac per hr. 76°F, wind 0-1 mph, 55% clouds 88°F, wind 1-3 mph, 70% clouds • Male and female from Pair No. 1 detected. Male heard singing in same general area. Female heard scolding and observed foraging with male within understory. • Male No. 1 heard singing in same general area in northern portion of study area. Counter-singing with the male from Pair No. 1 and Male No. 2. • Male No. 2 heard singing in same general area in northern portion of study area. Counter-singing with Male No.1. • Male No. 3 singing in same general area near confluence of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Murrieta Creek. • Male No. 4 heard singing in same general area southeast of Winchester Road. 7 Letter to Ms. Stacey Love Page 7 of 11 August 27, 2020 Table 1 (cont.) SURVEY INFORMATION Site Survey Biologist Time Approx. Acres Weather Conditions Survey Results Visit Date (Start/Stop) Surveyed/ Acres Per Hour (Start/Stop) Least Bell’s Vireo (LBVI) Brown-Headed Cowbird1 5 6/19/20 Erica Harris2 0930/1100 28.0 ac/ 18.7 ac per hr. 65°F, wind 0-1 mph, 100% clouds 73°F, wind 1-2 mph, 10% clouds • Male from Pair No. 1 heard singing in same general area within northern portion of study area. Counter-singing with Male. No. 1. • Male No. 1 heard singing in same general area in northern portion of study area. Counter-singing with the male from Pair No. 1 and Male No. 2. • Male No. 2 heard singing in same general area in northern portion of study area. Counter-singing with Male No. 1. • Male No. 3 singing in same general area near confluence of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Murrieta Creek. • Male No. 4 heard singing in same general area southeast of Winchester Road. 1 Letter to Ms. Stacey Love Page 8 of 11 August 27, 2020 Table 1 (cont.) SURVEY INFORMATION Site Survey Biologist Time Approx. Acres Weather Conditions Survey Results Visit Date (Start/Stop) Surveyed/ Acres Per Hour (Start/Stop) Least Bell’s Vireo (LBVI) Brown-Headed Cowbird1 6 7/2/20 Erica Harris2 0930/1100 28.0 ac/ 18.7 ac per hr. 67°F, wind 0-1 mph, 100% clouds 73°F, wind 0-1 mph, 80% clouds • Male from Pair No. 1 heard singing in same general area within northern portion of study area. Counter-singing with Male. No. 1. • Male No. 1 heard singing in same general area in northern portion of study area. Counter-singing with the male from Pair No. 1 and Male No. 2. • Male No. 2 heard singing in same general area in northern portion of study area. Counter-singing with Male No. 1. • Male No. 3 singing in same general area near confluence of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Murrieta Creek. • Male No. 4 heard singing in same general area southeast of Winchester Road. 3 Letter to Ms. Stacey Love Page 9 of 11 August 27, 2020 Table 1 (cont.) SURVEY INFORMATION Site Survey Biologist Time Approx. Acres Weather Conditions Survey Results Visit Date (Start/Stop) Surveyed/ Acres Per Hour (Start/Stop) Least Bell’s Vireo (LBVI) Brown-Headed Cowbird1 7 7/13/20 Erica Harris2 0930/1100 28.0 ac/ 18.7 ac per hr.. 84°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds 89°F, wind 1-3 mph, 30% clouds • Male from Pair No. 1 heard singing in same general area within northern portion of study area. Counter-singing with Male. No.1. • Male No. 1 heard singing in same general area in northern portion of study area. Counter-singing with the male from Pair No. 1 and Male No. 2. • Male No. 2 heard singing in same general area in northern portion of study area. Counter-singing with Male No. 1. • Male No. 3 singing in same general area near confluence of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Murrieta Creek. • Male No. 4 heard singing in same general area south of Winchester Road. 3 8 7/27/20 Daniel Torres 0645/1020 28.0 ac/ 7.8 ac per hr. 59°F, wind 1-2 mph, 0% clouds 72°F, wind 4-5 mph, 0% clouds • Male No. 1 heard singing in same general area in northern portion of study area. • Male No. 3 singing in same general area near confluence of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Murrieta Creek. • Male No. 4 heard singing in same general area south of Winchester Road. 0 1 Number of brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) detected during survey. 2 Southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) biologist; Conducted surveys on same day as the flycatcher surveys. Letter to Ms. Stacey Love Page 10 of 11 August 27, 2020 SURVEY RESULTS One vireo pair and four single male vireos were detected within the study area during the 2020 survey effort, though not all individuals were detected during each survey visit (Figure 4). One vireo pair (Pair No. 1) was observed within the northern portion of the study area, three male vireos were detected northwest of Winchester Road (Male No. 1, Male No. 2, and Male No. 3), and one male vireo was detected southeast of Winchester Road (Male No. 4) No banded individuals were observed during the survey; however, not all individuals were directly observed. A detailed description of LBVI locations and observations is included below. One vireo pair (Pair No. 1) was detected within the northern portion of the study area, approximately 1,100 feet north of Dendy Parkway. Only the male was heard singing within the area during the first survey visit. The male and female were both observed foraging together during the second survey visit. A male was heard singing during the third survey visit in the same general area and was counter-singing with another male vireo (Male No. 1) to the south. Both the male and female were observed foraging together during the fourth survey visit; both individuals were observed to be unbanded. The male was heard singing during the fifth through seventh survey visits, often heard simultaneously with Male No. 1, but was not detected during the eighth survey. A single, unbanded male vireo (Male No. 1) was detected in the northern portion of the study area, approximately 730 feet northeast of Dendy Parkway and 370 feet south of Pair No. 1 (Figure 4). The male was heard singing within the area during all eight survey visits, and was often heard simultaneously singing with the male from Pair No. 1 to the north and another male vireo (Male No. 2) to the south. The male was visually observed during the fourth survey and was confirmed to be unbanded. A single, unbanded male vireo (Male No. 2) was detected in the northern portion of the study area, east of the Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway intersection and approximately 820 feet south of Male No. 1 (Figure 4). The male was heard singing within the area during the first seven survey visits, often heard simultaneously with the Male No. 1 to the north, but was not detected during the eight survey. The male was visually observed during the fourth survey and was confirmed to be unbanded. A single male vireo (Male No. 3) was detected within the central portion of the study area, approximately 1,300 feet north of Winchester Avenue and south of the confluence of San Gertrudis Creek and Murrieta Creek (Figure 4). The male was heard singing on both the east and west banks of the creek during all eight survey visits. A single male vireo (Male No. 4) was detected in the central portion of the study area approximately 765 feet southeast of Winchester Road (Figure 4). The male was heard singing during all eight survey visits. The brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater; BHCO), a nest parasite of the LBVI, was detected during six of the eight surveys along Murrieta Creek (Figure 4). Observations of BHCO included singing and calling males, calling females, and individuals observed in courtship displays. Letter to Ms. Stacey Love Page 11 of 11 August 27, 2020 CERTIFICATION I certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accurately represents our work. Please contact Shelby Howard or us at (619) 462-1515 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Erica Harris Ezekiel Cooley Senior Scientist Biologist Lauren Singleton Daniel Torres Biologist Biologist Attachments: Figure 1: Regional Location Figure 2: USGS Topography Figure 3: Aerial Photograph Figure 4: 2020 Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Results !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?z ?Æ !"a$ !"a$ %&h( ?± !"a$ !"a$?¹ ?¹ %&h( ?± ?z ?¹AÐ !"`$ Añ ?¡ AÙ ?±?¿ A¨ ?¿ AÙ ?± ?¹ !"`$ !"`$ ?ø !"a$ ?a ?± AÎ ?Æ !"^$ ?å Añ ?¥%&h( !"`$ ?¡ AÔ ?³!Project Site SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CAMPPENDLETON MISSIONVIEJO SANCLEMENTE LAGUNABEACH ONTARIO RIVERSIDE CORONA LAKEELSINORE SAN BERNARDINO San t a A n a M o u n t a i n s San Be r n a r d i n o M o u n t a i n s RIVERSIDE COUNTY SAN DIEGO COUNTYRIVERSIDE COUNTY O R A N G E C O U N T Y San J a c i n t o M o u n t a i n s Littl e S a n B e r n a r d i n o M o u n t a i n s YUCCAVALLEY TWENTYNINEPALMS TEMECULA MURRIETA NORCO MORENOVALLEY BANNING BEAUMONT PALM DESERTHEMET SAN JACINTO COACHELLA PALMSPRINGSPERRIS Pacific Ocean Big Bear Lake MesquiteLake CoyoteLake LeeLake Alvord PerrisReservoir LakeMathews CanyonLake HemetLake LakeElsinore LakeCahuilla SkinnerReservoir Salton SeaVailLake Clark LakeO'NeillLake DiamondValley Lake Figure 1 Regional LocationH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\LBVI\Fig1_Regional.mxd DEA-12 7/29/2020 - SABSource: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 10 Miles Figure 2 USGS TopographyH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\LBVI\Fig2_USGS.mxd DEA-12 7/29/2020 - SABSource: MURRIETA & TEMECULA 7.5' Quad (USGS) Diaz Road Expansion 0 2,000 Feet K Project Site JEFFERSO N A V E Y N E ZRD R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A R DBUSINESSPARKDR DIAZ R D W INCHESTERRDD E L R I ORD D E N D Y P K W Y¬«79 §¨¦15 Figure 3 Aerial PhotographH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\LBVI\Fig3_Aerial.mxd DEA-12 8/10/2020 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 1,200 Feet Study Area Project Site !( #* #* #* #* kj kj kj kj kj kj kj JE F F E R S O N A V E Y N E Z R D WINCHESTER RDBUSIN E S S PARKDR D I A Z RDWINCHESTERRDDATEST DE L R IORD D EN DYPKWY¬«79 §¨¦15 Pair No.14/28/20- Male singing5/9/20 - Pair5/21/20 - Male singing6/4/20 - Pair6/19/20 - Male singing7/2/20 - Male singing7/13/20 - Male singing7/27/20 - Not Detected Male No.14/28/20- Male singing5/9/20 - Male singing5/21/20 - Male singing6/4/20 - Male singing6/19/20 - Male singing7/2/20 - Male singing7/13/20 - Male singing7/27/20 - Male singing Male No.24/28/20- Male singing5/9/20 - Male singing5/21/20 - Male singing6/4/20 - Male singing6/19/20 - Male singing7/2/20 - Male singing7/13/20 - Male singing7/27/20 - Not Detected Male No.34/28/20- Male singing5/9/20 - Male singing5/21/20 - Male singing6/4/20 - Male singing6/19/20 - Male singing7/2/20 - Male singing7/13/20 - Male singing7/27/20 - Male singing Male No.44/28/20- Male singing5/9/20 - Male singing5/21/20 - Male singing6/4/20 - Male singing6/19/20 - Male singing7/2/20 - Male singing7/13/20 - Male singing7/27/20 - Male singingWarmSpringsCreek MurrietaCreek Sa ntaGe rtru d isC re e kTucalotaCree kFigure 4 2020 Least Bell's Vireo Survey ResultsH:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\LBVI\Fig4_Resultsport.mxd DEA-12 8/24/2020 - SABSource: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)K Diaz Road Expansion 0 1,000 Feet Project Site Study Area Least Bell's Vireo Sighting !(Pair No.1 #*Male No.1 #*Male No.2 #*Male No.3 #*Male No.4 Brown-headed Cowbird kj Location Least Bell's Vireo Habitat Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub Appendix I Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Report HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 619.462.1515 tel 619.462.0552 fax www.helixepi.com August 27, 2020 DEA-12 Ms. Stacey Love U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2177 Salk Avenue, Suite 250 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Subject: 2020 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) Survey Report for the Diaz Road Expansion Project Dear Ms. Love: This letter presents the results of a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol presence/absence survey for the federally listed southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus; SWFL) conducted by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) for the Diaz Road Expansion Project (project). This report describes the methods used to perform the survey and the results. It is being submitted to the USFWS as a condition of HELIX’s Threatened and Endangered Species Permit TE-778195-14. PROJECT LOCATION The project is located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California (Figure 1, Regional Location). It is depicted within unsectioned lands in Township 7 South, Range 3 West and Township 8 South, Range 3 West, on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Murrieta and Temecula quadrangle maps (Figure 2, USGS Topography). The project proposes to improve an approximately 2.2-mile segment of Diaz Road located west of Interstate (I-) 15, approximately between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). The project study area includes the project site plus an additional 500 feet (Figure 3). The study area does not occur within or adjacent to USFWS-designated critical habitat for the species. METHODS The survey consisted of five site visits conducted by HELIX biologist Erica Harris (TE-778195-14) in accordance with the current USFWS approved survey protocol 1. The SWFL survey area included all 1 Sogge, Mark K., Ahlers, Darrell, and Sferra, Susan J. 2010. A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 2A-10. Letter to Ms. Stacey Love Page 2 of 5 August 27, 2020 suitable habitat located within the study area. Approximately 28.0 acres of potential SWFL habitat surveyed was composed of southern willow scrub located along Murrieta Creek, as well as southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest located in a tributary to Murrieta Creek (Figure 4, 2020 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Results). Survey protocol requires that five survey visits be conducted at least five days apart, between the hours of sunrise and 10:30 a.m., within the three specified survey periods. One survey was conducted during Survey Period 1 (May 15 to 31), two surveys were conducted during Survey Period 2 (June 1 to 24), and two surveys were conducted during Survey Period 3 (June 25 to July 17). The surveys were conducted by walking within and along the perimeter of suitable SWFL habitat present within the study area. Surveys were conducted with binoculars to aid in bird detection. Recorded SWFL vocalizations were played every 20 to 30 meters followed by a one-minute silent period to listen for a response. The survey route was arranged to ensure complete survey coverage of habitat with potential for occupancy by SWFL. The surveys were conducted on the same days as the protocol surveys for the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; LBVI). The permitted biologist for SWFL surveyed the entire survey area for both SWFL and LBVI; however, the surveys were not conducted concurrently. The LBVI survey was conducted sequentially after the SWFL survey. The surveyor surveyed for SWFL as they walked one direction along/within suitable SWFL habitat, and then surveyed for LBVI as they walked back the other direction. A separate survey report is being submitted for the LBVI surveys (HELIX in preparation). Table 1, Survey Information, details the survey dates, times, weather conditions, and survey results. Letter to Ms. Stacey Love Page 3 of 5 August 27, 2020 Table 1 SURVEY INFORMATION Survey Period1 Site Visit Survey Date Biologist Start/Stop Time Approx. Acres Surveyed/ Acres Per Hour Start/Stop Weather Conditions Survey Results 1 1 5/21/20 Erica Harris2 0730/0930 28.0 ac/ 14.0 ac per hr. 60°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds 68°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds • Single WIFL (Male No. 1) heard singing on eastern bank of Murrieta Creek between Dendry Parkway and Winchester Road near confluence of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Murrieta Creek. 2 2 6/4/20 Erica Harris2 0730/0930 28.0 ac/ 14.0 ac per hr. 70°F, wind 0-1 mph, 90% clouds 76°F, wind 0-1 mph, 55% clouds No flycatchers observed 2 3 6/19/20 Erica Harris2 0730/0930 28.0 ac/ 14.0 ac per hr. 61°F, wind 0-1 mph, 100% clouds 65°F, wind 0-1 mph, 100% clouds No flycatchers observed 3 4 7/2/20 Erica Harris2 0730/0930 28.0 ac/ 14.0 ac per hr. 64°F, wind 0-1 mph, 100% clouds 67°F, wind 0-1 mph, 100% clouds No flycatchers observed 3 5 7/13/20 Erica Harris2 0730/0930 28.0 ac/ 14.0 ac per hr. 70°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds 84°F, wind 0-1 mph, 0% clouds No flycatchers observed 1 Survey Period 1 (May 15 to 31), Survey Period 2 (June 1 to 24), Survey Period 3 (June 25 to July 17). 2 USFWS Permit TE-778195-14 Letter to Ms. Stacey Love Page 4 of 5 August 27, 2020 SURVEY RESULTS No breeding southwestern willow flycatchers were detected during the survey effort. One willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii; WIFL) was detected during the first survey in May. A single, male WIFL (Male No. 1) was heard signing along the eastern bank of Murrieta Creek, between Dendry Road and Winchester Road, near its confluence with Santa Gertrudis Creek (Figure 4). As noted below, the male could not be identified to subspecies. The male was not detected during the subsequent four surveys and no other WIFLs were detected during any of the surveys. The single observation of a male WIFL is presumed to be a migrating individual. The first survey period represents a time when other migratory subspecies of WIFL are moving through southern California, particularly northern breeding subspecies Empidonax traillii brewsteri and E.t. adastus, though migrants could still be travelling through the region during the second survey period. By the third survey period (beginning June 22nd), SWFL should be the only subspecies remaining within the southern California region, as the non-migrant period is generally considered from about June 15 to July 20 2. The detection of the single WIFL within study area occurred on May 21 during the first survey window and no other WIFL were detected during subsequent surveys. Therefore, it can be concluded that this individual most likely represents a migratory individual. No breeding SWFL were documented within the Diaz Road study area. Furthermore, no documented breeding occurrences of southwestern willow flycatcher occur along Murrieta Creek 3,4. A Willow Flycatcher Survey and Detection Form has been completed and is included as Attachment A, Willow Flycatcher Survey and Detection Form. CERTIFICATION I certify that the information in this survey report and attached exhibits fully and accurately represents our work. Please contact Shelby Howard or me at (619) 462-1515 should you have any questions. Sincerely, Erica Harris Senior Scientist 2 Unitt, P., 1987, Empidonax traillii extimus: an endangered subspecies: Western Birds, v. 18, no. 3, p. 137-162. 3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. RareFind Database Program, Version 5. 4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Occurrence Information for Multiple Species within Jurisdiction of the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office (CFWO). Retrieved from: http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/gis/cfwogis.html Letter to Ms. Stacey Love Page 5 of 5 August 27, 2020 Attachments: Figure 1: Regional Location Figure 2: USGS Topography Figure 3: Aerial Photograph Figure 4: 2020 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Results Attachment A: Willow Flycatcher Survey and Detection Form San B e r n a r d i n o M o u n t a i n s !!!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! L ! itt ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! l ! e S a n B e r !!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! na ! ! ! O R A N G E C O Sa U nt N a TY Ana ! ! ! ! ! ! ! M ! o ! ! u ! ! nt ! ! !ai ! ! ! n ! s ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! rdi San J no M o u n a t cin t o M ains ou n t a i n s ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ?å Big Bear Lake ?ø SAN BERNARDINO ONTARIO ?¥ ! !?a AÔ CoyoteLake Diaz Road Expansion MesquiLake te YUCCAVALLEY ?¡ TWENTYNINEPALMS !"`$%&h( ?RIVER zSIDE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY !"a$!"`$ NORCO BANNING?MORENO zVALLEY ?¡!"`$ ! AÆ?lvord CORONA LakeMathews %&h( !"a$PERRIS \GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\SWFL\Fig1_Regional.mxd DEA-12 7/24/2020 - SAB LeeLake ?± AÎ E LAKE CanyonLSINORE Lake E Lakelsinore MISSIONVIEJO %&h( !"a$ A MURRIETA ?± C SANLEMENTE !"^$ PacificOcean CAMPPENDLETON ?± ?¹ EMECU ?³!PerrisReservo BEAUMONT ir ?¹ AÐ SAN JACINTO SPRPAILMNGS ?¹ AÙ HEMET PALM DESERT COACHELLA DiamondValley Lake !"`$ HemeLake t LakeCahuill?± a Skinner ?±Reservoir ?¿ AñProject Si e A¨ AÙt T LA VailLake Salton Sea !"a$?¹ RIVERSIDE COUNTY ?¿ SAN DIEGO COUNTY H: O'NeillLake Clark Lake Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013)0 10 Miles K Regional Location Figure 1 Diaz Road Expansion \GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\SWFL\Fig2_USGS.mxd DEA-12 7/24/2020 - SAB H: 0 2,000 Feet K Project Site Source: MURRIETA & TEMECULA 7.5' Quad (USGS) USGS Topography Figure 2 \GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\SWFL\Fig3_Aerial.mxd DEA-12 8/10/2020 - SABH: Diaz Road Expansion JEFFERSO N A V E Y N E ZRD R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A R D BU SIN E S S PARKDR DIAZ R D W INCHESTERRD D E L R I ORD DE N DY P K W Y ¬«79 §¨¦15 0 1,200 Feet Study Area Project Site Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2019) Figure 3 Aerial Photograph K az Road Expans S O L A N A WAY VIANORTE Di ion Study Area Project Site Willow Flycatcher Sighting* #*Male No.1 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Habitat* Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest Southern Willow Scrub *Southwestern willow flycatcher was not detected during 2020 protocol-level survey effort. The observation of willow flycatcher during the first !survey visit is presumed to be a migrating individual based on the lack of subsequent detections. H:\GIS\PROJECTS\D\DEA-All\DEA-12\Map\SWFL\Fig4_Results.mxd DEA-12 8/10/2020 - SAB #* NI C O L E L N YNEZRD RA N C H O C A L IF O R N IA R D JEFFERSO N A V E RANCHOVISTARD YN E Z R D MARGARITA RD R A N C H O C A L I F O R N I A R D BU SIN E S S P ARKDR DIAZ R D W INCHESTERRD D E L R I O R D D E N D Y P K W Y ¬«79 §¨¦15 Male No.15/21/20 - Male singing6/4/20 - Not Detected6/19/20 - Not Detected7/2/20 - Not Detected7/13/20 - Not Detected MurrietaCreek SantaGertrudisCreek Source: Aerial (Maxar, 2019)0 1,100 Feet K 2020 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Survey Results Figure 4 Willow Flycatcher (WIFL) Survey and Detection Form (revised April, 2010) Site Name: Diaz Road Expansion Project State: CA County: San Diego USGS Quad Name: Murrieta/Temecula Elevation: 310 (meters) Creek, River, or Lake Name: Murrieta Creek Is copy of USGS map marked with survey area and WIFL sightings attached (as required)? Yes X No Survey Coordinates: Start: E 485622 N 3706614 UTM Datum: WSG84 (See instructions) Stop: E 483335 N 3709136 UTM Zone: 11N If survey coordinates changed between visits, enter coordinates for each survey in comments section on back of this page. **Fill in additional site information on back of this page** Nest(s) Found? Y or N If Yes, number of nests Survey # 1 # Birds Sex UTM N Observer(s): 1 M 3708791 Erica Harris Survey # 2 # Birds Sex UTM N Observer(s): Erica Harris Survey # 3 # Birds Sex UTM N Observer(s): Erica Harris Survey # 4 # Birds Sex UTM N Observer(s): Erica Harris Survey # 5 # Birds Sex UTM N Observer(s): Erica Harris Yes No X 10.00 483756 Survey # Observer(s) (Full Name) Date (m/d/y) Survey Time Number of Adult WIFLs Estimated Number of Pairs Estimated Number of Territories Comments (e.g., bird behavior; evidence of pairs or breeding; potential threats [livestock, cowbirds, Diorhabda spp.]). If Diorhabda found, contact USFWS and State WIFL coordinator. GPS Coordinates for WIFL Detections (this is an optional column for documenting individuals, pairs, or groups of birds found on each survey). Include additional sheets if necessary. Date: N Total survey hrs.: 0 0 0 0 If yes, report color combination(s) in the comments section on back of form and report to USFWS. 2.00 Date: 0 Total Nests N UTM E 00 0 1 0 5/21/2020 Be careful not to double count individuals. Overall Site Summary Totals do not equal the sum of each column. Include only resident adults. Do not include migrants, nestlings, and fledglings. Start: 7:30 9:30 Total hrs.: 2.00 7/13/2020 2.00 6/4/2020 0 0 n/a n/a N UTM E 0 9:30 0 Date: 7:30 9:30 0 Total Adult Residents Total Pairs Total Territories 9:30 Total hrs.: Start: Date: 0 6/19/2020 0 N Start: 2.00 Total hrs.: 0 Total hrs.: 7:30 Were any WIFLs color-banded? 7:30 Stop: 9:30 Start: 2.00 7/2/2020 N Stop: Stop: n/a n/a Stop: Date: Male singing from east side of Murrieta Creek. Passively monitored individual for approximately 15 minutes during which the male continued to vocalize with short breaks. Only detected aurally. Not detected during subsequent survey visits. Presumed to be a migrating individual. Brown-headed cowbird present along Murrieta Creek. UTM E Total hrs.: UTM E UTM E Start: 7:30 Stop: 0 Reporting Individual: Erica Harris Date Report Completed: 8/27/2020 US Fish & Wildlife Service Permit #: TE-778195-14 State Wildlife Agency Permit #: Submit form to USFWS and State Wildlife Agency by September 1st. Retain a copy for your records. X Fill in the following information completely. Submit form by September 1 st . Retain a copy for your records. Reporting Individual Erica Harris Phone # 619-462-1515 Affiliation HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. E-mail EricaH@helixepi.com Site Name Diaz Road Expansion Project Date report Completed Was this site surveyed in a previous year? Yes____ No__X__ Unknown____ 8/27/2020 Did you verify that this site name is consistent with that used in previous yrs? Yes No Not Applicable X If name is different, what name(s) was used in the past? N/A If site was surveyed last year, did you survey the same general area this year? Yes No If no, summarize below. Did you survey the same general area during each visit to this site this year? Yes No If no, summarize below. Management Authority for Survey Area: Federal Municipal/County X State Tribal Private Name of Management Entity or Owner (e.g., Tonto National Forest) City of Temecula/Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conseration District Length of area surveyed: 3.5 (km) Vegetation Characteristics: Check (only one) category that best describes the predominant tree/shrub foliar layer at this site: Native broadleaf plants (entirely or almost entirely, > 90% native) Mixed native and exotic plants (mostly native, 50 - 90% native) Mixed native and exotic plants (mostly exotic, 50 - 90% exotic) Exotic/introduced plants (entirely or almost entirely, > 90% exotic) Identify the 2-3 predominant tree/shrub species in order of dominance. Use scientific name. Salix lasiolepis, Schoenoplus acutus, Tamarix sp., Salix gooddingii Average height of canopy (Do not include a range): 4.5 (meters) Attach the following: 1) copy of USGS quad/topographical map (REQUIRED) of survey area, outlining survey site and location of WIFL detections; 2) sketch or aerial photo showing site location, patch shape, survey route, location of any detected WIFLs or their nests; 3) photos of the interior of the patch, exterior of the patch, and overall site. Describe any unique habitat features in Comments. Comments (such as start and end coordinates of survey area if changed among surveys, supplemental visits to sites, unique habitat features. Attach additional sheets if necessary. Stretch of Murrieta Creek between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road. Territory Summary Table. Provide the following information for each verified territory at your site. Territory Number All Dates Detected UTM E UTM N Pair Confirmed? Y or N Nest Found? Y or N Description of How You Confirmed Territory and Breeding Status (e.g., vocalization type, pair interactions, nesting attempts, behavior) No territories present Attach additional sheets if necessary Diaz Road Extension Project Cultural Resources Survey January 2022 | 00207.00012.001 Submitted to: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Prepared for: David Evans and Associates, Inc. 41951 Remington Ave., Suite 220 Temecula, CA 92590 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 Mary Robbins-Wade Cultural Resources Group Manager Diaz Road Extension Project Cultural Resources Survey Submitted to: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Prepared for: David Evans and Associates, Inc. 41951 Remington Ave., Suite 220 Temecula, CA 92590 Prepared by: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. 7578 El Cajon Boulevard La Mesa, CA 91942 January 2022 | 00207.00012.001 National Archaeological Database Information Authors: Mary Robbins Wade, M.A., RPA and James Turner, M.A., RPA with contributions by Theodore G. Cooley, M.A., RPA Firm: HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. Client/Project: David Evans and Associates, Inc. / Diaz Road Expansion Project Report Date: January 2022 Report Title: Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project, Temecula, California Submitted to: City of Temecula Type of Study: Cultural Resources Survey New Sites: None Updated Sites: None USGS Quad: Murrieta 7.5' Quadrangle Acreage: Approximately 2.2 linear miles Key Words: Temecula; Riverside County; Township 7 South, Range 3 West; Township 8 South, Range 3 West; Murrieta Creek; Diaz Road; archaeological survey; no archaeological resources found This page intentionally left blank i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Regulatory Framework ....................................................................................................... 1 1.3.1 Federal ................................................................................................................... 2 1.3.2 State ....................................................................................................................... 2 1.3.3 City of Temecula .................................................................................................... 3 1.3.4 Native American Heritage Values .......................................................................... 4 1.4 Area of Potential Effects ..................................................................................................... 5 1.5 Project Personnel ................................................................................................................ 5 2.0 PROJECT SETTING ............................................................................................................................. 5 2.1 Natural Setting .................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Prehistoric Period .................................................................................................. 6 2.2.2 Ethnohistory......................................................................................................... 10 2.2.3 Historical Background .......................................................................................... 11 3.0 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH AND CONTACT PROGRAM .......................................................................... 14 3.1 Records Search .................................................................................................................. 14 3.1.1 Previous Surveys .................................................................................................. 14 3.1.2 Previously Recorded Resources ........................................................................... 15 3.2 Other Archival Research ................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Native American Contact Program ................................................................................... 17 4.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS ........................................................................................ 19 4.1 Survey Overview ............................................................................................................... 19 4.1.1 Methods and Results ........................................................................................... 19 5.0 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 22 5.1 Management Recommendations ..................................................................................... 22 6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 24 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) LIST OF APPENDICES A Resumes B Records Search Results (Confidential, bound separately) C Native American Correspondence (Confidential, bound separately) LIST OF FIGURES No. Title Follows Page 1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................................. 