Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03122024 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 MARCH 12, 2024 - 6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION - 5:30 PM LABOR NEGOTIATIONS — The City Council will meet in closed session with its designated representatives to discuss labor negotiations pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. The City's designated representatives are City Manager Aaron Adams, City Attorney Peter Thorson, Assistant City Manager Kevin Hawkins, Director of Finance Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Human Resources and Risk Management Isaac Garibay, Deputy City Manager Luke Watson and Senior Human Resources Analyst Becky Obmann. The employee organization is the California Teamsters Public, Professional and Medical Employees Union Local 911. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor James Stewart INVOCATION: Rabbi Yonasan Abrams of Chabad of Temecula FLAG SALUTE: Mayor James Stewart ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart PRESENTATIONS Presentation Regarding the Temecula Valley Entrepreneur's Exchange and Entrepreneurial Resource Center Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to the Temecula Valley Soccer Association Girls 14 All Star Champions ANNUAL JOINT MEETING - CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION AND PLANNING COMMISSION BOARD / COMMISSION REPORTS Community Services Commission and Traffic Safety Commission PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT County of Riverside, Riverside County Sheriffs Department Page 1 City Council Agenda March 12, 2024 PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on matters on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images maybe displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 1. Waive Reading of Title and Text of All Ordinances and Resolutions Included in the A-eg nda Recommendation: That the City Council waive the reading of the title and text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Attachments: Agenda Report 2. Approve Action Minutes of February 27, 2024 Recommendation: That the City Council approve the action minutes of February 27, 2024. Attachments: Action Minutes 3. Approve List of Demands Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. Page 2 City Council Agenda March 12, 2024 4. 5. 6. 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 Agreement with Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. for Insurance Broker Services Recommendation: That City Council approve a five-year agreement with Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. for insurance broker services in an amount not to exceed $292,000 for the total term of the agreement. Attachments: Agenda Report Agreement Approve Initial Study and Adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Project, PW 16-05 Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE MURRIETA CREEK BRIDGE AT OVERLAND DRIVE PROJECT, PW 16-05 2. Direct the Public Works Director to file the Notice of Determination. Attachments: Agenda Report Resolution Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration Notice of Determination Project Description Project Location Map Approve Second Amendment to Agreement with Reep Fire Protection, Inc., for Fire Suppression System Maintenance Services Recommendation: That the City Council approve the second amendment to the agreement with Reep Fire Protection, Inc., for fire suppression system maintenance services, in the amount of $100,000, for a total agreement amount of $200,000. Page 3 City Council Agenda March 12, 2024 Attachments: Agenda Report Amendment 7. Approve Second Amendment to Annual Agreement for Paving Maintenance Services with NPG, Inc. 8. Recommendation Attachments That the City Council approve the second amendment to the annual agreement with NPG, Inc., for paving maintenance services in the amount of $500,000, for a total agreement amount of $2,750,000. Agenda Report Amendment Receive and File Temporary Street Closures for 2024 Springfest Events Recommendation: That the City Council receive and file the temporary closure of certain streets for the following 2024 Springfest Events: COMMUNITY SERVICES EXPO ROD RUN TEMECULA CULTUREFEST Attachments: Agenda Report Exhibit A - Springfest 2024 Road Closures Exhibit B - Rod Run 2024 Road Closures RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, THE TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND/OR THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Page 4 City Council Agenda March 12, 2024 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING CALL TO ORDER: President Zak Schwank ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart CSD PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. CSD CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Community Services District request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 9. Approve Action Minutes of February 27, 2024 Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve action minutes of February 27, 2024. Attachments: Action Minutes CSD DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT CSD GENERAL MANAGER REPORT CSD BOARD OF DIRECTOR REPORTS CSD ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District will be held on Tuesday, March 26, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Page 5 City Council Agenda March 12, 2024 SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - NO MEETING TEMECULA HOUSING AUTHORITY - NO MEETING TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CALL TO ORDER: Chair James Stewart ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart TPFA PUBLIC COMMENT A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the City Council on matters not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. TPFA CONSENT CALENDAR All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Temecula Public Financing Authority request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Board of Directors on items that appear on the Consent Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the City Clerk. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 10. Approve Action Minutes of February 27, 2024 Recommendation: That the Board of Directors approve the action minutes of February 27, 2024. Attachments: Action Minutes 11. Adopt Ordinance No. TPFA 2024-01 Le . ivy Special Taxes within Community Facilities District No. 23-02 (Prado) Recommendation That the Board of Directors adopt an ordinance entitled: Page 6 City Council Agenda March 12, 2024 ORDINANCE NO. TPFA 2024-01 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY LEVYING SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 23-02 (PRADO) Attachments: Agenda Report Ordinance TPFA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REPORT TPFA BOARD OF DIRECTOR REPORTS TPFA ADJOURNMENT The next regular meeting of the Temecula Public Financing Authority will be held on Tuesday, March 26, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. Page 7 City Council Agenda March 12, 2024 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL 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. Speaker cards will be called in the order received. Still images may be displayed on the projector. All other audio and visual use is prohibited. Public comments may also be submitted by email for inclusion into the record. Email comments must be received prior to the time the item is called for public comments and submitted to CouncilComments@temeculaca.gov. All public participation is governed by Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. 12. Introduce Ordinance Adding Chapter 9.90 Unlawful Possession of a Catalytic Converter to the Temecula Municipal Code (At the Request of Subcommittee Members Mayor Pro Tern Kalfus and Council Member Alexander) Recommendation: That the City Council introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADDING CHAPTER 9.90, UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A CATALYTIC CONVERTER, TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE Attachments: Agenda Report Ordinance ITEMS FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS Any Council Member, including the Mayor, may request an item be placed on a future agenda. Any such request will be discussed under this section. In making the request, a Council Member may briefly describe the topic of the proposed agenda item and any timing associated with the placement of the item on the agenda. This description shall not exceed 3 minutes. No substantive discussion on the subject of the motion may occur. Items may only be placed on the agenda by Council Members pursuant to policy or by the City Manager based on administrative or operational needs of the City. Public comments on the placement of these agenda items shall be limited to a maximum of 30 minutes. Individual comments shall not exceed 3 minutes. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings and Agenda Placements by Council Members adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54. CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT Page 8 City Council Agenda March 12, 2024 The next regular meeting of the City Council will be held on Tuesday, March 26, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., for a Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 p.m., at the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. 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 9 Item No. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk DATE: March 12, 2024 SUBJECT: Waive Reading of Title and Text of All Ordinances and Resolutions Included in the Agenda PREPARED BY: Randi Johl, Director of Legislative Affairs/City Clerk RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council waive the reading of the title and text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. BACKGROUND: The City of Temecula is a general law city formed under the laws of the State of California. With respect to adoption of ordinances and resolutions, the City adheres to the requirements set forth in the Government Code. In accordance with Government Code Section 34934, the title of each ordinance is included on the published agenda and a copy of the full ordinance has been available to the public online on the City's website and will be available in print at the meeting prior to the introduction or passage of the ordinance. Unless otherwise required, the full reading of the title and text of all ordinances and resolutions is waived. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Item No. 2 ACTION MINUTES TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING COUNCIL CHAMBERS 41000 MAIN STREET TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA FEBRUARY 27, 2024 - 6:00 PM CLOSED SESSION - 5:30 PM Closed Session was not held and continued to a future date. LABOR NEGOTIATIONS — The City Council will meet in closed session with its designated representatives to discuss labor negotiations pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6. The City's designated representatives are City Manager Aaron Adams, City Attorney Peter Thorson, Assistant City Manager Kevin Hawkins, Director of Finance Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Human Resources and Risk Management Isaac Garibay, Deputy City Manager Luke Watson and Senior Human Resources Analyst Becky Obmann. The employee organization is the California Teamsters Public, Professional and Medical Employees Union Local 911. CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 PM: Mayor James Stewart INVOCATION: Pam Migliozzi of Center for Spiritual Living Temecula Valley FLAG SALUTE: Mayor James Stewart ROLL CALL: Alexander, Kalfus, Schwank, Stewart BOARD / COMMISSION REPORTS Community Services Commission, Planning Commission and Race, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Commission PUBLIC SAFETY REPORT County of Riverside, Fire Department (CAL FIRE) PUBLIC COMMENTS - NON -AGENDA ITEMS The following individual(s) addressed the City Council: • Faye Wons • Rebecca • Melissa Bourbonnais • Bob Kowell • Laurel LaMont • Hanon Rickard PUBLIC COMMENTS - AGENDA ITEMS The following individual(s) addressed the City Council: • Bob Kowell (Item #11) Gene DiLuigi (Item #15) • Edward Hubler (Item #13) CITY COUNCIL REPORTS CONSENT CALENDAR Unless otherwise indicated below, the following pertains to all items on the Consent Calendar. Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-0): Motion by Schwank, Second by Alexander. The vote reflected unanimous approval. 1. Waive Reading of Title and Text of All Ordinances and Resolutions Included in the Agenda 2. 3. 4. 5. Recommendation: That the City Council waive the reading of the title and text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Approve Action Minutes of February 13, 2024 Recommendation: That the City Council approve the action minutes of February 13, 2024. Approve List of Demands Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2024-14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Approve Resolution to Adopt the Urban Forest Management Plan and Make a Findingit t is Exempt from California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15307 and 15061 Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2024-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO ADOPT THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION (CAL FIRE) 2019/2020 URBAN AND COMMUNITY FOREST PROGRAM GRANT GUIDELINES AND FINDING THAT THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN IS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15307 AND 15061 Award Construction Contract to Ace Capital Engineering for the American with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW18-16 Recommendation: That the City Council: 2 1. Award a construction contract to Ace Capital Engineering in the amount of $356,528.53 for the American with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW18-16; and 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve contract change orders up to 15% of the contract amount, $53,479.28; and 3. Make a finding that the American with Disabilities Act Transition Plan Implementation Project, PW18-16, project is exempt from Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan fees. 6. Approve an Increase to the Contingency Amount for the Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing at Calle Aragon Park Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Approve an increase to the contingency amount for the Playground Equipment Enhancement and Safety Surfacing at Calle Aragon Park, by $17, 890; and 2. Increase the City Manager's authority to approve additional work by $17,890. 7. Approve Plans and Specifications and Authorize the Solicitation of Construction Bids for Pickleball Courts, PW21-03 Recommendation: RECESS: That the City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Pickleball Courts, Project PW21-03; and 2. Make a finding that this project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Article 19, Categorical Exemption, Section 15301, Existing Facilities, of the CEQA Guidelines. At 7:16 PM, the City Council recessed and convened as the Temecula Community Services District Meeting and Temecula Public Financing Authority Meeting. At 7:30 PM the City Council resumed with the remainder of the City Council Agenda. RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING 11. Approve Proposed Fiscal Year 2024-25 User Fee Schedule Recommendation: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2024-16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A COMPREHENSIVE USER FEE SCHEDULE AND AMENDING FEES AND CHARGES FOR CITY SERVICES, INCLUDING BUILDING AND SAFETY, PLANNING, LAND DEVELOPMENT, FIRE PREVENTION, POLICE, AND OTHER CITY SERVICES AND MAKING RELATED DETERMINATIONS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT Approved the Staff Recommendation (3-1): Motion by Schwank, Second by Stewart. The vote reflected unanimous approval with Alexander opposing. BUSINESS - JOINT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 12. Approve Fiscal Year 2023-24 Mid -Year Budget Adjustments Recommendation: That the City Council/Board of Directors adopt the following resolutions entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2024-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET RESOLUTION NO. 2024-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FISCAL YEARS 2024-28 AND AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA REVISING THE SALARY SCHEDULE RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2024-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-24 4 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGETS Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-0): Motion by Kalfus, Second by Stewart. The vote reflected unanimous approval. BUSINESS - CITY COUNCIL 13. Approve Amendment No. 7 to City Manager Aaron Adams' Employment Agreement Recommendation: That the City Council approve Amendment No. 7 to City Manager Aaron Adams' Employment Agreement. Approved the Staff Recommendation (4-0): Motion by Schwank, Second by Stewart. The vote reflected unanimous approval. 14. Appoint Members to the Old Town Local Advisory Committee and Ratify the Full Membership List for the Committee Recommendation: That the City Council appoint members to the Old Town Local Advisory Committee and ratify the full membership list for the committee. Motion to appoint Carliene Anderson and Sabin Uriarte to the committee and ratify full membership list for the committee (4-0): Motion by Alexander, Second by Kalf is. The vote reflected unanimous approval. 15. Consider the Creation of an Ad Hoc Subcommittee to Discuss Issues Related to the of Streets into the City -Maintained Street System for Street Maintenance by the City (At the Request of Mayor Pro Tempore Kalf is) Recommendation: That the City Council: 1. Consider the creation of an ad hoc subcommittee to discuss issues related to the acceptance of streets into the city -maintained street system for street maintenance by the City and City policies and standards relating to the acceptance of streets. 2. If the subcommittee is created, appoint two Council Members to the subcommittee. 3. If the subcommittee is created, authorize City staff to provide the necessary document production and research necessary for the subcommittee's consideration of the issues. Motion to approve creation of ad hoc subcommittee and appoint Mayor Stewart and Mayor Pro Tern Kalfus to the subcommittee (3-1): Motion by Alexander, Second by Kalfus. The vote reflected unanimous approval with Schwank opposing. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS (RECEIVE AND FILE) 16. Community Development Department Monthly Report 17. Fire Department Monthly Report 18. Police Department Monthly Report 19. Public Works Department Monthly Report ITEMS FOR FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ADJOURNMENT At 10:19 PM, the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 12, 2024, at 5:00 PM for Closed Session, with regular session commencing at 6:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California. James Stewart, Mayor ATTEST: Randi Johl, City Clerk [SEAL] Item No. 3 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance DATE: March 12, 2024 SUBJECT: Approve List of Demands PREPARED BY: Tricia Hawk, Finance Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A BACKGROUND: All claims and demands are reported and summarized for review and approval by the City Council on a routine basis at each City Council meeting. The attached claims represent the paid claims and demands since the last City Council meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: All claims and demands were paid from appropriated funds or authorized resources of the City and have been recorded in accordance with the City's policies and procedures. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. List of Demands RESOLUTION NO.2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the office of the City Clerk, has been reviewed by the City Manager's Office and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $8,410,400.78. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of March, 2024. James Stewart, 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. 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 12th day of March, 2024, 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 2/12/2024 - 2/23/2024 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 2/15/2024 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: 7,684,564.69 725,836.09 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 3/12/2024 COUNCIL MEETING: $ 8,410,400.78 Check# Check Date Vendor# Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 601579 2/15/2024 3325 1-800-BOLLARDS INC AR001668 BOLLARDS: CITY HALL PERIMETER: PW $24,762.38 601580 2/15/2024 2238 79FIELD HOCKEY INC 3110.101 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $945.00 301549 2/22/2024 1772 ADAME LANDSCAPE INC 525245 PARKING GARAGE SWEEPING/CLEANING: PW $540.00 301579 2/22/2024 100 ADVANCED PERMIT SERVICES B23-6440 REFUND:80% PERMIT FEES $158.40 601581 2/15/2024 1943 AIR EXCHANGE INC 91611367 PLYMOVENT SVCS: FIRE STATIONS $944.53 301507 2/15/2024 1236 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT 1173117 ASPHALT SUPPLIES, PW STREET MAINTENANCE $441.16 301507 2/15/2024 1236 ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT 1172616 ASPHALT SUPPLIES, PW STREET MAINTENANCE $481.55 601582 2/15/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1KX6-KKDY-19TP MISC SUPPLIES, TOOLS, EQUP: HR $500.10 601583 2/15/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1V97-GKY7-F6RW MISC SUPPLIES/EQUIP: PW $43.49 601583 2/15/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1VRH-P3M7-VNRL MISC SUPPLIES/EQUIP: PW $25.99 601583 2/15/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1W93-RFF4-9MFG MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD $34.24 601582 2/15/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1NY4-6M7C-T733 OFFICE SUPPLIES: FIRE ($44.58) 601582 2/15/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1NQM-XL13-T3CQ SUPPLIES: MPSC AND MRC SUPPLIES $900.20 601583 2/15/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1YFY-3G4Y-XQ37 MISC SUPPLIES: PW CIP PW19-02 $30.44 601582 2/15/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1QP4-7DHL-M1D3 OFFICE SUPPLIES: EM $78.27 601582 2/15/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1R17-WMFY-MVRK MISC SUPPLIES/EQUIP: PW $160.94 601582 2/15/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1XQK-PCVJ-LHF6 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CRC $87.04 601582 2/15/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 174M-7K7Y-L39G MISC SUPPLIES: COMDEV $60.63 601582 2/15/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1XQN-W43P-L4MY MISC SUPPLIES: CALRECYCLE SB1383 GRANT: PW $462.97 601583 2/15/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 116Q-9L7G-QNVM MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD $33.04 601582 2/15/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC llJ3-6RVN-YN4Y MISC SUPPLIES: CALRECYCLE SB1383 GRANT: PW $92.43 601582 2/15/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1VTQ-43RJ-FWVG MISC SUPPLIES: CALRECYCLE SB1383 GRANT: PW ($85.46) 601638 2/22/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1QMX-7QHN-17TW SUPPLIES, TOOLS, EQUIP: HR $16.48 601637 2/22/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1KHC-HNWF-H4DF MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD $531.01 601637 2/22/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 114P-Y6QC-NJ99 MISC SUPPLIES:ECO DEV $642.71 601637 2/22/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 19XV-6TQM-QPTC MISC SUPPLIES: MPSC & MRC: TCSD $516.45 601637 2/22/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 117T-XY3D-P6Y9 MISC SUPPLIES:TCC $288.44 601637 2/22/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 114R-P1YD-NRNP MISC SUPPLIES: TVM $55.77 601637 2/22/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1NH1-TJ3K-3DC1 MISC SUPPLIES: WORKFORCE DEV $222.93 601637 2/22/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1XT7-WWJD-VXF6 SUPPLIES: MPSC & MRC ($46.22) 601637 2/22/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1R9J-WNYP-1RXQ MISC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD $114.05 601637 2/22/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1WNV-NNlJ-97GD MISC SUPPLIES/EQUIP: PD ($40.93) 601638 2/22/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1DQD-KHIQ-FMDY MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD ($1.73) 601637 2/22/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1R44-H17C-DINT MISC BOOKS: RHRTPL: TCSD $162.15 601638 2/22/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1DF9-L936-3GMN SUPPLIES/EQUIP:PD $39.86 601638 2/22/2024 1418 AMAZON.COM, INC 1KTW-K4QP-3RYY SUPPLIES/EQUIP: POLICE $18.02 601584 2/15/2024 1261 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES INC 78505 DRUG ALCOHOL ANALYSIS $324.30 301508 2/15/2024 2195 AMERICAN PATRIOT MUSIC PROJECT CSF Grant Prgm CSF GRANT PROGRAM $5,000.00 301509 2/15/2024 3623 EE # 441 Cmptr Loan Prgm 2/8 COMPUTER LOAN PROGRAM 02/08/24 $1,700.00 601585 2/15/2024 1805 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO 20076128 DRINKING WATER SYSTEM MAINT: TCC $28.55 601639 2/22/2024 1805 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO 20076197 FEB DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: MALL PD $62.53 601639 2/22/2024 1805 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO 20076178 FEB DRINKING WTR SYS MAINT: AULD RD: PD $62.53 601639 2/22/2024 1805 AQUA CHILL OF SAN DIEGO 20076194 DRINKING WATERSRVCS:IT $28.55 301550 2/22/2024 2442 ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL INC 20220121.01-6 CEQA ADV SVCS FY 23-24: COMM DEV $390.00 601640 2/22/2024 1107 ASSISTANCE LEAGUE OFTEMECULA VALLEY CSF 02/05/24 COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDING GRANT PRGM $5,000.00 301551 2/22/2024 2242 AT&T 494465 LOCATION/ACTIVATION FEES: POLICE $175.00 601586 2/15/2024 2381 AYERS WILLIAM BRIAN 2934 ELECTRICAL SVCS: CITY FACILITIES: PW $5,500.00 601641 2/22/2024 1405 B&H FOTO & ELECTRONICS CORP 221098038 SOUND SYSTEM: TCSD $837.90 601587 2/15/2024 2805 EE # 621 Reimb: Mileage REIMB: MILEAGE 10/19/23-12/16/23 $39.42 601587 2/15/2024 2805 EE#621 Reimb:CSMFO'24 REIMB: CSMFO 2024 CONFERENCE $781.22 601642 2/22/2024 1579 BOZONELOS BOB Music Perf: 02/05/24 PERFORMING ARTS AGREEMENT $300.00 301580 2/22/2024 100 BRIGHT PLANET SOLAR Refund: B22-5468 REFUND: PERMIT B22-5468: BLDG $147.36 301552 2/22/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPP 2038050539 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $346.96 301552 2/22/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPP 2038050537 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $20.11 301552 2/22/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPP 2038050538 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $94.94 301552 2/22/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPP 2038085723 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $257.21 301552 2/22/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPP 2038085724 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $8.27 301552 2/22/2024 1669 BTAC UNITED ACQUISITION HOLDING COMPP 2038085725 BOOK COLLECTIONS: RHRTPL TCSD $46.11 601588 2/15/2024 2399 BUCHER BRET PHILLIP 3500.101-3511.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $3,618.16 301562 2/22/2024 1002 C S M F 0 Memb Renewal: Fin MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: FINANCE $135.00 301562 2/22/2024 1002 C S M F O Membership Renewal MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: FINANCE $135.00 301510 2/15/2024 3157 CAHALAN JASON 3869 DOOR REPAIR: COUNCIL CHAMBERS: PW $1,880.78 301511 2/15/2024 1190 CAL MAT 73907053 ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT $394.87 301511 2/15/2024 1190 CAL MAT 73900419 ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT $628.09 301511 2/15/2024 1190 CAL MAT 73902246 ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT $216.96 301511 2/15/2024 1190 CAL MAT 73904242 ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT $434.37 301553 2/22/2024 1190 CAL MAT 73915920 ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT $509.71 301553 2/22/2024 1190 CAL MAT 73911555 ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT $217.99 301554 2/22/2024 1190 CAL MAT 73913296 ASPHALT SUPPLIES: PW STREET MAINT $214.90 601589 2/15/2024 1085 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS 17232 REGISTRATION: WEBINAR: ADA $80.00 601589 2/15/2024 1085 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS 17234 REGISTRATION: WEBINAR: ADA $80.00 601589 2/15/2024 1085 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS 17236 REGISTRATION: WEBINAR: ADA $80.00 601589 2/15/2024 1085 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS 17233 REGISTRATION: WEBINAR: ADA $80.00 301555 2/22/2024 2540 CALIF EMERGENCY SERVICES ASSOC 1182 REGISTRATION: CONFERENCE $724.00 301556 2/22/2024 2465 CALIF NEWSPAPERS PARTNERSHIP 0000581621A LEGAL NEWSPAPER PUBLICATIONS: CITY CLERK $581.18 301557 2/22/2024 2219 CALLYO 2009 CORP R19082 4/l/24-3/31/25 SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTION: INFO TECH $3,888.00 Check# Check Date Vendor# Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 301512 2/15/2024 1332 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES INC 31918720 JAN COPIERS LEASE: LIBRARY $671.56 601590 2/15/2024 2295 CANTRELLTINAJ 4200.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $175.00 301513 2/15/2024 2063 CASC ENGINEERING AND, CONSULTING INC 0050439 MISC ENGINEERING SVS: PW - CIP $180.00 601591 2/15/2024 1280CDW LLC PJ66169 MISCSMALLTOOLS&EQUIP: INFOTECH $157.38 601591 2/15/2024 1280CDW LLC PK11822 MISCSMALLTOOLS&EQUIP: INFOTECH $830.80 601591 2/15/2024 1280CDW LLC PL59812 MISCSMALLTOOLS&EQUIP: INFOTECH $191.40 301533 2/15/2024 100 CECILIA HARMS 65063829 REFUND: SENIOR EXCURSION $15.00 301514 2/15/2024 1528 CERTIFION CORP 124EP31197 SOFTWARE SUBSCRIPTION: PD $200.00 301558 2/22/2024 3138 CHING YUN HU 02/08/24 PERFORMANCE: THEATER:TCSD $2,750.00 301515 2/15/2024 1347 CINTAS 8406662847 FIRST AID SERVICES: RM $13.35 301515 2/15/2024 1347 CINTAS 8406662850 FIRST AID SERVICES: RM $152.57 301515 2/15/2024 1347 CINTAS 8406662853 FIRST AID SERVICES: RM $249.60 301515 2/15/2024 1347 CINTAS 8406662848 FIRST AID SERVICES: RM $129.18 301515 2/15/2024 1347 CINTAS 8406662851 FIRST AID SERVICES: RM $531.84 301515 2/15/2024 1347 CINTAS 8406662857 FIRST AID SERVICES: RM $10.55 301515 2/15/2024 1347 CINTAS 8406662856 FIRST AID SERVICES: RM $100.17 301515 2/15/2024 1347 CINTAS 8406662854 FIRST AID SERVICES: RM $262.34 601592 2/15/2024 2205 CLARITAS HOLDINGS INC, CLARITAS LLC 2727362 DEMOGRAPHIC REPORT: ECO DEV $1,350.00 601643 2/22/2024 2681 CLEARSTAR INC 1486293 EMPLOYMENT SCREENINGS-HR $114.68 301516 2/15/2024 3147 CLEM TYLER J INV0216 CONSTRUCTION SVCS: CIVIC CENTER: PW $6,000.00 601593 2/15/2024 3060 COMPLETE OFFICE LLC 4110969-0 OFFICE SUPPLIES: FIRE $66.53 601593 2/15/2024 3060 COMPLETE OFFICE LLC 4120446-0 OFFICE SUPPLIES: INFO TECH $36.37 601593 2/15/2024 3060 COMPLETE OFFICE LLC 4116211-0 OFFICE SUPPLIES: COMM DEV $78.04 601594 2/15/2024 1771 COSSOU,CELINE 1635.101 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $442.40 301517 2/15/2024 1849 COSTAR REALTY INFORMATION INC 120589255 COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION $1,296.00 301561 2/22/2024 1268 COSTCO MEMBERSHIP 000111833460256 FY24 AGENCY MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL $180.00 301559 2/22/2024 1098 COSTCOTEMECULA 491 3549 HOSPITALITY/OFFICE SUPPLIES:THEATER:TCSD $333.51 301559 2/22/2024 1098 COSTCOTEMECULA 491 3550 MISC SUPPLIES- WORKFORCE PROGRAMS $342.15 301560 2/22/2024 1268 COSTCO TEMECULA 491 3552 SUPPLIES: MRC, MPSC & SFSP $450.49 601595 2/15/2024 2004 COX KRISTI 4210.102 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $360.00 601596 2/15/2024 1592 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC 003813 PLUMBING SRVCS: COMMUNITY REC CENTER: PW $881.00 601596 2/15/2024 1592 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC INC L30669 WATER HEATER INSTALL: RON ROBERT LIBRARY: PW $8,946.00 301518 2/15/2024 3607 CROWN CASTLE INC 1491095 FIBER SVCS: 44900TEMECULA LANE $1,118.33 301519 2/15/2024 1699 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC 553966 DIAZ ROAD EXPANSION $10,341.75 301563 2/22/2024 1699 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC 549231 ENGINERING SERVICES: PW -CIP, PWO8-04 $1,237.00 601644 2/22/2024 2528 DE LA SECURA INC 21007-026 MARGARITA REC CTR DSGN BUILD $383,829.43 601644 2/22/2024 2528 DE LA SECURA INC Rel Ntc: Concrete PI REL NTC: CONCRETE PLACEMENT INC $7,594.71 301520 2/15/2024 2192 DE NOVO PLANNING GROUP 4114 BEDFORD CT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT $835.00 601645 2/22/2024 2227 DG INVESTMENT HOLDINGS 2 INC IN00151371 VIEWING STATIONS: SW STATION: PD $5,361.97 601597 2/15/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL25722 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: FIRE DEPT $314.70 601597 2/15/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL26484 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TRAFFIC: PW $412.40 601597 2/15/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL26470 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: STREET MAINT: PW $1,919.18 601597 2/15/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL26485 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: TCSD $217.26 601597 2/15/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL26464 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: PARKS: PW $2,069.86 601597 2/15/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL26465 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: LAND DEV: PW $133.97 601647 2/22/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL26467 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CODE ENFORCEMENT $159.55 601647 2/22/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL26468 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG INSPECTORS $351.07 601646 2/22/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL27178 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: FIRE DEPT $172.79 601647 2/22/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL27791 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: EOC $91.28 601647 2/22/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL27778 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: BLDG INSPECTORS $299.02 601647 2/22/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL27776 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: POLICE DEPT $73.62 601647 2/22/2024 1254 DOWNS ENERGY FUEL CL27777 FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES: CODE ENFORCEMENT $117.66 601598 2/15/2024 1678 DUDEK 202311636 CITYWIDE DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN $60,021.95 601598 2/15/2024 1678 DUDEK 202311425 CONSTRUCTION MGT SVCS: PW-CIP, PW20-13, ON -CALL $1,440.00 601599 2/15/2024 3362 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION 2054A05253 PAINT SUPPLIES: FACILITY MAINTENANCE: PW $163.84 601648 2/22/2024 2385 EIDE BAILLY LLP EI01625297 JAN AUDIT SVCS: ERP IMPLEMENTATION $13,200.00 601600 2/15/2024 1525 ENNIS PAINT INC 455910 MISC SUPPLIES: STREET MAINTENANCE: PW $6,257.10 301521 2/15/2024 1004 ESGIL LLC 152700 NOV PLAN CK SVCS: COMDEV $24,287.92 601601 2/15/2024 3601 EWC EVENTS LLC 2734 REGISTRATION: CONFERENCE: RISK $399.00 301522 2/15/2024 1005 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 8-396-88994 EXPRESS MAILING SVCS: FINANCE $20.90 301565 2/22/2024 1005 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 8-404-36284 EXPRESS MAILINGS: FIRE DEPT $145.92 301565 2/22/2024 1005 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 8-404-36285a EXPRESS MAILINGS: FINANCE $31.35 301565 2/22/2024 1005 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 8-404-36285b EXPRESS MAILINGS:COMDEV $77.02 301565 2/22/2024 1005 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC 8-411-43764 EXPRESS MAILING SRVCS: POLICE $19.69 601602 2/15/2024 1871 FLATIRON WEST INC 9 I-15/ FRENCH VALLEY PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS $1,869,403.93 301581 2/22/2024 100 FREEDOM FOREVER LLC Refund: Permits REFUND: PERMIT B23-1873/B23-2475/B23-0740 $442.08 601603 2/15/2024 2374 GEORGE HILLS COMPANY INC INV1027541 CLAIMS TPA: RM $3,830.50 601649 2/22/2024 2374 GEORGE HILLS COMPANY INC INV1027358 SUBROGATION RECOVERY FEE:GHC0061006: RM $1,013.28 301582 2/22/2024 100 GEORGE KELLY 65063873 REFUND: EXCURSION:TCSD $15.00 601650 2/22/2024 3527 GOLDEN STATE COMMUNICATIONS INC 5I06929 RADIOS & ACCESSORIES RENTAL: TEM SHERIFF $351.25 601650 2/22/2024 3527 GOLDEN STATE COMMUNICATIONS INC SI06951 RADIOS & ACCESSORIES RENTAL: TEM SHERIFF $163.13 601650 2/22/2024 3527 GOLDEN STATE COMMUNICATIONS INC RI29037 RADIOS & ACCESSORIES RENTAL: TEM SHERIFF $700.00 601604 2/15/2024 1225 GRAINGER 9009435125 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: STREET MAINT: PW $223.94 601651 2/22/2024 1197 HABITAT FOR HUMANITY INLAND VALLEY INf Ck Req 02/07/24 REFUND: BUSINESS LICENSE FEE $35.00 301524 2/15/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2107/Jan SMALL TOOLS/EQUIP FACILITIES MAINT: THEATER $12.23 301523 2/15/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2641 MISC MAINT SUPPLIES: STREETS: PW $1,003.35 Check# Check Date Vendor # Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 301523 2/15/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2646/Jan SMALL TOOLS/EQUIP FACILITIES MAINT $103.04 301523 2/15/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2649/Jan-a MISC HARDWARE SUPPLIES: PARKS $1,481.85 301523 2/15/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2649/Jan-b MISC HARDWARE SUPPLIES: PARKS $1,038.69 301523 2/15/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2664/Jan SMALL TOOLS/EQUIP FACILITIES MAINT $101.00 301523 2/15/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2670/Jan SMALL TOOLS/EQUIP FACILITIES MAINT $169.63 301523 2/15/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2671/Jan SMALL TOOLS/EQUIP FACILITIES MAINT $776.89 301524 2/15/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2702/Jan-a SMALL TOOLS/EQUIP FACILITIES MAINT $91.20 301523 2/15/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2708/Jan SMALL TOOLS/EQUIP FACILITIES MAINT $152.32 301523 2/15/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2716/Jan SMALL TOOLS/EQUIP FACILITIES MAINT $94.99 301524 2/15/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2729/Jan HARDWARE SUPPLIES: PARKS $73.93 301523 2/15/2024 1009 HANKS HARDWARE INC 2734/Jan SMALL TOOLS/EQUIP FACILITIES MAINT $118.73 301525 2/15/2024 2225 HASA INC 940932 POOL SANTIZING CHEMICALS: CITY POOLS $485.40 601652 2/22/2024 1093 HEALTHPOINTE MEDICAL GROUP INC 42612-4224695 MED EMPLOYMENT SCREENING: HR $490.00 301526 2/15/2024 1791 HEUXSTORM INC 15015 FIREWALL RENEWAL: IT $2,040.00 301566 2/22/2024 3499 HEPHNER JOSHUA Reimb: CRIA Conf REIMB: CRIA INT'LTRAINING CONFERENCE: PD $587.15 601605 2/15/2024 1761 HESSJOHNPAUL 1508 PROMOTIONAL VIDEOGRAPHY SERVICES $687.50 301567 2/22/2024 1620 HOSPICE OF THE VALLEY OCT-DEC'23 FY 23/24 CDBG SENIOR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM $2,846.72 301568 2/22/2024 3611 EE # 531 Reimb: Training 4/22 REGISTRATION: LASERFICHE EMPOWER CONFERENCE $1,750.00 601606 2/15/2024 2233 HOWELL, ANN MARIE COT _ECONDEV_0224 GRAPHIC DESIGN SERVICES: CM $85.00 601653 2/22/2024 2233 HOWELL, ANN MARIE COT_COMSERV_0224 MILITARY BANNER PROGRAM $297.50 301583 2/22/2024 100 INFINITY ENERGY Refund: B23-2272 REFUND: PERMIT B23-2272: BLDG $147.36 601607 2/15/2024 2564 INLAND FLEET SOLUTIONS INC 6992 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPAIR, STREET MAINTENANC $933.41 601607 2/15/2024 2564 INLAND FLEET SOLUTIONS INC 6991 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPAIR, STREET MAINTENANC $837.98 601607 2/15/2024 2564 INLAND FLEET SOLUTIONS INC 6954 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPAIR, STREET MAINTENANC $735.08 601607 2/15/2024 2564 INLAND FLEET SOLUTIONS INC 6973 VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT REPAIR, STREET MAINTENANC $820.83 601609 2/15/2024 1719 JACOB'S HOUSE INC Ben349997 EMPLOYEE CHARITY DONATIONS PAYMENT $40.00 301584 2/22/2024 100 KIMBERLY BUCKLIN Refund: B22-4737 REFUND: PERMIT B22-4737: BLDG $76.00 601610 2/15/2024 1975 KRACH BREE B 200206 PLAQUE/ENGRAVING SVCS: I-15 CONGESTION RELIEF $179.44 601610 2/15/2024 1975 KRACH BREE B 200209 NAME PLATE: CITY CNL $43.50 601610 2/15/2024 1975 KRACH BREE B 200175 ENGRAVING SVCS: CITY CNL $16.31 601610 2/15/2024 1975 KRACH BREE B 200140 BRONZE PLAQUE: MRC: PW $2,555.63 601654 2/22/2024 1975 KRACH BREE B 200216 PLAQUE ENGRAVING SVCS: CITY CLERK $81.56 601655 2/22/2024 3375 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC 609440 LIDAR CABLES: TEM SHERIFF $44.63 301569 2/22/2024 1793 LA JOLLA BOOKING AGENCY Sttlmnt:02/18/24 STTLMNT: A TRIBUTE TO TIM MCGRAW $1,756.90 301569 2/22/2024 1793 LA JOLLA BOOKING AGENCY Sttlmnt: 02/16/24 STTLMNT: SCOTT BRUCE'S TRIBUTE TO ELVIS $5,871.02 301569 2/22/2024 1793 LA JOLLA BOOKING AGENCY Sttlmnt:02/17/24 STTLMNT: AMOR PROHIBIDO: SELENA TRIBUTE $8,101.70 601611 2/15/2024 1930 LDCO INC 3399 FABRICATE & INSTALL SIGNS: PW FACILITIES $12,498.28 301570 2/22/2024 1014 LEAGUE OF CALIF CITIES SACRAM 2838 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL: CC $100.00 301571 2/22/2024 1162 LITELINES INC 19849 OLD TOWN STREETLIGHTS: PW22-16 $25,143.00 301572 2/22/2024 3198 LOOMIS ARMORED US LLC 13428174 ARMORED CAR SVCS: FINANCE $1,235.35 301527 2/15/2024 3098 EE # 646 Reimb: CSMFO Conf REIMB: CSMFO CONFERENCE $902.44 301573 2/22/2024 1924 MARABOTTO JAMES L 02/09/24 PRESENTER: THEATER: TCSD $5,000.00 601612 2/15/2024 2057 MDG ASSOCIATES INC 18168 DEC ADA LABOR COMPLIANCE SVCS: PW18-16 $543.00 601612 2/15/2024 2057 MDG ASSOCIATES INC 18169 DEC ADA LABOR COMPLIANCE SVCS: PW20-13 $647.50 301528 2/15/2024 1185 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY Ben349987 DENTAL PAYMENT $15,270.59 301529 2/15/2024 1354 MICHELLES PLACE CANCER RESOURCE CENTEI FY 23/24 CSF PMT 5 FY 23/24 COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDING $7,285.00 301574 2/22/2024 1777 MIDWESTTAPE LLC 504993385 BOOKS ON TAPE $44.89 301574 2/22/2024 1777 MIDWESTTAPE LLC 504966235 BOOKS ON TAPE $589.40 601613 2/15/2024 1327 MIKES PRECISION WELDING INC 407895 PROTECTIVE CAGE: MRC: PW $2,880.00 301575 2/22/2024 1616 MOORE IACOFANO GOLTSMAN INC 0084734 QLMP DIGITAL DASHBOARD SOFTWARE MAINT. (LR21-00 $2,085.00 601614 2/15/2024 1240 MORAMARCO ANTHONY J 2040.101 TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS $637.00 301530 2/15/2024 2032 NATIONAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE INC 96822 DOT-RISK/HR $548.75 301576 2/22/2024 2188 NETFILE INC 9093 CAMPAIGN E-FILING & ADMIN SYSTEM: CITY CLERK $9,300.00 601616 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76615 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VARI LOCATIONS: PW $298.48 601615 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76616 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VARI LOCATIONS: PW $499.26 601617 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76612 IRRIGATION REPAIRS AT VARIOUS MEDIANS $172.53 601617 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76613 IRRIGATION REPAIRS AT VARIOUS MEDIANS $172.53 601618 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76614 IRRIGATION REPAIRS AT VARIOUS MEDIANS $131.67 601617 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76900 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: REDHAWK MEDIAN: PW $180.80 601616 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76617 IRRIGATION REPAIRS AT VARIOUS SLOPES $373.43 601618 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76618 IRRIGATION REPAIRS AT VARIOUS SLOPES $153.27 601617 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76905 PLANTING: YNEZ ROAD MEDIANS $240.00 601618 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76903 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: RONALD REGAN SPORTS PARK $148.94 601616 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76904 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: RONALD REGAN SPORTS PARK $384.69 601615 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76610 IRRIGATION REPAIR & PLANT REPLACEMENT -VARIOUS PA $435.71 601618 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76611 IRRIGATION REPAIR & PLANT REPLACEMENT -VARIOUS PA $120.00 601616 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76624 LANDSCAPE SVCS: REDHAWK PARK DOG PEN $412.68 601615 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76625 IRRIGATION REPAIRS:PHBSP $601.83 601615 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76626 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: PHBSP $476.79 601616 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76627 IRRIGATION REPAIRS:PHBSP $433.27 601617 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76902 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: WOODCREST SLOPE $227.96 601616 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76901 GARDEN RENOVATIONS: SENIOR CENTER $325.00 601616 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76619 IRRIGTAION/TREE REPLACEMENT AT VARIOUS PARKS $302.84 601615 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76620 IRRIGTAION/TREE REPLACEMENT AT VARIOUS PARKS $471.86 601618 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76621 IRRIGTAION/TREE REPLACEMENT AT VARIOUS PARKS $120.00 601615 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76691 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES LEVEL C SLOPES: PV $62,010.00 Check# Check Date Vendor # Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 601615 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76689 LANDSCAPE SVCS: PARKS AND MEDIANS: PW $56,141.00 601615 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76688 LANDSCAPE SVCS: PARKS AND MEDIANS: PW $23,159.00 601615 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76693 LANDSCAPE SVCS: PARKS AND MEDIANS: PW $77,622.00 601615 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76909 REMEDIAL LANDSCAPE SERVICES: ROW TREE PLANTING $870.00 601617 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76893 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VARIOUS SLOPES: PW $225.22 601617 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76894 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VARIOUS SLOPES: PW $219.65 601618 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76895 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VARIOUS SLOPES: PW $115.49 601616 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76896 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VARIOUS SLOPES: PW $333.58 601617 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76897 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VARIOUS SLOPES: PW $228.68 601617 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76898 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VARIOUS SLOPES: PW $180.80 601616 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76906 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VAIL RANCH SLOPE $256.22 601617 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76907 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VAIL RANCH SLOPE $185.79 601616 2/15/2024 2578 NIEVES LANDSCAPE INC 76908 IRRIGATION REPAIRS: VAIL RANCH SLOPE $304.99 301531 2/15/2024 2571 NORMAN A TRAUB & ASSOCIATES LLC 23070.3 WRKPLACE INVESTIGATIONS: HR $10,440.83 601619 2/15/2024 1819 NPG INC 1122532 CONCRETE WORK: MRC: PW $68,400.00 301532 2/15/2024 1013 NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC 53171047 TOOL & EQUIP STREET MAINTENANCE: PW $97.84 601656 2/22/2024 1511 NV5 INC 369037 MARGARITA RECREATION CENTER $23,915.66 301577 2/22/2024 1654 OAK GROVE INSTITUTE FOUNDATION FY 23/24 CSF FY 23/24 COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDING $5,000.00 301578 2/22/2024 3040 OLD TOWN TEMECULA HARLEY DAVIDSON 28694 VEHICLE REPAIR / MAINTENANCE: PD $1,250.83 301578 2/22/2024 3040 OLD TOWN TEMECULA HARLEY DAVIDSON 28614 VEHICLE REPAIR / MAINTENANCE: PD $1,549.74 301578 2/22/2024 3040 OLD TOWN TEMECULA HARLEY DAVIDSON 28542 VEHICLE REPAIR / MAINTENANCE: PD $648.16 301578 2/22/2024 3040 OLD TOWN TEMECULA HARLEY DAVIDSON 28488 VEHICLE REPAIR / MAINTENANCE: PD $52.97 301578 2/22/2024 3040 OLD TOWN TEMECULA HARLEY DAVIDSON 28436 VEHICLE REPAIR / MAINTENANCE: PD $496.95 301578 2/22/2024 3040 OLD TOWN TEMECULA HARLEY DAVIDSON 28424 VEHICLE REPAIR / MAINTENANCE: PD $1,224.25 601620 2/15/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 74035 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE: FIRE $48.78 601657 2/22/2024 2496 OLD TOWN TIRE AND SERVICE INC 74133 VEHICLE REPAIR / MAINTENANCE: PD $87.98 301597 2/22/2024 1135 POSTMASTER-TEMECULA 02/20/24 POSTAGE: CITYWIDE POSTCARD MAILING $8,166.25 601621 2/15/2024 3271 POWERSPORTS UNLIMITED INC 47114 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT: TEM SHERIFF $259.20 601658 2/22/2024 3271 POWERSPORTS UNLIMITED INC 47162 VEHICLE REPAIR & MAINT: TEM SHERIFF $270.45 601659 2/22/2024 1721 PRO ACTIVE FIRE DESIGN & CONSULTING 2064 PLAN CHECKING SVCS: FIRE $2,960.20 301535 2/15/2024 1847 RAND R CONTROLS INC 24900 MISC SUPPLIES: FACILITIES: PW $1,264.09 301535 2/15/2024 1847 RAND R CONTROLS INC 24901 MISC SUPPLIES: FACILITIES: PW $574.10 301536 2/15/2024 1103 R C P BLOCK AND BRICK INC 33038686 MISC MASONRY SUPPLIES: PARKS: PW $529.77 301536 2/15/2024 1103 R C P BLOCK AND BRICK INC 33044435 MISC MASONRY SUPPLIES: PARKS: PW ($32.63) 601622 2/15/2024 1076 RANCHO TEMECULA CAR WASH JAN'24 CAR WASH SVCS: POLICE $18.01 601660 2/22/2024 2203 REMOTE SATELLITE SYSTEMS INTL 00126628 PHONE SERVICE FOR EOC $505.05 301537 2/15/2024 2532 REVZILLA MOTORSPORTS LLC 44540428 UNIFORMS: TEM SHERIFF $461.21 601623 2/15/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245895 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $330.00 601623 2/15/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245897 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $3,967.50 601623 2/15/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245916 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $3,472.50 601623 2/15/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 245917 DEC 2023 LEGAL SERVICES $3,047.50 601661 2/22/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 246357 JAN 2024 LEGAL SERVICES $15,811.62 601661 2/22/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 246365 JAN 2024 LEGAL SERVICES $26.00 601661 2/22/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 246368 JAN 2024 LEGAL SERVICES $2,250.00 601661 2/22/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 246373 JAN 2024 LEGAL SERVICES $3,210.00 601661 2/22/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 246374 JAN 2024 LEGAL SERVICES $2,250.00 601661 2/22/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 246375 JAN 2024 LEGAL SERVICES $138.00 601661 2/22/2024 1150 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 246398 JAN 2024 LEGAL SERVICES $464.81 301564 2/22/2024 1104 RIVERSIDE CO OF ENVIRONMENTAL IN0501674 OCT-DEC'23 VECTOR CNTRL SVC: CODE ENF $3,248.52 301538 2/15/2024 1042 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT SH0000044729 MISC SUPPLIES: TEM SHERIFF $10,417.35 301538 2/15/2024 1042 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEPT SH0000044552 MISC EQUIPMENT: TEM SHERIFF $9,094.77 301592 2/22/2024 2635 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PE0000001553 EMERGENCY RADIO RENTAL: PD $1,122.01 301592 2/22/2024 2635 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PE0000001554A EMERGENCY RADIO RENTAL: CODE ENF $513.10 301592 2/22/2024 2635 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PE0000001554B EMERGENCY RADIO RENTAL: EOC $102.62 601625 2/15/2024 1552 SANBORN GWYNETH A CO TEMECULA MUSIC PERF: 02/03/24 AGREEMENT: COUNTRY LIVE @ THE MERC $753.75 601626 2/15/2024 2008 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA PRESTON 01192024 PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: YOUTH MUSICAL THEATER PROGRP $360.00 601662 2/22/2024 2008 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA PRESTON 02102024 MUSEUM/ACE PHOTOGRAPHY SVCS: TCSD $275.00 601662 2/22/2024 2008 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA PRESTON 0102082024 PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS $275.00 601662 2/22/2024 2008 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA PRESTON 0302082024 PHOTO/VIDEO SVCS: REDI COMMISSION: CITY CLERK $300.00 601662 2/22/2024 2008 SARNOWSKI SHAWNA PRESTON 0202082024 MPSC/HUMAN SERVICES PHOTOGRAPHY $275.00 301539 2/15/2024 2360 SB&O INC 124018 ENGINEERING & LAND SURVEY SVCS: CIP: PW $872.00 601663 2/22/2024 2266 EE#529 02/01/24 REIMB:PTS000MMISSION $67.50 601627 2/15/2024 1509 SHERRY BERRY MUSIC PERF: 02/O1/24 TICKET SERVICES AGREEMENT: GREAT OAKS JAZZ $1,907.50 601628 2/15/2024 2425 SIEMENS MOBILITY INC, YUNEX LLC 5610001261 STREET LIGHT POLE REPLACE: PW $2,096.00 601629 2/15/2024 1061 SMART & FINAL INC 02/07/24 MISC SUPPLIES: MPSC: TCSD $256.98 301585 2/22/2024 100 SOLAR TECH ENERGY SYSTEMS INC REFUND: B23-0049 REFUND: B23-0049 PERMIT $64.90 601630 2/15/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291493 ROUTINE PEST CONTROL: FACILITIES: PW $59.00 601664 2/22/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291964 PEST CONTROL SERVICES: FIRE STATIONS $68.00 601664 2/22/2024 1055 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL INC 0291662 PEST CONTROL SERVICES: FIRE STATIONS $74.00 301540 2/15/2024 1704 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE COMPAP 45949240201 FEB GEN USAGE: 0141,0839,0978,0979 $343.90 601665 2/22/2024 3356 SOUTHSTAR ENGINEERING AND CONSULTINC COT-1-15CR-01 I-15 CONGESTION RELIEF $1,614.00 301593 2/22/2024 1028 STADIUM PIZZA INC 02/07/24 RFRSHMNTS: WORKFORCE DEV: TCSD $118.90 301593 2/22/2024 1028 STADIUM PIZZA INC 02/14/24 RFRSHMNTS: CRC: TCSD $64.82 301594 2/22/2024 1431 STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY Ben349989 BASIC LIFE INSURANCE PAYMENT $12,018.08 601666 2/22/2024 1263 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUST 712851d JAN FINGERPRINTING SVCS: PD $4,607.00 601666 2/22/2024 1263 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUST 716953 JAN BLOOD & ALCOHOL ANALYSIS: PD $560.00 Check# Check Date Vendor # Vendor Invoice Description Invoice Net 601666 2/22/2024 1263 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OFJUST 706256-c FINGERPRINTING SERVICES: POLICE $1,978.00 601666 2/22/2024 1263 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OFJUST 700085-a FINGERPRINTING SERVICES: TCSD $520.00 601666 2/22/2024 1263 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OFJUST 700085-c FINGERPRINTING SERVICES: CONTRACT CLASSES: TCSD $147.00 601666 2/22/2024 1263 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUST 700085-d FINGERPRINTING SERVICES: TEM SHERIFF $2,798.00 601666 2/22/2024 1263 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUST 700085 FINGERPRINTING SERVICES: HR $49.00 301586 2/22/2024 100 SUNPOWER CORP REFUND: B23-0113 REFUND: BLDG PERMIT 23-0113 $147.36 301587 2/22/2024 100 SUNPOWER CORPORATION REFUND: B23-3643 REFUND: B23-3643 PERMIT $147.36 301588 2/22/2024 100 SUNRUN INSTALLATION SERVICES REFUND: SUNRUN BLDG REFUND: BLDG PERMITS $1,147.68 301589 2/22/2024 100 SUNRUN INSTALLATION SERVICES REF: PERMIT SUNRUN REFUND: PERMIT B23-2926/B23-1317/B23-4298/823-14: $589.44 301541 2/15/2024 2059 SUPERIOR READY MIX LP 402940 CONCRETE MATERIALS: STREET MAINTENANCE: PW $5,295.87 301542 2/15/2024 2261 T MOBILE USA INC 9558735955 GPS LOCATE: TEM SHERIFF $75.00 301595 2/22/2024 2261 T MOBILE USA INC 9559178573 TIMING ADVANCE: TEM SHERIFF $25.00 601631 2/15/2024 1113 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 Ben349993 UNION MEMBERSHIP DUES PAYMENT $4,897.00 601667 2/22/2024 2372 TELECOM LAW FIRM PC 16728 WIRELESS PLANNING SUPPORT SVCS: COMM DEV $60.60 601668 2/22/2024 2372 TELECOM LAW FIRM PC 16574 WIRELESS PLANNING SUPPORT SVCS: COMM DEV $678.00 301543 2/15/2024 3614 TEMECULA VALLEY POSSE FY 23/24 CSF FY 23/24 COMMUNITY SERVICE FUNDING $5,000.00 601624 2/15/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54639 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: MRC & TVE2: PW $5,267.50 601624 2/15/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54702 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: MRC & TVE2: PW $1,054.38 601624 2/15/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54809 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: FACILITY MAINTENANCE $71.15 601624 2/15/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54891 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: FACILITY MAINTENANCE $30.77 601624 2/15/2024 1265 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY CENTER 54888 LOCKSMITH SERVICES: FACILITY MAINTENANCE $63.21 301544 2/15/2024 1234 TEMECULA WINNELSON COMPANY 301883 01 PLUMBING SUPPLIES: PW FACILITIES $3,302.17 301544 2/15/2024 1234 TEMECULA WINNELSON COMPANY 30188001 PLUMBING SUPPLIES: FACILITIES: PW $550.36 301544 2/15/2024 1234 TEMECULA WINNELSON COMPANY 302655 01 PLUMBING SUPPLIES: PARKS: PW $140.42 301590 2/22/2024 100 TEMECULA YOUTH BASEBALL 65315812 REFUND: DEPOSIT $400.00 601632 2/15/2024 1063 TIMMY D PRODUCTIONS INC 248002 CULTURE DAYS AND ART NIGHTS MUSIC $425.00 601633 2/15/2024 1152 TOP LINE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY LLC 465746 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: FACILITIES: PW $284.76 601669 2/22/2024 2410 EE # 534 Reimb: Team Pace 2/7 REIMBURSEMENT: TEAM PACE EVENT $250.00 601670 2/22/2024 2413 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS INC 21086 CONSULTING/GRANT WRITING SVCS: CITY CLERK $6,000.00 601671 2/22/2024 2375 TR DESIGN GROUP INC 4813 ARCHITECTURAL SVCS, CIP-PW, PW19-13 $50,551.20 601672 2/22/2024 2148 TRAUMA INTERVENTION PROGRAMS OF SW 12324-T B SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT: TRAUMA INTERVENTION PR( $5,000.00 301545 2/15/2024 2508 TURBOSCAPE INC 13990 MISC PLAYGROUND WORK AT VARIOUS PARKS: PW $22,560.00 301596 2/22/2024 1350 U S BANK 14105535 ACCOUNT ANALYSIS: FINANCE $875.00 16083 2/13/2024 1350 U S BANK S51 Remit 02/16/24 $4,340,426.19 301591 2/22/2024 100 UNDERLINE ENERGY REFUND: B23-3610 REFUND: BLDG PERMIT B23-3610 $121.60 601634 2/15/2024 2142 URBANE CAFE OPERATIONS LLC 110680 TVE2 ORDERS FOR WORKSHOPS/MEETINGS $515.78 301598 2/22/2024 1845 VERIZON WIRELESS 9956347389 01/11-02/10TASK FORCE TABLETS: POLICE $430.12 601635 2/15/2024 3473 VICTOR STANLEY LLC SI54449 BIKE BENCHES: CRC: PW $2,106.60 301534 2/15/2024 100 VICTORIA GONZALEZ 65063757 REFUND: SENIOR EXCURSION $15.00 601673 2/22/2024 1498 VISION ONE, INC. INV-75321 TICKETING SERVICES: THEATER: TCSD $2,428.00 601636 2/15/2024 2183 WALLACE & ASSOC CONSULTING INC 21648 CONSTRUCTION MGMT SVCS: PW19-07 $9,770.00 601636 2/15/2024 2183 WALLACE & ASSOC CONSULTING INC 18693 CONSTRUCTION MGMT SVCS: PW19-07 $16,675.00 601636 2/15/2024 2183 WALLACE & ASSOC CONSULTING INC 21652 CONSTRUCTION MGMT SVCS: PW19-07 $3,618.00 601636 2/15/2024 2183 WALLACE & ASSOC CONSULTING INC 21651 CONSTRUCTION MGMT SVCS: PW19-07 $4,598.00 601636 2/15/2024 2183 WALLACE & ASSOC CONSULTING INC 21649 CONSTRUCTION MGMT SVCS: PW19-07 $8,748.00 601636 2/15/2024 2183 WALLACE & ASSOC CONSULTING INC 21647 CONSTRUCTION MGMT SVCS: PW19-07 $14,092.00 301546 2/15/2024 1439 WALMART 02/07/24 MISC SUPPKUES: RIBBON CUTTING EVENT: TCSD $158.34 301599 2/22/2024 1439 WALMART 02/13/24 MISC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD $68.77 301599 2/22/2024 1439 WALMART 02/07/24 a MISC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD $70.00 301599 2/22/2024 1439 WALMART 02/07/24 b MISC SUPPLIES: CRC: TCSD $206.67 301599 2/22/2024 1439 WALMART 02/14/24 MISC SUPPLIES/EQUIP: WORKFORCE DEV: TCSD $145.60 301600 2/22/2024 1102 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC 82210768 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES: PARKS: PW $190.53 301600 2/22/2024 1102 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC 82272031 JANITORIAL SVCS FACILITY MAINT: PW $2,788.49 301600 2/22/2024 1102 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY INC 82262877 JANITORIAL SVCS FACILITY MAINT: PW $1,117.67 301601 2/22/2024 2230 WEBB MUNICIPAL FINANCE LLC ARIV0000106 ENGINEERING & CFD: TAX ADMIN: TCSD SVC LEVELS $10,285.04 301547 2/15/2024 1686 WEST COAST PERFORMING ARTS PRESENTER' PERF: 02/03/24 AGREEMENT: THE QUEEN CONCERT 2/3/24 $15,057.10 301547 2/15/2024 1686 WEST COAST PERFORMING ARTS PRESENTER: PERF: 02/02/24 AGREEMENT: FLEETWOOD MAC CONCERT $12,044.80 301547 2/15/2024 1686 WEST COAST PERFORMING ARTS PRESENTER' PERF: 02/04/24 AGREEMENT: ABBA CONCERT 2/4/24 $13,225.81 601608 2/15/2024 1757 WEST SAFETY SERVICES, INC. 6082607 DEC ENTERPRISES 911 SVC: INFO TECH $322.50 601674 2/22/2024 1782 WESTERN AV 18549 AV EQUIP:OLD TOWN & VARIOUS FACILITIES-CIP IT20-01 $23,878.05 301602 2/22/2024 2322 WEX BANK 95002336 01/07-02/06 FUEL USAGE: POLICE $1,709.92 301548 2/15/2024 3612 WILDLANDS SLR HOLDINGS I LLC SLRMB-433 DIAZ ROAD EXPANSION- NO. 119-20 $18,450.00 301603 2/22/2024 1223 ZOLL MEDICAL CORPORATION GPO 3909756 PARAMEDIC PROGRAM SUPPLIES: MEDIC $1,644.95 Total $7,684,564.69 Item No. 4 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager / City Council FROM: Isaac Garibay, Director of Human Resources and Risk Management DATE: March 12, 2024 SUBJECT: Approve Agreement with Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. for Insurance Brokerage Services PREPARED BY: Nicole Flores, Risk Manager RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a five-year agreement with Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. for insurance brokerage services in an amount not to exceed $292,000 for the total term of the agreement. BACKGROUND: On January 10, 2024 the City issued a termination letter to Arthur J. Gallagher & Risk Management Services, LLC., terminating the agreement for insurance brokerage services. On March 12, 2024, the City proposes to go into agreement with Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. for a five-year term for insurance brokerage services. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost to the City will be an additional $12,000 over Arthur J. Gallagher & Risk Management Services, LLC., for the insurance brokerage services for a term of five years, July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2029. ATTACHMENT: Broker Fee Agreement 2-18-24 AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACTOR SERVICES BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. BROKER SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of March 12, 2024, between the City of Temecula , a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., a Corporation, (hereinafter referred to as "Contractor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 1. TERM This Agreement shall commence on March 12, 2024 and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than June 30, 2029, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. 2. SERVICES Contractor shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Contractor shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance which is also set forth in Exhibit A. 3. PERFORMANCE a. Contractor shall faithfully and competently exercise the ordinary skill and competence of members of their profession. Contractor shall employ all generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Contractor hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement. b. City will cooperate with Contractor in the performance of Contractor's duties by providing complete and accurate information as to City's loss experience, risk exposures, and any other pertinent information that Contractor requests. City shall promptly review coverage documents concerning the programs delivered by Contractor for consistency with City's specifications. In addition, City shall have the responsibility to keep record of and immediately report significant changes in exposures, loss -related data, and/or any other material changes to Contractor. This reporting must be memorialized in writing and delivered to Contractor in accordance with the notice provisions below. City instructs Contractor to process information provided hereunder for the purpose of performing the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and in accordance with Exhibit C attached hereto. 2-18-24 4. PAYMENT a. The City agrees to pay Contractor annually to be invoiced July 1 of each year, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and Schedule based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B, other than the payment rates and schedule of payment, are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Two Hundred Ninety -Two Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($292,000.00) for for the total term of the agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement. b. Contractor shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager . Contractor shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and Contractor at the time City's written authorization is given to Contractor for the performance of said services. C. Contractor will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of each invoice as to all non -disputed fees. If the City disputes any of Contractor's fees, it shall give written notice to Contractor within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice. For all reimbursements authorized by this Agreement, Contractor shall provide receipts on all reimbursable expenses in excess of fifty dollars ($50) in such form as approved by the Director of Finance. 5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE a. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the Contractor at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Contractor shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement. b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Contractor the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Contractor will submit an invoice to the City, pursuant to Section entitled "PAYMENT" herein. 6. DEFAULT OF CONTRACTOR a. The Contractor's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Contractor is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Contractor for any work performed after the date of default and can 2- l 8-24 terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Contractor. If such failure by the Contractor to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Contractor's control, and without fault or negligence of the Contractor, it shall not be considered a default. b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Contractor is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the Contractor with written notice of the default. The Contractor shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Contractor fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS a. Contractor shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information related to the scope of work required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Contractor shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Subject to appropriate terms of confidentiality and non -disclosure, Contractor shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of three (3) years after receipt of final payment. b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Contractor. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Contractor shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files. B. INDEMNIFICATION The Contractor agrees to defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City of 'Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all third -party claims, demands, losses, reasonable defense costs or expenses, including reasonable attorney fees and expert witness fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or 2-18-24 the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property , to the extent caused by Contractor's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the negligence of the City of Temecula, Temecula Community Services District, and/or the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. 9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents, representatives, or employees. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. i. Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Contractor has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's compensation insurance is not required, but Contractor shall execute a declaration that it has no employees. i. Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Contractor's profession. b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: i. 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. ii. Automobile Liability: One Million ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage. iii. Worker's Compensation as required by the State of California; Employer's Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease. iv. Professional Liability Coverage: One million ($1,000,000) per claim and in aggregate. c. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions will be declared and approved by the Risk Manager of the City of Temecula. 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 Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as additional insured's, as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the 4 2-18-24 Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City of Temecula, 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 Contractor'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 Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City of Temecula, the Temecula Community Services District, and the Successor Agency to the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, their officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 4) The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. 5) Each insurance policy required by this agreement shall be endorsed to state in substantial conformance to the following: If the policy will be canceled before the expiration date the insurer will notify in writing to the City of such cancellation not less than thirty (30) days' prior to the cancellation effective date. 6) If insurance coverage is canceled or, reduced in coverage or in limits the Contractor shall within ten (10) 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. a. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best rating of A-:VII or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements. b. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. The Contractor will upon request provide complete certificates, endorsements, and coverage documentation as required by these specifications. 10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR a. Contractor is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on 2-18-24 behalf of Contractor shall at all times be under Contractor's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Contractor 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. Contractor shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner. b. No employee benefits shall be available to Contractor in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Contractor as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Contractor for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Contractor for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES The Contractor 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 Contractor 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 Contractor to comply with this section. 12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION a. Except for: 1) Information that is or becomes public other than as a result of a breach of this Agreement by Contractor; 2) Information that is lawfully known by Contractor without any obligation of confidentiality or other restriction on use or disclosure, prior to the disclosure of the information by the City; 3) Information that becomes available to Contractor from a third party whom, to Contractor's knowledge, is not prohibited from transmitting such information by a contractual, legal, or fiduciary obligation to the City; and 4) Information that is independently developed by the Receiving Party or any of its Representatives without use of Confidential Information; all information gained by Contractor in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Contractor without City's prior written authorization. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor may also disclose City's information to insurers, underwriters, and other recognized intermediaries and administrators solely as needed to market and service City's insurance programs, or portions thereof; provided, however, that Contractor shall first inform such recipients of 2-18-24 the confidential nature of the information. Contractor, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Response to a subpoena or court order or otherwise by law or regulation, shall not be considered "voluntary" provided Contractor, if permitted by law, gives City notice of such court order or subpoena. b. Contractor shall, if permitted by law, promptly notify City should Contractor, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed there under. City retains the right, but has no obligation, to be present at any deposition, hearing or similar proceeding concerning the work performed under this Agreement. Contractor agrees to cooperate fully with City and to provide City with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Contractor concerning the work performed under this Agreement. However, City's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by City to control, direct, or rewrite said response. 13. 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. Notice shall be effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above. Mailing Address: City of Temecula Attn: Risk Management 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 To Contractor: Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. Attn: Conor Boughey 560 Mission Street, 6th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 with a copy to: Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. Attn: Chief Legal Officer 701 B Street, 6th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 2-18-24 14. ASSIGNMENT The Contractor shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City, except that prior written consent will not be required for Contractor to assign this Agreement to its successor in the event of a merger, sale of substantially all of Contractor's assets, or similar event.. Upon termination of this Agreement, Contractor's sole compensation shall be payment for actual services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to in writing between the City Council and the Contractor. 15. LICENSES At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement. 16. GOVERNING LAW The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this 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. 17. PROHIBITED INTEREST No officer, or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Contractor, or Contractor's sub- contractors for this project, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Contractor hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City of Temecula that has participated in the development of this agreement or its approval has any interest, whether contractual, non -contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, the proceeds thereof, or in the business of the Contractor or Contractor's sub -contractors on this project. Contractor further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement. 18. 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 2-18-24 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. 19. EXHIBITS. The following exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this provision as though set forth in full: Exhibit A Scope of Services Exhibit B Payment Rates and Schedules Exhibit C Data Processing Addendum Exhibit D Details of Data Processing 20. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Contractor and has the authority to bind Contractor 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. 2-18-24 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA By: James Stewart, Mayor ATTEST: By: Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. By: ConoranioFVice President By: Daniel Howell, Senior Executive Vice President, Managing Director CONTRACTOR Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. Attn: Conor Boughey and General Counsel 701 B Street, 6`h Floor San Diego, CA 92101 cboughey@alliant.com 415-744-4889 IU: 2-18-24 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written. CITY OF TEMECULA X James Stewart, Mayor ATTEST: By Randi Johl, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: IN ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. By: ConorB 15for Vice President By: Daniel Howell, Senior Executive Vice President, Managing Director Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney CONTRACTOR Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. Attn: Conor Boughey and General Counsel 701 B Street, 61h Floor San Diego, CA 92101 cboughey@alliant.com 415-744-4889 IN 2-18-24 EXHIBIT A Tasks to be Performed The specific elements (scope of work) of this service include: ALLIANT agrees to provide SERVICES for the following PROGRAMS of CLIENT: 1. Property 2. Difference in Conditions; 3. Drone Aviation 4. Workers' Compensation 5. Auto Physical Damage 6. Crime 7. Cyber 8. General Liability 9. Pollution 10.Terrorism 11. Volunteer Accident SERVICES Alliant shall perform the following services for the PROGRAMS identified above in this Exhibit ("SERVICES"): 1. Develop and recommend insurance and other risk financing or loss funding PROGRAMS, techniques, and methods. 2. Assist CITY in developing underwriting information. Structure offerings to insurers and secure, when reasonably available, a PROGRAM as desired by CITY with financially acceptable insurance companies, or other pooling programs providing the balance of coverage scope, cost, and services selected by the CITY. 3. Negotiate and review insurance wording for PROGRAM contracts to meet the specific needs of CITY. 4. Review marketing plan with CITY prior to approaching insurers on any PROGRAM. 5. Review insurance policies, binders, certificates, and other documents related to the PROGRAM for accuracy and obtain revisions in such documents when needed. 6. Monitor the PROGRAM to assure its continuing balance of coverage scope, cost, service, and stability. 7. Prepare written reports to CITY management to include: 11 2-18-24 A. Reports as needed of pending rate, coverage, or renewal problems including significant changes in the financial status of major insurers, reinsurers, and other entities providing services for PROGRAM. At least ninety (90) days prior to PROGRAM anniversary, prepare a written report stating anticipated renewal terms and conditions, and other indications of market conditions, trends, and anticipated changes, B Not more than ninety (90) days after renewal, deliver a comprehensive annual summary report outlining the PROGRAM for use in the CITY'S annual report. Such report shall contain the following information: 1) Recapitulation of PROGRAMS cost for current and preceding years. 2) Summary of coverages and other PROGRAM terms and conditions. 8. Provide additional broker services as agreed upon by the PARTIES. 9. ALLIANT'S goal is to procure insurance for CITY with underwriters possessing the financial strength to perform. To that end, ALLIANT regularly reviews publicly available information concerning an underwriter's financial condition. ALLIANT does not, however, guarantee the solvency of any underwriters with which insurance or reinsurance is placed and CITY recognizes and agrees that ALLIANT maintains no responsibility for any loss or damage occasioned by reason of the financial failure or insolvency of any insurer. ALLIANT encourages CITY to review the publicly available information collected by ALLIANT to enable CITY to make the ultimate decision of accepting or rejecting a particular underwriter. 10. Deliver binders or other evidences of insurance after the placement of any insurance under the PROGRAM to be effective until such time as the policy or policies for the placement are received by CITY from the insurance carriers. Such binders shall be signed by an authorized agent or employee of the insurance carrier. 11. ALLIANT shall use best efforts to secure a correct policy or policies of any insurance under the PROGRAM. 12. ALLIANT shall not be responsible for the failure of CITY to make premium payments. For additional compensation, CLIENT may obtain SERVICES from ALLIANT for programs not listed in this Addendum A. The terms, including without limitation compensation, for ALLIANT's provision of SERVICES for additional programs must be mutually agreed to in writing by the PARTIES. 12 2-18-24 Team Coordinator * Conor Boughey Account Manager * Thomas Joyce Marketing and Risk Management Specialists Conor Boughey Thomas Joyce Additional staff member to be named later Claims Services: Rachel Wrightson *Denotes KEY PERSONNEL 13 2-18-24 EXHIBIT B Payment Rates and Schedule Cost for services shall be as per Contractor's proposal attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full but in no event shall the total cost of services exceed $292,000.00 for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in the Payment section of this Agreement. Year Fee January 10, 2024 to June 30, 2025 $ 54,000 July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026 $ 56,000 July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027 $ 58,500 July 1, 2027 to June 30, 2028 $ 60,500 July 1, 2028 to June 30, 2029 $ 63,000 DISCLOSURES A. Surplus Lines Fees and Taxes. In certain circumstances, placement of insurance services made by Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. ("Alliant") on behalf of a client, with the prior approval of that client, may require the payment of surplus lines assessments, taxes, and/or fees to state regulators, boards, and associations. Such assessments, taxes, and/or fees will be charged to the client and identified separately on invoices covering these placements. The client shall be responsible for all such assessments, taxes, and fees, whether or not separately invoiced. Alliant shall not be responsible for the payment of any such fees, taxes, or assessments, except to the extent such fees, taxes or assessments have already been collected from the client. B. Third Party Brokers. Alliant may determine from time to time that it is necessary or appropriate to utilize the services of third party brokers (such as surplus lines brokers, underwriting managers, London market brokers, and reinsurance brokers) to assist in marketing the insurance programs of a client. These third party brokers may be affiliates of Alliant (e.g., other companies of Alliant 14 2-18-24 that provide services other than those included within the scope of services covered in this proposal), or may be unrelated third party brokers. Compensation to such third party brokers will not be part of Alliant's fee. C. Indirect Income. "INDIRECT INCOME" means insurance carrier contingency arrangements. Alliant will accept these compensation incentives from insurers, if any, including contingent commissions, market service agreements (MSA), volume -based commission incentives and rebates on business placed on behalf of a client. Alliant producers who solicit, negotiate, or place insurance products, or services for clients, do not negotiate indirect income agreements with the carriers, nor do they receive any portion of the indirect income paid to Alliant. Nonetheless, the client may opt -out of having its premiums included in the calculation of indirect income by accessing the "opt -out" form from the link on Alliant's website: hftp://alliantinsurance.com/Legal- Notices/Pages/Disclosure- Policy.aspx. The "opt out" provision applies only to those accounts served directly by Alliant as a retail agent or broker. It does not apply to account placements for which Alliant's role is that of a wholesaler, MGA, or program administrator working with non-Alliant brokers who represent the client. Indirect Income, if any, is determined by insurance carriers, and if the client does not opt- out, it remains the carriers' exclusive decision to include or exclude certain premiums in any calculation. The availability of information regarding the make-up of any indirect income payment is at the carrier's discretion. D. Alliant Specialty Insurance Services (ASIS). In addition to the compensation that Alliant receives for providing services to a client, its related entity, Alliant Specialty Insurance Services (ASIS) and its underwriting operations, Alliant Underwriting Services (AUS), may receive compensation from Alliant and/or carriers for providing underwriting services. The financial impact of the compensation received by ASIS is a cost included in the premium. Compensation received by ASIS will be disclosed in writing to a client. Alliant and ASIS maintain an arm's length relationship. While Alliant represents a client as an individual entity, ASIS independently administers its program as a whole and not on behalf of any particular member. 15 2-18-24 EXHIBIT C Data Processing Addendum As used in this Data Processing Addendum (the "Addendum" or "DPA"), the City of Temecula shall be referred to as "Customer" and Alliant Insurance Services, Inc. shall be referred to as "Alliant' or "Service Provider." This Addendum reflects the Parties' agreement with regard to Service Provider's Processing of Personal Data (defined below) in connection with providing Services described in the Agreement. In the event of a conflict, the terms and conditions of this Addendum will prevail. Capitalized terms shall have the meaning given them in the Agreement, in this DPA, and in the Data Protection Laws, as applicable. Customer and Service Provider agree as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS. The following terms, including any derivatives thereof, will have the meanings set forth below. 1.1. "Data Protection Laws" means any laws that apply to the Processing of data by Service Provider under the Agreement, including but not limited to the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 as amended by the California Privacy Rights Act of 2020. 1.2. "Data Subject" means any living identified or identifiable natural person to which Personal Data relates or identifies. 1.3. "Data Subject Request" means a request to access, correct, amend, transfer, rectify, restrict, limit use, opt out of sale or sharing or other processing, or delete a Data Subject's Personal Data consistent with that person's rights under Data Protection Laws. 1.4. "De -Identified Data" means information that cannot reasonably be used to Infer information about, or otherwise be linked to, a particular consumer, provided that the business that possesses the information: 1.4.1. Takes reasonable measures to ensure that the information cannot be associated with a Data Subject or household; 1.4.2. Publicly commits to maintain and use the information in deidentified form and not to attempt to reidentify the information, except that the business may attempt to reidentify the information solely for the purpose of determining whether its deidentification processes satisfy the requirements of this definition; and 16 2-18-24 1.4.3. Contractually obligates any recipients of the information to comply with all of the requirements of this definition. 1.5. "Personal Data," "Personal Information," means Customer information Processed by Service Provider under the Agreement that is linked, reasonably linkable, or relates to an identified or identifiable natural person. Both Personal Data and Personal Information are referred to in this Addendum as "Personal Data." 1.6. "Process" or "Processing" means any operation or set of operations performed on Personal Data, whether or not by automated means, such as collection, recording, organization, structuring, storage, adaptation or alteration, modification, retrieval, consultation, use, disclosure by transmission, dissemination or otherwise making available, sale, analysis, alignment or combination, restriction, erasure or destruction. 1.7. "Sell" has the meaning as set forth in the Data Protection Laws. 1.8. "Service Provider" means Alliant Insurance Services, Inc., including its affiliates and subsidiaries. 1.9. "Services" will have the same meaning provided under the Agreement. 1.10. "Share" has the meaning as set forth in the Data Protection Laws. 1.11. "Subprocessorit means a subcontractor engaged by Service Provider or its affiliates to Process Customer Personal Data as part of the performance of the Services. 2. PROCESSING OF PERSONAL DATA 2.1. Processing of Personal Data. Service Provider will only Process (including but not limited to Sale, Sharing, or Disclosure) Customer Personal Data for the purposes of providing the Services specified in the Agreement. 2.1.1. Service Provider will not Sell or Share Customer Personal Data, nor will it retain, use, or disclose Customer Personal Data for any purpose other than for the specific business purpose of performing the Services specified in the Agreement. Service Provider will not Process Customer Personal Data outside the direct business relationship between Customer and Service Provider, including retaining, using, or disclosing Customer Personal Data for a commercial purpose other than providing the Services specified in the Agreement or as required by law. 2.1.2. The details of the Processing of Personal Data pursuant to the Agreement are set forth in Exhibit D to the Agreement. 17 2-18-24 2.1.3. Service Provider shall not combine Customer Personal Data received from Customer with any other information Service Provider receives from or on behalf of another person or business or which it collects from its own interactions with Data Subjects. 2.1.4. Service Provider shall Process Personal Data under the Agreement in compliance with Data Protection Laws, including providing the same level of privacy protection required by Data Protection Laws. Service Provider will notify Customer if Service Provider determines it or its Subprocessor(s) cannot meet its obligations under the Data Protection Laws, in which case Customer may, upon thirty (30) days' notice, take reasonable and appropriate steps to stop and remediate unauthorized Processing of Personal Data. 2.2. Data Subject Requests. Service Provider shall inform Customer if it receives a request from a Data Subject to exercise their rights under Data Protection Laws. Service Provider will provide such assistance, including taking any appropriate technical and organizational measures, as Customer requests to help Customer fulfill its obligations under Data Protection Laws to respond to Data Subject Requests. 