2 2 USGS Topography ............................................................................................................................ 2 3 Project Area .................................................................................................................................... 2 LIST OF TABLES No. Title Page 1 Previous Studies Within or Adjacent to the Project Area .............................................................. 14 2 Previously Recorded Resources Within One Mile of the Project Area .......................................... 16 3 Native American Contact Program Responses .............................................................................. 18 iii ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AB Assembly Bill APE Area of Potential Effects APN Assessor’s Parcel Number BP Before Present CCR California Code of Regulations CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CRHR California Register of Historical Resources EIC Eastern Information Center HELIX HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places OHP Office of Historic Preservation PRC Public Resources Code SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer TCP Traditional Cultural Properties TCR Tribal Cultural Resources USGS U.S. Geological Survey iv This page intentionally left blank Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) was contracted by David Evans and Associates, Inc. to provide cultural resources services for the Diaz Road Expansion Project (project) in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The project is a proposed approximately 2.2 linear miles of city infrastructure improvements associated with the widening and/or construction of Diaz Road between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road. A cultural resources study including a records search, Sacred Lands File search, Native American outreach, a review of historic aerial photographs and maps, and a pedestrian survey was conducted for the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE). This report details the methods and results of the cultural resources study and has been prepared to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended. The records search obtained from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) on September 8, 2020 indicated that 138 previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within one mile of the project area, 17 of which overlap with the project area. The records search results also indicated that a total of 16 cultural resources have been previously recorded within one mile of the project area; however, no sites have been recorded within the project alignment. The field investigations included intensive pedestrian survey of the study area by a HELIX archaeologist and a Native American monitor on May 28, 2020. The survey did not result in the identification of any cultural material within the project area. Based on the results of the current study, no historic resources, per CEQA, or historic properties, per NHPA, will be affected by the Diaz Road Expansion Project and no impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. However, the Sacred Land File search results provided by the NAHC were returned with positive results. Due to these concerns, it is recommended that grading activities be monitored by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American monitor. Should the project limits change to incorporate new areas of proposed disturbance, an archaeological survey of these areas will be required. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 ES-2 This page intentionally left blank Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. (HELIX) was contracted by David Evans and Associates, Inc. to provide cultural resources services for the Diaz Road Expansion Project (project) in the City of Temecula (City), Riverside County, California. The project proposes 2.2 linear miles of City infrastructure improvements associated with the widening and/or construction of Diaz Road between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road. A cultural resources study including a records search, Sacred Lands File search, Native American outreach, a review of historic aerial photographs and maps, and a pedestrian survey was conducted for the Project Area of Potential Effects (APE). This report details the methods and results of the cultural resources study and has been prepared to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended. 1.1 PROJECT LOCATION The project is located in the City of Temecula in southwestern Riverside County (Figure 1, Regional Location). The project is located south of the Interstate (I-)215 and I-15 interchange and west of I-15, within Township 7 South, Range 3 West and Township 8 South, Range 3 West of the Temecula Land Grant, on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5' Murrieta quadrangle (Figure 2, USGS Topography). The approximately 2.2-linear mile project site consists of the existing Diaz Road corridor and is bordered by Rancho California Road to the south, Cherry Street to the north, and Murrieta Creek to the east (Figure 3, Aerial Photograph). The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) identified as being associated with the project site include segments of Diaz Road (APNs 909-120-006 and APN 909-370-050), the walking/biking pathway adjoining northeast of Diaz Road (APNs 921-740-004 & -005, and 909-120-016, - 021, -040, -051 & -055), and several small walled/fenced enclosures containing utility and water company infrastructure along the northeast side of Diaz Road at several locations between Rancho California Road and Cherry Street (APNs 909-370- 051, 909-120-044 & -056, and 921-740-002). 1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project proposes to improve Diaz Road to meet the roadway classification requirements of a major arterial with four divided lanes, as specified by City Standard No. 101, between Cherry Street and Rancho California Road. The standards call for a 100-foot minimum right-of-way, a 76-foot roadway with a 14-foot raised median, and 12-foot parkways on each side of the road. The approximately 2.2-mile long segment would be improved on its current horizontal alignment and as depicted in the City’s General Plan, Circulation Element, Figure C-2 Roadway Plan. As such, the proposed project would widen the existing Diaz Road segment and extend the northwestern end of Cherry Street. The project would complete the City’s only existing north-south corridor west of Murrieta Creek. North of Cherry Street, this north-south corridor is planned to continue as Washington Avenue within the City of Murrieta. 1.3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Cultural resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects, each of which may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, and/or scientific importance. Significant resources are those resources which have been found eligible to the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), as applicable. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 2 1.3.1 Federal Federal regulations that would be applicable to the project if there is a federal nexus, such as permitting by a federal agency, consist of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (16 United States Code 470 et seq., 36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800). Section 106 of the NHPA requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on “historic properties”, that is, properties (either historic or archaeological) that are listed on or eligible for listing on the NRHP. To be eligible for the NRHP, a property must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria: A. associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; B. associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; C. embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or D. has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. 1.3.2 State The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code (PRC) 21084.1, and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 14 Section 15064.5, address determining the significance of impacts to archaeological and historic resources and discuss significant cultural resources as “historical resources,” which are defined as: • resource(s) listed or determined eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing in the CRHR (14 CCR Section 15064.5[a][1]); • resource(s) either listed in the NRHP or in a “local register of historical resources” or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless “the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant” (14 CCR Section 15064.5[a][2]); and • resources determined by the Lead Agency to meet the criteria for listing on the CRHR (14 CCR Section 15064.5[a][3]). For listing in the CRHR, a historical resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; and/or San B e r n a r d i n o M o u n t a i n s !!!! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!!! ! !!! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! !! !!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! L ! itt ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! le S ! an B e r !!!! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! na ! ! ! O R A N G E C O Sa U nt N a TY Ana ! ! ! ! ! ! ! M ! o ! ! u ! ! nt ! ! !ai ! ! ! n ! s ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !!!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! rdi San J no M o u n a t cin t o M ains ou n t a i n s ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ?å Big Bear Lake ?ø SAN BERNARDINO ONTARIO ?¥ ! !?a Diaz Road Expansion Project AÔ CoyoteLake MesquiLake te YUCCAVALLEY ?¡ TWENTYNINEPALMS !"`$%&h( ?RIVER zSIDE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY RIVERSIDE COUNTY !"a$!"`$ NORCO BANNING?MORENO zVALLEY ?¡!"`$ ! AÆ?lvord CORONA LakeMathews %&h( !"a$PERRIS \PROJECTS\D\DEA\DEA-12_DiazRd\Map\NAHC\Fig1_Regional.mxd DEA-12 4/21/2020 - RK LeeLake ?± AÎ E LAKE CanyonLSINORE Lake E Lakelsinore MISSIONVIEJO %&h( !"a$ A MURRIETA ?± C SANLEMENTE Project Site !"^$ PacificOcean CAMPPENDLETON ?± ?¹ EMECU ?³!PerrisReservo BEAUMONT ir ?¹ AÐ SAN JACINTO SPRPAILMNGS ?¹ AÙ HEMET PALM DESERT COACHELLA DiamondValley Lake !"`$ HemeLake t LakeCahuill?± a Skinner ?±Reservoir ?¿ A A¨ AÙñ T LA VailLake Salton Sea !"a$?¹ RIVERSIDE COUNTY ?¿ SAN DIEGO COUNTY O'NeillLake Clark Lake I:0 10 Miles K Source: Base Map Layers (ESRI, 2013) Regional Location Figure 1 Diaz Road Expansion Project \PROJECTS\D\DEA\DEA-12_DiazRd\Map\NAHC\Fig2_USGS.mxdDEA-12 10/2/2020 -RK I: 2,000 Feet K Project Site Source: Murrieta and Temecula 7.5' Quad (USGS) USGS Topography Figure 2 0 \PROJECTS\D\DEA\DEA-12_DiazRd\Map\NAHC\Fig3_Aerial.mxdDEA-12 10/2/2020 -RK I: Diaz Road Expansion Project Project Site WINCHESTER RD WINCHESTER RD OVERLAND DR JE F F E R S O N A V E YN E Z R D AVENIDA ALVARADO DENDY PKWY REMINGTON AVE ZEVO DR RIO NEDO JEFF E R S O N A V E DE L R I O R D BUSI N E S S P A R K D R RANCHO CALIFORNIA R D VINCENT MORAGA DR DIA Z RD ENTER P R I S E C I R AD A M S A V E CHERRY ST !"a$ Source: Aerial (RCIT 2016)0 800 Feet K Figure 3 Project Area Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 3 4. It has yielded or has the potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. Under 14 CCR Section 15064.5(a)(4), a resource may also be considered a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA at the discretion of the lead agency. All resources that are eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR must have integrity, which is the authenticity of a historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Resources, therefore, must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. In an archaeological deposit, integrity is assessed with reference to the preservation of material constituents and their culturally and historically meaningful spatial relationships. A resource must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which it is proposed for nomination. Under Section 106 of the NHPA, actions that alter any of the characteristics that qualify a property for eligibility for listing in the NRHP “in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association” (36 CFR 800.5[a]) constitute an adverse effect to the historic property. 1.3.3 City of Temecula The City’s General Plan (2005) includes the following goal and related policies regarding cultural and historical resources as part of the Open Space and Conservation Element (City of Temecula 2005: OS-29-OS-28): Goal 6: Preservation of significant historical and cultural resources. Policies 6.1: Maintain an inventory of areas with archaeological/paleontological sensitivity, and historic sites in the Planning Area. 6.2: Work to preserve or salvage potential archaeological and paleontological resources on sites proposed for future development through the development review and mitigation monitoring processes. 6.3: Preserve and reuse historical buildings in accordance with the Old Town Specific Plan. 6.4: Assist property owners in seeking State and/or federal registration and appropriate zoning for historic sites and assets. 6.5: Pursue the acquisition and preservation of historical buildings for public facilities in accordance with the Old Town Specific Plan when appropriate. 6.6: Ensure compatibility between land uses and building designs in the Old Town Specific Plan Area and areas adjacent to Old Town. 6.7: Encourage use of California’s Historic Building Code when preserving/rehabilitating historic structures. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 4 6.8: Support an integrated approach to historic preservation in coordination with other affected jurisdictions, agencies, and organizations for areas within the Planning Area and surrounding region that seeks to establish linkages between historic sites or buildings with other historic features such as roads, trails, ridges, and seasonal waterways. 6.9: Encourage the preservation and re-use of historic structures, landscape features, roads, landmark trees, and trails. 6.10: Work with the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians to identify and appropriately address cultural resources and tribal sacred sites through the development review process. 6.11: Encourage voluntary landowner efforts to protect cultural resource and tribal sacred sites consistent with State requirements. 1.3.4 Native American Heritage Values Federal and state laws mandate that consideration be given to the concerns of contemporary Native Americans with regard to potentially ancestral human remains, associated funerary objects, and items of cultural patrimony. Consequently, an important element in assessing the significance of the study site has been to evaluate the likelihood that these classes of items are present in areas that would be affected by the proposed project. Potentially relevant to prehistoric archaeological sites is the category termed Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) in discussions of cultural resource management performed under federal auspices. According to Patricia L. Parker and Thomas F. King (1998), “Traditional” in this context refers to those beliefs, customs, and practices of a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations, usually orally or through practice. The traditional cultural significance of a historic property, then, is significance derived from the role the property plays in a community’s historically rooted beliefs, customs, and practices. Cultural resources can include TCPs, such as gathering areas, landmarks, and ethnographic locations, in addition to archaeological districts. Generally, a TCP may consist of a single site, or group of associated archaeological sites (district or traditional cultural landscape), or an area of cultural/ethnographic importance. In California, the Traditional Tribal Cultural Places Bill of 2004 requires local governments to consult with Native American Tribes during the project planning process, specifically before adopting or amending a General Plan or a Specific Plan, or when designating land as open space for the purpose of protecting Native American cultural places. The intent of this legislation is to encourage consultation and assist in the preservation of Native American places of prehistoric, archaeological, cultural, spiritual, and ceremonial importance. State Assembly Bill (AB) 52, effective July 1, 2015, introduced the Tribal Cultural Resource (TCR) as a class of cultural resource and additional considerations relating to Native American consultation into CEQA. As a general concept, a TCR is similar to the federally defined TCP; however, it incorporates consideration of local and state significance and the required mitigation under CEQA. A TCR may be considered significant if included in a local or state register of historical resources; or determined by the lead agency to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC §5024.1; or is a geographically defined cultural landscape that meets one or more of these criteria; or is a historical resource described in PRC §21084.1, a unique archaeological resource described PRC §21083.2; or is a non-unique archaeological resource if it conforms with the above criteria. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 5 1.4 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(a)(1), the APE is the geographic area within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly alter the character or use of historic properties. For the purposes of this report, the project APE consists of the 2.2-linear mile segment of Diaz Road from Rancho California Road in the south to Cherry Road in the north (see Figure 3). 1.5 PROJECT PERSONNEL A cultural resources survey was conducted by HELIX in 2020 to assess whether the project would have any effects on cultural resources. Mary Robbins-Wade, M.A., RPA served as the principal investigator and report co-author, Julie Roy, B.A. conducted the field survey, James Turner, M.A., RPA is report co- author, and Theodore G. Cooley, M.A., RPA served as report contributor. Resumes of key HELIX personnel are included as Appendix A. A Native American monitor from the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Mission Indians (Pechanga) participated in the survey. This report addresses the methods and results of the cultural resources survey, which included a records search, Sacred Land File search, Native American outreach, historic archival research, and an intensive pedestrian field survey. 2.0 PROJECT SETTING 2.1 NATURAL SETTING The project area lies within the foothills of the Temecula Valley at the eastern base of the Santa Ana and Elsinore mountains, and the Santa Rosa Plateau. The project alignment lies on the Elsinore Fault Zone and is situated just west of Murrieta Creek. The climate of western Riverside County is characterized as a semi-arid environment with low humidity and rainfall. Almost all rainfall occurs in the winter, but the region can also experience rare, intense summer thunderstorms. Wind is also a strong feature of this climatic regime, with dry winds in excess of 25 miles per hour in the late winter and early spring (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2014). The project area is characterized predominantly by urban development comprised of freeway infrastructure. Areas immediately surrounding the project area include transportation infrastructure and residential, large-scale recreational/commercial, and industrial development. The Murrieta Creek is located immediately to the east of the project area. Geologically, the project area is underlain by late Pleistocene and early Holocene age alluvial channel deposits consisting of fluvial sediments deposited on canyon floors. Within the project area, these deposits consist of relatively young valley alluvium deposits, containing unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay deposits (Kennedy and Morton n.d.). Older alluvial flood plain deposits line both the eastern and western sides of the Murrieta Creek—these deposits contain brown sandstone containing sparse cobbles and boulders. The nearby foothills of Santa Ana and Elsinore mountains are underlain by the Pauba formation; however, the mountains themselves mostly consist of granitic rocks dating to the Cretaceous Period and metavolcanics and metasedimentary rocks dating to the Jurassic Period (Kennedy and Morton n.d.; Tan and Kennedy 2000). Seven soil series are mapped for the project area: Chino silty loam (0 to 2 percent slopes, drained); Domino silty loam (0 to 2 percent slopes); Grangeville sandy loam, sandy substratum (0 to 5 percent slopes, drained); Grangeville fine sandy loam (0 to 2 percent slopes, drained); Grangeville fine sandy loam (0 to 5 percent slopes); Riverwash (0 to 8 percent slopes, Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 6 excessively drained); and Willows silty clay (0 to 2 percent slopes, deep, saline-alkali). The Chino silty loam represents the majority of the soils in the area (Web Soil Survey 2019). Prehistorically, these soil series likely sustained native grassland species. Prehistorically, the natural vegetation in the project area likely consisted of riparian vegetation along the Murrieta Creek drainage, coastal sage scrub and native grasslands in adjacent hill areas, and chaparral in the upper elevations of the adjacent mountains. Prior to historic and modern activities, well-watered drainages such as Murrieta Creek likely contained stands of riparian communities with plants such as western sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and willow (Salix sp.). Native grassland plants include Stipa, Elymus, Poa, and Muhlenbergia sp. Plants of the coastal sage scrub community include California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), white sage (Salvia apiana), flat-top buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), broom baccharis (Baccharis sarothroides), wild onion (Allium haematochiton), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), San Diego sunflower (Bahiopsis laciniata), golden-yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), sawtooth goldenbush (Hazardia squarrosa), yucca (Yucca schidigera, Hesperoyucca whipplei), prickly pear cactus (Opuntia sp.), and scrub oak (Quercus dumosa) (Hall 2007; Munz 1974). Major wildlife species found in this environment prehistorically were coyote (Canis latrans); mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus); grizzly bear (Ursus arctos); mountain lion (Puma concolor); desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii); jackrabbit (Lepus californicus); and various rodents, the most notable of which are the valley pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), California ground squirrel (Ostospermophilus beecheyi), and dusky footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) (Head 1972). Desert cottontails, jackrabbits, and rodents were very important to the prehistoric diet; deer were somewhat less significant for food, but were an important source of leather, bone, and antler. Many of the plant and animal species naturally occurring in the project vicinity are known to have been used by native populations for food, medicine, tools, ceremonial and other uses (Bean and Shipek 1978; Hedges and Beresford 1986; Luomala 1978; Sparkman 1908). 2.2 CULTURAL SETTING 2.2.1 Prehistoric Period Moratto (1984) has previously defined eight archaeological regions and 16 subregions for California. The location of the project places it within the boundary of the San Diego subregion of the Southern Coast Region, but it is also located adjacent to the boundary with the Colorado River subregion of the Desert Region (Moratto 1984: 148, Figure 4.13). The following culture history briefly describes the known prehistoric cultural Traditions and chronology of archaeological sites in the vicinity of the project. The approximately 10,000 years of documented prehistory of the region has often been divided into three periods: Early Prehistoric Period, Archaic Period, and Late Prehistoric Period. Prior to 1984, when Moratto defined the San Diego subregion, little archaeological investigation had occurred in the westernmost Riverside and San Bernardino counties portion of this subregion. This paucity of archaeological information limited the ability of researchers to assess the cultural and temporal associations for the archaeological resources in this part of the subregion. One of the few early studies to occur in this area prior to 1984 was conducted near Temecula in the early the 1950s at a site identified as the ethnohistoric village of Temeku (McCown 1955). The investigation produced a substantial, primarily Late Prehistoric Period, artifact assemblage, but with some possible late Archaic materials as well. Another study, conducted in the 1970s, for the construction of the Perris Reservoir (O’Connell et al. 1974, eds.), consisted of investigations at several sites and was, perhaps, the most extensive study conducted in the area prior to 1984. The results, which included several radiocarbon Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 7 dates, indicated a predominance of occupation at the sites during the Late Prehistoric Period, AD 1500, but with some limited evidence for occupation as early as 380 BC (Bettinger 1974:159-162). During the last approximately 35 years since 1984, several substantial archaeological studies have occurred that have served to substantially augment the archaeological record for the area (e.g., Applied Earth Works, Inc. 2001; Grenda 1997). Based on the information provided by these and other subsequent studies in the area, Sutton and Gardner (2010) and others have recently begun to define the prehistory of this area of the San Diego subregion and how it fits in with the previously better-known areas of the subregion. The three chronological periods defined for the prehistory of the San Diego subregion are described below. 2.2.1.1 Early Prehistoric Period The Early Prehistoric Period represents the time of the entrance of the first known human inhabitants into California. In some areas of California, it is referred to as the Paleo-Indian period and is associated with the big-game-hunting activities of the peoples of the last Ice Age, occurring during the Terminal Pleistocene (pre-10,000 years ago) and the Early Holocene (beginning circa 10,000 years ago) (Erlandson 1994, 1997; Erlandson et al. 2007). In the western United States, the most substantial evidence for the Paleo-Indian or Big-Game-Hunting peoples, derives from finds of large fluted spear and projectile points (Fluted-Point Tradition) at sites in places such as Clovis and Folsom in the Great Basin and the Desert Southwest (Moratto 1984:79–88). In California, most of the evidence for the Fluted-Point Tradition derives principally from areas along the western margins of the Great Basin including the eastern Sierras and the Mojave Desert, and in the southern Central Valley (Dillon 2002; Rondeau et al. 2007). Elsewhere in California, with the exception of a site in the north coast ranges in northwestern California, CA-LAK-36, only isolated occurrences of fluted spear points have occurred, scattered around the state (Dillon 2002; Rondeau et al. 2007). These isolated occurrences have, however, included two fluted points or fluted point fragments discovered relatively recently in, or in close proximity to, the San Diego subregion; one in the mountainous eastern area of San Diego County approximately 35 miles to the southeast of the project area (Kline and Kline 2007) and another along the coast approximately 40 miles to the northwest of the project area in adjacent Orange County (Fitzgerald and Rondeau 2012). Two examples have also been discovered to the south in Baja California (Des Lauriers 2008; Hyland and Gutierrez 1995). Despite these isolated occurrences of fluted points in the San Diego subregion and Baja California, to date none have been found in the western Riverside or San Bernardino counties area (Dillon 2002; Rondeau et al. 2007). The earliest sites in the San Diego subregion, documented to be over 9,000 years old, belong to the San Dieguito Tradition (Warren et al. 1998; Warren and Ore 2011). The San Dieguito Tradition, with an artifact assemblage distinct from that of the Fluted Point Tradition, has been documented mostly in the coastal and near coastal areas in San Diego County (Carrico et al. 1993; Rogers 1966; True and Bouey 1990; Warren 1966; Warren and True 1961), as well as in the southeastern California deserts (Rogers 1939, 1966; Warren 1967). The content of the earliest component of the C.W. Harris Site (CA-SDI- 149/316/4935B), located along the San Dieguito River in San Diego County, formed the basis upon which Warren and others (Rogers 1966; Vaughan 1982; Warren 1966, 1967; Warren and True 1961) identified the “San Dieguito complex,” which Warren later reclassified as the San Dieguito Tradition (1968). This Tradition is characterized by an artifact inventory consisting almost entirely of flaked stone biface and scraping tools, but lacking the fluted points associated with the Fluted-Point Tradition. Diagnostic artifact types and categories associated with the San Dieguito Tradition include elongated bifacial knives; scraping tools; crescentics; and Silver Lake, Lake Mojave, and leaf-shaped projectile points (Knell and Becker 2017; Rogers 1939; Warren 1967). Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 8 Some researchers interpret the San Dieguito Tradition/complex as having a primarily, but not exclusively, hunting subsistence orientation, sufficiently hunting-oriented as to be distinct from the more gathering-oriented complexes of traits that were to follow in the Archaic Period (Warren 1968; Warren et al. 1998). Other researchers see the San Dieguito subsistence system as less focused on hunting and more diversified, therefore, possibly ancestral to, or a developmental stage for, the subsequent, predominantly gathering-oriented Encinitas Tradition, denoted in the San Diego area as the “La Jolla/Pauma complex” (cf. Bull 1983, 1987; Ezell 1987; Gallegos 1987, 1991; Koerper et al. 1991). While little definite evidence for the San Dieguito Tradition has been discovered in other coastal and near-coastal areas of southern California outside of San Diego County, some evidence for it has been discovered relatively recently in the eastern Mountains of San Diego County (Pigniolo 2005) and in a coastal area to the north, in Los Angeles County (Sutton and Grenda 2012). 2.2.1.2 Archaic Period During the subsequent Archaic Period, artifact assemblages of the Milling Stone Horizon/Encinitas Tradition occur at a range of coastal and adjacent inland sites, and, in contrast to those of the previous Early Prehistoric Period, are relatively common in the study area region. These assemblages appear to indicate that a relatively stable, sedentary, predominantly gathering complex, possibly associated with one people, was present in the coastal and immediately inland areas of southern California for more than 7,000 years (Grenda 1997; Sutton and Gardner 2010; Warren 1968; Warren et al. 1998). Warren has proposed that, during the Archaic Period in the south coastal region, the Encinitas Tradition began circa 8,500 years ago and extended essentially unchanged until circa 1,500 years ago (Warren 1968:2; Warren et al. 1998). Also, during the Archaic Period in the coastal region, beginning somewhere north of San Diego and extending to Santa Barbara, a fourth cultural assemblage, variously described as the intermediate Horizon (Wallace 1955) or Campbell Tradition (Warren 1968), has been delineated and distinguished, following the Milling Stone Horizon/Encinitas Tradition. This assemblage is distinguished from earlier Archaic assemblages by the presence of large projectile points and milling tools such as the mortar and pestle. The time period of this assemblage is viewed as beginning circa 4,800 years ago and continuing to as late as 1,300 years ago (Warren 1968). While still a matter of some debate, Warren and others (1998) have subsequently termed the time period encompassing the extent of the intermediate/ Campbell cultural assemblage in the southernmost coastal region as the Final Archaic Period. In the western Riverside County area, archaeological investigations conducted in Perris Valley for the Perris Reservoir project produced a single radiocarbon date of circa 2200 years before present (BP) and a few diagnostic artifacts as the only evidence for a late Archaic Period occupation at the archaeological sites investigated (Bettinger 1974:159-162). More recently, large-scale archaeological investigations have been conducted for the Eastside Reservoir (Diamond Valley Lake) Project, located approximately 12 miles northeast of the study area. This project involved construction, within the adjacent Domenigoni and Diamond valleys, of the Diamond Valley Lake reservoir and the associated Eastside Reservoir Project (Goldberg 2001; Robinson 2001). Based on the results from this project, the researchers developed a local chronology specific to the Domenigoni and Diamond valleys based on projectile point style changes and associated radiocarbon dates (Robinson 2001). The terminology in this chronology resembles that already presented above, with the period from 9,500 to 7,000 years ago designated as the Early Archaic period, the period from 7,000 to 4,000 years ago as the Middle Archaic, and the period from 4,000 to 1,500 years ago as the Late Archaic. In the Eastside Reservoir Project, only two components could be firmly dated to the Early Archaic, but sparse evidence of Early Archaic activity was noted in six other localities. One site did, however, produce two radiocarbon dates of 9190±50 BP and 9310±60 BP Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 9 (McDougall 2001). For the Middle Archaic, firm evidence was documented in 14 locations, with traces at four other sites. During the Late Archaic, a profusion of activity and occupation was evident, with 23 firmly dated site components and sparse evidence at eight other localities (Goldberg 2001:524). Another archaeological investigation conducted in the general vicinity of the project area has also produced evidence for prehistoric occupation in the western Riverside County region during the earliest part of the Archaic Period. This investigation occurred at Lake Elsinore, located approximately 14 miles to the northwest of the study area (Grenda 1997). This natural lake is situated in a fault-created basin whose principal source of water in prehistoric times was the San Jacinto River (Grenda 1997:3). Archaeological investigations conducted at a site located along the old lake shoreline indicated occupation as early as 8,500 years ago (Grenda 1997). Thus, prehistoric occupation during the Archaic Period in the study area vicinity is documented to have occurred possibly as early as 9,300 years ago, and remained present to the end of the period, approximately 1,500 years ago. While this temporal extent correlates with Warren’s original proposed extent of the Encinitas Tradition, refinement of his characterization of the Tradition as being a relatively stable, sedentary, predominantly gathering complex, possibly associated with one people, and with an extent mostly restricted to the San Diego County area, may now, based on new information available, be subject to some revision (cf. Sutton and Gardner 2010). 2.2.1.3 Late Prehistoric Period The beginning of the Late Prehistoric Period, circa 1,500 years ago, is seen as marked by a number of rather abrupt changes. The magnitude of these changes and the short period of time within which they took place are reflected in significant alteration of previous subsistence practices and the adoption of significant new technologies. As discussed further below, some of this change may have been as a result of significant variations in the climatic conditions. Subsistence and technological changes that occurred include a shift from hunting using atlatl and dart to the bow and arrow; a de-emphasizing of shellfish gathering along some areas of the coast (possibly due to silting-in of the coastal lagoons); and an increase in the storage of crops, such as acorns and pinyon nuts. Other new traits introduced during the Late Prehistoric Period include the production of pottery and cremation of the dead, and, locally, in the western Riverside County area, a shift in settlement pattern is apparent (cf. Wilke 1974). This shift in settlement is first noted during the early part of the period from 1,500 to 750 years ago, and is evidenced, locally, in the results from the Eastside Reservoir Project by a rather sudden decline in occupation in the local area during the initial part of the period. This 750-year period was termed by the Eastside Reservoir researchers as the Saratoga Springs Period, following Warren’s (1984) desert terminology. This period can also be seen to partially coincide with a warm and arid period known as the Medieval Warm Period, documented to have occurred between approximately 1,100 and 600 years ago (Jones et al. 1999; Kennett and Kennett 2000; Stine 1994). During this period, at least two episodes of severe drought have also been demonstrated, the first calibrated to between 1060 and 840 BP and the second between 740 and 650 BP (Goldberg 2001; Stine 1994). Goldberg (2001) hypothesized that the Medieval Warm Period could account for the decline in sites occurring in the Eastside Reservoir Project area during the Saratoga Springs Period (1500 to 750 BP), claiming that desert and inland areas of western Riverside County, such as where the Eastside Reservoir Project and the current study area are located, would no longer be suitable to support residential bases. Goldberg (2001) further hypothesized that settlements would possibly be clustered at more suitable water sources during this time, such as at the coast, Lake Cahuilla, or Lake Elsinore (cf. Wilke 1974). While a decline was noted during the initial part of the Saratoga Springs Period, subsequently, during the latter part of the period, during the time of Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 10 the Medieval Warm Period, a reoccupation began to occur (Goldberg 2001:578). According to Goldberg “When components dating to the Medieval Warm segment of the Saratoga Springs Period are segregated and combined with Medieval Warm components from the Late Prehistoric Period, it shows that the frequency of refuse deposits and artifact and toolstone caches during the Medieval Warm is slightly higher than during the Late Archaic and much higher than during the later portion of the Late Prehistoric Period” (2001:578). In the Eastside Reservoir Project, the Late Prehistoric Period was defined as extending from the end of the Saratoga Springs Period (750 BP) to 410 BP. A subsequent Protohistoric Period was also defined as extending from 410 to 150 BP. The Late Prehistoric (750–410 BP) was characterized by the presence of Cottonwood projectile points, although research indicated that Cottonwood points had actually begun to appear in the Eastside Reservoir Project study area as early as 950 BP. Ceramics and abundant obsidian begin to appear around the time of the Cabrillo exploration in AD 1542; thus this date (i.e., circa 410 BP), until the establishment of the mission system in the late 1700s, was defined as the Protohistoric Period (Robinson 2001). It should also be noted that the end of the Saratoga Springs Period and the beginning of the Late Prehistoric Period, 750 BP, also coincides with the onset of the Little Ice Age, generally dated from 750 to 150 BP (Goldberg 2001; Sutton et al. 2007). During this period, the climate was cooler and moister, and the sites identified within the Eastside Reservoir Project study area reflected a substantial increase in number and diversity, longer occupation periods, and more sedentary land use. Similar intensification of land use also occurred during this time in neighboring San Gorgonio Pass (Bean et al. 1991) and Perris Valley (Wilke 1974). 2.2.2 Ethnohistory The project area is within the traditional territory of the Luiseño people (Kroeber 1925: Plate 57; Pechanga Tribal Government n.d.), although some ethnographers place the area of the project in proximity to a transitional area between the Luiseño and a related cultural group, the Cahuilla (Bean 1972, 1978; Bean and Shipek 1978). The Luiseño and Cahuilla, along with the Gabrielino, Juaneño, and Cupeño, comprise the Cupan group of the Takic subfamily of the Uto-Aztecan linguistic stock (Bean and Vane 1979; Miller 1986; Shipley 1978). The name Luiseño derives from Mission San Luis Rey de Francia and has been used to refer to the Native people associated with the mission. The Luiseño followed a seasonal gathering cycle, with bands occupying a series of campsites within their territory (Bean and Shipek 1978; White 1963). The Luiseño lived in semi-sedentary villages usually located along major drainages, in valley bottoms, and also on the coastal strand, with each family controlling gathering areas (Bean and Shipek 1978; Sparkman 1908; White 1963). True (1990) indicated that the predominant determining factor for placement of villages and campsites was locations where water was readily available, preferably on a year-round basis. While most of the major Luiseño villages known ethnographically were located closer to the coast along the Santa Margarita River Valley and the San Luis Rey River Valley (Bean and Shipek 1978; Kroeber 1925; White 1963), Kroeber does indicate general locations for three Luiseño villages in more inland areas. He places the village of Panache in proximity to Lake Elsinore and the confluence of the San Jacinto River and Temescal Creek, approximately 15 miles to the northwest of the project area, and the villages of Temeku and Meha in the vicinity of the confluence of the upper Santa Margarita River, Murrieta Creek, and Temecula Creek, approximately two miles to the south of the project area (Kroeber 1925: Plate 57; McCown 1955:1). Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 11 It must be noted that interpretation by archaeologists and linguistic anthropologists may differ from the beliefs and traditional knowledge of the Luiseño people. The Luiseño creation story indicates that the Luiseño people have always been here, not migrating from elsewhere. The creation story of the Pechanga people tells that the world was created at Temecula. “The Káamalam [first people] moved to a place called Nachíivo Pomíisavo, but it was too small, so they moved to a place called ‘exva Teméeku,’ this place you know now as Temeku. Here they settled while everything was still in darkness (DuBois 1908)” (Masiel-Zamora 2013:2). A traditional Luiseño story tells of a great flood, and the people went to higher ground, where they were saved. The San Luis Rey Band say that this higher ground where the people were saved is Morro Hill. Some Luiseño informants indicated the place in this story is a hill just east of Highway 395 in the San Luis Rey River Valley (Cupples and Hedges 1977). 2.2.3 Historical Background 2.2.3.1 Spanish Period While Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo visited San Diego briefly in 1542, the beginning of the historic period in the San Diego region is generally given as 1769. In the mid-eighteenth century, Spain had escalated its involvement in California from exploration to colonization (Weber 1992) and in that year, a Spanish expedition headed by Gaspar de Portolá and Junípero Serra established the Royal Presidio of San Diego. Portolá then traveled north from San Diego seeking suitable locations to establish military presidios and religious missions in order to extend the Spanish Empire into Alta California. The first documented Spanish contact in what is now Riverside County was by Spanish military captain Juan Bautista de Anza who led expeditions in 1774 and 1775 from Sonora to Monterey (Bolton 1930). Anza embarked on the initial expedition to explore a land route northward through California from Sonora, with the second expedition bringing settlers across the land route to strengthen the colonization of San Francisco (Rolle 1963). Anza’s route led from the San Jacinto Mountains northwest through the San Jacinto Valley, which was named “San José” by Anza. Little documentation exists of Anza’s route being used after the two expeditions, although it was likely used to bring Spanish supplies into the newly colonized Alta California (Lech 2004). In 1781, the Spanish government closed the route due to uprisings by the Yuman Indians. However, by that time, the missions were established and self- sufficient; thus, the need for Spanish supplies from Sonora had begun to diminish. Although Riverside County proved to be too far inland to include any missions within its limits, Missions San Juan Capistrano and San Luis Rey de Francia, established in 1776 and 1798 respectively, claimed a large part of southwestern Riverside County. The Spanish missions did not have as direct an effect on the inland tribal groups as they did on the Native people who lived along the coast (Bean 1978). On the coast, the Luiseño were moved into the Mission environment, where living conditions and diseases promoted the decline of the Luiseño population (Bean and Shipek 1978). However, throughout the Spanish Period, the influence of the Spanish progressively spread further from the coast and into the inland areas of southern California as Missions San Luis Rey and San Gabriel extended their influence into the surrounding regions and used the lands for grazing cattle and other animals. In the 1810s, ranchos and mission outposts called asistencias were established, increasing the amount of Spanish contact in the region. An asistencia was established in Pala in 1818 and in San Bernardino in 1819. Additionally, Rancho San Jacinto was established for cattle grazing in the San Jacinto Valley (Bean and Vane 1980; Brigandi 1999). In 1820, Father Payeras, a senior mission official, promoted the idea that the San Bernardino and Pala asistencias be developed into full missions in order to establish an inland Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 12 mission system (Lech 2004). However, Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821, bringing an end to the Spanish Period in California. 2.2.3.2 Mexican Period Although Mexico gained its independence from Spain in 1821, Spanish patterns of culture and influence remained for a time. The missions continued to operate as they had in the past, and laws governing the distribution of land were also retained in the 1820s. Following secularization of the missions in 1834, large ranchos were granted to prominent and well-connected individuals, ushering in the Rancho Era, with the society making a transition from one dominated by the church and the military to a more civilian population, with people living on ranchos or in pueblos. With the numerous new ranchos in private hands, cattle ranching expanded and prevailed over agricultural activities. In order to obtain a rancho, an applicant submitted a petition containing personal information and a land description and map (diseño). In 1840, Pio Pico secured a provisional grant to Rancho Temecula (Gerstbacher 1994). The Rancho ultimately was granted to Felix Valdes, a Mexican army officer, in December 1844. He would later sell Rancho Temecula to his attorney, Luis Vignes in 1846 (Gerstbacher 1994). 2.2.3.3 American Period American governance began in 1848, when Mexico signed the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ceding California to the United States at the conclusion of the Mexican–American War. California’s acquisition by the United States substantially increased the growth of the population in California. The California gold rush, the end of the Civil War, and the passage of the Homestead Act implementing the United States’ manifest destiny to occupy and exploit the North American continent brought many people to California after 1848. While the American system required that the newly acquired land be surveyed prior to settlement, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo bound the United States to honor the land claims of Mexican citizens who were granted ownership of ranchos by the Mexican government (Lech 2004). The Land Act of 1851 established a board of commissioners to review land grant claims, and land patents for the land grants were issued from 1876 to 1893. In November 1851, Antonio Garra of Cupa (now Warner Springs) attempted to unite all of the Native American tribes of Southern California to drive out the Americans. This outbreak of violence, known as the Garra revolt, was attributed to the levying of taxes upon converted Indians by the San Diego County Sherriff (Bibb 1991). Garra was ultimately captured by Juan Antonio, chief of the Cahuilla, and was turned over to the Americans. The Treaty of Temecula was signed on January 5, 1852 at the Apis Adobe in Temecula. This treaty created a reservation for the Temecula Indians in order to protect them and their lands from American and Californio incursions. It also forced them to cede all other land to the government, though it did provide assistance to the Indians to establish agriculture for subsistence (Bibb 1991). Signed by President Zachary Taylor, the treaty was ultimately rejected by the U.S. Senate in response to lobbying by land speculators and settlers (Bibb 1991; Gerstbacher 1994; Van Horn 1974). Southern California was developed by Americans and other immigrants who migrated to the western frontier in pursuit of gold and other mining, agriculture, trade, and land speculation (Lech 2004). Initially southern California was divided into only two counties: Los Angeles and San Diego. In 1853, San Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 13 Bernardino County was added, placing what is now Riverside County primarily within San Diego County and partially within San Bernardino County. Orange County divided from Los Angeles County in 1889. Riverside County was created on March 11, 1893, when California Governor Markham signed a bill that combined a small portion of San Bernardino County and a large portion of San Diego County (Gerstbacher 1994). In 1859, the 26,608.54-acre Rancho Temecula was granted to Luis Vignes by the U.S. Land Office (Gerstbacher 1994). The rancho would later be purchased in 1875 by Juan Murrieta, Domingo Pujol, and Francisco Zanjuro. Murrieta and Zanjuro were part of an 1875 posse formed by the San Diego County Sheriff to evict the Temecula Indians from Little Temecula Rancho, located south of the project area (Gerstbacher 1994). In 1857, John Butterfield won a six year, $600,000-a-year federal contract to transport mail between St. Louis, Missouri and San Francisco twice a week within 25 days, stopping in Temecula at the Magee Store. Although lack of water and conflicts with Native Americans plagued the mail line, it was a success; almost without exception, the mail was transported in the required amount of time (Helmich 2008). By May 1859, Temecula saw the establishment of its first post office, the second ever in the state of California (Brigandi n.d.; City of Temecula n.d.). The railroad connecting National City to Temecula was completed in January 1882. This not only allowed Temecula residents access to San Diego, but also began a minor business boom in Temecula. A year later, the line was extended to San Bernardino. A series of floods in the late 1880s washed out the tracks, causing the railroad to be abandoned (Brigandi n.d.; City of Temecula n.d.). During the latter decades of the nineteenth century, the granite and cattle industries kept the fledgling community alive (Brigandi n.d.). Granite from nearby hills was sent to San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco; however, due to the increased usage of cement in the early 1900s, the quarries were forced to shut down. In 1905, Walter Vail, a Canadian cattle rancher, purchased land in the Temecula Valley— his goal was to build a cattle empire. This goal was short lived, however, as Vail died in a Los Angeles streetcar accident in 1906 (Ammenheuser 2011a; Brigandi n.d.). Mahlon Vail, the son of Walter Vail, took over the family industry. By the 1940s, Vail Ranch had become a massive cattle operation—hoping to grow more of their own feed, the Vails decided to dam Temecula Creek and create an irrigation system for the ranch. The dam, and Lake Vail, was finished in 1948 (Ammenheuser 2011a; Brigandi n.d.). Vail Ranch was sold to developers in the early 1960s, who announced plans for a master planned community called Rancho California (Brigandi n.d.). It was not until the early 1980s, however, that the area began to grow due to the construction of I-15. The City of Temecula was incorporated nine years later in 1989, when the citizens voted to officially name the city Temecula (Brigandi n.d.). The 1967 and 1978 historic aerials depict what appeared to be an airport adjacent to the project area. Originally located just west of the project area, the Rancho California Airport was developed in the late 1960s by the developers of the Rancho California master plan community, who would travel to the area by air (Ammenheuser 2011b). Plagued by “terrifying” crosswinds, the owners of the airport, Kaiser- Aetna, shut it down in May 1976. It reopened under the direction of Riverside County a short time later (Ammenheuser 2011b; Sack 2007). The airport operated from the late 1960s to 1989, when it shut down after the new French Valley Airport opened, approximately five miles northeast of the project area (Ammenheuser 2011b; Sack 2007). Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 14 3.0 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH AND CONTACT PROGRAM 3.1 RECORDS SEARCH HELIX requested a record search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) from the Eastern Information Center (EIC) on April 23, 2020. Due to COVID-19, the University of California, Riverside campus was closed, causing a delay in processing records searches by EIC staff. The records search results were received on September 9, 2020. The records search covered a one-mile radius around the project alignment and included the identification of previously recorded cultural resources and locations and citations for previous cultural resources studies. A review of the California Historical Resources and the state Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) historic properties directories, and Local Register was also conducted. The records search summary and maps are included as Appendix B (Confidential Appendices, bound separately). 3.1.1 Previous Surveys The records search results identified 138 previous cultural resource studies within the record search limits, 17 of which occurred within or overlap the project alignment (Table 1, Previous Studies Within or Adjacent to the Project Area). Nine of the studies were noted as archaeological assessments and five were surveys; the remaining studies include a geoarchaeological evaluation, a monitoring program, and a cultural resource study. Table 1 PREVIOUS STUDIES WITHIN OR ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT AREA Report Number (RI-) Year Author Report Title 00238 1986 Brown, Steve Archaeological Assessment Form, Riverside County Planning Department, TPM 21383 01013 1978 Hammond, Stephen R. Cultural Resources Survey of Two Materials Sources, Murrieta Creek and the Joe Deleo, Jr. Property, Riverside County, California 01048 1980 White, Christopher W. Cultural Resource Inventory and Impact Assessment for the KACOR/Rancho California Property 01382 1981 Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. Archaeological Assessment Form (PM 4646) 01824 1984 Drover, Christopher E. An Archaeological Assessment of Parcel Maps 19580 and 19626 In Temecula, California 02318 1987 Keller, Jean S. An Archaeological Assessment of Los Cerritos Ranch, Riverside County, California 02502 1989 Wade, Sue A., and Susan M. Hector An Archival and Limited Field Archaeological Survey of the Temescal Wash and Rice Canyon Pipeline Alternatives for the Regional Water Reclamation Facility at Rancho California 02509* 1989 Drover, Christopher E. An Archaeological Assessment of Tentative Parcel Maps 24085 and 24086, Riverside County, California 03279 1991 Drover, Christopher E. Environmental Impact Evaluation: An Archaeological Assessment of the West Side Parkway Project, Temecula, California Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 15 Report Number (RI-) Year Author Report Title 3280* 2000 Love, Bruce, Leslie Quintero, Thomas A. Wake, Harry M. Quinn, Kathryn J. W. Bouscaren, and Michael Hogan Archaeological Survey, Testing, & Monitoring at Tentative Parcel Map No. 28657, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California 3496 1992 Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc Archaeological Survey Report for Riverside County Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project 4770* 2004 Hoover, Anna M., and Kristie R. Blevins A Phase I Archaeological Survey Report on the Temecula Education Complex Property, APN 909- 370-002, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California 4877 2003 Peak & Associates, Inc. Cultural Resources Assessment of the Proposed Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility Effluent Pipeline, Riverside County, California 6731* 2006 Austerman, Virginia and Curt Duke Archaeological Monitoring Program, Temecula Education Center, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California 6877 2006 Onken, Jill, Kerry D. Cato, Anne Q. Stoll, and Michael K. Lerch Geoarchaeological Evaluation for the Murrieta Creek Flood Control and Ecosystem Restoration Project, Riverside County, California 8387 2009 Brunzell, David Letter Report: Cultural Resources Assessment of the Distributed Antennae Communications System Project in the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, Riverside County, California (BCR Consulting Project No. SYN0903) 9747 2014 Ramirez, Robert, Jennifer Peterson, and Kevin Hunt Eastern Municipal Water District Temecula Valley Recycled Water Pipeline Project Cultural Resources Study * Adjacent to Project Area. 3.1.2 Previously Recorded Resources The EIC has a record of 16 previously recorded cultural resources within a one-mile radius of the project alignment, but none have been recorded within the project area itself (Table 2, Previously Recorded Resources within One Mile of the Project Area). Three resources were recorded as Native American village sites, including two described as historic Indian villages. Other prehistoric/Native American resources within the search radius consist of bedrock milling features (one mortar and one slick), a rock enclosure with associated lithic scatter, artifact scatters, and isolated artifacts. Historic period resources include two twentieth century residences, a historic gravesite, a rock ring of unknown use, a wooden fence post, and a historic artifact scatter. While no resources have been recorded within or adjacent to the project alignment, the three sites noted as “villages” are recorded in relative proximity to one another but on opposite sides of the project alignment and opposite sides of Murrieta Creek, suggesting that the entire area was at one time part of an overall village complex, much of which has apparently been destroyed be development. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 16 Table 2 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED RESOURCES WITHIN ONE MILE OF THE PROJECT AREA Primary Number (P-33-#) Trinomial (CA-RIV-#) Age Description Recorder, Date 000237 237 Prehistoric Possible village site consisting of lithic and ceramic artifacts and dark midden soils. McCown, 1952; Bowles, 1982; Keller 1987; Drover and Smith, 1991; Austerman, 2006 000644 644H Historic Native American Historic Indian village site with midden containing a “great amount” of cultural debris Humbert and Hammond, 1973 000717 717H Historic Native American Historic Indian village. Based on informant data not physical evidence, although undated site form lists projectile points. Noted in 1984 as destroyed by construction. Smith, 1974; Unknown, n.d.; Crotteau, 1984 001382 1382H Historic Historic gravesite consisting of a 6-foot by 20-inch by 8-inch pile of rock with a wooden lattice head marker. Pettus 1976; Drover 1984 001384 1384 Prehistoric Bedrock mortar and grinding slick. Morin, Welch, and Pettus, 1976; Drover, 1984 001727 1727H Historic Large wooden post with several tangled strands of barbed wire. Graham, 1979 001730 1730 Prehistoric Processing area with a light scatter of artifacts. Graham, 1979; Apple, 1981 002134 2134 Prehistoric Secondary reduction lithic site. Bowles, 1982; Bonner, 1986 004786 4786 Prehistoric Small scatter of lithic debitage and the proximal end of a projectile point. Drover and Smith, 1991 004986 4986 Prehistoric Rock enclosure with a lithic scatter. Drover and Smith, 1991 007447 -- Historic Historic residence built in the Provincial Revival architectural style around 1932. Oxendine, 1983 013511 -- Prehistoric Isolate: single mano. Bowles, 1982 013712 -- Prehistoric Isolate: a mano and a hammerstone. Bowles, 1982 013726 -- Historic Circle of large rocks. Morin and Welch, 1976 019848 -- Historic Historic residence built around 1955, contains an irregular plan and five Roman Doric columns. White, 2011 Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 17 Primary Number (P-33-#) Trinomial (CA-RIV-#) Age Description Recorder, Date 024683 12214 Historic Historic trash scatter consisting of bottles and bottle fragments, ceramic fragments, metal scraps, butchered bone, and burned rocks. Bruce, 2015 3.2 OTHER ARCHIVAL RESEARCH Various additional archival sources were also consulted, including historic topographic maps and aerial imagery. These include historic aerials from 1938, 1947, 1967, and 1978 (NETR Online 2020) and several historic USGS topographic maps, including the 1901 Elsinore, 1947 Santa Ana, and 1960 Santa Ana (1:125,000), the 1943 Murrieta (1:62,500), and the 1953 and 1973 Murrieta (1:24,000) topographic maps. The purpose of this research was to identify historic structures and land use in the area. No buildings appear in the project area on the 1901 USGS 30' Elsinore quadrangle, but there are a few dirt roads present, and the “Southern California RR San Bernardino and Temecula Line” is shown along the west edge of the project area on this map. The street grids and some buildings are shown in the location of Murrieta to the north on the 1901 map. The 1947 USGS 30' Santa Ana quadrangle displays U.S. Route 395 (US 395) bordering the eastern edge of the project area–this route is present on the 1960 Santa Ana quadrangle as well. Both the 1943 15' Murrieta (1:62,500) and the 1953 7.5' Murrieta (1:24,000) USGS topographic maps show the project area bordered by the Murrieta Creek to the east. Neither map shows any buildings or structures within or near the project area. The 1973 7.5' Murrieta (1:24,000) USGS topographic map shows Diaz Road, along with the Rancho California Airport and several buildings located around the project area. The historic aerials from 1938 and 1947 show US 395 running north-south to the east of the project area; neither of these aerials show any development along what would later become Diaz Road. However, the 1967 and 1978 aerials show the development of the Rancho California Airport west of the project alignment, from a single dirt airstrip with no buildings to a functional airport with buildings and aircraft hangers, near modern-day Rancho California Road and Business Park Drive (NETR Online 2020). By the time the 1996 aerial photograph was taken, the area had been developed to the extent seen in the 2016 aerial photograph, with the airport being replaced by commercial and industrial development (NETR Online 2020). 3.3 NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACT PROGRAM HELIX contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on April 24, 2020 for a Sacred Lands File search and list of Native American contacts for the project area. The NAHC indicated in a response dated April 27, 2020 that the results were positive and that the Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians should be contacted. Also provided was a list of 15 Native American tribal contacts who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. Letters were sent on May 7, 2020 to Native American representatives and interested parties identified by the NAHC. Two responses have been received to date (Table 3, Native American Contact Program Responses). The Rincon Band of Luiseño Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 18 Indians (Rincon) stated that, while the project area is within the territory of the Luiseño people and Rincon’s “specific area of Historic interest,” they have no knowledge of any cultural resources within the project area. The Quechan Indian Tribe responded stating that they do not wish to comment on the project and defer to local Tribes. If any additional responses are received, they will be forwarded to City staff. Native American correspondence is included as Appendix C (Confidential Appendices, bound separately). Table 3 NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACT PROGRAM RESPONSES Contact/Tribe Response Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Responded to AB 52 notification on July 21, 2020; indicated that the Band yields to the recommendations of the Pechanga Band. Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians Responded to AB 52 notification on July 15, 2020; formally requested to begin consultation. Indicated that the project is located within a Traditional Cultural Property. Provided minor comments/revisions to cultural resources mitigation measures in the IS/MND; these have been incorporated. Quechan Indian Tribe Responded on June 9, 2020; do not wish to comment on this project; as such, they defer to local tribes. Responded to AB 52 notification on July 17, 2020; indicated that they do not wish to comment on project and defer to local Tribes. Rincon Band of Luiseño Indians Responded on May 18, 2020; the project area is within the territory of the Luiseño people and is within Rincon’s specific area of Historic interest. Rincon has no knowledge of cultural resources within the project area; however, they believe that the potential exists for cultural resources to be identified during further research and survey work. They request a copy of this report and a copy of the records search results. Responded to AB 52 notification on July 17, 2020; formally requested to begin consultation. Indicated that the project is located within the Band’s Area of Historic Interest. Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Responded to AB 52 notification on July 16, 2020; requested to defer to the Pechanga Band. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Responded to AB 52 notification on September 22, 2020; defer to other tribes in the area. The City of Temecula provided formal notification for the proposed project under AB 52 on June 30, 2020 to 17 tribal contacts. Responses were received from six tribes; Pechanga and Rincon both formally requested to begin consultation (Table 3). The Juaneño Band of Mission Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians both deferred to Pechanga. The Quechan Indian Tribe and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians deferred to local tribes without naming a specific tribe (Table 3). During AB 52 consultation, the draft of this cultural resources study was provided to Pechanga and Rincon for review and comment, as was the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). Rincon indicated they agreed with the mitigation measures and had no further comments. Pechanga provided minor comments/revisions to the detailed mitigation measures in the IS/MND; their comments have been incorporated. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 19 Principal Investigator Mary Robbins-Wade contacted Pechanga in April 2020, as recommended by the NAHC, and on May 26, 2020, Ms. Robbins-Wade spoke with Ebru Ozdil of the Pechanga Cultural Resources Department about the project. Ms. Ozdil stated that, while Pechanga had no record of archaeological sites within the project area itself, the area surrounding the project is part of the Luiseño village of Qengva, and is regarded as a TCR and TCP. She reiterated information from the 1974 site record for CA-RIV-717: “A Temecula resident claims that when young (approximately 50 years ago) an old woman in Temecula told him that the site had been a Luiseño village, inhabited in 1874. He has seen many surface artifacts there” (Smith 1974). Ms. Ozdil also noted that human remains and sacred items have been found in proximity to the project area; additionally, there is a Luiseño place name near Dendy Parkway and another near Winchester Road. The area is important to the Luiseño people due to the amount of water in the area. 4.0 SURVEY METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS 4.1 SURVEY OVERVIEW A pedestrian survey of the project site was conducted on May 28, 2020 by HELIX staff archaeologist Julie Roy and Chris Yearyean from the Pechanga Cultural Resources Department. The project survey area is located along Diaz Road from Rancho California Road in the south to Cherry Street to the north. Where possible, the survey area covered 25 feet on each side the direct impact area shown in Figure 3; however, for the most part, the west side of the 25-foot buffer consists of commercial and industrial development, where there was no open ground. The eastern edge of the survey area is bordered by the Murrieta Creek. The entire project survey area was walked in transects spaced approximately 3 to 5 meters apart. 4.1.1 Methods and Results The northern edge of the project alignment was highly disturbed due to recent trenching for an underground pipeline (Plate 1). The eastern edge of Diaz Road was also disturbed; ground visibility in this area was less than 10 percent, due to development of a concrete or asphalt bike/walking path with landscaped vegetation, sod, grass, weeds, and bark/mulch (Plates 2 and 3). Some open areas were available for visual inspection, though these areas had visibility less than 35 percent, due to cut weeds and grasses. Trenching was also occurring at the southern end of the alignment–this area was also heavily disturbed by the creation of manufactured slopes and planted trees, as well as recent trenching (Plates 4 and 5). All visible ground within the project boundary was visually inspected; no cultural material was observed. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 20 Plate 1. Overview of the APE at the north end, view to the south. Trenching visible on right of road. Plate 2. Overview of the east side of Diaz Road, with bike path on the right; view to the northwest. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 21 Plate 3. Overview of the east side of Diaz Road, with bike path on the left; view to the southeast. Plate 4. Overview of the southern end of Diaz Road, view to the north. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 22 Plate 5. Overview of the southern end of Diaz Road, view to the south. 5.0 SUMMARY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS A study was undertaken to identify cultural resources that are present in the Diaz Road Expansion Project alignment and to determine the effects of the project on historical resources per CEQA and historic properties per the NHPA. The cultural resources survey did not identify any archaeological resources within the project area. Although the project alignment is within a TCR/TCP, no physical manifestations of cultural activities have been identified within the project area; therefore, no impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. While the project area and immediate vicinity remained relatively undeveloped until the late 1960s, when the Rancho California Airport was constructed, it has since been highly disturbed by commercial development, utility installations, and road formation. Additionally, the results of the survey indicated that the project area had been highly disturbed due to recent trenching for underground utilities, as well as the creation of manufactured slopes and planting of trees. However, as addressed below, the project is in an alluvial setting where there is a potential for buried cultural resources to be present. 5.1 MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the current study, no historical resources (per CEQA) or historic properties (per the NHPA) will be affected by the Diaz Road Expansion Project. However, while no archaeological resources have been identified within the APE, as noted by the NAHC, the area is sensitive for cultural resources. The Pechanga Band of Luiseño Indians indicated that several cultural sites and Luiseño place names are located within close proximity to the project area and that the area is part of a TCR/TCP. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 23 Because the project site was covered by fill material and transportation infrastructure, the original ground surface could not be observed in most areas. Additionally, the project site is located within alluvial soils, where there is a potential for buried cultural resources. Based on these factors, it is recommended that an archaeological and Native American monitoring program be implemented for grading or other ground disturbing activities (e.g., trenching for utilities). The monitoring program would include attendance by the archaeologist and Pechanga Native American monitor at a preconstruction meeting with the grading contractor and the presence of archaeological and Pechanga Native American monitors during initial ground disturbing activities on site. Both archaeological and Native American monitors would have the authority to temporarily halt or redirect grading and other ground-disturbing activity in the event that cultural resources are encountered. If the monitors determine that the project area has been too disturbed by past activities for cultural material to be present, monitoring would be discontinued. If significant cultural material is encountered, the project archaeologist would coordinate with Pechanga and City of Temecula staff to develop and implement appropriate mitigation measures. In the event that human remains are discovered, the County Coroner shall be contacted. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Most Likely Descendant, as identified by the NAHC, shall be contacted in order to determine proper treatment and disposition of the remains. All requirements of Health & Safety Code §7050.5 and PRC §5097.98 shall be followed. Should the project limits change to incorporate new areas of proposed disturbance, archaeological survey of these areas will be required. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 24 6.0 REFERENCES Ammenheuser, Maura 2011a A Look Back: Vail Ranch Covered Temecula Area. The Press-Enterprise. Electronic document available at: https://www.pe.com/2011/03/26/a-look-back-vail-ranch- covered-temecula-area/, accessed September 30, 2020. 2011b Temecula: Rancho California Airport a Distant Memory. The Press-Enterprise. Electronic document available at: https://www.pe.com/2011/10/15/temecula-rancho-california- airport-a-distant-memory/, accessed May 29, 2020. Applied Earth Works, Inc. 2001 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Eastside Reservoir Project, Final Report of Archaeological Investigations. Volumes I to V. General editor, Susan K. Goldberg. Report prepared for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles. Bean, Lowell John 1972 Mukat’s People: The Cahuilla Indians of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles. 1978 Cahuilla. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 575-587. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, Lowell John, and Florence C. Shipek 1978 Luiseño. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 550-563. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Bean, Lowell J., and Sylvia B. Vane (editors) 1979 Native Americans of Western Riverside County California and the Devers-Mira Loma 500 kV Transmission Line Route (Lamb-Canyon-Mira Loma Section). Prepared by Cultural Systems Research, Inc., Menlo Park, California, for Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead, California. 1980 The Ethnography and History of the Devers to Lamb Canyon Transmission Corridor Area, Riverside County, California. Prepared by Cultural Systems Research, Inc., Menlo Park, California, for Southern California Edison Company, Rosemead California. Bean, Lowell J., Sylvia B. Vane, and Jackson Young 1991 The Cahuilla Landscape: The Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. Ballena Press, Menlo Park, CA. Bettinger, Robert L. 1974 Dating the Perris Reservoir Assemblages. In Perris Reservoir Archaeology, edited by James F. O’Connell, Philip J. Wilke, Thomas F. King, and Carol L. Mix, pp. 159–162. California Department of Parks and Recreation Reports No. 14. Sacramento Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 25 Bibb, Leland E. 1991 Pablo Apis and Temecula. The Journal of San Diego History. 37(4). Electronic document available at: https://sandiegohistory.org/journal/1991/october/temecula-3/, accessed May 29, 2020. Bolton, Herbert E. 1930 Anza’s California Expeditions, Vols. I–IV. University of California Press, Berkeley. Brigandi, Phil 1999 The Outposts of Mission San Luis Rey. Journal of San Diego History 45(2):106–112. n.d. A Short History of Temecula, California. Electronic document, available at: https://www.temeculahistoricalsociety.org/html2/Temecula_History.html, accessed September 30, 2020. Bull, Charles S. 1983 Shaking the Foundations: The Evidence for San Diego Prehistory. Casual Papers: Cultural Resource Management 1(3):15-64. Cultural Resource Management Center, San Diego State University. 1987 A New Proposal: Some Suggestions for San Diego Prehistory. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos, pp. 35-42. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1. Carrico, Richard L., Theodore G. Cooley, and Joyce M. Clevenger 1993 Archaeological Excavations at the Harris Site Complex, San Diego County, California. Prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services, San Diego. Report on file at the South Coastal Information Center, San Diego State University. City of Temecula 2005 City of Temecula General Plan. n.d. History of Temecula. Temecula.gov. Electronic document available at: https://www.temeculaca.gov/150/History-of-Temecula, accessed September 30, 2020. Cupples, Sue Ann, and Ken Hedges 1977 San Luis Rey River Basin: Overview of Cultural Resources. San Diego State University Foundation. Prepared for US Army Corps of Engineers. Electronic document, available at: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a146300.pdf. Accessed June 2, 2020. Des Lauriers, Matthew R. 2008 A Paleoindian Fluted Point from Isla Cedros, Baja, California. Journal of Island & Coastal Archaeology 3:271–276. Dillon, Brian D. 2002 California Paleo-Indians: Lack of Evidence, or Evidence of a Lack? In Essays in California Archaeology: A Memorial to Franklin Fenenga. Edited by William J. Wallace and Francis A. Riddell. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, No. 60. Berkeley, California. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 26 DuBois, Constance 1908 The Religion of the Luiseño Indians of Southern California. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(3):69-186. Erlandson, Jon M. 1994 Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. New York, Plenum Press. 1997 The Middle Holocene along the California Coast. In Archaeology of the California Coast during the Middle Holocene, edited by J.M. Erlandson and M.A. Glassow. pp. 61–72. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 4, J.E. Arnold, series editor. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Erlandson, Jon M., Torben C. Rick, Terry L. Jones, and Judith F. Porcasi 2007 One If by Land, Two If by Sea: Who Were the First Californians? In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Jones, pp. 53–62. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Ezell, Paul H. 1987 The Harris Site – An Atypical San Dieguito Site, or Am I Beating a Dead Horse? In San Dieguito–La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos, pp. 15-22. San Diego County Archaeological Society Research Paper Number 1. San Diego. Fitzgerald, Richard T., and Michael F. Rondeau 2012 A Fluted Projectile Point from Crystal Cove State Park, Orange County, Alta California. California Archaeology 4(2):247-256. Gallegos, Dennis R. 1987 A Review and Synthesis of Environmental and Cultural Material for the Batiquitos Lagoon Region. In San Dieguito-La Jolla: Chronology and Controversy, edited by Dennis Gallegos, pp. 23-34. San Diego County Archaeological Society, Research Paper 1. 1991 Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J.M. Erlandson and R.H. Colten., pp. 19–42. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 1, J.E. Arnold, series editor. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Gerstbacher, Emily 1994 Temecula History: A Chronology, 1797-1993. Friends of the Temecula Library, Temecula, California. Goldberg, Susan 2001 Land Use, Mobility, and Intensification Evaluation and Refinement of the Model. In Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Eastside Reservoir Project, Final Report of Archaeological Investigations, Volume IV: Prehistoric Archaeology Synthesis of Findings, edited by Susan K. Goldberg, Chapter 14. Report prepared by Applied Earthworks, Hemet, California for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 27 Grenda, Donn R. 1997 Continuity & Change: 8,500 Years of Lacustrine Adaptation on the Shores of Lake Elsinore. Statistical Research, Inc. Technical Series 59, Tucson. Hall, Clarence A., Jr. 2007 Introduction to the Geology of Southern California and its Native Plants. University of California Press, Berkeley. Head, W.S. 1972 The California Chaparral: An Elfin Forest. Naturegraph, Healdsburg, California. Helmich, Mary 2008 The Butterfield Overland Mail. California Department of Parks and Recreation. Electronic document available at: https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25444, accessed September 3, 2020. Hedges, Ken, and Christina Beresford 1986 Santa Ysabel Ethnobotany. San Diego Museum of Man Ethnic Technology Notes No. 20. Hyland, Justin R., and Maria De La Luz Gutierrez 1995 An Obsidian Fluted Point from Central Baja California. The Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 17(1): 126–128. Jones, Terry L., Gary M. Brown, L. Mark Raab, Janet L. McVicker, W. Geoffrey Spaulding, Douglas J. Kennett, Andrew York, and Phillip L. Walker 1999 Environmental Imperatives Reconsidered. Demographic Crisis in Western North America during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Current Anthropology 40:137–170. Kennedy, M.P. and D.M. Morton n.d. Preliminary Geologic Map of The Murrieta 7.5' Quadrangle Riverside County, California. Version 1.0. Digital database by Rachel M. Alvarez and Greg Morton. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, and the California Geological Survey. Kennett, Douglas J., and James P. Kennett 2000 Competitive and Cooperative Responses to Climatic Instability in Coastal Southern California. American Antiquity 65:379–395. Kline, George E., and Victoria L. Kline 2007 Fluted Point Recovered from San Diego County Excavation. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 20:55–59. Knell, Edward J., and Mark S. Becker 2017 Early Holocene San Dieguito Complex Lithic Technological Strategies at the C.W. Harris Site, San Diego, California. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 37(2):183-201. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 28 Koerper, Henry C., Paul E. Langenwalter II, and Adella Schroth 1991 Early Holocene Adaptations and the Transition Phase Problem: Evidence from the Allan O. Kelly Site, Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. H. Colton, pp. 43–62. Perspectives in California Archaeology, vol. 1, J.E. Arnold, series editor. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Kroeber, A.L. 1925 Handbook of California Indians. Bulletin 78 of the Bureau of American Ethnology of the Smithsonian Institution. Lech, Steve 2004 Along the Old Roads: A History of the Portion of Southern California That Became Riverside County, 1772–1893. Steve Lech, Riverside, California. Luomala, Katherine 1978 Tipai-Ipai. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 592-609. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8. William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Masiel-Zamora, Myra Ruth 2013 Analysis of ‘Éxva Teméeku, A Luiseño Indian Village Site Named Temeku, Located in Temecula, California. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, San Diego State University. McCown, B.E. 1955 Temeku. A Page from the History of the Luiseño Indians. Archaeological Survey Association of Southern California Paper No. 3. McDougall, Dennis P. 2001 CA-RIV-5086/H. In Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Eastside Reservoir Project, Final Report of Archaeological Investigations, Volume II: Archaic and Late Prehistoric Occupation Sites, edited by Susan K. Goldberg, Chap. 9. Prepared by Applied Earthworks, Hemet, California for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles. Miller, Wick R. 1986 Numic Languages. In Great Basin, edited by W. L. D’Azevedo, pp. 98–112. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11. William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando. Munz, Philip A. 1974 A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 29 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2014 Electronic document available at: http://forecast.weather.gov/ MapClick.php?zoneid=CAZ048#.VGlzkP0tA1U, accessed in June 2020. NETR Online 2020 Historic Aerials. Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC. Electronic document available at: http://www.historicaerials.com, accessed May 29, 2020. O’Connell, James F., Philip J. Wilke, Thomas F. King and Carol L. Mix, editors. 1974 Perris Reservoir Archaeology: Late Prehistoric Demographic Change in Southeastern California. Report prepared by the Archaeological Research Unit, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, California, for the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation. Parker, Patricia L., and Thomas F. King 1998 Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Park Service, Washington, D.C. Pigniolo, Andrew R. 2005 A Different Context: San Dieguito in the Mountains of Southern California. Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 18:255-262. Robinson, Mark C. 2001 Units of Analysis. In Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Eastside Reservoir Project, Final Report of Archaeological Investigations, Volume IV: Prehistoric Archaeology Synthesis of Findings, edited by Susan K. Goldberg, Chapter 4. Prepared by Applied Earthworks, Hemet, California for Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Los Angeles. Rogers, Malcolm J. 1939 Early Lithic Industries of the Lower Basin of the Colorado River and Adjacent Desert Areas. San Diego Museum of Man Papers No. 3. San Diego Museum of Man. 1966 Ancient Hunters of the Far West. Union-Tribune Publishing Company, San Diego. Rolle, A.F. 1963 California: A History. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York, New York. Rondeau, Michael F., James Cassidy, and Terry L. Jones. 2007 Colonization Technologies: Fluted Projectile Points and the First Californians. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar. AltaMira Press, Lanham, Maryland. Sack, Nicole 2007 Airport Gone, Not Forgotten; Historical Society Plaque Project Recalls Dangerous Strip. San Diego Union Tribune. Electronic document available at: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-airport-gone-not-forgotten-historical- society-2007apr06-story.html, accessed May 29, 2020. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 30 Shipley, William F. 1978 Native Languages of California. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 80-90. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Smith, Joan R. 1974 Letter to Society for California Archaeology, part of archaeological site record for P-33- 000717/CA-RIV-717. Site record on file at Eastern Information Center, University of California Riverside. Sparkman, Philip Stedman 1908 The Culture of the Luiseño Indians. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 8(4):187-234. Stine, S. 1994 Extreme and Persistent Drought in California and Patagonia during Mediaeval Time. Nature 369:546–549. Sutton, Mark Q., and Jill K. Gardner. 2010 Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly, 42(4)1–64. Costa Mesa. Sutton, Mark Q., and Don R. Grenda. 2012 Defining Level 1 at Malaga Cove (CA LAN-138), Alta California. California Archaeology 4(1): 123–144. Tan, Siang S., and Michael P. Kennedy. 2000 Geologic Map of the Temecula 7.5' Quadrangle San Diego County, California: A Digital Database. Version 1.0. Digital database by Brad Nelson and Gary Patt. California Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. True, D.L. 1990 Site Locations and Water Supply: A Perspective from Northern San Diego County, California. Journal of New World Archaeology 7(4):37–60. True, D.L., and Paul D. Bouey. 1990 Gladishill: A Probable San Dieguito Camp Near Valley Center, California. Journal of New World Archaeology 7(4): 1-28. Van Horn, David M. 1974 Tempting Temecula. The Journal of San Diego History. 20(1). Electronic document available at: https://sandiegohistory.org/journal/1974/january/temecula/, accessed May 29, 2020. Vaughan, Sheila J. 1982 A Replicative Systems Analysis of the San Dieguito Component at the C.W. Harris Site. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 31 Wallace, William J. 1955 A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230. Warren, Claude N. 1967 The San Dieguito Complex: A Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32:168-185. 1968 Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by C. Irwin-Williams, pp. 1–14. Eastern New Mexico Contributions in Anthropology 1(3). Portales, New Mexico. 1984 The Desert Region. In California Archaeology, edited by Michael J. Moratto, pp. 339– 430. Academic Press, Orlando, Florida. Warren, Claude N. (editor) 1966 The San Dieguito Type Site: M.J. Rogers’ 1938 Excavation on the San Dieguito River. San Diego Museum Papers No. 5. San Diego Museum of Man. Warren, Claude N., and D.L. True. 1961 The San Dieguito Complex and Its Place in San Diego County Prehistory. Archaeological Survey Annual Report, 1960-1961, pp. 246-291. University of California, Los Angeles. Warren, Claude N., and H.T. Ore 2011 The Age of the San Dieguito Artifact Assemblage at the C. W. Harris Site. Journal of California and Great basin Anthropology 31(1):81-97. Warren, C.N., G. Siegler, and F. Dittmer 1998 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Periods. In Prehistoric and Historic Archaeology of Metropolitan San Diego: A Historic Properties Background Study. Prepared for the Metropolitan Wastewater Department, City of San Diego. ASM Affiliates, Encinitas, California. Web Soil Survey. 2019 Natural Resource Conservation Service. United States Department of Agriculture. Electronic document, available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed June 2, 2020. Weber, David 1992 The Spanish Frontier in North America. Yale University Press. White, Raymond C. 1963 Luiseño Social Organization. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 48(2):91-194. Wilke, Philip 1974 Settlement and Subsistence at Perris Reservoir: A Summary of Archaeological Investigations. In Perris Reservoir Archaeology, edited by J.F. O’Connell, P.J. Wilke, T.F. King, and C.L. Mix, pp. 20–30. California Department of Parks and Recreation Reports No. 14. Sacramento. Cultural Resources Survey for the Diaz Road Extension Project | January 2022 32 This page intentionally left blank Appendix A Resumes Mary Robbins-Wade, RPA Cultural Resources Group Manager Summary of Qualifications Ms. Robbins-Wade has 41 years of extensive experience in both archaeological research and general environmental studies. She oversees the management of all archaeological, historic, and interpretive projects; prepares and administers budgets and contracts; designs research programs; supervises personnel; and writes reports. Ms. Robbins-Wade has managed or participated in hundreds of projects under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as well as numerous archaeological studies under various federal jurisdictions, addressing Section 106 compliance and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) issues. She has excellent relationships with local Native American communities and the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), as well as has supported a number of local agency clients with Native American consultation under State Bill 18 and assistance with notification and Native American outreach for Assembly Bill 52 consultation. Ms. Robbins-Wade is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) and meets the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications for prehistoric and historic archaeology. Selected Project Experience 12 Oaks Winery Resort. Project Manager/ Principal Investigator for a cultural resources survey of approximately 650 acres for a proposed project in the County of Riverside. Oversaw background research, field survey, site record updates, Native American coordination, and report preparation. Met with Pechanga Cultural Resources staff to discuss Native American concerns. Worked with applicant and Pechanga to design the project to avoid impacts to cultural resources. Work performed for Standard Portfolio Temecula, LLC. 28th Street between Island Avenue and Clay Avenue Utilities Undergrounding Archaeological Monitoring. Project Manager/Principal Investigator for a utilities undergrounding project in a historic neighborhood of East San Diego. Responsible for project management; coordination of archaeological and Native American monitors; coordination with forensic anthropologist, Native American representative/Most Likely Descendent, and City staff regarding treatment of possible human remains; oversaw identification of artifacts and cultural features, report preparation, and resource documentation. Work performed for the City of San Diego. Archaeological Testing F11 Project. Project Manager for a cultural resources study for a proposed mixed-use commercial and residential tower in downtown San Diego. Initial work included an archaeological records search and a historic study, including assessment of the potential for historic archaeological resources. Subsequent work included development and implementation of an archaeological testing plan, as well as construction monitoring and the assessment of historic archaeological resources encountered. Work performed for the Richman Group of Companies. Education Master of Arts, Anthropology, San Diego State University, California, 1990 Bachelor of Arts, Anthropology, University of California, Santa Barbara, 1981 Registrations/ Certifications Caltrans, Professionally Qualified Staff- Equivalent Principal Investigator for prehistoric archaeology, , Bureau of Land Management Statewide Cultural Resource Use Permit (California), permit #CA-18-35, , Register of Professional Archaeologists #10294, 1991 County of San Diego, Approved CEQA Consultant for Archaeological Resources, 2007 , Orange County Approved Archaeologist 2016 Mary Robbins-Wade, RPA Cultural Resources Group Manager 2 Blended Reverse Osmosis (RO) Line Project. Project Manager/ Principal Investigator for cultural resources monitoring during construction of a 24-inch recycled water pipeline in the City of Escondido. Oversaw monitoring program, including Worker Environmental Awareness Training; responsible for Native American outreach/coordination, coordination with City staff and construction crews, and general project management. Work performed for the City of Escondido. Buena Sanitation District Green Oak Sewer Replacement Project. Project Manager/Principal Investigator for a cultural resources testing program in conjunction with a proposed sewer replacement project for the City of Vista. Oversaw background research, fieldwork, site record update, Native American coordination, and report preparation. Work performed for Harris & Associates, Inc., with the City of Vista as the lead agency. Cactus II Feeder Transmission Pipeline IS/MND. Cultural Resources Task Lead for this project in the City of Moreno Valley. Eastern Municipal Water District proposed to construct approximately five miles of new 30-inch to 42 inch-diameter pipeline; the project would address existing system deficiencies within the City and provide supply for developing areas. Oversaw background research, field survey, and report preparation. Responsible for Native American outreach for cultural resources survey. Assisted District with Native American outreach and consultation under AB 52. Work performed under an as-needed contract for Eastern Municipal Water District. Dale 2199C Pressure Zone Looping Pipeline Project. Cultural Resources Task Lead for this project in Moreno Valley. Eastern Municipal Water District proposed construction of a new pipeline to connect two existing pipelines in the District’s 2199C Pressure Zone. The pipeline would consist of an 18-inch- diameter pipeline between Kitching Street and Alta Vista Drive that would connect to an existing 12-inch- diameter pipeline in the northern end of Kitching Street and to an existing 18-inch-diameter pipeline at the eastern end of Alta Vista Drive. The project will improve reliability and boost the Dale Pressure Zone’s baseline pressure and fire flow availabilities. Four potential alignments were under consideration; three of these bisect undeveloped land to varying degrees, while the other is entirely situated within developed roadways. Oversaw background research and field survey. Responsible for Native American outreach for cultural resources survey and co-authored technical report. Work performed under an as-needed contract for Eastern Municipal Water District. Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station Track & Platform Project. Cultural Resources Task Lead for this project involving changes to and expansion of the Downtown Riverside Metrolink Station. Overseeing records search and background information, archaeological survey, and report preparation. Responsible for coordination with Native American Heritage Commission, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), and Federal Transportation Authority (FTA) on Native American outreach. Work performed for Riverside County Transportation Commission as a subconsultant to HNTB Corporation. Emergency Storage Pond Project. Project Manager/Principal Investigator for a cultural resources testing program in conjunction with the Escondido Recycled Water Distribution System - Phase 1. Two cultural resources sites that could not be avoided through project design were evaluated to assess site significance and significance of project impacts. Work included documentation of bedrock milling Mary Robbins-Wade, RPA Cultural Resources Group Manager 3 features, mapping of features and surface artifacts, excavation of a series of shovel test pits at each site, cataloging and analysis of cultural material recovered, and report preparation. The project is located in an area that is sensitive to both the Kumeyaay and Luiseño people, requiring close coordination with Native American monitors from both groups. Work performed for the City of Escondido. Escondido Brine Line Project. Project Manager/Principal Investigator for cultural resources monitoring during construction of approximately 2.3 miles of a 15-inch brine return pipeline in the City of Escondido. The project, which is part of the City’s Agricultural Recycled Water and Potable Reuse Program, enables discharge of brine recovered from a reverse osmosis facility that is treating recycled water; it is one part of the larger proposed expansion of Escondido's recycled water distribution to serve eastern and northern agricultural land. The project is located in an area that is sensitive to both the Kumeyaay and Luiseño people, requiring close coordination with Native American monitors from both groups. Oversaw monitoring program, including Worker Environmental Awareness Training; responsible for Native American outreach/coordination, coordination with City staff and construction crews, and general project management. Work performed for the City of Escondido. Hacienda del Mar EIR. Senior Archaeologist for a proposed commercial development project for a senior care facility in Del Mar. Assisted in the preparation of associated permit applications and an EIR. Oversaw background research, updated records search and Sacred Lands File search, monitoring of geotechnical testing, coordination with City staff on cultural resources issues, and preparation of updated report. Prior to coming to HELIX, served as Cultural Resources Task Lead for the cultural resources survey for the project, conducted as a subcontractor to HELIX. Work performed for Milan Capital Management, with the City of San Diego as the lead agency. Lilac Hills Ranch. Project Manager/Principal Investigator of a cultural resources survey and testing program for an approximately 608-acre mixed-use development in the Valley Center area. Oversaw background research, field survey, testing, recording of archaeological sites and historic structures, and report preparation. Responsible for development of the research design and data recovery program, preparation of the preservation plan, and Native American outreach and coordination. The project also included recording historic structures, development of a research design and data recovery program for a significant archaeological site, and coordination with the Native American community and the client to develop a preservation plan for a significant cultural resource. The project changed over time, so additional survey areas were included, and a variety of off-site improvement alternatives were addressed. Work performed for Accretive Investments, Inc. with County of San Diego as the lead agency. Moulton Niguel Water District Regional Lift Force Main Replacement. Cultural Resources Task Lead/Principal Investigator for the replacement of a regional lift station force main operated by Moulton Niguel Water District (MNWD). The project comprises an approximately 9,200 linear foot alignment within Laguna Niguel Regional Park in Orange County, in an area that is quite sensitive in terms of cultural resources. HELIX is supporting Tetra Tech throughout the preliminary design, environmental review (CEQA), and final design, including permitting with applicable state and federal regulatory agencies. The cultural resources survey will inform project design, in order to avoid or minimize potential impacts to cultural resources. Oversaw background research and constraints analysis, Native American Mary Robbins-Wade, RPA Cultural Resources Group Manager 4 coordination, cultural resources survey, coordination with MNWD and Tetra Tech, and report preparation. Work performed for MNWD, as a subconsultant to Tetra Tech. Murrieta Hot Springs Road Improvements Project. Principal Investigator/Cultural Resources Task Lead for cultural resources survey in support of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road in the City of Murrieta. The project would widen or restripe Murrieta Hot Springs Road between Winchester Road and Margarita Road from a 4-lane roadway to a six-lane roadway to improve traffic flow, as well as provide bike lanes in both directions along this segment. A new raised median, light poles, signage, stormwater catch basins, retaining walls, and sidewalks would also be provided on both sides of the roadway, where appropriate. The project area is in a location that is culturally sensitive to the Native American community. The cultural resources study included tribal outreach and coordination to address this cultural sensitivity. Park Circle - Cultural Resources. Project Manager/Principal Investigator of a cultural resources survey and testing program for a proposed 65-acre residential development in the Valley Center area of San Diego County. The project is located along Moosa Creek, in an area that is culturally sensitive to the Luiseño people. Oversaw background research, historic study, field survey, testing, recording archaeological sites and historic structures, and report preparation. Responsible for Native American outreach and coordination. The cultural resources study included survey of the project area, testing of several archaeological sites, and outreach and coordination with the Native American community, as well as a historic study that addressed a mid-20th century dairy barn and a late 19th century vernacular farmhouse. Work performed for Touchstone Communities. Peacock Hill Cultural Resources. Project Manager/Principal Investigator of a cultural resources study update for a residential development in Lakeside. Oversaw updated research, fieldwork, lab work, analysis by forensic anthropologists, report preparation, and Native American coordination. In the course of outreach and coordination with the Native American (Kumeyaay) community, possible human remains were identified, prompting additional fieldwork, as well as coordination with the Native American community and forensic anthropologists. Work performed for Peacock Hill, Inc. Sky Canyon Sewer Environmental Consulting. Cultural Resources Task Lead for this project adjacent to the City of Murrieta in southwestern Riverside County. Eastern Municipal Water District (District) proposed to implement the Sky Canyon Sewer Main Extension Project to construct approximately 6,700 linear feet of new gravity-fed 36-inch-diameter sewer main to provide additional sewer capacity for planned development. The proposed 36-inch-diameter sewer main would extend the existing 36-inch- diameter French Valley Sewer at Winchester Road further downstream to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Oversaw background research and field survey. Responsible for Native American outreach for cultural resources survey and co-authored technical report. Assisted District with Native American outreach and consultation under AB 52. Work performed under an as-needed contract for Eastern Municipal Water District. James Turner, RPA Staff Archaeologist Summary of Qualifications Mr. Turner is a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) with a Master's degree in Anthropology and field and college-level teaching experience in archaeology. He is experienced in Section 106, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), and writing detailed reports. Mr. Turner has archaeological research and fieldwork expertise throughout southern California. He has also received training in identifying and analyzing animal remains in archaeological contexts, historic artifact identification, and technical writing. Mr. Turner’s experience meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology. Selected Project Experience eTS 43472 “Gold Mine” Monitoring (2020). Archaeologist for an erosion control and repair project in the community of Julian. Conducted cultural resource monitoring and report preparation. Work performed for San Diego Gas & Electric. Aliso Creek Canyon Restoration Project (2020). Archaeologist for an erosion repair project in Lake Forest. Conducted a field survey of the project area, performed background research, and produced a cultural resources report. Work performed for the Orange County Department of Public Works. Broadway Channel Improvements - Phase A (2020 - ). Archaeologist for an earthen channel improvement project in the city of El Cajon. Performed background research and prepared cultural resource survey report. Work performed for City of El Cajon. Clairemont Community Plan Update EIR Ph1 (2020). Archaeologist for the Clairemont Community Plan Update. Performed background research and assisted with preparing the Community Plan Update cultural resources section. Work performed for the City of San Diego. Cordial Road Pipeline (2020). Archaeologist for a pipeline replacement project in the unincorporated portion of the City of El Cajon. Performed background research and field survey. Other responsibilities included the production of a letter report detailing the methods and results of the survey, as well as the completion of a site record update to submit to the South Coastal Information Center. Work performed for the Padre Dam Municipal Water District. Carmel Mountain Road Life Sciences Project (2020). Archaeologist for a proposed commercial development project in the Torrey Hills Community Plan area. Education Master of Arts, Anthropology, San Diego State University, 2018 Bachelor of Arts, Biology and Anthropology, San Diego State University, 2015 Registrations/ Certifications Registered Professional Archaeologist #17338 Professional Affiliations Society for Historical Archaeology Society for California Archaeology James Turner, RPA Staff Archaeologist 2 Responsibilities included performing background and archival research and producing an archaeological resources report. Work performed for Allen Matkins Leck Gabme Mallory & Natsis, LLP. Draft EIS/Overseas EIS - Disposal of Decommissioned, Defueled Ex-Enterprise (CVN 65) & Associated Naval Reactor Plants (2020 - ). Archaeologist for the Draft EIS for the disposal of the Navy ex-Enterprise. Responsible for background research and citation management and assisted with document preparation. Work performed for the United States Navy as a subconsultant to ManTech. Eastlake Village Park (2020). Archaeologist for a telecommunication project in the community of Eastlake in the City of Chula Vista. Conducted cultural resource monitoring for the drilling of a cassion hole. Work performed for Terracon. General Coatings (2020). Archaeologist for a due diligence project for the possible future expansion of the General Coatings property. Conducted background research, which included analyzing a records search and viewing historic maps and aerial photographs of the project area. Additional responsibilities included performing a field survey of the project area and producing a cultural resources due diligence report. Work performed for General Coatings. Lake Rancho Viejo Environmental Consulting (2020). Archaeologist for a cultural resources survey for a proposed housing development in the community of Fallbrook in northern San Diego County. Conducted background research and report preparation. Work performed for Q Technology Direct LLC with County of San Diego as the lead agency. Mtn View Connector Pipeline - Cultural (2020). Archaeologist for a waterline replacement project in the community of Alpine. Conducted cultural resource monitoring and prepared the final monitoring report. Work performed for Padre Dam Municipal Water District. Salt Bay Design District Specific Plan EIR (2020). Archaeologist for a mixed-use development project, which proposes to include wholesale/retail shopping and light industrial uses. Participated in an archaeological testing program and produced artifact tables for report. Work performed for M & A Gabaee. Santa Ysabel Trail (2020 - ). Staff Archaeologist for a proposed 3 mile hiking trail in the unincorporated community of Julian. Performed background research, participated in the cultural resource survey, and contributed to the cultural resources survey report. Work performed for the County of San Diego Parks and Recreation Department. Julie A. Roy Archaeologist Summary of Qualifications Ms. Roy has over 20 years of experience as an archaeologist, field lead, and supervisor on more than 130 projects throughout California, Nevada, Arizona, and Guam. Conducted archaeological studies for a wide variety of development and resource management projects including work on military installations, energy and transmission projects, commercial and residential developments, historic archaeology projects, and water projects. Competent in all areas of archaeology and efficient in report preparation for a range of cultural resource studies including monitoring projects and archaeological Phase I, II and III studies. Ms. Roy is proficient in laboratory activities including artifact preparation, cataloging, identification, and illustration. Accomplished in the initiation, coordination and completion of field assignments including survey, site testing, dry and wet screening, and data recovery projects. She is also knowledgeable in the preparation of proposals and report writing and research, client, contractor and subcontractor correspondence, laboratory, computer software including Microsoft, Adobe, Geographic Information System (GIS)/ArcView, Computer-Aided Design and Drafting (CADD), Global Positioning System (GPS) and total-station operations, as well as in the illustration of archaeological features, artifacts, and burials. Ms. Roy is established as a qualified archaeological monitor for the City and the County of San Diego. Her experience includes working closely with representatives of San Diego County Parks and Recreation for the past 10 years and she has received accolades from numerous county representatives for her work at park facilities. For the past 4 four years, she has served as the monitoring coordinator for the San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) Fire Resource Mitigation Initiative (FiRM) project, where she regularly provided effective communication between field monitors, construction managers/foremen, and Principal Investigators for construction projects and assisted in scheduling and tracking of project progress. Selected Project Experience Blythe to Eagle Mountain TLRR Survey (2017). Field Director on this Southern California Edison (SCE) Survey project, which included supervising two crews during a period of two weeks. Conducted survey, mapping, recording new cultural resources and updating previously recorded sites along the transmission line corridor. Other responsibilities included report writing and completion of site records for distrib ution to SCE and the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC). On-call Archaeological Services (Present). Archaeologist and Field Lead for SDG&E infrastructure operations and transmission line maintenance activities for over 12 years. Projects include survey, testing, excavations, and data recovery of both historic and prehistoric resources including Native American burial sites. Approved to monitor for City projects throughout San Diego and Imperial counties. Other duties include records search, survey, archaeological documentation and investigations, and Education Master of Arts, Archaeology, University of Leicester, England, In progress Bachelor of Arts, Anthropological Archaeology, University of California San Diego, 2002 Associate of Arts, Psychology, San Diego City College, 2000 Registrations/ Certifications OSHA 30-hour Construction Safety Training Certification Competent Person Certification Professional Affiliations Society for California Archaeology Society for American Archaeology Association of Environmental Professionals Julie A. Roy Archaeologist 2 preparation of reports under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) guidelines. Fire Resource Cultural Resources Mitigation (Present). Monitoring Coordinator and Lead Archaeologist on this FiRM project for SDG&E. Monitoring Coordinator duties consist of close communication with SDG&E supervisors and staff, liaisons, and contractors in conjunction with the coordination of FiRM project activities associated with cultural and Native American archaeological and monitoring efforts throughout San Diego and Imperial Counties. Archaeological Supervisor duties consists of record search, survey, archaeological site documentation, testing, excavations, and data recovery projects, and preparing reports following CEQA and NEPA guidelines. Archaeological Monitoring, Bird Rock Avenue Utility Undergrounding Project (2005). Archaeological Monitor for the undergrounding of residential utilities in the Bird Rock community of La Jolla. The project was conducted under CEQA and the City of San Diego guidelines while working closely with San Diego Gas and Electric Company and the construction contractor. No cultural resources were identified during this project. Archaeological Monitoring and Data Recovery, Princess Street Utility Undergrounding Project (2005 - 2006). Archaeological Monitor/Crew Chief for utility undergrounding proj ect, which included trenching through a major prehistoric and ethnohistoric Indian village site (the Spindrift Site/CA-SDI-39) in La Jolla. Crewmembers worked closely with Native American representatives during the recovery of human remains. A concurrent data recovery program incorporated all cultural material recovered from the trenching activities. This project was conducted pursuant to CEQA and City of San Diego guidelines while working closely with San Diego Gas & Electric Company and the construction contractor. Environmental Impact Statement, Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport (2007 - 2009). Archaeologist on this project that included survey and recordation of the northern portion of Ivanpah Valley from the California state line to Henderson, Clarke County, Nevada. Cultural sites located within the project area included a section of the pacific railroad, historic roads, camps, railroad and construction debris, transmission lines, trash scatters and prehistoric sites and features. The project was surveyed and recorded in compliance with the Nevada State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) guidelines. Monitoring, Genesis Solar Power Project (2011 - 2012). Supervisor-in-Charge of over 20 cultural monitors on this solar power project located in Blythe, California. Responsible for conducting safety meetings and coordinating cultural monitors to all areas of the project site, as well as leading test excavations of discovered resources during construction activities. Also responsible for representing firm during onsite meetings with Nextera officials, Bureau of Veritas, BLM, and safety liaisons for the project. Communicated directly with Native American supervisors and monitors on a daily basis. Recorded and collected artifacts located during construction activities with the use of Global Positioning Satellite technology. Completed daily field notes and collection logs for all collected artifacts, and reviewed all staff monitoring logs prior to daily submission to the California Energy Commission (CEC). Work performed for Nextera. Survey and Monitoring, Palen Solar Power Project (2009 - 2010). Archaeologist for survey and cultural monitoring in Desert Center, California. Monitored contract and personnel activities during traveling to and from proposed project sites, including trenching and testing within the proposed project areas. Work performed for Solar Millennium. Julie A. Roy Archaeologist 3 Ridgecrest Solar Power Project (2009 - 2010). Archaeologist for surveys of the project area undertaken to determine if cultural resources are present and if there would be any project effects on these resources. Monitored contractor activities during the testing phase of the project to ensure that sites were not impacted during work activities. The project was located in Ridgecrest and work was performed for Solar Millennium. On-Call Archaeological Services (Present). Archaeologist and Field Lead for County Parks infrastructure and maintenance activities for San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation. Responsible for communication with County supervisors and contractors, and the coordination of project activities with cultural and Native American monitors for projects throughout San Diego and Imperial Counties. Other duties include records search, field survey, archaeological documentation and investigations including testing, excavations and data recovery projects and preparation of reports following CEQA and NEPA guidelines. Pacifica Street Utility Undergrounding Project (2006). Archaeological Monitor/Crew Chief for residential utility undergrounding project in the community of Pacific Beach in San Diego. Trenches and cultural materials were documented in conjunction with a concurrent data recovery program. The project included working with Native American representatives and the discovery of human remains. The project was conducted under CEQA and City of San Diego guidelines while working closely with the construction contractor. Archaeological Monitoring, 20A Julian Conversion Project (2006). Archaeological Monitor for undergrounding of utilities in the City of Julian. The project was conducted under the County of San Diego guidelines while working closely with the construction contractor. Data Recovery, Hill Street Utility Undergrounding Project (2006). Archaeological Monitor participated in the data recovery for this residential utility undergrounding project in the community of Point Loma in San Diego. The project was conducted under CEQA and City of San Diego guidelines while working closely with the construction contractor. Archaeological Monitoring, 30th Street Utility Undergrounding Project (2006). Archaeological Monitor for residential utility undergrounding project in the community of South Park in San Diego. The project was conducted under CEQA and City of San Diego guidelines while working closely with the construction contractor. DRAFT-1GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN REPORT PROPOSED DIAZ ROAD EXPANSION PROJECT (PW17-25) CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA Prepared for DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, INC. 41951 Remington Avenue, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92590 Project No. 12502.001 July 6, 2020 DRAFT-1July 6, 2020 Project No. 12502.001 David Evans and Associates, Inc. 41951 Remington Avenue, Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Mr. Gavin Powell, PE, Project Manager Subject: Geotechnical Design Report Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) City of Temecula, California In accordance with your request, we are pleased to present herewith the results of our geotechnical evaluation for the subject project.Based on the results of our evaluation and review, it is our opinion that the proposed roadway improvements are generally feasible from a geotechnical perspective provided the recommendations included in this report are implemented during design and construction phases.Please note that further testing and/or field verification should be performed to confirm the actual site/subgrade conditions exposed during construction and provide additional recommendations,when warranted. The opportunity to be of service is sincerely appreciated. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call our office. Respectfully submitted, LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. Simon I. Saiid, GE 2641 Principal Engineer Robert F. Riha, CEG 1921 Senior Principal Geologist Distribution: (1) Addressee (PDF) DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF WORK ........................................................................... 1 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION / EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ...................................................... 1 1.3 STREET DESIGNATION ......................................................................................... 2 1.4 PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS .................................................................................... 2 2.0 FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING ......... 3 2.1 FIELD EXPLORATION ............................................................................................ 3 2.2 LABORATORY TESTING ......................................................................................... 3 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC FINDINGS ........................................... 4 3.1 REGIONAL GEOLOGIC SETTING .............................................................................4 3.2 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS / EARTH MATERIALS ..................................................... 4 3.3 OBSERVED PAVEMENT CONDITION .......................................................................5 3.4 SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER AND POOR RIDE QUALITY ......................................... 5 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................6 4.1 GENERAL ............................................................................................................ 6 4.2 GENERAL EARTHWORK CONSIDERATIONS .............................................................6 4.3 SUBGRADE PREPARATION AND REMEDIAL EARTHWORK .......................................... 6 4.4 FILL MATERIALS .................................................................................................. 7 4.5 SHRINKAGE .........................................................................................................7 4.6 UTILITY TRENCHES .............................................................................................. 7 4.7 PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN ......................................................................... 8 4.8 REHABILITATION OF EXISTING PAVEMENT ..............................................................9 4.9 RETAINING WALLS / CULVERTS ............................................................................. 9 4.10 CORROSION POTENTIAL ..................................................................................... 10 4.11 PERCOLATION/INFILTRATION TESTING .................................................................11 4.12 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION ........................................................................... 11 5.0 LIMITATIONS ............................................................................................ 12 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................. 13 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. EXISTING PAVEMENT THICKNESS ..................................................................................... 5 TABLE 2. DEPTHS TO GROUNDWATER ............................................................................................ 5 TABLE 3. PRELIMINARY PAVEMENT DESIGN .................................................................................... 8 DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 - ii - LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2 – Regional Geologic Map Figure 3 – Regional Fault Map Figure 4 – Boring Location Map LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A – Logs of Exploratory Borings (This and Previous Explorations) Appendix B – Laboratory Test Results (This and Previous Explorations) Appendix C – ARS Curves and Percolation Testing Data Sheets Appendix D – General Earthwork and Grading Specifications Appendix E – GBA – Important Information about this Geotechnical Report DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose and Scope of Work The purpose of this report is to provide geotechnical recommendations for design and construction of the proposed improvements. Our scope of work included the following:  A background review of readily available literature and relevant geotechnical reports pertinent to this area. Relevant documents reviewed are referenced at the end of this report.  Obtaining an encroachment permit from City of Temecula to perform the field exploration/coring within the subject street right-of-way.  A site reconnaissance and excavation of 8 exploratory borings within the area of new roadway and three percolation/infiltration tests located along the alignment. Approximate locations of these and previous borings are depicted on Figure 2. The logs of the borings are included in Appendix A.  Geotechnical laboratory testing of selected soil samples collected during this exploration. The test results are presented in Appendix B.  Geotechnical engineering analysis performed or as directed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer (GE).  Preparation of this report, presenting our findings, conclusions and geotechnical recommendations for earthwork construction. 1.2 Site Description / Existing Improvements Diaz Road is an active arterial highway in the City of Temecula with 2 lanes in each direction, except for the middle portion generally located between Via Montezuma and Winchester Road, where existing Diaz Road has only two lanes (one lane in each direction). The limits of the proposed work begin just north of Rancho Road Station 17+50 (near EMWD Pump Station) and continue north to the future extension with Cherry Street (See Figure 1). Diaz Road currently terminates approximately 800-feet north of the intersection with Dendy Parkway at the entrance gate to the Rancho California Water District’s (RCWD’s) storage ponds. Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and RCWD have numerous underground utility lines located along the east shoulder of the existing roadway. The northbound (east) shoulder along Murrieta Creek is currently landscaped along most of the alignment with mulch and a meandering multi-use trail. Drainage pipes/culverts currently cross Diaz Road at various locations and discharge into Murrieta Creek. The westbound is generally fully developed with existing curbs and sidewalks along most of the alignment. DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 2 1.3 Street Designation For the purpose of pavement design and based on information provided, the traffic index for a 20-year design life for Diaz Road is 10 (TI=10). 1.4 Project Improvements As depicted on the Preliminary Street Improvement Plans by David Evans and Associates (DEA, 2020), the proposed Diaz Road improvements within the project limits include the following:  New Roadway: A new lane will be added to the northbound side of Diaz Road from approximate station 17+50 to approximate station 63+00. The new lane will tie-in with existing widened areas on the north and southern portions of the project. An existing dirt portion of Diaz Road between Dendy Parkway and Cherry Street (future) will also be paved/improved.  New Curbed Center Median: In addition to the added travel lanes, an elevated curbed concrete center median will be constructed throughout the project alignment. The median will create turn pockets and crossings at intersections.  Multi-use Trail Re-alignment: Portions of the new roadway will encroach into the existing multi-use trail. The trail will be re-aligned in these areas. Alternative trail alignments may be considered to reduce environmental impact, utility conflicts and Right-of-Way (ROW) encroachments.  