2.3. Disclosure. Service Provider shall inform its personnel engaged in the Processing of Customer Personal Data of the confidential nature of the Customer Personal Data and ensure that they are subject to binding confidentiality obligations. 2.4. Confidentiality. Service Provider will ensure that all employees are subject to binding confidentiality obligations. 2.5. De -identified Data. Service Provider shall be responsible for its compliance with all laws regarding data that cannot reasonably identify, be related to, describe, be capable of being associated with or be linked directly or indirectly to a Data Subject. 2.5.1. To the extent Service Provider Processes De -Identified Data under the Agreement, Service Provider: 2.5.1.1. Will not attempt to associate De -Identified Data with an individual; 2.5.1.2. Will not attempt to re -identify De -Identified Data; 2.5.1.3. Will maintain and use De -Identified Data only in a de -identified fashion; and 18 2-18-24 2.5.1.4. Will not use De -Identified Data to infer information about, or otherwise link to, an identified or identifiable individual or a device linked to such an individual. 3. AUDITS. Customer may audit Service Provider's compliance with its obligations under this DPA and Data Protection Laws, including but not limited to ongoing manual reviews, automated scans, regular assessments, audits, or other technical and operational testing at least once every 12 months. 4. SECURITY MEASURES. Service Provider shall, in relation to the Customer Personal Data, implement appropriate technical and organizational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk. 5. SUBPROCESSORS. Service Provider will ensure that any Subprocessor that has access to Customer Personal Data enters into a written agreement obligating the Subprocessor to comply with terms that are at least as restrictive as those imposed on Service Provider under the Data Protection Laws. 6. ADDITIONAL COMPLIANCE PROVISIONS 6.1. The Parties each represent and warrant to each other that they have read and understand the requirements of all applicable Data Protection Laws, and will be responsible for their own compliance with them. 6.1.1. Customer shall have the right to take reasonable and appropriate steps to ensure that the Service Provider is using Customer Personal Data in a manner consistent with Service Provider's obligations under this DPA and Data Protection Laws. 6.1.2. Each Party agrees that it is responsible for its own compliance with the requirements of the applicable Data Protection Laws 6.1.3. The Parties agree that where Service Provider processes Personal Data, it functions as a Service Provider and a Processor under the Data Protection Laws. 6.1.4. The disclosure of Customer Personal Data to Service Provider does not constitute a Sale or Sharing under the Data Protection Laws. Notwithstanding anything in the Agreement, the Parties acknowledge and agree that Customer's provision of access to Personal Data is not part of and is explicitly excluded from the exchange of consideration or any other thing of value between the Parties. i. CERTIFICATION. Service Provider certifies that it understands the restrictions herein and will comply with them. 19 2-18-24 20 2-18-24 EXHIBIT D — Details of Data Processing The details of the Processing to be carried out under the Agreement are as follows: Nature and Purpose of Processing Types of Personal Data Processed As set forth in the Agreement ❑ Abilities/aptitudes ❑ Address ❑ Attitudes 0 Background checks 0 Bank account number 0 Bank routing number ❑ Beneficiary information ❑ Beneficiary number ❑ Blood pressure 0 CCTV footage ❑ Citizenship Status 0 Compensation information ❑ Credit history 0 Criminal history 0 Date of birth 0 Dates of health service 0 Diagnosis 0 Disability 0 Disease/disorder 0 Driver's license number 0 Education history information ❑ Education records (e.g., transcript) 0 Email address 0 Employee ID 0 Employment history 0 Eye color ❑ Facial images ❑ Financial records 0 Other: Information pr ❑ Finger or handprint 0 Gender/Gender Identity ❑ Genetic information ❑ Govt-issued ID number 0 Handicapped status 0 Health records 0 Health status 0 Health symptoms 0 Health treatments ❑ Height ❑ ImmigrationNISA 0 Insurance information 0 Insurance policy numbers 0 Intelligence ❑ Iris/retina scan ❑ Keystroke patterns 0 Marital status 0 Medical claim history 0 Medical conditions O Medical device identifiers ❑ Medical photo images/X-Rays 0 Medical record number ❑ Medical test results ❑ Medication ❑ Mental health 0 Name ❑ National ID Card Number ❑ National origin/race/ethnicity 0 Partial Social Security number ided in loss runs and claim ❑ Passport number ❑ Payment card number 0 Performance Evaluations ❑ Philosophical beliefs ❑ Political party ❑ Preferences, Trends, Predispositions ❑ Professional licenses 0 Purchase/Service history ❑ Religion ❑ Resume 0 Signature ❑ Sleep patterns ❑ Social Insurance Number 0 Social Security number ❑ State I D ❑ Subscriber number ❑ Survey responses 0 Tax information ❑ Telephone number ❑ Union membership or information 0 Vehicle License Plate Number ❑ Vein patterns 0 Veteran/Military Status ❑ Voice patterns ❑ Voice recordings ❑ Weight 21 Item No. 5 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer DATE: March 12, 2024 SUBJECT: Approve Initial Study and Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Project, PW16-05 PREPARED BY: Amer Attar, Engineering Manager Nino Abad, Senior Civil Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council take the following actions: 1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE MURRIETA CREEK BRIDGE AT OVERLAND DRIVE PROJECT, PW 16-05 2. Direct the Public Works Director to file the Notice of Determination. BACKGROUND: The Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Project, PW 16-05; includes the design, environmental, and construction of a new bridge along Overland Drive over Murrieta Creek. The bridge will connect Overland Drive to Diaz Road on the west end of the project and to Enterprise Circle West on the east end. As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) an Initial Study (IS) was prepared. The IS identified no impact or a less than significant impact for the following environmental areas of concern: • Aesthetics • Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Air Quality • Energy • Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Hazards & Hazardous Materials • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Mineral Resources • Noise • Population & Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation • Utilities and Service Systems • Wildfire The IS identified the following areas of potential concern that will be reduced to a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated as summarized: • Biological Resources: Require a qualified biologist to conduct pre -construction surveys, deliver training for construction personnel, and monitor construction activities to ensure practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern. Mitigate permanent and temporary biological resource impacts through the creation of rehabilitation/mitigation area of approximately 1.23 acres on City owned property located at Temecula Creek. • Cultural Resources: Require a certified archaeologist to monitor construction in coordination with the Pechanga Tribe. Also, the implementation of recommendations for a pre -grading meeting with contractors, and a monitoring frequency approved and coordinated with the Pechanga Tribe, and cultural resources protection, avoidance, and curation as required in the event of resource discovery. • Geology and Soils: Require a qualified paleontologist to provide pre -construction training for the discovery of fossils and subsequent procedures. It also requires full time paleontological monitoring for construction of bridge piers that reach below ten (10) feet in depth and bridge abutments that reach twenty-five (25) feet below the surface. Under CEQA guidelines, an Initial Study (IS) determined a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) be completed for the project. The MND includes mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the IS and adopt an MND for this project. A summary of the proposed mitigation measures is included within the attached Final IS/MND. The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted on January 11, 2024. The corresponding public review comment period also commenced on January 11, 2024, and concluded on February 12, 2024. Notifications were mailed to all property owners within a one thousand (1,000) foot radius of each end of the proposed bridge site and a notice was also placed in the local newspaper. The City of Temecula received a single comment letter from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). The letter addressed permits, studies, and mitigation requirements since the property spanned by the bridge is owned by RCFC&WCD). Staff does not foresee any issues with the comments received. The comment letter and the responses to it are in Appendix "I" of the IS/MND. FISCAL IMPACT: The Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Project is identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget for Fiscal Years 2024-28, and is funded with Federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP), Developer Impact Fees (DIF) — Street Improvements, and Measure S. There are sufficient funds in the project account to cover the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Mitigated Negative Declaration fee of $2,966.75 (includes $50.00 County filing fee). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration 3. Notice of Determination 4. Project Description 5. Project Location RESOLUTION NO. 2024- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR THE MURRIETA CREEK BRIDGE AT OVERLAND DRIVE PROJECT, PW16-05 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare that: (a) The Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Project, PW16-05; includes the design, environmental, and construction of a new bridge along Overland Drive over Murrieta Creek. The bridge will connect Overland Drive to Diaz Road on the west end of the project and to Enterprise Circle West on the east end. (b) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines (the "Guidelines") (14 Cal. Code Regs. §15000 et seq.), City staff prepared an Initial Study ("IS") of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Project as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that Study, City staff determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there was no substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and an MND was prepared by the City in full compliance with CEQA. (c) The IS identified no impact or a less than significant impact for the following environmental areas of concern: 1) Aesthetics 2) Agriculture and Forestry Resources 3) Air Quality 4) Energy 5) Greenhouse Gas Emissions 6) Hazards & Hazardous Materials 7) Hydrology and Water Quality 8) Land Use and Planning 9) Mineral Resources 10) Noise 11) Population & Housing 12) Public Services 13) Recreation 14) Transportation 15) Utilities and Service Systems 16) Wildfire (d) The IS identified the following areas of potential concern that will be reduced to a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated as summarized: 1) Biological Resources: Require a qualified biologist to conduct pre - construction surveys, deliver training for construction personnel, and monitor construction activities to ensure practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern. Mitigate permanent and temporary biological resource impacts through the creation of rehabilitation/mitigation area of approximately 1.23 acres on City owned property located at Temecula Creek. 2) Cultural Resources: Require a certified archaeologist to monitor construction in coordination with the Pechanga Tribe. Also, the implementation of recommendations for a pre -grading meeting with contractors, and a monitoring frequency approved and coordinated with the Pechanga Tribe, and cultural resources protection, avoidance, and curation as required in the event of resource discovery. 3) Geology and Soils: Require a qualified paleontologist to provide pre -construction training for the discovery of fossils and subsequent procedures. It also requires full time paleontological monitoring for construction of bridge piers that reach below ten (10) feet in depth and bridge abutments that reach twenty-five (25) feet below the surface. (e) Under CEQA guidelines, the IS determined a Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") be completed for the project. The MND includes mitigation measures to reduce potential impacts to a level of less than significant. Staff recommends that the City Council approve the IS and adopt an MND for this project. A summary of the proposed mitigation measures is included within the and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program are within Final IS/MND. (f) The Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was posted on January 11, 2024. The corresponding public review comment period also commenced on January 11, 2024, and concluded on February 12, 2024. Notifications were mailed to all property owners within a one thousand (1,000) foot radius of each end of the proposed bridge site and a notice was also placed in the local newspaper. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at City Hall, 41000 Main Street, Temecula California 92590. (g) The City of Temecula received only one comment letter from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). The letter addressed permits, studies, and mitigation requirements since the property spanned by the bridge is owned by RCFC&WCD). Staff does not foresee any issues with the comments received. The comment letter and the responses to it are in Appendix "I" of the IS/MND. (h) The City Council has reviewed the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP"), on file in the Office of the City Clerk and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, and all comments received regarding the MND and, based on the whole record before it, finds that: 1) The MND and the Mitigation Monitoring Program were prepared in compliance with CEQA; 2) With the incorporation of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and 3) The MND and Mitigation Monitoring Program reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. Section 2. Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution and the IS, the City Council hereby adopts the MND and MMRP for the Project. Section 3. The Director of Public Works is authorized and directed to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this 12th day of March, 2024. James Stewart, 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. 2024- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a meeting thereof held on the 12th day of March, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Randi Johl, City Clerk Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration Federal Aid Project No. BR-NBIL (543) City Project No. PW 16-05 prepared by City of Temecula Planning Division, Department of Community Development 4100 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 Contact: Nino Abad, Senior Civil Engineer, Project Manager prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 8825 Aero Drive Suite 120 San Diego, California 92123 February 2024 9.A I _ Z 30n YEARS RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. SINCE1994 Table of Contents Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations..................................................................................................................v InitialStudy.............................................................................................................................................1 1. Project Title.........................................................................................................................1 2. Lead Agency Name and Address.........................................................................................1 3. Contact Person and Phone Number...................................................................................1 4. Project Location..................................................................................................................1 5. General Plan Designation....................................................................................................1 6. Zoning..................................................................................................................................1 7. Description of Project.........................................................................................................4 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting....................................................................................5 9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required..........................................................5 10. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturallv Affiliated with the rl UJCL.L ru CQ Rt:LJUt:3Lt:U %-UI 13U I LauUI1 ruI JUQI IL LU rUU11 L, Rt:3UUI Ut:3 %-UUC JCL.LIU 11 21080.3.1?..........................................................................................................................5 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected...........................................................................................7 Determination........................................................................................................................................7 EnvironmentalChecklist .........................................................................................................................9 1 Aesthetics............................................................................................................................9 2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources................................................................................. 13 3 Air Quality........................................................................................................................ 15 4 Biological Resources......................................................................................................... 27 5 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................... 39 6 Energy.............................................................................................................................. 45 7 Geology and Soils............................................................................................................. 47 8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions.............................................................................................. 55 9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials................................................................................... 61 10 Hydrology and Water Quality.......................................................................................... 65 11 Land Use and Planning..................................................................................................... 73 12 Mineral Resources........................................................................................................... 75 13 Noise................................................................................................................................ 77 14 Population and Housing................................................................................................... 95 15 Public Services.................................................................................................................. 97 16 Recreation........................................................................................................................99 17 Transportation............................................................................................................... 101 18 Tribal Cultural Resources............................................................................................... 103 19 Utilities and Service Systems......................................................................................... 107 Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration i City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive 20 Wildfire.......................................................................................................................... 109 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance............................................................................... 111 References......................................................................................................................................... 115 Bibliography............................................................................................................................... 115 Listof Preparers......................................................................................................................... 119 Tables Table 1 Table 2 Table 3 Table 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Table 11 Table 12 Table 13 Table 14 Table 15 Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Figure 7 Figure 8 Health Effects Associated with Non -Attainment Criteria Pollutants ............................... 16 SCAQMD Regional Air Quality Significance Thresholds ................................................... 17 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction....................................................................................... 18 Project Construction Emissions....................................................................................... 22 On -site Construction Emissions....................................................................................... 23 Proposed Mitigation Site Acreage................................................................................... 33 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction.......................................................... 45 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions.......................................................................... 59 AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage .......................................... 79 Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria........................................................................... 80 Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria (23 CFR 772)..................................... 81 Summary of Short-term Noise Level Measurements...................................................... 83 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels................................................................. 84 Summary of Noise Modeling............................................................................................ 86 Vibration Levels at Sensitive Receivers............................................................................ 93 Regional Location....................................................... ProjectLocation......................................................... Noise Measurement Locations .................................. Project Overview Map ............................................... Impact Area A Receivers ............................................ Impact Area B Receivers ............................................ Impact Area C Receivers ............................................ Impact Area D Receivers ............................................ .........................................................2 .........................................................3 ...................................................... 82 ...................................................... 87 ...................................................... 88 ...................................................... 89 ...................................................... 90 ...................................................... 91 Table of Contents Appendices Appendix A Air Quality Report (Rincon Consultants Inc., August 2023) Appendix B VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum (STC Traffic, Inc., February 2021) Appendix C Road Construction Emissions Model Methodology (Rincon Consultants Inc., February 2022) Appendix D Amended Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (Rincon Consultants, March 2022) Appendix E Energy Calculation Methodology (Rincon Consultants Inc., February 2022) Appendix F Water Quality Assessment Report (Engineering Resources of Southern California Inc., October 2019) Appendix G Noise Study Report (Rincon Inc., Dec 2020) Appendix H Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc., May 2020) Appendix I Response to Comment Appendix J Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronyms and Abbreviations AASHTO Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials AB Assembly Bill APE Area of Potential Effect AQMP Air Quality Management Plan BMP Best Management Practice CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CO2 carbon dioxide COze carbon dioxide equivalent dB decibels DBESP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation dBA A -weighted sound pressure level DNL Day -Night Average Level DPM diesel particulate matter FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Program GHG greenhouse gas GWP global warming potential 1-15 Interstate 15 IPPC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Lea equivalent noise level LST Localized Significance Thresholds MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAC noise abatement criteria NAHC Native American Heritage Commission Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration v City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive NO, nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System PBA peak bedrock acceleration PM2.5 particulate matter with a diameter equal to or less than 2.5 microns PM10 particulate matter with a diameter equal to or less than 10 microns PPV peak particle velocity RCA Regional Conservation Authority RMs root mean squared ROG reactive organic gases RTP Regional Transportation Plan 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 SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SIP State Implementation Plan SR State Road SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan SWP State Water Project TAC toxic air contaminant TNM Traffic Noise Model USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic compound vi Initial Study Initial Study l . Project Title Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive (Project) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address City of Temecula Community Development Department Planning Division 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 3. Contact Person and Phone Number Contact: Nino Abad, Senior Civil Engineer, Project Manager (951) 308-6385 4. Project Location The proposed project is located in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California, west of Interstate 15 (1-15), north of Rancho California Road, west of Commerce Center Drive, south of Winchester Road, and east of Diaz Road (see Figure 1). The approximate longitude and latitude coordinates of the proposed bridge sites are 117.1658' W and 35.5239' N. The project is located 0.3 mile west of Interstate 15 and will extend Overland Drive across Murrieta Creek to connect to Avenida Alvarado at the Diaz Road intersection (see Figure 2). 5. General Plan Designation Light Industrial, Service Commercial, and Open space 6. Zoning The project is located in the Specific Plan 14 (SP-14) zone. Light Industrial (LI) is located adjacent to the west. Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Figure 1 Regional Location Elsinoi me�ganiPi: anyon Lake I Menifee Newport ' ,cyan �� �aflrpad� Lakeland Village you Rd o Scott Rd G Runa o0 d _ m 'a�YP l Wildomar a $ Clinton keith Rd French Valley r Lake Skinner a sP e Cleveland urrieta Recreation Area o5 National P`F Forest 4' U xi n C ✓ N 4� SO Sl40:1C w� J Cris{o 10°1 11 p t,nrr° Temecula air f: NP �r G RJ Ago "N Marine Corps �N,sSonRd r p �� Base Camp Aivara it o, Pendleton ¢ lb sf Fallbrook 941 0 2.5 5 Miles Imagery provided by Fsri and its licensors O 2019. Project Location - N Federal Project No. BR-NBIL(543) %1 75 i4 Lancaster _ © Palmdale Vicbrville Santa Clarita Angeles Simi National Valley Forest Twentynine Palms )s Angeles Ontario Joshua Tree qV Riverside Eo National Cathedralcit AnaheimPark Anaheim Corona Santa Ana Indio Oceanside San Diego 2 Initial Study Figure 2 Project Location lmagerV provided bV Microsoft Sing and its licensors® 2020. Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive 7. Description of Project The project proposes to construct a bridge over Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado with Overland Drive in the City of Temecula, Riverside County. The Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive is anticipated to be a concrete girder structure spanning approximately 348 linear feet over Murrieta Creek. The bridge would accommodate four through travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), left -turn lane(s), and two 5-foot-wide shoulders served as Class II bike lanes, for a curb - to -curb width of 68 feet. In addition, a 6-foot-wide sidewalk would be included on the southern side of the bridge for pedestrians to cross the creek. The existing bike trail on the west side of the creek will intersect with the extended Overland Drive by a signal -controlled at -grade crossing. Upon completion of the Murrieta Creek Bridge Project, the proposed street configuration would be consistent with the four -lane roadway segment on Overland Drive to the east. In addition to the construction of the bridge, various roadway and utility improvements would occur at the western and eastern bridge approaches. In order to match the roadway section on Avenida Alvarado on the west side of the bridge, the project would transition the lane configuration in the eastern portion of Avenida Alvarado to be consistent with the four -lane configuration of the bridge. Intersection improvements to Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado would include the installation of traffic signals and associated signing, striping, streetlights, and utilities. Traffic signals and streetlights will be installed at the Overland Drive/Commerce Center Drive intersection as well. Reconstruction and roadway improvements along Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado would include undergrounding electrical utilities, construction of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, relocating sewer and water facilities, and adding traffic signage and striping. As a part of the bridge construction, one abutment would be constructed on each end of the bridge, along with two piers within Murrieta Creek. Earth embankments with concrete slope protection and cutoff walls buried underground for scour protection would also be installed on the east and west side of the Creek. The foundation of the bridge piers involving large -diameter cast -in -drilled -hole concrete piles will be installed below the channel bottom, which is deep enough for protection from scour. The channel bottom will remain earthen without any concrete or rip rap lining. The bridge girder would provide cell openings to accommodate future utilities and electrical conduits for streetlights and traffic signal communication. The project will also include railing architectural treatment and landscaping modifications or improvements in the right-of-way along the bridge approach, at the Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado intersections, and on Diaz Road and Overland Drive. During construction, best management practices (BMPs) are anticipated to include construction scheduling, streambank stabilization, wind erosion controls, gravel bag berms, gravel bag check dams, sediment sweeping and vacuuming, and material and waste handling and storage. Site Design BMPs would include preservation of existing vegetation and channel and slope protection (permanent soil stabilization including concrete slope protection under the bridge abutments and erosion control hydroseed mix on graded areas within the creek). In addition, all proposed slopes with slope gradient of 2:1 or flatter would be planted with deep rooted, drought tolerant erosion protection vegetation native to the area. Slopes steeper than 2:1 gradient would be lined with concrete for erosion protection and slope stability. Proposed Treatment Control BMPs, which are structural BMPs designed to treat and reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff prior to releasing it to receiving waters, include curb inlet media filters in the proposed catch basins. The proposed BMPs would target and reduce pollutants of concern from stormwater runoff from the project site. Initial Study 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting The surrounding urban land uses are predominately built out and consist of industrial and commercial uses. The project site is surrounded by industrial park uses to the west and service commercial uses to the east. The project will cross over the Murrieta Creek, which is designated as open space. 9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required The City of Temecula is the lead agency with responsibility for approving the protect. The protect would require regulatory permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) due to impacts to jurisdictional Waters of the State or Waters of the United States. An encroachment permit from the Riverside County Flood Control District and Water Conservation District (RCFCD&WCD) would be required due to the proposed construction activities within the Murrieta Creek Channel. Approval from the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), CDFW, and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) would be required for compliance with the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and the Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP). 10. Have California Native American Tribes Traditionally and Culturally Affiliated with the Project Area Requested Consultation Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1 ? On March 12, 2020, the City of Temecula distributed AB 52 consultation letters, including project information, map, and contact information, to each of the five (5) Native American tribes previously requesting to consult on City of Temecula projects. The tribal governments that were provided an AB 52 consultation letter include the following: ■ Pechanga Band of Mission Indians ■ Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians ■ Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians ■ Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ■ Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Despite a July 8, 2020, follow up email from the City, the Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians did not respond to the City's invitation to consult on the project. Each of the other four Tribes responded to the City's consultation letter. Responses are detailed in Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources. Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Environmental Factors Potentially Affected This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant" or "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and ❑ Air Quality Forestry Resources ■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources ❑ Energy ■ Geology and Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Emissions Materials ❑ Hydrology and Water ❑ Land Use and Planning ❑ Mineral Resources Quality ❑f Noise ❑ Population and ❑ Public Services Housing ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation ■ Tribal Cultural Resources ❑ Utilities and Service ❑ Wildfire ■ Mandatory Findings Systems of Significance Determination Based on 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. ■ 1 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 to 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 "less than significant with mitigation incorporated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) 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. Final Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration 7 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive -. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potential 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 MAH64i U Pfllt-trs Printed Name ZJz7 1g04 Date A514+4 K-f Dirc�citr� .-� Co �++wtw 1 Y P Title / Environmental Checklist Aesthetics Environmental Checklist Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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. 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 a 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 that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? A scenic vista is usually a view of a valued resource, such as waterways, the ocean, hills, valleys, or mountains. The City has generally identified the conservation of the hills and Santa Ana Mountains to the west and southern ridgelines, the Santa Margarita River, the slopes in the Sphere of Influence located west and east of the City limits and other important landforms and historic landscape features as scenic vistas. Interstate 15 (1-15) from Corona south to the San Diego County line has been designated as an Eligible State Scenic Highway. While this portion of the 1-15 is eligible to be designated as a state scenic highway, it has not yet been recognized as such (Caltrans 2016). From the project site, unobstructed views to the ridgelines and hills to the west are present. In addition, the southern hillsides are also visible but partially obstructed by development and trees. Murrieta Creek is visible from the surrounding area and travels through the project site. While there are no designated scenic resources, there are a number of resources within and visible from the Final Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration 9 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive project which are considered aesthetically important to the City of Temecula. The proposed project is located below the western escarpment, which is considered a scenic vista pursuant to the City's General Plan; however, there will not be a significant adverse impact on the scenic vista of the escarpment, as the proposed bridge will be constructed generally at existing grade and will not block scenic vistas within the area. Therefore, views of the project area would not be substantially altered by this project and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The project is not located within a designated scenic highway corridor. The nearest designated State Scenic Highways in Riverside County are along State Road (SR) 74 and SR-243. The portions of these highways that are designated are located about 26 miles northeast of the project area and are not visible from within the project area or surrounding areas. The project is located adjacent to the 1-15, which is designated by Caltrans as an Eligible State Scenic Highway; however, it is not officially designated as a State Scenic Highway by Caltrans. Public views of the distant mountains (Cleveland National Forest) from 1-15 would not be obscured by development of the project. The project is not located on a scenic highway and would not substantially damage scenic resources, including rock outcroppings or historic buildings. The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City's General Plan states waterways provide for scenic enjoyment in the area. In addition, natural drainage courses provide a scenic setting for the community. The proposed project would add a bridge structure across Murrieta Creek, but would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Therefore, views of the project area for passengers along 1-15 would not be substantially altered by the project and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Would the project 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 a 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? The viewers in the area consist of workers at their place of business, motorists and pedestrians traveling through the area, and recreational users of the Class I shared use path along Murrieta Creek. A majority of the viewers in the area would not be considered sensitive as they are at work or traveling through the area. However, people utilizing the shared use path would be considered sensitive viewers as they are utilizing and recreational amenity in the area. The project site is currently undeveloped and is covered with riparian/riverine communities. The visual character of the project site would be altered; however, the proposed character would be consistent with existing bridges located 1,000 feet northwest and 2,300 feet southeast of the project site. The project would not substantially damage the surrounding natural scenic resources and visual character and would be similar to surrounding uses. In addition, the project would implement the following Avoidance and Mitigation Measures to ensure the project would not degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views: �i Environmental Checklist Aesthetics ■ Existing landscaping impaired by the proposed project will be replaced with similar landscaping in the right-of-way along the bridge approach, Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado intersections, and along Diaz Road and Overland Drive. ■ Street trees and landscaping of business parks impacted by the project shall be replaced with similar landscaping. ■ Trees removed along the Class I shared -use trail shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. ■ Bridge design would incorporate colored decorative metal railings for bicycle and pedestrian safety, and Caltrans standard fractured rib texture treatments on concrete railings to control graffiti. ■ Murrieta Creek vegetation disturbed by construction will be treated for erosion control and re- seeding with native species seed mix. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant impact on the visual character of the area and no further analysis of this issue is necessary. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area? Light pollution is regulated by Chapter 17.22 Section 17.22.176 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code. Ordinance 655 requires lighting to be shielded, directed down to avoid glare onto adjacent properties, and emit low levels of glare into the sky. Existing sources of light or glare in the project area include vehicles on the surrounding roadways, lights on local streets and parking lots, and windows from the light industrial and office commercial buildings. The bridge would not result in additional vehicles on local roadways. New streetlights would be placed along the bridge for vehicle and pedestrian safety; however, lights would comply with City of Temecula outdoor light standards and would be similar to streetlights on the surrounding roadways. Therefore, the project would not create new sources of light or glare which would adversely impact the daytime or nighttime visual setting of the area. Compliance with the Municipal Code would result in compliance with the County of Riverside's Mount Palomar Light Pollution Ordinance, the project would result in a less than significant impact. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 11 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. 12 Environmental Checklist 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 (Farmland), as shown on 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); 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. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? The project site is located within an urbanized area of the City. The surrounding area is developed for commercial and industrial uses, while the project site itself, which crosses Murrieta Creek, consists of riparian/riverine communities. The project site does not contain agricultural uses or related operations. According to Figure OS-3, of the City of Temecula General Plan, the project site is not located on Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 13 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? The project site is currently zoned Specific Plan 14 (SP-14). No portion of the project site or surrounding land uses are zoned for agriculture and no nearby lands are enrolled under the Williamson Act. As such, future development of the project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur in this regard. In addition, the project will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT Would the project 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); or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))? As discussed above under Response 2.b, the project site is currently zoned SP-14. No forest land or timberland zoning is present on the project site or in the surrounding area. As such, future development of the project would not conflict with existing zoning for forest land or timberland and would not result in the loss of or conversion of forestland. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non forest use? No forest land exists on the project site or in the surrounding area. As such, future development of the project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non -forest use. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT e. Would the project 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? Since there are no agricultural or forest uses or related operations on or near the project site, future development of the project would not involve the conversion of farmland or forest land to other uses, either directly or indirectly. No impacts to agricultural land or use would occur. Further analysis of this issue is not necessary. NO IMPACT 14 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? Overview of Air Pollution Environmental Checklist Air Quality Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ The federal and State Clean Air Acts mandate the control and reduction of certain air pollutants. Under these laws, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for "criteria pollutants" and other pollutants. Some pollutants are emitted directly from a source (e.g., vehicle tailpipe, an exhaust stack of a factory, etc.) into the atmosphere, including carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds (VOC)/reactive organic gases (ROG),' nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter with diameters of ten microns or less (PM1o) and 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5), sulfur dioxide, and lead. Other pollutants are created indirectly through chemical reactions in the atmosphere, such as ozone, which is created by atmospheric chemical and photochemical reactions primarily between VOC and NOx. Secondary pollutants include oxidants, ozone, and sulfate and nitrate particulates (smog). Air pollutant emissions are generated primarily by stationary and mobile sources. Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories: ■ Point sources occur at a specific location and are often identified by an exhaust vent or stack. Examples include boilers or combustion equipment that produce electricity or generate heat. ■ Area sources are widely distributed and include such sources as residential and commercial water heaters, painting operations, lawn mowers, agricultural fields, landfills, and some consumer products. 1 CARB defines VOC and ROG similarly as, "any compound of carbon excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid, metallic carbides or carbonates, and ammonium carbonate," with the exception that VOC are compounds that participate in atmospheric photochemical reactions. For the purposes of this analysis, ROG and VOC are considered comparable in terms of mass emissions, and the term VOCi s used in this IS-MND. Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 15 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Mobile sources refer to emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions, and can also be divided into two major subcategories: ■ On -road sources that may be legally operated on roadways and highways. ■ Off -road sources include aircraft, ships, trains, and self-propelled construction equipment. Air pollutants can also be generated by the natural environment, such as when high winds suspend fine dust particles. Air Quality Standards and Attainment The project site is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As the local air quality management agency, the SCAQMD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that the NAAQS and CAAQS are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the SCAB is classified as being in "attainment" or "nonattainment." In areas designated as non -attainment for one or more air pollutants, a cumulative air quality impact exists for those air pollutants, and the human health impacts associated with these criteria pollutants, presented in Table 1, are already occurring in that area as part of the environmental baseline condition. Under state law, air districts are required to prepare a plan for air quality improvement for pollutants for which the district is in non-compliance. The portion of Riverside in the SCAB is designated nonattainment extreme for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, nonattainment serious for the 24-hour PM2.5 and annual PM2.5 NAAQS; nonattainment for the 8- hour ozone CAAQS; nonattainment for the 24-hour and annual PMlo CAAQS; and nonattainment for the annual PM2.5 CAAQS (SCAQMD 2016). This nonattainment status is a result of several factors, the topography and climate of Southern California, the large population growth, and anthropogenic sources, such as exhaust from vehicles driving on roadways (SCAQMD 2017a). Table 1 Health Effects Associated with Non -Attainment Criteria Pollutants Ozone (1) Short-term exposures: (a) pulmonary function decrements and localized lung edema in humans and animals and (b) risk to public health implied by alterations in pulmonary morphology and host defense in animals; (2) long-term exposures: risk to public health implied by altered connective tissue metabolism and altered pulmonary morphology in animals after long-term exposures and pulmonary function decrements in chronically exposed humans; (3) vegetation damage; and (4) property damage. Suspended particulate (1) Excess deaths from short-term and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in matter (PM1o) pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease (including asthma).' Suspended particulate (1) Excess deaths from short- and long-term exposures; (2) excess seasonal declines in matter (PM2.5) pulmonary function, especially in children; (3) asthma exacerbation and possibly induction; (4) adverse birth outcomes, including low birth weight; (5) increased infant mortality; (6) increased respiratory symptoms in children, such as cough and bronchitis; and (7) increased hospitalization for both cardiovascular and respiratory disease, including asthma. Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency 2022 W Environmental Checklist Air Quality Air Quality Management States are required to adopt enforceable plans, known as a State Implementation Plan (SIP), to achieve and maintain air quality meeting the NAAQS. Since the SCAB currently exceeds ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS standard, the SCAQMD is required to implement strategies to reduce pollutant levels to achieve attainment of the NAAQS. The SCAQMD 2022 Air Quality Management Plan (2022 AQMP) is a regional blueprint designed to meet the NAAQS and demonstrate how attainment will be reached. The 2022 AQMP represents a thorough analysis of existing and potential regulatory control options, includes available, proven, and cost- effective strategies, and seeks to achieve multiple goals in partnership with other entities promoting reductions in greenhouse gases and toxic risk, as well as efficiencies in energy use, transportation, and goods movement. The prior AQMP, published in 2016, determined that, with implementation of the proposed control strategy, the SCAB could expect to reach attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard by July 15, 2024, and the 2012 annual PM2.5 by 2025. The 2006 24-hour PM2.5 did not meet the attainment date of December 31, 2019, which required SCAQMD to revise the plan to meet standard as early as possible. SCAQMD's 2022 AQMP, an update to the 2016 AQMP, was developed to identify and implement strategies and control measures to meet the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than the statutory attainment deadline of August 3, 2038 for the SCAB (SCAQMD 2022). Air Pollutant Emission Thresholds The SCAQMD has adopted guidelines for quantifying and determining the significance of air quality emissions (SCAQMD 2019). The SCAQMD recommends quantitative regional significance thresholds for temporary construction activities and long-term project operation in the SCAB, shown in Table 2, are used to evaluate a project's potential air quality impacts (SCAQMD 2019). Table 2 SCAQMD Regional Air Qualify Significance Thresholds NOx 100 55 voc 75 55 PM10 150 150 PM2.5 55 55 Sox 150 150 CO 550 550 NO.= Nitrogen Oxides; VOC = Volatile Organic Compounds; PM,c = Particulate Matter with a diameter no more than 10 microns; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter with a diameter no more than 2.5 microns; SO, = Sulfur Oxide; CO = Carbon Monoxide Source: SCAQMD 2019 Localized Significance Thresholds In addition to the above regional thresholds, the SCAQMD has developed Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) in response to the Governing Board's Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (1-4), which was prepared to update the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook (1993). LSTs were devised in response to concern regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities and have been developed for NOx, CO, PM10i Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 17 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive and PM2.5. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an air quality exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard at the nearest sensitive receptor, taking into consideration ambient concentrations in each SRA, distance to the sensitive receptor, and project size. LSTs have been developed for emissions within construction areas up to five acres in size. However, LSTs only apply to on -site emissions sources and are not applicable to off -site mobile sources, such as cars on a roadway (SCAQMD 2008a, 2009). For residential and retail projects the majority of operational emissions are associated with project -generated vehicle trips not stationary sources. Therefore, for these land use types, LSTs are typically applied only to construction emissions. In order to minimize efforts, the SCAQMD developed mass rate lookup tables as a simple screening procedure. If a project's on -site emissions do not exceed the screening levels for any pollutant, it can be concluded that the project would not cause or contribute to an adverse localized air quality impact. Screening levels are provided for various distances between the project boundary and the nearest sensitive receptor and various project site acreages. Screening levels increase, as the project distance between the boundary and the nearest receiver increases. This is because air pollutant dispersion increases with distance. Screening levels increase, as the acreage increases. This is because the distance between construction sources and sensitive receptors increases with project acreage. The LST mass rate lookup tables account for ambient pollutant concentrations based on the project's source receptor area. LSTs are provided for receptors at a distance of 82 feet (25 meters), 164 feet (50 meters), 328 feet (100 meters), 656 feet (200 meters), 1,640 feet (500 meters) from the project disturbance boundary to the sensitive receptors. The site is located in SRA-26 (Temecula Valley). The project area totals approximately five acres. The nearest sensitive receptors are students attending Temecula Montessori Academy, and the receptors are approximately 480 feet from the nearest project site boundary. To be conservative, the LSTs at the distance of 328 feet (100 meters) are used for a two -acre site (LSTs become more stringent with smaller project area acreages). The analysis uses the following LST values as shown in Table 3. Table 3 SCAQMD LSTs for Construction Gradual conversion of NOx to NO2 363 CO 2,781 PM10 38 PM2.s 10 SRA = source receptor area; Ibs/day = pounds per day; NOx/NO2= nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM,o = particulate matter 10 micrometers in diameter or less; PM2.5= fine particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter or less Source: SCAQMD 2009 Toxic Air Contaminants Thresholds SCAQMD has developed significance thresholds for the emissions of toxic air contaminants (TAC) based on health risks associated with elevated exposure to such compounds. For carcinogenic compounds, cancer risk is assessed in terms of incremental excess cancer risk. A project would result in a potentially significant impact if it would generate an incremental excess cancer risk of 10 in 1 million (1 x 10) or a cancer burden of 0.5 excess cancer cases in areas exceeding 1 in 1 million IN: Environmental Checklist Air Quality risks. Additionally, non -carcinogenic health risks are assessed in terms of a hazard index. A project would result in a potentially significant impact if it would result in a chronic and acute hazard index greater than 1.0 (SCAQMD 2019). Sensitive Receptors CARB and the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 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; Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2015). Some land uses considered more sensitive to air pollution than others due to the types of population groups or activities involved are referred to as sensitive receptors. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, religious facilities, and daycare centers. SCAQMD Risk Assessment Procedures define receptors as any location outside the boundaries of a facility at which a person could experience repeated, continuous exposure. The procedures further note that sensitive receptors include any residence (e.g., private homes, condominiums, apartments, and living quarters), schools (including preschools and daycare centers), health facilities (e.g., hospitals, retirement and nursing homes, long-term care hospitals, hospices), as well as prisons, dormitories, or similar live-in housing where children, chronically ill individuals, or other sensitive persons could be exposed to TACs (SCAQMD 2017). The nearest sensitive receptors would be students attending the Temecula Montessori Academy, which provides programs for infants and preschool to third grade students. Methodology The following discussion is based on the Air Quality Report prepared for the project by Rincon Consultants dated August 2023 and is included as Appendix A. The report used project -specific information for construction and the VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum prepared by STC Traffic, Inc. in February 2021, which is included as Appendix B. The construction emissions were calculated using the Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0. Refer to Appendix C for more details regarding the methodology. a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? A project may be inconsistent with the AQMP if it would generate population, housing, or employment growth exceeding forecasts used in the development of the AQMP. The 2022 AQMP, the most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD, incorporates local city general plans and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)'s 2020 RTP/SCS socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population, housing, and employment growth (SCAQMD 2022, SCAG 2020a). The project involves the construction of a bridge over and across Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado at the intersection of Diaz Road with Overland Drive at the intersection of Enterprise Circle West in the City. The construction of this project would not generate new population, housing, or employment. Therefore, the project would not generate air pollution emission that would impede or conflict with the 2022 AQMP. Additionally, the federal clean air act requires a demonstration that federal actions conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) and similar approved plans in areas that are designated as non - attainment or have maintenance plans for criteria pollutants. Transportation measures, such as the Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive project, are analyzed for conformity with the SIP as part of the RTP and the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP). If the design concept and scope of a proposed transportation project are consistent with the project description in the applicable RTP and FTIP, and the assumptions in the regional emissions analysis for the RTP and FTIP, then the project would conform to the SIP, and no adverse regional air quality impact would occur as a result of the project. SCAG, as the area's metropolitan planning organization, and the FHWA must make a determination that the applicable RTP and FTIP conform to the applicable SIP. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not create new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay the attainment of the NAAQS. Federal regulations also require SCAG to conduct an air quality conformity analysis of all regionally significant projects that increase the transportation system capacity. All regionally significant capacity -increasing transportation projects, regardless of funding sources, must be included in the RTIP. The currently applicable RTP and FTIP for the project area are the Connect SoCal 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and the 2023 FTIP (SCAG 2020a, 2023). Both plans were prepared by SCAG. The project is included in Connect SoCal and the 2023 FTIP under FTIP ID 991203A. The FHWA made a finding of conformity on the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS through Amendment #3 on June 9, 2023 (FHWA 2022). In addition, the FHWA approved the 2023 FTIP Consistency Amendment #23-03 and concurred that the associated conformity determination conformed to the applicable SIP in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 on June 9, 2023 (FHWA 2023). Therefore, the project is assumed to conform with the 2022 AQMP and the SIP. Furthermore, implementation of the project would ensure that the City would be consistent with the Connect SoCal RTP/SCS and the 2023 FTIP. No adverse regional or local air quality impact would occur as a result of the project. NO IMPACT b. Would the project 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 The project would allow for the construction of a bridge that would accommodate four through travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), left -turn lane(s), and two 5-foot-wide shoulders served as Class II bike lanes, for a curb -to -curb width of 68 feet. In addition, a 6-foot-wide sidewalk would be included on the southern side of the bridge for pedestrians to cross the creek. The existing bike trail on the west side of the creek will intersect with the extended Overland Drive by a signal -controlled at -grade crossing. Construction would involve grubbing/land clearing, grading/excavation, drainage/utilities/sub- grade, and paving. Exhaust emissions would be associated with use of heavy-duty construction equipment and truck trips hauling debris, soils, and construction materials; fugitive dust (PMlo and PM2.5) emissions would primarily result from earthwork activities (e.g., grubbing/land clearing and grading) activities. The paving operations would release VOCs. Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation and, for dust, the prevailing weather conditions. According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the City 20 Environmental Checklist Air Quality shall require individual development projects to comply with the following measures to minimize short term, construction -related PM10 and NOx emissions, and to minimize off -site impacts: ■ Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; ■ Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard; ■ Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas; ■ Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt deposition on any public roadway; ■ Cover or water twice daily any on -site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty material; ■ Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph; ■ Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain in active for more than 96 hours after clearing is completed; ■ Ensure that all cut and fill slopes are permanently protected from erosion; ■ Require the construction contractor to ensure that all construction equipment is maintained in peak working order; ■ Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment; ■ Encourage carpooling for construction workers; ■ Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods; ■ Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways; ■ Wet down or cover dirt hauled off site; ■ Wash or sweep away access points daily; ■ Encourage receipt of materials during non -peak traffic hours; and, ■ Sandbag construction sites for erosion control. In addition, demolition and grading for the project shall be performed in compliance with SCAQMD Rule 4032, Fugitive Dust. Contractor compliance with Rule 403 requirements would be mandated in the contractor's specifications and shall include the following measures: ■ Land disturbance shall be minimized to the extent feasible. Grading activities shall be limited to the disturbance of no more than five acres in the course of one day. • Haul trucks shall be covered when loaded with fill. ■ Paved streets shall be swept at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried onto the roadway. ■ Watering trucks shall be used to minimize dust. Watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Active, disturbed areas shall have water applied to them three times daily. • For disturbed surfaces that will not be revegetated and that will be left inactive for four or more days, a chemical stabilizer shall be applied pursuant to the manufacturer's instruction. ■ For unpaved roads, chemical stabilizers shall be applied or the roads shall be watered once per hour during active operation. ■ Vehicle speed on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. For open storage piles that will remain on site for two or more days, water shall be applied once per hour, or coverings shall be installed. ■ For paved road trackout, all haul vehicles shall be covered or shall comply with the vehicle freeboard requirements of Section 23114 of the California Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 21 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Vehicle Code for both public and private roads. During high wind conditions (i.e., wind speeds in excess of 25 miles per hour), all earth -moving activities shall cease or water shall be applied to soil not more than 15 minutes prior to disturbing such soil. Table 4 summarizes the estimated maximum daily emissions of VOC, NO, CO, S02, PMlo, and PM2.5 emissions per phase of construction. All construction -related criteria pollutant emissions would be below the SCAQMD regional thresholds. Therefore, project construction would not 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. Impacts would be less than significant. Table 4 Project Construction Emissions Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.30 15.19 3.27 30.60 0.05 3.92 Grading/Excavation 2.28 15.35 3.37 44.14 0.08 5.15 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 4.74 15.68 3.68 106.23 0.17 12.31 Paving 3.46 0.44 0.36 71.72 0.12 8.82 Maximum Daily 4.74 15.68 3.68 106.23 0.17 12.31 SCAQMD Significance Threshold 75 150 55 550 150 100 Exceed Threshold? No No No No No No See Appendix C Operational Emissions As described in the Air Quality Report prepared for the project, the project would result in a reduction of operational emissions. While the VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum (STC Traffic, Inc. 2021, Appendix B) shows VMT increasing in the future (2,618 VMT per day in 2025 and 2,922 VMT per day in 2045), the analysis does not capture the fact that traffic would be redistributed on the local roadway network with the construction of the bridge. VMT within the study area would grow with or without the project due to population growth. The proposed project would improve traffic flow in the City and would not increase capacity. In actuality, the project would reduce VMT for current trips on the network as the new roadway segment lowers VMT for journeys from Overland Drive to Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado. The distance from the Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle intersection to the Diaz Road/ Avenida Alvarado intersection is currently 0.7 mile. The distance between the two intersections across the creek is approximately 825 feet. This is an approximate reduction of 2,870 feet traveled per vehicle trip. With a reduction in overall trip distance for the area, the project would result in emissions reductions compared to the existing conditions. Therefore, project operation would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non -attainment, and impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT C. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 22 Environmental Checklist Air Quality Carbon Monoxide Hotspots A carbon monoxide hotspot is a localized concentration of carbon monoxide that is above a carbon monoxide ambient air quality standard. Localized carbon monoxide hotspots can occur at intersections with heavy peak hour traffic. Specifically, hotspots can be created at intersections where traffic levels are sufficiently high such that the local carbon monoxide concentration exceeds the federal one -hour standard of 35.0 ppm or the federal and state eight -hour standard of 9.0 ppm (SCAQMD 2016). As described under criterion (b), the project would not generate new trips in the project area but provide another access point to improve connectivity for existing traffic traveling in between Overland Drive to Avenida Alvarado. The project would relieve congestion at other nearby intersections since the development of the bridge would create a new east to west roadway connection. Therefore, the project would not result in or substantially contribute to concentrations that exceed the one -hour or eight -hour CO standard. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Localized Significance Thresholds Table 5 summarizes maximum daily on -site emissions associated with construction of the project. The on -site construction emissions of NOx, CO, PMlo, and PM2.5 emissions would not exceed SCAQMD LST screening levels during any phase of construction. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial criteria pollutant concentrations and impacts would be less than significant. Table 5 On -site Construction Emissions Grubbing/Land Clearing 3.92 30.60 15.19 3.27 Grading/Excavation 5.15 44.14 15.35 3.37 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 12.31 106.23 15.68 3.68 Paving 8.82 71.72 0.44 0.36 Maximum Daily 12.31 106.23 15.68 3.68 Applicable LST; 2 acres at 100 meters 363 2,781 38 10 SRA = source receptor area; Ibs/day = pounds per day; NO./NO2 = nitrogen oxides; CO = carbon monoxide; PM,o = particulate matter 10 micrometers in diameter or less; PM2.5= fine particulate matter 2.5 micrometers in diameter or less 'Emissions only account for on -site construction emissions. Source: Appendix C Toxic Air Contaminants Construction TAC Construction -related activities would result in temporary project -generated emissions of diesel particulate matter (DPM) exhaust emissions from off -road, heavy-duty diesel equipment for site preparation, grading, building construction, and other construction activities. DPM was identified as a TAC by CARB in 1998 (CARB 2022). The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of DPM (discussed in the following paragraphs) outweighs the potential non -cancer health impacts and is therefore the focus of this analysis. Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 23 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Generation of DPM from construction projects typically occurs in a single area for a short period. Construction of the proposed project would occur over approximately 17 months. The dose to which the receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk. Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the extent of exposure that person has with the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the Maximally Exposed Individual. The risks estimated for a Maximally Exposed Individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic emissions, should be based on a 70-year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project. Thus, the duration of proposed construction activities (i.e., 23 months) is approximately six percent of the total exposure period used for 30-year health risk calculations. Current models and methodologies for conducting health -risk assessments are associated with longer -term exposure periods of 9, 30, and 70 years, which do not correlate well with the temporary and highly variable nature of construction activities, resulting in difficulties in producing accurate estimates of health risk (Bay Area Air Quality Management District 2017). The maximum exhaust PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, which are used as surrogates for DPM, would occur during the drainage/utilities/sub-grade activities. These activities would last for approximately 11 months. PM emissions would decrease for the remaining construction period because construction activities, such as paving, would require less intensive construction equipment. While the maximum DPM emissions associated with demolition, site preparation, and grading activities would only occur for a portion of the overall construction period, these activities represent the worst -case condition for the total construction period. This would represent three percent of the total 30-year exposure period for health risk calculation. Given the aforementioned discussion, DPM generated by project construction would not create conditions where the probability is greater than one in ten million of contracting cancer for the Maximally Exposed Individual or to generate ground - level concentrations of non -carcinogenic TACs that exceed a Hazard Index greater than one for the Maximally Exposed Individual. Therefore, project construction would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial TAC concentrations, and impacts would be less than significant. Operational TAC The development of the project would not site new mobile sources of TAC in the general vicinity. As a bridge development, the project would be a new access point for existing vehicles traveling near or on Overland Drive and Avenida Alvarado. Existing vehicles and motorists would use the bridge for easier east to west access. Therefore, the project would not include substantial mobile TAC sources, nor would it result in the exposure of off -site sensitive receptors to significant amounts of carcinogenic or toxic air contaminants. Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? For construction activities, odors would be short-term in nature and are subject to SCAQMD Rule 402 Nuisance (SCAQMD 1976). Construction activities would be temporary and transitory and associated odors would cease upon construction completion. Accordingly, the project would not 24 Environmental Checklist Air Quality create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people during construction, and short- term impacts would be less than significant. Common sources of operational odor complaints include sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, and agricultural uses. The proposed plan would not include any of these uses. The project would construct a bridge to connect vehicles traveling to and from Overland Drive and Avenida Avenue. The project would not generate new vehicle trips but add an additional access point access for existing vehicles, motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists. This development is not considered a typical nuisance for odor. Therefore, operational odor impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 25 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. 26 Environmental Checklist Biological Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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, or 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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances 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? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 27 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This section is based on the City of Temecula's prior Final Initial Study, dated May 28, 2013, the Jurisdictional Delineation Report, dated January 2013, and the Habitat Assessment for Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension and related surveys for the project, prepared by BonTerra Consulting (September 2012), the Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report, dated September 2019, the Jurisdictional Waters Delineation, dated April 1, 2020, the MSHCP Consistency Analysis, dated July 2021, and the MSHCP DetepmffiR-,+; n of Bielegieally Equival Rt or SWpe i9F o.-,,.-,,..,a + 4DBESP}, as amended March 2022, for the Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive (Avenida Alvarado Over Murrieta Creek) Federal Aid Project No. BR-NBIL (543), City Project No. PW 16-05, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California, prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon). The DBESP was provided to the Western Riverside County Regien," en-serv"+i^^ "uthe t RCA, the California n,,.,-,.-+....,,nt ef. C.Sh VAIdlife (CDFW}, and theStatues-Fish -and %Vil lif Seryie {USFWS} (collectively referred to as the "Wildlife Agencies") for comment, and the 60-day response period concluded on September 05, 2022. As such, the project is in compliance with the Western Riverside MSHCP and the DBESP is considered to be approved." a. Would the project 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? The project site is located within Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat r nser , *AA of -,.A'. 4MSHCP's} Southwest Area Plan. The project site is located in Criteria Area Cells 6783 and 6890, which contributes to Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek). The land along Murrieta Creek is owned by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District). The project site is not located in a Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area or within the Narrow Endemic Plant Survey Area; therefore, focused plant surveys for these species are not required. The project site is within a Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Survey Area. A Step I Habitat Assessment and Step II Part A Focused Burrow Survey were completed in the Study Area (all areas of potential project -related effects and a 500-foot buffer) on May 10, 2019 and May 20, 2019, respectively, in accordance with methods outlined in the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (County of Riverside 2006). This search identified marginally suitable habitat present in the Study Area along the banks of Murrieta Creek. This habitat is isolated and highly disturbed but contains a complex of several burrows of suitable size for burrowing owl. No burrowing owls or owl sign (e.g., prey remains, cast pellets, white -wash, or feathers) were observed in the Study Area during the Step I Habitat Assessment or Step II A focused Burrow Survey. The project would impact Riparian/Riverine resources that are occupied by least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), and yellow -breasted chat (Icteria virens), and potentially occupied by yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), and arroyo chub (Gila orcuttii). Specifically, the southern willow scrub and riparian scrub habitats in the Study Area provide habitat that is occupied by the least Bell's vireo. Updated focused surveys for this species were conducted between May 10 and July 19, 2019. The surveys were conducted in accordance with the USFWS Least Bell's Vireo Survey Guidelines, issued January 19, 2001. Eight (8) surveys were conducted during this time frame. The surveys occurred between dawn and 11:00 am each day within all portions of the Study Area containing potentially suitable riparian habitat. The proposed project would directly impact habitat for this species. Least Bell's vireo territories were observed within the arroyo willow thickets habitat along the banks of 28 Environmental Checklist Biological Resources Murrieta Creek in the Study Area. A Natural Environment Study was performed within the Biological Study Area and concluded that impacts to least Bell's vireo are expected to occur as a result of the project. As a result, a Rielegieal y liq ival^^+ ^~ Swpe.,^. PFeseFYatie~ (DBESP� report was prepared that described proposed mitigation for this impact (Appendix D). The project will adhere to the MSHCP Guidelines for Covered Proiects found in Sections 6.1.4, 7.5.1, and 7.5.3, and of the Western Riverside County Final MSHCP. The project will also implement all feasible BMPs from the Western Riverside County Final MSHCP during construction. A qualified biologist shall be onsite during construction activities to ensure that these guidelines are followed. The removal of vegetation may also result in temporary impacts to nesting birds due to the temporarily reduced available nesting habitat. To reduce impacts to sensitive and special status species, mitigation measures 1310-1 through 310-5 from in the DBESP report will be incorporated into the project and will result in less than significant impacts. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED b. Would the project 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? Riparian habitats are those habitats located along banks or rivers or streams. Sensitive natural communities are natural communities that are considered rare in the region by the USFWS, CDFW, or local regulatory agencies; that are known to provide habitat for sensitive animal or plant species; or are known to be significant wildlife corridors. The Study Area contains freshwater marsh, riparian scrub, southern willow thickets, non-native grassland, and developed/ornamental areas. Freshwater marsh, riparian scrub, southern willow thickets meet the definition of a Riparian/Riverine community. Project implementation would result in unavoidable permanent impacts to 0.09 acre and temporary impacts to 0.78 acre of freshwater marsh, permanent impacts to 0.06 acre and temporary impacts to 0.08 acre of riparian scrub, and permanent impacts to 0.01 acre and temporary impacts to 0.36 acre of southern willow scrub. Project implementation would result in unavoidable permanent impacts to 0.16 acre of Riparian/Riverine area and temporary impacts to 1.22 acres of Riparian/Riverine area. The MSHCP recommends avoidance of Riparian/Riverine areas, if feasible. Since avoidance is not feasible based on the nature of the proposed project, a DBESP describing the mitigation strategy to provide Riparian/Riverine resources of equivalent or superior habitat value to those being impacted was prepared. The mitigation measures identified in the DBESP report will be incorporated into the project and will result in less than significant impacts. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED Would the project 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? Wetlands are defined under the federal Clean Water Act as land that is flooded or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that normally does support, a prevalence of vegetation adapted to life in saturated soils. Wetlands include areas such as swamps, marshes, bogs, mudflats, and vernal pools. Murrieta Creek is under the jurisdiction of the U.S. ^F"v Y GE)~^S Of r^^i^^^Fs 4USACE}, the CDFW, and {RWQCB--Region 9, San Diego Region. Project implementation would result in impacts to 0.96 acres (0.08 acre permanent, 0.88 acres temporary) of wetland waters of the U.S., and 2.48 acres (0.33 acre permanent, 2.15 acres temporary) of wetland waters of the State. The DBESP describes the Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 29 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive mitigation strategy to provide Riparian/Riverine resources, which include jurisdictional wetland waters, of equivalent or superior habitat value to those being impacted. The mitigation measures identified in the DBESP report will be incorporated in the project and will result in less than significant impacts. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED d. Would the project 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? A variety of biological resources are known to exist within the vicinity of the project site. Implementation of future development of the project may have the potential to directly or indirectly impact sensitive species and habitats. The project is located within the Murrieta Creek Proposed Constrained Linkage 13, which connects core habitat at the Santa Rosa Plateau and Proposed Linkage 10 to conserved habitats in San Diego County. Murrieta Creek is constrained on all sides by existing urban development; therefore, wildlife is constrained to moving along the creek, which is used as a wildlife corridor. The proposed bridge across Murrieta Creek would be similar to the Winchester Bridge, approximately 1,000 feet northwest of the project site. It is assumed that wildlife species that currently move along the creek under the Winchester Road Bridge would continue along the creek as they currently do. However; night lighting and headlights on the proposed bridge could increase light levels within the creek, which could discourage nocturnal wildlife movement. Additionally, if vehicle noise and or the noise driving over the bridge substantially increases above ambient conditions in the creek, this could also discourage wildlife movement. As an MSHCP-covered roadway, the project is also subject to the guidelines provided in MSHCP Sections 7.5.1 and 7.5.3. Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines presented in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating commercial, mixed uses and residential developments in proximity to a Conservation Area. Final project design will ensure BMPs are incorporated into the proposed project including the guidelines included in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP as well as maintenance and conveyance of seasonal clean water flows through the project site. In addition, BMPs would be implemented during construction in accordance with the Western Riverside County Final MSHCP, as described below (Dudek 2003). LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The City's General Plan includes a number of policies related to the protection of sensitive natural resources, including biological resources. The project will not conflict with any local ordinances or policies as they relate to the protection of biological resources. The City of Temecula has a Heritage Tree Ordinance designed to protect certain species of trees within the City. However, no trees designated in the ordinance are located within the project area. The City of Temecula General Plan outlines a number of policies which emphasize the interrelationship between the built and natural environment. The General Plan recognizes the importance of conserving important biological habitat and protecting plant and animal specifies of concern. As a result, the General Plan requires that development proposals identify significant biological resources. The MSHCP Consistency Analysis and DBESP report identified mitigation measures to reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant. These mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project and will be consistent with the resources agencies' comments. 30 Environmental Checklist Biological Resources LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED f. Would the project 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 City of Temecula and project site are located within the Western Riverside County MSHCP, a comprehensive, multi -jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan focusing on the conservation of 146 species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The Plan's overall goal is to maintain biological and ecological diversity within the rapidly urbanizing area. The Plan Area encompasses approximately 1.26 million acres and includes the City of Temecula within its boundaries. The City is a participant in the MSHCP. As such, impacts on special status species covered by the MSHCP are considered fully mitigated by the City's participation in the MSHCP. The project's consistency with the provisions in the MSHCP are described in the MSHCP Consistency Analysis, dated July 2021, prepared by Rincon. The proposed project will not conflict with the provisions of the MSHCP with implementation of the below mitigation measures. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED Mitigation Measures - - -- -- -- - ---- - -- - -- -- -- -- - -- -- --- -- BI0-1 _Riparian /Riverine Resources The project has been designed to minimize impacts on Riparian/Riverine Resources. Riparian/Riverine resources mapped in the survey area generally overlap with resources under the jurisdiction of the USACE, the CDFW, and the RWQCB. Therefore, the following mitigation would satisfy the MSHCP's requirements for the loss of Riparian/Riverine resources, and jurisdictional resources. Prior to the initiation of any construction -related activities that result in any ground disturbances and subsequent direct and/or indirect impacts on areas within these agencies' jurisdictions, the City of Temecula shall obtain all required permits/agreements/certifications from the USACE, the CDFW, the RWQCB, and the RCFC&WCD. The City shall obtain all appropriate permits for impacts on USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB jurisdictional areas. Mitigation for the loss of jurisdictional areas and Riparian/Riverine resources may include (1) preservation of existing riparian habitat (preferably within or adjacent to an area identified as a Criteria Area, Core, or Linkage by the MSHCP) or (2) restoration of riparian habitat (preferably within or adjacent to an area identified as a Criteria Area, Core, or Linkage by the MSHCP). If the City chooses to mitigate Riparian/Riverine habitat through purchase or restoration, acreage shall be of equivalent or superior quality habitat at no less than a 1:1 ratio. Currently, the proposed mitigation strategy would: (1) restore areas temporarily impacted by the project onsite at a 1:1 ratio; and (2) provide offsite restoration for areas permanently impacted by the project. The resource agencies, including the WRC RCA and the USFWS, will review the proposed acquisition during the permitting process to ensure that the lands to be acquired by the City of Temecula are of equivalent or superior Final Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration 31 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive quality to the resources impacted by the project. During site meetings, the resource agencies gave preliminary approval to restoring Riparian/Riverine habitat along Temecula Creek as mitigation for the project (Appendix D). If the project would mitigate for impacts on Riparian/Riverine resources through restoration of riparian habitat (as currently planned), a detailed restoration program shall be prepared for approval by the USACE and the CDFW prior to construction and shall contain the following items: ■ Responsibilities and Qualifications. Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan. The responsibilities of the City, specialists, and maintenance personnel that will supervise and implement the plan shall be specified. ■ Site Selection. Site selection for restoration and enhancement mitigation shall be determined in coordination with the City and the resource agencies. The mitigation site(s) shall be located in a dedicated open space area. The restoration site selected is located along Temecula Creek. ■ Site Preparation and Planting Implementation. Site preparation shall include (1) protection of existing native species; (2) trash and weed removal; (3) native species salvage and reuse (i.e., duff); (4) soil treatments (i.e., imprinting, decompacting); (5) temporary irrigation installation; (6) erosion -control measures (i.e., rice or willow wattles); (7) seed mix application; and (8) container species, if appropriate. ■ Schedule. A schedule shall be developed which includes planting to occur in late fall and early winter, between October 1 and January 30. ■ Maintenance Plan/Guidelines. The maintenance plan shall include (1) weed control; (2) herbivory control; (3) trash removal; (4) irrigation system maintenance; (5) maintenance training; (6) replacement planting; and (7) biological monitoring during maintenance activities that occur during the breeding season. ■ Monitoring Plan. The monitoring plan shall include (1) qualitative monitoring (i.e., photographs and general observations); (2) quantitative monitoring (i.e., randomly placed transects); (3) performance criteria as approved by the resource agencies; (4) monthly reports for the first year, and every other month for following years; and (5) annual reports for three to five years, which will be submitted to the resource agencies. The site shall be monitored and maintained for five years to ensure successful establishment of riparian habitat within the restored and created areas; however, if there is successful coverage prior to five years, the City may be released from monitoring requirements with the approval of the resource agencies. ■ Long-term Preservation. Long-term preservation of the site shall also be outlined in the conceptual mitigation plan to ensure the mitigation site is not impacted by future projects. PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY PROJECT IMPACTS To mitigate permanent impacts to 0.16 acre of Riparian/Riverine areas and temporary impacts to 1.22 acre of Riparian/Riverine areas (coterminous with CDFW jurisdiction), the City of Temecula shall perform habitat rehabilitation of a 1.23-acre area in the Temecula Creek Mitigation Parcel. The City of Temecula shall mitigate temporary impacts at a 1:1 ratio and permanent impacts at a 3:1 ratio for rehabilitation at the Temecula Creek mitigation site. Rehabilitation activities for permanent impacts would consist of 1) control of non-native weeds, and 2) replanting with appropriate native, riparian plant species that currently occur within the mitigation parcel. For temporary impacts, habitat shall be re -vegetated with a native seed mix suitable for use at each location after construction. This seed mix will be in addition to replanting cuttings, regular weeding and monitoring of the arroyo willow thicket that is currently on site. 32 Environmental Checklist Biological Resources All restoration activities shall be overseen by a qualified Restoration Specialist familiar with riparian habitat restoration implementation, monitoring, and reporting. The work will be performed by a Restoration Contractor. The Restoration Contractor is a qualified native landscape contractor with experience in riparian restoration, who is responsible for site preparation, installation, and maintenance of the mitigation area. Table 6 Proposed Mitigation Site Acreage Freshwater Marsh 0.09 3:1 0.78 1:1 1.05 Riparian Scrub 0.06 3:1 0.08 1:1 0.26 Southern Willow Scrub 0.01 3:1 0.36 1:1 0.39 Total 0.16 — 1.22 — 1.7 The Restoration Specialist shall identify the spatial distribution of native plantings for optimal habitat development based on various environmental factors, including, but not limited to, elevation and hydrology. Final quantities per species shall be determined based on site conditions after construction and as directed by the Restoration Specialist. Cuttings to be installed in the temporary impact areas shall be spaced irregularly and in clusters to emulate natural conditions. Actual species installed shall be dependent on those species that are available at the time of implementation. A vegetative cover consisting of desirable riparian plant species is expected to develop from the installed material with proper management. Plant spacing is designed to achieve dense native cover within three years or less. It is expected that native understory species will naturally colonize and establish. BI0-2 Least Bell's Vireo The limits of project construction shall be clearly delineated with the use of fencing (lathe and rope, orange snow fencing, or stakes and flagging) prior to the initiation of construction. All removal of riparian vegetation shall be conducted during the non -breeding season for this species (i.e., September 16 to March 14). Vegetation removal within the creek shall be monitored by a qualified Biological Monitor. To the extent practicable, construction of the project shall be conducted during the non -breeding season for the least Bell's vireo (i.e., September 16 to March 14) in order to avoid indirect noise impacts on this species. If project construction begins during the vireo nesting season, a qualified Biologist shall survey all riparian habitat within 500 feet of the construction limits for the presence of least Bell's vireo nests/territories prior to the start of construction. Three surveys shall be conducted within one week prior to the initiation of construction within or adjacent to riparian habitat. Any active nests/territories shall be mapped on an aerial photograph by the Biologist, and the location information shall be given to the USFWS and CDFW. The locatio33n of any least Bell's vireo nests/territories shall be marked on applicable construction plans. If no active nests/territories are found, construction may proceed. Surveys shall be updated once per week as long as construction is within 500 feet of riparian habitat. Surveys may be discontinued after if no vireos have been detected after eight weekly visits; if a vireo territory is observed, monitoring surveys shall be continued until vireo leave for the wintering grounds (August/September). A pre -construction least Bell's vireo survey report (including mapping of any active territories) shall be prepared by a qualified Biologist and shall be submitted to the USFWS and CDFW. Final Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration 33 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Any active territories shall be protected as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) until no longer occupied to ensure compliance with the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. To protect any active territory sites, the following restrictions on construction are required between March 15 and September 15 (or until territories are no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist): (1) no clearing of habitat shall be allowed within Murrieta Creek and (2) access and surveying shall not be allowed within approximately 100 feet of nests/territories (or as otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist). Any construction activities that would occur within Murrieta Creek during the breeding season shall be monitored by a qualified Biologist. If construction would result in noise readings greater than 60 A -weighted decibels (dBA) at the edge of least Bell's vireo habitat (Murrieta Creek), construction shall not be allowed during the breeding season (March 15 to September 15) unless appropriate noise measures are implemented, as approved by the USFWS and the CDFW. Noise measures may include, but would not be limited to, soundwalls to reduce noise between the construction site and the vireo territory; use of construction equipment with noise -reducing alterations; or delay of noise -intensive construction (e.g., pile driving, demolition) until after the breeding season. Soundwalls shall be installed, as - needed, to maintain a noise level of less than 60 dBA at the edge of riparian habitat. Installation of the noise barriers shall be monitored by a qualified Biologist to ensure that riparian habitat is not inadvertently affected. A noise monitoring methodology shall be used during the breeding season for construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat along Murrieta Creek. Noise monitoring stations shall be monitored weekly between March 15 and September 15 to ensure that noise levels remain less than 60 dBA. If noise monitoring determines that the noise level exceeds 60 dBA, noise barriers shall be modified, as recommended by a qualified Acoustical Technician, to reduce noise levels below 60 dBA. BIO-3 Burrowing Owl A pre -construction survey for burrowing owl will be conducted 30 days prior to construction in accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. If burrowing owl is present in the impact area during the breeding season (March 1 to August 31), the burrow will be protected until nesting activity has ended. To protect the active burrow, a 500-foot buffer will be established around the active burrow. Any encroachment into the buffer area around the active burrow will only be allowed if the Biologist determines that the proposed activity will not disturb the nest occupants. Construction can proceed when the qualified Biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest. If burrowing owl is present in the impact area during the non -breeding season (September 1 to February 28), the burrowing owl will be flushed from the burrow and the burrow will be closed using CDFW-approved burrow -closing procedures. If no burrowing owls are observed, construction may proceed. BIO-4 Night Lighting Permanent night lighting used to light the bridge shall use best engineering practices to direct lighting to the roadway and shall minimize spillage of light into adjacent habitat areas to the extent practicable. Additionally, approved wildlife -friendly night lighting will be used. Lighting designs shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project. 34 Environmental Checklist Biological Resources BI0-5 Noise The bridge concrete deck shall receive grinding and grooving treatment per Caltrans bridge design standards to reduce vehicular tire noise. Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 35 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive 36 Environmental Checklist Biological Resources Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 37 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive m Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ c. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ CEQA requires a lead agency determine whether a project may have a significant effect on historical resources (Public Resources Code [PRC], Section 21084.1) and tribal cultural resources (PRC Section 21074 [a][1][A]-[B]). A historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources, a resource included in a local register of historical resources, or any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency determines to be historically significant (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[a][1-3]). A resource shall be considered historically significant if it: 1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. In addition, if it can be demonstrated that a project would cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC, Section 21083.2[a], [b]). PRC, Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it: 1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 39 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive 2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or 3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5? b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? An archaeological resource survey revealed that the project site consists of the undeveloped channel that is bordered by developed areas containing buildings and roadways. At the time of the survey, vegetation growth within the channel was dense, with poor ground visibility throughout (0-5 percent). No evidence of archaeological resources was identified during the survey. On July 25, 2019, Rincon conducted a records search of the California Historical Resources Information System at the Eastern Information Center, located at University of California, Riverside. The records search and literature review identified no known archaeological resources within or immediately adjacent to the project site. However, eight archaeological sites, including six prehistoric archaeological sites were identified within a 1-mile buffer. These sites are located on elevated landforms at least 20 feet above the active channel and annual floodplain. In addition, no evidence of archaeological remains was found during the pedestrian survey of the project site. Although the presence of buildings and roadways precluded the inspection of the ground surface in portions of the project site, geoarchaeological data indicate that the area has a low potential to contain buried prehistoric and historic period cultural deposits and those that may be present are likely in a secondary context. Based on the results of the records search and literature review, survey, and geoarchaeological data, there is a low likelihood of encountering any archaeological resources within the project site. Though the potential is low that historic period or archaeological resources exist on site, there is a chance unanticipated discoveries of cultural resources would occur, resulting in a significant impact. Mitigation measures are included to reduce project impacts to a less than significant level. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED C. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Evidence has been found that suggests human remains are present within % mile of the project site. In addition, Native American populations were known to bury remains along water courses such as Murrieta Creek. Therefore, it is possible that remains may be unearthed during construction activities. If human remains are discovered during construction activities, the mitigation measures below would reduce project impacts to a less than significant level. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED 40 Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures CR- I Retain a Qualified Archaeological Monitor Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the City shall retain a Riverside County qualified archaeological monitor to monitor all ground -disturbing activities in archaeological sensitive sediments in an effort to identify any unknown archaeological resources. The Project Archaeologist shall have the authority to temporarily redirect earthmoving activities in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed during project construction. The Project Archeologist shall attend the pre -grading meeting with the City, Pechanga Tribe, the construction manager and any contractors and shall conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The training shall include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the project site and surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. All new construction personnel that will conduct earthwork or grading activities that begin work on the project following the initial Training shall take the Cultural Sensitivity Training prior to beginning work and the project archaeologist shall make themselves available to provide the training on an as - needed basis. CR-2 Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement At least 30 days prior to beginning project construction the City shall contact the Pechanga Tribe to notify the Tribe of grading, excavation and the monitoring program, and to coordinate with the City of Temecula and the Tribe to develop a Cultural Resources Treatment and Monitoring Agreement. The Agreement shall address the treatment of known cultural resources, the designation, responsibilities, and participation of professional Native American Tribal monitors during grading, excavation and ground disturbing activities; project grading and development scheduling; terms of compensation for the monitors; and treatment and final disposition of any cultural resources, sacred sites, and human remains discovered on the site. Tribal monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt and redirect earth moving activities in the affected area in the event that suspected archaeological resources are unearthed. The Pechanga Tribe shall attend the pre -grading meeting with the City, Project Archaeologist, the construction manager and any contractors and shall conduct a mandatory Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training to those in attendance. The training shall include a brief review of the cultural sensitivity of the project and the surrounding area; what resources could potentially be identified during earthmoving activities; the requirements of the monitoring program; the protocols that apply in the event inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources are identified, including who to contact and appropriate avoidance measures until the find(s) can be properly evaluated; and any other appropriate protocols. CR-3 Pre -grade Report Prior to beginning project construction, the Project Archaeologist shall file a Cultural Resource Monitoring Plan (CRIMP) with the City to document the proposed methodology for grading activity observation which will be determined in consultation with the Pechanga Tribe. Methodology shall include: ■ Project description and location; ■ Project grading and development scheduling; Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 41 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive ■ Roles and responsibilities of individuals on the project; ■ The pre -grading meeting and Cultural Resources Worker Sensitivity Training details; ■ The protocols and stipulations that the contractor, City, Consulting Tribe(s) and Project Archaeologist shall follow in the event of inadvertent cultural resources discoveries, including any newly discovered cultural resource deposits that shall be subject to a cultural resource's evaluation; ■ The type of recordation needed for inadvertent finds and the stipulations of recordation of sacred items; and, ■ Contact information of relevant individuals for the project. CR-4 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains 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 their treatment and disposition has been made. If the Riverside County Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted within 24 hours. The Native American Heritage Commission must then immediately identify the "most likely descendant(s)" of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours of being granted access to the site, and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code 5097.98 and the Treatment Agreement described in TCR-2. CR-5 Ownership of Cultural Resources The landowner shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods and all archaeological artifacts that are found on the project area to the appropriate Tribe for proper treatment and disposition. CR-6 Avoidance of Sacred Sites It is understood by all parties that, unless otherwise required by law, the site of any reburial of Native American human remains or associated grave goods shall not be disclosed and shall not be governed by public disclosure requirements of the California Public Records Act. The Coroner, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254(r), parties, and Lead Agencies, shall be asked to withhold public disclosure information related to such reburial, pursuant to the specific exemption set forth in California Government Code 6254(r). CR-7 Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources If inadvertent discoveries of subsurface archaeological/cultural resources are discovered during grading, the Developer, the project archaeologist, and the Tribe shall assess the significance of such resources and shall meet and confer regarding the mitigation for such resources. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code § 21083.2(b) avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources. If the Developer, the project archaeologist and the Tribe cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for such resources, these issues will be presented to the City's Planning Director for a decision. The Planning Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources and 42 Environmental Checklist Cultural Resources shall take into account the religious beliefs, customs, and practices of the Tribe. Treatment of tribal cultural resources inadvertently discovered during the project's ground -disturbing activities shall be subject to the consultation process required by state law and AB 52: ■ All ground disturbance activities within 100 feet of the discovered cultural resources shall be halted until a meeting is convened between the Project Applicant, the Project Archaeologist, the Tribal Representative(s), and the Community Development Director to discuss the significance of the find. ■ At the meeting, the significance of the discoveries shall be discussed and after consultation with the Tribal Representative(s) and the Project Archaeologist, a decision shall be made, with the concurrence of the Community Development Director, as to the appropriate mitigation (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural resources. ■ Further ground disturbance, including but not limited to grading, trenching etc., shall not resume within the area of the discovery until an agreement has been reached by all parties as to the appropriate mitigation. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area and will be monitored by additional Tribal Monitors, if needed. ■ Treatment and avoidance of the newly discovered resources shall be consistent with the Cultural Resources Management Plan and Monitoring Agreements entered into with the appropriate tribes. This may include avoidance of the cultural resources through project design, in -place preservation of cultural resources located in native soils and/or re -burial on the project property so they are not subject to further disturbance in perpetuity as identified in Non - Disclosure of Reburial Condition/Mitigation Measures. ■ If the find is determined to be significant and avoidance of the site has not been achieved, a Phase III data recovery plan shall be prepared by the Project Archeologist, in consultation with the Tribe, and shall be submitted to the City for their review and approval prior to implementation of the said plan. ■ Pursuant to Calif. Pub. Res. Code § 21083.2(b), avoidance is the preferred method of preservation for archaeological resources and cultural resources. If the Project Applicant and the Tribe(s) cannot agree on the significance or the mitigation for the archaeological or cultural resources, these issues will be presented to the City Community Development Director for decision. The City Community Development Director shall make the determination based on the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act with respect to archaeological resources, recommendations of the project archeologist and shall consider the cultural and religious principles and practices of the Tribe. Notwithstanding any other rights available under the law, the decision of the City Community Development Director shall be appealable to the City Planning Commission and/or City Council." Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to City of Temecula upon the completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment finding. CR-8 Final Disposition of Inadvertent Discovery In the event that Native American cultural resources are discovered during the course of grading (inadvertent discoveries), the following procedures shall be carried out for final disposition of the discoveries. One or more of the following treatments, in order of preference, shall be employed with the tribes. Evidence of such shall be provided to the City of Temecula Community Development Department: Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 43 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Preservation -In -Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. Reburial of the resources on the project property. The measures for reburial shall include, at least, measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all legally required cataloging and basic recordation have been completed, with an exception that sacred items, burial goods, and Native American human remains are excluded. Any reburial process shall be culturally appropriate. Listing of contents and location of the reburial shall be included in the confidential Phase IV report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with the City under a confidential cover and not subject to Public Records Request. If preservation in place or reburial is not feasible then the resources shall be curated in a culturally appropriate manner at a Riverside County curation facility that meets State Resources Department Office of Historic Preservation Guidelines for the Curation of Archaeological Resources ensuring access and use pursuant to the Guidelines. The collection and associated records shall be transferred, including title, and are to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation. Evidence of curation in the form of a letter from the curation facility stating that subject archaeological materials have been received and that all fees have been paid, shall be provided by the landowner to the City. There shall be no destructive or invasive testing on sacred items, burial goods, and Native American human remains. Results concerning finds of any inadvertent discoveries shall be included in the Phase IV monitoring report. Evidence of compliance with this mitigation measure, if a significant archaeological resource is found, shall be provided to City of Temecula upon the completion of a treatment plan and final report detailing the significance and treatment finding. CR-9 Final Inspection Prior to final inspection, the Project Archeologist is to submit two (2) copies of the Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report that complies with the Planning Department's requirements for such reports. The Phase IV report shall include evidence of the required cultural/historical sensitivity training for the construction staff held during the pre -grade meeting. The Planning Department shall review the reports to determine adequate mitigation compliance. Provided the reports are adequate, the Planning Department shall clear this condition. Once the report(s) are determined to be adequate, two (2) copies shall be submitted to the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California Riverside (UCR) and one (1) copy shall be submitted to the Pechanga Cultural Resources Department. 44 Environmental Checklist Energy Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact Would the project: a. Result in a 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ a. Would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? The proposed project would use nonrenewable resources for construction of the project. The anticipated use of these resources is detailed in the following subsections. The Road Construction Emissions Model outputs for the air pollutant and GHG emissions modeling (Appendix C), were used to estimate energy consumption associated with the proposed project. Construction Energy Demand The project would require grubbing/land clearing, grading/excavation, drainage/utilities/sub-grade, and paving. During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of petroleum - based fuels used to power off -road construction vehicles and equipment on the project site, construction worker travel to and from the project site, and vehicles used to deliver materials to the site. As shown in Table 7, project construction would require approximately 9,768 gallons of gasoline and approximately 266,783 gallons of diesel fuel. These construction energy estimates are conservative because they assume that the construction equipment used in each phase of construction is operating every day of construction. Table 7 Estimated Fuel Consumption during Construction Fuel Cor Source Gasoline Construction Equipment & Hauling Trips Not Applicable Construction Worker Vehicle Trips See Appendix E for energy calculation sheets. 9,768 266,783 Not Applicable Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 45 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Energy use during construction would be temporary in nature, and construction equipment used would be typical of similar -sized construction projects in the region. In addition, construction contractors would be required to comply with the provisions of California Code of Regulations Title 13 Sections 2449 and 2485, which prohibit diesel -fueled commercial motor vehicles and off - road diesel vehicles from idling for more than five minutes and would minimize unnecessary fuel consumption. Construction equipment would be subject to the USEPA Construction Equipment Fuel Efficiency Standard, which would also minimize inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary fuel consumption. Furthermore, per applicable regulatory requirements, such as the latest California Green Building Standard Codes standards, the project would comply with construction waste management practices to divert a minimum of 65 percent of construction debris. These practices would result in efficient use of energy necessary to construct the project. In the interest of cost - efficiency, construction contractors also would not utilize fuel in a manner that is wasteful or unnecessary. Therefore, the project would not involve the inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary use of energy during construction, and construction impacts related to energy consumption would be less than significant. Operational Energy Demand Operation of the project would lead to a slight reduction in gasoline and diesel fuel consumption associated with vehicle trips. As described in Section 3, Air Quality, the construction of the bridge would reduce distance traveled by 2,870 feet per vehicle trip. Existing vehicles would be able to cut through the industrial park area using Overland Drive and Avenida Alvarado instead of using Winchester Road or Via Montezuma. Also, the proposed project would not add capacity. It would not result in an increase in traffic volumes or resulting energy use in the form of electricity, natural gas or petroleum following completion of construction. Therefore, project operation would not result in potentially significant environmental effects due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and no impacts would occur. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? The SCAG Connect SoCal RTP/SCS contains transportation strategies to achieve the following: preserve and optimize the current and future system and implement capital improvement by mode to complete the system (2020b). These overarching transportations goals combined with the sustainable communities strategies for land use developments will help the SCAG achieve and exceed emissions reduction targets. The Connect SoCal RTP/SCS is intended to help to minimize energy consumption by improving the overall efficiency of the transportation system and land use patterns. The proposed project would lead to the construction of a bridge that would provide safe all-weather access across Murrieta Creek; provide a reliable route for emergency vehicles, motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists; and provide an additional access point to the City's industrial park. This would improve traffic operations at the project site by diverting traffic from other nearby intersections to this new access point, which would reduce congestion and improve vehicular traffic flow. This type of project supports the efforts of the Connect SoCal RTP/SCS. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT 46 Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ 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 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 resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 47 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive a.i. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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? The seismically active region of Southern California is crossed by numerous faults. A fault is a fracture in the crust of the earth along which rocks on one side have moved relative to those on the other side. Most faults are the result of repeated displacements over a long period of time. A fault trace is the line on the earth's surfacing defining the fault. Fault rupture is the displacement that occurs along the surface of a fault during an earthquake. The California Geological Survey has established earthquake fault zones known as Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones around the surface traces of active faults to assist cities and counties in planning, zoning, and building regulation functions. These zones identify areas where potential surface rupture along an active fault could prove hazardous and identify where special studies are required to characterize hazards to habitable structures. According to the report of Geotechnical Design Report, (Leighton Consulting, Inc., 2023) the proposed bridge structure does not fall within an Alquist-Priolo fault Zone; however, the easterly improvement consisting of street improvements outside the proposed bridge may fall within the Alquist-Priolo fault Zone. The nearest mapped trace of the Temecula/Wildomar trace of the Elsinore fault is located approximately 500 feet east of the proposed bridge. The Murrieta Creek fault associated with the Elsinore Fault zone is located approximately 2,000 feet west of the proposed bridge. The project does not include any occupiable structures, which would expose people to fault related hazards; however, Caltrans Guidelines for Structures Foundations Reports (Version 2.0, dated March 2006) requires active faults that have the potential to affect the project site be identified in accordance with Caltrans Seismic Hazard Map and Report 1996, or latest revision. The calculated Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) was approximately 0.54g for this site using Caltrans AIRS online tool V3.0.2. The project will incorporate all recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Design Report prepared for the project. Compliance with the applicable site preparation and design standards will ensure potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.ii. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking? According to the City of Temecula General Plan and various published earthquake hazard maps, the Elsinore fault, which is located to the east and west of the project site, traverses the City. Other faults surrounding the City include the San Andreas, San Jacinto, San Gabriel, Newport -Inglewood, Sierra Madre -Santa Susana-Cucamonga, Rose Canyon, Coronado Banks, San Diego Trough, and San Clemente Island faults. Several nearby faults, including the Elsinore and San Jacinto fault zones, are capable of generating strong ground motions at this location. The San Andreas Fault is located further away to the northeast but is capable of generating larger magnitude earthquakes. The project site is located in a seismically active area, as is the majority of Southern California. The project would be constructed to the standards of the most recent seismic Uniform Building and Safety Code and Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria, and will incorporate all recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Design Report prepared for the project (Leighton Consulting, Inc., 48 Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils 2023). Compliance with the applicable site preparation and design standards will ensure potential impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.iii. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? Liquefaction is a seismic phenomenon in which loose, saturated, granular soils behave similarly to a fluid when subject to high -intensity ground shaking. Liquefaction occurs when the shock waves from an earthquake of sufficient magnitude and duration compact and decrease the volume of the soil; if drainage cannot occur, this reduction in soil volume will increase the pressure exerted on the water contained in the soil, forcing it upward to the ground surface. This process can transform stable soil material into a fluid -like state. This fluid -like state can result in horizontal and vertical movements of soils and building foundations from lateral spreading of liquefied materials and post -earthquake settlement of liquefied materials. Liquefaction occurs when three general conditions exist: 1) shallow groundwater; 2) low density non -cohesive (granular) soils; and 3) high -intensity ground motion. According to the Geotechnical Design Report (2023), the project area is in a liquefaction zone. Geotechnical exploratory borings were obtained for evaluation of potential dry seismic settlement and liquefaction induced settlement. The estimated total seismically induced settlement is expected to be less than two (2) inches along the bridge alignment. The differential settlement is expected to be less than one (1) inch over a horizontal distance of 100 feet or between adjacent bridge piers/abutments. Compliance with the applicable design standards will ensure potential impacts related to liquefaction would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT a.iv. Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides? Landslide hazard areas are generally considered to exist when substantial slopes are located on or immediately adjacent to a subject property. There are no substantial slopes located within or near the project site that could potentially create a hazard associated with landslides. The channel slope stability was analyzed as part of the Geotechnical Design Report and the results of the technical analyses indicate adequate factor of safety against slope instability (Leighton Consulting, Inc., 2023). Consequently, the potential for landslides to occur at the site is considered less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Soil erosion refers to the process by which soil or earth material is loosened or dissolved and removed from its original location. Erosion can occur by varying processes and may occur in the project site where bare soil is exposed to wind or moving water (both rainfall and surface runoff). The processes of erosion are generally a function of material type, terrain steepness, rainfall or irrigation levels, surface drainage conditions, and general land uses. The site may be susceptible to soil erosion during the short-term construction activities. As discussed in further detail in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, short-term erosion effects during the construction phase of the project would be prevented through implementation of a Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 49 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which is required in accordance with the Countywide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Permit. The SWPPP specifies the Erosion Control and Sediment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be implemented during construction to control on -site and off -site erosion. Therefore, with implementation of an approved SWPPP, impacts resulting from erosion during construction would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Would the project 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? As previously discussed under Responses 7.a.iii and 7.a.iv above, the project site is in a liquefaction zone, but the potential for surface manifestation of liquefaction is considered to be low. Subsidence occurs when a void is located or created underneath a surface, causing the surface to collapse. Common causes of subsidence include withdrawal of groundwater or oil resources or wells beneath a surface. Subsidence is not known to have occurred in the project area and is unlikely to occur at the project site. Compliance with recommendations from the Report of Geotechnical Investigation will reduce risk of geologic hazards at the site to a less than significant level. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Expansive soils are typically associated with fine-grained clayey soils that have the potential to shrink and swell with repeated cycles of wetting and drying. expansive soils, if encountered within the project site, would be removed and/or replaced as part of standard construction practices pursuant to the City and/or 2016 California Building Code building requirements. The Report of Geotechnical Investigation noted that two types of soils were encountered onsite including artificial alluvial consisting of silty sand and older alluvium consisting of loose to very dense silty sand, poorly graded sand and sand with silt. The Report did not specifically discuss the expansive potential of these soils, but it is assumed to be low given the lack of clays within subsurface soils. The Report of Geotechnical Investigation recommends soil materials below the subgrade be over excavated and replaced as compacted fill in accordance with Caltrans standard Specifications to reduce risk due to differential settlement. Compliance with recommendations for ground preparation from the Report of Geotechnical Investigation will reduce risk of any geologic hazards to a less than significant level. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT e. Would the project 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? The project will not require the use of septic tanks or other wastewater disposal systems. NO IMPACT 50 Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils f. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Paleontological resources, or fossils, are the evidence of once -living organisms preserved in the rock record. They include both the fossilized remains of ancient plants and animals and the traces thereof (e.g., trackways, imprints, burrows, etc.). Paleontological resources are not found in "soil" but are contained within the geologic deposits or bedrock that underlies the soil layer. Typically, fossils are greater than 5,000 years old (i.e., older than middle Holocene in age) and are typically preserved in sedimentary rocks. Although rare, fossils can also be preserved in volcanic rocks and low-grade metamorphic rocks under certain conditions (Society of Vertebrate Paleontology [SVPj 2010). Fossils occur in a non -continuous and often unpredictable distribution within some sedimentary units, and the potential for fossils to occur within sedimentary units depends on several factors. It is possible to evaluate the potential for geologic units to contain scientifically important paleontological resources, and therefore evaluate the potential for impacts to those resources and provide mitigation for paleontological resources if they are discovered during construction of a development project. Rincon evaluated the paleontological sensitivity of the geologic units that underlie the project site to assess the project's potential for significant impacts to scientifically important paleontological resources. The analysis was based on the results of a paleontological locality search and a review of existing information in the scientific literature regarding known fossils within geologic units mapped at the project site. According to the SVP (2010) classification system, geologic units can be assigned a high, low, undetermined, or no potential for containing scientifically significant nonrenewable paleontological resources. Following the literature review, a paleontological sensitivity classification was assigned to each geologic unit mapped within the project site. This criterion is based on rock units within which vertebrate or significant invertebrate fossils have been determined by previous studies to be present or likely to be present. The potential for impacts to significant paleontological resources is based on the potential for ground disturbance to directly impact paleontologically sensitive geologic units. The project is located in the Murrietta, California United States Geological Survey 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle(s). The geology of the region surrounding the project site was mapped by Morton and Miller (2006) who mapped two geologic units, Quaternary young axial channel deposits and Quaternary young alluvial -valley deposits, at the surface within the project site. Quaternary young axial channel deposits are found within Murrietta Creek and consist of slightly to moderately consolidated silt, sand, and gravel (Morton & Miller 2006). Quaternary young alluvial - valley deposits underlie the banks and roadways on either side of Murrietta Creek and consist of unconsolidated clay, silt, and sand. Both of these geologic units are Holocene in age and generally considered too young (i.e., less than 5,000 years old) to contain paleontological resources. Therefore, Quaternary young axial channel deposits and Quaternary young alluvial -valley deposits have low paleontological sensitivity. However, the project's geotechnical investigation encountered older (i.e., Pleistocene -aged) alluvium and the Pauba Formation during test borings conducted within the project site (Leighton Consulting, Inc. 2023). Older alluvium was encountered at approximately 1,000 feet above sea level in areas mapped as Quaternary young axial channel deposits (i.e., approximately 10 feet below the surface) and Quaternary young alluvial -valley deposits (i.e., approximately 25 feet below the surface). Sediments corresponding to older alluvium or the Pauba Formation were encountered 20 feet below the surface in areas mapped as Quaternary young axial channel deposits and 45 feet below the surface in areas mapped as Quaternary young alluvial -valley deposits. Pleistocene -aged alluvium and the Pauba Formation are Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 51 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive known to produce significant paleontological resources within Riverside County (Jefferson 2010; Paleobiology Database 2023). Therefore, Pleistocene -aged alluvium and the Pauba Formation have high paleontological sensitivity. Rincon requested a paleontological locality search from the Western Science Center on November 7, 2023. The records search recovered no known fossil localities within the project site (McDonald 2023). However, one known fossil locality from Quaternary -aged sediments occurs within one mile of the project site, and several others are known elsewhere in the Temecula Valley in areas mapped as Quaternary young axial channel deposits (Morton & Miller 2006). Ground -disturbing activities within previously undisturbed sediments with high paleontological sensitivity could result in significant impacts to paleontological resources. Impacts would be significant if construction activities result in the destruction, damage, or loss of scientifically important paleontological resources and associated stratigraphic and paleontological data. Ground - disturbing activities for this project will include drilling for the bridge piers and abutments; excavations for the new and rerouted underground utilities within Avenida Alvarado, Diaz Road, and Overland Drive; and grading/excavations for channel improvement and stabilization. Drilling for the bridge abutments (within areas mapped as Quaternary young alluvial -valley deposits) and piers (in areas mapped as Quaternary axial channel deposits) are expected to reach approximately 60 feet and 135 feet below the surface, respectively. At these depths, these activities will impact high - sensitivity sediments (i.e., older alluvium and/or Pauba Formation) and, therefore, could significantly impact paleontological resources. Excavations for the new and rerouted underground utilities will reach up to 20 feet below the surface in areas mapped as Quaternary young alluvial - valley deposits, meaning that these excavations will not impact high -sensitivity sediments and are not expected to significantly impact paleontological resources. Ground disturbance for channel improvement is expected to only impact the uppermost layers of sediments and is not expected to significantly impact paleontological resources. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources resulting from the drilling of the bridge piers and abutments to less than significant level and would effectively mitigate the project's impacts to these resources through paleontological monitoring to aid the recovery, identification, and curation of previously unrecovered fossils. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED Mitigation Measures GEO-1 Paleontological Resource Monitoring Qualified Professional Paleontologist. Prior to excavation, the project applicant shall retain a Qualified Professional Paleontologist, as defined by the Society of Vertebrate paleontology (SVP; 2010). The Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall draft a Paleontological Resources Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, which shall direct all mitigation measures related to paleontological resources. Paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Professional Paleontologist or their designee shall conduct a paleontological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of fossils and the procedures for notifying paleontological staff should fossils be discovered by construction personnel. 52 Environmental Checklist Geology and Soils Paleontological Monitoring. Full-time paleontological monitoring shall be conducted during drilling for the bridge piers that reaches more than 10 feet below the surface or for the bridge abutments that reaches more than 25 feet below the surface. Paleontological monitoring shall be conducted by a paleontological monitor with experience with collection and salvage of paleontological resources and who meets the minimum standards of the SVP (2010) for a Paleontological Resources Monitor. The Qualified Professional Paleontologist may recommend that monitoring be reduced in frequency or ceased entirely based on geologic observations. Such decisions shall be subject to review and approval by the City of Temecula. In the event of a fossil discovery by the paleontological monitor or construction personnel, all construction activity within 50 feet of the find shall cease, and the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall evaluate the find. If the fossil(s) is (are) not scientifically significant, then construction activity may resume. If it is determined that the fossil(s) is (are) scientifically significant, the following shall be completed: Fossil Salvage. The paleontological monitor shall salvage (i.e., excavate and recover) the fossil to protect it from damage/destruction. Typically, fossils can be safely salvaged quickly by a single paleontological monitor with minimal disruption to construction activity. In some cases, larger fossils (such as complete skeletons or large mammal fossils) require more extensive excavation and longer salvage periods. Bulk matrix sampling may be necessary to recover small invertebrates or microvertebrates from within paleontologically sensitive deposits. After the fossil(s) is (are) salvaged, construction activity may resume. 13 Fossil Preparation and Curation. Fossils shall be identified to the lowest (i.e., most -specific) possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection along with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Fossils of undetermined significance at the time of collection may also warrant curation at the discretion of the Qualified Professional Paleontologist. Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. Upon completion of ground -disturbing activities (or laboratory preparation and curation of fossils, if necessary), the Qualified Professional Paleontologist shall prepare a final report describing the results of the paleontological monitoring efforts. The report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods employed; an overview of project geology; and, if fossils were discovered, an analysis of the fossils, including physical description, taxonomic identification, and scientific significance. The report shall be submitted to the City of Temecula and, if fossil curation occurred, the designated scientific institution. Final Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration 53 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. 54 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Overview of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms) over an extended period of time. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions contributing to the "greenhouse effect," a natural occurrence which takes place in Earth's atmosphere and helps regulate the temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the sun hits Earth's surface and warms it. The surface, in turn, radiates heat back towards the atmosphere in the form of infrared radiation. Gases and clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping into space and re -radiate it in all directions. GHG emissions occur both naturally and as a result of human activities, such as fossil fuel burning, decomposition of landfill wastes, raising livestock, deforestation, and some agricultural practices. GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Different types of GHGs have varying global warming potentials (GWP). The GWP of a GHG is the potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere over a specified timescale (generally, 100 years). Because GHGs absorb different amounts of heat, a common reference gas (CO2) is used to relate the amount of heat absorbed to the amount of the gas emitted, referred to as "carbon dioxide equivalent" KOM, which is the amount of GHG emitted multiplied by its GWP. Carbon dioxide has a 100-year GWP of one. By contrast, methane has a GWP of 30, meaning its global warming effect is 30 times greater than CO2 on a molecule per molecule basis (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2021).2 Z The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (2021) Sixth Assessment Report determined that methane has a GWP of 30. However, the 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan published by the California Air Resources Board uses a GWP of 25 for methane, consistent with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (2007) Fourth Assessment Report. Therefore, this analysis utilizes a GWP of 25. Final Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration 55 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive The United Nations IPCC expressed that the rise and continued growth of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is unequivocally due to human activities in the IPCC's Sixth Assessment Report (2021). Human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean, and land, which has led the climate to warm at an unprecedented rate in the last 2,000 years. It is estimated that between the period of 1850 through 2019, that a total of 2,390 gigatonnes of anthropogenic CO2 was emitted. It is likely that anthropogenic activities have increased the global surface temperature by approximately 1.07 degrees Celsius between the years 2010 through 2019 (IPCC 2021). Furthermore, since the late 1700s, estimated concentrations of CO2, methane, and nitrous oxide in the atmosphere have increased by over 43 percent, 156 percent, and 17 percent, respectively, primarily due to human activity (USEPA 2021). Emissions resulting from human activities are thereby contributing to an average increase in Earth's temperature. Potential climate change impacts in California may include loss of snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years (State of California 2018). Regulatory Framework In response to climate change, California implemented Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the "California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006." AB 32 required the reduction of statewide GHG emissions to 1990 emissions levels (essentially a 15 percent reduction below 2005 emission levels) by 2020 and the adoption of rules and regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost- effective GHG emissions reductions. On September 8, 2016, the Governor signed Senate Bill (SB) 32 into law, extending AB 32 by requiring the State to further reduce GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (the other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged). On December 14, 2017, CARB adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 target. The 2017 Scoping Plan relies on the continuation and expansion of existing policies and regulations, such as the Cap -and -Trade Program and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard, and implementation of recently adopted policies and legislation, such as SB 1383 (aimed at reducing short-lived climate pollutants including methane, hydrofluorocarbon gases, and anthropogenic black carbon) and SB 100 (discussed further below). The 2017 Scoping Plan also puts an increased emphasis on innovation, adoption of existing technology, and strategic investment to support its strategies. As with the 2013 Scoping Plan Update, the 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project - level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends local governments adopt policies and locally -appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with a statewide per capita goal of six metric tons (MT) of CO2e by 2030 and two MT of CO2e by 2050 (CARB 2017). Other relevant state laws and regulations include: SB 375. The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375), signed in August 2008, enhances the state's ability to reach AB 32 goals by directing the CARB to develop regional GHG emission reduction targets to be achieved from passenger vehicles by 2020 and 2035. Metropolitan Planning Organizations are required to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which allocates land uses in the Metropolitan Planning Organization's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). On March 22, 2018, CARB adopted updated regional targets for reducing GHG emissions from 2005 levels by 2020 and 2035. SCAG was assigned targets of an 8 percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles by 2020 and a 19 percent reduction in per capita GHG emissions from passenger vehicles by 2035 (CARB 2018). In the SCAG region, SB 375 also provides the option for the coordinated development of subregional plans by the subregional councils of governments and the county transportation commissions to meet SB 375 requirements. 56 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions Significance Thresholds Individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to influence climate change directly. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute incrementally to significant cumulative effects, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project's contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable" means the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064[h][1]). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5(b), projects can tier from a qualified GHG reduction plan, which allows for project -level evaluation of GHG emissions through the comparison of the project's consistency with the GHG reduction policies included in a qualified GHG reduction plan. This approach is considered by the Association of Environmental Professionals (2016) in its white paper, Beyond Newhall and 2020, to be the most defensible approach presently available under CEQA to determine the significance of a project's GHG emissions. This analysis utilizes two thresholds to evaluate the significance of the project's GHG emissions: the SCAQMD-recommended bright -line threshold and consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions. Considering that no specific GHG threshold or qualified GHG reduction plan has been recommended or adopted by the City of Temecula, it is appropriate to refer to guidance from other agencies when discussing GHG emissions. In guidance provided by the SCAQMD's GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Working Group in September 2010, SCAQMD considered a tiered approach to determine the significance of residential and commercial projects. The draft tiered approach is outlined in meeting minutes dated September 29, 2010 (SCAQMD 2010): ■ Tier 1. If the project is exempt from further environmental analysis under existing statutory or categorical exemptions, there is a presumption of less than significant impacts with respect to climate change. If not, then the Tier 2 threshold should be considered. ■ Tier 2. Consists of determining whether the project is consistent with a GHG reduction plan that may be part of a local general plan, for example. The concept embodied in this tier is equivalent to the existing concept of consistency in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), 15125(d) or 15152(a). Under this Tier, if the project is consistent with the qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it is not significant for GHG emissions. If there is not an adopted plan, then a Tier 3 approach would be appropriate. ■ Tier 3. Establishes a screening significance threshold level to determine significance. The Working Group has provided a recommendation of 10,000 MT of CO2e per year for industrial projects and 3,000 MT of CO2e per year for non -industrial projects. ■ Tier 4. Establishes a service population threshold to determine significance. The Working Group has provided a recommendation of 4.8 MT of CO2e per year for land use projects. The project would not be statutory or categorically exempt, and therefore Tier 1 does not apply. As previously stated, the City of Temecula does not have a local, qualified GHG reduction plan for the project to tier from, and Tier 2 would not apply. Service population is defined as employees plus residents. Since the project is related to the operation of a bridge for vehicular traffic, it would not generate any residents or require new employees; therefore, a service population threshold would not provide an accurate depiction of project GHG emission impacts. Thus, for the purposes of this analysis, the bright -line threshold developed by the SCAQMD of 3,000 MT of CO2e per year for non - Final Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration 57 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive industrial projects is used in this analysis to determine the significance of GHG emissions in accordance with Tier 3. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3), a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative impact can be found not cumulatively considerable if the project would comply with an approved plan or mitigation program that provides specific requirements that would avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem in the geographic area of the project. To qualify, such plans or programs must be specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency. Examples of such programs include a "water quality control plan, air quality attainment or maintenance plan, integrated waste management plan, habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plans [and] plans or regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions." Therefore, a lead agency can make a finding of less than significant for GHG emissions if a project complies with adopted programs, plans, policies and/or other regulatory strategies to reduce GHG emissions. The proposed project's consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions is evaluated qualitatively. A project is considered consistent with the provisions of these documents if it meets the general intent in reducing GHG emissions in order to facilitate the achievement of local and state -adopted goals and does not impede attainment of those goals. Therefore, this analysis utilizes two thresholds to evaluate the significance of the project's GHG emissions: the SCAQMD-recommended bright -line threshold and consistency with applicable plans, policies, and regulations for the reduction of GHG emissions. Methodology GHG emissions associated with project construction and operation were estimated using the Road Construction Emissions Model outputs with the assumptions described under Section 3, Air Quality, in addition to the following: Amortization of Construction Emissions. In accordance with SCAQMD recommendation, GHG emissions from construction of the proposed project were amortized over a 30-year period and added to annual operational emissions to determine the project's total annual GHG emissions (SCAQMD 2008b). a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Construction of the proposed project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily as a result of operation of construction equipment on -site as well as from vehicles transporting construction workers to and from the project site and heavy trucks to transport building materials and soil export. As shown in Table 8, construction of the proposed project would generate an estimated total of 2,413 MT of CO2e. Amortized over a 30-year period pursuant to SCAQMD guidance, construction of the proposed project would generate an estimated 80 MT of CO2e per year. Neither the total construction emissions nor the amortized emissions would exceed the 3,000 MT CO2e threshold. Furthermore, construction activities would cease upon completion and would not be a continuous source of GHG emissions. During project operations, the total amount of vehicle miles traveled would be reduced by providing a more direct connection for travelers in the area. Accordingly, mobile source GHG emissions would be reduced during project operations as compared to existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant. 58 Environmental Checklist Greenhouse Gas Emissions Table 8 Estimated Construction GHG Emissions Grubbing/Land Clearing 74 Grading/Excavation 90 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 1,838 Paving 411 Total 2,413 Total Amortized over 30 Years 80 See Appendix C LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? The SCAG ConnectSoCal RTP/SCS was created to help California reach its GHG reduction goals by reducing GHG emissions from passenger cars by 8 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 19 percent by 2035 in accordance with SB 375, which is also part of the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan (2020b). The Connect SoCal RTP/SCS includes ten goals with corresponding implementation strategies for focusing growth near destinations and mobility options, promoting diverse housing choices, leveraging technology innovations, and supporting implementation of sustainability policies (2020b). As described in Section 3, Air Quality, under criterion (a), the project is included in Connect SoCal RTP/SCS under FTIP ID 991203A. The project would conform with the SCAG ConnectSoCal RTP/SCS and support the efforts of SB 375 and subsequently the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan. Therefore, given the aforementioned, the project is consistent with state and local policies for reducing GHG emissions and no impacts would occur. NO IMPACT Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 59 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. we Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ e. For a project located in 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ Final Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration 61 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Construction or operation of the proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Therefore, the project would not create a hazard to the public or environment through the use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials. NO IMPACT b. Would the project 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? The proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The proposed project does not involve the use of hazardous materials and thus will not emit hazardous materials into the environment or impact the public through day-to-day operations. In addition, the project will not require the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances and waste. NO IMPACT Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school? The proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The proposed project does not involve the use of hazardous materials and thus will not emit hazardous materials into the environment or impact the public through day-to-day operations. In addition, the project will not require the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances and waste. NO IMPACT d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material 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? The proposed project is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. A search of the California State Department of Toxic Substances Control EnviroStor database shows that the project is not located on or within a quarter mile of any hazardous materials sites. The project would not create a significant hazard to the public in this regard. 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? The project is not located near any airports and therefore would not subject people to safety hazards associated with public or private airports. 62 Environmental Checklist Hazards and Hazardous Materials NO IMPACT f. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project adds additional roadway connections from the west of Murrieta Creek to the east of Murrieta Creek and thus improved circulation and access across Murrieta Creek. The project does not interfere with emergency response and evacuation plans. Traffic Interference will be kept to a minimum during construction per standard City procedure to ensure consistency with emergency response and evacuation needs; therefore the proposed project would not result in a significant impact in this regard. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT g. Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? The project does not involve any habitable structures and there are no wildland areas within the project vicinity which would create a significant fire hazard in the project area. NO IMPACT Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 63 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. 64 Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: (i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site; ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site; ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ (iii) 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; or ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ (iv) Impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ e. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 65 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive The analysis in this section is based on the Water Quality Assessment Report (Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. [ERSC] 2019) and the Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (ERSC 2020) prepared for the project, included in Appendices F and H, respectively. a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Construction activities would disturb approximately 4.89 acres of soil. Soil disturbance would increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation. If construction activities occur during the rainy season, or in the event of heavy storms, soils from the site could be entrained, eroded, and transported off -site or to the downstream receiving waters. In addition, chemicals, liquid products, petroleum products (e.g., paints, solvents, and fuels), and concrete -related waste may be spilled or leaked and have the potential to be transported into Murrieta Creek via stormwater runoff. Construction within Murrieta Creek would include channel grading, including slope excavation for the concrete slope protection and construction of the pier foundations. Construction within the creek would occur within the dry seasons. However, low flow may be present within the channel bottom that would require diversion to provide a dry area for construction activities. Water is anticipated to be diverted using barriers such as sandbags, k-rails, or plastic sheathing. For construction of the pier foundation piling, the contractor may use slurry to maintain the stability of the drilled holes. Construction projects that disturb one or more acres of soil are subject to the requirements of the State Water Resource Control Board's (SWRCB's) General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities, Order No. 2022-0057-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) No. CAS000002 (Construction Stormwater General Permit), which requires preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control the discharge of pollutants, including sediment, into surface water drainages. The City would be required to obtain coverage under the Construction Stormwater General Permit and prepare and implement a SWPPP that specifies the stormwater monitoring and construction BMPs required to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. Construction BMPs would include, but would not be limited to, Erosion Control and Sediment Control BMPs designed to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site, and Good Housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and off -site discharge of construction debris and waste. As discussed in the Water Quality Assessment Report prepared for the project, construction BMPs are anticipated to include construction scheduling, streambank stabilization, wind erosion controls, gravel bag berms, gravel bag check dams, sediment sweeping and vacuuming, and material and waste handling and storage. Additionally, construction activities such as staging or stockpiling of construction materials or waste in areas where pollutants can be discharged into storm drains would be prohibited in compliance with the City municipal code. Compliance with the Construction General Permit and City municipal code and implementation of BMPs to control pollutant discharge into Murrieta Creek would ensure that project construction would not violate water quality standards or substantially degrade surface water. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. According to the Geotechnical Design Report (Leighton Consulting, Inc., 2023), groundwater was encountered during geotechnical borings at approximately 2 to 11.5 feet below ground surface [bgs] in the bottom of Murrieta Creek and approximately 19 to 26 feet bgs along the top of the berms/slope. Due to the seasonal fluctuations of groundwater levels, groundwater could occur at depths as shallow as approximately 6 inches bgs. Therefore, groundwater dewatering is anticipated to be required during construction of the bridge abutments and piers. During excavation below the Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality groundwater table, groundwater levels would be lowered to the bottom of the excavation using a system of collection ditches and sump pumps to provide a workable condition. Slurry may be used for stabilization of the work area. Water or slurry from the drilled holes would be pumped into a tank on the creek bank. Dewatered groundwater is anticipated to be discharged into Murrieta Creek. Therefore, coverage under San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board's General Waste Discharge Requirements for Groundwater Extraction Discharges to Surface Waters within the San Diego Region, Order No. 119-2015-0013, NPDES No. CAG919003, (Groundwater Dewatering Permit) would be required. Groundwater may contain elevated levels of total dissolved solids, nitrates, or other constituents that could affect surface water quality. However, groundwater dewatering would be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Groundwater Dewatering Permit, which requires testing and treatment, as necessary, of groundwater prior to its release into surface waters to ensure that effluent limitations are not exceeded. The projects plans and specification would require that the contractor not discharge slurry into Murrieta Creek. As a result, groundwater dewatering during excavation activities would not violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. Operation The project would result in an increase in impervious surface, which could potentially increase stormwater runoff, erosion, and pollutant discharge to Murrietta Creek. Generally, pollutants of concern associated with roadway/bridge projects include oil and grease, sediment, nutrients, nitrate discharges, litter, and metals. Project design and operation would be required to comply with the requirements of the San Diego RWQCB's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges from the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Draining the Watersheds within the San Diego Region, Order No. R9-2013-0001, as amended by R9-2015- 0001 and R9- 2015-0100, NPDES No. CAS0109266 (San Diego MS4 Permit). The San Diego MS4 Permit] requires that a Water Quality Management Plan be prepared for projects that details the operational BMPs that would be implemented to capture, treat, and reduce pollutants of concern in stormwater runoff. As discussed in the Water Quality Assessment Report (Appendix F) prepared for the project, Source Control, and Treatment BMPs proposed for the project. Source Control BMPs are preventative measures that are implemented to prevent the introduction of pollutants into stormwater. Proposed Source Control BMPs would include education for property owners, drainage facility inspection and maintenance, street sweeping, and storm drain stenciling and slope protection. Site Design BMPs are stormwater management strategies that emphasize conservation and use of existing site features to reduce the amount of runoff and pollutant loading generated from a project site. Proposed Site Design BMPs would include preservation of existing vegetation and channel and slope protection (permanent soil stabilization including concrete slope protection under the bridge abutments and erosion control hydroseed mix on graded areas within the creek). In addition, all proposed slopes with slope gradient of 2:1 or flatter would be planted with deep rooted, drought tolerant erosion protection vegetation native to the area. Slopes steeper than 2:1 gradient would be lined with concrete for erosion protection and slope stability. Treatment Control BMPs are structural BMPs designed to treat and reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff prior to releasing it to receiving waters. Proposed Treatment Control BMPs include curb inlet media filters in the proposed catch basins. The proposed BMPs would target and reduce pollutants of concern from stormwater runoff from the project site in compliance with the San Diego MS4 Permit requirements. The curb Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 67 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive inlet media filters are specifically designed to capture and reduce fine to course sediments/pollutants, including trash and debris, total suspended solids, nutrients, metals, and hydrocarbons. In addition, street maintenance and vehicle washing and maintenance would be prohibited within the project area in areas that discharge to Murrieta Creek. The project includes concrete slope protection on the earthen embankments and the cutoff walls and bridge pier foundations would be buried underground to provide scour protection and reduce the potential for soil erosion. Compliance with NPDES requirements and City municipal code requirements, including incorporation of operational BMPs into the project design to target pollutants of concern, would ensure that potential impacts related to violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or degradation of water quality during project operation would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Rancho California Water District's current service area represents 99,000 acres, and the District has 878 miles of water mains, 35 storage reservoirs, one surface reservoir (Lake Vail), 53 groundwater wells, and 36,759 service connections. Approximately 109,000 people are served by Rancho California Water District, which relies on imported water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to meet much of its water demands. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California obtains its water from the Colorado River and Northern California, via the State Water Project (SWP). Both sources are over -allocated and water supplies can be significantly limited during dry weather years and droughts. Additionally, water quality and Endangered Species Act requirements in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Bay Delta could further reduce Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's SWP allocations. Water delivered to homes and businesses is a blend of groundwater (35%) and import water (65%). As discussed under Impact HWQ-1 above, groundwater dewatering is anticipated to be required during construction of the bridge abutments and piers. Dewatered groundwater would be discharged to Murrieta Creek. However, groundwater dewatering would be temporary during construction of the bridge abutments and pier foundations. In addition, dewatered groundwater would be discharged to Murrieta Creek, which is an earthen bottom. where some infiltration back to groundwater could occur. Due to the temporary nature of groundwater dewatering activities, impacts to groundwater supplies and recharge would be less than significant. The project does not propose uses that would substantially deplete groundwater supplies. Water use during operation would be minimal and limited to irrigation for the proposed landscaping. In addition, according to the Water Quality Assessment Report (Appendix F) prepared for the project, the increase in impervious surface area would be minimal compared to the size of the overall watershed and would therefore not substantially interfere with groundwater recharge efforts during operation. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT .: Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality c. (i) Would the project 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 impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off -site? As discussed further in checklist question c(iv), below, the construction of the bridge abutments and piers would provide adequate conveyance and would allow flood waters in Murrieta Creek to flow unimpeded. Therefore, the project would not substantially alter the course of a stream or river. The project will also allow the bridge and roadway flows to discharge to the Creek. It is anticipated that there will be no significant increase to the flow, volume, rate, depth or seasonal changes of 100-year storm flows due to the small amount of additional impervious surface compared to the overall size of the watershed. As discussed in checklist question a, above, BMPs would be implemented during project construction and operation to reduce the potential for erosion and siltation to occur. In addition, the project includes concrete slope protection on the earthen embankments and the bridge foundations would be designed to minimize scour. Potential for erosion and accretion due to the construction of the project is less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. (ii) Would the project 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 impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off -site? The project would introduce minimal impervious surfaces associated with construction of a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. In addition, as discussed in more detail in checklist question c(iv) below, the proposed bridge would provide adequate conveyance capacity for the 100-year flow in the Murrieta Creek. The project will include minimal drainage changes within the creek. Activities will include minor re -grading of the creek near the bridge, construction of bridge piers, and construction of concrete slope protection and cutoff wall to protect the bridge abutments from scour. The project would not substantially increase the water surface elevation within Murrieta Creek, and would therefore not substantially increase flooding during 100-year storm events. The project would not introduce impervious surfaces that would substantially increase the amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off- site. Impacts related to flooding would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. (iii) Would the project 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 impervious surfaces, in a manner that would 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? As discussed in more detail in checklist question c(iv), the proposed bridge would not substantially alter the capacity of Murrieta Creek to convey flood flows during a 100-year storm event. The project includes storm drainage systems to convey stormwater from the bridge and new impervious areas to Murrieta Creek, which has sufficient capacity to accommodate increased stormwater discharge. Therefore, the project would not exceed the capacity of a downstream storm drain system. As discussed in checklist question a, above, BMPs would be implemented during project Final Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration 69 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive construction and operation which would reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. Therefore, the project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT c. (iv) Would the project 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 impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows? According to the City of Temecula General Plan and the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map (No 06065C2720G), the project site is located within the 100-year Flood Zone and Dam Inundation Area. Murrieta Creek has the potential to become flooded when major rainstorms cause stream overflows. Lake Skinner is a 42,800-acre feet reservoir located northeast of Temecula. Diamond Valley Lake is an 800,000 acre-feet reservoir located north of Temecula. The failure of Lake Skinner or Diamond Valley Lake could result in flooding along parts of Murrieta Creek. The bridge would be constructed to provide adequate conveyance of the 100-year flows. According to the Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (Appendix H) prepared for the project, the bridge itself would be constructed above the 100-year water surface elevation with enough freeboard' to allow flood water to pass beneath the bridge during a 100-year storm event. While the project would include construction of bridge piers within Murrieta Creek, the project would result in a minimal (up to 0.03 foot) increase in the water surface elevation during a 100-year storm event. In addition, backwater 4caused by the project would not affect Winchester Road bridge, which is located approximately 1,200 feet upstream. Because the bridge would be designed to allow for conveyance of 100-year flood flows, impacts related to redirection of flood flows impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT d. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? According to the City of Temecula General Plan, the site is approximately 25 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and at an elevation of greater than 1,060 feet above sea level and thus not subject to the effects of tsunamis. The site is not located near any large water bodies that would potentially be affected by a seiche. Therefore, the project site would not be inundated by either of these natural phenomena. As discussed in checklist question c(iv) above, the project site has a potential to be inundated during a 100-year storm event or as a result of failure of Lake Skinner or Diamond Valley Lake dams. However, the bridge itself would be constructed above the 100-year water surface elevation and would therefore not be inundated during a 100-year storm event. In addition, the project does not involve use or storage of large quantities of hazardous materials or other pollutants that could be released as a result of inundation. The project includes concrete slope protection on the earthen embankments and the cutoff walls and bridge pier foundations would be buried underground to provide scour protection and reduce the potential for soil erosion and release of erosion -related s Freeboard is the distance between the top of the water surface and the bottom of the bridge deck. Backwater is the increase in water surface elevation upstream of a bridge. 70 Environmental Checklist Hydrology and Water Quality pollutants in the event inundation occurs below the bridge within Murrieta Creek. Impacts related to release of pollutants from inundation would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT e. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? The project site overlies the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin, which is designated as a very -low priority basin by the Department of Water Resources (DWR) pursuant Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), and development of a Groundwater Sustainability Plan (GSP) was not required. Therefore, there is no GSP that is applicable to the project. The project would therefore not conflict with a sustainable groundwater management plan. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan), adopted by the San Diego RWQCB, is the water quality control plan applicable to the project site. The Basin Plan defines beneficial uses, establishes water quality objectives, and establishes programs to ensure the quality of surface water and groundwater is managed to achieve water quality objectives to protect beneficial uses. As discussed in checklist question a, above, the preparation of a SWPPP and WQMP would ensure the project would not result in excessive runoff or pollutant discharge during project construction BMPs would be implemented during construction and operation, which would reduce potential construction and operation impacts to water quality. Project adherence to the BMPs required by the SWPPP and WQMP would reduce potential water quality impacts to a less than significant level. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 71 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. 72 Environmental Checklist Land Use and Planning Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ a. Would the project physically divide an established community? The proposed project involves the extension of an existing roadway and the construction of a bridge across Murrieta Creek. The project adds additional connections from east and west across Murrieta Creek, and thus does not divide an established community. NO IMPACT b. Would the project 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? The project is part of a designated roadway on the General Plan. The project will not conflict with any land use policies. The project helps circulation as envisioned by the City's General Plan Circulation Element. NO I M PACT Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 73 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. 74 Environmental Checklist Mineral Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project: 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. Would the project 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? According to the General Plan, the State Division of Mines and Geology has prepared a mineral resources report entitled Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County, California, Special Report 165, which evaluated mineral deposits within the Temecula Planning Area. According to the Report, the Temecula Planning Area was classified as a Mineral Resources Zone-3a (MRZ-3a), which determined that the area contains sedimentary deposits, which have the potential to supply sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stones for aggregate; however, these areas are not considered to contain mineral resources of significant economic value. No impact is anticipated. NO IMPACT b. Would the project 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? According to the General Plan, the State Division of Mines and Geology has prepared a mineral resources report entitled Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County, California, Special Report 165, which evaluated mineral deposits within the Temecula Planning Area. According to the Report, the Temecula Planning Area was classified as a Mineral Resources Zone-3a (MRZ-3a), which determined that the area contains sedimentary deposits, which have the potential to supply sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stones for aggregate; however, these areas are not considered to contain mineral resources of significant economic value. In addition, the project would not restrict access to these resources. No impact is anticipated. NO IMPACT Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 75 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. 76 Environmental Checklist Noise Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 the local general 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 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ The following analysis is based upon the project's Noise Study Report (Caltrans 2020; Appendix G). Overview of Noise and Vibration Noise Sound is a vibratory disturbance created by a moving or vibrating source, which is capable of being detected by the hearing organs. Noise is defined as sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected, or undesired and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds. The effects of noise on people can include general annoyance, interference with speech communication, sleep disturbance, and, in the extreme, hearing impairment (Caltrans 2013). HUMAN PERCEPTION OF SOUND Noise levels are commonly measured in decibels (dB) using the A -weighted sound pressure level (dBA). The A -weighting scale is an adjustment to the actual sound pressure levels so that they are consistent with the human hearing response. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale that quantifies sound intensity in a manner similar to the Richter scale used to measure earthquake magnitudes. A doubling of the energy of a noise source, such as doubling of traffic volume, would increase the noise level by 3 dB; dividing the energy in half would result in a 3 dB decrease (Caltrans 2013). Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 77 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Human perception of noise has no simple correlation with sound energy: the perception of sound is not linear in terms of dBA or in terms of sound energy. Two sources do not "sound twice as loud" as one source. It is widely accepted that the average healthy ear can barely perceive changes of 3 dBA, increase or decrease (i.e., twice the sound energy); that a change of 5 dBA is readily perceptible (8 times the sound energy); and that an increase (or decrease) of 10 dBA sounds twice (half) as loud (10.5 times the sound energy) (Caltrans 2013). SOUND PROPAGATION AND SHIELDING Sound changes in both level and frequency spectrum as it travels from the source to the receiver. The most obvious change is the decrease in the noise level as the distance from the source increases. The manner by which noise reduces with distance depends on factors such as the type of sources (e.g., point or line), the path the sound will travel, site conditions, and obstructions. Sound levels are described as either a "sound power level" or a "sound pressure level," which are two distinct characteristics of sound. Both share the same unit of measurement, the dB. However, sound power (expressed as Lpw) is the energy converted into sound by the source. As sound energy travels through the air, it creates a sound wave that exerts pressure on receivers, such as an eardrum or microphone, which is the sound pressure level. Sound measurement instruments only measure sound pressure, and noise level limits are typically expressed as sound pressure levels. Noise levels from a point source (e.g., construction, industrial machinery, air conditioning units) typically attenuate, or drop off, at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from a line source (e.g., roadway, pipeline, railroad) typically attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance (Caltrans 2013). Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures; the amount of attenuation provided by this "shielding" depends on the size of the object and the frequencies of the noise levels. Natural terrain features, such as hills and dense woods, and man-made features, such as buildings and walls, can significantly alter noise levels. Generally, any large structure blocking the line of sight will provide at least a 5-dBA reduction in source noise levels at the receiver (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2011). Structures can substantially reduce exposure to noise as well. The FHWA's guidance indicates that modern building construction generally provides an exterior -to -interior noise level reduction of 10 dBA with open windows and an exterior -to - interior noise level reduction of 20 to 35 dBA with closed windows (FHWA 2011). DESCRIPTORS The impact of noise is not a function of loudness alone. The time of day when noise occurs and the duration of the noise are also important factors of project noise impact. Most noise that lasts for more than a few seconds is variable in its intensity. Consequently, a variety of noise descriptors have been developed. Leq is one of the most frequently used noise metrics; it considers both duration and sound power level. The Leq is defined as the single steady-state A -weighted sound level equal to the average sound energy over a time period. When no time period is specified, a 1-hour period is assumed. The Lmax is the highest noise level within the sampling period, and the Lmin is the lowest noise level within the measuring period. Normal conversational levels are in the 60 to 65-dBA Leq range; ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA Leq can interrupt conversations (Federal Transit Administration [FTA] 2018). Noise that occurs at night tends to be more disturbing than that occurring during the day. Community noise is usually measured using Day -Night Average Level (DNL or LDN), which is the 1Zs] Environmental Checklist Noise 24-hour average noise level with a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.). Community noise can also be measured using Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL or LDEN), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a +5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and a +10 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2013).5 The relationship between the peak -hour Leq value and the LDN/CNEL depends on the distribution of noise during the day, evening, and night; however noise levels described by LDN and CNEL usually differ by 1 dBA or less. Quiet suburban areas typically have CNEL noise levels in the range of 40 to 50 CNEL, while areas near arterial streets are in the 50 to 60+ CNEL range (FTA 2018). Groundborne Vibration Groundborne vibration of concern in environmental analysis consists of the oscillatory waves that move from a source through the ground to adjacent buildings or structures and vibration energy may propagate through the buildings or structures. Vibration may be felt, may manifest as an audible low -frequency rumbling noise (referred to as groundborne noise), and may cause windows, items on shelves, and pictures on walls to rattle. Although groundborne vibration is sometimes noticeable in outdoor environments, it is almost never annoying to people who are outdoors. The primary concern from vibration is that it can be intrusive and annoying to building occupants at vibration -sensitive land uses and may cause structural damage. Typically, ground -borne vibration generated by manmade activities attenuates rapidly as distance from the source of the vibration increases. Vibration amplitudes are usually expressed in peak particle velocity (PPV) or root mean squared (RMS) vibration velocity. The PPV and RMS velocity are normally described in inches per second (in/sec). PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of a vibration signal. PPV is often used as it corresponds to the stresses that are experienced by buildings (Caltrans 2020). High levels of groundborne vibration may cause damage to nearby building or structures; at lower levels, groundborne vibration may cause minor cosmetic (i.e., non-structural damage) such as cracks. These vibration levels are nearly exclusively associated with high impact activities such as blasting, pile -driving, vibratory compaction, demolition, drilling, or excavation. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has determined vibration levels with potential to damage nearby buildings and structures; these levels are identified in Table 9. Table 9 AASHTO Maximum Vibration Levels for Preventing Damage Historic sites or other critical locations 0.1 Residential buildings, plastered walls 0.2-0.3 Residential buildings in good repair with gypsum board walls 0.4-0.5 Engineered structures, without plaster 1.0-1.5 Source: Caltrans 2020 s Because DNL and CNEL are typically used to assess human exposure to noise, the use of A -weighted sound pressure level (dBA) is implicit. Therefore, when expressing noise levels in terms of DNL or CNEL, the dBA unit is not included. Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 79 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Numerous studies have been conducted to characterize the human response to vibration. The vibration annoyance potential criteria recommended for use by Caltrans, which are based on the general human response to different levels of groundborne vibration velocity levels, are described in Table 10. Table 10 Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria Severe 2.0 0.4 Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10 Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04 Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01 in/sec = inches per second; PPV = peak particle velocity ' Continuous/frequent intermittent sources include impact pile drivers, pogo -stick compactors, crack -and -seat equipment, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment. Source: Caltrans 2020 Regulatory Framework City of Temecula Municipal Code Section 9.20.060 of the Temecula Municipal states that no person shall engage in or conduct construction activity, when the construction site is within one -quarter mile of an occupied residence, between 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., Monday through Friday, and shall only engage in or conduct construction activity between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. on Saturday. No construction activity shall be undertaken on Sunday and nationally recognized holidays. The City of Temecula does not have a quantitative standard for construction noise. City of Temecula General Plan Noise Element The Noise Element of the City of Temecula General Plan contains policies and programs that focus on protecting the quality of life for noise -sensitive uses from the persistent hazards of excessive noise. Relevant policies to the proposed project include: ■ Policy 1.2: Limit the hours of construction activity next to residential areas to reduce noise intrusion in the early morning, late evening, weekends, and holidays. ■ Policy 4.4: Coordinate with Caltrans to ensure the inclusion of noise mitigation measures in the design of new highways or improvement projects in the Planning Area. Caltrans Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14-8.02 includes noise control requirements that state construction noise levels shall not exceed 86 dBA Lrr,a,, at 50 feet from the job site activities between the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. (Caltrans 2018). Therefore, project construction noise impacts are analyzed against this standard. For Caltrans projects, traffic noise impacts are considered to occur at receptor locations where predicted noise levels would be 12 dB or greater than existing ambient noise levels, or where predicted noise levels approach or exceed the noise abatement criteria (NAC) for the applicable activity category. Table 11 summarizes NAC corresponding to various land use activity categories. 01 Environmental Checklist Noise Activity categories and related traffic noise impacts are determined based on the actual or permitted land use in a given area. Table 11 Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria (23 CFR 772) A 57 Exterior Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. Bz 67 Exterior Residential. CZ 67 Exterior Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings. D 52 Interior Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios. E 72 Exterior Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties, or activities not included in A—D or F. F Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical), and warehousing. G Undeveloped lands that are not permitted. 'The L,q(h) activity criteria values are for impact determination only and are not design standards for noise abatement measures. All values are A -weighted decibels (dBA). Z Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category. Existing Noise Environment The project site is surrounded by existing service commercial and light industrial development with a place of worship. A field noise study was conducted to measure the existing noise environment. Short-term monitoring was conducted at four locations on Wednesday, June 17, 2020, using an Extech 407780A Type 2 sound level meter (serial number 160507863). The calibration of the meter was checked before and after the measurement using an Extech 407744 professional acoustic calibrator (serial number H373147). Measurements were taken over a 20-minute period at each site. Short-term monitoring was conducted along the alignment. The short-term measurement locations are identified in Figure 3. A summary of noise measurements is provided in Table 12. The dominant noise source in the area was observed as vehicular traffic. Other noise sources associated with adjacent land uses include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units, landscape maintenance machinery, pumps, and heavy equipment. Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 81 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Figure 3 Noise Measurement Locations Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors © 2020. 82 Environmental Checklist Noise Table 12 Summary of Short-term Noise Level Measurements 1 27525 Enterprise Circle West 10:00— 10:20 a.m. 50 feet from Enterprise 58.2 54.4 76.3 Circle West 2 27462 Enterprise Circle West 10:30— 10:50 a.m. 50 feet from Enterprise 60.1 57.6 81.2 Circle West 3 27495 Diaz Road 12:30 — 12:50 p.m. 50 feet from Diaz Road 70.1 56.9 83.4 4 41976 Avenida Alvarado 1:00 — 1:20 p.m. 60 feet from Diaz Road 69.8 57.1 85.6 a. Would the project result in 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? Construction Construction noise would be associated with the use of heavy-duty construction equipment used for clearing and grading, trenching and installing underground utilities, spreading and compacting materials, and paving. In addition, drilled piles would be required in Murrieta Creek for the installation of piles. Construction equipment with heavy-duty diesel engines typically generate maximum noise levels from 80 to 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet (FHWA 2006). Table 13 summarizes typical construction equipment noise levels. Equipment goes through varying load cycles, and there are breaks for the operators and for non -equipment tasks, such as measurement. Thus, average hourly noise levels would be less than maximum noise levels. Typical noise levels from earthworks activities reach 82 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the center of construction activity when assessing the loudest pieces of equipment working simultaneously. Maximum noise levels would occur when the loudest construction equipment is nearest to a noise sensitive receiver. Due to the linear nature of roadway construction, noise levels would be intermittent and the intensity of construction activities in a given area varies substantially. Based on previous experience, construction activities would progress at a rate of approximately 100 feet per day and would include an active work area of approximately 300 feet. Due to the length of the active work area, 300 feet, when the active work area is directly adjacent to a given receiver, construction activities throughout the day would be an average distance of 150 feet along an active portion of the alignment from the receiver. For example, the average distance from construction equipment to a receiver that is 50 feet from the centerline of alignment would be 158 feet. Although construction equipment may temporarily be located at the point on the alignment nearest to a receiver, over time equipment would move along the alignment. Therefore, the distance from a receiver to the centerline of the alignment is not the same as the average distance during a given day from the receiver to construction equipment. Thus, average noise levels correlate to the area of active construction. Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 83 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Table 13 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Auger Drill Rig 85 20% Backhoe 80 40% Blasting 94 1% Chain Saw 85 20% Clam Shovel 93 20% Compactor (ground) 80 20% Compressor (air) 80 40% Concrete Mixer Truck 85 40% Concrete Pump 82 20% Concrete Saw 90 20% Crane (mobile or stationary) 85 20% Dozer 85 40% Dump Truck 84 40% Excavator 85 40% Front End Loader 80 40% Generator (25 kilovolt amps or less) 70 50% Generator (more than 25 kilovolt amps) 82 50% Grader 85 40% Hydra Break Ram 90 10% Impact Pile Driver (diesel or drop) 95 20% In situ Soil Sampling Rig 84 20% Jackhammer 85 20% Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 90 20% Paver 85 50% Pneumatic Tools 85 50% Pumps 77 50% Rock Drill 85 20% Roller 74 40% Scraper 85 40% Tractor 84 40% Vacuum Excavator (vac -truck) 85 40% Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 20% Vibratory Pile Driver 95 20% dBA = A -weighted decibels; Lmax = maximum sound level Source: Federal Highway Administration 2006 84 Environmental Checklist Noise Construction along the project site would be characterized by hard site attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance. This analysis conservatively assumes no attenuation from barriers and topography. The nearest receivers are approximately 50 feet from the road (e.g., Overland Drive). Thus, when assessing the loudest pieces of equipment working simultaneously on the proposed alignment, noise levels would attenuate to approximately 72 dBA Leq at the nearest receivers. Therefore, construction noise levels would not exceed the Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14-8.02 noise control requirements from job site activities between the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., and impacts would be less than significant. Operation Traffic noise levels were predicted using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Version 2.5 (TNM 2.5). Key inputs to TNM 2.5 were the locations of roadways, traffic mix and speed, shielding features (e.g., topography and buildings), noise barriers, ground type, and receptors. Three- dimensional representations of these inputs were developed using computer -aided design drawings, aerials, and topographic contours. Full model inputs are described in the project's Noise Study Report (Appendix G). The City of Temecula does not have standards for traffic noise increases from a proposed project. Therefore, the Caltrans standard of a 12 dB increase or greater than existing ambient noise levels, or where predicted noise levels approach or exceed the NAC for the applicable activity category is used for this analysis. Commercial and light industrial land uses (Caltrans Activity Category F) and places of worship (Caltrans Activity Category C and D) were identified in the project area (see Figure 5 for locations).Table 14 summarizes the traffic noise modeling results for existing conditions and design - year conditions with and without the project. Predicted design -year traffic noise levels with the project are compared to existing conditions and to design -year no -project conditions. The comparison to existing conditions is included in the analysis to identify traffic noise impacts as defined under 23 CFR 772. The comparison to no -project conditions indicates the direct effect of the project. As shown in Table 14, traffic noise levels at modeled receivers range from 46 to 71 dBA Leq for existing conditions and range from 48 to 72 dBA Leq for design -year conditions. Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 85 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Table 14 Summary of Noise Modeling Receiver Land Activity Without With Incri Number Area Use Category (NAC) Units Address Existing Project Project Loudest Hour Noise Level 1 A SC F 1 27479 Enterprise Circle W. 54 56 61 7 2 A Pow C 1 27452 Enterprise Circle W. 58 59 60 2 5 None 1 None 3 A SC F 1 27495 Commerce Center Dr. 58 59 63 5 4 None 4 A SC F 1 27496 Commerce Center Dr. 59 60 62 3 2 None 5 B SC F 1 27531 Commerce Center Dr. 56 57 63 7 6 None 6 B SC F 1 27515 Commerce Center Dr. 58 58 60 2 2 None 7 B SC F 1 27511 Commerce Center Dr. 61 62 65 4 3 None 8 B SC F 1 27516 Commerce Center Dr. 54 55 57 3 2 None 9 C Ind F 1 42030 Avenida Alvarado 46 47 48 2 1 None 10 C Ind F 1 41976 Avenida Alvarado 68 69 69 1 0 None 11 C Ind F 1 27461 Diaz Rd. 68 69 70 2 1 None 12 D Ind F 1 42011 Avenida Alvarado 59 60 60 1 0 None 13 D Ind F 1 43015 Black Deer Loop 71 72 72 1 0 None 14 D Ind F 1 43020 Black Deer Loop 71 72 72 1 0 None NAC = noise abatement criteria dB(A) = A -weighted decibels Leq(1) = equivalent sound level at one hour Ind = Industrial SC = Service Commercial PoW = Places of Worship 0 4"R r ll �a Area B Area A II �` i r, i( �\• `?ear' ,� � " Boundarya° lyaC° OoQ P � Improvements h Location 0�a , .CA City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Figure 5 Impact Area A Receivers Y ) )44 J• Y Project Boundary tS. NIP O Receiver 1 0 40 8o N � t ` J s� 5 maaery amvided by Microsoft Bi— and its licensors ® 2020_ 0 Environmental Checklist Noise Figure 6 Impact Area B Receivers y� A14�y f / - r 7 ) OL 1'► . . Project Boundary Project Improvements OReceiver �. 0 50 loo N $ Feet — lmoaery orovided by Microsoft Bina and its I icensors D 2020. Final Initial Study -Mitigated Negative Declaration 89 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Figure 7 Impact Area C Receivers ' 1 io -W Project Boundary _ Project Improvements \ r�„'� 0 Receiver ` 0 5p loo N 9 Feet Y tmaaery orovided by Microsoft Bina and its I icensars © 2020. - 0 Figure 8 Impact Area D Receivers Pro•ect w 12 ' > ' I �y If >� Boundary Project Improvements OReceiver 0 50 loo N 1 i I A Fe et 'maaery orovided by Microsoft Bina and its I is Environmental Checklist Noise Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 91 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive The traffic noise modeling results in Table 14 indicate that traffic noise levels at residences in Area A are predicted to be in the range of 60 to 63 dBA Leq in the design -year. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design -year is predicted to be up to 7 dB. Because the predicted noise levels in the design -year are not predicted to approach or exceed the noise abatement criterion at the Calvary Church (Categories C and D) or result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area A. The traffic noise modeling results in Table 14 indicate traffic noise levels at residences in Area B are predicted to be in the range of 57 to 65 dBA Leq in the design -year, and that the increase in noise will be up to 7 dB in the design -year. Because there is no noise abatement criterion for Category F uses in this area and because the project would not result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in this area and noise abatement does not need to be considered in Area B. The traffic noise modeling results in Table 14 indicate traffic noise levels at commercial uses in Area C will be 48 to 70 dBA Leq in the design -year. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design -year is 2 dB. Because there is no noise abatement criterion for Category F uses in this area and because the project would not result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in this area and noise abatement does not need to be considered in this area. The traffic noise modeling results in Table 14 indicate traffic noise levels at commercial uses in Area C will be 60 to 72 dBA Leq in the design -year. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design -year is 0 dB. Because there is no noise abatement criterion for Category F uses in this area and because the project would not result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in this area and noise abatement does not need to be considered in this area. Because the church has an interior noise abatement criterion in addition to the exterior criterion, interior noise must be considered at the church as well. From Table 6 in the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidance document, the building noise reduction factor for standard construction with ordinary windows closed is 20 dB. The interior noise level in the church in the design -year is therefore predicted to be 40 dBA Leq. Because this predicted design -year noise level does not exceed the interior NAC of 52 dBA Leq, no interior traffic noise impacts are predicted at the church. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant from operational noise. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Project construction would not involve activities typically associated with excessive groundborne vibration such as pile driving or blasting. The equipment utilized during project construction that would generate the highest levels of vibration would include rollers, loaded trucks, and bulldozers. The City of Temecula has not adopted standards to assess vibration impacts during construction and operation. However, Caltrans has developed limits for the assessment of vibrations from transportation and construction sources. The Caltrans vibration limits are reflective of standard practice for analyzing vibration impacts on structures from continuous and intermittent sources. The thresholds of significance used in this analysis to evaluate vibration impacts are based on these impact criteria, as summarized in Table 10. 92 Environmental Checklist Noise Project construction may require operation of vibratory equipment such as vibratory rollers, loaded trucks, and bulldozers within 50 feet from the road (e.g., Overland Drive). As shown in Table 15, vibration levels from individal pieces of construction equipment would not exceed the threshold at which damage can occur to residential structures, 0.20 in/sec PPV, or the threshold at which transient vibration sources would be distinctly perceptible to 0.25 in/sec PPV. Construction vibration levels at all other buildings in the immediate vicinity would be less than the levels shown in Table 15 because vibration levels would further attenuate with distance. Therefore, vibration impacts would be less than significant. Table 15 Vibration Levels at Sensitive Receivers Vibratory Roller 0.098 Large Bulldozer 0.042 Loaded Truck 0.036 Threshold 0.20 Threshold Exceeded? No LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip 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? The airport closest to the project site is the French Valley Airport, located approximately four miles northeast of the project site. The project site is not located within noise contours shown in Exhibit FV-5 of the River County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (County of Riverside 2011). In addition, the project site is not in close proximity to a private airstrip. Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels from airport noise. No impact would occur. NO IMPACT Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 93 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. 94 Environmental Checklist 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 (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ b. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ a. Would the project 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)? The project would not induce substantial population growth in the area, as no homes are proposed. It is anticipated that the construction workers would be hired from nearby areas. The presence of construction workers would be temporary and would not lead to a demand for permanent housing, goods, or services in the area. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The project alignment is located in an open space area adjacent to a creek. Therefore, the project would have no impact on the City's existing housing stock. NO IMPACT Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 95 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. Environmental Checklist Public Services Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the 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: 1 Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 2 Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 3 Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 4 Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ 5 Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ a.1. Would the project result insubstantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Fire protection and emergency medical services are provided to the City and the project site by the Temecula Fire Department, who contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department. Implementation of the project would not require new fire protection services, and would provide a more direct travel connection which would improve emergency response; therefore, no impact would occur. NO IMPACT a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered police protection facilities, or the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? Police services for the City and the project site are provided by the City of Temecula Police Department (PD), who contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff Department. Implementation of the project would not increase the need for police protection services and would provide a more Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 97 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive direct travel connection that would improve emergency response; therefore, no impact would occur. NO IMPACT a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically altered schools, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? The project site is located within the Temecula Valley Unified School District. There is no housing or commercial component related to the project which would have any impact on local schools. Therefore, there will be no impact on school services. NO IMPACT a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks, public facilities, or the need for new or physically altered parks, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives? Operation of future development of the project would introduce temporary construction workers and residents on the project site. The project complements the City's trail system and would not have an impact on City parks. NO IMPACT a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of other new or physically altered public facilities, or the need for new or physically altered public facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives? The proposed project poses no uses which would result in an unusually heavy burden on maintenance on public facilities. Therefore, the project will not result in a significant impact on other public facilities. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT W. Environmental Checklist Recreation Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a. Would the project 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. 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? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ a. Would the project 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? The proposed project would not have an impact to the existing parks; however, it will connect to an existing Class I trail that runs along the west bank of Murrieta Creek. The project will add an additional connection to the trail as a result of the project, improving access to recreational resources. No impacts are anticipated as a result of the project. NO IMPACT 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? The proposed project does not involve the construction of or expansion of a recreational facility. The project will provide an additional connection to the existing Class I trail that runs along the west bank of Murrieta Creek, which will have short-term impacts to the use of the trail. It is anticipated that construction would not result in an adverse effect on the environment, since construction would be short-term in nature and would not be intensive. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Final Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration 99 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. M Environmental Checklist Transportation Potentially Significant Impact Less than Significant 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. 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 use (e.g., farm equipment)? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ d. Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ a. Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The project will not result in any activities that increase vehicular traffic on area roadways. The extension of Overland Road and the construction of the new bridge across Murrieta Creek are identified in the Temecula Five Year Capital Improvement Program in the City's General Plan Circulation Element. The project spans Murrieta Creek adding another east/west connection between two north/south arterials resulting in improved circulation for all transportation modes. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 describes specific considerations for evaluating a project's transportation impacts. Generally, VMT is identified as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts. For the purposes of this CEQA section, "vehicle miles traveled" refers to the amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project. Lead agencies are required to approve a VMT significance threshold by July 1, 2020. As discussed previously, the project will not result in any additional vehicular trips, as the project does not generate vehicle trips. The project also would provide a more direct travel connection that would shorten the average length of vehicle trips in the project area and therefore incrementally reduce VMT. The project will be consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). NO I M PACT Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 101 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive C. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)? The proposed project improvements would not include any sharp curves or hazardous roadway design elements. The project will be designed in accordance with Caltrans design standards, as a result, no impacts would occur. NO IMPACT d. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Adequate emergency vehicular access will be provided during and after project construction via Commerce Center Drive and Diaz Road. NO IMPACT Environmental Checklist Tribal Cultural Resources Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in a Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or 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: 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 ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ b. 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. ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ As of July 1, 2015, California AB 52 of 2014 was enacted and expands CEQA by defining a new resource category, "tribal cultural resources." AB 52 establishes that "A project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment" (PRC Section 21084.2). It further states that the lead agency shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3). PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A) and (B) defines tribal cultural resources as "sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe" and is: 1. 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 2. 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 these criteria, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 103 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive AB 52 also establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources. The consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52, lead agencies are required to "begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project." Native American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead Agency. a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is 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)? b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 that is 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? The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on January 21, 2020 for a search of its Sacred Lands File (SLF). The NAHC responded on January 30, 2020, stating that the search of the SLF was positive and recommended contacting the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians for more information. On March 20, 2020, the following Native American Tribes were sent initial consultation letters: ■ Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians ■ Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians ■ Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians ■ Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians ■ Torres -Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Four responses were received, each of which is summarized below: 1. Tuba Ebru Ozdil, Cultural Resources Analysist for the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, replied on March 20, 2020, requesting formal consultation with the City and additional detailed information about the proposed project. Additionally, Ms. Ozdil requested that the Tribe be formally notified and involved during the entire environmental review process for the duration of the project because the project area lies within the Tribe's aboriginal territory. 2. Cheryl Madrigal, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians, replied on July 10, 2020. Ms. Madrigal requested copies of any geotechnical reports, cultural survey reports (including archaeological results and shapefiles), archaeological search results, and grading plans. Ms. Madrigal indicated the Tribe would be participating fully in the environmental review process for the project because the project area lies within the Luiseno territory and is within their specific area of historic interest. 3. Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer of the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, replied on July 8, 2020, deferring consultation for this project to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. 4. Patricia Garcia -Plotkin, Director of Historic Preservation for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, replied on July 9, 2020, deferring consultation for this project to the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians. 104 Environmental Checklist Tribal Cultural Resources Based on the positive results of the Sacred Lands File search coupled with ethnographic settlement patterns, the area is considered sensitive for tribal cultural resources. This sensitivity was echoed during confidential government -to -government consultation meetings that occurred between City and Pechanga representatives on November 7, 2022, and April 18, 2023. Both archaeological and Native American monitoring were requested during consultation. Therefore, Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-9 are required to bring impact to a less than significant level. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED Final Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration 105 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. W. Environmental Checklist Utilities and Service Systems Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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, natural gas, 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ ■ a. Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? The project could require minor relocations of existing utility infrastructure associated with Rancho California Water District, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, Charter Communications, and Frontier Communications located near the Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado intersection. Utility coordination will be initiated with each utility company in the final phase of design, prior to project implementation. Such coordination would ensure that any necessary utility relocations would not cause significant environmental effects. The project will not require the Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 107 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive construction of major new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities beyond those evaluates as part of the proposed project. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT b. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Water would be supplied to the project site by Rancho California Water District. According to their analysis of water supply reliability in the 2021 Water Shortage Contingency Plan, the District will have sufficient water supply to meet the projected demands through the year 2045 under all scenarios considered, including normal year, single dry year, and multiple dry years (Rancho California Water District 2021). Project construction will result in minor water usage during construction for dust suppression but would be adequately served by existing water supplies. Long-term operation of the project would not require any water use. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Would the project 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? The project will not result in the need for any new water or wastewater treatment facilities, nor would it add any demand to existing facilities. NO IMPACT d. Would the project 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? Solid waste generated during project construction would be disposed of at Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill, which has an expected closure year of 2040 and is located at 16411 Lamb Canyon Road in Beaumont, CA, approximately 33 miles north of the project site. Operation of the project would not result in substantial generation of solid waste that would exceed standards or infrastructure capacity. This impact would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT e. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? All solid waste will be disposed of at an approved site in compliance with federal, state and county regulations. NO IMPACT IS Environmental Checklist Wildfire Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated 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 downslopes 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? 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 downslopes or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post fire slope instability, or drainage changes? 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 a very high fire hazard severity zone or located near a very high fire hazard severity zone (Cal Fire, 2007, 2011). The project site is mapped as Non-VHFHSZ per the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Hazard Severity Zone Maps prepared Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 109 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive under the Fire and Resource Assessment Program. The nearest State Responsibility Area very high fire hazard severity zone is located along the hillside approximately 1.02 miles west of the project site. The nearest Local Responsibility Area very high fire hazard severity zone is approximately 0.44 miles southwest of the project site. No further analysis of this issue is required in the EIR. NO IMPACT W Does the project: 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, 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? Environmental Checklist Mandatory Findings of Significance Less than Significant Potentially with Less than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ❑ ■ ❑ ❑ 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 other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ c. Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ❑ ■ ❑ G. 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? The project would impact Riparian/Riverine resources that are occupied by least Bell's vireo, smooth tarplant, Pacific (western) pond turtle, and arroyo chub. Special Status Plant Surveys and surveys for least Bell's vireo and burrowing owl were conducted. Least Bell's Vireo territories were observed within the southern willow scrub habitat along the banks of Murrieta Creek in the survey area. A Natural Environment Study was performed within the Biological Study Area and concluded that impacts to least Bell's vireo are expected to occur as a result of the project. The removal of vegetation may also result in temporary impacts to nesting birds due to the temporarily reduced Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive available nesting habitat. To lessen impacts to sensitive and special status species, mitigation measures will be incorporated into the project and will result in less than significant impacts. There is a high potential for cultural and paleontological resources in the area; however, identified mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts on these resources will be incorporated into the project such that important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory would not be eliminated. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED b. Does the project 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 other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? As concluded in Sections 1 through 20, the project would have no impact, less than significant impact, or less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated, with respect to all environmental issues considered in this document. Cumulative impacts related to several resource areas have been addressed in the individual resource sections of this Initial Study, including air quality and GHG emissions (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3)). As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, and in Section 8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the project would result in less than significant impacts associated with air quality and GHG emissions during project construction and operation. The impact analysis in these sections uses thresholds that already account for cumulative (regional impacts). Therefore, air quality and GHG emissions associated with operation and construction would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. Cumulatively considerable impacts could occur if the construction of other projects occurs at the same time as the proposed project and in the same vicinity, such that the effects of similar impacts of multiple projects combine to expose a resource to greater levels of impact than would occur under the proposed project. For example, the proposed project and other cumulative projects could impact the same environmental resources, such as biological resources. The project may temporarily impact the habitat utilized by special status species, but the project would incorporate mitigation measures to reduce the project's contribution to cumulative impacts to a less -than - significant level. This Initial Study determined that, for some of the other resource areas (e.g., agriculture and forestry resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing, recreation, etc.), the project would have no impact compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts related to these issues. Other issues (e.g., cultural resources, geology, hazards and hazardous materials, and tribal cultural resources) are by their nature project -specific and impacts at one location do not add to impacts at other locations or create additive impacts. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant (not cumulatively considerable). LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT W11 Environmental Checklist Mandatory Findings of Significance Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? In general, impacts to human beings are associated with air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, and noise impacts. As detailed in Section 3, Air Quality, the project would not result, either directly or indirectly, in substantial adverse effects related to air quality through construction or operation. As discussed in Section 9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, project operation would not involve the routine use of extremely hazardous materials. Compliance with applicable regulations during project construction would reduce potential impacts on human beings related to hazards and hazardous materials to a less than significant level. During project construction, noise impacts would be limited to the daytime hours, and construction activities would not generate noise above the FTA threshold for construction noise at a sensitive land use; therefore, construction noise impacts would be temporary and less than significant. Project operation would not result in a substantial increase in noise. Consequently, operational noise would not significantly impact nearby sensitive receivers. Therefore, the project would not have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. These impacts would be less than significant. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 113 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. 114 References References Bibliography Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act. May. https://www.baagmd.gov/—/media/files/planning-and- research/ceqa/cega_guidelines_may2017-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed February 2022). California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California's 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14, 2017. https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf (accessed February 2022). 2022. Overview: Diesel Exhaust Health. n.d. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview- diesel-exhaust-and- health#:-:text=ln%201998%2C%20CARB%20identified%20DPM,and%20other%20adverse% 20health%20effects. (accessed February 2022). California Department of Finance (DOF). 2019. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2011-2019 with 2010 Census Benchmark. Available at: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/ (accessed May 2019). California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire), Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area (Western Riverside County), Adopted by Cal Fire on November 7, 2007. Available at: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/6752/fhszs_map60.pdf. Accessed on March 2020. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2019. Enviro5tor. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed May 2019). California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/ (accessed March 2020). 2013. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. (CT-HWANP-RT-13- 069.25.2). http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf (accessed February 2022). 2018. Standard Specifications. http://ppmoe.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/construction_contract_standards/std_specs/2018_Std Specs/2018_StdSpecs.pdf (accessed February 2022). California Energy Commission. 2021. "California Retail Fuel Outlet Annual Reporting (CEC-A15) Results." https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/transportation- energy/california-retail-fuel-outlet-annual-reporting (accessed February 2022). CalRecycle. 2019. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Facility Detail, Mesquite Regional Landfill (13-AA-0026). Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/13-AA- 0026/ (accessed March 2020). City of Temecula Sustainability Plan, adopted June 22, 2010. Available online at: http://laserfiche.cityoftemecula.org/weblink/2/doc/241368/Electronic.aspx. City of Temecula, Temecula General Plan, 1993, Updated 2005. Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 115 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive City of Temecula General Plan Land Use Element, 2005. Available at: https:Htemeculaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/284/Land-Use-PDF?bidld= City of Temecula General Plan Open Space and Conservation Element, 2005. Available at: https:Htemeculaca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/287/Open-Space-Conservation-PDF?bidld= Cole, J. W. 1987. Mineral Land Classification of the Greater Los Angeles Area: Classification of Sand and Gravel Resource Areas, Claremont -Upland Production -Consumption Region. Special Report 143: Part VI. Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc Dudek & Associates, Inc. 2003. Western Riverside County Final MSHCP. https://www.wrc- rca.org/Permit_Docs/MSHCP/MSHCP-Volume%201.pdf (accessed February 2022). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. (FHWAHEP-10-025). https://www.codot.gov/programs/environmental/noise/assets/fhwa-noise-guidance-dec- 2011 (accessed February 2022). 2022. California 2023 FSTIP Approval. December 16, 2022. 2023. 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal) Amendment No. 3 Transportation Cconformity Ddetermination. June 9. https://scag.ca.gov/post/2020-2045-rtpscs-connect-socal- amendment-3-transportation-conformity-determination (accessed November 2023). Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. (DOT-T- 95-16.) Office of Planning, Washington, DC. Prepared by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. Burlington, MA. 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research- innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no- 0123_0.pdf (accessed February 2022). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ar4-wgl-spm-1.pdf (accessed February 2022). 2021. Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson- Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Pean, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelek�i, R. Yu and B. Zhou (eds.)] Cambridge University Press. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wgl/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Full_Report.pdf (accessed February 2022). Jefferson, G.T. 2010. A catalogue of late Quaternary vertebrates from California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Technical Report. Volume 7, pp. 5-172. Leighton Consulting, Inc. 2023. Update Geotechnical Design Report Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive, dated November 6, 2023. W. References McDonald, A. 2023. Collections search of the Western Science Center for the Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Project, dated November 8, 2023. Morton, D.M. and F.K. Miller. 2006. Geologic map of the San Bernardino and Santa Ana 30' x 60' quadrangles, California. [map.] United States Geological Survey, Open -File Report OF-2006- 1217, scale 1:100,000. Paleobiology Database. 2023. The Paleobiology Database, http://paleobiodb.org/ (accessed November 2023).Rancho California Water District. 2021. Water Shortage Contingency Plan. https://www.ranchowater.com/DocumentCenter/View/6146/2021-Water-Shortage- Contingency-Plan (accessed March 2022). Riverside, County of. 2011. Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. https://www. rca I u c. o rg/ P o rta I s/13/37 % 20- %20Vol. % 202%20Fre nch % 20Va I ley% 20Amd % 202011. pdf?ve r=2016-08-15-152723-573 (accessed February 2022). Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP). 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee. https://vertpaleo.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/01/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Gu ideIines-1.pdf. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2008a. Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology. Revised July. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/localized-significance-thresholds/final-Ist-methodology- document.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed February 2022). 2008b. Attachment E - Draft Guidance Document - Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold. http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-cega-significance- thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf (accessed February 2022). 2009. Appendix C - Mass Rate LST Look -Up Tables. Revised October 21. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/defauIt-so urce/cega/hand boo k/localized-significance- thresholds/appendix-c-mass-rate-Ist-look-up-tables.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (accessed February 2022). 2010. Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #15. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa- significance-thresholds/year-2008-2009/ghg-meeting-15/ghg-meeting-l5-minutes.pdf (accessed February 2022). 2016. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South coast Air Basin. February. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb20l6.pdf?sfvrsn=14 (accessed February 2022). 2017. Risk Assessment Procedure for Rules 1401, 1401.1 and 212. Version 8.1. September 1, 2017. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/permitting/rule-1401-risk- assessment/riskassessproc-v8-l.pdf?sfvrsn=l2 (accessed February 2022). 2019. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Revised April. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality- significance-thresholds. pdf (accessed February 2022). Final Initial Study - Mitigated Negative Declaration 117 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive .2021. Agenda Item 2 Overview of 2022 AQMP. November. http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/pm-pres-agenda-item-2-overview-of-2022-aqmp- 110421.pdf?sfvrsn=6 (accessed February 2022). 2022. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan. December 2. Available at: https://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management- plans/2022-air-quality-management-plan/final-2022-aqmp/final-2022-agmp.pdf?sfvrsn=16 (accessed November 2023) Southern California Council of Governments (SCAG). 2020a. Connect SoCal Transportation System Project List. Adopted on September 3, 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal_project-list_O.pdf?1606000813 (accessed February 2022). 2020b. Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy). https:Hscag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal- plan_O.pdf?1606001176 (accessed February 2022). 2021. Final 2021 Federal Transportation Improvement Program Technical Appendix Volume III of III/Part A. March. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/f2021-ftip- project-listing-a.pdf?1614887998 (accessed February 2022). State of California. 2018. California's Fourth Climate Change Assessment Statewide Summary Report. August 27, 2018. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2019- 11/Statewide_Reports-SUM-CCCA4-2018-013_Statewide_Summary_Report_ADA.pdf (accessed October 2021). United States Energy Information Administration. 2021. California State Profile and Energy Estimates. Last updated February 18, 2021. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=CA (accessed February 2022). United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2021. "Climate Change Indicators: Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse Gases." Last modified: April 2021. epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations- greenhouse-gases (accessed October 2021). 2022. Criteria Air Pollutants. N.d. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants (accessed February 2022). HW.* References List of Preparers Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS-MND in collaboration with the City of Temecula. Persons involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below. Rincon Consultants, Inc. Richard Daulton, MURP, Principal -in -Charge Taylor Freeman, Project Manager Jason Montague, Senior Planner Nicole West, Supervisor Planner Bill Vosti, Program Manager — Air Quality, GHG Emissions, and Noise Jared Reed, Senior Biologist Christopher Hughes, Marine Scientist/Biologist Hannah Haas, Supervisor Archaeologist Mark Strother, Archaeologist Jennifer DiCenzo, Paleontological Program Manager Andrew McGrath, Paleontologist Allysen Valencia, GIS Analyst Dario Campos, Publishing Specialist and Technical Editor Yaritza Ramirez, Publishing Specialist Final Initial Study — Mitigated Negative Declaration 119 City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. 120 Appendix A Air Quality Report (Rincon Consultants Inc., August 2023) AIR QUALITY REPORT Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive (Avenida Alvarado over Murrieta Creek) City of Temecula, Riverside County, California District 8, County of Riverside Federal Aid Project No. BR-NBIL (543); City Project No. PW16-05 Prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2215 Faraday Avenue, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 August 2023 This document contains blank pages to accommodate two-sided printing. Prepared by: AIR QUALITY REPORT MURRIETA CREEK BRIDGE AT OVERLAND DRIVE (AVENIDA ALVARADO OVER MURRIETA CREEK) CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8 Federal Aid Project No. BR-NBIL (543) City Project No. PW16-051 Bill Vosti, Senior Environmental Planner Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2215 Faraday Avenue, Suite A Carlsbad, CA 92008 Date: 08/14/23 5- Concurred by: Date: Sean Yeung, P.E. Senior Environmental Engineer Planning, Local Assistance Caltrans, District 8 464 West Fourth Street, 6th Floor, MS 760 San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400 Approved by: Nino Abad Associate Civil Engineer City of Temecula (951) 308-6385 Nino.Abad@TemeculaCA.gov 9/20/2023 Date: _ 08/14/23 For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in alternative formats. Please contact the City of Temecula at (951) 240-4225 or the Caltrans District 8 Relay Service TTY number, 711, or 1-800-735-2929. Contents Contents Listof Appendices.....................................................................................................................................................................v Listof Tables.............................................................................................................................................................................. vi Listof Figures........................................................................................................................................................................... vii Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................viii 1. Proposed Project Description..................................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction.............................................................................................................................................................1 1.2 Location and Background..................................................................................................................................1 1.3 Purpose and Need................................................................................................................................................5 1.4 Baseline and Forecasted Conditions for No -Build and Project Alternatives..................................5 1.4.1 Existing Roadways and Traffic Conditions....................................................................................7 1.4.2 No -Build Alternatives...........................................................................................................................9 1.4.3 Project Build Alternatives................................................................................................................. 11 1.4.4 Comparison of Existing/Baseline and Build Alternatives..................................................... 14 1.5 Construction Activities and Schedule......................................................................................................... 15 2. Regulatory Setting................................................................................................................... 25 2.1 Pollutant -Specific Overview............................................................................................................................ 25 2.1.1 Criteria Pollutants............................................................................................................................... 25 2.1.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics.................................................................................................................. 29 2.1.3 Greenhouse Gases.............................................................................................................................. 31 2.1.4 Asbestos.................................................................................................................................................32 2.2 Regulations...........................................................................................................................................................33 2.2.1 Federal and California Clean Air Act............................................................................................ 33 2.2.2 Transportation Conformity.............................................................................................................. 33 2.2.3 National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA)................................................................................ 34 2.2.4 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).......................................................................... 34 2.2.5 Local.........................................................................................................................................................34 3. Affected Environment.............................................................................................................36 3.1 Climate, Meteorology, and Topography.................................................................................................... 36 3.2 Existing Air Quality............................................................................................................................................. 37 3.2.1 Criteria Pollutants and Attainment Status................................................................................. 39 3.2.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics..................................................................................................................41 3.2.3 Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change........................................................................................42 3.3 Sensitive Receptors............................................................................................................................................42 3.4 Conformity Status...............................................................................................................................................43 3.4.1 Regional Conformity..........................................................................................................................43 3.4.2 Project -Level Conformity.................................................................................................................45 3.4.3 Interagency Consultation................................................................................................................45 3.5 NEPA Analysis/Requirement...........................................................................................................................46 Contents 3.6 CEQA Analysis/Requirement..........................................................................................................................46 4. Environmental Consequences...............................................................................................47 4.1 Impact Criteria.....................................................................................................................................................47 4.2 Short -Term Effects (Construction Emissions)...........................................................................................47 4.2.1 Construction Equipment, Traffic Congestion, and Fugitive Dust.....................................47 4.2.2 Asbestos.................................................................................................................................................50 4.2.3 Lead.......................................................................................................................................................... 51 4.3 Long -Term Effects (Operational Emissions).............................................................................................. 51 4.3.1 CO Analysis............................................................................................................................................ 52 4.3.2 PM Analysis........................................................................................................................................... 55 4.3.3 NO2 Analysis......................................................................................................................................... 57 4.3.4 Mobile Source Air Toxics Analysis................................................................................................ 58 4.3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis............................................................................................ 61 4.4 Cumulative/Regional/Indirect Effects.........................................................................................................62 5. Minimization Measures..........................................................................................................63 5.1 Short -Term (Construction).............................................................................................................................. 63 5.2 Long -Term (Operational).................................................................................................................................64 6. Conclusions................................................................................................................................65 7. References..................................................................................................................................66 8. Appendices................................................................................................................................ 68 Transportation Air Quality Conformity Findings Checklist...................................................71 Interagency Consultation Documentation............................................................................... 72 iv List of Appendices List of Appendices Appendix A RTP and TIP Listings for the Project Appendix B FHWA Conformity Determination Appendix C Transportation Air Quality Conformity Findings Checklist Appendix D Interagency Consultation Documentation Appendix E Construction Emissions Calculations List of Tables List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Existing Traffic Conditions............................................................................................................7 Table 2. Summary of Future No -Build Traffic Conditions...........................................................................................9 Table 3. Summary of Build Traffic Conditions.............................................................................................................. 12 Table 4. Summary of Long -Term Operational Impacts on Traffic Conditions ................................................. 15 Table 5. Construction Activities and Schedule............................................................................................................ 16 Table 6. Construction Equipment Assumptions.......................................................................................................... 17 Table 7. Project Construction Vehicle Miles Traveled(VMT).................................................................................. 20 Table 8. Table of State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards. Accessed February 1, 2021, www.arb.ca.gov/research/aags/aags2.pdf............................................................................................................ 26 Table 9. State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Effects and Sources................................................................. 28 Table 10. State and Federal Attainment Status........................................................................................................... 39 Table 11. Air Quality Concentrations for the Past Three Years..............................................................................40 Table 12. Mobile Source Air Toxic Measured Concentrations in the Project Vicinity...................................42 Table 13. Sensitive Receptors Located Within 500 feet of the Project Site......................................................43 Table 14. Status of Plans Related to Regional Conformity......................................................................................45 Table 15. Construction Activities and Schedule for RCEM Input..........................................................................48 Table 16. Project Construction Emissions for Roadways.........................................................................................49 Table 17. Project Construction GHG Emissions........................................................................................................... 61 vi List of Figures List of Figures Figure 1. Map of the Project Location...............................................................................................................................3 Figure2. Map of the Project Boundary .............................................................................................................................4 Figure 3. Projected National MSAT Trends, 2010-2050 (Source: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air quality/air toxics/policy and guidance/msat/).......... 30 Figure 4. Predominant Wind Patterns Near the Project.......................................................................................... 37 Figure 5. Map of Air Quality Monitoring Stations Located Near the Project .................................................. 38 vii Acronyms and Abbreviations Acronyms and Abbreviations Term Definition OF Degrees Fahrenheit AADT Average annual daily traffic AB Assembly Bill ARB California Air Resources Board CAA Federal Clean Air Act CAAA Clean Air Act Amendments CAFE Corporate Fuel Economy Caltrans California Department of Transportation CCAA California Clean Air Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CH4 Methane CO Carbon monoxide COz Carbon dioxide COze Carbon dioxide equivalent City Temecula EMFAC Emissions Factors EO Executive Order FCAA Federal Clean Air Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Program GHG Greenhouse gas GWP Global warming potential HzS Hydrogen sulfide I-5 Interstate 5 Acronyms and Abbreviations Term Definition IRIS Integrated Risk Information System LOS Level of service MMT Million metric tons MOVES Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator mph Miles per hour MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization MSAT Mobile Source Air Toxics MT Metric tons N2O Nitrous oxide NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NATA National Air Toxics Assessment NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NOx Nitrogen oxide 03 Ozone PM Particulate matter PM10 Particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter PM2.s Particulate matter less than 2.S microns in diameter ppb Parts per billion ppm Parts per million Protocol Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol RCEM Roadway Construction Emissions Model RCFC&WCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ROGs Reactive organic gases RTP Regional Transportation Plan SCAG Southern California Association of Governments SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy SIP State Implementation Plan ix Acronyms and Abbreviations Term Definition SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SOz Sulfur dioxide Sox Sulfur oxides TCE Temporary construction easements TCWG Transportation Conformity Working Group USDOT United States Department of Transportation U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency VMT Vehicle miles traveled VRP Visibility -reducing particles VOCs Volatile organic compounds WRCC Western Region Climatic Center WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments x 1. Proposed Project Description 1. Proposed Project Description 1.1 Introduction The City of Temecula (City), in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8, proposes the construction of a bridge over and across Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado at the intersection of Diaz Road with Overland Drive at the intersection of Enterprise Circle West in the City. The bridge will replace the existing 2-lane low-water crossing at Via Montezuma with a 4-lane bridge at Overland Drive and Avenida Alvarado over Murrieta Creek. The project's open -to -traffic year would be 2025.The City is lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project would extend from the terminus of Overland Drive near the Enterprise Circle West intersection, over Murrieta Creek, along Diaz Road, approximately 600 feet on either side of Avenida Alvarado, and about 500 feet along Avenida Alvarado. The purpose of this air quality analysis is to describe the existing regional and local air quality of the project area, identify the potential air quality impacts of the project, and demonstrate air quality conformity of the project with the State Implementation Plan (SIP), as required by the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). This report also identifies measures to mitigate or minimize pollutant emissions that could occur during project construction. 1.2 Location and Background The project is located in the northwest area in the City of Temecula, spanning and adjacent to Murrieta Creek. The project would extend from the terminus of Overland Drive near the Enterprise Circle West intersection, over Murrieta Creek, along Diaz Road, approximately 600 feet on either side of Avenida Alvarado, and about 500 feet along Avenida Alvarado. The project's regional location is shown in Figure 1 and the Project Location is shown on Figure 2. Roadways at the location of the proposed bridge consist of the intersection of Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado on the west side of the Creek. Diaz Road parallels the Creek, has a width of 76 feet and consists of two northbound and two southbound through lanes, and Avenida Alvarado has a width of 64 feet with one eastbound and one westbound travel lane. To the east of the Creek, Overland Drive terminates at Commerce Center Drive. Overland Drive was recently extended to Enterprise Circle West under a separate Overland Drive Extension Project (City Project PW 16-06). The project involved the demolition of two buildings, roadway improvements including construction of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, storm drains, utility facilities, traffic signage, and intersection improvements at Overland Drive/Commerce Center Drive and Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West. Enterprise Circle West is 44 feet in width with one northbound and one southbound lane and 1. Proposed Project Description Overland Drive between Enterprise Circle West and Commerce Center Drive is 68 feet in width with two westbound and two eastbound lanes. An existing pedestrian and bike trail parallels the west side of the Creek to the east of Diaz Road. Nearby Creek crossings include the Winchester Road Bridge, approximately 0.3 mile north, and the Via Montezuma low-water crossing, approximately 0.5 mile south. The project is included in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023; RTP ID 991203) and the conforming 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023; FTIP ID 991203A). The project is described in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023) as "in western Riv Co in the City of Temecula: phase 1: extend overland drive (4 lanes) from commerce center drive to Avenida Alvarado/Diaz Rd intersection. See 991203a for phase 2 bridge project." The project is described in the 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023) as "in western Riv Co in the City of Temecula: Phase 2: replace 2-lane low water crossing with 4-lane bridge (BR#OOL0087) over Murrieta Creek at Avenida Alvarado. See 991203 for Phase 1" (see Appendix A). In the approved 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023), there is $4,382 available for project funding in the following FY 22/23. There are no available funds for FY 23/24, FY 24/25, and FY 25/26 because the funding in FY 22/23 is sufficient to complete all preconstruction tasks (preliminary engineering and right-of-way work). Once the right-of-way work is certified by Caltrans, the $19,167 currently available for project funding in FY 26/27 will be moved forward to FY 24/25 or FY 25/26 through the Annual Survey process. The project was discussed among stakeholders at a Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) meeting on July 28, 2020, pursuant to the interagency consultation requirement of 40 CFR 93.105(c)(1)(i). The members of the TCWG confirmed that the project, RTP Project ID 991203, would not be considered a project of air quality concern. The TCWG determination is included as Appendix D. A follow-up letter from SCAG on September 26, 2022 confirmed to the City of Temecula that this July 28, 2020 TCWG finding also applied to FTIP Project ID 991203A (included in Appendix D). While the project has not been part of any amendments, the FHWA made a finding of conformity on the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS through Amendment #3 on June 9, 2023, included as Appendix B. In addition, the FHWA approved the 2023 FTIP Consistency Amendment #23-03 and concurred that the associated conformity determination conformed to the applicable SIP in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 on June 9, 2023, also included as Appendix B. In addition, the Transportation Air Quality Conformity Findings Checklist is included as Appendix C. 1. Proposed Project Description Lake Elsinore ;� Canyon Lake Menifee Home+ig°^'PI" yew Pori SyonPd c, pailroad Lakeland t Village s Rd Scott Rd Ca � sa Wildomar `yo o French Valley Oa Clinton keith Rd �. Lake Skinner urrieta Imagery provided by Esri and its licensors © 2019- Project Location - N Federal Project No. h BR-NBIL(543) 14 y ;y W Lancaster © Palmdale VictonAlle Santa Clarita Angeles Simi National Valley Purest Twentynine Palms os Angeles Fv—, Ontario Joshua Tree qv Riverside EC Cathedral National Anaheim Corona city Park Santa Ana Indio T�A7 Oceanside San Diego Figure 1. Map of the Project Location. 3 1. Proposed Project Description Oki ��� 'a! `` 's• r A, Project Boundary - .l ' w, Federal Project No. BR-NBIL(543) 0 135 270 N Feet ' Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ® 2020. Figure 2. Map of the Project Boundary. m 1. Proposed Project Description 1.3 Purpose and Need The purpose of the project is to construct a bridge over and across Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado at the intersection of Diaz Road with Overland Drive at the intersection of Enterprise Circle West in the City of Temecula. The proposed improvements will accomplish the following in the project area: 1. Provide safe all-weather access across Murrieta Creek 2. Provide reliable route for emergency vehicles, motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists 3. Provide an additional access point to the City's industrial park Murrieta Creek bisects Temecula west of Interstate 15 (1-15) and separates industrial park and open space areas in the western City limits from the rest of the City. Murrieta Creek is an important riparian resource within the City, which protects water quality, conveys stormwater, and contains important biological resources and habitats. In addition, the Creek is an important archaeological area with known and unknown archaeological sites. Therefore, there are limited Creek crossings in the City. A low-water crossing of Murrieta Creek currently exists at Via Montezuma, approximately 0.5 miles south of Overland Drive. The low-water crossing is frequently closed in wet seasons and is not a reliable route to cross the Creek during storm and flooding events. The crossing is scheduled to be removed in the future by a separate channel improvements project. Therefore, there is a need for an additional all-weather creek crossing location for employees and residents to access the industrial and open space areas to the west of Murrieta Creek. 