Drainage Culvert Extension: The new roadway will require the extension of multiple drainage culverts and the creation of new headwalls at Murrieta Creek. DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 3 2.0 F IELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING 2.1 Field Exploration Our field exploration consisted of the excavation of eight (8) borings and three (3) percolation/infiltration tests excavated along the proposed alignment to provide basis for pavement design and earthwork construction. Prior to excavation, the boring locations were marked for coordination with Underground Service Alert (USA) and an encroachment permit was acquired from City of Temecula. During exploration, in-situ undisturbed (Cal Ring) and disturbed/bulk samples were collected from the borings for further laboratory testing and evaluation. Approximate locations of the exploratory borings from this and previous investigations are depicted on the Boring Location Map (Figure 4). Sampling was conducted by a staff geologist from our firm. After logging and sampling, the excavations were loosely backfilled with spoils generated during excavation. The exploration logs are included in Appendix A. 2.2 Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were performed on representative bulk and ring samples collected during our field exploration to determine the geotechnical engineering properties of subsurface materials. The following laboratory tests were performed: Sieve Analysis, Collapse Potential, Expansion Index, Maximum density and moisture content relationships, Atterberg Limits, Corrosivity, Sand Equivalent; and R-value. The laboratory tests were performed in general conformance with ASTM or California Test Methods. The laboratory results are included in Appendix B. DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 4 3.0 SUMMARY OF GEOLOGIC FINDINGS 3.1 Regional Geologic Setting The site is located within a prominent natural geomorphic province in southwestern California known as the Peninsular Ranges. This province is characterized by steep, elongated ranges and valleys that generally trend northwestward. Tectonic activity along the numerous faults in the region has created the geomorphology present today. Specifically, the site is located along the southern portion of a fault controlled down dropped graben, known as the Elsinore Trough. The Elsinore Trough is bounded on the northeast by the Wildomar Fault segment of the Elsinore Fault Zone and on the southwest by the Murrieta Creek and Willard faults (See Fig. 3) 3.2 Subsurface Conditions / Earth Materials Based on our field exploration, the site is covered by artificial fill and underlain by alluvial soils. These units are discussed in the following sections in order of increasing age. A more detailed description of each unit is provided on the logs of borings in Appendix A. Artificial Fill: Artificial fill was encountered along the project alignment in all borings varying in depth from 2 to 7.5 feet below ground surface (BGS). As encountered in our borings,the fill is loose to medium dense and consists of silty sand (SM)near the surface and sandy lean clay (CL)at greater depth. The results of our laboratory testing on representative soil samples indicate that this fill possesses R-Values ranging from 4 to 18 and expansion index of less than 51. Alluvium: The alluvium was encountered below the artificial fill along the proposed alignment to the maximum depth explored of 21.5 feet BGS. The alluvium predominantly consists of medium stiff to stiff sandy lean clay (CL)and loose to medium dense, silty to clayey sand (SC-SM) and interbedded poorly-to well-graded sand (SP-SW)at depth.The results of our laboratory testing on representative soil samples indicate that this fill possesses R-Values ranging from 4 to 18 and expansion index of less than 51. Based on our field exploration, the pavement thickness in existing Diaz Road varies from one location to another. The pavement thickness as encountered in our borings and previous borings are summarized below. DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 5 Table 1. Existing Pavement Thickness 3.3 Observed Pavement Condition The existing pavement surface condition as well as pavement thickness appears to vary within this portion of Diaz Road. Our observations can be summarized as follows: The AC thickness generally varies from 5.0 to 10.5 inches and aggregate base (AB) layer varies from 10 to 17 inches as summarized in Table 1 above. Existing pavement is characterized with fair to poor surface conditions manifested in thermal cracking. Patching and potholing is typically noted in localized areas south of Winchester Road. Existing pavement within the unimproved portion of Diaz Road (~Via Montezuma to Avenida Alvarado) is also characterized by severe alligator cracking and poor ride quality. There is no pavement north of Dendy Parkway. 3.4 Surface and Groundwater No surface water was observed at the time of our field exploration along the proposed alignment. Groundwater was encountered in 4 of our recent borings at varying depths. However, groundwater conditions can fluctuate seasonally and also be directly-impacted by other factors not observed at the time of our field explorations.Depth to groundwater (where encountered) is summarized in the table below. Table 2. Depths to Groundwater Location (see Figure 4) Approx. AC Thickness (Inch) Approx. Aggregate Base Thickness (Inch) LB-3 7.0 12.0 LB-7 5.5 7.0 (Geogrid) LB-8 5.0 6.0 BH-6 10.5 17 BH-7 5.5 -(AC Core only) BH-8 6.5 15 Boring # Approximate Depth to Groundwater (ft) LB-1 18.70 LB-3 13.25 LB-4 11.83 LB-7 11.33 DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 6 4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4.1 General The proposed roadway improvements are feasible from a geotechnical viewpoint provided that the following recommendations are incorporated into the design and construction phases of development. 4.2 General Earthwork Considerations Earthwork associated with the proposed improvements should be performed in accordance with applicable City standards, “Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction” (Green Book, latest edition), and the recommendations included in the text of this report. The General Earthwork and Grading Specifications in Appendix D, are general grading specifications provided for typical grading projects and some of the recommendations may not be strictly applicable to this project. In case of conflict, the specific recommendations contained in the text of this report supersede those included in Appendix D. 4.3 Subgrade Preparation and Remedial Earthwork Prior to earthwork, the areas to receive fill and new pavement should be cleared and stripped of debris, deleterious material, organics, and vegetation. Cleared and grubbed material that may be encountered or created should be removed and appropriately disposed of. Voids created by removal of buried/unsuitable materials should be backfilled with properly compacted soil in general accordance with the recommendations of this report. Specific remedial grading recommendations for the proposed improvements should be as follows:  New Road Embankment / Pavement and Miscellaneous Retaining walls and/or Drainage Structures: The upper 3 feet of soils/alluvium below planned subgrade or footing elevation should be over-excavated (OX) and recompacted. The horizontal limits of OX below footings or fills should be equivalent to the vertical OX (projected down and away at a 1:1 slope from the outside edge of footings/fill). Localized areas of deeper or shallower OX may be required, depending on the actual conditions encountered during construction.  Street Sidewalks and Multi-Use Trail: In landscape or unpaved areas that are going to receive new Bike Trail pavement and/or fill, a minimum of 1.5-foot OX should be anticipated prior to placement of new fill or new pavement. The OX should extend horizontally a minimum distance of 2 feet from edges of new fills or improvement. The required OX depth should be further verified during construction. DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 7 After remedial removal described above is completed, the exposed subgrade surface should be scarified, moisture conditioned and compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557). Further field evaluation by the geotechnical consultant during construction may require localized additional removal and compaction. Excavations should be performed in accordance with the project plans, specifications, and all applicable OSHA requirements. 4.4 Fill Materials Onsite soils should generally be suitable as fill materials for street subgrade provided they are free of rocks over 6 inches in diameter and organic matter. Fill should be compacted in uniform horizontal lifts by mechanical means to at least 90 percent relative compaction as determined per ASTM D 1557 (Modified Proctor) or as required per City standards. Import soils and/or borrow sites, if needed, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to import. Import soils should be uncontaminated, granular in nature, free of organic material (loss on ignition less-than 2 percent), have a low expansion potential (EI<51) and R-value greater than 12 if to be used in upper 12 inches of street subgrade. 4.5 Shrinkage The volume change of excavated onsite materials upon compaction is expected to vary with depth of excavation, location, material type and compaction effort during grading. As such, the in-place and compacted densities of these materials vary and accurate determination of shrinkage for any specific area cannot be made, especially in the case of this project where soils vary considerably from one area to another.. For preliminary planning purposes and based on our field observations, we recommend that a shrinkage factor of 10 percent to 15 percent be applied for the proposed remedial grading. 4.6 Utility Trenches Utility trenches should be backfilled with compacted fill in accordance with Sections 306-1 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (“Greenbook”), latest edition. Fill material above the pipe zone should be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in un- compacted thickness and should be compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (per ASTM D1557) by mechanical means only. Site soils may generally be suitable as trench backfill provided these soils are screened of rocks over 3 inches in diameter and organic matter. Excavation of utility trenches should be performed in accordance with the project plans, specifications and the California Construction Safety Orders (latest Edition). The contractor DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 8 should be responsible for providing a “competent person” as defined in Article 6 of the California Construction Safety Orders. Contractors should be advised that sandy soils (such as fills generated from the onsite fill and alluvium) could make excavations particularly unsafe if all safety precautions are not properly implemented. In addition, excavations at or near the toe of slopes and/or parallel to slopes may be highly unstable due to the increased driving force and load on the trench wall. Spoil piles from the excavation(s) and construction equipment should be kept away from the sides of the trenches. Leighton does not consult in the area of safety engineering. 4.7 Preliminary Pavement Design The preliminary pavement design provided below is based on the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (HDM) and applicable City street standards. Based on testing of our collected samples, R-values of the near-surface soils are expected to generally vary from 4 to 18. As such, an average R-value of 12 has been used for preliminary design purposes. City of Temecula minimum pavement section for a traffic index of 10 is 0.50’ AC over 1.17’ AB. Table 3. Preliminary Pavement Design Boring Design R-value Traffic Index Pavement Structural Sections (ft) LB-2 12 10 0.50 AC / 1.60 CAB -AC is asphalt concrete conforming to applicable City Standards, Greenbook. and Caltrans Standard Specs -AB is aggregate base (CAB, Class 2 AB or CMB) conforming to applicable City Standard, Greenbook, and Caltrans Standard Specifications Pavement design and construction should also conform to applicable City and industry standards. Final pavement section may differ from stated in table above depending on actual R-value of subgrade soils during construction. The Caltrans pavement section design calculations were based on a pavement life of approximately 20 years with a normal amount of flexible pavement maintenance. Although not anticipated on this project, any imported materials placed within the upper 2.5 feet of finished grade should have a minimum R-value of 12 and should be non- corrosive and of low expansion. Other construction materials such as aggregates, asphalt, and Portland cement should be imported from local commercial sources. No potential sources for import materials have been pre-tested for this project. Therefore, prior to import, the materials should be tested and approved by the Geotechnical Engineer. DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 9 4.8 Rehabilitation of Existing Pavement Based on our review and alignment pavement borings (See Table 1), the current pavement section does not meet the City minimum (except BH-6) or minimum design thickness. However, there are several rehabilitation methods that can be implemented by the City to help preserve existing pavement, although not improve to current design requirements.. The pros and cons of each method can be evaluated based on cost analysis, desired life span, and construction sequence and its impact on existing traffic. Based on our experience with similar projects and existing pavement conditions, the most viable options may include the following:  Option 1: Application of slurry seal after properly cleaning existing cracks and filling with elastomeric crack sealant. This option is typically considered the least expensive option, provides no structural improvement and the shortest life span.  Option 2: Cold plane/milling minimum of 0.15-foot of existing HMA and placement of a minimum of 0.15-foot Rubberized Hot Mix Asphalt (RHMA) or HMA overlay. This option typically provides a longer life span than Option 1, as well as better ride quality, but will not meet current design requirements.  Option 3: Complete removal of existing AC layer or AC/AB layer and placement of new HMA layer on top of properly prepared aggregate base and subgrade. This method is only applicable to limited areas where existing pavement distress appears to be associated with subgrade failure, but will not meet current design requirements.  Option 4: In order to meet current pavement thickness minimum, a complete removal of AC and underlying AB layer and pavement re-construction will be required. Alternatives such as full depth reclamation or cold central plant recycling can also be considered. 4.9 Retaining Walls / Culverts For design of culverts and/or retaining walls associated with this project, the calculated Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is approximately 0.54g for this site using Caltrans ARS online tool (V2.3.09) with a mean moment magnitude (Mw) of 6.87. Details of the ARS analysis and resulting ARS curve are presented in Appendix C. Where applicable, Caltrans Standard Reinforced Concrete retaining walls up to 20 feet in height can be constructed on this project since the Coefficient of Horizontal Acceleration, kh does not exceed 0.2 (or <1/3 PGA=0.54g). Where conventional retaining walls are to be designed, the following preliminary design parameters may be considered:  Average Moist Unit weight of soil = 120 pcf DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 10  Average Saturated Unit Weight of Soil = 140 pcf  Service Permissible Net Contact Stress = 2.5 ksf (footing width >4 feet)  Strength Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance = 5 ksf (footing width >4 ft)  Extreme Event Factored Gross Nominal Bearing Resistance = 6 ksf (footing >6 ft)  Friction coefficient = 0.35  A minimum of 3-foot over-excavation (OX) will be required for footings founded at 3 feet below existing ground surface (BGS), or shallower. A 2-foot OX will be required if footings are founded at depths greater than 4 feet BGS or deeper. For non-restrained walls, an incremental seismic earth pressures of 14H psf, where H is the retaining wall stem height in feet, should be applied for design in addition to static earth and surcharge pressures discussed below. For restrained walls, an equivalent pressure of 55 pcf should be applied. For 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) sloping backfill, we recommend an equivalent fluid pressure of 52 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for the active condition, and 80 pcf for the at-rest condition. Hydrostatic pressure should also be incorporated into to the above equivalent fluid pressures, where applicable. Surcharge loads such as adjacent structures, and/or traffic loading should be considered in design of retaining walls. Loads applied within a 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) projection down from the surcharging structure on the stem of the wall should also be considered in wall design. In general, 0.30 of uniform vertical surcharge-loads should be applied as a horizontal pressure on cantilever (active) retaining walls, while half of uniform vertical surcharge-loads should be applied as a horizontal pressure on braced (at-rest) retaining walls (assuming sand soils backfill). 4.10 Corrosion Potential Caltrans Corrosion Guidelines (Caltrans, 2018) state that a site is considered to be corrosive to foundation elements or underground structures if one or more of the following conditions exist for the soil and/or water samples taken at the site:  Chloride concentration greater than or equal to 500 ppm  Sulfate concentration greater than or equal to 1,500 ppm  pH of 5.5 or less Based on our laboratory testing on a representative soil sample, the onsite soils are considered to be non-corrosive to foundation elements or underground structures. DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 11 4.11 Percolation/Infiltration Testing Three (3) percolation tests were performed for preliminary screening along the proposed alignment (see, Figure 4) in general accordance with the procedures of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) Design Handbook (RCFC, 2018). Percolation tests were performed at a depth of approximately 5 feet BGS. Due to relatively high clay/silt content and dense artificial fill, the onsite soils/artificial fill possess very poor percolation characteristics (practically impermeable). The actual test results/data sheets are included in Appendix C. 4.12 Construction Observation Observation and testing should be performed by Leighton’s representatives during excavation/construction. It should be anticipated that the substrata exposed during construction may vary from that encountered in the test borings. Reasonably continuous construction observation and review during the proposed improvements allows for evaluation of the actual soil conditions and the ability to provide appropriate revisions where required during construction. Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils, trench excavation, shoring, approval of imported earth materials, fill placement of bedding and backfill, and other site geotechnically-related operations should be observed and tested by Leighton. DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 12 5.0 LIMITATIONS This report was necessarily based in part upon data obtained from a limited number of observances, site visits, soil samples, tests, analyses, histories of occurrences, spaced subsurface explorations and limited information on historical events and observations. Such information is necessarily incomplete. The nature of many sites is such that differing characteristics can be experienced within small distances and under various climatic conditions. Changes in subsurface conditions can and do occur over time. This evaluation was performed with the understanding that the proposed improvements are as described in Section 1.1 of this report. The client is referred to Appendix E regarding important information provided by the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) on geotechnical engineering studies and reports and their applicability. This report was prepared for our Client based on their needs, directions, and requirements at the time of our investigation. This report is not authorized for use by, and is not to be relied upon by any party except our Client, and its successors and assigns as owner of the property, with whom Leighton has contracted for the work. Use of or reliance on this report by any other party is at that party's risk. Unauthorized use of or reliance on this report constitutes an agreement to defend and indemnify Leighton from and against any liability which may arise as a result of such use or reliance, regardless of any fault, negligence, or strict liability of Leighton. DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 13 REFERENCES American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2012, LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 6th Edition, Bryant, W.A., and Hart, E.W., 2007, Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California, Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Zones Maps, Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey, Special Publication 42, 2007 Interim Revision. California Building Code, 2019, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 2, Volume 2 of 2. California Geological Survey, 2018, Earthquake Fault Zones, A Guide for Government Agencies, Property Owners/Developers, and Geoscience Practitioners for Assessing Fault Rupture Hazards in California, Special Publication 42. California, Code of Regulations, 2018, Division of Industrial Safety, Title 8, Subchapter 4, Construction Safety Orders, https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sub4.html Caltrans, 2013b, Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.7, April. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/techpubs/manual/othermanual/other-engin- manual/seismic-design-criteria/sdc.html Caltrans, June 2017, Foundation Reports for Earth Retaining Systems (ERS), http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/geotech/geo_manual/page/FR_ERS_June2017.pdf Caltrans, 2018a, Corrosion Guidelines, Version 3.0, March. Caltrans, 2018b, Highway Design Manual (HDM), July. Caltrans, 2018c, Standard Specifications. David Evans and Associates, Inc., 2020, City of Temecula, Department of Public Works, Diaz Road Expansion, PW 17-25, Street Improvement Plan, Preliminary, dated March 6, 2020. Geotracker, State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Online Database http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ , Accessed July 12, 2018. Leighton Consulting, Inc., Geotechnical Exploration, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), Temecula Valley Regional Water Reclamation Facility Recycled Water Pipeline Project, Temecula/Murrieta Area, Riverside County, California, Project No. 10807.001, dated March 7, 2016. DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 14 Morton, D.M., Miller, F.K., 2006, Geologic Map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30’ x 60’ Quadrangles, California: U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report OF-2006- 1217, scale 1:100,000. Morton, D.M., 2004, Preliminary Digital Geologic Map of the Santa Ana 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle, Southern California, Ver. 2.0, USGS Open-File Rep. 99-172, scale 1:100,000. OSHPD, 2020, Seismic Design Maps, an interactive computer program on OSHPD website to calculate Seismic Response and Design Parameters based on ASCE 7-10 seismic procedures, https://seismicmaps.org/ Riverside County, 2018, Map My County, Riverside County Integrated Project Website, https://gis.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public Sladden Engineering, 2011, Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed EMWD Warm Springs Recycled Water Pipeline Project, Northern Alignment – Phase 1, Temecula California, Project No. 644-11020, 11-11-203, dated November 7, 2011. Temecula, City of, Improvement Standard Drawings, Website, https://temeculaca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/217, accessed December 2019. University California at Berkeley, Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center, The 5 NGA-West2 horizontal ground motion prediction equations, Updated on April 14, 2015, https://peer.berkeley.edu/research/data-sciences/databases USGS, 2020, Web-Service Wrapper Around the nshmp-haz Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis (PSHA) Platform, https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/interactive/ ³ 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Figure 1 Scale: Leighton Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2020 Thematic Information: Leighton 1 " = 2,000 ' Project: 12502.001 Eng/Geol: SIS/RFR Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12502\001\Maps\12502-001_F01_SLM_2020-06-12.mxd on 5/18/2020 11:41:17 AM Author: Leighton Geomatics (btran) Date: July 2020 SITE LOCATION MAP Diaz Road Geotechnical Exploration PW 17-25 Temecula, California Approximate Project Alignment Qss Qya gr pKm Qa Tv Qyf Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed ³ 0 2,000 4,000 Feet Figure 2 Scale: Leighton Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2020 Thematic Information: Leighton, USGS 1 " = 2,000 ' Project: 12502.001 Eng/Geol: SIS/RFR Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12502\001\Maps\12502-001_F02_RGM_2020-06-12.mxd on 5/18/2020 11:52:51 AM Author: Leighton Geomatics (btran) Date: July 2020 REGIONAL GEOLOGY MAP Diaz Road Geotechnical Exploration PW 17-25 Temecula, California Approximate Site Location Legend ! ! !! !! !!Qya, Young Alluvial Valley Qyf, Young Alluvial Fan Qa, Alluvial Valley Qss, Coarse-grained formations of Pleistocene age and younger; primarily sandstone and conglomerate Tv, Tertiary age formations of volcanic origin gr, Granitic and other intrusive crystalline rocks of all ages pKm, Cretaceous and Pre- Cretaceous metamorphic formations of sedimentary and volcanic origin Wildo ma r f a u l t WolfV al l eyfau l t M u r rietta HotSpringsfault Elsinore fault Wildo m arfa ult Glen Ivy N ort h Will ardfault Willard fault Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community ³ 048 Miles Figure 3 Scale: Leighton Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2020 Thematic Information: Leighton, Bryant, W. A. (compiler), 2005, Digital Database of Quaternary and Younger Faults from the Fault Activity Map of California, version 2.0: CGS 1 " = 4 miles Project: 12502.001 Eng/Geol: SIS/RFR Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12502\001\Maps\12502-001_F03_RFM_2020-06-12.mxd on 5/18/2020 11:46:19 AM Author: Leighton Geomatics (btran) Date: July 2020 REGIONAL FAULT MAP Diaz Road Geotechnical Exploration PW 17-25 Temecula, California Approximate Project Alignment Legend Historic (<200 years) Holocene (<10K years) Quaternary (<1.6M years) Pre-Quaternary (>1.6M years) Map Saved as V:\Drafting\12502\001\Maps\12502-001_F04_BLM_2020-06-12.mxd on 6/12/2020 10:09:28 AM BORING LOCATION MAP Diaz Road Geotechnical Exploration PW 17-25 Temecula, California Figure 4 Leighton Legend &<Approximate Location of Boring (This Exploration) &(Approximate Location of Percolatio/Infiltration Test (This Exploration) &>Approximate Location of Boring (Leighton, 2016) &>Approximate Location of Boring (Sladden, 2001) Approximate Project Alignment ³ 0 800 1,600 Feet Scale: Base Map: ESRI ArcGIS Online 2020 Thematic Information: Leighton 1 " = 800 ' Project: 12502.001 Eng/Geol: SIS/RFR Author: Leighton Geomatics (btran) Date: July 2020 DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 APPENDIX A Logs of Exploratory Borings (This and Previous Explorations) The attached subsurface exploration logs and related information depict subsurface conditions only at the locations indicated and at the particular date designated on the logs. Subsurface conditions at other locations may differ from conditions occurring at these logged locations. The passage of time may result in altered subsurface conditions due to environmental changes. In addition, any stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between sampling intervals and soil types; and the transition may be gradual. 11 17 19 8 12 15 5 9 11 6 10 10 3 6 12 4 5 5 109 115 SM SP-SM CL SC SC-SM SW-SM B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 4 16 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND, gray, slightly moist, fine grained sand SILTY SAND, medium dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand Poorly graded SAND with SILT, medium dense, grayish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand Quaternary Alluvium (Qal); SANDY Lean CLAY, stiff, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand, roots, petrochemical odor Well-graded SAND with SILT, loose, dark grayish brown, wet, fine to coarse grained sand Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater at 18.7' Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter MoistureGround Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class.5-15-20 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Diaz Road Geotechnical Exploration 12502.001 Drilling Method 8"Sample No.FeetAttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-1 Logged By Date Drilled JTD FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 7 8 9 6 7 9 2 3 5 2 3 5 4 11 11 112 106 94 SM CLR-1 R-2 B-1 R-3 R-4 R-5 16 21 29 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand Quaternary Alluvium (Qal); SANDY Lean CLAY, stiff, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand SANDY Lean CLAY, stiff, dark gray, moist, fine grained sand, MD = 125.3 @ 11.0%, EI = 55, RV = 16 SANDY Lean CLAY, medium stiff, dark gray, moist, fine grained sand SANDY Lean CLAY, medium stiff, dark gray, moist, fine grained sand Lean CLAY, stiff, olive brown, moist, no recovery, resample W/SPT Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings MD, EI, RV, AL CR Hole Diameter MoistureGround Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class.5-15-20 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Diaz Road Geotechnical Exploration 12502.001 Drilling Method 8"Sample No.FeetAttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-2 Logged By Date Drilled JTD FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2 3 4 5 12 16 3 5 6 3 5 6 2 3 6 4 10 16 112 113 102 ASPHALT CL CL B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 15 16 22 7"AC/12"AB Artificial Fill (Af); Lean CLAY with SAND, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand SANDY Lean CLAY with GRAVEL, medium stiff, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SANDY Lean CLAY, stiff, dark gray, moist, fine to medium grained sand Quaternary Alluvium (Qal); Lean CLAY, medium stiff, dark brown, moist SANDY Lean CLAY, stiff, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand SANDY Lean CLAY, stiff, dark grayish brown, wet, fine to coarse grained sand SANDY Lean CLAY, stiff, dark gray, moist, fine grained sand Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater at 13.25' Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter MoistureGround Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class.5-15-20 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Diaz Road Geotechnical Exploration 12502.001 Drilling Method 8"Sample No.FeetAttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-3 Logged By Date Drilled JTD FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 10 13 9 10 19 28 8 9 12 7 13 33 6 8 11 127 120 112 SM ML SM SC SW SC R-1 R-2 B-1 R-3 R-4 R-5 10 13 13 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand SANDY SILT, hard, dark grayish brown, moist, fine grained sand, MD = 129.5 @ 8.8% Quaternary Alluvium (Qal); SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark gray, moist, fine to medium grained sand CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand Well-graded SAND, medium dense, gray, wet, fine to coarse grained sand CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater at 11.83' Backfilled with cuttings MD, SA, CR Hole Diameter MoistureGround Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class.5-15-20 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Diaz Road Geotechnical Exploration 12502.001 Drilling Method 8"Sample No.FeetAttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-4 Logged By Date Drilled JTD FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 6 5 6 10 20 23 8 12 11 3 6 5 3 4 3 5 4 6 115 106 ML SM SM SC SW B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 13 21 Artificial Fill (Af); SANDY SILT, grayish brown, slitghtly moist, fine grained sand, RV = 18 SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, loose, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark gray, moist, fine to coarse grained sand Quaternary Alluvium (Qal); SILTY SAND, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine grained sand CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark gray, wet, fine grained sand Well-graded SAND, loose, dark gray, wet, fine to coarse grained sand Well-graded SAND, loose, dark gray, wet, fine to coarse grained sand Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings RV, SA Hole Diameter MoistureGround Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class.5-15-20 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Diaz Road Geotechnical Exploration 12502.001 Drilling Method 8"Sample No.FeetAttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-5 Logged By Date Drilled JTD FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 19 20 16 10 14 15 2 4 5 5 12 12 3 6 8 124 95 SC SM CL SC-SM CL R-1 R-2 B-1 R-3 R-4 R-5 10 27 Artificial Fill (Af); CLAYEY SAND, dark gray, moist, fine grained sand SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, dark gray, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, dark gray, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel Quaternary Alluvium (Qal); SANDY Lean CLAY, medium stiff, dark gray, moist, fine grained sand SILTY, CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand SANDY Lean CLAY, stiff, dark gray, moist, fine grained sand Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter MoistureGround Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class.5-15-20 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Diaz Road Geotechnical Exploration 12502.001 Drilling Method 8"Sample No.FeetAttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-6 Logged By Date Drilled JTD FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 2 3 4 3 6 8 4 4 6 3 5 6 5 7 10 5 7 20 94 98 108 ASPHALT CL-ML CL SW B-1 R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-5 R-6 25 24 19 5.5"AC/7"AB/Geogrid Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY CLAY with SAND, dark gray, moist, fine grained sand, MD = 118.7 @ 11.5%, EI = 41, RV = 4 SILTY CLAY, medium stiff, dark gray, moist Quaternary Alluvium (Qal); Lean CLAY, medium stiff, dark brown, moist Lean CLAY, stiff, dark grayish brown, moist SANDY Lean CLAY, stiff, dark gray, moist, fine grained sand SANDY Lean CLAY, stiff, dark gray, moist, fine grained sand SANDY Lean CLAY, stiff, dark gray, moist, fine grained sand Well-graded SAND, medium dense, gray, wet, fine to medium grained sand Drilled to 21.5' Sampled to 21.5' Groundwater at 11.33' Backfilled with cuttings MD, EI, RV, AL Hole Diameter MoistureGround Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class.5-15-20 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Diaz Road Geotechnical Exploration 12502.001 Drilling Method 8"Sample No.FeetAttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-7 Logged By Date Drilled JTD FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 5"AC/6"AB Hole terminated at .92' due to underground utilities Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter MoistureGround Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class.5-15-20 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Diaz Road Geotechnical Exploration 12502.001 Drilling Method 8"Sample No.FeetAttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-8 Logged By Date Drilled JTD FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 3 3 4 CL S-1 Artificial Fill (Af); Lean CLAY, dark gray, moist SANDY Lean CLAY with GRAVEL, stiff, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel Drilled to 5' Sampled to 5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter MoistureGround Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class.5-15-20 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Diaz Road Geotechnical Exploration 12502.001 Drilling Method 8"Sample No.FeetAttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-1 Logged By Date Drilled JTD FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 5 5 4 SM SCS-1 Artificial FIll (Af); SILTY SAND, gray, moist, fine grained sand CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark gray, moist, fine to medium grained sand Drilled to 5' Sampled to 5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter MoistureGround Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class.5-15-20 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Diaz Road Geotechnical Exploration 12502.001 Drilling Method 8"Sample No.FeetAttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-2 Logged By Date Drilled JTD FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 4 6 6 SM SCS-1 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, light brownish gray, slightly moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel SILTY SAND, dark gray, moist, fine to medium grained sand CLAYEY SAND, medium dense, dark gray, moist, fine to medium grained sand Drilled to 5' Sampled to 5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with cuttings Hole Diameter MoistureGround Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class.5-15-20 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Boring Location Map Diaz Road Geotechnical Exploration 12502.001 Drilling Method 8"Sample No.FeetAttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG P-3 Logged By Date Drilled JTD FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 CR, SE CO 10 13 13 5 6 7 3 4 6 120 93 108 SM SC SM ML CL R-1 B-1 R-2 R-3 13 26 19 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand, gravel to 1" CLAYEY SAND, dark brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, medium dense, dark grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel, SE = 9 Quaternary Allvium (Qal); SILT with SAND, moist, very dark grayish brown, very fine to fine grained sand SILTY CLAY, stiff, dark grayish brown, moist, fine grained sand, CO = -0.6% Lean CLAY, stiff, dark grayish brown, moist Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with Cuttings Hole Diameter MoistureGround Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class.9-18-14 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Figure 4 Temecula Valley Recycled Water Pipeline 10807.001 Drilling Method 8"Sample No.FeetAttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-8 Logged By Date Drilled JTD FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 SA EI 10 14 17 6 7 8 4 5 6 6 6 7 113 118 107 SM ML SM R-1 R-2 B-1 R-3 R-4 17 17 19 Artificial Fill (Af); SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, light brownish gray, dry to moist, fine to coarse grained sand with gravel and cobble to 5" SILTY SAND with GRAVEL, grayish brown, moist, fine to coarse grained sand with fine gravel Quaternary Alluvium (Qal); SILT with SAND, stiff, dark grayish brown, moist, very fine to fine grained sand SILT with SAND, stiff, dark brown, moist, very fine to fine grained sand, EI = 43 SANDY SILT, stiff, very dark brown, moist, fine to medium grained sand SILTY SAND, loose, very dark brown, moist to wet, fine grained sand, no recovery, resample with spt Drilled to 16.5' Sampled to 16.5' Groundwater not encountered Backfilled with Cuttings Hole Diameter MoistureGround Elevation DepthBlowsElevationPer 6 InchesPage 1 of 1 ' BULK SAMPLE CORE SAMPLE GRAB SAMPLE RING SAMPLE SPLIT SPOON SAMPLE TUBE SAMPLE B C G R S T JTD Hollow Stem Auger - 140lb - Autohammer - 30" Drop Soil Class.9-18-14 SOIL DESCRIPTION Sampled By Drilling Co.Drilling Co. Project Project No. See Figure 4 Temecula Valley Recycled Water Pipeline 10807.001 Drilling Method 8"Sample No.FeetAttitudesSAMPLE TYPES: 2R Drilling * * * This log is a part of a report by Leighton and should not be used as a stand-alone document. * * *Content, %GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOG LB-9 Logged By Date Drilled JTD FeetS (U.S.C.S.)LogType of TestsGraphicpcfLocation Dry DensityN This Soil Description applies only to a location of the exploration at the time of sampling. Subsurface conditions may differ at other locations and may change with time. The description is a simplification of the actual conditions encountered. Transitions between soil types may be gradual. TYPE OF TESTS: -200 AL CN CO CR CU % FINES PASSING ATTERBERG LIMITS CONSOLIDATION COLLAPSE CORROSION UNDRAINED TRIAXIAL DS EI H MD PP RV DIRECT SHEAR EXPANSION INDEX HYDROMETER MAXIMUM DENSITY POCKET PENETROMETER R VALUE SA SE SG UC SIEVE ANALYSIS SAND EQUIVALENT SPECIFIC GRAVITY UNCONFINED COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 APPENDIX B Laboratory Test Results(This and Previous Explorations) Compaction; LB-2, B-1 (05-15-20) Tested By:F. Mina Date:06/03/20 Input By: M. Vinet Date:06/10/20 LB-2 Depth (ft.):5.0 - 10.0 X Moist Mechanical Ram Dry Manual Ram Mold Volume (ft³)0.03340 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5613 5679 5638 3565 3565 3565 2048 2114 2073 1776.3 1561.9 1335.3 1651.8 1434.2 1215.5 328.2 329.0 326.4 9.4 11.6 13.5 135.2 139.5 136.8 123.6 125.1 120.6 125.3 11.0 PROCEDURE USED X Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) May be used if +#4 is 20% or less Procedure B Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is 20% or less Procedure C Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six) Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in. is <30% Particle-Size Distribution: GR:SA:FIAtterberg Limits:32:13:19LL,PL,PI Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Net Weight of Soil (g) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) Weight of Container (g) Weight of Mold (g) Diaz Rd Expansion Preparation Method: Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g) B-1 12502.001 TEST NO. Soil Identification: Project Name: Sample No.: Lean Clay with Sand (CL)s, Dark Yellowish Brown. MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST ASTM D 1557 Project No.: Boring No.: 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 135.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.Dry Density (pcf)Moisture Content (%) SP. GR. = 2.65 SP. GR. = 2.70 SP. GR. = 2.75 XX Compaction; LB-4, B-1 (05-15-20) Tested By:F. Mina Date:06/03/20 Input By: M. Vinet Date:06/10/20 LB-4 Depth (ft.):5.0 - 10.0 X Moist Mechanical Ram Dry Manual Ram Mold Volume (ft³)0.03340 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5600 5680 5711 5654 3565 3565 3565 3565 2035 2115 2146 2089 1322.2 1566.0 1156.4 1005.5 1262.1 1470.4 1073.6 922.8 277.4 278.4 278.8 279.2 6.1 8.0 10.4 12.8 134.3 139.6 141.6 137.9 126.6 129.2 128.3 122.2 129.5 8.8 PROCEDURE USED X Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) May be used if +#4 is 20% or less Procedure B Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is 20% or less Procedure C Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six) Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in. is <30% Particle-Size Distribution: 0:47:53GR:SA:FIAtterberg Limits: LL,PL,PI Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Net Weight of Soil (g) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) Weight of Container (g) Weight of Mold (g) Diaz Rd Expansion Preparation Method: Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g) B-1 12502.001 TEST NO. Soil Identification: Project Name: Sample No.: Sandy Silt s(ML), Black. MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST ASTM D 1557 Project No.: Boring No.: 115.0 120.0 125.0 130.0 135.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.Dry Density (pcf)Moisture Content (%) SP. GR. = 2.65 SP. GR. = 2.70 SP. GR. = 2.75 XX Compaction; LB-7, B-1 (05-15-20) Tested By:F. Mina Date:06/03/20 Input By: M. Vinet Date:06/10/20 LB-7 Depth (ft.):0 - 5.0 X Moist Mechanical Ram Dry Manual Ram Mold Volume (ft³)0.03340 Ram Weight = 10 lb.; Drop = 18 in. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5507 5580 5576 5542 3565 3565 3565 3565 1942 2015 2011 1977 1574.7 1668.6 1606.8 1191.0 1474.3 1521.8 1454.9 1067.6 420.8 329.2 415.0 332.7 9.5 12.3 14.6 16.8 128.2 133.0 132.7 130.5 117.0 118.4 115.8 111.7 118.7 11.5 PROCEDURE USED X Procedure A Soil Passing No. 4 (4.75 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) May be used if +#4 is 20% or less Procedure B Soil Passing 3/8 in. (9.5 mm) Sieve Mold : 4 in. (101.6 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 25 (twenty-five) Use if +#4 is >20% and +3/8 in. is 20% or less Procedure C Soil Passing 3/4 in. (19.0 mm) Sieve Mold : 6 in. (152.4 mm) diameter Layers : 5 (Five) Blows per layer : 56 (fifty-six) Use if +3/8 in. is >20% and +¾ in. is <30% Particle-Size Distribution: GR:SA:FIAtterberg Limits:33:18:15LL,PL,PI Optimum Moisture Content (%) Maximum Dry Density (pcf) Net Weight of Soil (g) Wet Density (pcf) Dry Density (pcf) Moisture Content (%) Wet Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) Dry Weight of Soil + Cont. (g) Weight of Container (g) Weight of Mold (g) Diaz Rd Expansion Preparation Method: Wt. Compacted Soil + Mold (g) B-1 12502.001 TEST NO. Soil Identification: Project Name: Sample No.: Lean Clay (CL), Black. MODIFIED PROCTOR COMPACTION TEST ASTM D 1557 Project No.: Boring No.: 105.0 110.0 115.0 120.0 125.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.Dry Density (pcf)Moisture Content (%) SP. GR. = 2.65 SP. GR. = 2.70 SP. GR. = 2.75 XX Project Name:Tested By:F. Mina Date:6/3/20 Project No. :Checked By:M. Vinet Date:6/10/20 Boring No.:Depth:5.0 - 10.0 Sample No. :Location: Sample Description: Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Wt. of Container No. (gm.) Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.) Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve Percent Passing # 4 in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h. Rev. 03-08 0.55516/4/20 0 920 Expansion Index (EI meas) =((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 7:00 980 0.5551 55.1 1.0 55 Expansion Index ( Report ) =Nearest Whole Number or Zero (0) if Initial Height is > than Final Height Add Distilled Water to the Specimen Wt. of Container (gm.) 100.3 0.5000 10 0.5000 6/4/20 8:00 1.0 1.0 15:40 1.06/3/20 Wt. of Mold (gm.) 6/3/20 105.8 Moisture Content (%) Date 15:30 Void Ratio Pore Volume (cc) Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas] 117.7 632.2 After TestBefore Test Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 7 0.682 Dry Density (pcf) Wet Density (pcf) Specific Gravity (Assumed) Specimen Height (in.) EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS 98.4 4.01 2.70 3703.5 0.0 590.5 3703.5 60.1 1.0551 N/A Diaz Rd Expansion 12502.001 LB-2 B-1 ASTM D 4829 Lean Clay with Sand (CL)s, Dark Yellowish Brown. MOLDED SPECIMEN 4.01 1.0000 7Container No. Specimen Diameter (in.) Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.) 200.2 2.70 350.7 200.2 23.2 0.405 88.5 200.2 632.2 123.5 Elapsed Time (min.) Dial Readings (in.) 91.951.4 Pressure (psi) 0.373Total Porosity SPECIMEN INUNDATION 77.1 Time Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 11.3 350.0 319.5 0.594 50.0 Project Name:Tested By:F. Mina Date:6/3/20 Project No. :Checked By:M. Vinet Date:6/10/20 Boring No.:Depth:0 - 5.0 Sample No. :Location: Sample Description: Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Wt. of Container No. (gm.) Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.) Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve Percent Passing # 4 in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h. Rev. 03-08 0.54056/4/20 0 830 Expansion Index (EI meas) =((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 7:00 890 0.5405 40.5 1.0 41 Expansion Index ( Report ) =Nearest Whole Number or Zero (0) if Initial Height is > than Final Height Add Distilled Water to the Specimen Wt. of Container (gm.) 96.1 0.5000 10 0.5000 6/4/20 8:00 1.0 1.0 17:10 1.06/3/20 Wt. of Mold (gm.) 6/3/20 100.0 Moisture Content (%) Date 17:00 Void Ratio Pore Volume (cc) Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas] 112.5 606.0 After TestBefore Test Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 8 0.754 Dry Density (pcf) Wet Density (pcf) Specific Gravity (Assumed) Specimen Height (in.) EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS 98.3 4.01 2.70 2870.2 0.0 573.2 2870.2 49.9 1.0405 N/A Diaz Rd Expansion 12502.001 LB-7 B-1 ASTM D 4829 Lean Clay (CL), Black. MOLDED SPECIMEN 4.01 1.0000 8Container No. Specimen Diameter (in.) Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.) 200.2 2.70 331.6 200.2 22.4 0.430 92.6 200.2 606.0 117.6 Elapsed Time (min.) Dial Readings (in.) 80.249.2 Pressure (psi) 0.407Total Porosity SPECIMEN INUNDATION 84.2 Time Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 12.5 333.7 300.4 0.686 33.7 Project Name:Date:6/4/20 Project Number:12502.001 Technician:F. Mina Boring Number:LB-2 Depth (ft.):5.0 - 10.0 Sample Number:B-1 Sample Location: Sample Description:Lean Clay with Sand (CL)s, Dark Yellowish Brown. TEST SPECIMEN A B C MOISTURE AT COMPACTION %12.7 14.8 15.9 HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.45 2.57 2.59 DRY DENSITY, pcf 111.0 108.2 104.3 COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE, psi 150 100 75 EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 683 309 169 EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 72 37 20 STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi)68 119 134 TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.50 4.60 4.96 R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 43 16 9 R-VALUE CORRECTED 43 17 10 DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0 TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0 STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft.0.91 1.33 1.44 EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft.2.72 1.40 0.75 EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART R-VALUE BY EXPANSION:16 R-VALUE BY EXUDATION:17 EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE:16 R-VALUE TEST RESULTS ASTM D 2844 Diaz Rd Expansion N/A 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION in feetCOVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in feet 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0100200300400500600700800R-VALUEEXUDATION PRESSURE (psi) Project Name:Date:6/4/20 Project Number:12502.001 Technician:F. Mina Boring Number:LB-5 Depth (ft.):0 - 5.0 Sample Number:B-1 Sample Location: Sample Description:Sandy Silt s(ML), Dark Yellowish Brown. TEST SPECIMEN A B C MOISTURE AT COMPACTION %12.4 13.5 15.8 HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.53 2.52 2.55 DRY DENSITY, pcf 113.2 111.6 107.1 COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE, psi 150 125 75 EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 408 309 126 EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 32 18 8 STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi)95 115 134 TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.20 4.48 4.56 R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 29 18 10 R-VALUE CORRECTED 29 18 10 DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0 TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0 STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft.1.14 1.31 1.44 EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft.1.21 0.68 0.30 EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART R-VALUE BY EXPANSION:26 R-VALUE BY EXUDATION:18 EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE:18 R-VALUE TEST RESULTS ASTM D 2844 Diaz Rd Expansion N/A 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION in feetCOVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in feet 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0100200300400500600700800R-VALUEEXUDATION PRESSURE (psi) Project Name:Date:6/4/20 Project Number:12502.001 Technician:F. Mina Boring Number:LB-7 Depth (ft.):0 - 5.0 Sample Number:B-1 Sample Location: Sample Description:Lean Clay (CL), Black. TEST SPECIMEN A B C MOISTURE AT COMPACTION %16.6 17.2 18.5 HEIGHT OF SAMPLE, Inches 2.55 2.48 2.55 DRY DENSITY, pcf 100.2 104.3 101.5 COMPACTOR AIR PRESSURE, psi 165 150 125 EXUDATION PRESSURE, psi 623 416 250 EXPANSION, Inches x 10exp-4 39 17 10 STABILITY Ph 2,000 lbs (160 psi)130 141 150 TURNS DISPLACEMENT 4.31 4.61 4.87 R-VALUE UNCORRECTED 12 7 3 R-VALUE CORRECTED 12 7 3 DESIGN CALCULATION DATA a b c GRAVEL EQUIVALENT FACTOR 1.0 1.0 1.0 TRAFFIC INDEX 5.0 5.0 5.0 STABILOMETER THICKNESS, ft.1.41 1.49 1.55 EXPANSION PRESSURE THICKNESS, ft.1.47 0.64 0.38 EXPANSION PRESSURE CHART EXUDATION PRESSURE CHART R-VALUE BY EXPANSION:13 R-VALUE BY EXUDATION:4 EQUILIBRIUM R-VALUE:4 R-VALUE TEST RESULTS ASTM D 2844 Diaz Rd Expansion N/A 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00COVER THICKNESS BY EXPANSION in feetCOVER THICKNESS BY STABILOMETER in feet 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0100200300400500600700800R-VALUEEXUDATION PRESSURE (psi) Project Name:Tested By:FLM Date:06/01/20 Project No.:12502.001 Checked By:MRV Date:06/10/20 Boring No.:LB-4 Depth (feet):5.0 - 10.0 Sample No.:B-1 Soil Identification:Sandy Silt s(ML), Black S 800.7 800.7 757.2 421.0 421.0 336.2 12.9 S 581.7 421.0 160.7 (in.)(mm.) 3"75.000 1"25.000 3/4"19.000 1/2"12.500 3/8"9.500 #4 4.750 #8 2.360 #16 1.180 #30 0.600 #50 0.300 #100 0.150 #200 0.075 GRAVEL:0 % SAND:47 % FINES:53 % GROUP SYMBOL:s(ML)N/A N/A Remarks: 100.0 99.9 158.3 80.9 52.9 112.0 66.7 After Wet Sieve Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g) Wt. of Container (g) Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g) Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g) 96.2 98.83.9 100.0 12.7 Dry Wt. of Soil (g) Cu = D60/D10 = Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) = 0.0 0.4 PAN 64.3 Moisture Content of Total Air - Dry Soil 91.3 Wt. of Container No._____ (g) Container No. Percent Passing (%) Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont. (g) 29.1 100.0 100.0 Wt. of Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g) Moisture Content (%) 100.0 Wt. of Container (g) U. S. Sieve Size Cumulative Weight Dry Soil Retained (g) PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION) ASTM D 6913 Container No.: Diaz Rd Expansion of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS 3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER GRAVEL FINES FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM 12502.001 SAND SILT FINE HYDROMETER Diaz Rd Expansion Project No.:LB-4 Sample No.: Soil Type : PARTICLE - SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 6913 Soil Identification:Sandy Silt s(ML), Black s(ML) GR:SA:FI : (%) Boring No.: Depth (feet):5.0 - 10.0 Project Name:B-1 Jun-200:47 :53 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE -SIZE (mm) " Sieve; LB-4, B-1 (05-15-20) Project Name:Tested By:FLM Date:06/01/20 Project No.:12502.001 Checked By:MRV Date:06/10/20 Boring No.:LB-5 Depth (feet):0 - 5.0 Sample No.:B-1 Soil Identification:Sandy Silt s(ML), Dark Yellowish Brown. Whole Sample Sample Passing #4 Whole Sample Sample passing #4 P P Wt. of Air-Dry Soil + Cont.(g)2345.5 1037.5 2345.5 1037.5 Wt. of Dry Soil + Cont. (g)2123.0 1037.5 716.2 716.2 Wt. of Container No._____(g) 716.2 716.2 1407.0 321.3 Moisture Content (%)15.8 0.0 P 875.8 716.2 159.6 (mm.) 1 1/2" 1" 3/4" 1/2" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 GRAVEL:3 % SAND:48 % FINES:49 % GROUP SYMBOL:SM N/A N/A Remarks: 158.3 20.8 35.6 59.7 103.7 0.075 PAN 16.4 18.7 48.54.750 2.360 1.180 0.600 0.300 0.150 Passing #4 Material After Wet Sieve 37.500 U. S. Sieve Size 25.000 19.000 12.500 9.500 Whole Sample 98.7 100.0 96.6 93.7 49.0 100.0 78.7 65.4 Wt. Air-Dried Soil + Cont.(g) 98.8 Cumulative Weight of Dry Soil Retained (g) Sample Passing #4 PARTICLE-SIZE DISTRIBUTION (GRADATION) ASTM D 6913 Container No.: Diaz Rd Expansion Moisture ContentsCalculation of Dry Weights of SOILS USING SIEVE ANALYSIS Dry Wt. of Soil (g) 0.0 Wt. of Container (g) Container No. 100.0 90.3 85.9 Percent Passing (%) Wt. of Dry Soil + Container (g) Wt. of Container (g) Dry Wt. of Soil Retained on # 200 Sieve (g) 9.5 Cu = D60/D10 = Cc = (D30)²/(D60*D10) = 3 :48 :49 B-1 Jun-20 Boring No.: Depth (feet):0 - 5.0 Soil Type : Project Name: PARTICLE - SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 6913 Soil Identification:Sandy Silt s(ML), Dark Yellowish Brown. SM GR:SA:FI : (%) Diaz Rd Expansion Project No.:LB-5 Sample No.:12502.001 SAND SILT FINE HYDROMETER 3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER GRAVEL FINES FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHTPARTICLE -SIZE (mm) " Sieve; LB-5, B-1 (05-15-20) ASTM D 4318 Project Name:Tested By:F. Mina Date:6/4/20 Project No. :Input By:M. Vinet Date:6/10/20 Boring No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:6/10/20 Sample No.:Depth (ft.)5.0 - 10.0 PLASTIC LIMIT **IN-SITU 1 2 1 2 3 MOISTURE 15 25 35 21.61 21.76 20.19 20.45 20.75 20.70 20.82 18.58 18.82 19.08 13.63 13.79 13.75 13.66 13.67 12.9 13.4 33.3 31.6 30.9 Liquid Limit 32 Plastic Limit 13 Plasticity Index 19 Classification CL PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) = 8.76 One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation LL =Wn(N/25) PROCEDURES USED Wet Preparation Multipoint - Wet X Dry Preparation Multipoint - Dry X Procedure A Multipoint Test Procedure B One-point Test Rev. 08-04 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Moisture Content (%) [Wn] TEST NO. Number of Blows [N] Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm) ATTERBERG LIMITS Wt. of Container (gm) LB-2 B-1 Diaz Rd Expansion 12502.001 Sample Description:Lean Clay with Sand (CL)s, Dark Yellowish Brown. LIQUID LIMIT 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Plasticity Index (PI)Liquid Limit (LL) 0.121 CL or OL ML or OL MH or OH For classification of fine- grained soils and fine- grained fraction of coarse-grained soils 28.0 29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0 33.0 34.0 35.0 10 100Moisture Content (%)Number of Blows 20 25 30 50 9070604080 "A" Line 7 4 CH or OH CL-ML ASTM D 4318 Project Name:Tested By:F. Mina Date:6/4/20 Project No. :Input By:M. Vinet Date:6/10/20 Boring No.:Checked By:M. Vinet Date:6/10/20 Sample No.:Depth (ft.)0 - 5.0 PLASTIC LIMIT **IN-SITU 1 2 1 2 3 MOISTURE 15 25 35 23.85 23.41 20.95 22.50 21.12 22.33 21.94 19.17 20.33 19.36 13.78 13.71 13.95 13.77 13.85 17.8 17.9 34.1 33.1 31.9 Liquid Limit 33 Plastic Limit 18 Plasticity Index 15 Classification CL PI at "A" - Line = 0.73(LL-20) = 9.49 One - Point Liquid Limit Calculation LL =Wn(N/25) PROCEDURES USED Wet Preparation Multipoint - Wet X Dry Preparation Multipoint - Dry X Procedure A Multipoint Test Procedure B One-point Test Rev. 08-04 ATTERBERG LIMITS Wt. of Container (gm) LB-7 B-1 Diaz Rd Expansion 12502.001 Sample Description:Lean Clay (CL), Black. LIQUID LIMIT 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Moisture Content (%) [Wn] TEST NO. Number of Blows [N] Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Plasticity Index (PI)Liquid Limit (LL) 0.121 CL or OL ML or OL MH or OH For classification of fine- grained soils and fine- grained fraction of coarse-grained soils 29.0 30.0 31.0 32.0 33.0 34.0 35.0 36.0 10 100Moisture Content (%)Number of Blows 20 25 30 50 9070604080 "A" Line 7 4 CH or OH CL-ML Project Name:Diaz Rd Expansion Tested By :F. Mina Date:06/04/20 Project No. :12502.001 Data Input By:M. Vinet Date:06/10/20 Boring No.LB-7 Sample No.B-1 Sample Depth (ft)0 - 5.0 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 4 4 850 Timer 45 24.8569 24.8502 0.0067 275.70 276 ml of Extract For Titration (B)30 ml of AgNO3 Soln. Used in Titration (C)2.2 PPM of Chloride (C -0.2) * 100 * 30 / B 200 PPM of Chloride, Dry Wt. Basis 200 8.50 21.0 PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150 Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g) Wt. of Residue (g) (A) Beaker No. Crucible No. Furnace Temperature (°C) PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis Wt. of Crucible (g) CL Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g) CHLORIDE CONTENT, DOT California Test 422 Time In / Time Out Weight of Soaked Soil (g) Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g) Weight of Container (g) Duration of Combustion (min) Temperature °C pH Value pH TEST, DOT California Test 643 TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT CHLORIDE CONTENT and pH of SOILS SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II Soil Identification: Moisture Content (%) Project Name:Diaz Rd Expansion Tested By :F. Mina Date:06/04/20 Project No. :12502.001 Data Input By:M. Vinet Date:06/10/20 Boring No.LB-2 LB-4 Sample No.B-1 B-1 Sample Depth (ft)5.0 - 10.0 0 - 5.0 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 100.00 1 2 1 2 850 850 Timer Timer 45 45 26.1035 24.4732 26.0942 24.4667 0.0093 0.0065 382.69 267.47 383 267 TESTS for SULFATE CONTENT SULFATE CONTENT, DOT California Test 417, Part II Soil Identification: Moisture Content (%) s(ML) Time In / Time Out Weight of Soaked Soil (g) PPM of Sulfate, Dry Weight Basis Wt. of Crucible (g) (CL)s Wt. of Crucible + Residue (g) Wet Weight of Soil + Container (g) Dry Weight of Soil + Container (g) Weight of Container (g) Duration of Combustion (min) Wt. of Residue (g) (A) Beaker No. Crucible No. Furnace Temperature (°C) PPM of Sulfate (A) x 41150 R-1 Feb-160:26 :74 Project Name: PARTICLE - SIZE DISTRIBUTION ASTM D 6913 Soil Identification:Silt with Sand (ML)s, brown. (ML)s GR:SA:FI : (%) Exploration No.: Depth (feet):5.0 SAND SILT FINE HYDROMETER KJ/EMWD TVRW Pipeline Project No.:LB-9 Sample No.: Soil Type :10807.002 3.0" 1 1/2" 3/4" 3/8" #4 #8 #16 #30 #50 #100 #200 U.S. STANDARD SIEVE OPENING U.S. STANDARD SIEVE NUMBER GRAVEL FINES FINE CLAY COARSE COARSE MEDIUM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0.0010.0100.1001.00010.000100.000PERCENT FINER BY WEIGHT PARTICLE - SIZE (mm) " Sieve; LB-9, R1 (10-2-14) Project Name:Tested By: MRV Date: 10/7/14 Project No. :Checked By: JHW Date: 10/9/14 Boring No.:Depth (ft.) 7.5 Sample No. :Location: Sample Description: Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) Wt. of Container No. (gm.) Dry Wt. of Soil (gm.) Weight Soil Retained on #4 Sieve Percent Passing # 4 in distilled water for the period of 24 h or expansion rate < 0.0002 in./h. Rev. 03-08 0.543010/8/14 0 880 Expansion Index (EI meas) = ((Final Rdg - Initial Rdg) / Initial Thick.) x 1000 5:30 940 0.5430 43.4 1.0 43 Expansion Index ( Report ) =Nearest Whole Number or Zero (0) if Initial Height is > than Final Height Add Distilled Water to the Specimen Wt. of Container (gm.) 107.1 0.5000 10 0.4996 10/8/14 6:30 1.0 1.0 14:50 1.010/7/14 10/7/14 107.3 Moisture Content (%) Date 14:40 Void Ratio Pore Volume (cc) Degree of Saturation (%) [ S meas] 119.1 Time After TestBefore Test Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 5 0.639 Dry Density (pcf) Wet Density (pcf) Specific Gravity (Assumed) Specimen Height (in.) Wt. of Mold (gm.) 99.7 4.01 2.70 980.6 0.0 595.4 980.6 2.5 1.0430 634.6 EXPANSION INDEX of SOILS ASTM D 4829 ** KJ/EMWD TVRW Pipeline Geo Exploration 10807.001 LB-9 R-2/B-1 Silt with Trace Gravel (ML), dark brown. MOLDED SPECIMEN 4.01 1.0000 5Container No. Specimen Diameter (in.) Wt. Comp. Soil + Mold (gm.) 200.6 2.70 355.7 200.6 22.0 0.390 84.2 200.6 634.6 130.7 Elapsed Time (min.) Dial Readings (in.) 93.152.0 Pressure (psi) 0.364Total Porosity SPECIMEN INUNDATION 75.3 Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (gm.) 11.0 339.3 309.6 0.571 39.3 Project Name:FLMDate:Project No. :FLMDate:Client:JHWDate:7490#DIV/0!85011:5012:00 12:02 12:2213.6 1.0811:52 12:02 12:04 12:2413.4 1.29#REF! #REF! #REF! #REF!T1 = Starting Time T3 = Settlement Starting Time Sand Equivalent = R2 / R1 * 100T2 = ( T1 + 10 min) Begin Agitation T4 = ( T3 + 20 min) Take Clay Reading (R1) Record SE as Next Higher Integer R29 SAND EQUIVALENT TEST ASTM D 2419 / DOT CA Test 2179/25/14T1 T2 T3 T4Boring No.9/25/1410/9/14Tested By: Computed By:Checked By:Depth (ft.)Average SESoil DescriptionSER1LB-8 B-1 5.0 - 10.0 SC10807.001KJ/EMWD TVRW Pipeline Geo ExplorationKennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.Sample No.Sand Equivalent; LB-8, B-1 (9-18-14) One-Dimensional Swell or Settlement Potential of Cohesive Soils (ASTM D 4546) -- Method 'B' Project Name:Tested By:MRV Date:10/6/14 Project No.:Checked By:JHW Date:10/9/14 Boring No.:LB-8 Sample Type: IN SITU Sample No.:R-2 Depth (ft.)10.0 Sample Description: Source and Type of Water Used for Inundation: Arrowhead ( Distilled ) ** Note: Loading After Wetting (Inundation) not Performed Using this Test Method. Initial Dry Density (pcf): 99.3 Final Dry Density (pcf): 104.4 Initial Moisture (%): 25.5 Final Moisture (%) : 23.8 Initial Height (in.): 0.9970 Initial Void ratio: 0.6968 Initial Dial Reading (in): 0.0500 Specific Gravity (assumed): 2.70 Inside Diameter of Ring (in): 2.416 Initial Degree of Saturation (%): 98.7 1.050 0.9747 0.00 -2.24 -2.24 2.013 0.9600 0.00 -3.71 -3.71 H2O 0.9542 0.00 -4.29 -4.29 -0.60 Rev. 01-10 KJ/EMWD TVRW Pipeline Geo Exploration 0.6240 0.0753 0.0900 0.0958 Silty Clay (CL-ML), dark brown. 10807.001 Swell (+) Settlement (-) % of Sample Thickness Load Compliance (%) Apparent Thickness (in) Percent Swell / Settlement After Inundation = Corrected Deformation (%) Pressure (p) (ksf) 0.6589 0.6339 Final Reading (in)Void Ratio -5.00 -4.00 -3.00 -2.00 -1.