1.4 Baseline and Forecasted Conditions for No -Build and Project Alternatives The project proposes to construct a bridge over Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado with Overland Drive in the City of Temecula, Riverside County. The Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive is anticipated to be a concrete girder structure spanning approximately 348 linear feet over Murrieta Creek. The bridge would accommodate four through travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), left -turn lane(s), and two 6-foot-wide shoulders served as Class II bike lanes, for a curb -to - curb width of 68 feet. In addition, a 6-foot-wide sidewalk would be included on the southern side of the bridge for pedestrians to cross the creek. The existing bike trail on the west side of the creek will intersect with the extended Overland Drive by a signal -controlled at -grade crossing. Upon completion of the Murrieta Creek Bridge project, the proposed street configuration would be consistent with the four -lane roadway segment on Overland Drive to the east. In addition to the construction of the bridge, various roadway and utility improvements would occur at the western 1. Proposed Project Description and eastern bridge approaches. In order to match the roadway section on Avenida Alvarado on the west side of the bridge, the project would transition the lane configuration in the eastern portion of Avenida Alvarado to be consistent with the four -lane configuration of the bridge. Intersections improvements to Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West, Overland Drive/Commerce Center Drive and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado would include the installation of traffic signals and associated signing, striping, streetlights, and utilities. Reconstruction and roadway improvements along Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado would include undergrounding electrical utilities, construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalks, relocating sewer and water facilities, and adding traffic signage and striping. As a part of the bridge construction, one abutment would be constructed on each end of the bridge, along with two piers within the Murrieta Creek. Earth embankments with concrete slope protection and cutoff walls buried underground would also be installed on the east and west side of the Creek. The foundation of the bridge piers involving large -diameter cast -in -drilled -hole concrete piles will be installed below the channel bottom, which is deep enough for protection from scour. The channel bottom will remain earthen without any concrete or rip rap lining. The bridge girder would provide cell openings to accommodate future utilities and electrical conduits for streetlights and traffic signal communication. The project will also include the following additional improvements: • Railing Architectural treatment: The bridge design will incorporate concrete barriers, metal hand and bicycle railings, and standard architectural treatments. Landscaping: Landscaping modifications or improvements in the right-of-way along the bridge approach, Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado intersections, and along Diaz Road and Overland Drive. Right -of -Way Requirements: The right of way on the east side of the creek has been acquired by the City as part of the completed Overland Drive Extension Project (City Project PW 16-06); however, due to raise of the Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado street grade, portions of four driveways and parkways in three private properties at the westerly approach will be reconstructed. Temporary construction easements (TCE's) will be acquired at these locations. There will be a street easement for the bridge and its approaches in the Creek, which is to be acquired from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). A temporary construction easement at the northeast corner of the Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West intersection may be required to reconstruct an ADA-compliant curb ramp. • Construction Traffic Controls: Diaz Road, Avenida Alvarado, and Overland Drive will include temporary striping to divert traffic away from work areas. The temporary striping will allow for staged construction of roadway and intersection improvements to maintaining vehicle and pedestrian and bicyclist access at all times. The TCE for grading in the channel is to be acquired through an encroachment permit from RCFC&WCD. Permanent and temporary construction easements in four private properties at the easterly side of the Creek may be required to construct storm drains, a retaining wall, and the bridge approach embankment. 1. Proposed Project Description 1.4.1 Existing Roadways and Traffic Conditions Roadways at the location of the proposed bridge consist of the intersection of Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado on the west side of the Creek. Diaz Road parallels the Creek, has a width of 76 feet and consists of two northbound and two southbound through lanes, and Avenida Alvarado has a width of 64 feet with one eastbound and one westbound travel lane. To the east of the Creek, Overland Drive terminates at Commerce Center Drive. Overland Drive was recently extended to Enterprise Circle West under a separate Overland Drive Extension Project (City Project PW 16-06). The project involved the demolition of two buildings, roadway improvements including construction of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, storm drains, utility facilities, traffic signage, and intersection improvements at Overland Drive/Commerce Center Drive and Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West. Enterprise Circle West is 44 feet in width with one northbound and one southbound lane and Overland Drive between Enterprise Circle West and Commerce Center Drive is 68 feet in width with two westbound and two eastbound lanes. Traffic volumes along the existing roadways affected by the project are shown in Table 1. An existing pedestrian and bike trail parallels the west side of the Creek to the east of Diaz Road. Nearby Creek crossings include the Winchester Road Bridge, approximately 0.3 mile north, and the Via Montezuma low-water crossing, approximately 0.5 mile south. Table 1. Summary of Existing Traffic Conditions. AADT Average Average Speed Scenario/ Location o Truck /o VMT (mi) Speed During Off - Analysis Year Total Truck During Peak peak Travel Travel (mph) (mph) Existing/Baseline Diaz Road Year 2019 from NB, AM: 19 Winchester NB, PM: 14 NB: 18 14,335 1,003 7 3,340 Road to SB, AM: 45 SB: 45 Avenida SB, PM: 45 Alvarado Diaz Road between NB, AM: 44 Avenida NB, PM: 45 NB: 45 12,655 886 7 4,493 Alvarado SB, AM: 45 SB: 43 and Via SB, PM: 43 Montezuma EB, AM: 21 Avenida Alvarado 2,001 140 7 1,159 EB, PM: 15 EB: 17 west of Diaz WB, AM: 35 WB: 35 Road WB, PM: 35 1. Proposed Project Description AADT Average Average Speed Scenario/ Location o /o Truck VMT (mi) Speed During Off - Analysis Year Total Truck During Peak peak Travel Travel (mph) (mph) Overland Drive between Diaz Road N/A N/A 7 N/A N/Az N/Az and Enterprise Circle Overland Drive EB, AM: 35 between EB, PM: 35 EB: 35 Enterprise 2,977 208 7 211 Circle and WB, AM: 18 WB: 18 Commerce WB, PM: 18 Center Drive Overland Drive between EB, AM: 13 Commerce EB, PM: 5 EB: 7 6,959 487 7 1,246 Center Drive WB, AM: 35 WB: 35 and WB, PM: 35 Jefferson Avenue Overland Drive between 20,215 1,415 7 7,298 N/Az N/Az Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road Winchester Road EB, AM: 19 between EB, PM: 10 EB: 12 Diaz Road 25,068 1,755 7 3,735 and WB, AM: 16 WB: 13 Enterprise WB, PM: 13 Circle Source: STC Traffic, Inc. 2021 NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound According to the traffic engineer for the project, Avenida Alvarado would carry approximately 7 percent trucks (STC Traffic, Inc. 2020). This is the current truck volume for 1-15 at SR 79, and is appropriate for evaluation of the project as it is a cross -street of 1-15 and runs parallel to the future extension of Avenida Alvarado. z The model used by the traffic engineer for the project does not go out farther than this location; therefore, it does not generate average speeds for this intersection, which relies upon intersections further out in the model to generate speeds through the intersection. 1. Proposed Project Description 1.4.2 No -Build Alternatives Under the No -Build Alternatives, no bridge would be constructed in the project area. Traffic volumes under the opening year (2025) and horizon year (2045) traffic scenarios are shown in Table 2. Table 2. Summary of Future No -Build Traffic Conditions. AADT Average Average Speed Scenario/ Speed Location %Truck VMT (mi) During Off - Analysis Year Total Truck During Peak peak Travel Travel (mph) (mph) Opening Diaz Road NB, AM: 19 NB: 13 Year/2025 from NB, PM: 12 SB:45 Winchester 16,055 1,124 7 3,741 SB, AM: 45 Road to SB, PM: 45 Avenida Alvarado Diaz Road between NB, AM: 44 Avenida NB, PM:45 NB:45 14,174 992 7 5,032 Alvarado SB, AM: 45 SB: 45 and Via 5B, PM: 45 Montezuma EB, AM: 21 EB: 17 Avenida Alvarado 2,241 157 7 1,298 EB, PM: 14 WB: 35 west of Diaz WB, AM: 35 Road WB, PM: 35 Overland Drive between Diaz Road N/A N/A 7 N/A N/A N/A and Enterprise Circle** Overland EB, AM: 35 EB: 35 Drive EB, PM: 35 WB: 18 between WB, AM: 18 Enterprise 3,334 233 7 237 Circle and C WB, PM: 18 Commerce Center Drive 1. Proposed Project Description AADT Average Average Speed Scenario/ Speed Location % Truck VMT (mi) During Off - Analysis Year Total Truck During Peak peak Travel Travel (mph) (mph) Overland EB, AM: 13 EB: 8 Drive EB, PM: 7 WB: 35 between WB, AM: 35 Commerce 7,794 546 7 1,395 WB, PM: 35 Center Drive and Jefferson Avenue Overland Drive between 22,641 1,585 7 8,173 N/Az N/Az Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road Winchester EB, AM: 18 EB: 9 Road EB, PM: 7 WB: 13 between WB, AM: 15 Diaz Road 28,076 1,965 7 4,183 WB, PM: 13 and Enterprise Circle Horizon Year/2045 Diaz Road NB, AM: 16 NB: 14 from NB, PM: 13 SB: 45 Winchester 18,062 1,264 7 4,208 SB, AM: 45 Road to Avenida SB, PM: 45 Alvarado Diaz Road between NB, AM: 44 Avenida NB, PM: 45 NB: 45 15,945 1,116 7 5,660 Alvarado SB, AM: 45 SB: 45 and Via SB, PM: 45 Montezuma EB, AM: 12 EB: 5 Avenida Alvarado 2,521 176 7 1,460 EB, PM: 3 WB: 35 west of Diaz WB, AM: 35 Road WB, PM: 35 Overland N/A N/A Drive between Diaz Road N/A N/A 7 N/A and Enterprise Circle** IN 1. Proposed Project Description AADT Average Average Speed Scenario/ Speed Location % Truck VMT (mi) During Off - Analysis Year Total Truck During Peak peak Travel Travel (mph) (mph) Overland EB, AM: 35 EB: 35 Drive EB, PM: 35 WB: 18 between WB, AM: 18 Enterprise 3,751 263 7 266 WB, PM: 18 Circle and C Commerce Center Drive Overland EB, AM: 12 EB: 9 Drive EB, PM: 8 WB: 35 between WB, AM: 35 Commerce 8,768 614 7 1,569 WB, PM: 35 Center Drive and Jefferson Avenue Overland Drive between 25,471 1,783 7 9,195 N/Az N/Az Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road Winchester EB, AM: 17 EB: 11 Road EB, PM: 8 WB: 10 between WB, AM: 15 Diaz Road 31,586 2,211 7 4,706 WB, PM: 10 and Enterprise Circle Source: STC Traffic, Inc. 2021 NB = Northbound; SIB = Southbound According to the traffic engineer for the project, Avenida Alvarado would carry approximately 7 percent trucks (STC Traffic, Inc. 2020). This is the current truck volume for 1-15 at SR 79, and is appropriate for evaluation of the project as it is a cross - street of 1-15 and runs parallel to the future extension of Avenida Alvarado. z The model used by the traffic engineer for the project does not go out farther than this location; therefore, it does not generate average speeds for this intersection, which relies upon intersections further out in the model to generate speeds through the intersection. 1.4.3 Project Build Alternatives The Project Build Alternative is described under Section 1.4.1. Traffic volumes under the opening year (2025) with project and horizon year (2045) with project traffic scenarios are shown in Table 3. W 1. Proposed Project Description Table 3. Summary of Build Traffic Conditions. AADT Average Average Speed Scenario/ Speed Location %Truck VMT (mi) During Off - Analysis Year Total Truck' During Peak peak Travel Travel (mph) (mph) Opening Year + Diaz Road NB, AM: 18 NB: 13 Project/2025 from NB, PM: 13 SB: 25 Winchester 18,863 1,320 7 4,395 SB, AM: 24 Road to SB, PM: 25 Avenida Alvarado Diaz Road between NB, AM: 34 Avenida NB, PM: 31 NB: 31 14,174 992 7 5,032 Alvarado SB, AM: 45 SB: 45 and Via SB, PM: 45 Montezuma EB, AM: 21 EB: 20 Avenida Alvarado 2,241 157 7 1,298 EB, PM: 19 WB: 35 west of Diaz WB, AM: 35 Road WB, PM: 35 Overland EB, AM: 20 EB: 16 Drive EB, PM: 16 WB: 14 between WB, AM: 11 Diaz Road 6,400 448 7 998 and WB, PM: 13 Enterprise Circle** Overland EB, AM: 14 EB: 9 Drive EB, PM: 9 WB: 16 between WB, AM: 24 Enterprise 8,868 621 7 630 Circle and C WB, PM: 16 Commerce Center Drive Overland EB, AM: 12 EB: 8 Drive EB, PM: 7 WB: 19 between WB, AM: 22 Commerce 13,328 933 7 2,386 WB, PM: 18 Center Drive and Jefferson Avenue 12 1. Proposed Project Description AADT Average Average Speed Scenario/ Speed Location % Truck VMT (mi) During Off - Analysis Year Total Truck' During Peak peak Travel Travel (mph) (mph) Overland Drive between 22,641 1,585 7 8,173 N/AZ N/A2 Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road Winchester EB, AM: 19 EB: 10 Road EB, PM: 7 WB: 13 between WB, AM: 15 Diaz Road 25,269 1,769 7 3,765 and WB, PM: 13 Enterprise Circle Horizon Year Diaz Road NB, AM: 17 NB: 13 +Project/2045 from NB, PM: 12 SB: 23 Winchester 21,221 1,485 7 4,944 SB, AM: 22 Road to Avenida SB, PM: 22 Alvarado Diaz Road between NB, AM: 32 Avenida NB, PM: 27 NB: 28 15,945 1,116 7 5,660 Alvarado SB, AM: 45 SB: 45 and Via SB, PM: 45 Montezuma EB, AM: 17 EB: 16 Avenida Alvarado 2,521 176 7 1,460 EB, PM: 16 WB: 35 west of Diaz WB, AM: 35 Road WB, PM: 35 Overland EB, AM: 21 EB: 19 Drive EB, PM: 18 WB: 12 between WB, AM: 13 Diaz Road 7,600 532 7 1,186 WB, PM: 12 and Enterprise Circle Overland EB, AM: 13 EB: 10 Drive EB, PM: 9 WB: 14 between WB, AM: 15 Enterprise 9,636 675 7 684 WB, PM: 14 Circle and C Commerce Center Drive 13 1. Proposed Project Description AADT Average Average Speed Scenario/ Location % Truck VMT (mi) Speed During Off - Analysis Year Total Truck' During Peak peak Travel Travel (mph) (mph) Overland EB, AM: 11 EB: 8 Drive EB, PM: 7 WB: 20 between WB, AM: 24 Commerce Center Drive 14,653 1,026 7 2,623 WB, PM: 20 and Jefferson Avenue Overland Drive between 25,471 1,783 7 9,195 N/Az N/Az Jefferson Avenue and Ynez Road Winchester EB, AM: 18 EB: 11 Road EB, PM: 9 WB: 9 between WB, AM: 15 Diaz Road 28,427 1,990 7 4,236 and WB, PM: 9 Enterprise Circle Source: STC Traffic, Inc. 2021 NB = Northbound; SB = Southbound ' According to the traffic engineer for the project, Avenida Alvarado would carry approximately 7 percent trucks (STC Traffic, Inc. 2020). This is the current truck volume for 1-15 at SR 79, and is appropriate for evaluation of the project as it is a cross - street of 1-15 and runs parallel to the future extension of Avenida Alvarado. Z The model used by the traffic engineer for the project does not go out farther than this location; therefore, it does not generate average speeds for this intersection, which relies upon intersections further out in the model to generate speeds through the intersection. 1.4.4 Comparison of Existing/Baseline and Build Alternatives The project's VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum (STC Traffic, Inc., 2021) showed that project study area VMT will be 2,618 VMT per day under the Opening Year (2025) scenario and 2,922 VMT per day in the Horizon Year (2045). Project study area VMT is shown to be increasing because the project study area VMT analysis does not consider redistribution of traffic and potential VMT reductions on routes outside of the project study area (e.g., Rancho California). The project study area was determined by the City for traffic flow purposes and not for VMT purposes. In reality, the proposed project does not increase capacity, and would reduce VMT for current trips on the network as the new roadway segment lowers VMT for journeys from Overland Drive to Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado. The distance from the Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle intersection to the Diaz Road/ Avenida Alvarado intersection is currently 0.7 miles. The distance between the two intersections 14 1. Proposed Project Description across the creek is approximately 825 feet. This is an approximate reduction of 2,870 feet traveled per vehicle trip. Table 4 summarizes design features and operational impacts on traffic conditions near the proposed project, including VMT, AADT, and average speed. Table 4. Summary of Long -Term Operational Impacts on Traffic Conditions. Scenario/ Analysis Year Design Features and Operational Impacts on Traffic Conditions The peak and off-peak speeds analysis shows that during the Opening Year + Project/2025 scenario, speeds will be lower on the Diaz Road and Overland Drive segments compared to the Existing/Baseline Year 2019, Opening Year/2025, and Horizon Year/2045 scenarios. Opening Year + The project's VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum (STC Traffic, Inc., 2021) Project/2025 showed that project study area VMT will be an additional 2,618 VMT per day during the Opening Year + Project/2025 scenario compared to without the project. The project study area was determined by the City for traffic flow purposes and not for VMT purposes. In reality, the proposed project does not increase capacity, and would reduce VMT for current trips on the network as the new roadway segment lowers VMT forjourneys from Overland Drive to Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado. The peak and off-peak speeds analysis shows that during the Horizon Year + Project/2045 scenario, speeds will be lower on the Diaz Road and Overland Drive segments compared to the Existing/Baseline Year 2019, Opening Year/2025, and Horizon Year/2045 scenarios. Horizon Year The project's VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum (STC Traffic, Inc., 2021) +Project/2045 showed that project study area VMT will be an additional 2,922 VMT per day during the Horizon Year +Project/2045 scenario compared to without the project. The project study area was determined by the City for traffic flow purposes and not for VMT purposes. In reality, the proposed project does not increase capacity, and would reduce VMT for current trips on the network as the new roadway segment lowers VMT forjourneys from Overland Drive to Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado. 1.5 Construction Activities and Schedule Diaz Road, Avenida Alvarado, and Overland Drive will include temporary striping to divert traffic away from work areas. The temporary striping will allow for staged construction of roadway and intersection improvements to maintaining vehicle and pedestrian and bicyclist access at all times. 15 1. Proposed Project Description Temporary and short-term access impact may occur during construction, and will require coordination with property owners, the public, and other stakeholders. Although construction is planned to last approximately 2 years, no construction activities are anticipated to last more than five years at any individual site. Emissions from construction -related activities are thus considered temporary as defined in 40 CFR 93.123(c)(5); and are not required to be included in PM hot -spot analyses to meet conformity requirements. The milestone completion dates included in Table 5 are anticipated from project construction. The length of the project construction period, including advertise and award and project closure, is approximately two years, and the following milestone completion dates are anticipated: Table 5. Construction Activities and Schedule. Construction Phase Description/List of Activities Begin Date Completion Working Date Days Advertisement and Award Advertisement and Award N/A 10/2/2023 1/31/2024 N/A Site Preparation Traffic Control and Shift traffic on Diaz Road and Demolition remove asphalt pavement 2/1/2024 2/22/2024 15 Prepare the site to access the Clearing and Grubbing channel bottom from east and 2/23/2024 3/25/2024 20 west approaches Channel Grading Grade channel slopes at bridge Grading Channel Slopes and tie in to upstream and 3/26/2024 4/29/2024 25 downstream transition Stage I Construction Bridge Construction - Install pile foundations 5/1/2024 7/17/2024 55 Foundation Bridge Construction — Construct pier columns, abutment Substructure walls, and slope linings 7/18/2024 10/17/2025 65 Bridge Construction — Construct girders and railings 10/18/2025 2/7/2025 80 Superstructure Grading/Embankment Construct east and west Backfill/Pavement approaches, and east side of Diaz 2/10/2025 4/11/2025 45 Road Stage II Construction Traffic Control and Shift traffic on Diaz Road and Demolition remove pavement 4/14/2025 5/12/2025 20 Grading/Embankment Construct west side of Diaz Road Backfill/Pavement and extend Avenida Alvarado 5/13/2025 7/29/2025 55 In 1. Proposed Project Description Construction Phase Description/List of Activities Begin Date Completion Working Date Days Project Closure Demobilization/Project Closure N/A 7/30/2025 9/30/2025 N/A Source: STC Traffic, Inc. 2021 The following project equipment in Table 6 would be used for the project. Table 6. Construction Equipment Assumptions. Activity and Working Days Equipment Amount 8-Hour Days or Total Round Trips # of Site Workers Site Preparation Traffic Control and Demolition — 15 Days Excavators 2 15 Days 8 Loaders 2 15 Days Rubber Tired Dozers 1 15 Days Traffic Control Trucks 1 5 Days Hauling Trucks - Asphalt Concrete and Concrete Recycling (Site 1) N/A 32 Round Trips Hauling Trucks - Construction Debris (Site 2) N/A 10 Round Trips Clearing and Grubbing — 20 Days Excavators 2 20 Days 10 Dozers 2 20 Days Loaders 2 20 Days Hauling Trucks - Construction Debris (Site 2) N/A 20 Round Trips Channel Grading Grading Channel Slopes — 25 Days Scrapers 2 25 Days 12 Excavators 3 25 Days Dozers 2 25 Days Backhoe Loader/Loader 2 25 Days Hauling Trucks - Construction Debris (Site 2) N/A 10 Round Trips Stage I Construction Bridge Construction — Foundation — 55 Days Pile Drilling Rigs 1 55 Days 16 Cranes 2 55 Days Excavators 2 55 Days Loaders 2 55 Days 17 1. Proposed Project Description Activity and Working Days Equipment Amount 8-Hour Days or Total Round Trips # of Site Workers Ready Mix Concrete Trucks (Site 4) N/A 120 Round Trips Concrete/Slurry Pump Truck 2 15 Days Generator Sets 1 55 Days Bridge Construction — Substructure — 65 Days Cranes 2 65 Days 16 Excavators 1 65 Days Loaders 1 65 Days Ready Mix Concrete Trucks N/A 92 Round Trips Concrete Pump Truck 1 10 Days Generator Sets 1 65 days Bridge Construction — Superstructure — 80 Days Cranes 1 80 Days 16 Ready Mix Concrete Trucks N/A 110 Round Trips Concrete Pump Truck 1 10 Days Bid Well 1 5 Days Generator Sets 2 80 Days Forklifts 2 80 Days Grading/Embankment Backfill/Pavement — 45 Days Scrapers 1 40 Days 12 Excavators 2 40 Days Dozers 2 40 Days Rollers 1 40 Days Backhoe Loader/Loader 2 40 Days Asphalt Paving Machine 1 5 Days Asphalt Paver Finisher 1 5 Days Generator Sets 2 45 Days Hauling Truck — Borrow (Site 3) N/A 64 Round Trips Hauling Truck — Asphalt Concrete (Site 1) N/A 52 Round Trips Stage II Construction Traffic Control and Demolition — 20 Days Excavators 2 20 Days 10 Loaders 2 20 Days Rubber Tired Dozers 1 20 Days Traffic Control Trucks 1 5 Days Hauling Trucks - Asphalt Concrete and Concrete Recycling (Site 1) N/A 44 Round Trips m 1. Proposed Project Description Activity and Working Days Equipment Amount 8-Hour Days or Total Round Trips # of Site Workers Hauling Trucks - Construction Debris (Site 2) N/A 10 Round Trips Scrapers 1 45 Days 14 Excavators 2 45 Days Dozers 2 45 Days Rollers 1 45 Days Backhoe Loader/Loader 2 45 Days Grading/Embankment Backfill/Pavement — 55 Asphalt Paving Machine 1 10 Days Days Asphalt Paver Finisher 1 10 Days Generator Sets 2 55 Days Hauling Truck — Borrow (Site 3) N/A 96 Round Trips Hauling Truck — Asphalt Concrete (Site 1) N/A 48 Round Trips Source: STC Traffic, Inc. 2021 W 1. Proposed Project Description The estimated construction vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is shown in Table 9. Table 7. Project Construction Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Activity and Working Equipment Amou 8-Hour Days or # of Site Workers Equipment Origin Distance from Origin Round Trip Distance Number of Total VMT Round Trips nt Total Round Trips Days Site Preparation Excavators 2 15 Days 8 Average - 33.9 2 67.8 Loaders 2 15 Days Average - 33.9 2 67.8 Rubber Tired 1 15 Days Average - 33.9 1 33.9 Dozers Traffic Control 1 5 Days Average - 33.9 1 33.9 Traffic Control and Trucks Hauling Trucks - Demolition — 15 Days Asphalt Concrete N/A 32 Round Trips Site 1 2.5 5 32 160 and Concrete Recycling (Site 1) Hauling Trucks - Construction N/A 10 Round Trips Site 2 29.3 58.6 10 586 Debris (Site 2) 10 Already on Excavators 2 20 Days site Clearing and Dozers 2 20 Days Average - 33.9 2 67.8 Grubbing — Loaders 2 20 Days Already on 20 Days site Hauling Trucks - Construction N/A 20 Round Trips Site 2 29.3 58.6 20 1172 Channel Grading Scrapers 2 25 Days 12 Average - 33.9 2 67.8 20 1. Proposed Project Description Activity and Working Days Equipment Amou nt 8-Hour Days or Total Round Trips # of Site Workers Equipment Origin Distance from Origin Round Trip Distance Number of Round Trips Total VMT Excavators 3 25 Days Already on site - - - Dozers 2 25 Days Already on site - - - - Grading Channel Backhoe Loader/Loader 2 25 Days Average - 33.9 2 67.8 Slopes — 25 Days Hauling Trucks - Construction N/A 10 Round Trips Site 2 29.3 58.6 10 586 Stage I Construction Pile Drilling Rigs 1 55 Days 16 Average - 33.9 1 33.9 Cranes 2 55 Days Average - 33.9 2 67.8 Excavators 2 55 Days Already on site - - - - Bridge Construction Loaders 2 55 Days Already on site - - - - — Foundation Ready Mix — 55 Days Concrete Trucks N/A 120 Round Trips Site 4 2.5 5 120 600 (Site 4) Concrete/Slurry Pump Truck 2 15 Days Site 4 2.5 5 1 5 Generator Sets 1 55 Days Average - 33.9 1 33.9 Cranes 2 65 Days 16 Already on site - - - - Excavators 1 65 Days Already on site - - - Bridge Construction — Substructure — 65 Days Loaders 1 65 Days Already on site - - - - Ready Mix Concrete Trucks N/A 92 Round Trips Site 4 2.5 5 92 460 Concrete Pump Truck 1 10 Day s Already on site - - - - 21 1. Proposed Project Description Activity and Working Days Equipment Amou nt 8-Hour Days or Total Round Trips # of Site Workers Equipment Origin Distance from Origin Round Trip Distance Number of Round Trips Total VMT Generator Sets 1 65 days Already on site - - - Cranes 1 80 Days 16 Already on site - - - - Ready Mix Concrete Trucks N/A 110 Round Trips Site 4 2.5 5 110 550 Bridge Concrete Pump Truck 1 10 Day s Already on site - - - - Construction — Superstructur Bid Well 1 5 Days Average - 33.9 1 33.9 e — 80 Days Generator Sets 2 80 Days Already on site - - - - Forklifts 2 80 Days Average - 33.9 2 67.8 Scrapers 1 40 Days 12 Already on site - - - - Excavators 2 40 Days Already on site - - - Dozers 2 40 Days Already on site - - - - Rollers 1 40 Days Average - 33.9 1 33.9 Grading/Emb ankment Backfill/Pave Backhoe Loader/Loader 2 40 Days Average - 33.9 2 67.8 Asphalt Paving Machine 1 5 Days Average - 33.9 1 33.9 ment — 45 Days Asphalt Paver Finisher 1 5 Days Average - 33.9 1 33.9 Generator Sets 2 45 Days Already on site - - - - Hauling Truck — Borrow N/A 64 Round Trips Site 3 33.5 67 64 4288 (Site 3) 22 1. Proposed Project Description Activity and # of Site Equipment Distance Round Trip Number of Total VMT Working Equipment Amou 8-Hour Days or Workers Origin from Origin Distance Round Trips nt Total Round Trips Days Hauling Truck — Asphalt Concrete N/A 52 Round Trips Site 1 2.5 5 32 160 (Site 1) Stage II Construction Excavators 2 20 Days 10 Already on - - - - site Loaders 2 20 Days Already on - - - - Rubber Tired 1 20 Days Average 33.9 1 33.9 Traffic Dozers Traffic Control 1 5 Days Average - 33.9 1 33.9 Control and Demolition — Trucks Hauling Trucks - 20 Days Asphalt Concrete N/A 44 Round Trips Site 1 2.5 5 44 220 and Concrete Recycling (Site 1) Hauling Trucks - Construction N/A 10 Round Trips Site 2 29.3 58.6 10 586 Scrapers 1 45 Days 14 Already on - - - - site Excavators 2 45 Days Already on - - - - site Already on - - - - Grading/Emb Dozers 2 45 Days site ankment Already on - - - - Backfill/Pave Rollers 1 45 Days Site ment — 55 Backhoe Already on - - - - Days y Loader/Loader 2 45 Day s Site Asphalt Paving 1 10 Day s Already on - - - - Machine Site Asphalt Paver Already on - - - - Finisher 1 10 Day s Site 23 1. Proposed Project Description Activity and # of Site Equipment Distance Round Trip Number of Total VMT Working Equipment Amou 8-Hour Days or Workers Origin from Origin Distance Round Trips nt Total Round Trips Days Already on - - - - Generator Sets 2 55 Days site Hauling Truck — Borrow N/A 96 Round Trips Site 3 33.5 67 96 6432 (Site 3) Hauling Truck — Asphalt Concrete N/A 48 Round Trips Site 3 33.5 67 96 6432 (Site 1) Source: STC Traffic, Inc. 2021 24 2. Regulatory Setting 2. Regulatory Setting Many statutes, regulations, plans, and policies have been adopted at the federal, state, and local levels to address air quality issues related to transportation and other sources. The proposed project is subject to air quality regulations at each of these levels. This section introduces the pollutants governed by these regulations and describes the regulation and policies that are relevant to the proposed project. 2.1 Pollutant -Specific Overview Air pollutants are governed by multiple federal and state standards to regulate and mitigate health impacts. At the federal level, there are six criteria pollutants for which National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) have been established: CO, Pb, NO2, 03, PM (PM2.s and PM1o), and S02. The U.S. EPA has also identified nine priority mobile source air toxics: 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, diesel particulate matter (diesel PM), ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air quality/air toxics/policy and guidance/msat/). In California, sulfates, visibility reducing particles, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are also regulated. 2.1.1 Criteria Pollutants The CAA requires the U.S. EPA to set NAAQS for six criteria air contaminants: ozone, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, lead, and sulfur dioxide. It also permits states to adopt additional or more protective air quality standards if needed. California has set standards for certain pollutants. Table 8 documents the current air quality standards while Table 9 summarizes the sources and health effects of the six criteria pollutants and pollutants regulated in the state of California. 25 2. Regulatory Setting Table 8. Table of State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards. Accessed February 1, 2021, www.arb.ca.gov/research/aags/aags2.pdf. Ambient Air Quality Standards Averaging California Standards' National Standards Pollutant Concentration 3 Method ° Primary'•$ Secondary a,r' Method Time 1 Hour 0.09 ppm (181) pglm3} Ozone Ultraviolet Same as Ultraviolet (of Photometry Primary5tandsrd Photarnetry 8 Hour p.p7p porn (137 pgFm3} p.p7p ppm (137 pgfm3} Respirable 24 Hour 513 pgfm3 150 pglm3 Inertial Separation Particulate G ravimetdc or Same as andGravimetric Annual Beta Attenuation Primary Standard Analysis Matter {PM70jg Arithmetic Mean 2p pgfrn3 — Fine Same as Particulate 24 Hour — — 35 pgma PrimaryStanderd Inertial Separation Matter Annual 3 Gravimetdcor 3 and Gravimetua Analysis B {PM2.5} Arithmetic Mean 12 pgfrn Beta Attenuatim 12.n pgtm 15 pgfm- 1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mginn) 35 ppm (40 mgtm 3) Carbon Non13ispersive Non -Dispersive Monoxide 8 Hour 9.p ppm (1.0 mglm 1) Infrared Photometry 9 ppm (1p mgtm3l — Infrared Photometry (CCF) (NDIR) (NDIR) S Hour B ppm (i mghn3} — — {Lake Tahoei Nitrogen 1 Hour [I a ppm (33g uglm3} 100 pph (188 palm) Dioxide Gas Phase Gas Phase Annual 3} 3 Seme as io Chemiluminescence Chemiluminescence {Nt72} Arithmetic Mean 0-p3p ppm {57 pglm 0.p53 ppm (1pp pglm } Primary Standard 1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 pglm31 75 pph(1PC pgim) — Ukraviolet ❑ 5 ppm Sulfur Dioxide 3 Hour Utrraviolei {9300 pglrn3 } Flourescence; (S0 11 Fluorescence Speotrvphotometry -0.14 ppm 7ll 24 Hour 3 0.04 ppm (1p5 pglm } ,' — (Paremsaniline [for certain areas} Method) Annual 13.031) ppm Arithmetic Mean {for certain areas;' 3❑ Day Average 1.5 pgdm# High Volume 1.5 pgrm3 Lead1213' Calendar Quarter — Atomic Absorption Sampler and Atomic {for certain areas} Same as Absorption Primary Stand erd Rolling 3-Month a Average — 0.95 pg+m Visibility Beta Attenuation and Reducing 3 Hour See footnote 14 Transmittance No Particles1d through Filter Tape National Sulfates 24 Hour 25 pgfm3 ton Chromatography H y d ro Q e Il 1 Hour 17.03 porn (42 pghn3j Ultraviolet Sulfide Fluorescence Standards Vinyl 24 Hour p-101 ppm (20 pghn) Gas Chloridel2 Chromatography See footnotes on next page ... For moreiuformatiaiplame raM a1RB-PIU at(916)322-2990 California Air Resources Board (5/4116) 26 2. Regulatory Setting 1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PN12.5r and visibilityreducing particles), are i-Jues that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be. equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. 2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year- The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24 hour standard is attained when the expected number of dm-s per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration ab(n-e 150 4Wm3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24 hour standard is attained when 99 percent ofthe daily concentrations, averaged over three years_ are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. EPA for further clarification and current national policies- 3. Concentration expressed fast in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air qualih- are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25'C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromnoles of pollutant per mole of gas- 4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be. shone to the satisfaction of the '1RE to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air qualil- standard may be used. 5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air qualih- necessan-, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 6. National Secondan- Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. 7. Reference method as described by the U.S. EPA- An "equivalent method" of measurement may be used but must have a "consistent relationship to the reference method" and must be approved by the U.S. EPA. 8. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered fiom 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. 9. On December 14, 2012, the notional annual PM2.5 priman- standard vas lowwed from 15 p ; to 12-0 p&r n3- The existing national 24- hour PM2-5 standards (primary and secondary) ;sere retained at 35 ug!m', as was the annual secondary standard of 15 µgbn3. The existing 24-hour Phd 10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 ugim3 also were retained. The farm of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, ati�eraged over 3 ,-ears. 10. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-rear arnerage of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Now that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units ofparts per million (ppm)- To direcdy compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm- In this case, the notional standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm- On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO, standard ivas established and the existing 24-1your and annual primar4 standards ivere revoked- To attain the 1-hour national standard the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum ooneantration at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO; national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one vear after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards, remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. Nate that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units ofparts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be concerted to ppm- In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm. 12. The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants' With no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow- for the implementation of contra] measures at levels below- the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. 13. The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1919 lead standard (1-5 pgim3 as a quarterh- average) remains in effect until one vear after an area is designated for the 2009 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1979 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2009 standard are approved- 14. In 1989, the &RR concerted both the general statewide 10-mile visibilih- standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, nduch are "extinction of 023 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per lilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, iespectiveh-. For more informatka please call U3410 at (916) 322-2990 California Air Resources Board (514/16) 27 2. Regulatory Setting Table 9. State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Effects and Sources. Pollutant Principal Health and Atmospheric Effects Typical Sources Ozone (03) High concentrations irritate lungs. Long-term Low -altitude ozone is almost entirely formed from exposure may cause lung tissue damage and cancer. reactive organic gases/volatile organic compounds Long-term exposure damages plant materials and (ROG or VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the reduces crop productivity. Precursor organic presence of sunlight and heat. Common precursor compounds include many known toxic air emitters include motor vehicles and other internal contaminants. Biogenic VOC may also contribute. combustion engines, solvent evaporation, boilers, furnaces, and industrial processes. Respirable Irritates eyes and respiratory tract. Decreases lung Dust- and fume -producing industrial and agricultural Particulate capacity. Associated with increased cancer and operations; combustion smoke & vehicle exhaust; Matter (PM,o) mortality. Contributes to haze and reduced visibility. atmospheric chemical reactions; construction and Includes some toxic air contaminants. Many toxic and other dust -producing activities; unpaved road dust and other aerosol and solid compounds are part of PM,o. re -entrained paved road dust; natural sources. Fine Increases respiratory disease, lung damage, cancer, Combustion including motor vehicles, other mobile Particulate and premature death. Reduces visibility and sources, and industrial activities; residential and Matter (PM2.5) produces surface soiling. Most diesel exhaust agricultural burning; also formed through atmospheric particulate matter— a toxic air contaminant — is in the chemical and photochemical reactions involving other PM25 size range. Many toxic and other aerosol and pollutants including NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx), solid compounds are part of PM2.5. ammonia, and ROG. Carbon CO interferes with the transfer of oxygen to the Combustion sources, especially gasoline -powered Monoxide blood and deprives sensitive tissues of oxygen. CO engines and motor vehicles. CO is the traditional (CO) also is a minor precursor for photochemical ozone. signature pollutant for on -road mobile sources at the Colorless, odorless. local and neighborhood scale. Nitrogen Irritating to eyes and respiratory tract. Colors Motor vehicles and other mobile or portable engines, Dioxide (NO2) atmosphere reddish -brown. Contributes to acid rain especially diesel; refineries; industrial operations. & nitrate contamination of stormwater. Part of the "NOx" group of ozone precursors. Sulfur Dioxide Irritates respiratory tract; injures lung tissue. Can Fuel combustion (especially coal and high -sulfur oil), (S02) yellow plant leaves. Destructive to marble, iron, steel. chemical plants, sulfur recovery plants, metal Contributes to acid rain. Limits visibility. processing; some natural sources like active volcanoes. Limited contribution possible from heavy-duty diesel vehicles if ultra -low sulfur fuel not used. Lead (Pb) Disturbs gastrointestinal system. Causes anemia, Lead -based industrial processes like battery production kidney disease, and neuromuscular and neurological and smelters. Lead paint, leaded gasoline. Aerially dysfunction. Also a toxic air contaminant and water deposited lead from older gasoline use may exist in pollutant. soils along major roads. Visibility- Reduces visibility. Produces haze. See particulate matter above. Reducing NOTE: not directly related to the Regional Haze May be related more to aerosols than to solid particles. Particles (VRP) program under the Federal CAA, which is oriented primarily toward visibility issues in National Parks and other "Class I" areas. However, some issues and measurement methods are similar. Sulfate Premature mortality and respiratory effects. Industrial processes, refineries and oil fields, mines, Contributes to acid rain. Some toxic air contaminants natural sources like volcanic areas, salt -covered dry attach to sulfate aerosol particles. lakes, and large sulfide rock areas. Hydrogen Colorless, flammable, poisonous. Respiratory irritant. Industrial processes such as: refineries and oil fields, Sulfide (HZS) Neurological damage and premature death. asphalt plants, livestock operations, sewage treatment Headache, nausea. Strong odor. plants, and mines. Some natural sources like volcanic areas and hot springs. Vinyl Chloride Neurological effects, liver damage, cancer. Industrial processes. Also considered a toxic air contaminant. 28 2. Regulatory Setting 2.1.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990, whereby Congress mandated that the U.S. EPA regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The U.S. EPA has assessed this expansive list in its rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 37, page 8430, February 26, 2007), and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are part of U.S. EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (https://www.epa.gov/iris). In addition, the U.S. EPA identified nine compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional -scale cancer risk drivers or contributors and non -hazard contributors from the 2011 National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) (https://www.epa.ciov/national- air-toxics-assessment). These are 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, diesel particulate matter (diesel PM), ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. While the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) considers these the priority mobile source air toxics, the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future U.S. EPA rules. The 2007 U.S. EPA rule mentioned above requires controls that will dramatically decrease Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSAT) emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines. According to an FHWA analysis using U.S. EPA's MOVES2014a model, even if vehicle activity (vehicle -miles traveled, VMT) increases by 45 percent from 2010 to 2050 as forecast, a combined reduction of 91 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSATs is projected for the same time period, as shown in Figure 3. 29 2. Regulatory Setting 0 E LU .y — — — V IVIT G­ 6 40 Diesel PM Butadiene Acetaidehyde Benzene GEms- �N,phthalene — Ethylbenzene a Fauna Idchyde D--9—ElAcrolein Polycytlics 0,16 0.15 0.14 0,13 0112 0.11 0a 10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0,00 0.0035 0.003 0,002 0.00 0.001 0,0010 0.000 0,0000 7 6 s 4 0 2 � 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 Year o Figure 3. Projected National MSAT Trends, 2010-2050 (Source: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air quality/air toxics/policy and guidance/msat/). 30 2. Regulatory Setting 2.1.3 Greenhouse Gases The term greenhouse gas (GHG) is used to describe atmospheric gases that absorb solar radiation and subsequently emit radiation in the thermal infrared region of the energy spectrum, trapping heat in the Earth's atmosphere. These gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and water vapor, among others. A growing body of research attributes long-term changes in temperature, precipitation, and other elements of Earth's climate to large increases in GHG emissions since the mid -nineteenth century, particularly from human activity related to fossil fuel combustion. Anthropogenic GHG emissions of particular interest include CO2, CH4, N2O, and fluorinated gases. GHGs differ in how much heat each traps in the atmosphere (global warming potential, or GWP). CO2 is the most important GHG, so amounts of other gases are expressed relative to CO2, using a metric called "carbon dioxide equivalent" (CO2e). The global warming potential of CO2 is assigned a value of 1, and the warming potential of other gases is assessed as multiples of CO2. For example, the 2007 International Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report calculates the GWP of CH4 as 25 and the GWP of N2O as 298, over a 100-year time horizon.' Generally, estimates of all GHGs are summed to obtain total emissions for a project or given time period, usually expressed in metric tons (MTCO2e), or million metric tons (MMTCO2e).2 As evidence has mounted for the relationship of climate changes to rising GHGs, federal and state governments have established numerous policies and goals targeted to improving energy efficiency and fuel economy, and reducing GHG emissions. Nationally, electricity generation is the largest source of GHG emissions, followed by transportation. In California, however, transportation is the largest contributor to GHGs. At the federal level, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] Part 4332) requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to making a decision on the action or project. To date, no national standards have been established for nationwide mobile -source GHG reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level. However, the U.S. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued the first corporate fuel economy (CAFE) standards in 2010, requiring cars and light -duty vehicles to achieve certain fuel economy targets by 2016, with the intention of gradually increasing the targets and the range of vehicles to which they would apply. California has enacted aggressive GHG reduction targets, starting with Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 is California's signature climate change legislation. It set the goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and required the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop a Scoping Plan that describes the approach See Table 2.14 in IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007 (AR4): The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, and New York, NY, USA. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf. z See http://www.airguaIity.orci/Businesses/CEQA-Land-Use-Planning/CEQA-Guidance-Tools. 31 2. Regulatory Setting California will take to achieve that goal and to update it every 5 years. In 2015, Governor Jerry Brown enhanced the overall adaptation planning effort with Executive Order (EO) B-30-15, establishing an interim GHG reduction goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030, and requiring state agencies to factor climate change into all planning and investment decisions. Senate Bill (SB) 375, the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, furthered state climate action goals by mandating coordinated transportation and land use planning through preparation of SCS. The ARB sets GHG emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles for each region. Each regional MPO must include in its regional transportation plan an SCS proposing actions toward achieving the regional emissions reduction targets.' With these and other State Senate and Assembly bills and executive orders, California advances an innovative and proactive approach to dealing with GHG emissions and climate change. 2.1.4 Asbestos Asbestos is a term used for several types of naturally occurring fibrous minerals that are a human health hazard when airborne. The most common type of asbestos is chrysotile, but other types such as tremolite and actinolite are also found in California. Asbestos is classified as a known human carcinogen by state, federal, and international agencies and was identified as a toxic air contaminant by the ARB in 1986. All types of asbestos are hazardous and may cause lung disease and cancer. Asbestos can be released from serpentine and ultramafic rocks when the rock is broken or crushed. At the point of release, the asbestos fibers may become airborne, causing air quality and human health hazards. These rocks have been commonly used for unpaved gravel roads, landscaping, fill projects, and other improvement projects in some localities. Asbestos may be released to the atmosphere due to vehicular traffic on unpaved roads, during grading for development projects, and at quarry operations. All of these activities may have the effect of releasing potentially harmful asbestos into the air. Natural weathering and erosion processes can act on asbestos -bearing rock and make it easier for asbestos fibers to become airborne if such rock is disturbed. Serpentine may contain chrysotile asbestos, especially near fault zones. Ultramafic rock, a rock closely related to serpentinite, may also contain asbestos minerals. Asbestos can also be associated with other rock types in California, though much less frequently than serpentinite and/or ultramafic rock. Serpentinite and/or ultramafic rock are known to be present in 44 of California's 58 counties. These rocks are particularly abundant in counties of the Sierra Nevada foothills, the Klamath Mountains, and Coast Ranges. The California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology has developed a map showing the general location of ultramafic rock in the state (www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/hazardous minerals/asbestos/Pages/index.aspx). 3 https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm 32 2. Regulatory Setting 2.2 Regulations 2.2.1 Federal and California Clean Air Act The Federal CAA, as amended, is the primary federal law that governs air quality while the CCAA is its companion state law. These laws and related regulations by the U.S. EPA and the ARB set standards for the concentration of pollutants in the air. At the federal level, these standards are called NAAQS. NAAQS and state ambient air quality standards have been established for six transportation -related criteria pollutants that have been linked to potential health concerns: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (03), particulate matter (PM), which is broken down for regulatory purposes into particles of 10 micrometers or smaller (PM1o) and particles of 2.5 micrometers and smaller (PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). In addition, national and state standards exist for lead (Pb), and state standards exist for visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride. The NAAQS and state standards are set at levels that protect public health with a margin of safety, and are subject to periodic review and revision. Both state and federal regulatory schemes also cover toxic air contaminants (air toxics); some criteria pollutants are also air toxics or may include certain air toxics in their general definition. 2.2.2 Transportation Conformity The conformity requirement is based on Federal CAA Section 176(c), which prohibits the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and other federal agencies from funding, authorizing, or approving plans, programs, or projects that do not conform to State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining the NAAQS. "Transportation Conformity" applies to highway and transit projects and takes place on two levels: the regional —or, planning and programming level —and the project level. The proposed project must conform at both levels to be approved. Conformity requirements apply only in nonattainment and "maintenance" (former nonattainment) areas for the NAAQS, and only for the specific NAAQS that are or were violated. The U.S. EPA regulations at 40 CFR 93 govern the conformity process. Conformity requirements do not apply in unclassifiable/attainment areas for NAAQS and do not apply at all for state standards regardless of the status of the area. Regional conformity is concerned with how well the regional transportation system supports plans for attaining the NAAQS for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (03), particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and in some areas (although not in California), sulfur dioxide (SO2). California has attainment or maintenance areas for all of these transportation -related "criteria pollutants" except S02, and also has a nonattainment area for lead (Pb); however, lead is not currently required by the FCAA to be covered in transportation conformity analysis. Regional conformity is based on emission analysis of RTPs and FTIPs that include all transportation projects planned for a region over a period of at least 20 years (for the RTP), and 4 years (for the FTIP). RTP and FTIP conformity uses travel demand and emission models to determine whether or not the implementation of those projects would conform to emission budgets or other tests at various 33 2. Regulatory Setting analysis years showing that requirements of the CAA and the SIP are met. If the conformity analysis is successful, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), FHWA, and Federal Transit Administration (FTA), make the determinations that the RTP and FTIP are in conformity with the SIP for achieving the goals of the CAA. Otherwise, the projects in the RTP and/or FTIP must be modified until conformity is attained. If the design concept, scope, and "open -to -traffic" schedule of a proposed transportation project are the same as described in the RTP and the TIP, then the proposed project meets regional conformity requirements for purposes of project -level analysis. Project -level conformity is achieved by demonstrating that the project comes from a conforming RTP and TIP and the project has a design concept and scope' that has not changed significantly from those in the RTP and TIP. If the design concept and scope have changed substantially from that used in the RTP Conformity analysis, RTP and TIP amendments may be needed. Project -level conformity also needs to demonstrate that project analyses have used the latest planning assumptions and U.S. EPA -approved emissions models; the project complies with any control measures in the SIP in PM areas. Furthermore, additional analyses (known as hot -spot analyses) may be required for projects located in CO and PM nonattainment or maintenance areas to examine localized air quality impacts. 2.2.3 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) NEPA requires that policies and regulations administered by the federal government are consistent with its environmental protection goals. NEPA also requires that federal agencies use an interdisciplinary approach to planning and decision -making for any actions that could impact the environment. It requires environmental review of federal actions including the creation of Environmental Documents (EDs) that describe the environmental effects of a proposed project and its alternatives (including a section on air quality impacts). 2.2.4 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) CEQAS is a statute that requires state and local agencies to identify the significant environmental impacts of their actions and to avoid or mitigate those impacts, if feasible. CEQA documents address CCAA requirements for transportation projects. While state standards are often more strict than federal standards, the state has no conformity process. 2.2.5 Local The U.S. EPA has delegated responsibility to air districts to establish local rules to protect air quality. Caltrans' Standard Specification 14-9.02 (Caltrans, 2015) requires compliance with all applicable air quality laws and regulations including local and air district ordinances and rules. ' "Design concept' means the type of facility that is proposed, such as a freeway or arterial highway. "Design scope" refers to those aspects of the project that would clearly affect capacity and thus any regional emissions analysis, such as the number of lanes and the length of the project. s For general information about CEQA, see: http://resources.ca.gov/cega/more/fag.html. 34 2. Regulatory Setting South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules and regulations are extensive and most do not apply to the project. The rule most applicable to the proposed project is Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, which the project is required to comply with, and conformance will be incorporated into project specifications and procedures. Contractor compliance with Rule 403 requirements will be mandated in the contractor's specifications and shall include the measures listed below. ■ Land disturbance shall be minimized to the extent feasible. Grading activities shall be limited to the disturbance of no more than five acres in the course of one day. ■ Haul trucks shall be covered when loaded with fill. ■ Paved streets shall be swept at least once per day where there is evidence of dirt that has been carried onto the roadway. ■ Watering trucks shall be used to minimize dust. Watering should be sufficient to confine dust plumes to the project work areas. Active, disturbed areas shall have water applied to them three times daily. ■ For disturbed surfaces that will not be revegetated and that will be left inactive for four or more days, a chemical stabilizer shall be applied pursuant to the manufacturer's instruction. ■ For unpaved roads, chemical stabilizers shall be applied or the roads shall be watered once per hour during active operation. ■ Vehicle speed on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 miles per hour. ■ For open storage piles that will remain on site for two or more days, water shall be applied once per hour, or coverings shall be installed. ■ For paved road trackout, all haul vehicles shall be covered or shall comply with the vehicle freeboard requirements of Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code for both public and private roads. During high wind conditions (i.e., wind speeds in excess of 25 miles per hour), all earth -moving activities shall cease or water shall 35 3. Affected Environment 3. Affected Environment The topography of a region can substantially impact air flow and resulting pollutant concentrations. California is divided into 15 air basins with similar topography and meteorology to better manage air quality throughout the state. Each air basin has a local air district that is responsible for identifying and implementing air quality strategies to comply with ambient air quality standards. The project is located in the city of Temecula, within Riverside County. The SCAQMD is the local air district responsible for the administration of federal and state air quality laws, regulations, and policies. Included in the SCAQMD's tasks are monitoring of air pollution, preparation of the SIP for all of Orange County; and the non -desert of Los Angeles County, San Bernardino County, and Riverside County including the Coachella Valley and promulgation of Rules and Regulations. The population in the city of Temecula was 110,300 in 2016, and forecasted to be 138,400 in 2045 (SCAG 2020). 3.1 Climate, Meteorology, and Topography Meteorology (weather) and terrain can influence air quality. Certain weather parameters are highly correlated to air quality, including temperature, the amount of sunlight, and the type of winds at the surface and above the surface. Winds can transport ozone and ozone precursors from one region to another, contributing to air quality problems downwind of source regions. Furthermore, mountains can act as a barrier that prevents ozone from dispersing. The Temecula and Lake Elsinore air quality and climatological monitoring stations, maintained by the SCAQMD, are located near the project area and is representative of meteorological conditions near the project. Figure 4 shows a wind rose illustrating the predominant wind patterns near the project. The climate of the project area is generally Mediterranean in character, with cool winters (averaging a high of 65.4 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and an average low of 36.4 °F in January) and warm, dry summers (averaging a high 98.1°F and an average low of 59.4 °F in July) (Western Region Climatic Center [WRCC] 2020). Temperature inversions are common, affecting localized pollutant concentrations in the winter and enhancing ozone formation in the summer. Mountains ranging from 2,500 to 3,000 feet in altitude tend to trap pollutants in the region by limiting air flow. Annual average rainfall is 12 inches (at the Lake Elsinore climate monitoring station COOP Id), mainly falling during the winter months. 36 3. Affected Environment WIND SPEED (Knats) a=21.58 - 17.11-21.5a . 11.08- 17.11 - 7.00 - 11.08 FI 4.08 . 7.M 0.97 - 4.08 Calms: 21.15% Figure 4. Predominant Wind Patterns Near the Project. 3.2 Existing Air Quality This section summarizes existing air quality conditions near the proposed project area. It includes attainment statuses for criteria pollutants, describes local ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants for the three years, and discusses MSAT and GHG emissions. Figure 5 contains a map showing the locations of air monitoring sites relative to the proposed project site. 37 3. Affected Environment G Ifb /A r ... . G33 Project Location - Air Quality Monitoring -+ i - Station Locations 0 1.25 2.5 N �, AMiles Imagery provided by ESM, Microsoft Bing and its licensors 0 2021. Figure 5. Map of Air Quality Monitoring Stations Located Near the Project. 38 3. Affected Environment 3.2.1 Criteria Pollutants and Attainment Status Riverside County currently meets the federal standards for all criteria pollutants except 03 and PMz.s. Riverside County was designated as an extreme non -attainment area for the 2015 8-hour 03 standard and serious nonattainment area for PM2.5. Riverside County is also a maintenance area for CO and PM1o. Riverside County meets the California standards for all criteria pollutants, except ozone, PM1o, and PMz.s. Therefore, Riverside County has been designated as a state non -attainment area for ozone and PM1o. The state has not yet issued a formal status for PMz.s. Table 10 lists the state and federal attainment status for all regulated pollutants. Ambient air pollutant concentrations in Riverside County are measured at eleven air quality monitoring stations operated by the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD air quality monitoring stations that represents the project area, climate, and topography in the Basin are the Temecula and Lake Elsinore monitoring stations. The Temecula monitoring station is located at 33700 Borel Road, in Winchester, approximately 6.5 miles northeast of the project area. The station monitors 03 and PMz.s. Because this monitoring station is new and does not monitor PM1o, data was supplemented from the Lake Elsinore Station, located on West Flint Street; this station is located approximately 14.5 miles northwest of the project area. Table 11 provides a summary of measurements collected at these monitoring stations for the years 2019 through 2021. Table 10. State and Federal Attainment Status. Pollutant State Attainment Status Federal Attainment Status Ozone (03) Nonattainment Nonattainment (Extreme). Respirable Particulate Nonattainment Attainment (Maintenance Area) Matter (PM1o) Fine Particulate Nonattainment Nonattainment (Serious) Matter (PM2.5) Carbon Attainment Attainment (Maintenance Area) Monoxide (CO) Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Unclassified (NO2) Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment/Unclassifiable (SOZ) Lead (Pb) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment Visibility - Reducing Attainment N/A Particles Sulfates Attainment N/A Hydrogen Sulfide Attainment N/A Vinyl Chloride Attainment N/A 39 3. Affected Environment Table 11. Air Quality Concentrations for the Past Three Years Pollutant Standard 2019 2020 2021 Ozone (33700 Borel Road Station in Temecula) Max 1-hr concentration 0.091 0.108 0.095 No. days exceeded: 0.09 ppm 0 5 1 State Max 8-hr concentration 0.079 0.091 0.083 No. days exceeded: State 0.070 ppm 6 37 10 0.070 ppm Federal Carbon Monoxide (33700 Borel Road Station in Temecula) Max 1-hr concentration No. days exceeded: State 20 ppm * * * 35 ppm Federal Max 8-hr concentration No. days exceeded: State 9.0 ppm * * * 9 ppm Federal PMIO (West Flint Street Station in Lake Elsinore) Max 24-hr concentration 193.8 1092.4 90.0 No. days exceeded: 50 µg/m3 State Federal 150 µg/m3 0 1 0 Max annual concentration 19.7 23.7 22.4 No. days exceeded: 3 20 µg/m State PMZ.S (West Flint Street Station in Lake Elsinore) Max 24-hr concentration 17.6 41.6 28.8 No. days exceeded: 3 35 µg/m Federal Max annual concentration 7.2 6.9 No. days exceeded: State 12 µg/m3 12.0 µg/m3 Federal 40 3. Affected Environment Pollutant Standard 2019 2020 2021 Nitrogen Dioxide (West Flint Street Station in Lake Elsinore) Max 1-hr concentration 38.0 43.6 43.7 No. days exceeded: 0.18 ppm 0 0 0 State Federal 100 ppb 0 0 0 Max annual concentration 6 7 7 No. days exceeded: 0.030 ppm State 0 0 0 Federal 53 ppb Notes: * = No Data Available Source: ARB 2023 3.2.2 Mobile Source Air Toxics In addition to the criteria air pollutants for which there are NAAQS, the EPA also regulates air toxics. Most air toxics originate from human -made sources, including on -road mobile sources, non -road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes), area sources (e.g., dry cleaners), and stationary sources (e.g., factories and refineries). Controlling air toxic emissions became a national priority with the passage of the CAA Amendments of 1990, whereby Congress mandated the EPA regulate 188 air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants. The EPA has assessed this expansive list in its latest rule on the Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources (Federal Register, Volume 73, No. 201, page 61,358; October 16, 2008) and identified a group of 93 compounds emitted from mobile sources that are listed in its Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). In addition, the EPA identified nine compounds with significant contributions from mobile sources that are among the national and regional -scale cancer risk drivers from its 2011 National Air Toxics Assessment. These are acrolein, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, diesel PM, ethylbenzene, formaldehyde, naphthalene, and polycyclic organic matter. While the FHWA considers these the priority MSAT, the list is subject to change and may be adjusted in consideration of future EPA rules. Table 12 lists the ambient concentrations of the MSATs at the nearest station that monitors MSATs to the project site, the Riverside-Rubidoux station located at 5888 Mission Boulevard in Riverside, approximately 37 miles to the north. 41 3. Affected Environment Table 12. Mobile Source Air Toxic Measured Concentrations in the Project Vicinity. MSAT Unit 2016 2017 2018 Acrolein ppb 1.3 0.6 2.1 Benzene ppb 0.82 1.1 1.2 1,3-Butadiene ppb 0.17 0.17 0.16 Acetaldehyde ppb 2.7 2.8 Ethylbenzene ppb 0.9 0.5 0.5 Formaldehyde ppb 7.7 7.4 Source: ARB 2021 MSAT = Mobile Source Air Toxic ppb = parts per billion * = No measurements available 3.2.3 Greenhouse Gas and Climate Change CO2, as part of the carbon cycle, is an important compound for plant and animal life, but also accounted for 84% of California's total GHG emissions in 2015. Transportation, primarily on -road travel, is the single largest source of CO2 emissions in the state. The proposed project is located in Temecula, Riverside County, and is included in SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023). The Western Riverside Council of Governments' (WRCOG) Subregional Climate Action Plan includes Temecula as a participating city and provides GHG emission inventories for the region and City (WRCOG 2014). Total emissions in 2010 for the WRCOG subregion were 5,834,400 MT CO2e. Emissions for Temecula in 2010 were approximately 600,000 MT CO2e, which was the second largest for participating cities behind Riverside. Emissions for the WRCOG subregion were estimated to be 9,113,087 MT CO2e in 2035; emissions for Temecula were estimated to be approximately 1,000,000 MT CO2e in 2035. The majority of emissions under the baseline and future scenarios are from the transportation sector. 3.3 Sensitive Receptors Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than the general population. Sensitive populations (sensitive receptors) that are in proximity to localized sources of toxics and CO are of particular concern. Land uses considered to be sensitive receptors include residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, athletic facilities, long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. On the basis of research showing that the zone of greatest concern near roadways is within 500 feet (or 150 meters), sensitive receptors within 500 feet (or 150 meters) have been identified and are documented in Table 13. Only the Calvary Chapel of Temecula Valley, located to the north of the project alignment, is within 500 feet; the Virgin Mary Arabic Church is located slightly outside of 500 feet, at 525 feet, to the south of the project alignment. 42 3. Affected Environment Table 13. Sensitive Receptors Located Within 500 feet of the Project Site. Receptor Description Distance Between Receptor and Project (ft) Place of Worship Calvary Chapel of Temecula Valley 350 3.4 Conformity Status The Transportation Conformity Rule is based on CAA Section 176(c), which prohibits the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) and other federal agencies from funding, authorizing, or approving plans, programs, or projects that do not conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining the NAAQS. Conformity applies to highway and transit projects and takes place on two levels: the regional (or planning and programming) level and the project level. The proposed project must conform at both levels to be approved. Conformity requirements apply only in nonattainment and maintenance (former nonattainment) areas for the NAAQS, and only for the specific NAAQS that are or were violated. EPA regulations at 40 CFR 93 govern the conformity process. Conformity requirements do not apply in unclassifiable/attainment areas for the NAAQS and do not apply at all for State standards regardless of the status of the area. 3.4.1 Regional Conformity Section 176(c) of the federal CAA requires the following: No department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government shall engage in, support in any way or provide financial assistance for, license or permit, or approve, any activity which does not conform to an implementation plan after it has been approved ... Conformity to an implementation plan means: (A) conformity to an implementation plan's purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards; and (B) that such activities will not (i) cause or contribute to any new violation of any standard in any area; (ii) increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any area; or (iii) delay timely attainment of any standard or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area. The determination of conformity shall be based on the most recent estimates of emissions, and such estimates shall be determined from the most recent population, employment, travel and congestion estimates as determined by the MPO or other agency authorized to make such estimates. 43 3. Affected Environment In November 1993, the FHWA and U.S. EPA developed guidance for determining conformity of transportation plans, programs, and projects. This guidance is denoted as the Transportation Conformity Rule (40 CFR Section 51.390 and 40 CFR Sections 93.100-129). The CAA requires a demonstration that federal actions conform to the SIP and similar approved plans in areas that are designated as non -attainment or have maintenance plans for criteria pollutants. Transportation measures, such as the project, are analyzed for conformity with the SIP as part of the RTP and RTIP. If the design concept and scope of a proposed transportation project are consistent with the project description in the applicable RTP and RTIP, and the assumptions in the regional emissions analysis for the RTP and RTIP, then the project would conform to the SIP, and no adverse regional air quality impact would occur as a result of the project. As discussed, the project is included in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023; RTP ID 991203) and the conforming 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023; FTIP ID 991203A). The project is described in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023) as "in western Riv Co in the City of Temecula: phase 1: extend overland drive (4 lanes) from commerce center drive to Avenida Alvarado/Diaz Rd intersection. See 991203a for phase 2 bridge project." The project is described in the 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023) as "in western Riv Co in the City of Temecula: Phase 2: replace 2-lane low water crossing with 4-lane bridge (BR#OOL0087) over Murrieta Creek at Avenida Alvarado. See 991203 for Phase 1." The project was discussed among stakeholders at a Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) meeting on July 28, 2020, pursuant to the interagency consultation requirement of 40 CFR 93.105(c)(1)(i). The members of the TCWG confirmed that the project, RTP Project ID 991203, would not be considered a project of air quality concern. The TCWG determination is included as Appendix D. A follow-up letter from SCAG on September 26, 2022 confirmed to the City of Temecula that this July 28, 2020 TCWG finding also applied to FTIP Project ID 991203A (included in Appendix D). SCAG cannot pass regional conformity using EMFAC2017. SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (and Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023) used EMFAC2014 for their regional conformity analysis. EMFAC2017 was not used. While the project has not been part of any amendments, the FHWA made a finding of conformity on the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS through Amendment #3 on June 9, 2023, included as Appendix B. In addition, the FHWA approved the 2023 FTIP Consistency Amendment #23-03 and concurred that the associated conformity determination conformed to the applicable SIP in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 on June 9, 2023, also included as Appendix B. Therefore, the project is assumed to conform to the SIP and no adverse regional or local air quality impact would occur as a result of the project. Furthermore, implementation of the project would ensure that the City would be consistent with the 2020 SCAG RTP/SCS (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023) and 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023). Conformity status information is summarized in Table 14. In addition, the Transportation Air Quality Conformity Findings Checklist is included as Appendix C. 44 3. Affected Environment Table 14. Status of Plans Related to Regional Conformity. Date of Date of Date of Approval MPO Plan/TIP adoption by Approval by Last Amendment by FHWA of Last MPO FHWA Amendment Regional September 3, June 5, 2020 #3 06/09/2023 Transportation 2020 SCAG Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Transportation October 6, November 16, 23-03 06/09/2023 Improvement 2022 2022 SCAG Program (FSTIP approval) FHWA = Federal Highway Administration FSTIP = Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program MPO = Metropolitan Planning Organization SCAG = Southern California Association of Governments TIP = Transportation Improvement Program 3.4.2 Project -Level Conformity The proposed project is located in an attainment/maintenance area for federal CO and federal PM10 standards, and a nonattainment area for federal PM2.5 standards, thus a project -level hot -spot analysis is required under 40 CFR 93.109 for the pollutants. See Appendix D for the Interagency Consultation Documentation showing PM determinations. The proposed project does not cause or contribute to any new localized CO, PM2.5, and/or PMlo violations, or delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any required interim emission reductions or other milestones during the timeframe of the transportation plan (or regional emissions analysis). 3.4.3 Interagency Consultation The project would not be a project of air quality concern for PM10 or PM2.5 emissions because the project would not result in increases in the number of diesel vehicles utilizing the project area; does not involve intersections that are operating at LOS D, E, or F with a significant number of diesel vehicles; does not involve a new or expanded bus or rail terminal; and would not affect a location or category of site which are identified in the PM10 implementation plan as sites of violation or possible violation. The project was discussed among stakeholders at a Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) meeting on July 28, 2020, pursuant to the interagency consultation requirement of 40 CFR 93.105(c)(1)(i). The members of the TCWG confirmed that the project would not be considered a project of air quality concern. The TCWG determination in included as Appendix D. A follow-up letter from SCAG on September 26, 2022 confirmed to the City of Temecula that this July 28, 2020 TCWG finding also applied to FTIP Project ID 991203A (included in Appendix D). 45 3. Affected Environment 3.5 NEPA Analysis/Requirement NEPA applies to all projects that receive federal funding or involve a federal action. NEPA requires that all reasonable alternatives for the proposed project are rigorously explored and objectively evaluated. As described above, the proposed project is listed in a conforming RTP and FTIP. Project construction will last less than 3 years and will not substantially impact traffic due to detours, road closures, and temporary terminations. Therefore, impacts of the resulting traffic flow changes do not need to be analyzed. 3.6 CEQA Analysis/Requirement CEQA applies to most California transportation projects (certain projects are statutorily exempt). CEQA requires that a range of reasonable alternatives to the project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project are explored. For CEQA, the air quality study should address pollutants for which California has established air quality standards (ozone, PM10, PM2.5, carbon monoxide, NOz, SOz, lead, visibility -reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride), as well as GHGs, MSATs, and asbestos. Similar to NEPA, analysis/documentation requirements for CEQA vary by pollutant (see the table in Section 4.1); ranging from a narrative describing that the pollutant is typically not a transportation issue to an emissions analysis. If construction will last more than three years and/or will substantially impact traffic due to detours, road closures, and temporary terminations, then impacts of the resulting traffic flow changes may need to be analyzed. As described above, the proposed project is listed in a conforming RTP and FTIP. Project construction will last less than three years and will not substantially impact traffic due to detours, road closures, and temporary terminations. Therefore, impacts of the resulting traffic flow changes do not need to be analyzed. 46 4. Environmental Consequences 4. Environmental Consequences This section describes the methods, impact criteria, and results of air quality analyses of the proposed project. Analyses in this report were conducted using methodology and assumptions that are consistent with the requirements of NEPA, CEQA, the CAAAs of 1990, and the CCAA of 1988. The analyses also use guidelines and procedures provided in applicable air quality analysis protocols, such as the Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol) (Garza et al., 1997), Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot -Spot Analyses in PM10 and PM2.5 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas (U.S. EPA, 2015), and the FHWA Updated Interim Guidance on Air Toxics Analysis in NEPA Documents (FHWA, 2016c). 4.1 Impact Criteria Project -related emissions will have an adverse environmental impact if they result in pollutant emissions levels that either create or worsen a violation of an ambient air quality standard (identified in Table 6) or contribute to an existing air quality violation. 4.2 Short -Term Effects (Construction Emissions) 4.2.1 Construction Equipment, Traffic Congestion, and Fugitive Dust Regional Emissions The principal criteria pollutants emitted during construction would be PM10 and PMz.s. The source of the pollutants would be fugitive dust created during clearing, grubbing, excavation, and grading; demolition of structures and pavement; vehicle travel on paved and unpaved roads; and material blown from unprotected graded areas, stockpiles, and haul trucks. Generally, the distance that particles drift from their source depends on their size, emission height, and wind speed. The potential settling distance of dust particles is governed by the initial injection height of the particle, the terminal settling velocity of the particle, and the degree of atmospheric turbulence. For a typical mean wind speed of 10 miles per hour, particles larger than PM 100 microns in diameter or smaller are likely to settle out within 20 to 30 feet from the edge of the point of emission (U.S. EPA 2009). Smaller particles (PM 30 microns in diameter or smaller to PM 100 microns) are likely to settle, depending upon the extent of atmospheric turbulence, within a few hundred feet from the point of 6 "Fugitive" is a term used in air quality analysis to denote emission sources that are not confined to stacks, vents, or similar paths. 47 4. Environmental Consequences emission. Finer particles, particularly PM1o, which includes PM2.5, settle much slower due to atmospheric turbulence and can travel hundreds of miles (U.S. EPA, 2009). A secondary source of pollutants during construction would be the engine exhaust from construction equipment during all construction activities. The principal pollutants of concern would be NOx and ROG emissions that would contribute to the formation of 03, which is a regional non -attainment pollutant. Federal conformity regulations require analysis of construction impacts for projects when construction activities will last for more than 5 years. Project construction would begin in 2024, and construction activities would last approximately 17 months. Therefore, no quantitative estimate of regional construction emissions is required. However, for informational purposes, construction emissions were quantified. Additionally, specific measures to control dust and particulates related to SCAQMD rules are assumed to be part of project specifications. These measures are identified in Chapter 5.0. Construction emissions were estimated using the latest Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District's (SMAMQD's) Road Construction Emissions Model (RCEM) (http://www.airquality.org/cega/, Version 9.0.0). While the model was developed for Sacramento conditions in terms of fleet emission factors, silt loading, and other model assumptions, it is considered adequate for estimating road construction emissions by the SCAQMD (in its CEQA guidance) and is used for that purpose in this project analysis. The model only allows inputs under four phases: grubbing/land clearing, grading/excavation, drainage/utilities/sub-grade, and paving. Therefore, the project phases and equipment shown in Table 5 and Table 6Error! Reference source n of found. have been combined under the listed RCEM phases as shown in Table 15. In addition, all equipment under each phase was conservatively assumed to operate for that entire phase; e.g., under Site Preparation, the equipment under Traffic Control And Demolition and Clearing and Grubbing were assumed to operate at the same time, even though they would be scheduled sequentially. The longest round trip distances identified in Table 7 were also used for each phase. Table 15. Construction Activities and Schedule for RCEM Input. Construction Phase Applicable RCEM Phase Advertisement and Award N/A Advertisement and Award Site Preparation Traffic Control and Demolition Grubbing/Land Clearing Clearing and Grubbing Channel Grading Grading/Excavation Grading Channel Slopes 48 4. Environmental Consequences Construction Phase Applicable RCEM Phase Stage I Construction Bridge Construction - Foundation Bridge Construction - Substructure Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade Bridge Construction - Superstructure Grading/Embankment Backfill/Pavement Stage II Construction Traffic Control and Demolition Paving Grading/Embankment Backfill/Pavement Project Closure N/A Demobilization/Project Closure Construction -related emissions for the project are presented in Table 16. The results of the construction emission calculations are included in Appendix E. The emissions presented are based on the best information available at the time of calculations. The emissions represent the peak daily construction emissions that would be generated by the project. As shown in the table, the emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Table 16. Project Construction Emissions for Roadways. ROG PM10 PM2.5 CO Sox NO. (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) Grubbing/Land 1.30 15.19 3.27 30.60 0.05 3.92 Clearing Grading/Excavation 2.28 15.35 3.37 44.14 0.08 5.15 Drainage/Utilities/Sub- 4.74 15.68 3.68 106.23 0.17 12.31 Grade Paving 3.46 0.44 0.36 71.72 0.12 8.82 Maximum Daily or 4.74 15.68 3.68 106.23 0.17 12.31 Average Daily SCAQMD Significance 75 150 55 550 150 100 Threshold Significant Impact? No No No No No No Project Total (Tons) 0.76 2.39 0.56 16.79 0.03 1.97 Implementation of the following measures, some of which may also be required for other purposes such as storm water pollution control, will reduce air quality impacts resulting from construction activities. Please note that although these measures are anticipated to reduce construction -related emissions, these reductions cannot be quantified at this time. 49 4. Environmental Consequences • The construction contractor must comply with the Caltrans' Standard Specifications in Section 14-9 (2018). - Section 14-9-02 specifically requires compliance by the contractor with all applicable laws and regulations related to air quality, including air pollution control district and air quality management district regulations and local ordinances. • Water or a dust palliative will be applied to the site and equipment as often as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions. • Soil binder will be spread on any unpaved roads used for construction purposes, and on all project construction parking areas. • Trucks will be washed as they leave the right-of-way as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions. • Construction equipment and vehicles will be properly tuned and maintained. All construction equipment will use low sulfur fuel as required by CA Code of Regulations Title 17, Section 93114. • A dust control plan will be developed documenting sprinkling, temporary paving, speed limits, and timely re -vegetation of disturbed slopes as needed to minimize construction impacts to existing communities. • Equipment and materials storage sites will be located as far away from residential and park uses as practicable. Construction areas will be kept clean and orderly. • Environmentally sensitive areas will be established near sensitive air receptors. Within these areas, construction activities involving the extended idling of diesel equipment or vehicles will be prohibited, to the extent feasible. • Track -out reduction measures, such as gravel pads at project access points to minimize dust and mud deposits on roads affected by construction traffic, will be used. • All transported loads of soils and wet materials will be covered before transport, or adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck) will be provided to minimize emission of dust during transportation. • Dust and mud that are deposited on paved, public roads due to construction activity and traffic will be promptly and regularly removed to reduce PM emissions. • To the extent feasible, construction traffic will be scheduled and routed to reduce congestion and related air quality impacts caused by idling vehicles along local roads during peak travel times. • Mulch will be installed or vegetation planted as soon as practical after grading to reduce windblown PM in the area. 4.2.2 Asbestos According to the report A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California -Area Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos (CDC 2000), within Riverside County naturally occurring 50 4. Environmental Consequences asbestos are not typically found in the geological formations present on the project site (CDC 2000). Thus, hazardous exposure to asbestos -containing serpentine materials would not be a concern with the project. 4.2.3 Lead Lead is normally not an air quality issue for transportation projects unless the project involves disturbance of soils containing high levels of aerially deposited lead or painting or modification of structures with lead -based coatings. There are no known soils containing high levels of aerially deposited lead, nor does the proposed project include painting or modification of structures with lead -based coatings. Thus, there is no requirement for an analysis of lead emissions. 4.3 Long -Term Effects (Operational Emissions) The CAA requires a demonstration that federal actions conform to the SIP and similar approved plans in areas that are designated as non -attainment or have maintenance plans for criteria pollutants. Transportation measures, such as the project, are analyzed for conformity with the SIP as part of the RTP and RTIP. If the design concept and scope of a proposed transportation project are consistent with the project description in the applicable RTP and RTIP, and the assumptions in the regional emissions analysis for the RTP and RTIP, then the project would conform to the SIP, and no adverse regional air quality impact would occur as a result of the project. SCAG, as the area's MPO, and the FHWA must make a determination that the applicable RTP and RTIP conform to the applicable SIP. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation activities will not create new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or delay the attainment of the NAAQS. Federal regulations also require SCAG to conduct an air quality conformity analysis of all regionally significant projects that increase the transportation system capacity. All regionally significant capacity -increasing transportation projects, regardless of funding sources, must be included in the RTIP. As discussed, the project is included in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023;RTP ID 991203) and the conforming 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023; FTIP ID 991203A). The project is described in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023) as "in western Riv Co in the City of Temecula: phase 1: extend overland drive (4 lanes) from commerce center drive to Avenida Alvarado/Diaz Rd intersection. See 991203a for phase 2 bridge project." The project is described in the 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023) as "in western Riv Co in the City of Temecula: Phase 2: replace 2-lane low water crossing with 4-lane bridge (BR#OOL0087) over Murrieta Creek at Avenida Alvarado. See 991203 for Phase 1." The project was discussed among stakeholders at a Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) meeting on July 28, 2020, pursuant to the interagency consultation requirement of 40 CFR 93.105(c)(1)(i). The members of the TCWG confirmed that the project, RTP Project ID 991203, would not be considered a project of air quality concern. The TCWG determination is included as Appendix 51 4. Environmental Consequences D. A follow-up letter from SCAG on September 26, 2022 confirmed to the City of Temecula that this July 28, 2020 TCWG finding also applied to FTIP Project ID 991203A (included in Appendix D). SCAG cannot pass regional conformity using EMFAC2017. SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (and Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023) used EMFAC2014 for their regional conformity analysis. EMFAC2017 was not used. While the project has not been part of any amendments, the FHWA made a finding of conformity on the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS through Amendment #3 on June 9, 2023, included as Appendix B. In addition, the FHWA approved the 2023 FTIP Consistency Amendment #23-03 and concurred that the associated conformity determination conformed to the applicable SIP in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 on June 9, 2023, also included as Appendix B. Therefore, the project is assumed to conform to the SIP and no adverse regional or local air quality impact would occur as a result of the project. Furthermore, implementation of the project would ensure that the City would be consistent with the 2020 SCAG RTP/SCS (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023) and 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023). In addition, while the project's VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum (STC Traffic, Inc., 2021) showed that project study area VMT will be 2,618 VMT per day under the Opening Year (2025) scenario and 2,922 VMT per day in the Horizon Year (2045), project study area VMT is only shown to be increasing because the project study area VMT analysis does not consider redistribution of traffic and potential VMT reductions on routes outside of the study area (e.g., Rancho California). The project study area was determined by the City for traffic flow purposes and not for VMT purposes. In reality, the proposed project does not increase capacity, and would reduce VMT for current trips on the network as the new roadway segment lowers VMT forjourneys from Overland Drive to Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado. The distance from the Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle intersection to the Diaz Road/ Avenida Alvarado intersection is currently 0.7 miles. The distance between the two intersections across the creek is approximately 825 feet. This is an approximate reduction of 2,870 feet traveled per vehicle trip. With a reduction in overall trip distance for the area, the project would result in emissions reductions compared to the No Build Alternative. 