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 0.010 0.100 1.000 10.000Deformation %Log Pressure (ksf) Deformation % - Log Pressure Curve Inundate With Distilled Water Project Name:Tested By : G. Berdy Date: Project No. :Data Input By: J. Ward Date: Boring No.:Depth (ft.) : Sample No. : Soil Identification:* *California Test 643 requires soil specimens to consist only of portions of samples passing through the No. 8 US Standard Sieve before resistivity testing. Therefore, this test method may not be representative for coarser materials. Wt. of Container (g)31.31 800 6.69 225.45 Moisture Content (%) (MCi) Wet Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) Dry Wt. of Soil + Cont. (g) 5 Min. Resistivity Moisture Content Sulfate Content Specimen No. 1 2 Water Added (ml) (Wa) 30 800 720 Resistance Reading (ohm) 39.51 55.93 DOT CA Test 532 / 643DOT CA Test 417 Part II DOT CA Test 422 710 DOT CA Test 532 / 643 1.000 Chloride Content (ohm-cm) 130.003690 7104 40 50 60 47.72 690 48.1 529 182 8.00 22.2 SOIL RESISTIVITY TEST DOT CA TEST 532 / 643 Temp. (°C)pH Soil pH 720 690 214.65 53.14 MC =(((1+Mci/100)x(Wa/Wt+1))-1)x100 KJ/EMWD TVRW Pipeline Geo Exploration 10/06/14 10/07/14 5-10 10807.001 LB-8 (%) (ppm) (ppm) B-1 Container No. Initial Soil Wt. (g) (Wt) Box Constant SC, dark brown Adjusted Moisture Content (MC) Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm) 600 650 700 750 800 850 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 45.0 50.0 55.0 60.0Soil Resistivity (ohm-cm)Moisture Content (%) DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 APPENDIX C ARS Curves and Percolation Testing Data Sheets exceedance in 50 years). T (sec) Base Spectrum S(a) Basin Factor Near Fault Factor Final Adj. Spectrum S(a)Period (sec) INPUT USGS Deagg. Spec Accel ARS Online Base Sa(g) % Difference (bet. USGS & ARS Online) 0.01 0.54 1 1 0.54 0 0.53 0.54 1.9% 0.1 0.92 1 1 0.92 0.3 1.34 1.35 0.7% 0.2 1.24 1 1 1.24 1 0.81 0.80 1.3% 0.3 1.35 1 1 1.35 3 0.28 0.27 3.7% 0.5 1.24 1 1 1.24 0.75 0.99 1 1.1 1.09 1 0.8 1 1.2 0.96 Max % Difference = 2 0.41 1 1.2 0.49 3.7% 3 0.27 1 1.2 0.32 4 0.19 1 1.2 0.23 5 0.14 1 1.2 0.17 Project Data: Lattitude: 33.5139 Longitude: -117.1658 Shear Wave Velocity Vs = 270 m/s Peak Ground Accelaration = 0.54 g References Caltrans SDC V2.0 (April 2019) ARS Online Probabilistic Data V3.0.1 per Caltrans SDC V2.0. Comparison of the 2014 USGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Data and ARS Online Probabilistic Data ARS Curve per Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria (SDC) V2.0 https://arsonline.dot.ca.gov/ 975-year return period (5% probability of exceedance in 50 years) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 00.511.522.533.544.55Spectral Acceleration, Sa (g)Period (sec) Caltrans Deisgn Spectrum (5% Damping) Final Adjusted ARS Curve Scale: NTS Proj: 12324.001 Date: 05/2020 Prepared by: BSS Checked By: SIS Design Accelaration Response Spectrum Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25 Temecula, California Figure C-1 60 ° 8 4 7:33:00 8:03:00 8:03:00 8:33:00 8:33:00 9:03:00 9:03:00 9:33:00 9:33:00 10:03:00 10:03:00 10:33:00 10:33:00 11:03:00 11:03:00 11:33:00 11:33:00 12:03:00 12:03:00 12:33:00 Tested by:JTD Date Tested 5/19/2020 Soil Unit:Artificial Fill Depth of Test Hole (in.)75 Test Hole Number:P-1 Project Diaz Road Date Excavated:5/15/2020 Project Number 12502.001 USCS Soil Type:Sandy Lean CLAY Diameter (in.)Effective Radius (in) Time Δt (min) Total Time (min) Initial Water Depth (inches) Final Water Depth (inches) Change In Water Level (inches) Infiltration Rate* (inches/hour) Peroclation Rate (minute/inch) 30 30 35.50 36.50 1.00 0.15 30.0 30.0 30 90 34.50 35.00 0.50 0.07 60.0 30 60 36.50 37.50 1.00 0.16 60.0 30 150 35.50 36.00 0.50 0.08 60.0 30 120 35.00 35.50 0.50 0.07 60.0 30 210 34.00 34.50 0.50 0.07 60.0 30 180 36.00 36.50 0.50 0.08 60.0 30 270 35.00 35.50 0.50 0.07 60.0 30 240 34.50 35.00 0.50 0.07 60.03030035.00 35.50 0.50 0.07 Date:May-20 * Based on Porchet Method Percolation Project Number:12502.001 Leighton Test Data Project Name:Diaz Road P-1 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Infiltration Rate (in./hr) Time (min) 60 ° 8 4 7:36:00 8:06:00 8:06:00 8:36:00 8:36:00 9:06:00 9:06:00 9:36:00 9:36:00 10:06:00 Tested by:JTD Date Tested 5/19/2020 Soil Unit:Artificial Fill Depth of Test Hole (in.)75 Test Hole Number:P-2 Project Diaz Road Date Excavated:5/15/2020 Project Number 12502.001 USCS Soil Type:Clayey SAND Diameter (in.)Effective Radius (in) Time Δt (min) Total Time (min) Initial Water Depth (inches) Final Water Depth (inches) Change In Water Level (inches) Infiltration Rate* (inches/hour) Peroclation Rate (minute/inch) 30 30 28.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 N/A N/A 30 90 28.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 30 60 28.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 30 150 28.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 30 120 28.00 28.00 0.00 0.00 End Of Test Date:May-20 * Based on Porchet Method Percolation Project Number:12502.001 Leighton Test Data Project Name:Diaz Road P-2 0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Infiltration Rate (in./hr) Time (min) 60 ° 8 4 7:41:00 8:11:00 8:11:00 8:41:00 8:41:00 9:11:00 9:11:00 9:41:00 9:41:00 10:11:00 10:11:00 10:41:00 10:41:00 11:11:00 11:11:00 11:41:00 11:41:00 12:11:00 Tested by:JTD Date Tested 5/19/2020 Soil Unit:Artificial Fill Depth of Test Hole (in.)75 Test Hole Number:P-3 Project Diaz Road Date Excavated:5/15/2020 Project Number 12502.001 USCS Soil Type:Clayey SAND Diameter (in.)Effective Radius (in) Time Δt (min) Total Time (min) Initial Water Depth (inches) Final Water Depth (inches) Change In Water Level (inches) Infiltration Rate* (inches/hour) Peroclation Rate (minute/inch) 30 30 30.50 31.00 0.50 0.06 60.0 N/A 30 90 31.00 31.50 0.50 0.07 60.0 30 60 31.00 31.00 0.00 0.00 60.0 30 150 32.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 30 120 31.50 32.00 0.50 0.07 N/A 30 210 32.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 30 180 32.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 30 270 32.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 30 240 32.00 32.00 0.00 0.00 End Of Test Date:May-20 * Based on Porchet Method Percolation Project Number:12502.001 Leighton Test Data Project Name:Diaz Road P-3 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Infiltration Rate (in./hr) Time (min) DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 APPENDIX D General Earthwork and Grading Specifications APPENDIX D LEIGHTON CONSULTING, INC. EARTHWORK AND GRADING GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Appendix D Page D-1.0 GENERAL ........................................................................................................... 1  D-1.1 Intent ............................................................................................................. 1  D-1.2 Role of Leighton Consulting, Inc. ................................................................... 1  D-1.3 The Earthwork Contractor ............................................................................. 1  D-2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED ..................................................... 2  D-2.1 Clearing and Grubbing .................................................................................. 2  D-2.2 Processing ..................................................................................................... 3  D-2.3 Overexcavation ............................................................................................. 3  D-2.4 Benching ....................................................................................................... 3  D-2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas .............................................................. 3  D-3.0 FILL MATERIAL ................................................................................................. 4  D-3.1 Fill Quality ...................................................................................................... 4  D-3.2 Oversize ........................................................................................................ 4  D-3.3 Import ............................................................................................................ 4  D-4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION ........................................................... 4  D-4.1 Fill Layers ...................................................................................................... 4  D-4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning .............................................................................. 5  D-4.3 Compaction of Fill .......................................................................................... 5  D-4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes .............................................................................. 5  D-4.5 Compaction Testing ...................................................................................... 5  D-4.6 Compaction Test Locations ........................................................................... 5  D-5.0 EXCAVATION ..................................................................................................... 6  D-6.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS ........................................................................................ 6  D-6.1 Safety ............................................................................................................ 6  D-6.2 Bedding and Backfill ...................................................................................... 6  D-6.3 Lift Thickness ................................................................................................ 7  D-1 D-1.0 GENERAL D-1.1 Intent These Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications are for grading and earthwork shown on the current, approved grading plan(s) and/or indicated in the Leighton Consulting, Inc. geotechnical report(s). These Guide Specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report(s). In case of conflict, the project-specific recommendations in the geotechnical report shall supersede these Guide Specifications. Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall provide geotechnical observation and testing during earthwork and grading. Based on these observations and tests, Leighton Consulting, Inc. may provide new or revised recommendations that could supersede these specifications or the recommendations in the geotechnical report(s). D-1.2 Role of Leighton Consulting, Inc. Prior to commencement of earthwork and grading, Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall meet with the earthwork contractor to review the earthwork contractor’s work plan, to schedule sufficient personnel to perform the appropriate level of observation, mapping and compaction testing. During earthwork and grading, Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall observe, map, and document subsurface exposures to verify geotechnical design assumptions. If observed conditions are found to be significantly different than the interpreted assumptions during the design phase, Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall inform the owner, recommend appropriate changes in design to accommodate these observed conditions, and notify the review agency where required. Subsurface areas to be geotechnically observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested include (1) natural ground after clearing to receiving fill but before fill is placed, (2) bottoms of all "remedial removal" areas, (3) all key bottoms, and (4) benches made on sloping ground to receive fill. Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall observe moisture-conditioning and processing of the subgrade and fill materials, and perform relative compaction testing of fill to determine the attained relative compaction. Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall provide Daily Field Reports to the owner and the Contractor on a routine and frequent basis. D-1.3 The Earthwork Contractor The earthwork contractor (Contractor) shall be qualified, experienced and knowledgeable in earthwork logistics, preparation and processing of ground to receive fill, moisture-conditioning and processing of fill, and compacting fill. The Contractor shall review and accept the plans, geotechnical report(s), and these Guide Leighton Consulting, Inc. Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications D-2 Specifications prior to commencement of grading. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for performing grading and backfilling in accordance with the current, approved plans and specifications. The Contractor shall inform the owner and Leighton Consulting, Inc. of changes in work schedules at least one working day in advance of such changes so that appropriate observations and tests can be planned and accomplished. The Contractor shall not assume that Leighton Consulting, Inc. is aware of all grading operations. The Contractor shall have the sole responsibility to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish earthwork and grading in accordance with the applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, these Guide Specifications, and recommendations in the approved geotechnical report(s) and grading plan(s). If, in the opinion of Leighton Consulting, Inc., unsatisfactory conditions, such as unsuitable soil, improper moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than required in these specifications, Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall reject the work and may recommend to the owner that earthwork and grading be stopped until unsatisfactory condition(s) are rectified. D-2.0 PREPARATION OF AREAS TO BE FILLED D-2.1 Clearing and Grubbing Vegetation, such as brush, grass, roots and other deleterious material shall be sufficiently removed and properly disposed of in a method acceptable to the owner, governing agencies and Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Care should be taken not to encroach upon or otherwise damage native and/or historic trees designated by the Owner or appropriate agencies to remain. Pavements, flatwork or other construction should not extend under the “drip line” of designated trees to remain. Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. Earth fill material shall not contain more than 3 percent of organic materials (by dry weight: ASTM D 2974). Nesting of the organic materials shall not be allowed. If potentially hazardous materials are encountered, the Contractor shall stop work in the affected area, and a hazardous material specialist shall be informed immediately for proper evaluation and handling of these materials prior to continuing to work in that area. As presently defined by the State of California, most refined petroleum products (gasoline, diesel fuel, motor oil, grease, coolant, etc.) have chemical constituents that Leighton Consulting, Inc. Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications D-3 are considered to be hazardous waste. As such, the indiscriminate dumping or spillage of these fluids onto the ground may constitute a misdemeanor, punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and shall not be allowed. D-2.2 Processing Existing ground that has been declared satisfactory for support of fill, by Leighton Consulting, Inc., shall be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches (15 cm). Existing ground that is not satisfactory shall be over-excavated as specified in the following Section D-2.3. Scarification shall continue until soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features that would inhibit uniform compaction. D-2.3 Overexcavation In addition to removals and over-excavations recommended in the approved geotechnical report(s) and the grading plan, soft, loose, dry, saturated, spongy, organic- rich, highly fractured or otherwise unsuitable ground shall be over-excavated to competent ground as evaluated by Leighton Consulting, Inc. during grading. All undocumented fill soils under proposed structure footprints should be excavated D-2.4 Benching Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), (>20 percent grade) the ground shall be stepped or benched. The lowest bench or key shall be a minimum of 15 feet (4.5 m) wide and at least 2 feet (0.6 m) deep, into competent material as evaluated by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Other benches shall be excavated a minimum height of 4 feet (1.2 m) into competent material or as otherwise recommended by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Fill placed on ground sloping flatter than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical units), (<20 percent grade) shall also be benched or otherwise over-excavated to provide a flat subgrade for the fill. D-2.5 Evaluation/Acceptance of Fill Areas All areas to receive fill, including removal and processed areas, key bottoms, and benches, shall be observed, mapped, elevations recorded, and/or tested prior to being accepted by Leighton Consulting, Inc. as suitable to receive fill. The Contractor shall obtain a written acceptance (Daily Field Report) from Leighton Consulting, Inc. prior to fill placement. A licensed surveyor shall provide the survey control for determining elevations of processed areas, keys and benches. Leighton Consulting, Inc. Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications D-4 D-3.0 FILL MATERIAL D-3.1 Fill Quality Material to be used as fill shall be essentially free of organic matter and other deleterious substances evaluated and accepted by Leighton Consulting, Inc. prior to placement. Soils of poor quality, such as those with unacceptable gradation, high expansion potential, or low strength shall be placed in areas acceptable to Leighton Consulting, Inc. or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. D-3.2 Oversize Oversize material defined as rock, or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches (15 cm), shall not be buried or placed in fill unless location, materials and placement methods are specifically accepted by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Placement operations shall be such that nesting of oversized material does not occur and such that oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material shall not be placed within 10 feet (3 m) measured vertically from finish grade, or within 2 feet (0.61 m) of future utilities or underground construction. D-3.3 Import If importing of fill material is required for grading, proposed import material shall meet the requirements of Section D-3.1, and be free of hazardous materials (“contaminants”) and rock larger than 3-inches (8 cm) in largest dimension. All import soils shall have an Expansion Index (EI) of 20 or less and a sulfate content no greater than () 500 parts- per-million (ppm). A representative sample of a potential import source shall be given to Leighton Consulting, Inc. at least four full working days before importing begins, so that suitability of this import material can be determined and appropriate tests performed. D-4.0 FILL PLACEMENT AND COMPACTION D-4.1 Fill Layers Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to receive fill, as described in Section D-2.0, above, in near-horizontal layers not exceeding 8 inches (20 cm) in loose thickness. Leighton Consulting, Inc. may accept thicker layers if testing indicates the grading procedures can adequately compact the thicker layers, and only if the building officials with the appropriate jurisdiction approve. Each layer shall be spread evenly and mixed thoroughly to attain relative uniformity of material and moisture throughout. Leighton Consulting, Inc. Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications D-5 D-4.2 Fill Moisture Conditioning Fill soils shall be watered, dried back, blended and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a relatively uniform moisture content at or slightly over optimum. Maximum density and optimum soil moisture content tests shall be performed in accordance with the American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) Test Method D 1557. D-4.3 Compaction of Fill After each layer has been moisture-conditioned, mixed, and evenly spread, each layer shall be uniformly compacted to not-less-than (≥) 90 percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557. In some cases, structural fill may be specified (see project-specific geotechnical report) to be uniformly compacted to at- least (≥) 95 percent of the ASTM D 1557 modified Proctor laboratory maximum dry density. For fills thicker than (>) 15 feet (4.5 m), the portion of fill deeper than 15 feet below proposed finish grade shall be compacted to 95 percent of the ASTM D 1557 laboratory maximum density. Compaction equipment shall be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability to efficiently achieve the specified level of compaction with uniformity. D-4.4 Compaction of Fill Slopes In addition to normal compaction procedures specified above, compaction of slopes shall be accomplished by back rolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet (1 to 1.2 m) in fill elevation, or by other methods producing satisfactory results acceptable to Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Upon completion of grading, relative compaction of the fill, out to the slope face, shall be at least 90 percent of the ASTM D 1557 laboratory maximum density. D-4.5 Compaction Testing Field-tests for moisture content and relative compaction of the fill soils shall be performed by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Location and frequency of tests shall be at our field representative(s) discretion based on field conditions encountered. Compaction test locations will not necessarily be selected on a random basis. Test locations shall be selected to verify adequacy of compaction levels in areas that are judged to be prone to inadequate compaction (such as close to slope faces and at the fill/bedrock benches). D-4.6 Compaction Test Locations Leighton Consulting, Inc. shall document the approximate elevation and horizontal coordinates of each density test location. The Contractor shall coordinate with the project surveyor to assure that sufficient grade stakes are established so that Leighton Leighton Consulting, Inc. Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications D-6 Consulting, Inc. can determine the test locations with sufficient accuracy. Adequate grade stakes shall be provided. D-5.0 EXCAVATION Excavations, as well as over-excavation for remedial purposes, shall be evaluated by Leighton Consulting, Inc. during grading. Remedial removal depths shown on geotechnical plans are estimates only. The actual extent of removal shall be determined by Leighton Consulting, Inc. based on the field evaluation of exposed conditions during grading. Where fill-over-cut slopes are to be graded, the cut portion of the slope shall be made, then observed and reviewed by Leighton Consulting, Inc. prior to placement of materials for construction of the fill portion of the slope, unless otherwise recommended by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. D-6.0 TRENCH BACKFILLS D-6.1 Safety The Contractor shall follow all OSHA and Cal/OSHA requirements for safety of trench excavations. Work should be performed in accordance with Article 6 of the California Construction Safety Orders, 2009 Edition or more current (see also: http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/sb4a6.html ). D-6.2 Bedding and Backfill All utility trench bedding and backfill shall be performed in accordance with applicable provisions of the 2015 Edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book). Bedding material shall have a Sand Equivalent greater than 30 (SE>30). Bedding shall be placed to 1-foot (0.3 m) over the top of the conduit, and densified by jetting in areas of granular soils, if allowed by the permitting agency. Otherwise, the pipe-bedding zone should be backfilled with Controlled Low Strength Material (CLSM) consisting of at least one sack of Portland cement per cubic-yard of sand, and conforming to Section 201-6 of the 2015 Edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book). Backfill over the bedding zone shall be placed and densified mechanically to a minimum of 90 percent of relative compaction (ASTM D 1557) from 1 foot (0.3 m) above the top of the conduit to the surface. Backfill above the pipe zone shall not be jetted. Jetting of the bedding around the conduits shall be observed by Leighton Consulting, Inc. and backfill above the pipe zone (bedding) shall be observed and tested by Leighton Consulting, Inc.. Leighton Consulting, Inc. Earthwork and Grading Guide Specifications D-7 D-6.3 Lift Thickness Lift thickness of trench backfill shall not exceed those allowed in the Standard Specifications of Public Works Construction unless the Contractor can demonstrate to Leighton Consulting, Inc. that the fill lift can be compacted to the minimum relative compaction by his alternative equipment and method, and only if the building officials with the appropriate jurisdiction approve. DRAFT-1Geotechnical Design Report July 6, 2020 Proposed Diaz Road Expansion Project (PW17-25) Project No. 12502.001 APPENDIX E GBA-Important Information about This Geotechnical Report Geotechnical-Engineering Report Important Information about This Subsurface problems are a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. While you cannot eliminate all such risks, you can manage them. The following information is provided to help. The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has prepared this advisory to help you – assumedly a client representative – interpret and apply this geotechnical-engineering report as effectively as possible. In that way, you can benefit from a lowered exposure to problems associated with subsurface conditions at project sites and development of them that, for decades, have been a principal cause of construction delays, cost overruns, claims, and disputes. If you have questions or want more information about any of the issues discussed herein, contact your GBA-member geotechnical engineer. Active engagement in GBA exposes geotechnical engineers to a wide array of risk-confrontation techniques that can be of genuine benefit for everyone involved with a construction project. Understand the Geotechnical-Engineering Services Provided for this Report Geotechnical-engineering services typically include the planning, collection, interpretation, and analysis of exploratory data from widely spaced borings and/or test pits. Field data are combined with results from laboratory tests of soil and rock samples obtained from field exploration (if applicable), observations made during site reconnaissance, and historical information to form one or more models of the expected subsurface conditions beneath the site. Local geology and alterations of the site surface and subsurface by previous and proposed construction are also important considerations. Geotechnical engineers apply their engineering training, experience, and judgment to adapt the requirements of the prospective project to the subsurface model(s). Estimates are made of the subsurface conditions that will likely be exposed during construction as well as the expected performance of foundations and other structures being planned and/or affected by construction activities. The culmination of these geotechnical-engineering services is typically a geotechnical-engineering report providing the data obtained, a discussion of the subsurface model(s), the engineering and geologic engineering assessments and analyses made, and the recommendations developed to satisfy the given requirements of the project. These reports may be titled investigations, explorations, studies, assessments, or evaluations. Regardless of the title used, the geotechnical-engineering report is an engineering interpretation of the subsurface conditions within the context of the project and does not represent a close examination, systematic inquiry, or thorough investigation of all site and subsurface conditions. Geotechnical-Engineering Services are Performed for Specific Purposes, Persons, and Projects, and At Specific Times Geotechnical engineers structure their services to meet the specific needs, goals, and risk management preferences of their clients. A geotechnical-engineering study conducted for a given civil engineer will not likely meet the needs of a civil-works constructor or even a different civil engineer. Because each geotechnical-engineering study is unique, each geotechnical-engineering report is unique, prepared solely for the client. Likewise, geotechnical-engineering services are performed for a specific project and purpose. For example, it is unlikely that a geotechnical- engineering study for a refrigerated warehouse will be the same as one prepared for a parking garage; and a few borings drilled during a preliminary study to evaluate site feasibility will not be adequate to develop geotechnical design recommendations for the project. Do not rely on this report if your geotechnical engineer prepared it: • for a different client; • for a different project or purpose; • for a different site (that may or may not include all or a portion of the original site); or • before important events occurred at the site or adjacent to it; e.g., man-made events like construction or environmental remediation, or natural events like floods, droughts, earthquakes, or groundwater fluctuations. Note, too, the reliability of a geotechnical-engineering report can be affected by the passage of time, because of factors like changed subsurface conditions; new or modified codes, standards, or regulations; or new techniques or tools. If you are the least bit uncertain about the continued reliability of this report, contact your geotechnical engineer before applying the recommendations in it. A minor amount of additional testing or analysis after the passage of time – if any is required at all – could prevent major problems. Read this Report in Full Costly problems have occurred because those relying on a geotechnical- engineering report did not read the report in its entirety. Do not rely on an executive summary. Do not read selective elements only. Read and refer to the report in full. You Need to Inform Your Geotechnical Engineer About Change Your geotechnical engineer considered unique, project-specific factors when developing the scope of study behind this report and developing the confirmation-dependent recommendations the report conveys. Typical changes that could erode the reliability of this report include those that affect: • the site’s size or shape; • the elevation, configuration, location, orientation, function or weight of the proposed structure and the desired performance criteria; • the composition of the design team; or • project ownership. As a general rule, always inform your geotechnical engineer of project or site changes – even minor ones – and request an assessment of their impact. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot accept responsibility or liability for problems that arise because the geotechnical engineer was not informed about developments the engineer otherwise would have considered. Most of the “Findings” Related in This Report Are Professional Opinions Before construction begins, geotechnical engineers explore a site’s subsurface using various sampling and testing procedures. Geotechnical engineers can observe actual subsurface conditions only at those specific locations where sampling and testing is performed. The data derived from that sampling and testing were reviewed by your geotechnical engineer, who then applied professional judgement to form opinions about subsurface conditions throughout the site. Actual sitewide-subsurface conditions may differ – maybe significantly – from those indicated in this report. Confront that risk by retaining your geotechnical engineer to serve on the design team through project completion to obtain informed guidance quickly, whenever needed. This Report’s Recommendations Are Confirmation-Dependent The recommendations included in this report – including any options or alternatives – are confirmation-dependent. In other words, they are not final, because the geotechnical engineer who developed them relied heavily on judgement and opinion to do so. Your geotechnical engineer can finalize the recommendations only after observing actual subsurface conditions exposed during construction. If through observation your geotechnical engineer confirms that the conditions assumed to exist actually do exist, the recommendations can be relied upon, assuming no other changes have occurred. The geotechnical engineer who prepared this report cannot assume responsibility or liability for confirmation-dependent recommendations if you fail to retain that engineer to perform construction observation. This Report Could Be Misinterpreted Other design professionals’ misinterpretation of geotechnical- engineering reports has resulted in costly problems. Confront that risk by having your geotechnical engineer serve as a continuing member of the design team, to: • confer with other design-team members; • help develop