4.3.1 CO Analysis The Transportation Conformity Rule requires a statement that: federal projects must not cause or contribute to any new localized CO violations or increase the frequency or severity of any existing CO violations in CO nonattainment and maintenance areas. The CO portion of the Rule applies to the proposed project because the Basin is classified as a federal CO maintenance area. The air quality analyses of the RTP and RTIP do not include the analyses of local CO impacts; these must be addressed on a project level. The determination of project -level CO impacts was carried out in accordance with the Project -Level Conformity Process flowchart, adopted by Caltrans in May 2022. The procedures of the Project -Level Conformity Process flowchart are provided below for the proposed project to determine the level of analysis (if any): 52 4. Environmental Consequences Page 1, Box 1: Project Area is subject to conformity Response: Yes, the Project Area is subject to conformity. Page 1, Box 2: Project exempt from conformity? (40 CFR 93.126, 128) Response: No, the project is not exempt from conformity. Page 1, Box 3: Project Exempt from Regional Analysis? (40 CFR 93.127) Response: No, the project is not exempt from regional analysis. Page 1, Box 4: Based on Interagency Consultation, is the project Regionally Significant and is the project located in a CO, PM10, or PM2.5 area? Response: Based on Interagency Consultation, the project is Regionally Significant and located in a PM10 and PM2.5 area. While not mentioned in the Interagency Consultation, it is a CO maintenance area. Page 1, Box 5: Based on Interagency Consultation concurrence, is a Conformity Hot Spot Analysis needed (in CO, PM10, PM2.5 areas)? Response: CO is not discussed in the Interagency Consultation; therefore, proceed to CO Protocol (Page 2) . Page 2, Box 1: Is the project in a CO nonattainment or maintenance area? Response: The project is located in a CO maintenance area. Therefore, perform CO Hot Spot Analysis (see below). Procedures and guidelines for use in evaluating the potential local level CO impacts of a project are contained in Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol) (UCD ITS 1997). The CO Protocol provides a methodology for determining the level of analysis, if any, required on a project. The guidelines comply with the CAA, federal and state conformity rules, NEPA, and CEQA. The CO Protocol states that the determination of project -level CO impacts should be carried out in accordance with the Local CO Analysis flow charts shown as Figures 1 and 3 of the Protocol. Figure 1 of the Protocol applies to the evaluation of new projects. The procedures of Figure 1 of the Protocol is provided for the proposed project to determine the level of analysis (if any): Question 3.1.1: Is the project exempt from all emissions analyses? Answer: No. The proposed project does not meet the criteria for "Projects Exempt from All Emissions Analyses," as listed in the Protocol. Go to Question 3.1.2. Question 3.1.2: Is the project exempt from regional emissions analyses? 53 4. Environmental Consequences Answer: No. The proposed project does not meet the criteria for "Projects Exempt from Regional Emissions Analyses," as listed in the Protocol. Go to Question 3.1.3. Question 3.1.3: Is the project locally defined as "Regionally Significant"? Answer: Yes. The project meets the Protocol's definition of a regionally significant transportation project as defined in 40 CFR 93.101. Go to Question 3.1.4. Question 3.1.4: Is the project in a federal attainment area? Answer: No. The project is located in a federal nonattainment area for 03. Go to Question 3.1.5. Question 3.1.5: Is there a currently conforming RTP and RTIP? Answer: Yes. The project is included in SCAG's 2020-2045 RTP (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023) and 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023); the FHWA and the FTA approved their air quality conformity analysis. Go to Question 3.1.6. Question 3.1.6: Is the project included in the regional emissions analysis supporting the currently conforming RTP and RTIP? Answer: Yes. The project is consistent with the assumptions in the SCAG's regional emissions analysis. Go to Question 3.1.7 Question 3.1.7: Has the project design concept and/or scope changed significantly from that of the regional analysis? Answer: No. The design concept and scope of the proposed project are consistent with the project description in the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023), the 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023), and the assumptions in the SCAG's regional emissions analysis. Proceed to Step 3.1.9, Examine Local Impacts; Go to Section 4 — Figure 3 of the Protocol. The determination of project -level CO impacts should be carried out according to the Local Analysis flow chart — Figure 3 of the CO Protocol. The procedures of Section 4 in Figure 3 of the Protocol are provided for the proposed project to identify the level of effort required. Section 4, Local CO Analysis, Level 1 Question: Is the project in a CO nonattainment area? Answer: No. The project is in a CO attainment -maintenance area, following a redesignation from a CO nonattainment area. Go to next question. Question: Was the area redesignated as "attainment" after the 1990 Clean Air Act? Answer: Yes. The area was redesignated as attainment after 1990. Go to next question. Question: Has "continued attainment" been verified with the local air district (if appropriate)? Answer: Yes. Continued attainment has been verified with the SCAQMD. Proceed to Level 7. Level 7 Question: Does the project worsen air quality? 54 4. Environmental Consequences The Protocol guidance for this question states: "Only those projects that are likely to worsen air quality necessitate further analysis." To determine whether a project is likely to worsen air quality for the area substantially affected by the project, the guidance provides the following questions: Question: Would "the project significantly increase the percentage of vehicles operating in cold start mode"? An increase of as little as 2% could be significant. Answer: No. The project would not increase the number of vehicles operating in cold start mode. The project is to complete the local transportation network and would redistribute existing traffic in the area; the project would not create new situations where vehicles are stopping for over 720 minutes and restarting the engine (a "cold start" in EMFAC2021). Question: Would "the project significantly increase traffic volumes"? Traffic volume increases of 5% or more could be significant. Additionally, an increase of less than 5% may still be significant, if there is also a reduction in average speeds. Answer: No. The project does not involve development of housing, employment centers, or other attractions, and thus, would not itself generate traffic volumes. The widening would accommodate increased traffic volumes on this segment of Avenida Alvarado by providing increased efficiency via expanded connectivity. Question: Would "the project worsen traffic flow"? A reduction in average speeds of 3 to 50 mph or an increase in average delay (LOS) at an intersection could be regarded as worsening traffic flow. Answer: No. Based on the project traffic report, with previously identified mitigation incorporated, all affected intersection would operate at LOS D or better (STC 2019). Therefore, the project would not worsen traffic flow, defined for intersections as increasing average delay at signalized intersections operating at LOS E or F. Project Satisfied — no further analysis needed. According to the CO Protocol, the proposed project is considered satisfactory and no further CO analysis is required. Therefore, no localized CO impacts would occur. 4.3.2 PM Analysis Emissions Analysis On March 10, 2006, the U.S. EPA published a final rule that establishes the transportation conformity criteria and procedures for determining which transportation projects must be analyzed for local air quality impacts in PM2.5 and PM10 non -attainment and maintenance areas. Based on that rule, the U.S. EPA and FHWA published Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot -spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM7o Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas (PM Guidance; FHWA 2015). As discussed, Riverside County is designated as a non -attainment area for the PM2.5 standards and a maintenance area for the PM10 standard. While the project's VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum (STC Traffic, Inc., 2021) showed that project study area VMT will be 2,618 VMT per day under the Opening Year (2025) scenario and 2,922 VMT 55 4. Environmental Consequences per day in the Horizon Year (2045), project study area VMT is only shown to be increasing because the project study area VMT analysis does not consider redistribution of traffic and potential VMT reductions on routes outside of the study area (e.g., Rancho California). The project study area was determined by the City for traffic flow purposes and not for VMT purposes. In reality, the proposed project does not increase capacity, and would reduce VMT for current trips on the network as the new roadway segment lowers VMT for journeys from Overland Drive to Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado. The distance from the Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle intersection to the Diaz Road/ Avenida Alvarado intersection is currently 0.7 miles. The distance between the two intersections across the creek is approximately 825 feet. This is an approximate reduction of 2,870 feet traveled per vehicle trip. With a reduction in overall trip distance for the area, the project would result in PM emissions reductions compared to the No Build Alternative. Hot -Spot Analysis A hot spot analysis is defined in 40 CFR 93.101 as an estimation of likely future localized PM2.5 or PM,o pollutant concentrations and a comparison of those concentrations to the relevant air quality standards. A hot spot analysis assesses the air quality impacts on a scale smaller than an entire non - attainment or maintenance area, including, for example, congested roadway intersections and highways or transit terminals. Such an analysis is a means of demonstrating that a transportation project meets CAA conformity requirements to support state and local air quality goals with respect to potential localized air quality impacts. When a hot spot analysis is required, it is included within the project -level conformity determination that is made by the FHWA or Federal Transportation Administration. The PM Guidance describes how to complete a quantitative hot spot analyses for certain highway and transit projects, and provides technical guidance on estimating project emissions. The PM2.s and PM10 hot spot analysis method in the November 2015 Guidance involves two steps: determining whether or not a project is a "project of air quality concern" and, if it is a "project of air quality concern", preparation of a more detailed quantitative analysis of the project. The November 2015 PM Guidance defines the following types of projects as projects of air quality concern (FHWA, 2015): • New highway project that have a significant number of diesel vehicles, and expanded highway projects that have a significant increase in the number of diesel vehicles; • Projects affecting intersections that are Level of Service (LOS) D, E, or F with a significant number of diesel vehicles, or those that will change to LOS D, E, or F, because of increased traffic volumes from a significant number of diesel vehicles related to the project; • New bus and rail terminals, and transfer points, that have a significant number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location; • Expanded bus and rail terminals, and transfer points, that significantly increase the number of diesel vehicles congregating at a single location; and, • Projects in, or affecting locations, areas, or categories of sites that are identified in the PM2.5 or PM10 applicable implementation plan or implementation plan submission, as appropriate, as sites of violation or possible violation. 56 4. Environmental Consequences A significant volume for a new highway or expressway is defined as an annual average daily traffic (AADT) volume of 125,000 or more, and a significant number of diesel vehicles is defined as 8 percent or more of that total AADT or more than 10,000 truck AADT. A significant increase in diesel truck traffic is normally considered to be approximately 10 percent. The proposed extension of Overland Drive would improve traffic operations on the roadway network in the vicinity of the project. The project is the extension of a roadway that does not increase the capacity of 1-15 or other regional arterials. This type of project improves existing traffic network deficiencies within the city. The extension would be a 4-lane arterial with a capacity of 29,000 ADT (SCT 2019), and long-term (year 2045) projected traffic volumes ranging from 2,521 to 3,751 ADT along Avenida Alvarado between Diaz Road and Enterprise Circle (STC 2019). While the project would create a new roadway segment, the traffic volumes along Avenida Alvarado would not approach or exceed the 125,000 AADT criterion for a project of air quality concern. In addition, the total truck volume would remain below the 10,000 AADT criterion (8 percent of 125,000 AADT) for project of air quality concern. According to the traffic engineer for the project, Avenida Alvarado would carry approximately 7 percent trucks .7 This is the current truck volume for 1-15 at SR 79, and is appropriate for evaluation of the project as it is a cross -street of 1-15 and runs parallel to the future extension of Avenida Alvarado. Based on 7 percent truck trips on Avenida Alvarado, the horizon year 2040 truck volume on Avenida Alvarado would range from 176 to 263 AADT. Additionally, the project is not a trip generator. Implementation of the project would redress the existing traffic network deficiencies within the city of Temecula and provide improved access to businesses and other properties south of northeast and southwest of Murrieta Creek. Travelers would no longer need to travel the additional distance required under the existing condition and would have improved direct access to 1-15. Additionally, the proposed roadway improvements would not reduce levels of service below what would occur under the Near -Term No Build scenario. The project would not be a project of air quality concern for PM10 or PM2.s emissions because the project would not result in increases in the number of diesel vehicles utilizing the project area; does not involve intersections that are operating at LOS D, E, or F with a significant number of diesel vehicles; does not involve a new or expanded bus or rail terminal; and would not affect a location or category of site which are identified in the PM10 implementation plan as sites of violation or possible violation. The project was discussed among stakeholders at a Transportation Conformity Working Group (TCWG) meeting on July 28, 2020, pursuant to the interagency consultation requirement of 40 CFR 93.105(c)(1)(i). The members of the TCWG confirmed that the project would not be considered a project of air quality concern. The TCWG determination in included as Appendix D. A follow-up letter from SCAG on September 26, 2022 confirmed to the City of Temecula that this July 28, 2020 TCWG finding also applied to FTIP Project ID 991203A (included in Appendix D). 4.3.3 NO2 Analysis The U.S. EPA modified the NOZ NAAQS to include a 1-hour standard of 100 parts per billion (ppb) in 2010. Currently there is no federal project -level nitrogen dioxide (NOZ) analysis requirement. STC Traffic, Inc., 2020. 57 4. Environmental Consequences However, NOz is among the near -road pollutants of concern. Within the project area, it is unlikely that NOz standards will be approached or exceeded based on the relatively low ambient concentrations of NOz in the South Coast Basin and on the long-term trend toward reduction of NOx emissions. Because of these factors, a specific analysis of NOz was not conducted for the proposed project. 4.3.4 Mobile Source Air Toxics Analysis The following discussion is based on the FHWA Memorandum "Information: Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis (MSAT) in NEPA Documents," dated October 18, 2016 (FHWA, 2016c). The purpose of the guidance is to advise when and how to analyze MSAT in the NEPA process for highways. This guidance is provisional because MSAT science is still evolving. As the science progresses, FHWA will update the guidance. Summary of Existing Credible Scientific Evidence Relevant to Evaluating the Impacts of MSA Ts Research into the health impacts of MSATs is ongoing. For different emission types, there are a variety of studies that show that some either are statistically associated with adverse health outcomes through epidemiological studies (frequently based on emissions levels found in occupational settings) or that animals demonstrate adverse health outcomes when exposed to large doses. Exposure to toxics has been a focus of a number of U.S. EPA efforts. Most notably, the agency conducted the National Air Toxics Assessment 1996 to evaluate modeled estimates of human exposure applicable to the county level. While not intended for use as a measure of or benchmark for local exposure, the modeled estimates in the National Air Toxics Assessment database best illustrate the levels of various toxics when aggregated to a national or State level. The U.S. EPA is in the process of assessing the risks of various kinds of exposures to these pollutants. The U.S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) is a database of human health effects that may result from exposure to various substances found in the environment. The IRIS database is located at http://www.epa.g oq v/iris. The following toxicity information for the nine prioritized MSATs was taken from the IRIS database Weight of Evidence Characterization summaries. This information is taken verbatim from U.S. EPA's IRIS database and represents the Agency's most current evaluations of the potential hazards and toxicology of these chemicals or mixtures. ■ 13-butadiene is characterized as carcinogenic to humans by inhalation. ■ Acetaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen based on increased incidence of nasal tumors in male and female rats and laryngeal tumors in male and female hamsters after inhalation exposure. The potential carcinogenicity of acrolein cannot be determined because the existing data are inadequate for an assessment of human carcinogenic potential for either the oral or inhalation route of exposure. 58 4. Environmental Consequences ■ Benzene is characterized as a known human carcinogen. Diesel exhaust is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation from environmental exposures. Diesel exhaust as reviewed in this document is the combination of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust organic gases. Diesel exhaust also represents chronic respiratory effects, possibly the primary non -cancer hazard from MSATs. Prolonged exposures may impair pulmonary function and could produce symptoms, such as cough, phlegm, and chronic bronchitis. Exposure relationships have not been developed from these studies. Formaldehyde is a probable human carcinogen, based on limited evidence in humans, and sufficient evidence in animals. ■ Naphthalene is a possible human carcinogen, based on the inadequate data of carcinogenicity in humans exposed to naphthalene via the oral and inhalation routes, and the limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals via the inhalation route. ■ Polycyclic organic matter is a probable human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence in animals. There have been other studies that address MSAT health impacts in proximity to roadways. The Health Effects Institute, a non-profit organization funded by U.S. EPA, FHWA, and industry, has undertaken a major series of studies to research near -roadway MSAT hot spots, the health implications of the entire mix of mobile source pollutants, and other topics. The following recent studies have reported that proximity to roadways is related to adverse health outcomes, particularly respiratory problems: Multiple Air Toxic Exposure Study-ll, SCAQMD (2000); Highway Health Hazards, Sierra Club (2004), which summarizes 24 studies on the relationship between health and air quality; and NEPA's Uncertainty in the Federal Legal Scheme Controlling Air Pollution from Motor Vehicles, Environmental Law Institute, 35 ELR 10273 (2005) with health studies cited therein. Much of this research is not specific to MSATs and instead surveys the full spectrum of both criteria and other pollutants. It is possible to qualitatively assess the levels of future MSAT emissions under the project. A qualitative analysis cannot identify and measure health impacts from MSATs, but it can give a basis for identifying and comparing the potential differences among MSAT emissions, if any, between the project and no project conditions. The qualitative assessment presented below is derived in part from a study conducted by the FHWA entitled A Methodology for Evaluating Mobile Source Air Toxic Emissions Among Transportation Project Alternatives. Evaluation of Project MSAT Potential The FHWA has developed a tiered approach for analyzing MSATs in NEPA documents. Depending on the specific project circumstances, the FHWA has identified three levels of analysis: ■ No analysis for projects with no potential for meaningful MSAT effects, Category (1); ■ Qualitative analysis for projects with low potential MSAT effects, Category (2); or Quantitative analysis to differentiate alternatives for projects with higher potential MSAT effects, Category (3). 59 4. Environmental Consequences Category (1) is limited to projects that qualify as a categorical exclusion under 23 CFR 771.117(c); are exempt under the CAA conformity rule under 40 CFR 93.126; or have no meaningful impacts on traffic volumes or vehicle mix. The project does not meet any of the Category (1) requirements. For a project to be of the magnitude to have a higher potential for MSAT effects, Category (3), a project must create or significantly alter a major intermodal freight facility that has the potential to concentrate high levels of diesel particulate matter in a single location; or create new or add significant capacity to urban highways such as interstates, urban arterials, or urban collector - distributor routes with traffic volumes where the AADT is projected to be in the range of 140,000 to 150,000, or greater, by the design year; and be proposed to be located in proximity to populated areas or in rural areas, in proximity to concentrations of vulnerable populations (i.e., schools, nursing homes, hospitals). For these projects, the November 2015 PM Guidance describes how to complete a quantitative hot spot analyses using the U.S. EPA's MOVES2014a model or, for projects in California, the ARB's Emission Factors (EMFAC) model. The project would extend Overland Drive from Diaz Road to Enterprise Circle as a new four -lane facility with a bridge over Murrieta Creek. The extension would be a 4-lane arterial with a General Plan capacity of 36,000 ADT. While the project would create a new roadway segment, the estimated maximum ADT would be substantially less than the threshold value of 140,000 AADT, the minimum volume for higher potential MSAT effects (FHWA, 2016c). Therefore, the project would not be included in Category (3). Therefore, by default, the project would be included in Category (2) and would have a low potential for MSAT effects. This assessment is based on FHWA guidance that projects that do not meet the criteria for Category (1) or Category (3) should be included in Category (2). The primary objective of the project is to resolve existing traffic network deficiencies within the City. Currently, motorists heading east from the west side of Murrieta Creek must travel along Diaz Road and cross the creek at the Via Montezuma low water crossing, which is not always accessible during wet weather. The project would provide a variety of transportation benefits. The extension of Avenida Alvarado from Diaz Road to Enterprise Circle would reduce travel distances and ensure adequate access to local businesses. This extension would also provide a direct transportation link to new developments occurring in the immediate area. The amount of MSATs emitted would be proportional to the vehicle miles traveled (VMT), assuming that other variables such as fleet mix are the same with or without the project. Because the project would construct a new portion of Avenida Alvarado, the project would result in MSAT emissions along the Avenida Alvarado extension that currently don't exist. However, there would be a corresponding reduction in MSAT emissions along the roadway network in the vicinity of the project because vehicle trips would be rerouted to the Avenida Alvarado extension. With or without the project, emissions will likely be lower than present levels in the design year as a result of U.S. EPA's national control programs that are projected to reduce MSAT emissions. According to an FHWA analysis using U.S. EPA's MOVES2014a model, even if vehicle activity (VMT) increases by 45 percent from 2010 to 2050 as forecast, a combined reduction of 91 percent in the total annual emission rate for the priority MSATs is projected for the same time period (FHWA, 2016). Local conditions may differ from these national projections in terms of fleet mix and turnover, VMT growth rates, and local control measures. However, the magnitude of the U.S. EPA -projected .E 4. Environmental Consequences reductions is so great (even after accounting for VMT growth) that MSAT emissions in the study area are likely to be lower in the future in nearly all cases. Therefore, there would be no local or regional air quality impacts to sensitive receptors from the project 4.3.5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis Construction Project construction would primarily generate GHG emissions from construction equipment operation on -site, construction worker vehicle trips to and from the site, and from export of materials off -site. Construction emissions were estimated using the latest SMAQMD's Road Construction Emissions Model (RCEM) (http://www.airquality.or_/ ecq qa/, Version 9.0.0). While the model was developed for Sacramento conditions in terms of fleet emission factors, silt loading, and other model assumptions, it is considered adequate for estimating road construction emissions by the SCAQMD (in its CEQA guidance) and is used for that purpose in this project analysis. The model inputs are the same as described under Section 4.2.1 for air quality emissions. Construction -related GHG emissions for the project are presented in Table 17. The results of the construction emission calculations are included in Appendix E. As shown in the table, the temporary GHG emissions would total 2,631.53 tons of COz over the construction period. Table 17. Project Construction GHG Emissions. Construction Phase COz (Ibs/day) Grubbing/Land Clearing 4,584.59 Grading/Excavation 7,830.08 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 16,372.99 Paving 11,939.52 Maximum Daily or Average Daily 16,372.99 Project Total (Tons) 2,631.53 Operation While the project's VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum (STC Traffic, Inc., 2021) showed that project study area VMT will be 2,618 VMT per day under the Opening Year (2025) scenario and 2,922 VMT per day in the Horizon Year (2045), project study area VMT is only shown to be increasing because the project study area VMT analysis does not consider redistribution of traffic and potential VMT reductions on routes outside of the study area (e.g., Rancho California). The project study area was N 4. Environmental Consequences determined by the City for traffic flow purposes and not for VMT purposes. In reality, the proposed project does not increase capacity, and would reduce VMT for current trips on the network as the new roadway segment lowers VMT forjourneys from Overland Drive to Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado. The distance from the Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle intersection to the Diaz Road/ Avenida Alvarado intersection is currently 0.7 miles. The distance between the two intersections across the creek is approximately 825 feet. This is an approximate reduction of 2,870 feet traveled per vehicle trip. With a reduction in overall trip distance for the area, the project would result in GHG emissions reductions compared to the No Build Alternative. 4.4 Cumulative/Regional/Indirect Effects The analysis of project impacts to regional air quality, as performed by SCAG and the SCAQMD in conjunction with the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023) and 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023) process, is a cumulative analysis. The project would conform to the assumptions in the conformity analyses for the 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Amendment #3, approved June 9, 2023) and 2023 FTIP (Amendment 23-03, approved June 9, 2023), which are long- range planning documents that include roadway projects throughout the region. Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulative impact to air quality. 62 5. Minimization Measures 5. Minimization Measures CEQA requires that feasible measures that can eliminate or substantially reduce project impacts be addressed. FHWA requires a project to incorporate measures to mitigate adverse impacts caused by the action and requires the project applicant to be responsible for the implementation of the mitigation measures (23 CFR 771). 5.1 Short -Term (Construction) While the project does not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds, it would implement the following measures, some of which may also be required for other purposes such as storm water pollution control, will reduce air quality impacts resulting from construction activities. Please note that although these measures are anticipated to reduce construction -related emissions, these reductions cannot be quantified at this time. • The construction contractor must comply with the Caltrans' Standard Specifications in Section 14-9 (2015). - Section 14-9-02 specifically requires compliance by the contractor with all applicable laws and regulations related to air quality, including air pollution control district and air quality management district regulations and local ordinances. • Water or a dust palliative will be applied to the site and equipment as often as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions. • Soil binder will be spread on any unpaved roads used for construction purposes, and on all project construction parking areas. • Trucks will be washed as they leave the right-of-way as necessary to control fugitive dust emissions. • Construction equipment and vehicles will be properly tuned and maintained. All construction equipment will use low sulfur fuel as required by CA Code of Regulations Title 17, Section 93114. • A dust control plan will be developed documenting sprinkling, temporary paving, speed limits, and timely re -vegetation of disturbed slopes as needed to minimize construction impacts to existing communities. • Equipment and materials storage sites will be located as far away from residential and park uses as practicable. Construction areas will be kept clean and orderly. • Environmentally sensitive areas will be established near sensitive air receptors. Within these areas, construction activities involving the extended idling of diesel equipment or vehicles will be prohibited, to the extent feasible. 63 5. Minimization Measures • Track -out reduction measures, such as gravel pads at project access points to minimize dust and mud deposits on roads affected by construction traffic, will be used. • All transported loads of soils and wet materials will be covered before transport, or adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck) will be provided to minimize emission of dust during transportation. • Dust and mud that are deposited on paved, public roads due to construction activity and traffic will be promptly and regularly removed to reduce PM emissions. • To the extent feasible, construction traffic will be scheduled and routed to reduce congestion and related air quality impacts caused by idling vehicles along local roads during peak travel times. • Mulch will be installed or vegetation planted as soon as practical after grading to reduce windblown PM in the area. 5.2 Long -Term (Operational) No avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures are required, as the project would not produce substantial operational air quality or GHG impacts since it would result in an overall reduction of distance traveled for vehicles in the area. 64 6. Conclusions 6. Conclusions As described above, the purpose of the proposed project is to construct a bridge over and across Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado at the intersection of Diaz Road with Overland Drive at the intersection of Enterprise Circle West in the City of Temecula. This would provide safe all-weather access across Murrieta Creek, provide reliable route for emergency vehicles, motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists, and provide an additional access point to the City's industrial park. The project is assumed to conform to the SIP and no adverse regional or local air quality impact would occur as a result of the project. In addition, as shown in Chapter 4, neither the short-term construction impacts nor the long-term operational impacts would result in substantial air quality or GHG impacts. 65 7. References 7. References California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2016. Ambient Air Quality Standards. California Air Resources Board. May 4. 2021. Annual Toxics Summaries. California Air Resources Board Internet Site. https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/toxics/toxics.html. Accessed February 17, 2021. 2023. California Air Quality Data Statistics. California Air Resources Board Internet Site. http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/welcome.html. Top 4 Summary and Hourly Listing. Accessed August 11, 2023. California Department of Conservation (CDC). 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California — Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos, California Department of Conservation, Geological Surveys. Available at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/ofr-2000-019.pdf. 2018. Standard Specifications. Prepared by the State of California Department of Transportation. Website: http://ppmoe.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/construction_contract_standards/std_specs/2018_StdSpec s/2018_StdSpecs. pdf (accessed February 2021). Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2015. Transportation Conformity Guidance for Quantitative Hot -spot Analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas. EPA420-B-15-084. November 2015. .2016. Memorandum: Updated Interim Guidance on Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents. From Emily Biondi, Acting Director, Office of Natural Environment, to Division Administrators, Federal Lands Highway Division Engineers. October 18, 2016. 2020. Letter from Ray Tellis, Regional Administrator, FTA Region 9, FHWA to Kome Ajise, Executive Director, SCAG. Subject: Southern California Association of Governments Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 19- 12 and associated conformity determination. June 5, 2020. 2021. Letter from Ray Tellis, Regional Administrator, FTA Region 9, FHWA to Kome Ajise, Executive Director, SCAG, and Bruce de Terra, Division Chief, Caltrans. Subject: Southern California Association of Governments Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2019 Federal Transportation Improvement Program Amendment No. 19- 12 and associated conformity determination. Garza V., Graney P., Sperling D., Niemeier D., Eisinger D., Kear T., and Chang D. 1997. Transportation project -level carbon monoxide protocol revised. Prepared for Environmental Program California Department of Transportation by the Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, UCD-ITS-RR-97-21, December. Niemeier, Debbie A., Douglas Eisinger, Tom P. Kear, Daniel P. Chang, Yu Meng (1997) Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, Davis, Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-97-21. 7. References Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). 2016. Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0. Sierra Club. 2004. Highway Health Hazards. Available at: https://vault.sierraclub.org/sprawl/report04_highwayhealth/report.pdf South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2000. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study (MATES-ll). Available at: http://www.agmd.gov/docs/default-source/air-quality/air-toxic- studies/mates-ii/mates-ii-contents-and-executive-summary.pdf Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2020. The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Community Strategy of the Southern California Association of Governments: Connect SoCal. Adopted September 3, 2020. STC Traffic, Inc. 2019. Traffic Study Report for the Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive. October. 2020. Communication between Bill Maddux, Senior Environmental Scientist for Rincon Consultants, and Philip Wrag, STC Traffic, Inc. .2021. VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum. February 12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2009. AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Accessed May 20. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttnchiel/ap42/ .2015. Transportation conformity guidance for quantitative hotspot analyses in PM2.5 and PM10 nonattainment and maintenance areas. Prepared by the U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Climate Division, EPA-420-13- 15-084, November. Website: www.epa.gov/state-and-local-transportation/project-IeveIconformity-and-hot-spot-analyses (accessed November 2019) Western Region Climatic Center (WRCC). 2020. Western U.S. Climate Historical Summaries. Accessed at: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca2713. May 5, 2020. Western Riverside Council of Governments. 2014. Subregional Climate Action Plan, Final Report. September 2014. Available at: https://wrcog.us/DocumentCenter/View/188/Subregional- Climate-Action-Plan-CAP-PDF?bidld= 67 8. Appendices 8. Appendices 8. Appendices Appendix A RTP and TIP Listings for the Project 8. Appendices Appendix B FHWA Conformity Determination 8. Appendices Appendix C Transportation Air Quality Conformity Findings Checklist 8. Appendices Appendix D Interagency Consultation Documentation 8. Appendices Appendix E Construction Emissions Calculations Appendix B VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum (STC Traffic, Inc., February 2021) T �7,# VMT Analysis Technical Memorandum Project: Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment Date: February 12, 2021 To: James Lu, PE, SE, CNS Engineers, Inc. From: David DiPierro, TE, Senior Principal Manager STC is pleased to present this technical memorandum to provide additional information on behalf of CNS Engineers, to support the Murrieta Creek Bridge project in Temecula, CA. Caltrans request to provide additional air quality analysis requires additional work to be performed to determine the change in Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in the project study area. This technical memorandum addresses Caltrans request and provides additional information for the air quality consultants. The technical memorandum is structured as follows: • Methodology o Project Study Area. o Analysis Scenarios/Conditions. o Peak and Off -Peak Traffic Speeds Analysis. o Project Study Area VMT Analysis. o Construction Material and Equipment VMT Analysis. o Construction Employee VMT Analysis. • Results o Peak and Off -Peak Traffic Speeds Analysis. o Project Area VMT Analysis. o Construction Material and Equipment VMT Analysis. o Construction Employee VMT Analysis. Methodology Protect Study Area The following project study area segments listed below and shown in Figure 1, were used to determine the VMT and the Peak and Off -Peak Speeds for the project. The project study area is consistent the Murrieta Creek Bridge Traffic Study Report (October 2019, STC Traffic): 1. Diaz Road from Winchester Road to Avenida Alvarado. 2. Diaz Road between Avenida Alvarado and Via Montezuma. 3. Avenida Alvarado west of Diaz Road. 4. Overland Drive between Enterprise Circle and Commerce Center Drive. 5. Overland Drive between Commerce Center Drive and Jefferson Avenue. 6. Overland Drive between Jefferson Ave and Ynez Road (VMT Analysis only). 7. Winchester Road between Diaz Road and Enterprise Circle. 8. Via Montezuma low-water crossing between Diaz Road and Del Rio Road (Existing Condition only, Peak and Off -Peak Speeds Analysis only). 9. Overland Drive between Diaz Road and Enterprise Circle (with project condition only). STC Traffic, Inc. 5865 Avenida Encinas, Suite 142 B I Carlsbad, CA 92008 www.stctraffic.com Murrieta Creek Bridge - VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment 4Z Vrk,- 0 AMLAL 7 Roadway Segments S Bridge B g Location i idge Location Cv N W+E S Figure 1 O�D�G Project Study Area �� l�G Analysis Scenarios/ Conditions The following analysis scenarios/conditions were assessed in the Project Study Area VMT Analysis and the Peak and Off -Peak Speeds Analysis: • Existing year (2019). • Existing Via Montezuma closed (2019). • Opening year Without Project (2025). • Opening year With Project (2025) • Horizon year Without Project (2045). • Horizon year With Project (2045). Peak and Off -Peak Traffic Speeds Analysis The average speeds were derived from traffic modelling software Synchro (v11). Speed is derived by dividing the link distance by the travel time including delay. The synchro network used for the preparation of the Murrieta Creek Bridge Traffic Study Report was used to derive the speed. Average speeds are automatically generated in Synchro for the AM and PM peak hours and were derived using the peak hour intersection counts. Since counts were not collected for the mid -day off peak, ADT were used to calculate an adjustment factor that was applied to the PM peak hour intersection volume. The adjustment factor was calculated by dividing the mid -day peak volume by the PM peak volume. An average of the adjustment factor for all the study area locations was calculated which was applied to the PM peak hour intersection volumes to derive the mid -day off-peak hour intersection volumes. The average adjustment factor was calculated to be 0.93. The Overland Drive study roadway segment between Jefferson Ave and Ynez Road was excluded from the Peak and Off -Peak Speeds Analysis because Synchro requires data for intersections at both ends of the roadway segment. The Overland Drive/ Ynez Road intersection was outside of the study area and was not assessed. Project Study Area VMT Analysis VMT for the project study area roadway segments was calculated using the following equation: Segment VMT = Segment Length x Average Daily Traf f tic The segment length was calculated using Google Earth. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) was obtained from the project Traffic Study Report roadway segment volumes for each scenario/condition. To determine the project VMT for each segment, the without project VMT was subtracted from the with project VMT. This was carried out for the Opening Year (2025) and Horizon Year (2045) conditions. The Via Montezuma roadway segment between Diaz Road and Del Rio road was excluded from the analysis as the Traffic Study Report assumed that the low-water crossing would be permanently closed following the completion of the project. Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment Construction Material and Equipment VMT Analysis The source/origin of the construction materials and equipment was derived using information provided by the client. Table 1 shows contractors that are expected to be appointed for the following uses: Table 1 Anticipated Contractor Information Origin Reference Equipment/Distance I Project Hauling Trucks - Asphalt Ewles Materials Site (miles) 26160 Adams Avenue, Site 1 Concrete and Concrete — Murrieta 2.5 Murrieta, CA 92562 Recycling Plant Hauling Trucks 10910 Dawson El Sobrate Site 2 Construction Debris, Canyon Road, Corona, 29.3 Landfill Waste Management CA 92883 Hauling Truck — SFT Main Site 3 Corona, CA 92881 33.5 Materials Borrow Site Quarry Plant Ready Mix Concrete Robertson's 26190 Adams Avenue, Site 4 2.5 Trucks Ready Mix Murrieta, CA Total 67.8 Average Distance from Site 16.95 Average Round -Trip Distance 33.9 Table 1 shows that the average round-trip distance will be 33.9 miles. For a conservative analysis, this was applied as the round-trip distance for other construction equipment where origin is unknown. The number of round trips required for each type of equipment was provided by the client. This was multiplied by either the round-trip distance provided for the known contractors or the average round trip distance for the unknown contractors, to provide the total VMT for each type of equipment. Equipment will remain on site if it is scheduled to be used in consecutive construction phases. The construction VMT value will only apply for the duration of the construction phases. The site preparation phase of construction is expected to commence in 2024 with an anticipated construction period of 380 working days. Further information, provided by the client is shown in Attachment A. Construction Employees VMT Analysis The number of site workers for each construction phase was provided by the client. The average round- trip distance for construction equipment was also applied to construction employees. It was assumed that 50% of the workforce would stay in Temecula within a 3-mile radius of the project site, and the other 50% would commute the average round-trip distance of 33.9 miles each day. These are considered conservative assumptions for the purpose of this assessment. The construction employee VMT value will only apply for the duration of the construction phases. Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment 4 Results This section provides tabulated results of the Peak and Off -Peak Traffic Speeds Analysis, Project Study Area VMT Analysis, Construction Material and Equipment VMT Analysis, and the Construction Employees VMT Analysis. Peak and Off -Peak Traffic Speeds Analysis Table 2 shows the results of the Peak and Off -Peak Traffic Speeds Analysis for each study area roadway segment and for each scenario/ condition. The Synchro worksheets are provided in Attachment B. The table shows that speeds vary for each segment and by time of day and direction of travel. Speeds shown in the table during the With Project conditions (2025 and 2045) will be lower on the Diaz Road and Overland Drive segments. Project Study Area VMT Analysis Table 3 shows the results of the Project Study Area VMT Analysis for each study roadway segment and for each scenario/ condition. The results show that project study area VMT will be 2,618 VMT per day in the Opening Year (2025) and 2,922 VMT per day in the Horizon Year (2045). These values are for the project study area only per the Traffic Study Report and do not consider redistribution of the traffic and potential VMT reductions outside of the study area. Construction Material and Equipment VMT Analysis Table 4 shows the projected construction traffic VMT results based on the assumptions outlined in the methodology section of this technical memorandum. The total construction material and equipment VMT will be 16,926 VMT. This is a rate of 44.5 VMT per day based on the 380 working -day construction period. Construction Employee VMT Analysis. Table 5 shows the projected construction employee VMT based on the assumptions outlined in the methodology section of this technical memorandum. The total construction employee VMT will be 2,148 VMT. This is a rate of 5.7 VMT per day based on the 380 working -day construction period. Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment = 0 T Table 2 Peak and Off -Peak Travel Speeds Existing Year Existing Via Opening Year Opening Via Montezuma Without With Project Without With Project RoadwayTravel Open (2019) Diaz Road between NB MMMMMMMMWMWWMWWMWM 19 18 14 19 18 14 19 13 12 18 13 13 16 14 13 17 13 12 1 Winchester Road and Avenida Alvarado SB 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 24 25 25 45 45 45 22 23 22 Diaz Road between NB 44 45 45 44 45 45 44 45 45 34 31 31 44 45 45 32 28 27 2 Avenida Alvarado and Via Montezuma SB 45 43 43 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 3 Avenida Alvarado west of Diaz Road EB 21 17 15 21 17 15 21 17 14 21 20 19 12 5 3 17 16 16 WB 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Overland Drive between EB 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 14 9 9 35 35 35 13 10 9 4 Enterprise Circle and Commerce Center Drive WB 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 24 16 16 18 18 18 15 14 14 Overland Drive between EB 13 7 5 13 7 5 13 8 7 12 8 7 12 9 8 11 8 7 5 Commerce Center Drive and Jefferson Avenue WB 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 22 19 18 35 35 35 24 20 20 Winchester Road between EB 19 12 10 19 12 10 18 9 7 19 10 7 17 11 8 18 11 9 7 Diaz Road and Enterprise Circle WB 16 13 13 16 13 13 15 13 13 15 13 13 15 10 10 15 T9 9 8 Via Montezuma between Diaz Road and Del Rio Road EB 28 27 27 Road Closed WB 12 10 8 Overland Drive between EB 20 16 16 21 19 18 9 Diaz Road and Enterprise Does not exist Does not exist Circle WB 11 14 13 13 12 12 Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment Table 3 Project Study Area VMT Roadway Segment Length Existing (2019) Existing w/o Via Montezuma Opening Year (2025) OpeningSegment Project (2025) Project 0,(2045) Diaz Road from 1 Winchester Road to 1,230 0.233 14,335 3,340 14,335 3,340 16,055 3,741 18,863 4,395 654 18,062 4,208 21,221 4,944 736 Avenida Alvarado Diaz Road between 2 Avenida Alvarado 1,873 0.355 12,655 4,493 12,655 4,493 14,174 5,032 14,174 5,032 0 15,945 5,660 15,945 5,660 0 and Via Montezuma Avenida Alvarado 3 west of Diaz Road 3,058 0.579 2,001 1,159 2,001 1,159 2,241 1,298 2,241 1,298 0 2,521 1,460 2,521 1,460 0 Overland Drive between Enterprise 4 Circle and Commerce 376 0.071 2,977 211 2,977 211 3,334 237 8,868 630 393 3,751 266 9,636 684 418 Center Drive Overland Drive between Commerce 5 Center Drive and 947 0.179 6,959 1,246 6,959 1,246 7,794 1,395 13,328 2,386 991 8,768 1,569 14,653 2,623 1,053 Jefferson Avenue Overland Drive between Jefferson 6 Avenue and Ynez 1,904 0.361 20,215 7,298 20,215 7,298 22,641 8,173 22,641 8,173 0 25,471 9,195 25,471 9,195 0 Road Winchester Road 7 between Diaz Road 789 0.149 25,068 3,735 25,068 3,735 28,076 4,183 25,269 3,765 -418 31,586 4,706 28,427 4,236 -471 and Enterprise Circle Overland Drive 9 between Diaz Road 825 0.156 Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable 6,400 998 998 Not applicable 7,600 1,186 1,186 and Enterprise Circle* * With Project condition only OY 2025 (With Project) VMT Total 2,618 OY 2045 (With Project) VMT Total 2,922 Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment Table 4 Construction Material and Equipment VMT 8-Hour Days ' Distance Round No. of Activity and or Total # of Sit Equipment from Trip Round Working Days Round Trips Worker, Origin Origin Distance Trips N I (miles) Site Preparation Traffic Control and Demolition —15 Days Excavators 2 15 Days 8 Average 33.9 2 67.8 Loaders 2 15 Days Average 33.9 2 67.8 Robber Tired Dozers 1 15 Days Average 33.9 1 33.9 Traffic Control Trucks 1 5 Days Average 33.9 1 33.9 Hauling Trucks - N/A 32 Round Trips Site 1 2.5 5 32 160 Asphalt Concrete and Concrete Recycling (Site 1) Hauling Trucks N/A 10 Round Trips Site 2 29.3 58.6 10 586 Construction Debris (Site 2) Clearing and Grubbing-20 Days Excavators 2 20 Days 10 Already on site Dozers 2 20 Days Average 33.9 2 67.8 Loaders 2 20 Days Already on site Hauling Trucks - N/A 20 Round Trips Site 2 29.3 58.6 20 1172 Construction Debris (Site 2) Channel Grading Grading Channel Slopes — 25 Days Scrapers 2 25 Days 12 Average 33.9 2 67.8 Excavators 3 25 Days Already on site Dozers 2 25 Days Already on site Backhoe Loader/Loader 2 25 Days Average 33.9 2 67.8 Hauling Trucks N/A 10 Round Trips Site 2 29.3 58.6 10 586 Construction Debris (Site 2) Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment Activity and 8-Hour Days Distance Round No. of l # of Site Equipment from origin Trip Round Total Round Trips � Origin Working,.ys Stage I Construction Pile Drilling Rigs 1 55 Days Average 33.9 1 33.9 Cranes 2 55 Days Average 33.9 2 67.8 Excavators 2 55 Days Already on site Bridge Construction — Foundation —55 Days Loaders 2 55 Days 16 Already on site Ready Mix Concrete Trucks (Site 4) N/A 120 Round Trips Site 4 2.5 5 120 600 Concrete/Slurry Pump Truck 2 15 Days Site 4 2.5 5 1 5 Generator Sets 1 55 Days Average 33.9 1 33.9 Cranes 2 65 Days Already on site Excavators 1 65 Days Already on site Bridge Construction — Loaders 1 65 Days Already on site Substructure — 65 Days 16 Ready Mix Concrete Trucks N/A 92 Round Trips Site 4 2.5 5 92 460 Concrete Pump Truck 1 10 Days Already on site Generator Sets 1 65 days Already on site Cranes 1 80 Days Already on site Ready Mix Concrete Trucks N/A 110 Round Trips Site 4 2.5 5 110 550 Bridge Construction — Superstructure — 80 16 Concrete Pump Truck 1 10 Days Already on site Bid Well 1 5 Days Average 33.9 1 33.9 Days Generator Sets 2 80 Days Already on site Forklifts 2 80 Days Average 33.9 2 67.8 Scrapers 1 40 Days Already on site Excavators 2 40 Days Already on site Dozers 2 40 Days Already on site Rollers 1 40 Days Average 33.9 1 33.9 Backhoe Loader/Loader 2 40 Days Average 33.9 2 67.8 Grading/Embankment Backfill/Pavement— 12 Asphalt Paving Machine 1 5 Days Average 33.9 1 33.9 Asphalt Paver Finisher 1 5 Days Average 33.9 1 33.9 45 Days Generator Sets 2 45 Days Already on site Hauling Truck— Borrow N/A 64 Round Trips Site 3 33.5 67 64 4288 (Site 3) Hauling Truck —Asphalt Concrete (Site 1) N/A 52 Round Trips Site 1 2.5 5 32 160 Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment 7/� . � TT/1G Days or Distance Round No. of OriginEquipment Amount Total Round # of Site Equipment fro m Working Days Trips Workers Origin Stage II Construction Traffic Control and Demolition — 20 Days Excavators 2 20 Days 10 Already on site Loaders 2 20 Days Already on site Rubber Tired Dozers 1 20 Days Average 33.9 1 33.9 Traffic Control Trucks 1 5 Days Average 33.9 1 33.9 Hauling Trucks - N/A 44 Round Trips Site 1 2.5 5 44 220 Asphalt Concrete and Concrete Recycling (Site 1) Hauling Trucks - N/A 10 Round Trips Site 2 29.3 58.6 10 586 Construction Debris (Site 2) Grading/Embankment Backfill/Pavement— 55 Days Scrapers 1 45 Days 14 Already on site Excavators 2 45 Days Already on site Dozers 2 45 Days Already on site Rollers 1 45 Days Already on Site Backhoe Loader/Loader 2 45 Days Already on Site Asphalt Paving Machine 1 10 Days Already on Site Asphalt Paver Finisher 1 10 Days Already on Site Generator Sets 2 55 Days Already on site Hauling Truck — Borrow N/A 96 Round Trips Site 3 33.5 67 96 6432 (Site 3) HaulingTruck— Asphalt Concrete (Site 1) N/A 48Round Trips Site 2.5 5 48 240 Total Construction VMT 16,926 Construction period (working days) 380 VMT per day 44.5 Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment 10 7 �T a Table 5 Construction Employee VMT 8-Hour Loca Days or Stay # All Activity and Total Round Loca I Commute commuter Worker Working Days Round Trip VIVIT Daily VIVIT VIVIT Trips MI Dist. Site Preparation Traffic Control and Demolition —15 Days Excavators 2 15 Days 8 4 6 24 4 33.9 135.6 159.6 Loaders 2 15 Days Robber Tired Dozers 1 15 Days Traffic Control Trucks 1 5 Days Hauling Trucks - N/A 32 Round Trips Asphalt Concrete and Concrete Recycling (Site 1) Hauling Trucks - N/A 10 Round Trips Construction Debris (Site 2) Clearing and Grubbing-20 Days Excavators 2 20 Days 10 5 6 24 5 33.9 169.5 193.5 Dozers 2 20 Days Loaders 2 20 Days Hauling Trucks - N/A 20 Round Trips Construction Debris (Site 2) Channel Grading Grading Channel Slopes — 25 Days Scrapers 2 25 Days 12 6 6 24 6 33.9 203.4 227.4 Excavators 3 25 Days Dozers 2 25 Days Backhoe Loader/Loader 2 25 Days Hauling Trucks - N/A 10 Round Trips Construction Debris (Site 2) Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment =w, Days or Loca Stay Average Activity and # of Site Round Round Commuter Total Local Working Days Round Workers Trip VMT Trip VMT I N Dist. Distance* Trips Stage I Construction Pile Drilling 1 55 Days Rigs Cranes 2 55 Days Excavators 2 55 Days Loaders 2 55 Days Bridge Ready Mix Construction— 16 8 6 24 8 33.9 271.2 295.2 Foundation — 55 Concrete N/A 120 Round Da y s Trucks (Site 4) Trips p s Concrete/Slur ry Pump Truck 2 15 Days Generator 1 55 Days Sets Cranes 2 65 Days Excavators 1 65 Days Loaders 1 65 Days Bridge Ready Mix 92 Round Construction — Substructure — 65 Concrete N/A Trips 16 8 6 24 8 33.9 271.2 295.2 Trucks Days Concrete Pump Truck 1 10 Days Generator 1 65 days Sets Cranes 1 80 Days Ready Mix Concrete N/A 110 Round Trucks Trips Bridge Construction — Concrete Pump Truck 1 10 Days 16 8 6 24 8 33.9 271.2 295.2 Superstructure— Bid Well 1 5 Days 80 Days Generator Sets 2 80 Days Forklifts 2 80 Days Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment 12 M", 8-Hour Local Activity and Working Days or # of Site # Stay Round Stay # Average Equipment Local Commute Round Trip Commuter All Worker Amount Days Total Round Workers Local Trip VMT VMT Trips Dist. VMT Daily Distance' Scrapers 1 40 Days Excavators 2 40 Days Dozers 2 40 Days Rollers 1 40 Days Backhoe Loader/Loader 2 40 Days Asphalt Paving Machine 1 5 Days Grading/Embankment Backfill/Pavement— 45 Days Asphalt Paver Finisher 1 5 Days 12 6 6 24 6 33.9 203.4 227.4 Generator Sets 2 45 Days Hauling Truck — Borrow N/A 64 Round Trips (Site 3) Hauling Truck — Asphalt Concrete (Site N/A 52 Round Trips 1) Stage II Construction Excavators 2 20 Days Loaders 2 20 Days Rubber Tired Dozers 1 20 Days Traffic Control Trucks 1 5 Days Traffic Control and Demolition — 20 Days 10 5 6 24 5 33.9 169.5 193.5 Hauling Trucks - Asphalt Concrete and Concrete N/A 44 Round Trips Recycling (Site 1) HaulingTrucks- N/A 10 Round Trips Construction Debris (Site 2) Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment Scrapers 1 45 Days Excavators 2 45 Days Dozers 2 45 Days Rollers 1 45 Days Backhoe Loader/Loader 2 45 Days Asphalt Paving Machine 1 10 Days Grading/Embankment Asphalt Paver Finisher 1 10 Days Backfill/Pavement— 55 Days 14 Generator Sets 2 55 Days Hauling Truck — Borrow N/A 96 Round Trips (Site 3) Hauling Truck —Asphalt Concrete (Site N/A 48 Round Trips 1) Based on average round trip distance for construction equipment = 33.9 miles 7 1 6 1 24 1 7 1 33.9 1 237.3 1 261.3 Total Worker VMT 2,148 Construction period (working days) 380 VMT per day 5.7 Conclusion and Recommendations The Peak and Off -Peak Speeds Analysis shows that during the With Project conditions (2025 and 2045), speeds will be lower on the Diaz Road and Overland Drive segments. The Project Study Area VMT Analysis showed that project study area VMT will be 2,618 VMT per day in the Opening Year (2025) and 2,922 VMT per day in the Horizon Year (2045). The analysis does not consider redistribution of traffic and potential VMT reductions on routes outside of the study area. The Construction Material and Equipment VMT Analysis shows that the Construction Material and Equipment VMT will be 44.5 VMT per day. The Construction Employee VMT Analysis shows that the Construction Employee VMT will be 5.7 VMT per day. The construction VMT rates will only apply during the 380 working -day construction period which is expected to commence in 2024. The project is expected to be complete in September 2025. Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment Sincerely, STC Traffic j7j David DiPierro, TE Senior Principal Manager Attachment A: Construction Contractor Information from Client Attachment B: Peak and Off -Peak Traffic Speeds Analysis Synchro Worksheets Murrieta Creek Bridge, VMT Analysis for Air Quality Assessment 15 Attachment A - Client Information TABLE 1-1: CONSTRUCTION PHASES AND DURATION Activity Work Description Start Date End Date Working Days Advertisement and Award Advertisement and Award N/A 10/2/2023 1/31/2024 N/A Site Preparation Traffic Control and Shift traffic on Diaz Road and 2/1/2024 2/22/2024 15 Demolition remove asphalt pavement Prepare the site to access the Clearing and Grubbing channel bottom from east and 2/23/2024 3/25/2024 20 west approaches Channel Grading Grade channel slopes at bridge Grading Channel Slopes and tie in to upstream and 3/26/2024 4/29/2024 25 downstream transition Stage I Construction Bridge Construction - Install pile foundations 5/1/2024 7/17/2024 55 Foundation Bridge Construction — Construct pier columns, 7/18/2024 10/17/2025 65 Substructure abutment walls, and slope linings Bridge Construction — Construct girders and railings 10/18/2025 2/7/2025 80 Superstructure Grading/Embankment Construct east and west Backfill/Pavement approaches, and east side of Diaz 2/10/2025 4/11/2025 45 Road Stage 11 Construction Traffic Control and Shift traffic on Diaz Road and 4/14/2025 5/12/2025 20 Demolition remove pavement Grading/Embankment Construct west side of Diaz Road 5/13/2025 7/29/2025 55 Backfill/Pavement and extend Avenida Alvarado Project Closure Demobilization/Project N/A 7/30/2025 9/30/2025 N/A Closure TABLE 1-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ASSUMPTIONS Activity and Working Days Equipment Amount 8-Hour Days or Total Round Trips # of Site Workers Site Preparation Traffic Control and Demolition —15 Days Excavators 2 15 Days 8 Loaders 2 15 Days Robber Tired Dozers 1 15 Days Traffic Control Trucks 1 5 Days Hauling Trucks - Asphalt Concrete and Concrete Recycling (Site 1) N/A 32 Round Trips Hauling Trucks - Construction Debris (Site 2) N/A 10 Round Trips Clearing and Grubbing — 20 Days Excavators 2 20 Days 10 Dozers 2 20 Days Loaders 2 20 Days Hauling Trucks - Construction Debris (Site 2) N/A 20 Round Trips Channel Grading Grading Channel Slopes — 25 Days Scrapers 2 25 Days 12 Excavators 3 25 Days Dozers 2 25 Days Backhoe Loader/Loader 2 25 Days Hauling Trucks - Construction Debris (Site 2) N/A 10 Round Trips Stage I Construction Bridge Construction — Foundation — 55 Days Pile Drilling Rigs 1 55 Days 16 Cranes 2 55 Days Excavators 2 55 Days Loaders 2 55 Days Ready Mix Concrete Trucks (Site 4) N/A 120 Round Trips Concrete/Slurry Pump Truck 2 15 Days Generator Sets 1 55 Days Bridge Construction — Substructure — 65 Days Cranes 2 65 Days 16 Excavators 1 65 Days Loaders 1 65 Days Ready Mix Concrete Trucks N/A 92 Round Trips Concrete Pump Truck 1 10 Days Generator Sets 1 65 days Cranes 1 80 Days 16 Activity and Working Days Equipment Amount 8-Hour Days or Total Round Trips # of Site Workers Bridge Construction — Superstructure — 80 Days Ready Mix Concrete Trucks N/A 110 Round Trips Concrete Pump Truck 1 10 Days Bid Well 1 5 Days Generator Sets 2 80 Days Forklifts 2 80 Days Grading/Embankment Backfill/Pavement— 45 Days Scrapers 1 40 Days 12 Excavators 2 40 Days Dozers 2 40 Days Rollers 1 40 Days Backhoe Loader/Loader 2 40 Days Asphalt Paving Machine 1 5 Days Asphalt Paver Finisher 1 5 Days Generator Sets 2 45 Days Hauling Truck — Borrow (Site 3) N/A 64 Round Trips Hauling Truck — Asphalt Concrete (Site 1) N/A 52 Round Trips Stage II Construction Traffic Control and Demolition — 20 Days Excavators 2 20 Days 10 Loaders 2 20 Days Rubber Tired Dozers 1 20 Days Traffic Control Trucks 1 5 Days Hauling Trucks - Asphalt Concrete and Concrete Recycling (Site 1) N/A 44 Round Trips Hauling Trucks - Construction Debris (Site 2) N/A 10 Round Trips Grading/Embankment Backfill/Pavement — 55 Days Scrapers 1 45 Days 14 Excavators 2 45 Days Dozers 2 45 Days Rollers 1 45 Days Backhoe Loader/Loader 2 45 Days Asphalt Paving Machine 1 10 Days Asphalt Paver Finisher 1 10 Days Generator Sets 2 55 Days Hauling Truck — Borrow (Site 3) N/A 96 Round Trips Hauling Truck — Asphalt Concrete (Site 1) N/A 48 Round Trips Site 1 - Asphalt Concrete Recycling and Supply Site: Ewles Materials - Murrieta Plant at 26160 Adams Avenue, Murrieta, CA 92562 Site 2 - Construction Debris Dump Site: Waste Management - El Sobrante Landfill at 10910 Dawson Canyon Road, Corona, CA 92883 Site 3 — Materials Borrow Site: FST Main Quarry Plant, Corona, CA 92881 Site 4— Ready Mix Concrete Plant: Robertson's Ready Mix at 26190 Adams Avenue, Murrieta, CA 92562 Attachment B - Peak & Off -Peak Speeds Analysis Synchro Worksheets Measures of Effectiveness EX —AM —Via Montezuma Open Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 21 35 28 Total Travel Time (hr) 1 1 1 Distance Traveled (mi) 13 24 37 Performance Index 0.4 0.0 0.4 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 44 45 44 Total Travel Time (hr) 5 4 9 Distance Traveled (mi) 208 188 396 Performance Index 0.3 0.1 0.4 111110M '•11 1q Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 19 45 30 Total Travel Time (hr) 4 3 7 Distance Traveled (mi) 76 129 205 Performance Index 2.6 0.0 2.6 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 13 35 23 Total Travel Time (hr) 2 2 4 Distance Traveled (mi) 30 66 96 Performance Index 1.8 1.0 2.9 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 35 18 20 Total Travel Time (hr) 0 1 1 Distance Traveled (mi) 3 12 15 Performance Index 0.1 0.8 0.9 Via Montezuma Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 28 12 14 Total Travel Time (hr) 0 1 2 Distance Traveled (mi) 8 15 23 Performance Index 0.0 1.1 1.1 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness EX —AM —Via Montezuma Open Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 19 16 16 Total Travel Time (hr) 4 24 28 Distance Traveled (mi) 70 371 441 Performance Index 2.8 18.6 21.4 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness EX —MD —Via Montezuma Open Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 17 35 19 Total Travel Time (hr) 2 0 3 Distance Traveled (mi) 39 10 49 Performance Index 1.6 0.0 1.6 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 45 43 44 Total Travel Time (hr) 5 7 12 Distance Traveled (mi) 209 325 534 Performance Index 0.1 0.8 1.0 BF-M '•11 1q Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 18 45 26 Total Travel Time (hr) 7 3 11 Distance Traveled (mi) 136 143 279 Performance Index 5.6 0.0 5.6 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 7 35 8 Total Travel Time (hr) 15 1 17 Distance Traveled (mi) 101 40 140 Performance Index 13.8 0.6 14.4 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 35 18 29 Total Travel Time (hr) 0 0 1 Distance Traveled (mi) 17 5 22 Performance Index 0.7 0.3 1.0 Via Montezuma Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 27 10 20 Total Travel Time (hr) 2 1 2 Distance Traveled (mi) 41 9 50 Performance Index 0.0 0.8 0.8 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness EX —MD —Via Montezuma Open Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 12 13 12 Total Travel Time (hr) 23 9 32 Distance Traveled (mi) 270 119 389 Performance Index 20.2 7.4 27.7 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness EX —PM —Via Montezuma Open Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 15 35 17 Total Travel Time (hr) 3 0 3 Distance Traveled (mi) 42 11 53 Performance Index 2.1 0.0 2.1 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 45 43 44 Total Travel Time (hr) 5 8 13 Distance Traveled (mi) 224 349 573 Performance Index 0.2 0.9 1.1 BF-M '•11 1q Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 14 45 22 Total Travel Time (hr) 10 3 14 Distance Traveled (mi) 146 153 300 Performance Index 8.5 0.0 8.5 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 5 35 6 Total Travel Time (hr) 22 1 23 Distance Traveled (mi) 108 43 151 Performance Index 20.5 0.7 21.1 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 35 18 29 Total Travel Time (hr) 1 0 1 Distance Traveled (mi) 18 6 24 Performance Index 0.7 0.4 1.1 Via Montezuma Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 27 8 19 Total Travel Time (hr) 2 1 3 Distance Traveled (mi) 44 9 53 Performance Index 0.0 1.0 1.0 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness EX —PM —Via Montezuma Open Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 10 13 11 Total Travel Time (hr) 28 10 38 Distance Traveled (mi) 291 127 418 Performance Index 25.7 8.2 33.9 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness EX —AM —Via Montezuma Closed Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 21 35 28 Total Travel Time (hr) 1 1 1 Distance Traveled (mi) 13 24 37 Performance Index 0.4 0.0 0.4 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 44 45 45 Total Travel Time (hr) 5 4 9 Distance Traveled (mi) 208 192 401 Performance Index 0.3 0.0 0.3 DOM '•11 1q Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 19 45 30 Total Travel Time (hr) 4 3 7 Distance Traveled (mi) 76 129 205 Performance Index 2.6 0.0 2.6 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 13 35 23 Total Travel Time (hr) 2 2 4 Distance Traveled (mi) 30 66 96 Performance Index 1.8 1.0 2.9 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 35 18 20 Total Travel Time (hr) 0 1 1 Distance Traveled (mi) 3 12 15 Performance Index 0.1 0.8 0.9 Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 19 16 16 Total Travel Time (hr) 4 24 28 Distance Traveled (mi) 70 371 441 Performance Index 2.8 18.6 21.4 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness EX —MD —Via Montezuma Closed Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 17 35 19 Total Travel Time (hr) 2 0 3 Distance Traveled (mi) 40 10 50 Performance Index 1.6 0.0 1.6 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 45 45 45 Total Travel Time (hr) 5 7 11 Distance Traveled (mi) 209 307 516 Performance Index 0.1 0.0 0.1 DOM '•11 1q Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 18 45 26 Total Travel Time (hr) 7 3 11 Distance Traveled (mi) 136 143 279 Performance Index 5.6 0.0 5.6 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 7 35 8 Total Travel Time (hr) 15 1 17 Distance Traveled (mi) 101 40 140 Performance Index 13.8 0.6 14.4 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 35 18 29 Total Travel Time (hr) 0 0 1 Distance Traveled (mi) 17 5 22 Performance Index 0.7 0.3 1.0 Via Montezuma Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 15 30 17 Total Travel Time (hr) 3 0 3 Distance Traveled (mi) 41 13 54 Performance Index 1.7 0.0 1.7 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness EX —MD —Via Montezuma Closed Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 12 13 12 Total Travel Time (hr) 22 9 31 Distance Traveled (mi) 270 118 389 Performance Index 19.8 7.4 27.2 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness EX —PM —Via Montezuma Closed Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 15 35 17 Total Travel Time (hr) 3 0 3 Distance Traveled (mi) 43 11 53 Performance Index 2.1 0.0 2.1 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 45 45 45 Total Travel Time (hr) 5 7 12 Distance Traveled (mi) 224 330 554 Performance Index 0.2 0.0 0.2 DOM '•11 1q Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 14 45 22 Total Travel Time (hr) 10 3 14 Distance Traveled (mi) 146 153 300 Performance Index 8.5 0.0 8.5 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 5 35 6 Total Travel Time (hr) 22 1 23 Distance Traveled (mi) 108 43 151 Performance Index 20.5 0.7 21.1 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 35 18 29 Total Travel Time (hr) 1 0 1 Distance Traveled (mi) 18 6 24 Performance Index 0.7 0.4 1.1 Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 10 13 11 Total Travel Time (hr) 28 10 38 Distance Traveled (mi) 291 127 418 Performance Index 25.2 8.2 33.4 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2025_AM_Without Project Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 21 35 28 Total Travel Time (hr) 1 1 1 Distance Traveled (mi) 14 26 41 Performance Index 0.5 0.0 0.5 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 44 45 45 Total Travel Time (hr) 5 5 10 Distance Traveled (mi) 233 215 448 Performance Index 0.3 0.0 0.3 DOM '•11 1q Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 19 45 30 Total Travel Time (hr) 4 3 8 Distance Traveled (mi) 85 144 230 Performance Index 3.0 0.0 3.0 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 13 35 23 Total Travel Time (hr) 3 2 5 Distance Traveled (mi) 34 74 107 Performance Index 2.0 1.1 3.1 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 35 18 20 Total Travel Time (hr) 0 1 1 Distance Traveled (mi) 3 14 17 Performance Index 0.1 0.9 1.0 Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 18 15 15 Total Travel Time (hr) 4 28 33 Distance Traveled (mi) 79 416 495 Performance Index 3.4 23.0 26.4 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2025_MD_Without Project Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 17 35 19 Total Travel Time (hr) 3 0 3 Distance Traveled (mi) 48 11 59 Performance Index 2.0 0.0 2.0 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 45 45 45 Total Travel Time (hr) 5 8 13 Distance Traveled (mi) 233 343 577 Performance Index 0.2 0.0 0.2 DOM '•11 1q Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 13 45 20 Total Travel Time (hr) 12 4 15 Distance Traveled (mi) 152 160 312 Performance Index 10.0 0.0 10.0 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 8 35 11 Total Travel Time (hr) 14 1 15 Distance Traveled (mi) 113 44 157 Performance Index 12.0 0.7 12.6 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 35 18 29 Total Travel Time (hr) 1 0 1 Distance Traveled (mi) 19 6 25 Performance Index 0.7 0.4 1.1 Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 9 13 10 Total Travel Time (hr) 32 10 42 Distance Traveled (mi) 303 132 435 Performance Index 29.3 8.6 38.0 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2025_PM_Without Project Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 14 35 16 Total Travel Time (hr) 4 0 4 Distance Traveled (mi) 52 12 64 Performance Index 2.7 0.0 2.7 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 45 45 45 Total Travel Time (hr) 6 8 14 Distance Traveled (mi) 251 370 621 Performance Index 0.2 0.0 0.2 DOM '•11 1q Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 12 45 19 Total Travel Time (hr) 14 4 18 Distance Traveled (mi) 164 172 336 Performance Index 11.8 0.0 11.8 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 7 35 10 Total Travel Time (hr) 16 1 18 Distance Traveled (mi) 121 48 169 Performance Index 14.6 0.7 15.3 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 35 18 29 Total Travel Time (hr) 1 0 1 Distance Traveled (mi) 21 6 27 Performance Index 0.8 0.4 1.2 Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 7 13 8 Total Travel Time (hr) 46 11 57 Distance Traveled (mi) 326 142 468 Performance Index 43.1 9.5 52.6 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2025_AM_with Project Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 21 35 28 Total Travel Time (hr) 1 1 1 Distance Traveled (mi) 15 27 42 Performance Index 0.4 0.0 0.4 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 34 45 38 Total Travel Time (hr) 7 5 12 Distance Traveled (mi) 231 215 446 Performance Index 2.5 0.0 2.5 BF-M '•11 1q Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 18 24 22 Total Travel Time (hr) 5 6 11 Distance Traveled (mi) 85 147 232 Performance Index 3.2 4.1 7.3 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 12 22 18 Total Travel Time (hr) 4 6 10 Distance Traveled (mi) 52 124 176 Performance Index 3.5 3.2 6.7 Overland Dr D-E Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 20 11 13 Total Travel Time (hr) 1 5 5 Distance Traveled (mi) 20 51 70 Performance Index 0.7 3.5 4.2 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 14 24 20 Total Travel Time (hr) 1 2 3 Distance Traveled (mi) 13 38 51 Performance Index 0.9 0.9 1.8 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2025_AM_with Project Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 19 15 16 Total Travel Time (hr) 4 25 29 Distance Traveled (mi) 79 380 459 Performance Index 3.0 20.2 23.2 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2025_MD_with Project 01/20/2021 Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 20 35 21 Total Travel Time (hr) 2 0 3 Distance Traveled (mi) 46 11 57 Performance Index 1.4 0.0 1.4 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 31 45 38 Total Travel Time (hr) 8 8 15 Distance Traveled (mi) 232 343 576 Performance Index 3.2 0.0 3.2 BF-M '•11 1q Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 13 25 18 Total Travel Time (hr) 11 7 19 Distance Traveled (mi) 152 180 332 Performance Index 9.6 4.5 14.1 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 8 19 10 Total Travel Time (hr) 19 4 23 Distance Traveled (mi) 151 79 230 Performance Index 16.6 2.6 19.3 Overland Dr D-E Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 16 14 15 Total Travel Time (hr) 3 3 6 Distance Traveled (mi) 52 35 88 Performance Index 2.5 1.9 4.4 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 9 16 11 Total Travel Time (hr) 5 1 6 Distance Traveled (mi) 44 23 67 Performance Index 4.7 1.2 5.9 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 10 13 10 Total Travel Time (hr) 32 10 41 Distance Traveled (mi) 303 123 426 Performance Index 29.0 7.9 36.9 2025_MD_with Project 01/20/2021 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2025_PM_with Project Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 19 35 21 Total Travel Time (hr) 3 0 3 Distance Traveled (mi) 50 12 61 Performance Index 1.5 0.0 1.5 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 31 45 38 Total Travel Time (hr) 8 8 16 Distance Traveled (mi) 249 370 619 Performance Index 3.5 0.0 3.5 BF-M '•11 1q Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 13 25 17 Total Travel Time (hr) 13 8 21 Distance Traveled (mi) 163 194 358 Performance Index 10.9 4.9 15.8 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 7 18 9 Total Travel Time (hr) 23 5 28 Distance Traveled (mi) 163 85 248 Performance Index 20.4 3.1 23.5 Overland Dr D-E Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 16 13 14 Total Travel Time (hr) 4 3 7 Distance Traveled (mi) 56 38 94 Performance Index 2.8 2.2 5.0 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 9 16 10 Total Travel Time (hr) 6 2 7 Distance Traveled (mi) 48 25 72 Performance Index 5.4 1.3 6.7 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2025_PM_with Project Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 7 13 8 Total Travel Time (hr) 46 10 56 Distance Traveled (mi) 326 132 458 Performance Index 42.6 8.7 51.4 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2045 AM Without Project Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 12 35 21 Total Travel Time (hr) 1 1 2 Distance Traveled (mi) 15 29 44 Performance Index 1.1 0.0 1.1 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 44 45 45 Total Travel Time (hr) 8 12 20 Distance Traveled (mi) 355 555 909 Performance Index 0.4 0.0 0.4 DOM '•11 1q Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 16 45 28 Total Travel Time (hr) 11 7 18 Distance Traveled (mi) 179 324 504 Performance Index 8.1 0.0 8.1 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 12 35 21 Total Travel Time (hr) 4 2 6 Distance Traveled (mi) 48 84 133 Performance Index 3.2 1.3 4.5 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 35 18 20 Total Travel Time (hr) 0 1 1 Distance Traveled (mi) 4 15 20 Performance Index 0.2 1.0 1.2 Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 17 15 15 Total Travel Time (hr) 5 29 34 Distance Traveled (mi) 90 424 515 Performance Index 4.3 23.8 28.1 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2045 MD Without Project Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 5 35 7 Total Travel Time (hr) 9 0 9 Distance Traveled (mi) 47 13 60 Performance Index 7.9 0.0 7.9 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 45 45 45 Total Travel Time (hr) 12 11 22 Distance Traveled (mi) 524 480 1004 Performance Index 0.2 0.0 0.2 Diaz Rd W-AA Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 14 45 20 Total Travel Time (hr) 23 6 29 Distance Traveled (mi) 325 251 576 Performance Index 19.4 0.0 19.4 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 9 35 11 Total Travel Time (hr) 14 1 16 Distance Traveled (mi) 126 51 177 Performance Index 12.2 0.8 13.0 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 35 18 29 Total Travel Time (hr) 1 0 1 Distance Traveled (mi) 22 6 29 Performance Index 0.8 0.4 1.3 Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 11 10 11 Total Travel Time (hr) 31 14 46 Distance Traveled (mi) 336 150 486 Performance Index 28.6 12.6 41.2 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2045 PM Without Project Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 3 35 4 Total Travel Time (hr) 16 0 17 Distance Traveled (mi) 51 14 64 Performance Index 15.3 0.0 15.3 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 45 45 45 Total Travel Time (hr) 13 11 24 Distance Traveled (mi) 564 516 1080 Performance Index 0.2 0.0 0.2 Diaz Rd W-AA Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 13 45 19 Total Travel Time (hr) 27 6 33 Distance Traveled (mi) 349 270 619 Performance Index 22.6 0.0 22.6 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 8 35 11 Total Travel Time (hr) 16 2 18 Distance Traveled (mi) 135 55 190 Performance Index 14.4 0.8 15.2 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 35 18 29 Total Travel Time (hr) 1 0 1 Distance Traveled (mi) 24 7 31 Performance Index 0.9 0.5 1.4 Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 8 10 9 Total Travel Time (hr) 44 16 60 Distance Traveled (mi) 362 161 522 Performance Index 41.4 14.1 55.5 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2045 AM With Project Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 17 35 26 Total Travel Time (hr) 1 1 2 Distance Traveled (mi) 17 35 52 Performance Index 0.7 0.0 0.7 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 32 45 39 Total Travel Time (hr) 11 12 23 Distance Traveled (mi) 356 553 909 Performance Index 4.4 0.0 4.4 BF-M '•11 1q Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 17 22 20 Total Travel Time (hr) 11 15 26 Distance Traveled (mi) 179 334 513 Performance Index 8.0 10.7 18.7 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 11 24 17 Total Travel Time (hr) 6 6 13 Distance Traveled (mi) 72 143 215 Performance Index 5.3 3.1 8.5 Overland Dr D-E Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 21 13 15 Total Travel Time (hr) 1 4 6 Distance Traveled (mi) 27 59 86 Performance Index 0.9 3.3 4.2 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 13 15 15 Total Travel Time (hr) 1 3 4 Distance Traveled (mi) 16 43 59 Performance Index 1.2 2.5 3.6 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2045 AM With Project Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 18 15 15 Total Travel Time (hr) 5 26 31 Distance Traveled (mi) 90 389 479 Performance Index 3.6 21.4 25.0 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2045 MD With Project Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 16 35 19 Total Travel Time (hr) 3 0 3 Distance Traveled (mi) 47 16 64 Performance Index 1.9 0.0 1.9 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 28 45 34 Total Travel Time (hr) 19 11 30 Distance Traveled (mi) 524 480 1004 Performance Index 9.5 0.0 9.5 BF-M '•11 1q Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 13 23 16 Total Travel Time (hr) 25 12 37 Distance Traveled (mi) 325 274 599 Performance Index 20.9 8.0 28.9 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 8 20 10 Total Travel Time (hr) 20 4 24 Distance Traveled (mi) 159 84 244 Performance Index 17.7 2.4 20.0 Overland Dr D-E Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 19 12 15 Total Travel Time (hr) 3 3 7 Distance Traveled (mi) 57 43 100 Performance Index 2.2 2.7 4.9 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 10 14 11 Total Travel Time (hr) 5 2 7 Distance Traveled (mi) 49 25 74 Performance Index 4.9 1.7 6.6 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2045 MD With Project Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 11 9 11 Total Travel Time (hr) 30 15 45 Distance Traveled (mi) 336 139 475 Performance Index 26.9 13.1 40.0 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2045 PM With Project Ave Alvarado Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 16 35 18 Total Travel Time (hr) 3 1 4 Distance Traveled (mi) 51 18 69 Performance Index 2.2 0.0 2.2 Diaz Rd AA-VM Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 27 45 33 Total Travel Time (hr) 21 11 32 Distance Traveled (mi) 564 516 1080 Performance Index 10.6 0.0 10.6 Diaz Rd W-AA Direction NB SIB All Average Speed (mph) 12 22 15 Total Travel Time (hr) 28 13 42 Distance Traveled (mi) 349 294 644 Performance Index 24.2 9.0 33.2 Overland Dr CC-J Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 7 20 9 Total Travel Time (hr) 25 5 29 Distance Traveled (mi) 171 91 262 Performance Index 22.3 2.7 25.0 Overland Dr D-E Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 18 12 15 Total Travel Time (hr) 3 4 7 Distance Traveled (mi) 61 46 107 Performance Index 2.4 3.1 5.5 Overland Dr E-CC Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 9 14 10 Total Travel Time (hr) 6 2 8 Distance Traveled (mi) 53 27 80 Performance Index 5.7 1.8 7.5 Synchro 11 Report Measures of Effectiveness 2045 PM With Project Winchester Rd Direction EB WB All Average Speed (mph) 9 9 9 Total Travel Time (hr) 43 17 59 Distance Traveled (mi) 362 149 511 Performance Index 38.8 15.0 53.8 Synchro 11 Report Appendix C Road Construction Emissions Model Methodology (Rincon Consultants Inc., February 2022) Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 9.0.0 Daily Emission Estimates for -> Murietta Creek Bridge Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Total Exhaust Fugitive Dust Project Phases (Pounds) ROG (Ibs/day) CO (Ibs/day) NOx (Ibslday) PM10 (Ibs/day) PM10 (Ibs/day) PM10 (Ibs/day) PM2.5 (Ibs/day) PM2.5 (Ibs/day) PM2.5 (Ibs/day) SOx (Ibslday) CO2 (Ibslday) CH4 (Ibslday) N20 (Ibs/day) CO2e (Ibslday) Grubbing/Land Clearing 1.68 27.35 15.97 15.75 0.75 15.00 3.78 0.66 3.12 0.05 4,588.26 1.24 0.13 4,658.29 Grading/Excavation 3.90 34.95 37.76 16.73 1.73 15.00 4.64 1.52 3.12 0.08 7,832.38 2.18 0.14 7,927.75 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 7.09 87.23 66.09 17.96 2.96 15.00 5.85 2.73 3.12 0.17 16,376.92 3.66 0.24 16,541.30 Paving 4.97 56.87 47.38 2.01 2.01 0.00 1.82 1.82 0.00 0.12 11,944.51 3.14 0.24 12,094.99 Maximum (pounds/day) 7.09 87.23 66.09 17.96 2.96 15.00 5.85 2.73 3.12 0.17 16,376.92 3.66 0.24 16,541.30 Total (tons/construction project) 1.13 13.73 10.62 2.76 0.47 2.29 0.91 0.43 0.48 0.03 2,632.29 0.61 0.04 2,660.49 Notes: Project Start Year -> 2024 Project Length (months) -> 17 Total Project Area (acres) -> 2 Maximum Area Disturbed/Day (acres) -> 2 Water Truck Used? -> Yes Total Material Imported/Exported Volume (yd3/day) Daily VMT (miles/day) Phase Soil Asphalt Soil Hauling Asphalt Hauling Worker Commute Water Truck Grubbing/Land Clearing 0 837 117 0 200 40 Grading/Excavation 0 0 59 0 1,120 40 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0 0 134 0 720 40 Paving 0 837 201 0 320 40 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. 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 N20, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs. Total Emission Estimates by Phase for -> Murietta Creek Bridge 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 (tonslphase) SOx (tons/phase) CO2 (tons/phase) CH4 (tons/phase) N20 (tons/phase) CO2e (MT/phase) Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.03 0.48 0.28 0.28 0.01 0.26 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.00 80.29 0.02 0.00 73.95 Grading/Excavation 0.05 0.44 0.47 0.21 0.02 0.19 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.00 97.90 0.03 0.00 89.90 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.87 10.69 8.10 2.20 0.36 1.84 0.72 0.33 0.38 0.02 2,006.17 0.45 0.03 1,838.26 Paving 0.19 2.13 1.78 0.08 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 447.92 0.12 0.01 411.47 Maximum (tons/phase) 0.87 10.69 8.10 2.20 0.36 1.84 0.72 0.33 0.38 0.02 2006.17 0.45 0.03 1,838.26 Total (tons/construction project) 1.13 13.73 10.62 2.76 0.47 2.29 0.91 0.43 0.48 0.03 2632.29 0.61 0.04 2,413.58 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. 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 N20, respectively. Total CO2e is then estimated by summing CO2e estimates over all GHGs. The CO2e emissions are reported as metric tons per phase. Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 2/28/2022 Road Construction Emissions Model Version 9.0.0 Data Entry Worksheet Note: Required data input sections have a yellow background. 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 Construction Start Year Project Type Project Construction Time Working Days per Month Predominant Soil/Site Type: Enter 1, 2, or 3 (for project within "Sacramento County', follow soil type selection instructions in cells E18 to E20 otherwise see instructions provided in cells J18 to J22) Project Length Total Project Area Maximum Area Disturbed/Day ater Trucks Used? Material Hauling Quantity Input Murietta Creek Bridge 2024 3 17.00 22.00 1 0.14 1.50 1.50 1 Enter a Year between 2014 and 2040 (inclusive) 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. SACRARENTO METRCPO! !AV %ICE QUALITY MANAGEMENI DISTRICT 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 months days (assume 22 if unknown) 1) Sand Gravel : Use for quaternary deposits (Delta/West County) 2) Weathered Rock -Earth : Use for Laguna formation (Jackson Highway area) or the lone formation (Scott Road, Rancho Murieta) 3) Blasted Rock : Use for Salt Springs Slate or Copper Hill Volcanics (Folsom South of Highway 50, Rancho Murieta) miles acres acres 1. Yes 2. No Material Type Phase Haul Truck Capacity (yd3) (assume 20 if unknown Import Volume (yd3/day) Export Volume (yd3/day) Soil Grubbing/Land Clearing 20.00 Grading/Excavation 20.00 IDrainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20.00 Paving20.00 Asphalt Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 837.00 Grading/Excavation 0.00 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 Paving 0.00 837.00 Mitigation Options 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. On -road Fleet Emissions Mitigation No 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 "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 No Mitigation be used to confirm compliance with this mitigation measure (http://www.airquality.org/Businesses/CEQA-Land-Use-Planning/Mitigation). Select "Tier 4 Equipment" option if some or all off -road equipment used for the project meets CARB Tier 4 Standard The remaining sections of this sheet contain areas that can be modified by the user, although those modifications are optional. Data Entry Worksheet Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 2/28/2022 Note: The program's estimates of construction period phase length can be overridden in cells D50 through D53, and F50 through F53 Construction Periods User Override of Construction Months Program Calculated Months User Override of Phase Starting Date Program Default Phase Starting Date Grubbing/Land Clearing Grading/Excavation Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade Paving Totals (Months) 1.59 1.70 2/1/2024 1/1/2024 1.14 6.80 3/26/2024 2/19/2024 11.14 5.95 5/1 /2024 3/25/2024 3.41 2.55 4/14/2025 2/27/2025 17 Please note: You have entered a different number of months than the project length shown in cell D16. 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 58.60 30.00 2 0 117.20 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 Miles/round trip: Grading/Excavation Miles/round trip: Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade Miles/round trip: Paving Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 sox CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.48 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,698.02 0.00 0.27 1,777.60 Paving (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.46 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,682.27 0.00 0.26 1,761.12 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.46 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 0 0.00 Data Entry Worksheet 2 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 2/28/2022 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 Note: Water Truck default values can be overridden in cells D153 through D156, 1153 through 1156, 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 Grading/Excavation - Exhaust Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade Paving Emission Rates ROG CO NOx PM10 PM2.5 sox CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.49 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,704.13 0.00 0.27 1,784.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.48 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,698.02 0.00 0.27 1,777.60 Paving (grams/mile) 0.04 0.43 3.46 0.12 0.05 0.02 1,682.27 0.00 0.26 1,761.12 Grubbing/Land Clearing (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Grading/Excavation (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Draining/Utilities/Sub-Grade (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving (grams/trip) 0.00 0.00 4.46 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 0.36 0.01 0.00 0.00 150.28 0.00 0.02 157.32 Tons per const. Period - Grubbing/Land Clearing 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.63 0.00 0.00 2.75 Pounds per day - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.04 0.36 0.01 0.00 0.00 150.28 0.00 0.02 157.32 Tons per const. Period - Grading/Excavation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 0.00 0.00 1.97 Pounds per day - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.04 0.36 0.01 0.00 0.00 149.74 0.00 0.02 156.76 Tons per const. Period - Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.34 0.00 0.00 19.20 Pounds per day - Paving 0.00 0.04 0.35 0.01 0.00 0.00 148.35 0.00 0.02 155.30 Tons per const. Period - Paving 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.56 0.00 0.00 5.82 Total tons per construction project 0.00 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.41 0.00 0.00 29.75 1 5 5 8.00 40.00 Note: Fugitive dust default values can be overridden in cells D183 through D185. Fugitive Dust 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 1.50 15.00 0.26 3.12 0.05 Fugitive Dust - Grading/Excavation 1.50 15.00 0.19 3.12 0.04 Fugitive Dust - Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade 1.50 15.00 1.84 3.12 0.38 Data Entry Worksheet 3 Data Entry Worksheet 3 Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 2/28/2022 Off -Road Equipment Emissions Grubbing/Land Clearing Override of Default Number of Vehicles Default Number of Vehicles Program -estimate Mitigation Option Override of Default Equipment Tier (applicable only when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Current Equipment Tier Type ROG pounds/day CO pounds/day NOx pounds/day PM10 pounds/day PM2.5 pounds/day Sox pounds/day CO2 pounds/day CH4 pounds/day N2O pounds/day CO2e pounds/day Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts Air Compressors Bore/Drill Rigs Cement and Mortar Mixers Concrete/Industrial Saws Cranes Crawler Tractors Crushing/Proc. Equipment Excavators Forklifts Generator Sets Graders Off -Highway Tractors Off -Highway Trucks Other Construction Equipment Other General Industrial Equipn Other Material Handling Equiprr Pavers Paving Equipment Plate Compactors Pressure Washers Pumps Rollers Rough Terrain Forklifts Rubber Tired Dozers Rubber Tired Loaders Scrapers Signal Boards Skid Steer Loaders Surfacing Equipment Sweepers/Scrubbers Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Trenchers Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,001.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,810.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,022.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,830.08 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 4.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 6.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier User -Defined Off -road Equipment Number of Vehicles If non -default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non -default Off -road Equipment' tab Equipment Tier Type ROG pounds/day CO pounds/day NOx pounds/day PM10 pounds/day PM2.5 pounds/day Sox pounds/day CO2 pounds/day CH4 pounds/day N2O pounds/day CO2e pounds/day 0.00 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 1 N/A 0.00 N/A Grubbing/Land Clearing Grubbing/Land Clearing pounds per day tons per phase 1.64 0.03 26.77 0.47 14.66 0.26 0.69 0.01 0.63 0.01 0.04 0.00 3,860.98 67.57 1.24 0.02 0.03 0.00 3,902.28 68.29 Data Entry Worksheet Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 2/28/2022 Grading/Excavation Override of Default Number of Vehicles Default Number of Vehicles Program -estimate Mitigation Option Override of Default Equipment Tier (applicable only when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Current Equipment Tier Type ROG pounds/day CO pounds/day NOx pounds/day PM10 pounds/day PM2.5 pounds/day Sox pounds/day CO2 pounds/day CH4 pounds/day N2O pounds/day CO2e pounds/day Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts Air Compressors Bore/Drill Rigs Cement and Mortar Mixers Concrete/Industrial Saws Cranes Crawler Tractors Crushing/Proc. Equipment Excavators Forklifts Generator Sets Graders Off -Highway Tractors Off -Highway Trucks Other Construction Equipment Other General Industrial Equipn Other Material Handling Equiprr Pavers Paving Equipment Plate Compactors Pressure Washers Pumps Rollers Rough Terrain Forklifts Rubber Tired Dozers Rubber Tired Loaders Scrapers Signal Boards Skid Steer Loaders Surfacing Equipment Sweepers/Scrubbers Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Trenchers Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.39 0.00 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.26 0.00 11.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.26 0.00 15.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,500.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,653.96 0.00 2,938.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 603.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,516.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,671.78 0.00 2,969.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 610.03 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 0.00 1 Model Default Tier 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 3.00 4 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 0.00 3 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 2.00 Model Default Tier 0.00 3 Model Default Tier 2.00 4 Model Default Tier 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 2.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier User -Defined Off -road Equipment Number of Vehicles If non -default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non -default Off -road Equipment' tab Equipment Tier Type ROG pounds/day CO pounds/day NOx pounds/day PM10 pounds/day PM2.5 pounds/day Sox pounds/day CO2 pounds/day CH4 pounds/day N2O pounds/day CO2e pounds/day 0.00 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 1 N/A 0.00 N/A Grading/Excavation Grading/Excavation pounds per day tons per phase 3.74 0.05 32.46 0.41 36.75 0.46 1.59 0.02 1.46 0.02 0.07 0.00 6,696.49 83.71 2.17 0.03 0.06 0.00 6,768.65 84.61 Data Entry Worksheet Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 2/28/2022 Drainage/Utilities/Subgrade Override of Default Number of Vehicles Default Number of Vehicles Program -estimate Mitigation Option Override of Default Equipment Tier (applicable only when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Current Equipment Tier ROG pounds/day CO pounds/day NOx pounds/day PM10 pounds/day PM2.5 pounds/day Sox pounds/day CO2 pounds/day CH4 pounds/day N2O pounds/day CO2e pounds/day Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts Air Compressors Bore/Drill Rigs Cement and Mortar Mixers Concrete/Industrial Saws Cranes Crawler Tractors Crushing/Proc. Equipment Excavators Forklifts Generator Sets Graders Off -Highway Tractors Off -Highway Trucks Other Construction Equipment Other General Industrial Equipn Other Material Handling Equiprr Pavers Paving Equipment Plate Compactors Pressure Washers Pumps Rollers Rough Terrain Forklifts Rubber Tired Dozers Rubber Tired Loaders Scrapers Signal Boards Skid Steer Loaders Surfacing Equipment Sweepers/Scrubbers Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Trenchers Welders 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.24 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.88 0.18 1.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.04 1.23 0.00 5.29 0.00 0.00 16.32 2.28 25.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.01 0.00 0.00 2.89 2.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.89 1.47 0.00 10.23 0.00 0.00 6.76 1.73 17.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.09 0.00 0.00 1.70 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.10 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.09 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 917.33 202.07 0.00 1,676.44 0.00 0.00 2,501.43 296.06 4,361.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 598.35 0.00 0.00 455.12 394.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 254.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,468.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,112.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.02 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.81 0.10 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 927.23 203.09 0.00 1,694.51 0.00 0.00 2,528.40 299.26 4,375.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 604.81 0.00 0.00 460.02 398.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 256.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,484.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,135.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 Model Default Tier 1.00 Model Default Tier 4.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 3.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 5.00 Model Default Tier 2.00 Model Default Tier 7.00 1 Model Default Tier 0.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 1.00 Model Default Tier 1.00 Model Default Tier 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 0.00 1 Model Default Tier 1.00 Model Default Tier 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 1.00 4 Model Default Tier 0.00 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 7.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier User -Defined Off -road Equipment Number of Vehicles If non -default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non -default Off -road Equipment' tab Equipment Tier Type ROG pounds/day CO pounds/day NOx pounds/day PM10 pounds/day PM2.5 pounds/day Sox pounds/day CO2 pounds/day CH4 pounds/day N2O pounds/day CO2e pounds/day 0.00 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 1 N/A 0.00 N/A Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade pounds per day tons per phase 6.98 0.85 85.55 10.48 64.56 7.91 2.84 0.35 2.68 0.33 0.16 0.02 15,238.36 1,866.70 3.65 0.45 0.13 0.02 15,368.52 1,882.64 Data Entry Worksheet Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 2/28/2022 Paving Override of Default Number of Vehicles Default Number of Vehicles Program -estimate Mitigation Option Override of Default Equipment Tier (applicable only when "Tier 4 Mitigation" Option Selected) Current Equipment Tier Type ROG pounds/day CO pounds/day NOx pounds/day PM10 pounds/day PM2.5 pounds/day Sox pounds/day CO2 pounds/day CH4 pounds/day N2O pounds/day CO2e pounds/day Model Default Tier Aerial Lifts Air Compressors Bore/Drill Rigs Cement and Mortar Mixers Concrete/Industrial Saws Cranes Crawler Tractors Crushing/Proc. Equipment Excavators Forklifts Generator Sets Graders Off -Highway Tractors Off -Highway Trucks Other Construction Equipment Other General Industrial Equipn Other Material Handling Equiprr Pavers Paving Equipment Plate Compactors Pressure Washers Pumps Rollers Rough Terrain Forklifts Rubber Tired Dozers Rubber Tired Loaders Scrapers Signal Boards Skid Steer Loaders Surfacing Equipment Sweepers/Scrubbers Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Trenchers Welders 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.65 0.00 2.02 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.04 0.00 7.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.90 2.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.85 0.00 3.00 0.00 16.14 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.89 0.00 4.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 1.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.00 6.63 0.00 19.11 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.75 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.69 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,001.35 0.00 1,246.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 454.99 394.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 254.06 0.00 826.96 0.00 4,404.44 49.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,208.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.27 0.00 1.42 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,022.93 0.00 1,250.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 459.90 398.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 256.80 0.00 835.87 0.00 4,451.92 49.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,221.22 0.00 0.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 4.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 2.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 1 Model Default Tier 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 1.00 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 3.00 Model Default Tier 1 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier 4.00 2 Model Default Tier Model Default Tier Model Default Tier User -Defined Off -road Equipment Number of Vehicles If non -default vehicles are used, please provide information in 'Non -default Off -road Equipment' tab Equipment Tier Type ROG pounds/day CO pounds/day NOx pounds/day PM10 pounds/day PM2.5 pounds/day Sox pounds/day CO2 pounds/day CH4 pounds/day N2O pounds/day CO2e pounds/day 0.00 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A 0.00 N/A Paving Paving pounds per day tons per phase 4.91 0.18 56.00 2.10 45.41 1.70 1.91 0.07 1.78 0.07 0.11 0.00 10,839.74 406.49 3.14 0.12 0.10 0.00 10,946.78 410.50 Total Emissions all Phases (tons per construction period) _> 1.11 13.45 10.33 0.45 0.42 0.03 2,424.46 0.61 0.02 2,446.05 Data Entry Worksheet Road Construction Emissions Model, Version 8.1.0 2/28/2022 Equipment default values for horsepower and hours/day can be overridden in cells D403 through D436 and F403 through F436. Equipment User Override of Horsepower Default Values Horsepower User Override of Hours/day Default Values Hours/day Aerial Lifts Air Compressors Bore/Drill Rigs Cement and Mortar Mixers Concrete/Industrial Saws Cranes Crawler Tractors Crushing/Proc. Equipment Excavators Forklifts Generator Sets Graders Off -Highway Tractors Off -Highway Trucks Other Construction Equipment Other General Industrial Equipment Other Material Handling Equipment Pavers Paving Equipment Plate Compactors Pressure Washers Pumps Rollers Rough Terrain Forklifts Rubber Tired Dozers Rubber Tired Loaders Scrapers Signal Boards Skid Steer Loaders Surfacing Equipment Sweepers/Scrubbers Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Trenchers Welders 63 8 78 8 221 8 9 8 81 8 231 8 212 8 85 8 158 8 89 8 84 8 187 8 124 8 402 8 172 8 88 8 168 8 130 8 132 8 8 8 13 8 84 8 80 8 100 8 247 8 203 8 367 8 6 8 65 8 263 8 64 8 97 8 78 8 46 8 END OF DATA ENTRY SHEET Data Entry Worksheet 8 Appendix D Amended Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (Rincon Consultants, March 2022) Amended Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation prepared for City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, California 92590 prepared by Bonterra Consulting 2 Executive Circle, Suite 175 Irvine, California 92614 & Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2215 Faraday Avenue, Suite A Carlsbad, California 92008 February 21, 2013 Amended March 2022 RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Environmental Scientists I Planners I Engineers rinconconsultants.com Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Location..................................................................................................................1 1.2 Project Description..............................................................................................................2 2 Methods........................................................................................................................................10 2.1 Literature Review..............................................................................................................10 2.2 Biological Surveys Conducted for Phase II........................................................................10 3 Existing Biological Resources........................................................................................................12 3.1 Vegetation.........................................................................................................................12 3.2 Wildlife..............................................................................................................................14 3.3 Summary of MSHCP Findings............................................................................................15 4 Quantification of Unavoidable Impacts to Riparian/Riverine Resources and Associated Species..........................................................................................................................................20 4.1 Approach to Analysis.........................................................................................................20 4.2 Direct Impacts...................................................................................................................20 4.3 Indirect Impacts on Riparian/Riverine Functions and Values...........................................24 4.4 Infeasibility of Avoidance and/or Alternative...................................................................26 5 Mitigation and Minimization Measures.......................................................................................28 5.1 Riparian/Riverine Resources.............................................................................................28 5.2 Least Bell's Vireo...............................................................................................................29 5.3 Burrowing Owl..................................................................................................................30 5.4 Wildlife Movement...........................................................................................................30 5.5 Construction Minimization Measures...............................................................................31 6 Biologically Equivalent or Superior Alternative Conclusion and Determination ..........................33 7 References....................................................................................................................................34 Tables Table 1 Vegetation Types in the Survey Area................................................................................12 Table 2 Amended Vegetation Impacts of the Project (most impacts are from Phase II) ..............22 Table 3 Amended Jurisdictional Impacts of the Project (most impacts are from Phase 11)...........22 Figures Figure1 Project Location..................................................................................................................5 Figure 2 Survey Area with USGS Topographic Map..........................................................................6 Figure 3 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ............................7 Figure 4 Project Changes 2013-2020................................................................................................8 Amended Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation i City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project Figure5 Project Impacts...................................................................................................................9 Figure6 Vegetation Type................................................................................................................13 Figure 7 Least Bell's Vireo Territories.............................................................................................18 Figure 8 Jurisdictional Features......................................................................................................21 Appendices Appendix A Site Photographs Appendix B Least Bell's Vireo Focused Survey Report Appendix C Proposed Mitigation Plan I Introduction A Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) report, prepared by Bonterra Consulting dated February 21, 2013, was written to satisfy requirements of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for impacts on Riparian/Riverine resources, and least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) as a result of the Murrieta Creek and Overland Drive Extension Project (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Project"). The Proposed Project comprises two phases; Phase I has been completed as was approved under the Bonterra Consulting 2013 DBESP, Phase 11 will be constructed under this amended DBESP to address changes from the 2013 DBESP. Phase I extended Overland Drive from Commerce Center Drive to Enterprise Circle West. Phase 11 involves the further extension of Overland Drive, including construction of a bridge over Murrieta Creek connecting Overland Drive to the Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado intersection, and is the focus of this Amended DBESP. This amended DBESP is required for Phase II of the Proposed Project because it would result in impacts on the aforementioned biological resources in the survey area. Most of Phase II limits are within the same footprint as described in the previously approved DBESP. This Amended DBESP addresses the reduced scope of work and modifications to the project footprint for Phase II. The Phase II changes eliminate the need for dredging the channel and the placement of Amorflex and riprap within Murrieta Creek. The permanent impacts, subject to regulations, are derived from the foundations of pier columns, which will support the bridge above Murrieta Creek, the abutment concrete slope lining and cutoff wall for scour protection, and the bridge approach pavements and abutment foundations that will be constructed on both sides of the creek. Phase II has resulted in a reduction of impacts to vegetation and jurisdictional resources compared to the way Phase II was previously proposed. Due to the nature of Phase II, there is no feasible alternative that would allow for avoidance of impacts on Riparian/Riverine resources and least Bell's vireo; however, impacts on these resources have been minimized to the extent practicable. The objective of this report is to demonstrate that the proposed mitigation would provide an equivalent or superior preservation of habitat function and value of Riparian/Riverine resources and species associated with Riparian/Riverine resources (i.e., least Bell's vireo). This report was provided to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (WRC RCA) for comment, which includes representatives from the County of Riverside, the United States (U.S.) Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)', the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). One comment was received from USFWS on June 17, 2022, to which Rincon responded on July 11, 2022. No additional agency comments were received within the 60-day response period between July 11, 2022 and September 05, 2022. 1.1 Project Location The Proposed Project is located southwest of the intersection of Interstate Freeway 15 (1-15) and Winchester Road in the City of Temecula in Riverside County, California (Figure 1). The survey area for the Proposed Project consists of the Project impact area plus a 500-foot buffer around the As of January 1, 2013, the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is known as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project Project impact area (in order to evaluate potential indirect effects). It is located on the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS') Murrieta 7.5-minute quadrangle map and within Township 8 South, Range 3 West, Section 2 (San Bernardino baseline and Meridian; Figure 2). Commercial development is located along both sides of Murrieta Creek. Topography in the survey area is relatively flat with an elevation of approximately 1,020 feet above mean sea level (msl). The survey area is located within Subunit 1 (Murrieta Creek) of the Western Riverside MSHCP's Southwest Area Plan. The survey area is located within Criteria Area Cells 6783 and 6890, which would contribute to Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Figure 3). The land along Murrieta Creek is owned by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD), however none of the land within Phase II has been designated as Public/Quasi-Public Lands per the MSHCP (Dudek 2003). 1.2 Project Description Phase II would extend a four -lane bridge from the existing terminus of Avenida Alvarado at Diaz Road (west of Murrieta Creek) to connect with Overland Drive at Enterprise Circle West (east of Murrieta Creek). Amendment to Phase II construction reduces the total project footprint permanent impacts by 4.5 acres and temporary impacts by 3.3 acres (Figure 4, Figure 5). Construction of the bridge would include earthen approach embankments with asphalt concrete pavement and concrete slabs, abutment walls and foundations, and concrete slope linings and cutoff walls for scour protection, piers and foundations, bridge cell openings for future utilities; and electrical conduits for street lights and traffic signals. It should be noted that construction would occur in two phases: (1) Phase I would include the demolition of existing structures and construction of Overland Drive up to Enterprise Circle West (City Project No. PW 16-06); (2) Phase II would construct the bridge across Murrieta Creek (City Project No. PW 16-05). Phase I was completed and has extended Overland Drive to Enterprise Circle West. After Phase II is constructed, the USACE will implement a Murrieta Creek Flood Control/Environmental Restoration Project.2 The USACE channel improvement project will lower the channel bottom by approximately 10 feet at the Phase II Bridge. Phase II is considered a covered roadway, as described in Section 7.3.5 of the MSHCP and is therefore subject to design considerations to ensure that it remains characterized as a secondary road. As such, the completed road including all landscaping, safety requirements, and curbs/gutters will be within the maximum allowable width (100 feet). Phase II implementation does not require any off -site impacts or staging areas (Figure 5). As part of the bridge construction, one abutment would be constructed on each end of the bridge, along with two piers within Murrieta Creek. Earthen embankments with concrete slope protection The USACE's 13,000-linear-foot project is located from approximately 200 feet upstream of Winchester Road to approximately 1,000 feet downstream of 15t Street. The project will include (1) variable channel widths of 140 to 364 feet; (2) placement of buried riprap for slope toe protection along areas with a slope between 2:1 and 3:1; (3) soil cement protection in areas with slopes steeper than 2:1; (4) an unmaintained vegetated corridor (averaging 70 feet in width); (5) 4 grade -control structures; (6) removal of Via Montezuma, an existing low-water crossing that crosses Murrieta Creek; (7) future operation and maintenance and emergency repairs; and (8) an equestrian trail (a degraded granite surface extending along the creek's west side) and a bicycle trail (a paved maintenance road extending along the creek's east side). The southern portion (Phase 2A) of the creek widening project's construction has been completed, while the northern portion (Phase 2B) that covers the Phase II Bridge is scheduled to begin in approximately 5 to 10 years due to delay in funding. and cutoff walls buried underground would also be installed on the east and west side of Murrieta Creek. Each pier will consist of three 4-foot-diameter concrete columns. The columns will be supported by a 6-foot-diameter cast -in -drilled -hole (CIDH) concrete piles, deep enough for protection from scour. The channel bottom will remain earthen without any concrete or rip rap lining. The bridge girder would provide cell openings to accommodate future utilities and electrical conduits for streetlights and traffic signal communication. Construction Traffic Controls Upon completion the bridge would accommodate four through travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), left -turn lane(s), and two 6-foot-wide shoulders served as Class II bike lanes, for a curb - to -curb width of 68 feet. In addition, a 6-foot-wide sidewalk would be included on the southern side of the bridge for pedestrians to cross. The existing bike trail on the west side of Murrieta Creek will intersect with the extended Overland Drive by a signal -controlled at -grade crossing. In addition to the construction of the bridge, various roadway and utility improvements would occur at the western and eastern bridge approaches. To match the roadway section on Avenida Alvarado on the west side of the bridge, Phase II would transition the lane configuration in the eastern portion of Avenida Alvarado to be consistent with the four -lane configuration of the bridge. Intersection improvements to Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado would include the installation of traffic signals and associated signing, striping, streetlights, and utilities. Reconstruction and roadway improvements along Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado would include undergrounding electrical utilities, construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalks, relocating sewer and water facilities, and adding traffic signage and striping. Phase II will also include the following additional improvements: ■ Railing Architectural Treatment. The bridge design will incorporate concrete barriers, metal hand and bicycle railings, and standard architectural treatments. ■ Landscaping. Landscaping modifications or improvements in the right-of-way along the bridge approach, Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado intersections, and along Diaz Road and Overland Drive. Throughout construction, Diaz Road, Avenida Alvarado, and Overland Drive will include temporary striping to divert traffic away from work areas. The temporary striping will allow for staged construction of roadway and intersection improvements to always maintain vehicle, pedestrian, and bicyclist access. Temporary and short-term access impacts may occur during construction, and will require coordination with property owners, the public, and other stakeholders. Right -of -Way Requirements The right of way on the east side of Murrieta Creek has been acquired by the City as part of the completed Phase I Overland Drive Extension Project (City Project PW 16-06). Phase II right of way on the west side of Murrieta Creek involves acquiring a part of Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado. Portions of four driveways and parkways in three private properties are to be reconstructed. Temporary construction easements (TCE's) will be acquired at these locations. There will be a street easement for the bridge and its approaches in Murrieta Creek, which is to be acquired from RCFC&WCD. The TCE for grading in the channel is to be acquired through an encroachment permit from RCFC&WCD. Permanent and temporary construction easements in four private properties at the easterly side of the Creek may be required to construct storm drains, a retaining wall, and the bridge approach embankment. City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project Figure 1 Project Location Lake Elsinore Canyon Lake Menifee tb"+•'"` a H wpan �ynn� gai7ra b Lakeland village 4l ,Ipn Rd S ae RO J�rc b Wildomar $ o ' y'ua p�ncon pain Rd French Valley s� x s` 3 Lake Skinner Cleveland a° Recreation Area urrieta wac++r�, National P` 7S3 Fore st t� b � k All Glen b se N°rtr nA S n R U Y Iiinittiia 4 �¢r ° It" 79 1f �� Vy : J AA 4 Marine Corps Base Camp a Alvar a Pendletan z Fallhrook Ra 76 0 2.5 5 Miles ` $3 y 7mogery provided by firs and its licems t 0 2019. Project Location - N Federal Project No. A BR-NBILj543j N t+ Lancaster _ Palmdale lhcterrirre Tanta Clarita iQ Sami A SHls Valley Nat ienal Foresl lweni Palms .os Angeles i pnt.rid , .. 7 QS71ua TrM- W Rivonide '. Cathedral Nauvnai Anaheim C°rona _ pty Park Sant. Ana Indio ip oceansid e San Diego V City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project Figure 2 Survey Area with USGS Topographic Map WCA 0 Califorri14, Airport 1. fWnCho Cali wma Source; USGS 7.5 Minute P City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project Figure 4 Project Changes 2013-2020 Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors 0 2022. Figure 5 Project Impacts Y Y � r� Phase 1 (Completed) Project Area Changes. 2013-2020 Phase 2 Boundary (2020) No change in project area 4. •� Phase 2 Boundary (2013 JPR) Areas of project reduction Permanent Impact Area* Areas of project expansion Temporary Impact Area ALI, lei Existing pedestrian trail to remain o iso Soo N f; *Includes bridge Pier column foundations Feet I i Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors 0 2022. City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project 2 Methods 2.1 Literature Review A literature review was conducted prior to the field surveys to identify special status plant and wildlife species known to occur in the survey area vicinity. The Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Summary Report Generator (RCIP 2009), the California Native Plant Society's (CNPS's) Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2012), and the CDFG's California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFG 2012) were reviewed for special status plant and wildlife species reported from the project vicinity. This review includes Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 909-120-006, 909-120-016, 909-251-001, 909-251-002, 909-252-025, 921-030-042, 921-480080, 921-480-012, 921-480-013, 921-480-014, 921-480-018, 921-480-019, 921-480-020, 921-480-021, 921-480-030, 921-480-031, 921-480-032, 921-480-042, 921-480-055, and 921-740- 004. In addition, the Report and General Soil Maps for the Western Riverside Area (USDA NRCS 2007) was reviewed to determine whether suitable soils are present to support special status plant and wildlife species. 2.2 Biological Surveys Conducted for Phase II The data provided in this report is derived from general and focused surveys of the survey area conducted in 2012 and in 2019. All 2012 surveys referenced below are included as attachments to the Habitat Assessment Report for the Proposed Project (BonTerra Consulting 2012a). The 2019 Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report (Rincon Consultants, Inc. [Rincon] 2019) is attached to this amended DBESP as Appendix B. Rincon conducted update surveys for Phase II in preparation of this DBESP amendment. 2.2.1 Habitat Assessment A habitat assessment was conducted in the survey area on April 17, 2012, by BonTerra Consulting Biologists Kristin Smith and Allison Rudalevige (BonTerra Consulting 2012a). The weather was clear with temperatures between 70- and 85-degrees Fahrenheit (7) and winds less than 5 miles per hour. Subsequently, a second habitat assessment was conducted in the survey area on May 10, 2019, by Rincon Biologist Megan Minter. The weather was clear with temperatures between 58 and 647 and winds less than 5 miles per hour. For both surveys the general assessment was conducted by walking the survey area and recording plant and wildlife data. Vegetation was mapped in the field on an aerial photograph at a scale of 1- inch equals 300 feet (1"=300'). Vegetation types were mapped and were generally described using categories outlined in the MSHCP (Dudek 2003). 2.2.2 Jurisdictional Delineation A formal jurisdictional delineation was conducted in the survey area concurrent with the habitat assessment by Bon Terra Consulting in 2012 (BonTerra Consulting 2012b). The delineation was conducted in accordance with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland IN Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008) and the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). 2.2.3 Least Bell's Vireo Focused surveys for least Bell's vireo were conducted by BonTerra Consulting Biologist Jonathan Aguayo (BonTerra Consulting 2012c). The least Bell's vireo surveys were conducted within all suitable riparian vegetation. In accordance with the USFWS protocol for this species (USFWS 2001), a total of 8 surveys were conducted at least 10 days apart on May 2, 18, and 30; June 14 and 25; and July 5, 15, and 30, 2012. Mr. Aguayo systematically surveyed the riparian habitat either by walking slowly and methodically along the margins of riparian habitat or by using meandering transects through riparian habitat. All surveys were conducted under optimal weather conditions (i.e., between 55°F and 95°F with wind speeds between 0 and 15 miles per hour) and during early morning hours when bird activity is at a peak. Update focused surveys for least Bell's vireo were conducted in 2019 by Rincon Biologist Megan Minter within a 500-foot buffer around the Phase II site (Study Area). The surveys were conducted in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Least Bell's Vireo Survey Guidelines, issued January 19, 2001. Eight (8) surveys were conducted at least nine (9) days apart between May 10 and July 19. The surveys occurred between dawn and 11:00 a.m. each day within all portions of the Study Area containing potentially suitable riparian habitat. Surveys were not conducted during inclement weather conditions (e.g., excessive or abnormal heat, cold, wind, rain, or fog). As the least Bell's vireo survey protocol does not require the playback of least Bell's vireo vocalizations, these recordings were not used during the surveys. The previous DBESP, completed by Bonterra Consulting, used "Pishing" sounds opportunistically to elicit responses from any potential least Bell's vireo present. Detections of least Bell's vireo were marked on an aerial photograph and recorded using a Global Positioning (GPS) System unit. A point was marked at each location where individuals were observed or detected singing within the survey area. 2.2.4 Burrowing Owl Focused surveys for western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) were conducted within several portions of the project site where owls had a potential to occur based on the results of the habitat assessment and the burrow survey. These surveys were conducted from either one hour before sunrise to two hours after, or from two hours before sunset to one hour after. These surveys are conducted only with sufficient light to follow burrowing owl flights. Step I Habitat Assessment and Step II focused surveys were completed in 2012 and in 2019. The first survey completed in 2012 was conducted by BonTerra consulting by Mr. Aguayo in 2012. 2012 survey results indicate no burrowing owls, occupied owl feathers, or other evidence of owl's presence. Mr. Aguayo conducted the crepuscular surveys on June 14; July 6 and 30; and August 31, 2012. All potential habitat on the project site was surveyed to achieve 100 percent visual coverage of the area. Binoculars were also used to inspect holes; crevices; and potential perches such as rocks, fence posts, and other elevated structures for the presence of owls while listening for owl calls. A second set of burrowing owl surveys was completed by Rincon biologist Megan Minter on May 10, 2019, and May 20, 2019 in accordance with methods outlined in Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (County of Riverside 2006). City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project 3 Existing Biological Resources 3.1 Vegetation The following vegetation types and other areas occur in the survey area: freshwater marsh, riparian scrub, southern willow scrub, non-native grassland/ruderal, and developed/ornamental (Figure 6; Table 1). Site photographs were taken and are included in Attachment A. Table 1 Vegetation Types in the Survey Area Freshwater Marsh 7.63 Riparian Scrub 0.85 Southern Willow Scrub 2.24 Non -Native Grassland/Ruderal 5.96 Developed/Ornamental 48.51 Total 65.19 3.1.1 Freshwater Marsh Freshwater marsh is the vegetation type that occurs across most of Murrieta Creek in the survey area. Freshwater marsh is a subassociation of freshwater wetlands described in the MSHCP (Dudek 2003). This vegetation type is dominated by a mix of broad-leaved cattail (Typha sp.), bulrush (Scirpus spp.), and sedge (Carex spp.). 3.1.2 Riparian Scrub Riparian scrub occurs along the northeastern edge of Murrieta Creek. This vegetation type is a subassociation of riparian forest/woodland/scrub described in the MSHCP (Dudek 2003). This vegetation type is comprised of a mix of arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), red willow (Salixlaevigata), Goodding's black willow (Salix gooddingii), narrow -leaved willow (Salix exigua), and mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia). Tamarix (Tamarix sp.) and giant reed (Arundo donax), both exotic invasive species, also occur within this vegetation type. 3.1.3 Southern Willow Scrub Southern willow scrub occurs along the southwestern and northwestern bank of Murrieta Creek. This scrubland is a subassociation of riparian forest/woodland/scrub described in the MSHCP (Dudek 2003). This vegetation type is dominated by narrow -leaved willow. 3.1.4 Non -Native Grassland/Ruderal Non-native grassland/ruderal occurs along the banks of Murrieta Creek. This vegetation type is dominated by wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), barley (Hordeum sp.), annual beard grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), Mediterranean schismus (Schismus barbatus), cheeseweed IN, Figure 6 Vegetation Type b3 mo t Qi to°a nJs IAA . '4RL,7A1& ff/ _d{ij , - :-_*%L • i o 'y1r. ` Qj . Phase 1 (Completed) Vegetation/Land Cover Type Phase 2 Boundary (2020) (Acres Impacted) Permanent Impact Area Developed/ Ornamental (Perm: 0.05 ac. Temp: 0.93 ac.) Freshwater Marsh {Perm: 0.09 ac. Temp: 0.78 ac.) Temporary Impact Area Existing pedestrian trail 0 Non-native Grassland/Ruderal (Perm: 0.41 ac. Temp: 2.12 ac.) to remain 0 Riparian Scrub {Perm: 0.06 ac. Temp: 0.08 ac.) 0 150 300 N 0 Southern Willow Scrub (Perm: 0.01 ac. Temp: 0.36 ac.) Feet Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors 0 2022. City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project (Malva parviflora), red -stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and common sow thistle (Sonchus oleraceus). 3.1.5 Developed/Ornamental The developed/ornamental areas consist of commercial development and associated landscaping. A bike trail is also included in this mapping unit. Ornamental plantings include, but are not limited to, pine (Pinus sp.), Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle), London plane (Platanus x hispanica), India hawthorn (Rhaphiolepis indica), hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis), sweet alyssum (Lobularia maritima), gazania (Gazania linearis), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), and turf grass. This mapping unit also includes some barren, graded areas above the northeastern bank of Murrieta Creek and areas containing riprap along the channel northeast of Murrieta Creek. 3.2 Wildlife Although the survey area is located in an urban setting and habitat along the banks is generally considered to have relatively low quality for wildlife, the riparian habitat within Murrieta Creek is generally considered of high biological value. Murrieta Creek contained flowing water at the time of the survey. A small fish species was observed during the survey; however, it was not identified to species. Tadpoles were also observed but were not identified to species. Bullfrog (Lithobates catesbeianus [Rana catesbeiana]) was observed in the survey area. Other amphibian species expected to occur in the survey area include Baja California treefrog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca) and western toad (Anaxyrus boreas). The only reptile species observed during the survey was the side -blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana). Western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer) are also expected to occur. Some of the bird species observed in the survey area include mallard (Ana platyrhynchos), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret (Ardea alba), Virginia rail (Rallus limicola), killdeer (Charadrius vociferous), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), black phoebe (Sayomis nigricans), ash -throated flycatcher (Myiarchus cinerascens), tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), northern rough -winged swallow (Stelgidopteryx serripennis), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), marsh wren (Cistothorus palustris), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), Wilson's warbler (Wilsonia pusilla), yellow -breasted chat (Icteria virens), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), red - winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), brown -headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus), and house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus). Mammal species observed during the surveys include the Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi). Black -tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus) and coyote (Canis latrans) are also expected to occur. Several bat species would be expected to occur in the survey area, including Brazilian free -tailed bat (Tadarida brasiliensis), big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus), and California myotis (Myotis californicus). 14 3.2.1 Wildlife Movement Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable wildlife habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization creates isolated "islands" of wildlife habitat. In the absence of habitat linkages that allow movement to adjoining open space areas, various studies have concluded that some wildlife species, especially the larger and more mobile mammals, will not likely persist over time in fragmented or isolated habitat areas because they prohibit the infusion of new individuals and genetic information (MacArthur and Wilson 1967; Soule 1987; Harris and Gallagher 1989; Bennett 1990). Once open space areas become constrained and/or fragmented as a result of urban development or construction of physical obstacles (such as roads and highways), the remaining landscape features or travel routes that connect the larger open space areas become corridors as long as they provide adequate space, cover, food and water, and do not contain obstacles or distractions (e.g., man-made noise, lighting) that would generally hinder wildlife movement. The survey area is located in an urban setting; Murrieta Creek provides a wildlife movement corridor through the developed areas. The MSHCP has designated Murrieta Creek as Proposed Constrained Linkage 13. Murrieta Creek connects "Core"4 habitat at the Santa Rosa Plateau and Proposed Linkage 10 (Tenaja Corridor) to conserved habitats in San Diego County. The MSHCP states that Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek) contains riparian habitat for key populations of yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia [Dendroica petechia]), yellow -breasted chat, and least Bell's vireo. It also states that existing floodplain processes and water quality along the creek must be maintained to support Pacific [western] pond turtle (Actinemys [Emys] marmorata) and arroyo chub (Gila orcutti) in this area. Murrieta Creek is constrained on all sides by existing urban development; therefore, wildlife is constrained to moving along the creek. The proposed bridge across Murrieta Creek would be similar to the Winchester Road bridge located immediately upstream of the survey area. It is assumed that wildlife species that currently move along the creek under the Winchester Road Bridge would continue along the creek under the new proposed bridge. Therefore, following construction of the proposed bridge, wildlife would be expected to continue to move along the creek as they currently do. However, night lighting along the proposed bridge and/or vehicle headlights could substantially increase light levels within the creek, which could discourage nocturnal wildlife movement. Additionally, if vehicle noise and/or the noise of vehicles driving over the bridge substantially increases above ambient conditions in the creek, this could also discourage wildlife movement. It is important that the bridge design follow guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP related to Urban/Wildlands interface in order to minimize indirect impacts on the creek that could affect wildlife movement and use. Construction of the proposed bridge is expected to occur primarily during daylight hours; therefore, it would not be expected to deter nocturnal wildlife movement for coyotes and bobcats (Lynx rufus). Most wildlife moving along the creek during the day would be expected to be fairly acclimated to noise given the urban setting, and birds could move through the construction area quickly to reach quieter areas in the creek. Therefore, construction activities are not expected to substantially affect wildlife movement. 3.3 Summary of MSHCP Findings The MSHCP requires that survey areas be evaluated for a number of factors in order to assess how they meet the criteria identified for conservation in the Western Riverside MSHCP. According to the City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project RCIP Conservation Summary Report Generator, Phase II is located within designated MSHCP "Criteria Area" cells 6783 and 6890 (Proposed Linkage 13 along Murrieta Creek). The RCIP Report Generator also indicates that the survey area must be assessed for other issues, which are addressed below (RCIP 2009). 3.3.1 Criteria Area/Cores and Linkages The survey area is located within designated MSHCP "Criteria Area" cells 6783 and 6890, which contribute to Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 along Murrieta Creek. Murrieta Creek connects "Core" habitat at the Santa Rosa Plateau and Proposed Linkage 10 (Tenaja Corridor) to conserved habitats in San Diego County. The MSHCP states that Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek) contains riparian habitat for key populations of yellow warbler, yellow -breasted chat, and least Bell's vireo. It also states that existing floodplain processes and water quality along the creek must be maintained to support Pacific pond turtle and arroyo chub in this area. Murrieta Creek is constrained on all sides by existing urban development; therefore, wildlife is constrained to moving along the creek. Potential impacts on wildlife movement were discussed above in Section 3.2.1. 3.3.2 Riparian/Riverine Resources and Vernal Pools Riparian/Riverine areas, as defined in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, are "dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby freshwater source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year" (Dudek 2003). The survey area contains 10.72 acres of freshwater marsh, riparian scrub, and southern willow scrub that would meet the definition of Riparian/Riverine resources. Vernal pools, also defined in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, are "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). No areas that would be considered vernal pools were observed during the surveys; no soils typical of vernal pools occur in the survey area. 3.3.3 Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas Suitable habitat for the least Bell's vireo is present in the survey area; however, habitat is not considered extensive enough to support the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) or western yellow -billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). Focused surveys for the least Bell's vireo were conducted in spring/summer of 2012 and 2019. Two least Bell's vireo territories were observed in the survey area in 2012. One territory consisted of a pair of vireos; the other territory consisted of an unpaired male (Figure 7). Territory 1: This territory was observed on seven of the eight survey visits. This territory is located on the northern side of Murrieta Creek. Habitat in this territory is dominated by a mix of arroyo willow, Goodding's black willow, and mule fat. This vireo sang continuously during the early visits and intermittently on the later visits. This suggests that he was unpaired at the beginning of the survey and became paired over the course of the surveys. Territory 2: This territory was detected on five of the eight survey visits. This vireo was observed directly across Murrieta Creek from Territory 1 and was counter singing with the male from Territory 1. This vireo's territory consists of a small patch of willows on the southern side of Murrieta Creek. The habitat in this territory consists of narrow -leaved willow with a minimal understory of sedge. This vireo sang continuously and moved around frequently, indicating that he was likely unpaired. Focused surveys in 2019 were conducted by Rincon Biologist Megan Minter. Survey results indicate the number of observed least Bell's vireo territories in the region has increased from two to four. In 2019 no banded least Bell's vireo were observed, and no brown -headed cowbirds were observed. One territory was observed on the east side of Murrieta Creek, south of the proposed bridge, within a patch of pepper tree groves interspersed with arroyo willow (Territory 1, Figure 7). This territory consisted of a lone male that was observed for the first four survey visits. He was observed singing from a small arroyo willow during the first three survey visits but was never observed exhibiting nesting behavior. This male was not observed after the fourth survey visit. A second territory (Territory 2, Figure 7) was observed on the west side of Murrieta Creek, within the proposed bridge footprint. A lone male was observed singing from an arroyo willow in a patch of southern willow scrub. No nest -building behavior was observed. This male was observed consistently for the first five survey visits but was not observed after the fifth survey visit. A third territory (Territory 3, Figure 7) was observed on the west bank of Murrieta Creek northwest of the proposed bridge footprint area. A male least Bell's vireo was observed singing within this territory for the first three survey visits; no female was observed to be present. On the fourth survey visit, this male was observed to be paired with a female. The pair was observed constructing a nest in an arroyo willow near the edge of the streambank. This pair was observed with an active nest for survey visits five through seven. Due to the location of the nest deep within the dense arroyo willow foliage, the biologist was unable to observe the nest directly. However, no fledglings were observed, and it is assumed that the nest failed. The pair were not observed on the eighth and final survey visit. A fourth territory (Territory 4, Figure 7) was observed on the east bank of Murrieta Creek, north of the proposed bridge location. This territory was observed to contain a lone male for survey visits two through six. The lone male was observed singing from an arroyo willow near the south bank of the creek. This male was never observed to be paired and was not observed after the sixth survey visit. The existence of least Bell's vireo within the survey area along with dense areas of riparian vegetation make Murrieta Creek in this location a current and future possible nesting area for least Bell's vireo. Based on the project's design plans, direct impacts to 2019-occupied least Bell's vireo breeding habitat would include the loss of riparian vegetation along the Murrieta Creek. The MSHCP states that key populations of yellow warbler and yellow -breasted chat occur along Murrieta Creek; one pair of yellow -breasted chats was observed consistently during the least Bell's vireo surveys. The MSHCP also states that Pacific pond turtle and arroyo chub occur in Murrieta Creek. These special status species have potential to occur in the survey area. The MSHCP does not require surveys for these species. However, guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP should be followed to ensure that these species are not indirectly impacted by changes in water quality, increased noise, or increased night lighting. City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project Figure 7 Least Bell's Vireo Territories w0� oa ,era O Territory 2 Territory 1 f Ter.ritory:=1� Te"rritory 2 00, ON f• irt0 -� Phase 1 (Completed) Vegetation/Land Cover Type Phase 2 Boundary (2020) Developed/ Ornamental A Least Bell's Vireo Territory (2013) ® Freshwater Marsh ® Least Bell's Vireo Territory (2020) 77 Non-native Grassland/Ruderal Riparian Scrub Permanent Impact Area Southern Willow Scrub Temporary Impact Area 0 Smooth Tarplant Existing pedestrian trail to remain 0 150 300 N I 1 AFeet Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ® 2022. 1[. 3.3.4 Narrow Endemic Species According to the RCIP Summary Report Generator, focused plant surveys are not required for Criteria Area or Narrow Endemic plant species (RCIP 2009). Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 16.1 species, was incidentally observed during the habitat assessment. A total of 2,023 individuals of smooth tarplant were observed in non-native grassland/ruderal vegetation in the survey area (Exhibit 4; BonTerra Consulting 2012a). Phase II would impact approximately 1,243 smooth tarplant individuals (all locations except Locations 1 and 9). Smooth tarplant is a Criteria Area species covered by the MSHCP. Because the survey area is located outside an "Additional Survey Needs Area" for smooth tarplant, all impacts are considered mitigated with the City's participation in the MSHCP (Correa 2012). However, if possible, it is recommended that seed be collected for use in restoration efforts. Potentially suitable habitat for other species not covered by the MSHCP occurs in the survey area. These species include Parry's spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi; CRPR 113.1 ), long-spined spineflower (Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina; CRPR 113.2), Santa Lucia dwarf rush (Juncus luciensis; CRPR 113.2), Robinson's peppergrass (Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii; CRPR 113.2), and white rabbit -tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum; CRPR 2.2). None of these species were observed during focused surveys; therefore, these species are considered absent and there would be no impact on these species. 3.3.5 Additional Survey Needs Species The survey area is located within the additional survey needs area for the burrowing owl. Potentially suitable habitat (i.e., suitable burrows) is present in the survey area. Focused surveys were conducted in spring/summer 2012 and an updated habitat assessment and focused burrow survey was conducted in 2019. Surveys did not detect burrowing owls or owl sign (e.g., prey remains, cast pellets, white -wash, or feathers) were observed in the survey area (BonTerra Consulting 2012d, Rincon 2019). Therefore, burrowing owl is not expected to occur in the survey area. Pursuant to MSHCP requirements, a pre -construction survey would be required 30 days prior to construction to confirm the absence of this species. 3.3.6 Urban/Wildlife Interface The survey area is located in MSHCP Criteria Area Cells 6783 and 6890. Potential indirect impacts are discussed in Section 4.3 below. The City should follow the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP to minimize urban/wildlands interface issues (Attachment B). These include measures related to indirect impacts such as water quality (drainage); use of toxics; night lighting; indirect noise; invasive plant and wildlife species; protection of habitat areas (barriers); and grading/land development adjacent to habitat areas. It should be noted that Phase II should follow the guidelines discussed in Section 7.5.3 of the Western Riverside MSHCP in order to minimize indirect impacts on adjacent habitat areas during construction. City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project 4 Quantification of Unavoidable Impacts to Riparian/Riverine Resources and Associated Species 4.1 Approach to Analysis The determination of impacts in this analysis is based on a comparison of maps depicting Phase II grading limits and maps of biological resources in the survey area. All construction activities, including staging and equipment areas, are assumed to be within the limits of grading identified on Figure 4 and Figure 5. Should any of the impact areas extend beyond the limits shown, additional analysis would be required. Both direct and indirect impacts on biological resources have been evaluated. Direct impacts are those that involve the initial loss of habitats due to grading, construction, and construction -related activities. Indirect impacts are those that would be related to impacts on the adjacent remaining habitat due to construction activities (e.g., noise, dust) or operation of the Project (e.g., human activity, indirect lighting). Phase II impacts on Riparian/Riverine resources and associated species were evaluated with respect to the requirements of Section 6.1.2 of the Western Riverside MSHCP. Phase II impacts on Additional Survey Needs species were evaluated with respect to the requirements of Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. Phase 11's impact on USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW jurisdictional resources were also evaluated. Phase I impacts were discussed in 2013 DBESP. This amended DBESP covers Phase 11 changes. 4.2 Direct Impacts 4.2.1 Vegetation Impacts Phase 11 would impact a total of 4.89 acres, which includes 1.38 acres of impacts on Riparian/Riverine areas, 3.51 acres of impacts on upland areas (Figure 6, Amended Table 2). Of this, Phase II has reduced temporary impacts to Riparian/Riverine areas by a total of 0.23 acre and has reduced its permanent impact to Riparian/Riverine areas by a total of 0.68 acre (Figure 4). The updated project footprint for Phase II has reduced its impact areas to Riparian/Riverine through project design. No additional Riparian/Riverine areas will be permanently impacted from the expanded portions of Phase 11. Phase II would impact a total of 3.44 acres under the jurisdiction of the USACE and CDFW, respectively (Figure 8, and amended Table 3). Of this, 0.96 acre, under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and 2.48 acre, under the jurisdiction of CDFW, will be temporarily impacted from the expanded portions of Phase II (Figure 4). No additional areas under the jurisdiction of the USACE and CDFW will be permanently impacted from the expanded portions of Phase II. The amended Tables 2 and 3 supersede the original Tables 2 and 3 included in the original DBESP. Only Riparian/Riverine areas, their associated species (i.e., least Bell's vireo) are discussed in this report. A complete discussion of impacts on other biological resources is included in the Habitat Assessment Report (BonTerra Consulting 2012a). Impacts within the 2013 footprint will be analyzed in accordance with regulations in place at that time and that the temporary impacts outside of the 2013 footprint will be analyzed under current regulations. 20 Figure 8 Jurisdictional Features Coordinate System: NAD 1983 State Plane California Vl , C Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic Datum: North American 1983 -117.1688 . i ,� 11 rich = 300 feet 1 -- Imagery Provided by Microsoft Bing, 2022. Created on January 06, 2022. r- Map Created by: Rincon Consultants, Inc. i `r • r re • ` ! 1 A / f r f -f iF1 f ~ IlkJ1 a tip Phase 1 (Completed) Potentially Jurisdictional Feature t Phase 2 Boundary (2020) (Acres Impacted) « RWQCB/USACE Wetland Permanent Impact Area Waters of the U.S. Temporary Impact Area (Perm: 0.08 ac., Temp: 0.88 ac.} o 150 300 N CDFW Waters of the State mow, 33.s102, n 0 (Perm: 0.33 ac., Temp: 2.15 ac.) ^-1v.leza Feet /V ��. _ City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project Table 2 Amended Vegetation Impacts of the Project (most impacts are from Phase II) Riparian/Riverine Freshwater Marsh 7.63 0.09 0.78* 0.87 Riparian Scrub 0.85 0.06 0.08** 0.14 Southern Willow Scrub 2.24 0.01 0.36 0.37 Total Riparian/Riverine 10.72 0.16 1.22 1.38 Upland Areas Non -Native Grassland/Ruderal 5.96 0.41 2.12*** 2.53 Developed/Ornamental 48.51 0.05 0.93 0.98 Total Upland Areas 54.47 0.46 3.05 3.51 Total 65.19 0.62 4.27 4.89 *0.01 acres will be temporarily impacted by the expanded portions of Phase II. **0.03 acres will be temporarily impacted by the expanded portions of Phase II. ***0.04 acres will be temporarily impacted by the expanded portions of Phase II. Table 3 Amended Jurisdictional Impacts of the Project (most impacts are from Phase II) Wetland "Waters of the U.S." 9.16 0.08 0.88 0.96 "Waters of the State" 14.01 0.33 2.15 2.48 *Impact acres may not add up due to rounding. Once the scour protection component is installed, storm flows will deposit sediment over this structure and herbaceous vegetation will re-establish except in the location of the piers and concrete structural approaches which total 472.56 square feet of impacts to wetland waters resources under the jurisdiction of the USACE and 927.06 square feet impacts to resources under the jurisdiction of CDFW. 4.2.2 Riparian/Riverine Functions and Values Murrieta Creek occurs in the Santa Margarita River Basin (Hydrologic Unit Code 18070302) and has a drainage area of 222 square miles (USGS 2011). It traverses the cities of Temecula and Murrieta in the densely populated southwest region of Riverside County. Murrieta Creek flows into Temecula Creek which, in turn, flows into the Santa Margarita River and then empties into the Pacific Ocean. Stream gauge data from 1931 to 1973 indicate that the majority of flow in Murrieta Creek occurs in the late winter/early spring with a maximum of 604 cubic feet per second (averaged over the time period) in February (USGS 2011). In contrast, a minimum flow of 0.55 cubic foot per second (averaged over the time period) occurs in November (USGS 2011). Therefore, Murrieta Creek provides for significant seasonal flows and would be considered a relatively permanent water as defined in the Rapanos Guidance Memorandum (USACE and USEPA 2008). In periods of high flow (e.g., during large storm events), the creek may overflow and expand into the wider floodplain within the survey area. The survey area is occupied by the following special status species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP: smooth tarplant, yellow -breasted chat, and least Bell's vireo (discussed in more detail below); arroyo chub and Pacific pond turtle may also occur. 22 Phase II would impact 1.38 acres (0.16 acre permanent, 1.22 acres temporary) of Riparian/Riverine areas and 2.53 acres (0.41 acre permanent, 2.12 acres temporary) of non-native grassland/ruderal habitat areas. Of this, 0.96 acre (0.08 acre permanent, 0.88 acre temporary) would be under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and 2.48 acres (0.33 acre permanent, 2.15 acres temporary) would be within the jurisdiction of CDFW. Phase II would permanently impact three percent of Riparian/Riverine habitat in the survey area; however, there is additional suitable habitat upstream and downstream of the survey area. Phase II would be similar to the existing Winchester Road Bridge across the creek approximately 1,300 feet northwest of the Phase II. Wildlife that currently exist in the survey area are assumed to be somewhat urban -tolerant with commercial development, traffic, and human activity along the City's Murrieta Creek Trail adjacent to the creek; therefore, an additional creek crossing would not be expected to substantially change the nature of Murrieta Creek in this area. Mitigation measures are included below to compensate for the loss of Riparian/Riverine/jurisdictional areas. The existing riparian vegetation currently provides nutrient, sediment, and toxic trapping that improves water quality. Following implementation of Phase II, temporary impact areas (those impacted for construction access areas) are expected to be covered over in natural soils and to re- establish with riparian vegetation similar to the vegetation currently present. The permanent removal of 0.07 acre of Riparian/Riverine areas would not be expected to alter the nutrient, sediment, and toxic trapping function of vegetation in Murrieta Creek. In the survey area, the creek is constrained on all sides by existing urban development and functions as a wildlife movement corridor. Implementation of the proposed compensatory mitigation will meet the DBESP standard, project impacts with implementation of the proposed compensatory mitigation is biologically superior to an avoidance alternative. In the vicinity of Phase II, Murrieta Creek is approximately 450 feet wide. The proposed bridge across Murrieta Creek would be similar to the Winchester Road Bridge located immediately upstream of the survey area. It is assumed that wildlife species that currently move along the creek under the Winchester Road Bridge would continue along the creek under the new proposed bridge, assuming indirect effects of noise and lighting are minimized. Therefore, following construction of the proposed bridge, wildlife would be expected to continue to move along the creek as they currently do. Mitigation measures are included below to ensure that the Phase II would not alter wildlife movement along Murrieta Creek. 4.2.3 Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas Of the additional survey needs species associated with Riparian/Riverine areas listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, the survey area is occupied by least Bell's vireo; two territories were observed in spring/summer 2012 and four territories were observed in spring/summer 2019 (Figure 7). Phase II would directly impact 0.51 acre (0.07 acre permanent, 0.44 acre temporary) of habitat for this species (i.e., riparian scrub and southern willow scrub; Figure 6 and amended Error! Reference source not found.). If vegetation were removed during the breeding season (March 15 to September 15), it could also result in the direct mortality of individuals and/or the loss of an active nest. The loss of any least Bell's vireo or their habitat would be considered significant. Mitigation measures are included below to avoid and minimize direct impacts on the least Bell's vireo and to compensate for the loss of habitat for this species. All direct impacts on the vireo and its habitat would be related to Phase II. Indirect effects are discussed below. If construction activities occur during the breeding season (March 15 to September 15), noise and human activity from construction could indirectly impact any vireos nesting within 500 feet of the construction area. Additionally, once the bridge is operational, traffic noise and night lighting could City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project potentially impact any least Bell's vireo within 500 feet of the bridge. These impacts are discussed in Section 4.3.4 below. 4.2.4 Additional Survey Needs Species Burrowing Owl Although potentially suitable burrowing owl habitat is present in the survey area, no burrowing owls or suitable burrows (e.g., burrows of suitable size and/or sign of owls [whitewash or pellets] within riprap) were observed in the survey area during the focused surveys (BonTerra Consulting 2012d) or during the 2019 surveys. Therefore, burrowing owl is not expected to occur in the survey area at this time and no impact on this species is expected. Pursuant to MSHCP requirements, a pre - construction survey would be required 30 days prior to construction to confirm the absence of this species. 4.3 Indirect Impacts on Riparian/Riverine Functions and Values Phase II would result in potential indirect impacts to Riparian/Riverine resources within the survey area and within downstream, off -site Riparian/Riverine areas of Murrieta Creek. Potential indirect impacts would occur during and after construction of the proposed bridge. These include increased human activity; dust; noise; possible toxin -laden runoff from construction equipment; and increased operational noise and night lighting during operation of the Project. Indirect impacts are addressed by guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the Western Riverside MSHCP that pertain to the Urban/Wildlands Interface. Development in close proximity to a Western Riverside MSHCP Criteria Area (Murrieta Creek) may result in edge effects that could adversely affect biological resources acquired to assemble the MSHCP Reserve (Proposed Constrained Linkage 13). To minimize these edge effects, the Western Riverside MSHCP provides guidelines for these indirect impacts. Areas within and adjacent to the impact area along Murrieta Creek provide open space that contributes to the conservation of Covered Species. Indirect impacts on biological resources are discussed below. 4.3.1 Urban and Storm Water Runoff Phase II could impact water quality. During construction, runoff carrying petroleum residues from construction equipment or concrete washing used to construct Phase II could potentially impact water quality and, in turn, affect plant and wildlife species using Riparian/Riverine habitats within and adjacent to the impact area. Murrieta Creek is a 303(d) impaired drainage; pollutants of concern include phosphorus (a nutrient) and metals. Runoff from the operational road/bridge over the creek would drain into Murrieta Creek via the municipal storm drain system. Water quality treatment will include inlet inserts to remove sediment, and nutrients and metals to minimize impacts to water quality. With implementation of mitigation measures to protect water quality, impacts are expected to be less than significant. A Water Quality Management Plan will be prepared upon preparation of final Project design in conformance with the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 24 4.3.2 Toxic Materials Phase II would not use chemicals or generate toxic bioproducts (e.g., manure) that are potentially toxic. Therefore, there would be no toxic materials impacts as a result of Phase II. 4.3.3 Lighting Night lighting used during construction could inadvertently affect the behavior patterns of nocturnal and crepuscular (active at dawn and dusk) wildlife adjacent to these areas. Of greatest concern are the effects on small ground -dwelling animals that use the darkness to hide from predators and on owls that are specialized night foragers. In addition, night lighting could deter wildlife movement adjacent to Phase II and could inhibit wildlife from using the habitat adjacent to lighted areas. No construction activities would occur at night; therefore, there would be no impact due to night lighting during construction. The operational road/bridge would have directed/shielded night lighting to minimize spillover of light into areas adjacent to the creek. Additionally, approved wildlife -friendly night lighting will be used. With the implementation of mitigation measures to minimize night lighting effects, impacts are expected to be less than significant. 4.3.4 Noise Noise levels would increase over present levels during construction of the proposed bridge. During construction, temporary noise impacts have the potential to disrupt foraging, nesting, roosting, and denning activities for a variety of wildlife species, including the least Bell's vireo. Wildlife species stressed by noise may temporarily disperse from the habitat in the vicinity of Phase II; habitat near the construction site may be uninhabitable due to the noise and human activity present. If construction occurred during the beginning of the bird breeding season when territories are being selected, birds (such as the vireo) may establish territories away from the construction area, increasing competition in other areas where birds are already present. If construction is initiated during the breeding season near an existing nest, it could cause a pair to abandon their nest, causing the nest to fail. This could reduce productivity of the birds during the season. If construction occurs at the end of the breeding season when nesting is complete, family groups would likely be able to disperse away from the construction site and forage in other areas. Therefore, the severity of this indirect effect would depend on the timing of construction in relation to the breeding season and how close any active nests are located in proximity to the construction site. The bridge concrete deck would receive grinding and grooving treatment per California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) bridge design standards to reduce vehicular tire noise. The operational road/bridge would incrementally increase the traffic noise along this portion of Murrieta Creek. Because traffic noise is similar to existing noise from adjacent developed areas, wildlife (including vireo) currently using the creek are expected to be relatively acclimated to traffic noise. While adverse, the additional traffic noise is expected to be less than significant. 4.3.5 Trash/Debris Construction activities could introduce trash or other construction material debris into the survey area. Construction Minimization Measures (Section 7.5.3 of the Western Riverside MSHCP) prohibit depositing trash on native habitat. City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project The operational road/bridge also has potential to increase the amount of trash running off into the creek. As mentioned above, best engineering practices are being used in the design of the bridge and devices would be included to capture trash before it enters the creek. These measures would include actions such as street sweeping. With the implementation of mitigation measures to protect the creek's water quality, impacts are expected to be less than significant. 4.3.6 Exotic Plant and Animal Infestations Seeds of invasive exotic plant species can be carried into a construction site within the mud on the tires of construction equipment. Construction Minimization Measures from Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP will be followed; these guidelines require the use of vehicle washing stations to minimize the spread of invasive species. For areas where construction impacts will remove landscape and vegetation, those areas will be replanted to mitigate the landscape impact and improve the visual views of the area; however, Phase II does not include landscaping. Therefore, Phase II would not introduce invasive non-native plant species that could degrade adjacent open space areas. Murrieta Creek already provides a source of water for invasive wildlife species, and is already occupied by the invasive bullfrog, which is known to prey upon native aquatic wildlife species. Phase II would not create any conditions that would expand the distribution of the bullfrog or any other invasive wildlife species. 4.3.7 Dust Construction activities may generate dust that could settle on the leaves of trees, shrubs, and herbs in the vicinity of the construction site. The respiratory function of the plants in the adjacent areas could be impaired if dust accumulation is excessive. Construction Minimization Measures (Section 7.5.3 of the Western Riverside MSHCP) would minimize these impacts. 4.3.8 Trampling and Unauthorized Recreational Use (Barriers) Although there is currently no barrier to unauthorized access to Murrieta Creek, there is a developed city trail along the west bank of the creek; presumably, recreational use is concentrated along the existing trail. Phase II would not change the public's access along Murrieta Creek. 4.3.9 Grading/Land Development Although construction activity would occur within and adjacent to Murrieta Creek, limited grading would be required for the construction of the bridge. Construction of the bridge would include the placement of concrete embankments/abutments, piers and concrete structural approaches. Once completed, the herbaceous vegetation removed during construction of the bridge is expected to re- establish over temporary impact areas except in the location of the six 6-foot-diameter pier foundations, abutment scour -protection concrete slopes, and concrete structural approaches. 4.4 Infeasibility of Avoidance and/or Alternative If complete avoidance is not considered feasible, the Western Riverside MSHCP requires avoidance of 90 percent of the Riparian/Riverine resources in the survey area. The purpose of Phase II is to construct a four -lane bridge that extends from the existing terminus of Avenida Alvarado at Diaz Road northeast over Murrieta Creek to the existing terminus of Overland Drive at Enterprise Circle 26 West. In order to allow for the construction of the bridge over Murrieta Creek, Riparian/Riverine habitat must be impacted. The City has determined that additional traffic capacity is needed in this locality and the location of the bridge is limited to the connection of these existing roadways. Resources are similar upstream and downstream of the survey area along Murrieta Creek; thus, a small shift upstream or downstream would affect similar resources. Therefore, there is no feasible alternative to accomplish Phase II. City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project 5 Mitigation and Minimization Measures The City of Temecula is a participant in the MSHCP. As such, impacts on special status species covered by the MSHCP are considered fully mitigated by the City's participation in the MSHCP. This section addresses mitigation that is not covered by the MSHCP and measures that are required by the MSHCP. 5.1 Riparian/Riverine Resources Phase II has been designed to minimize impacts on Riparian/Riverine Resources. Riparian/Riverine resources mapped in the survey area generally overlap with resources under the jurisdiction of the USACE, the CDFW, and the RWQCB. Therefore, the following mitigation would satisfy the MSHCP's requirements for the loss of Riparian/Riverine resources, and jurisdictional resources. Prior to the initiation of any construction -related activities that result in any ground disturbances and subsequent direct and/or indirect impacts on areas within these agencies' jurisdictions, the City of Temecula shall obtain all required permits/agreements/certifications from the USACE, the CDFW, the RWQCB, and the RCFC&WCD. The Project Applicant shall obtain all appropriate permits for impacts on USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB jurisdictional areas. Mitigation for the loss of jurisdictional areas and Riparian/Riverine resources may include (1) preservation of existing riparian habitat (preferably within or adjacent to an area identified as a Criteria Area, Core, or Linkage by the MSHCP) or (2) restoration of riparian habitat (preferably within or adjacent to an area identified as a Criteria Area, Core, or Linkage by the MSHCP). If the Project Applicant chooses to mitigate Riparian/Riverine habitat through purchase or restoration, acreage shall be of equivalent or superior quality habitat at no less than a 1:1 ratio. Currently, the proposed mitigation strategy would: (1) restore areas temporarily impacted by the project onsite at a 1:1 ratio; and (2) provide offsite restoration for areas permanently impacted by Phase II. The resource agencies, including the WRC RCA and the USFWS, will review the proposed acquisition during the permitting process to ensure that the lands to be acquired by the City of Temecula are of equivalent or superior quality to the resources impacted by Phase II. During site meetings, the resource agencies gave preliminary approval to restoring Riparian/Riverine habitat along Temecula Creek as mitigation for Phase II (Appendix C). If Phase II would mitigate for impacts on Riparian/Riverine resources through restoration of riparian habitat (as currently planned), a detailed restoration program shall be prepared for approval by the USACE and the CDFW prior to construction and shall contain the following items: ■ Responsibilities and qualifications. Responsibilities and qualifications of the personnel to implement and supervise the plan. The responsibilities of the Project Applicant, specialists, and maintenance personnel that will supervise and implement the plan shall be specified. ■ Site Selection. Site selection for restoration and enhancement mitigation shall be determined in coordination with the City and the resource agencies. The mitigation site(s) shall be located in a dedicated open space area. The restoration site selected is located along Temecula Creek, ■ Site Preparation and Planting Implementation. Site preparation shall include (1) protection of existing native species; (2) trash and weed removal; (3) native species salvage and reuse (i.e., duff); (4) soil treatments (i.e., imprinting, decompacting); (5) temporary irrigation installation; 28 (6) erosion -control measures (i.e., rice or willow wattles); (7) seed mix application; and (8) container species, if appropriate. Schedule. A schedule shall be developed which includes planting to occur in late fall and early winter, between October 1 and January 30. Maintenance Plan/Guidelines. The maintenance plan shall include (1) weed control; (2) herbivory control; (3) trash removal; (4) irrigation system maintenance; (5) maintenance training; (6) replacement planting; and (7) biological monitoring during maintenance activities that occur during the breeding season. Monitoring Plan. The monitoring plan shall include (1) qualitative monitoring (i.e., photographs and general observations); (2) quantitative monitoring (i.e., randomly placed transects); (3) performance criteria as approved by the resource agencies; (4) monthly reports for the first year, and every other month for following years; and (5) annual reports for three to five years, which will be submitted to the resource agencies. The site shall be monitored and maintained for five years to ensure successful establishment of riparian habitat within the restored and created areas; however, if there is successful coverage prior to five years, the Project Applicant may be released from monitoring requirements with the approval of the resource agencies. Long-term Preservation. Long-term preservation of the site shall also be outlined in the conceptual mitigation plan to ensure the mitigation site is not impacted by future projects. 5.2 Least Bell's Vireo The limits of Phase II construction shall be clearly delineated with the use of fencing (lathe and rope, orange snow fencing, or stakes and flagging) prior to the initiation of construction. All removal of riparian vegetation shall be conducted during the non -breeding season for this species (i.e., September 16 to March 14). Vegetation removal within the creek shall be monitored by a qualified Biological Monitor. To the extent practicable, construction of Phase II shall be conducted during the non -breeding season for the least Bell's vireo (i.e., September 16 to March 14) in order to avoid indirect noise impacts on this species. If Phase II construction begins during the vireo nesting season, a qualified Biologist shall survey all riparian habitat within 500 feet of the construction limits for the presence of least Bell's vireo nests/territories prior to the start of construction. Three surveys shall be conducted within one week prior to the initiation of construction within or adjacent to riparian habitat. Any active nests/territories shall be mapped on an aerial photograph by the Biologist, and the location information shall be given to the USFWS and CDFW. The location of any least Bell's vireo nests/territories shall be marked on applicable construction plans. If no active nests/territories are found, construction may proceed. Surveys shall be updated once per week as long as construction is within 500 feet of riparian habitat. Surveys may be discontinued after if no vireos have been detected after eight weekly visits; if a vireo territory is observed, monitoring surveys shall be continued until vireo leave for the wintering grounds (August/September). A pre -construction least Bell's vireo survey report (including mapping of any active territories) shall be prepared by a qualified Biologist and shall be submitted to the USFWS and CDFW. Any active territories shall be protected as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) until no longer occupied to ensure compliance with the Federal and State Endangered Species Acts and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. To protect any active territory sites, the following restrictions on construction are required between March 15 and September 15 (or until territories are no longer active, as determined by a qualified Biologist): (1) no clearing of habitat shall be allowed within Murrieta City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project Creek and (2) access and surveying shall not be allowed within approximately 100 feet of nests/territories (or as otherwise determined by a qualified Biologist). Any construction activities that would occur within Murrieta Creek during the breeding season shall be monitored by a qualified Biologist. If construction would result in noise readings greater than 60 A -weighted decibels (dBA) at the edge of least Bell's vireo habitat (Murrieta Creek), construction shall not be allowed during the breeding season (March 15 to September 15) unless appropriate noise measures are implemented, as approved by the USFWS and the CDFW. Noise measures may include, but would not be limited to, soundwalls to reduce noise between the construction site and the vireo territory; use of construction equipment with noise -reducing alterations; or delay of noise -intensive construction (e.g., pile driving, demolition) until after the breeding season. Soundwalls shall be installed, as - needed, to maintain a noise level of less than 60 dBA at the edge of riparian habitat. Installation of the noise barriers shall be monitored by a qualified Biologist to ensure that riparian habitat is not inadvertently affected. A noise monitoring methodology shall be used during the breeding season for construction within 500 feet of occupied habitat along Murrieta Creek. Noise monitoring stations shall be monitored weekly between March 15 and September 15 to ensure that noise levels remain less than 60 dBA. If noise monitoring determines that the noise level exceeds 60 dBA, noise barriers shall be modified, as recommended by a qualified Acoustical Technician, to reduce noise levels below 60 dBA. 5.3 Burrowing Owl A pre -construction survey for burrowing owl will be conducted 30 days prior to construction in accordance with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. If burrowing owl is present in the impact area during the breeding season (March 1 to August 31), the burrow will be protected until nesting activity has ended. To protect the active burrow, a 500-foot buffer will be established around the active burrow. Any encroachment into the buffer area around the active burrow will only be allowed if the Biologist determines that the proposed activity will not disturb the nest occupants. Construction can proceed when the qualified Biologist has determined that fledglings have left the nest. If burrowing owl is present in the impact area during the non -breeding season (September 1 to February 28), the burrowing owl will be flushed from the burrow and the burrow will be closed using CDFW-approved burrow -closing procedures. If no burrowing owls are observed, construction may proceed. 5.4 Wildlife Movement One potential effect has been identified as related to wildlife movement: night lighting from the bridge could affect the habitat areas along the creek. Night Lighting Permanent night lighting used to light the bridge shall use best engineering practices to direct lighting to the roadway and shall minimize spillage of light into adjacent habitat areas to the extent practicable. Additionally, approved wildlife -friendly night lighting will be used. Lighting designs shall be submitted to the City of Temecula Planning Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit for Phase II of the Project. 30 Noise The bridge concrete deck would receive grinding and grooving treatment per Caltrans bridge design standards to reduce vehicular tire noise. 5.5 Construction Minimization Measures In order to minimize Urban/Wildlands interface issues, the following Construction Minimization Measures (from Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP) will be implemented during Phase II construction to minimize impacts on biological resources during construction: ■ Plans for water pollution and erosion control will be prepared for all discretionary projects involving the movement of earth in excess of 50 cubic yards. The plans will describe sediment and hazardous materials control; dewatering or diversion structures; fueling and equipment management practices; and use of plant material for erosion control. Plans will be reviewed and approved by the City of Temecula, prior to the initiation of construction. ■ Timing of construction activities will consider seasonal requirements for breeding birds and migratory non-resident species. Habitat clearing will be avoided during species' active breeding season (defined as March 1 to June 30). ■ Sediment- and erosion -control measures will be implemented until such time as soils are determined to be successfully stabilized. ■ Short-term stream diversions will be accomplished by the use of sand bags or other methods that will result in minimal in -stream impacts. Short-term diversions will consider effects on wildlife. ■ Silt fencing or other sediment -trapping materials will be installed at the downstream end of construction activities to minimize the transport of sediments off site. ■ Settling ponds where sediment is collected will be cleaned in a manner that prevents sediment from re-entering the stream or damaging/disturbing adjacent areas. Sediment from settling ponds will be removed to a location where sediment cannot re-enter the stream or surrounding drainage area. Care will be exercised during removal of silt fencing to minimize release of debris or sediment into streams. ■ No erodible materials will be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other debris material will not be stockpiled within stream channels or on adjacent banks. ■ The footprint of disturbance will be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites will occur on pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible. ■ Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas will be sited on non -sensitive upland habitat types with minimal risk of direct discharge into riparian areas or other sensitive habitat types. ■ The limits of disturbance (including the upstream, downstream, and lateral extents) will be clearly defined and marked in the field. Monitoring personnel will review the limits of disturbance prior to initiation of construction activities. ■ During construction, the placement of equipment within the stream or on adjacent banks or adjacent upland habitats occupied by Covered Species that are outside of the Phase II footprint will be avoided. ■ Exotic species removed during construction will be properly handled to prevent sprouting or regrowth. ■ Training of construction personnel will be provided. City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project ■ Ongoing monitoring and reporting will occur for the duration of the construction activity to ensure implementation of best management practices. ■ When work is conducted during the fire season (as identified by the Riverside County Fire Department) adjacent to coastal sage scrub or chaparral vegetation, appropriate fire -fighting equipment (e.g., extinguishers, shovels, water tankers) shall be available on the site during Phase II construction to help minimize the chance of human -caused wildfires. Shields, protective mats, and/or other fire -prevention methods shall be used during grinding, welding, and other spark -inducing activities. Personnel trained in fire hazards, preventative actions, and responses to fires shall advise contractors regarding fire risk from all construction -related activities. ■ Active construction areas shall be watered regularly to control dust and to minimize impacts to adjacent vegetation. All equipment maintenance, staging, and dispensing of fuel, oil, coolant, or any other toxic substances shall occur only in designated areas within the proposed grading limits of Phase II. These designated areas shall be clearly marked and located in such a manner as to contain run- off. Waste, dirt, rubble, or trash shall not be deposited in the Conservation Area or on native habitat. 32 6 Biologically Equivalent or Superior Alternative Conclusion and Determination Phase II would result in a limited loss of Riparian/Riverine habitat that provides foraging and nesting habitat for the least Bell's vireo. Following construction of the bridge over Murrieta Creek, riparian habitat within the creek would be similar in character to its current condition; wildlife that use this portion of Murrieta Creek are assumed to be relatively urban -tolerant given that the Project is surrounded by existing development. The Project's primary impacts are related to indirect impacts, including indirect noise impacts on least Bell's vireo and night lighting on wildlife movement. Avoidance and minimization measures have been included to mitigate these inadvertent effects of Phase II (Section 5.0). In addition, compensatory mitigation for impacts on Riparian/Riverine resources have been provided in Section 5.0. Although the loss of Riparian/Riverine resources would be considered adverse, the compensatory mitigation provided for Riparian/Resources (e.g., temporary impact areas restored onsite at a 1:1 ratio; permanent impact areas restored at a 3:1 ratio) would be considered biologically equivalent or superior to the habitat lost as a result of the Project. Areas temporarily impacted by the Project are expected to re-establish with riparian vegetation. Off -site preservation/restoration of at least 0.24 acre (0.08 acre permanent impact at a 3:1 ratio) of USACE jurisdictional resources and 0.99 acre (0.33 acre permanent impact at a 3:1 ratio) of CDFW jurisdictional resources would ensure that there is no net loss of Riparian/Riverine habitat in the watershed. The off -site restoration is planned to occur along Temecula Creek and would supplement two existing City mitigation sites by expanding the amount of riparian habitat in this area (Appendix C). Least Bell's vireo are also known to occur in the vicinity of the proposed Temecula Creek mitigation site, thus increasing the amount of habitat available for the vireo near Temecula Creek. The preservation/restoration of this habitat is expected to be biologically equivalent to allowing the habitat to remain in place, and may be considered superior because it would be in addition to the habitat function that would remain in the Murrieta Creek following Phase II implementation until construction of the USACE Phase 2B project since the downstream Phase 2A has been built. It may also be considered superior if the habitat that is preserved/restored is connected to other regionally significant high quality habitat areas occupied by the least Bell's vireo (as currently proposed for mitigation). With implementation of Construction Minimization Measures, the functions and values of Murrieta Creek would not be substantially altered by Phase II. The preserved/restored mitigation site would provide similar functions and values in an area that will be protected by a conservation easement or other similar agreement, and is outlined in the Mitigation Plan (Appendix Q. Therefore, the mitigation strategy is considered biologically equivalent or superior preservation. City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project 7 References Bennett, A.F. 1990. Habitat Corridors and the Conservation of Small Mammals in the Fragmented Forest Environment. Landscape Ecology 4(2-3):109-122. New York, NY. International Association for Landscape Ecology. BonTerra Consulting. 2012a. Habitat Assessment for Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension, Assessor Parcel Numbers: 909-120-006, 909-120-016, 909-251-001, 909-251-002, 909-252-025, 921-030-042, 921-480-012, 921-480-013, 921-480-014, 921-480-018, 921-480-019, 921-480-020, 921-480-021, 921-480-030, 921-480-031, 921-480-032, 921-480- 042, 921-480-055, and 921-740-004 (12.65-Acre Project, Total Area Surveyed: 65.20 Acres) Overland Road in the City of Riverside, Murrieta and Temecula USGS 7.5-Minute Series Map Township 8S, Range 3W, Section 2. Irvine, CA: BonTerra Consulting. 2012b. Jurisdictional Delineation Report for the Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project, Riverside County, California. Irvine, CA: BonTerra Consulting. 2012c. Least Bell's Vireo Surveys for Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension, Assessor Parcel Numbers: 909-120-006, 909-120-016, 909-251-001, 909-251-002, 909-252- 025, 921-030-04Z 921-480-012, 921-480-013, 921-480-014, 921-480-018, 921-480-019, 921-480-020, 921-480-021, 921-480-030, 921-480-031, 921-480-03Z 921-480-04Z 921-480- 055, and 921-740-004 (12.65-Acre Project, Total Area Surveyed: 65.20 Acres), Overland Road in the City of Riverside, Murrieta and Temecula, USGS 7.5-Minute Series Map, Township 8S, Range 3W, Section 2. Irvine, CA: BonTerra Consulting. 2012d. Western Burrowing Owl Surveys for Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension, Assessor Parcel Numbers: 909-120-006, 909-120-016, 909-251-001, 909-251-002, 909-252-025, 921-030-04Z 921-480-012, 921-480-013, 921-480-014, 921-480-018, 921-480-019, 921-480-020, 921-480-021, 921-480-030, 921-480-031, 921-480-03Z 921-480- 042, 921-480-055, and 921-740-004 (12.65-Acre Project, Total Area Surveyed: 65.20 Acres), Overland Road in the City of Riverside, Murrieta and Temecula USGS 7.5-Minute Series Map Township 8S, Range 3W, Section 2. Irvine, CA: BonTerra Consulting. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG'). 2012. California Natural Diversity Database. Records of Occurrence for the USGS Murrieta, Temecula, Pechanga, and Bachelor Mountain 7.5-minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CDFG, Natural Heritage Division. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2012. Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Records of occurrence for the USGS Murrieta, Temecula, Pechanga, and Bachelor Mountain 7.5-minute quadrangles. Sacramento, CA: CNPS. http://www. cnps. org/inventory. Correa, L. 2012 (September 24). Personal communication. Telephone conversation between L. Correa (Regional Conservation Authority) and A.D. Rudalevige (BonTerra Consulting) regarding take of smooth tarplant outside an "Additional Survey Needs" area. Dudek and Associates, Inc. (Dudek). 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Prepared for the Riverside County Integrated Project). Encinitas, CA: Dudek. http://www.wrc-rca.org/Permits Docs.html. 34 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Harris, L.D. and P.B. Gallagher. 1989. New Initiatives for Wildlife Conservation: The Need for Movement Corridors (pp. 11-34). Preserving Communities and Corridors (G. Mackintosh, Ed.). Washington, D.C.: Defenders of Wildlife. MacArthur, R.H. and E.O. Wilson. 1967. The Theory of Island Biogeography. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Rincon Consultants, Inc. 2021. Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report. Prepared for the City of Temecula and United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). 2009 (July 16, last updated). RCIP Conservation Summary Report Generator. Riverside, CA: RCIP. http://www.rctlma.org/onlin%ontent/ rcip_report generator.aspx. Soule, M.E. 1987. Viable Populations for Conservation. New York, NY. Cambridge University Press. Standerfer, S. 2013 (February 19). Personal communication. Phone conversation between S. Standerfer (Riverside Conservation Authority) and D. West (City of Temecula) regarding RCA's interpretation of bridge impacts on Public/Quasi-Public lands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble, Eds.). Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) (2008). Rapanos Guidance Memorandum, Clean Water Act Jurisdiction. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA NRCS). 2007 (January 5). Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database for Western Riverside Area, California. Fort Worth, TX: USDA, NRCS. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001 (January 19). Least Bell's Vireo Survey Guidelines. Carlsbad, CA: USFWS. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2011. National Water Information System: Web Interface. USGS 11043000 Murrieta Creek at Temecula, CA. Reston, VA: USGS. http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site no=11043000. City of Temecula Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project This page intentionally left blank. 36 Appendix A Site Photographs Photograph 1. Murrieta Creek from the north bank, looking south across the proposed bridge location. Photograph 2. View of southern willow scrub habitat on the south bank of Murrieta Creek. Photo facing northwest. Photograph 3. View across Murrieta Creek from the north bank. Photo facing south. Photograph 4. View of least Bell's vireo habitat on the south bank of Murrieta Creek; photo facing north. r - Y� f fly4s�f._ �_ ��,,'`.••>.s,,, 'ter >- •� ''�- '- ..rEw• °./ .r. �•. JA 1. Appendix B Least Bell's Vireo Survey Report Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. 301 9th Street, Suite 109 Redlands, California 9237 September 2019 lbRINCON CONSULTANTS, INC. Environmental Scientists I Planners I Engineers rinconconsul Cants. corrr Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. 301 9th Street, Suite 109 Redlands, California 9237 September 2019 RINCUN CONSULTANTS, INC. Environmental Scientists I Planners I Engineers ri n con con s u i to n ts. com Table of Contents Table of Contents 1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................1 2 Methodology..................................................................................................................................4 3 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................................5 4 Results and Discussion ....................................................................................................................7 5 Certification....................................................................................................................................9 6 References....................................................................................................................................10 Tables Table 1 Least Bell's Vireo Survey Conditions...................................................................................4 Figures Figure1 Project Vicinity Map............................................................................................................2 Figure 2 Project Location Map..........................................................................................................3 Figure 3 Vegetation Communities Within Survey Area....................................................................6 Figure 4 Least Bell's Vireo Territories Within the Survey Area.........................................................8 Appendices Appendix A Avian Compendium Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive This page intentionally left blank. Introduction 1 Introduction This report presents the results of protocol surveys for the federally and state endangered least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; LBVI) for the Murrieta Creek Bridge (bridge) and Overland Drive Extension project (project). The project is located southwest of the intersection of Interstate (1) 15 and Winchester Road in the City of Temecula in Riverside County, California (project site). The bridge is proposed to span Murrieta Creek from the terminus of Avenida Alvarado at Diaz Road to Commerce Center Drive. The site is located on the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS') Murrieta 7.5- minute quadrangle map (Figure 1). The project site is surrounded by developed land used as an industrial park (Figure 2). The project proposes to construct a bridge over the Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado with Overland Drive in the City of Temecula, Riverside County. The Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive is anticipated to be a concrete girder structure spanning approximately 348 linear feet over Murrieta Creek. The bridge would accommodate four through travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), left -turn lane(s), and two 5-foot-wide shoulders served as Class II bike lanes, for a curb -to -curb width of 68 feet. In addition, a 6-foot-wide sidewalk would be included on the southern side of the bridge for pedestrians to cross the creek. The existing bike trail on the west side of the creek will intersect with the extended Overland Drive by a signal -controlled at -grade crossing. The riparian area along Murrieta Creek contains potential habitat for LBVI. In 2012, BonTerra Consulting, conducted surveys to determine the presence/absence of LBVI in all suitable willow (Salix spp.) and riparian habitat within 500 feet of the project site (BonTerra 2012). During these surveys two LBVI territories were observed. One territory consisted of a pair of vireos; the other territory consisted of an unpaired male. In 2019, Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) conducted new surveys to determine the current presence/absence of LBVI. Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Figure 1 Project Vicinity Map Lake Jsinare Canyan Lake Menifee pemenrgodi P Newp^rt i �yen`� JI \1 Lakeland� 74 Village Scott Rd 0 Wildomar French Valley 3 Lake Skinner t Cleveland \dYlurrieta Recreation Area enron �� ed National Forest Ei4lU a AF so' '�Norte. �`Pa, 7P a F"dt'�tia1. � Tec k1 �Na1S.c.. Ra Ca1an�° 1l�- Temecula c "ry A a ad 79 p - 11 dhµ `°V - a P 3 a Marine Corps rt s ^RI A Base Camp t Pendleton L AMOdo Se a Fallbrook \ 76 Re�QFd c� 0 2.5 5 Miles I I Imagery provided by Esri and its licensors 0 2019. 14 Lancaster Project Location - N A Palmdale Vrtarville Federal Project No. Santa Clarity qu BR-N BI L(543) Angeles Simi Nativoal Valley Forest Twen"n ne osAngeles 9 Ontario Joshua Tree Riverside En cathedral National Anaheim Carona City Park Santa Ana S�A7 Indio I"4 Oceanside iv San Diego Tr�a.a M e x i c o 2 Introduction Figure 2 Project Location Map 0 / i. :wt� �� >b r ; J Project Boundary- ' Federal Project No. BR-NBIL(543) 0 135 270 N I i I A Feet lmogery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ® 2020. Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report 3 Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive 2 Methodology Surveys for LBVI were conducted in 2019 by Rincon biologist Megan Minter within a 500 ft buffer around the project site (Study Area). The surveys were conducted in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Least Bell's Vireo Survey Guidelines, issued January 19, 2001. Eight (8) surveys were conducted at least nine (9) days apart between May 10 and July 19 (Table 1). The surveys occurred between dawn and 11:00 am each day within all portions of the Study Area containing potentially suitable riparian habitat. The habitat types are shown in Figure 3 and described below. Surveys were not conducted during inclement weather conditions (e.g. excessive or abnormal heat, cold, wind, rain, or fog). During each survey visit, the surveyor slowly walked the Study Area, stopping at approximate 25- foot intervals to listen for LBVI songs and calls, and observe habitat with the aid of binoculars (10x40) for adults and fledglings. Nest searching was not conducted. Age, sex, breeding status, and behavioral characteristics were recorded, if vireo were observed. Play back vocalizations were not used and observations were made from locations where birds would not be disturbed. Table 1 Least Bell's Vireo Survey Conditions 5/10/19 1 0700 1100 58 64 0 0 0 0 5/20/19 2 0700 1030 58 62 1-3 1-3 50 60 5/30/19 3 0645 1030 58 64 1-3 1-3 0 0 6/10/19 4 0645 1045 60 64 1 1 10 0 6/20/19 5 0700 1030 69 71 0 0 20 0 7/1/19 6 0700 1030 69 71 1-3 1-3 70 60 7/10/19 7 0700 1045 65 75 0 0 50 50 7/19/19 8 0700 1030 68 74 1-5 1-5 0 0 4 Environmental Setting 3 Environmental Setting The Murrieta Creek Bridge project site is located in Riverside County, California southwest of the intersection of 1-15 and Winchester Road (Figure 1). Topography at the project site is relatively flat with an elevation of approximately 1,020 feet above mean sea level. The project site is primarily composed of developed land bisected by Murrieta Creek, a large intermittent tributary to the Santa Margarita River. Adjacent land use is developed and consists of an industrial park. The Study Area for the project site includes all suitable LBVI riparian habitat (i.e., riparian scrub, southern willow scrub) of appropriate size and stature within 500 feet of the project site. The online edition of A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009) was utilized in classifying observed vegetation alliances. Five vegetation alliances / land cover types were identified in the Study Area: arroyo willow thickets (Salix lasiolepis Shrubland Alliance), cattail marshes (Typha angustifolia Herbaceous Alliance), and pepper tree groves (Schinus molle) woodland Semi -natural Alliance) (Figure 3). Of these, arroyo willow thickets and pepper tree groves were considered to be suitable habitat for nesting LBVI. Arroyo Willow Thickets This vegetation type is dominated by dense stands of arroyo willow interspersed with red willow (Salix laevigata), black willow (Salix gooddingii), mulefat (eaccharis salicifolia), and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii). Salt cedar (Tamarix sp.), pepper trees (Schinus mole) and giant reed (Arundo donax), both exotic invasive species, also occur within this vegetation type. Cattail Marshes This vegetation type is located within the banks of Murrieta Creek and is dominated by cattails (Typha angustifolia, T. latifolia). This vegetation type occurs where soils are periodically flooded. Understory species present include rush (Juncus sp.), umbrella sedge (Cyperus sp.), bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). Non -Native Grassland / Ruderal This vegetation type is located along the edges of Murrieta Creek, outside of the streambanks. Dominant species within the community include: brome grasses, shortpod mustard, London rocket, Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), and telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora). Large areas of this community contain smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), a sensitive species covered by the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Developed / Ornamental This land cover type consists of developed lands, paved areas, and areas containing ornamental vegetation supported by irrigation. Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Figure 3 Vegetation Communities Within Survey Area Results and Discussion 4 Results and Discussion Overall avian activity and diversity was moderate to high during the surveys and common avian species expected to occur within riparian habitats were observed. A list of avian species observed/detected during the surveys is provided in Appendix A. Other than LBVI, no sensitive avian species were observed during the surveys. Four least Bell's vireo territories were observed (Figure 4). No banded LBVI were observed and no brown -headed cowbirds were observed. One territory was observed on the east side of Murrieta Creek, south of the proposed bridge, within a patch of pepper tree groves interspersed with arroyo willow (Territory 1, Figure 4). This territory consisted of a lone male that was observed for the first four survey visits. He was observed singing from a small arroyo willow during the first three survey visits, but was never observed exhibiting nesting behavior. This male was not observed after the fourth survey visit. A second territory (Territory 2, Figure 4) was observed on the west side of Murrieta Creek, within the proposed bridge footprint. A lone male was observed singing from an arroyo willow in a patch of southern willow scrub. No nest -building behavior was observed. This male was observed consistently for the first five survey visits but was not observed after the fifth survey visit. A third territory (Territory 3, Figure 4) was observed on the west bank of Murrieta Creek northwest of the proposed bridge footprint area. A male LBVI was observed singing within this territory for the first three survey visits; no female was observed to be present. On the fourth survey visit, this male was observed to be paired with a female. The pair was observed constructing a nest in an arroyo willow near the edge of the streambank. This pair was observed with an active nest for survey visits five through seven. Due to the location of the nest deep within the dense arroyo willow foliage, the biologist was unable to observe the nest directly. However, no fledglings were observed and it is assumed that the nest failed. The pair were not observed on the eighth and final survey visit. A fourth territory (Territory 4, Figure 4) was observed on the east bank of Murrieta Creek, north of the proposed bridge location. This territory was observed to contain a lone male for survey visits two through six. The lone male was observed singing from an arroyo willow near the south bank of the creek. This male was never observed to be paired and was not observed after the sixth survey visit. The existence of LBVI within the survey area along with dense areas of riparian vegetation make Murrieta Creek in this location a current and future possible nesting area for LBVI. Based on the project's design plans, direct impacts to 2019-occupied LBVI breeding habitat would include the loss of riparian vegetation along the Murrieta Creek. Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Figure 4 Least Bell's Vireo Territories Within the Survey Area i.x 444 _ S- Territary 3 Te`rritc I ' �f0 t Project Boundary �s I L500-foot Buffer __ LBVI Territories Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types - Arroyo Willow Thickets Cattail Marshes Developed/0 rna mental Non-native Grassland ® Smooth Tarplant 0 175 350 N Feet A 06. 0 Certification 5 Certification I hereby certify that the statements furnished in this report and in the attached figures present data and information required for these LBVI protocol surveys. The facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Signed: Date: September 5, 2019 Megan Min Senior Biologist Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive 6 References BonTerra. 2012. Least Bell's Vireo Surveys for Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Assessor Parcel Numbers: 909-120-006, 909-120-016, 909-251-001, 909-251-002, 909-252- 025, 921-030-042, 921-480-012, 921-480-013, 921-480-014, 921-480-018, 921-480-019, 921-480-020, 921-480-021, 921-480-030, 921-480-031, 921-480-032, 921-480-042, 921-480- 055, and 921-740-004 (12.65-Acre Project, Total Area Surveyed: 65.20 Acres) Overland Road in the City of Riverside, Murrieta and Temecula USGS 7.5-Minute Series Map Township 8S, Range 3W, Section 2. State of California Resources Agency. 2019. Department of Fish and Game. Natural Heritage Division. Endangered and Threatened Animals List. Sacramento, CA. Sawyer, J., T. Keeler -Wolf, and J. Evens, 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, California. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). September 2006. Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation. USFWS Carlsbad Office, 26 pgs. January 19, 2001. Least Bell's Vireo Survey Guidelines. . 1998. Draft Recovery Plan for the Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Portland, OR. August 4, 2016. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for Least Bell's Vireo. 51 Federal Register: 16474—16482. H Appendix A Avian Compendium Avian Compendium Avian Compendium Accipitridae Kites, Hawks, Eagles Buteo lineatus red -shouldered hawk Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Aegit a i ae 9 Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus bushtit Anatidae Anas platyrhynchos mallard Branta canadensis Canada goose Ardeidae Herons Ardea alba great egret Nycticoraxnycticorax black -crowned night -heron Charadriidae Plover Charadrius vociferus killdeer Columbidae Pigeons, Doves Columba livia rock pigeon Patagioenas fasciata band -tailed pigeon Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared -dove Zenaida macroura mourning dove Corvidae Crows, Jays Aphelocoma californica California scrub -jay Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Cuculidae Roadrunners Geococcyx californianus greater roadrunner Emberizidae Emberizids Melozone crissalis California towhee Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee Melospiza melodia song sparrow Falconidae 2Caracaras, Falcons Falco sparverius American kestrel Fringillidae Finches Spinus tristis American goldfinch Haemorhous mexicanus house finch Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch Spinus tristis American goldfinch Hirundinidae Swallows Petrochelidon pyrrhonota cliff swallow _0009- Icteridae Blackbirds Euphogus cyanocepholus Brewer's blackbird Icterus bullockii Bullock's oriole Icterus cucullatus hooded oriole Least Bell's Vireo Protocol Survey Report A-1 Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Mimidae Thrashers jd Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher PtilogonatidaeMMV_ Silky- flycatcher Phainopepla nitens phainopepla ParulidaeMMV_ Wood -warblers Geothlypis trichas common yellowthroat Passerellidae New World Sparro Spizella passerina chipping sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys white -crowned sparrow Passerida Old World Sparrows Passer domesticus house sparrow Sturnidae Starling Sturnus vulgaris European starling Trochilida Hummingbirds Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird Tyrannida Tyrant Flycatchers Sayornis nigricans black phoebe Sayornis saya Say's phoebe Myiarchus cinerascens ash -throated flycatcher Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's kingbird TroglodytidaeMor- Wrens Troglodytes aedon house wren Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren Turdidae Thrushes Turdus migratorius American robin Vireonidae Vireo bellii pusillus Least Bell's vireo Vireo huttoni Hutton's vireo A-2 Appendix C Proposed Mitigation Plan Rincon Consultants, Inc. 8825 Aero Drive Suite 120 San Diego, California 92123 760 918 9444 info@rincon consultants.com www.rinconcons uItan ts.corn Prepared by: Bonterra Consulting Amended: January 7, 2013 Revised by: Rincon Consultants, Inc. March 30, 2022 Rincon Project No: 18-06574 Peggy Bartels, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Darren Bradford, Regional Water Quality Control Board Heather Pert, California Department of Fish and Wildlife Subject: Summary of Proposed Riparian Mitigation for the Murrieta Creek Bridge/Overland Drive Project (Phase II) This memorandum provides a brief summary of the proposed mitigation strategy for Phase II of the Murrieta Creek Bridge/Overland Drive Project. The proposed Phase II consists of the construction of a new bridge over Murrieta Creek at Overland Drive from its current terminus near Enterprise Circle West. The bridge will be 340 feet long and 77 feet wide. The bridge deck will consist of four through travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), a left -turn lane in the median, two 6-foot-wide shoulders that serve as Class II bike lanes, and a 6-foot-wide sidewalk. Construction of the bridge will include earthen approach embankments with asphalt concrete pavement and concrete slabs, abutment walls and foundations, and concrete slope lining and cutoff walls for scour protection, piers and foundations. Within Murrieta Creek each pier will consist of three 4-foot-diameter concrete columns. The column will be supported by a 6-foot-diameter cast -in -drilled -hole (CIDH) concrete piles, deep enough for protection from scour. The channel bottom will remain earthen without any concrete or rip rap lining. The project also includes roadway improvements to Overland Drive, Diaz Road, Avenida Alverado, and Enterprise Circle West. Vegetation types found within the project site consist of freshwater marsh, riparian scrub, southern willow scrub, non-native grassland/ruderal, and developed/ornamental. Open water, while not mapped separately, was also present in Murrieta Creek. Murrieta Creek is an intermittent stream located in the Santa Margarita Watershed. Note that the Riverside County Flood Control District mows the vegetation within Murrieta Creek on an annual basis which has resulted in low species and structural diversity and prohibits the development of a mature successional riparian community. Project construction will result in temporary and permanent impacts to 0.96 acre of wetland 'Waters of the U.S.' (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE]) and 2.48 acres of 'Waters of the State' (California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW]), as summarized in Table 1. Detailed information regarding jurisdictional resources within the project site and project impacts to these resources is provided in the Jurisdictional Delineation Report, Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Extension (BonTerra Consulting, 2012). The proposed mitigation strategy to offset impacts to areas under the jurisdiction of the USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW consists of both passive and active restoration of 4.27 acres of temporary project impact areas and the active restoration and enhancement of 0.99 acre at an offsite location along Temecula Creek, a tributary to Murrieta Creek. Table 1 E n v i r o n m e n t a I S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s I City of Temecula Mitigation for the Murrieta Creek Bridge/Overland Drive Project summarizes the proposed mitigation acreages and associated activities for both onsite restoration areas and offsite enhancement areas along Temecula Creek. Table 1 Proposed Mitigation, Murrieta Creek Bridge Onsite- Mitigation for Temporary Impacts Temporary Impacts Within Low Flow Area Temporary Impacts Outside of Low Flow Area Total Offsite- Mitigation for Permanent Impacts Permanent Impacts 1.22 1:1 1.22 Self -mitigate; vegetation in the temporary impact areas in the low flow portion of the creek will re-establish based on wet conditions in the creek and proximity to extensive native plant seed sources 3.05 1:1 3.05 Apply a native seed mix to temporary impact areas to re-establish native plant species. 4.27 4.27 0.33 3:1 0.99 Establish riparian plant species on City - owned parcel along Temecula Creek (adjacent to French Valley and Pechanga Parkway mitigation sites) Project impacts to State and federal jurisdictional resources are as follows: USACE Temporary Impacts to Wetland 'Waters of the U.S.': 0.88 acre Permanent Impacts to Wetland 'Waters of the U.S.': 0.08 acre Total USACE Impacts: 0.96 acre CDFW Temporary Impacts to 'Waters of the State': 2.15 acres Permanent Impacts to 'Waters of the State': 0.33 acre Total CDFW Impacts: 2.48 acres Mitigation requirements are based on the greater CDFW impact areas (which include USACE jurisdictional areas) andproposed mitigation provides concurrent compensation for both CDFW and USACE jurisdictional impacts. USACE Mitigation Requirements (based on completed Ratio Setting Checklist for temporary and permanent impacts) are as follows: Temporary Impacts (1:1 Mitigation Ratio): 1.22 ac. X 1= 1.22 acres to be accomplished on onsite temporary impact restoration areas (2.3 acres) Permanent Impacts (3:1 Mitigation Ratio): 0.33 ac. X 3= 0.99 acres to be accomplished as part of mitigation effort at the offsite City -owned parcel along Temecula Creek. It is anticipated that the low -flow channel portions of the temporary impact areas (1.22 acres) will rapidly re-establish with native riparian species due to the hydrology of the channel and proximity to abundant native riparian seed sources throughout the channel. A native riparian seed mix and suitable erosion control measures will be applied to temporary impact areas along the channel side slopes (3.05 acres) to facilitate the establishment of native plant species in these areas. The proposed seed mix for these side slope areas is summarized in Table 2. Page 2 I City of Temecula Mitigation for the Murrieta Creek Bridge/Overland Drive Project Table 2 Temporary Impact Site Seed Mix Project Site (3.05 Acres) deerweed Acmispon glaber California sagebrush Artemisia californica mugwort Artemisia douglasiana bush sunflower Encelia californica brittlebush Encelia farinosa California buckwheat Eriogonum fasciculatum golden -yarrow Eriophyllum confertiflorum coast goldenbush Isocoma menziesii blue-eyed grass Sisyrinchium bellum Total 3 9 4 12 1 3 3 9 3 9 5 15 3 9 3 9 1 3 26 78 a Actual seed mix species/quantities will depend on species availability for collection in the project vicinity. Seed materials will be collected within Murrieta Creek and generally within the Upper Santa Margarita RiverWatershed and should be obtained from areas that have similar habitat conditions to the project site. b Total quantities are rounded up/down. The proposed 0.99 acre offsite mitigation area is located in the Temecula Creek floodplain, within a parcel owned by the City of Temecula (Figure 1). The proposed site is located immediately adjacent (west) to the approved 3.4-acre Pechanga Parkway and 2.73-acre French Valley Parkway mitigation sites. Installation at the French Valley site was completed in November 2012; installation at the Pechanga Parkway site was completed in fall 2013. The proposed 0.99-acre site is located on a low - elevation terrace north of and includes the active creek channel, and currently supports 90-95% non- native vegetation coverage. Soil types (per USDA) include Riverwash and Gorgonio loamy sand (2-8 percent slopes). There are small patches of existing willow riparian habitat within the polygon; however, the understory in these areas is also weedy/non-native and would benefit from restoration with native species. A commercial site is located along the north boundary of the proposed site providing excellent access for installation/maintenance, and the site would be properly fenced and signage installed as needed to deter public entry. The City has installed five piezometers with a maximum depth of 12 feet in this reach of Temecula Creek to assess groundwater resources on an ongoing basis. Groundwater was encountered at 11.5 feet at only one piezometer location in the southwest corner of the proposed mitigation site near the active creek channel during groundwater assessments performed in February 2012. BonTerra Consulting incidentally detected a least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)(vireo) within the proposed mitigation site in 2011 and 2012 during monitoring tasks associated with preliminary weed abatement within the adjacent 2.73-acre French Valley mitigation site. Additional vireos were detected within and adjacent to the proposed mitigation site during protocol surveys conducted by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in spring and summer 2021. Proposed activities within the 0.99-acre site consist of the eradication of non-native plant species and the subsequent establishment of a mix of riparian tree, shrub, and herbaceous species such as willows (Salix spp.), mule fat (eaccharis salicifolia), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), California wild rose (Rosa californica), etc., to benefit a range of wildlife species and in particular the vireo (a plant palette that is similar to the approved Pechanga Parkway and French Valley mitigation programs). A list of proposed plant species is provided in Table 3 and Table 4. All Page 3 I City of Temecula Mitigation for the Murrieta Creek Bridge/Overland Drive Project maintenance and monitoring procedures would comply with resource agency conditions and would consist of a five-year program. In particular, mitigation site preparation, installation, and long-term maintenance activities would be performed in a manner that avoids adverse impacts to the vireo and other sensitive biological resources. A conservation easement would be placed over the 0.99-acre mitigation site. Table 3 Seed Mix Species Offsite Mitigation At Temecula Creek Parcel Pounds of Seeda Common Name Botanical Name Per 1.0 Acre Per 0.99 Acresb Western ragweed Ambrosia psilostachya 3 3 Mugwort Artemisia douglasiana 5 5 Tarragon Artemisia dracunculus 3 3 Western goldenrod Euthamia occidentalis 3 3 Creeping wild rye Leymus triticoides 5 5 Deergrass Muhlenbergia rigens 3 3 Branching phacelia Phacelia ramosissima 3 3 Giant nettle Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea 3 3 Total 28 28 a Actual seed mix species/quantities will depend on species availability for collection in the project vicinity. Seed materials will be collected within Temecula Creek and generally within the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed and should be obtained from areas that have similar habitat conditions to the mitigation site. b Total quantities are rounded up/down. Table 4 Containers And Cuttings Offsite Mitigation At Temecula Creek Parcel •uantitya Per r Common Name Botanical Name Size Per 1.0 Acre Desert indigobush Amorphafruticosa 1-gallon 50 50 Mugwort Artemisia douglasiana 1-gallon 50 50 Tarragon Artemisia dracunculus 1-gallon 50 50 Emory's baccharis Baccharis emoryi 1-gallon 100 99 Mule fat Baccharissalicifolia 1-gallon 100 99 Mule fat Baccharissalicifolia Cuttings 100 99 Western goldenrod Euthamia occidentalis 1-gallon 50 50 Velvet ash Fraxinus velutina 1-gallon 5 5 Creeping wild rye Leymus triticoides 1-gallon 50 50 Deergrass Muhlenbergia rigens 1-gallon 50 50 Western sycamore Platanus racemosa 1-gallon 10 10 Black cottonwood Populus balsamifera 1-gallon 5 5 Fremont cottonwood Populus fremontii 1-gallon 5 5 California wild rose Rosa californica 1-gallon 50 50 California blackberry Rubus ursinus 1-gallon 50 50 Sandbar willow Salix exigua Cuttings 20 20 Page 4 I City of Temecula Mitigation for the Murrieta Creek Bridge/Overland Drive Project Quantitya Common Name Botanical Name Size Per 1.0 Acre Per 0.99 Acresb Black willow Salixgooddingii Cuttings 20 20 Red willow Salixlaevigata Cuttings 20 20 Arroyo willow Salix lasiolepis Cuttings 20 20 California figwort Scrophularia californica 1-gallon 50 50 Hedge nettle Stachysajugoides 1-gallon 50 50 Giant nettle Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea 1-gallon 50 50 Total 955 952 a Actual container plant species/quantities will depend on species availability for collection within the project Seed materials will be collected within Temecula Creek and generally within the Upper Santa Margarita River Watershed and should be obtained from areas that have similar habitat conditions to the mitigation site. b Total quantities are rounded up/down. Sincerely, Rincon Consultants, Inc. Christopher Hughes Jared Reed Biologist IV/Marine Scientist Senior Biologist/Project Manager Attachments Figure 1 Temecula Creek Proposed Mitigation Site Page 5 I City of Temecula Mitigation for the Murrieta Creek Bridge/Overland Drive Project Figure 1 Temecula Creek Proposed Mitigation Site 1-11 Pie RI 8 ~ ;4F qO go M Temecula Creek Mitigation Parcel (22.4 ac.) ® French Valley Mitigation Site (2.73 ac.) ® Pechanga Parkway Mitigation Site (3.4 ac.) ® Proposed Mitigation Site (0.99 ac.) CDFW Jurisdiction Streambed (9.66 ac./3,265 linear ft.) USACE/RWQCB Jurisdiction - Wetland Waters of the U.S. (4.23 ac./3,265 ft.) 0 150 300 N I' ICI AFeet imageryp.,i a yESAi,Micr ,s Bi,gan its ice-11 2022. �Ik it a ;v 3 a� . r1e. Page 6 Appendix E Energy Calculation Methodology (Rincon Consultants Inc., February 2022) Murrietta Creek Bridge Project Last Updated: 2/21/2022 Compression -Ignition Engine Brake -Specific Fuel Consumption (BSFC) Factors [1]: HP: 0 to 100 0.0588 1 1 HP: Greater than 100 0.0529 Values above are expressed in gallons per horsepower-hour/BSFC. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Hours per Load Fuel Used Construction Equipment # Day Horsepower Factor Construction Phase (gallons) Excavators 4 8 158 0.38 Grubbing/Land Clearing 3,554 Signal Boards 1 8 6 0.82 Grubbing/Land Clearing 81 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 6 8 97 0.37 Grubbing/Land Clearing 3,543 Crushing/Proc. Equipment 3 8 85 0.78 Grading/Excavation 2,338 Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8 247 0.4 Grading/Excavation 2,089 Scrapers 2 8 367 0.48 Grading/Excavation 3,725 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8 97 0.37 Grading/Excavation 844 Bore/Drill Rigs 3 8 221 0.5 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 34,345 Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 8 9 0.56 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 2,322 Cranes 3 8 231 0.29 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 20,821 Excavators 5 8 158 0.38 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 31,102 Forklifts 2 8 89 0.2 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 4,100 Generator Sets 7 8 84 0.74 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 50,116 Other Construction Equipment 1 8 172 0.42 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 7,484 Pavers 1 8 130 0.42 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 5,657 Paving Equipment 1 8 132 0.36 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 4,923 Rollers 1 8 80 0.38 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 3,501 Scrapers 1 8 367 0.48 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 18,251 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 7 8 97 0.37 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 28,936 Excavators 4 8 158 0.38 Paving 7,617 Generator Sets 2 8 84 0.74 Paving 4,383 Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8 247 0.4 Paving 3,133 Scrapers 3 8 367 0.48 Paving 16,761 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8 97 0.37 Paving 5,062 Total Fuel Used 264,689 (Gallons) Construction Phase Days of Operation Grubbing/Land Clearing 35 Grading/Excavation 25 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 245 Paving 75 Total Days 380 WORKER TRIPS Fuel Used Constuction Phase MPG [2] Trips Trip Length (miles) (gallons) Grubbing/Land Clearing 24.1 10 20.0 290.46 Grading/Excavation 24.1 56 20.0 1161.83 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 24.1 36 20.0 7319.50 Paving 24.1 16 20.0 995.85 Total 9,767.63 1 2/28/2022 2:25 PM HAULING AND VENDOR TRIPS Fuel Used Trip Class MPG [2] Trips Trip Length (miles) (gallons) HAULING TRIPS Grubbing/Land Clearing 7.5 2 58.6 15.63 Grading/Excavation 7.5 1 58.6 7.81 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 7.5 2 67.0 17.87 Paving 7.5 3 67.0 26.80 Total 68.11 VENDOR TRIPS Grubbing/Land Clearing 7.5 5 8.0 186.67 Grading/Excavation 7.5 5 8.0 133.33 Drainage/Utilities/Sub-Grade 7.5 5 8.0 1306.67 Paving 7.5 5 8.0 400.00 Total 2,026.67 Total Gasoline Consumption (gallons) 9,768 Total Diesel Consumption (gallons) 266,783 Sources: [1] United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2021. Exhaust and Crankcase Emission Factors for Nonrood Compression -Ignition Engines in MOVES3.0.2. September. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021-08/42Or21021.pdf. [2] United States Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2021. National Transportation Statistics. Available at: https://www.bts.gov/topics/national-transportation-statistics. 2 2/28/2022 2:25 PM Appendix F Water Quality Assessment Report (Engineering Resources of Southern California Inc., October 2019) Water Quality Assessment Report For the Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive (Avenida Alvarado over Murrieta Creek) Federal Aid Project No. BR-NBIL(543) City Project No. PW-16-05 Submitted to: Caltrans District 8 Planning and Local Assistance 464 West 4' Street, 6' Floor (MS-760) San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400 Prepared For: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 CNS Engineers, Inc. 11870 Pierce Street, Suite 265 Riverside, CA 92505 Prepared By: Public Works I Municipal 5e"Ices I Water Resources Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. 1861 W Redlands Blvd. Bldg. 7B Redlands, CA 92373 Project File No. 19009001 October 2019 For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, large print, on audiocassette, or computer disk. To obtain a copy of these alternate formats, please call or write to Caltrans, Attn: Lawrence Wooster, Caltrans ADA Coordinator, ADAdoeskdot.ca.gov; (833) 713-2922 Prepared By: Date: ` t tq Craig Brudin, QSP, CESSWI (909) 890-1255 x102 Engineering Resources of Southern California 1861 W Redlands Blvd. Redlands, CA 92373 Approved By: Date: 7Z -?0/ Steven Latino, PE, TE/Director of Engineering (909) 890-1255 x108 Engineering Resources of Southern California 1861 W Redlands Blvd, Redlands, CA 92373 Approved By: G� Date: Nino Abad, PE, QSD/P, Associate Civil Engineer/Project Manager 951-308-6385 Public Works Department City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92589 Executive Summary ............................. Executive Summary The Water Quality Assessment Report (WQAR) identifies potential water quality impacts associated with the Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Project. The purpose of this document is to describe the existing water resources, determine potential project impacts and whether they would be adverse based on the preliminary project data. This WQAR is intended to assist with compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Murrieta Creek Project is within the Santa Margarita Hydrologic Unit of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board located in Riverside County. The City of Temecula (City) proposes the construction of a bridge spanning approximately 348 linear feet over the Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado with the extension of Overland Drive within the City of Temecula, Riverside County. This project will include the installation of traffic signals and associated signing, striping, street lights, and utilities. Additional street improvements will also include underground utilities, construction of curb, gutter, and sidewalks, and the relocation of sewer and water facilities. The project consists of one no build alternative, the no build alternative would have this segment of the Murrieta Creek between Overland Drive and Avenida Alvarado remain in its current state which would require traffic to continue to cross the creek using the Winchester Road Bridge approximately 0.3 miles north and the Montezuma low-water crossing approximately 0.5 miles south. The construction, use, operation and maintenance of the proposed bridge and roadway improvements have the potential to contribute pollutants to stormwater runoff from the Project. Stormwater runoff from the Project may enter Murrieta Creek by direct discharge or by indirect discharge through the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4), measures to control, reduce, or eliminate the discharge of pollutants to the Project's stormwater runoff are required. These pollutant control measures, known as Best Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented during construction and post -construction. The federal Clean Water Act and the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Act implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program in California. The NPDES program controls water pollutants by regulating sources of the pollutants and thus protecting water quality. The state wide program is administered by the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). The SWRCB and RWQCB programs require the control of pollutants both during the construction of the project and the duration of the project. The Santa Margarita Watershed drains the southwest portion of Riverside County including all of the City of Temecula. Stormwater runoff collects into Murrieta and Temecula creeks and combines to form the Santa Margarita River. The Santa Margarita River flows through the "Gorge" and into San Diego County where it flows past Camp Pendleton into the Santa Margarita Lagoon at the Pacific Ocean. Executive Summary ............................. The City of Temecula holds an NPDES permit for discharges from its MS4 system. The City of Temecula is a named permittee on Order No. R9-2013-0001, as amended by R9-2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (Regional Board) on November 18th, 2015. Some of the requirements of this order became effective January 7th, 2016, and many new requirements will not be in effect until after the Regional Board approves the Co-Permittees compliance documents. All pertinent environmental and water quality permitting such as the USACE 404, RWQCB Section 401, California Fish and Game Code FGC Section 1602, RWQCB 404 Water Quality Certification, and Jurisdiction Determination are currently in process. However, the Project has not been reviewed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the US Army Corps of Engineers, or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. A delineation of potential wetlands and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) was prepared in 2013 as part of the evaluation for potential permit requirements for the first phase of the project under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), for Streambed Alteration Agreement processing under Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code, and for water quality certification under Section 401 of the CWA, respectively. The analysis in the jurisdictional delineation resulted in 10.78 acres of wetland Waters of the U.S. (WoUS) and 15.60 acres of Waters of the State within the survey area. The delineation concluded that the project would impact 0.87 acres of WoUS and 2.12 acres of Waters of the State. Since there are areas within the Project area subject to USACE and CDFW jurisdiction, RWQCB jurisdiction in this case is coincident with USACE jurisdiction for purposes of the Section 401 water quality certification. The Project is subject to the provisions of the Western Riverside County Multiple -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). An MSHCP consistency analysis has been prepared for the Project since the Project cannot avoid all impacts to riparian/riverine areas, a Determination of Biologically Superior or Equivalent Preservation (DBESP) analysis is required to mitigate for any impacts. At the minimum, compensation for riparian/riverine impacts in the DBESP will include off -site participation in an in -lieu fee program, and/or purchase of credits from a mitigation bank for habitat creation. Mitigation in the DBESP will be equivalent or superior to that which would occur if impacts to the riparian/riverine resources were avoided. The Project will be reviewed by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), who manages the MSHCP. Compensatory mitigation is anticipated to be required by the USACE, the CDFW, the RWQCB, and for MSHCP consistency to offset the loss of jurisdictional waters and riparian/riverine habitat. The City of Temecula requires the project to develop and implement two separate plans to control water quality, The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The SWPPP and WQMP will both identify the potential pollutants associated with construction of the project and the BMPs that will be incorporated during construction to control, reduce, or eliminate these pollutants in storm water runoff. These actions will be taken both during construction of the project and the duration or life of the project. To efficiently and effectively comply with both the City of Temecula's requirements for Executive Summary ............................. water quality control, two documents are being prepared for this Project: • Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) — The SWPPP will include treatment BMPs to control the discharge of pollutants in stormwater runoff associated with the construction of the Project. The SWPPP will include a description of the post construction BMPs identified in the WQMP for the Project. Some of the construction phase BMPs for the Project include: o Scheduling o Streambank Stabilization o Wind Erosion Controls o Storm Drain Inlet Protection o Gravel Bag Berm o Gravel Bag Check Dams o Sediment Sweeping and Vacuuming o Material and Waste Handling and Storage Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) — The WQMP is a post -construction plan for managing the quality and quantity of stormwater runoff that flows from the Project after construction is completed and the Project is operational. The WQMP will describe the site design, source control and treatment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be implemented and maintained throughout the life of Project to prevent and minimize water pollution that can be caused by stormwater runoff. The WQMP includes the following three major categories of BMPs: o Site Design BMPs (also known as Low Impact Development strategies) — are Project features that are designed or incorporated into a project to minimize the increase in stormwater runoff from the developed project site. Examples of Site Design BMPs include the use of porous pavement or pavers, minimizing the use of impervious pavement areas, directing roof drains to landscaped areas, disconnecting impervious areas, and conserving natural areas, etc., to allow water to percolate into the ground. o Source Control BMPs — Activities or structures aimed at eliminating or minimizing contact between pollutant sources and stormwater/urban runoff. Examples of Source Control BMPs include education, contractor training, storm drain markings, sweeping, litter collection, canopies over fueling islands, and awnings or tarps to cover materials stored outdoors. These BMPs help keep water from carrying pollutants to storm drain systems and then to Murrieta Creek. o Treatment Control BMPs — Engineered devices or systems incorporated into the project's drainage system to remove pollutants from stormwater runoff before the runoff leaves the project site. Examples of Treatment Control BMPs include vegetated swales, infiltration trenches, detention/retention basins, catch basin filters, and vortex separators. These devices help remove potential pollutants from stormwater runoff prior to leaving site and entering storm drain systems and then to Murrieta Creek. iv Executive Summary ............................. The Post -Construction BMPs for the Project may include: o Education for Property Owners o Drainage Facility Inspection and Maintenance o Street Sweeping o MS4 Stenciling and Signage o Channel and Slope Protection Collectively, the BMPs described in the SWPPP and/or the WQMP are expected to mitigate the discharge of pollutants associated with the construction, use, operation, and maintenance of the Project to levels that are less than significant. Table of Contents ......................... Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................. ii Tableof Contents............................................................................................................ vii Listof Figures................................................................................................................... ix Listof Tables.................................................................................................................... ix Listof Appendices............................................................................................................ ix 1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................I 1.1 Approach to Water Quality Assessment..............................................................1 1.2 Project Description................................................................................................I 1.2.1 No Project Alternative......................................................................................4 1.2.2 Build Alternative................................................................................................4 2. REGULATORY SETTING........................................................................................8 2.1 Federal Laws and Requirements..........................................................................8 2.2 State Laws and Requirements..............................................................................9 2.3 Regional and Local Requirements.....................................................................12 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT................................................................................12 3.1 General Environmental Setting..........................................................................12 3.1.1 Population and Land Use.................................................................................13 3.1.2 Topography......................................................................................................13 3.1.3 Hydrology........................................................................................................14 3.1.3.1 Regional Hydrology......................................................................................14 3.1.3.2 Local Hydrology...........................................................................................15 3.1.3.2.1 Precipitation and Climate.....................................................................15 3.1.3.2.2 Surface W.............................................................................................16 3.1.3.2.3 Floodplains...........................................................................................16 3.1.3.2.4 Municipal Supply.................................................................................16 3.1.3.3 Groundwater Hydrology............................................................................16 3.1.4 Geology/Soils...................................................................................................17 3.1.4.1 Soil Erosion Potential................................................................................17 3.1.5 Biological Communities..................................................................................17 3.1.5.1 Aquatic Habitat..........................................................................................17 3.1.5.1.1 Special Status Species..........................................................................17 3.1.5.1.2 Stream/Riparian Habitats.....................................................................17 3.1.5.1.3 Wetlands..............................................................................................18 3.1.5.1.4 Fish Passage.........................................................................................18 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES...............................................................18 4.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................18 4.2 Potential Impacts to Water Quality...................................................................18 4.2.1 Anticipated Changes to the Physical/Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic vii W QAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Project PW-16-05 Table of Contents ......................... Environment.....................................................................................................19 4.2.1.1 Substrate.....................................................................................................19 4.2.1.2 Currents, Circulation or Drainage Patterns................................................19 4.2.1.3 Suspended Particulates (Turbidity)............................................................19 4.2.1.4 Oil, Grease and Chemical Pollutants.........................................................19 4.2.1.5 Temperature, Oxygen Depletion and Other Parameters ............................20 4.2.1.6 Flood Control Functions............................................................................20 4.2.1.7 Storm, Wave and Erosion Buffers.............................................................20 4.2.1.8 Erosion and Accretion Patterns..................................................................20 4.2.1.9 Aquifer Recharge/Groundwater.................................................................20 4.2.1.10 Baseflow....................................................................................................20 4.2.2 Anticipated Changes to the Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment..................................................................................................... 20 4.2.2.1 Special Aquatic Sites.................................................................................20 4.2.2.2 Habitat for Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms.........................................21 4.2.2.2.1 Fish Passage (Beneficial Uses)............................................................21 4.2.2.3 Wildlife Habitat.........................................................................................21 4.2.2.3.1 Wildlife Passage (Beneficial Uses)......................................................21 4.2.2.4 Endangered or Threatened Species............................................................21 4.2.2.5 Invasive Species.........................................................................................21 4.2.3 Anticipated Changes to the Human Use Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment.....................................................................................................22 4.2.3.1 Existing and Potential Water Supplies; Water Conservation ....................22 4.2.3.2 Recreational or Commercial Fisheries.......................................................22 4.2.3.3 Other Water Related Recreation................................................................22 4.2.3.4 Aesthetics of the Aquatic Ecosystem.........................................................22 4.2.3.5 Parks, National and Historical Monuments, National Seashores, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas, etc........................................................22 4.2.3.6 Traffic/Transportation Patterns..................................................................22 4.2.3.7 Energy Consumption or Generation..........................................................23 4.2.3.8 Navigation..................................................................................................23 4.2.3.9 Safety.........................................................................................................23 4.2.4 Temporary Impacts to Water Quality..............................................................23 4.2.4.1 No Build Alternative..................................................................................23 4.2.4.2 Build Alternative — Construct Overland Bridge at Murrieta Creek ........... 23 4.2.4.3 Human Use Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment ..........................23 4.2.5 Long -Term Impacts During Operation and Maintenance................................23 4.2.5.1 No Build Alternative..................................................................................23 4.2.5.2 Build Alternative — Construct Overland Bridge at Murrieta Creek ........... 23 4.3 Impact Assessment Methodology.......................................................................24 4.4 Alternative -Specific Impact Analysis.................................................................24 4.5 Cumulative Impacts.............................................................................................25 5. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES............................................25 6. REFERENCES...........................................................................................................26 viii WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Project PW-16-05 Table of Contents ......................... 6.1 Works Cited..........................................................................................................27 6.2 Preparer(s) Qualifications...................................................................................27 List of Figures Figure1 Project Vicinity..................................................................................................5 Figure 2 Typical Section of Ultimate Overland Drive...................................................6 Figure 3 Typical Section of Proposed Overland Drive..................................................6 Figure4 Project Location.................................................................................................7 Figure5 Hydrology Map...............................................................................................14 List of Tables Table 1-1 Population Projections for the State of California......................................13 List of Appendices Appendix A National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette.................................................29 ix W QAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Project PW-16-05 1. Introduction 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Approach to Water Quality Assessment The purpose of the Water Quality Assessment Report (WQAR) is to fulfill the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and to provide information for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting. The document includes a discussion of the proposed project, the general environmental setting of the project area, and the regulatory framework with respect to water quality; it also provides data on surface water and groundwater resources within the project area and the water quality of these waters, describes water quality impairments and beneficial uses, and identifies potential water quality impactsibenefits associated with the proposed project, and recommends avoidance and/or minimization measures for potentially adverse impacts. 1.2 Project Description Project Purpose: The purpose of the project is to construct a bridge over and across Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado at the intersection of Diaz Road with Overland Drive at the intersection of Enterprise Circle West in the City of Temecula. The proposed improvements will accomplish the following in the project area: 1. Provide safe all-weather access across Murrieta Creek 2. Provide reliable route for emergency vehicles, motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists 3. Provide additional access points to the City's industrial park Project Need: Murrieta Creek bisects the City of Temecula west of Interstate 15 (I-15) and separates industrial park and open space areas in the western City limits from the rest of the City. Murrieta Creek is an important riparian resource within the City, which protects water quality, conveys stormwater, and contains important biological resources and habitats. In addition, the Creek is an important archaeological area with known and unknown archaeological sites. Therefore, there are limited creek crossings in the City. A low-water crossing of Murrieta Creek currently exists at Via Montezuma, approximately 0.5 miles south of Overland Drive. The low-water crossing frequently closed in wet seasons is not a reliable route to cross the Creek during storm and flooding events, and the crossing is scheduled to be removed in the future by a separate channel improvements project. Therefore, there is a need for an additional all-weather creek crossing location for employees and residents to access the industrial and open space areas to the west of Murrieta Creek. For delineations of the project features please refer to the figures presented below, subsequent to the narrative for this section. Figure 1 & 4 below present the project vicinity and location map along with the key features under evaluation for impacts as a result of this project. Figure 2 below presents the typical ultimate roadway section for Overland Drive that will tie into the proposed bridge. Figure 3 below presents the typical section of the proposed bridge that will continue overland drive over Murrieta Creek and tie into Avenida Alvarado. WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 1. Introduction Existing Conditions: The project is located in the northwest area in the City of Temecula, within and adjacent to Murrieta Creek. The project would extend from the terminus of Overland Drive near the Enterprise Circle West intersection, over Murrieta Creek, along Diaz Road, approximately 600 feet on either side of Avenida Alvarado, and about 500 feet along Avenida Alvarado. Roadways at the location of the proposed bridge consist of the intersection of Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado on the west side of the Creek. Diaz Road parallels the Creek and has a width of 76 feet and consists of two northbound and two southbound through lanes, and Avenida Alvarado has a width of 64 feet with one eastbound and one westbound travel lane. To the east of the Creek, Overland Drive terminates at Commerce Center Drive. Overland Drive was recently extended to Enterprise Circle West under a separate Overland Drive Extension Project (City Project PW 16-06). The project involved the demolition of two buildings, roadway improvements including construction of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, storm drains, utility facilities, traffic signage, and intersection improvements at Overland Drive/Commerce Center Drive and Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West. Enterprise Circle West is 44 feet in width with one northbound and one southbound lane and Overland Drive between Enterprise Circle West and Commerce Center Drive is 68 feet in width with two westbound and two eastbound lanes. An existing pedestrian and bike trail parallels the west side of the Creek to the east of Diaz Road. Nearby Creek crossings include the Winchester Road Bridge, approximately 0.3 miles north, and the Via Montezuma low-water crossing, approximately 0.5 miles south. Proposed Improvements: The project proposes to construct a bridge over the Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado with Overland Drive in the City of Temecula, Riverside County. The Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive is anticipated to be a concrete girder structure spanning approximately 348 linear feet over Murrieta Creek. The bridge would accommodate four through travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), left -turn lane(s), and two 5-foot-wide shoulders served as Class II bike lanes, for a curb -to -curb width of 68 feet. In addition, a 6- foot-wide sidewalk would be included on the southern side of the bridge for pedestrians to cross the creek. The existing bike trail on the west side of the creek will intersect with the extended Overland Drive by a signal -controlled at -grade crossing. Upon completion of the Murrieta Creek Bridge project, the proposed street configuration would be consistent with the four -lane roadway segment on Overland Drive to the east. In addition to the construction of the bridge, various roadway and utility improvements would occur at the western and eastern bridge approaches. In order to match the roadway section on Avenida Alvarado on the west side of the bridge, the project would transition the lane configuration in the eastern portion of Avenida Alvarado to be consistent with the four -lane configuration of the bridge. Intersection improvements to Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado would include the installation of traffic signals and associated signing, striping, street lights, and utilities. Traffic signals and street lights will be installed at the Overland Drive/ Commerce Centre Drive intersection as well. Traffic signals and street light will be installed at the overland drive/commerce center drive intersection as 2 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 1. Introduction well. Reconstruction and roadway improvements along Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado would include undergrounding electrical utilities, construction of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, relocating sewer and water facilities, and adding traffic signage and striping. As a part of the bridge construction, one abutment would be constructed on each end of the bridge, along with two piers within the Murrieta Creek. Earth embankments with concrete slope protection and cutoff walls buried underground for scour protection would also be installed on the east and west side of the Creek. The foundation of the bridge piers involving large -diameter cast -in -drilled -hole concrete piles will be installed below the channel bottom, which is deep enough for protection from scour. The channel bottom will remain earthen without any concrete or rip rap lining. The bridge girder would provide cell openings to accommodate future utilities and electrical conduits for street lights and traffic signal communication. The project will also include the following additional improvements: Railing Architectural treatment. The bridge design will incorporate concrete barriers, metal hand and bicycle railings, and standard architectural treatments such as formliner textures to control graffiti. Landscaping. Landscaping modifications or improvements in the right-of-way along the bridge approach, Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado intersections, and along Diaz Road and Overland Drive. Right -of -Way Requirements: The right of way on the east side of the Creek has been acquired by the City as part of the completed Overland Drive Extension Project (City Project PW 16-06); however, due to raise of the Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado street grade, portions of four driveways in private properties at the westerly approach will be reconstructed. Temporary construction easements (TCE's) will be acquired at these locations. There will be a street easement for the bridge and its approaches in the Creek, which is to be acquired from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). A temporary construction easement at the northeast corner of the Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West intersection may be required to reconstruct an ADA-compliant curb ramp. Construction Traffic Controls: Diaz Road, Avenida Alvarado, and Overland Drive will include temporary striping to divert traffic away from work areas. The temporary striping will allow for staged construction of roadway and intersection improvements to maintaining vehicle and pedestrian and bicyclist access at all times. Temporary and short term access impact may occur during construction, and will require coordination with property owners, the public, and other stakeholders. A Risk Level Assessment was performed and from its findings, the project has a high receiving waters risk with a medium sediment risk leading to the combined risk of the project to be a Level 2. 3 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 1. Introduction 1.2.1 No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative would have this segment of the Murrieta Creek between Overland Drive and Avenida Alvarado remain in its current state which would require traffic to continue to cross the creek using the Winchester Road Bridge approximately 0.3 miles north and the Montezuma low-water crossing approximately 0.5 miles south. 1.2.2 Build Alternative The Build Alternative proposes to construct a bridge over the Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado with Overland Drive in the City of Temecula, Riverside County. The Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive is anticipated to be a concrete girder structure spanning approximately 348 linear feet over Murrieta Creek. The bridge would accommodate four through travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), left -turn lane(s), and two 6-foot-wide shoulders served as Class II bike lanes, for a curb -to -curb width of 68 feet. In addition, a 6- foot-wide sidewalk would be included on the southern side of the bridge for pedestrians to cross the creek. The existing bike trail on the west side of the creek will intersect with the extended Overland Drive by a signal -controlled at -grade crossing. The right of way on the east side of the Creek has been acquired by the City as part of the completed Overland Drive Extension Project (City Project PW 16-06); however, due to the raising of the Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado street grade, portions of four driveways in private properties at the westerly approach will be reconstructed. Temporary construction easements (TCE's) will be acquired at these locations. There will be a street easement for the bridge and its approaches in the Creek, which is to be acquired from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). A temporary construction easement at the northeast corner of the Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West intersection may be required to reconstruct an ADA-compliant curb ramp. WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 1. Introduction N WF. i �t -9y c� Wye t4xgza Raao ��^�o C��if�rnia Road 6> a Site Location Figure 1: Project Vicinity WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 1. Introduction B1w 88' Minimum R` ff 10' I T 10' 12' 12' eC 12' 12' 1r ' SECONDARY ARTERIAL (4 LANES UNDIVJDED ) igure 2: Typical Section of Ultimate Overland Drive (City of Temecula General Plan) q OVERLAND DRIVE 1'-9° Conc BARRIER TYPE 836 WITH TEXTURE 1 35'-9" 41'-2" 6'-0" 12'-0" 11'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 12'-0" 6'_0" 6'_2" 1' �ShIdF � F � � � � �ShIdF�SW F PG I UTILITY UTILITY OPENING OPENING I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I TYPICAL SECTION 0" METAL RAILING Typ Conc BARRIER TYPE 732SW WITH TEXTURE ` CIPIPS Conc BOX GIRDER 4'-0" 0 COLUMN ON 6'-0" DRILLED SHAFT, Typ FG (EARTHEN CHANNEL) Figure 3: Typical Section of Proposed Overland Drive Bridge 6 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 1. Introduction Figure 4: Project Location WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. 2. Regulatory Setting 2.1 Federal Laws and Requirements Clean Water Act In 1972 Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, making the addition of pollutants to the waters of the United States (U.S.) from any point source unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with a NPDES permit. Known today as the Clean Water Act (CWA), Congress has amended it several times. In the 1987 amendments, Congress directed dischargers of stormwater from municipal and industrial/construction point sources to comply with the NPDES permit program. Important CWA sections are: Sections 303 and 304 require states to promulgate water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines. Section 401 requires an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity, which may result in a discharge to waters of the U.S., to obtain certification from the State that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the act. (Most frequently required in tandem with a Section 404 permit request. See below). Section 402 establishes the NPDES, a permitting system for the discharges (except for dredge or fill material) of any pollutant into waters of the U.S. The Federal Environmental Protection Agency delegated to the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) the implementation and administration of the NPDES program in California. The SWRCB established nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The SWRCB enacts and enforces the Federal NPDES program and all water quality programs and regulations that cross Regional boundaries. The nine RWQCBs enact, administer and enforce all programs, including NPDES permitting, within their jurisdictional boundaries. Section 402(p) requires permits for discharges of stormwater from industrial, construction, and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). • Section 404 establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the U.S, including wetlands. This permit program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The objective of the CWA is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." The USACE issues two types of 404 permits: General and Individual. There are two types of General permits: Regional and Nationwide permits. Regional permits are issued for a general category of activities when they are similar in nature and cause minimal environmental effect. Nationwide permits are issued to authorize a variety of minor project activities with no more than minimal effects. There are also two types of Individual permits: Standard Individual permit and Letter of Permission. Ordinarily, projects that do not meet the criteria for a Nationwide Permit may be permitted under one of USACE's Individual permits. For Standard Individual permit, the s WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. USACE decision to approve is based on compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines (U.S. EPA CFR 40 Part 230), and whether permit approval is in the public interest. The 404(b)(1) Guidelines were developed by the U.S. EPA in conjunction with USACE, and allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system (waters of the U.S.) only if there is no practicable alternative which would have less adverse effects. The Guidelines state that USACE may not issue a permit if there is a least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), to the proposed discharge that would have less effects on waters of the U.S., and not have any other significant adverse environmental consequences. Per Guidelines, documentation is needed that a sequence of avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures have been followed, in that order. The Guidelines also restrict permitting activities that violate water quality or toxic effluent standards, jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, violate marine sanctuary protections, or cause "significant degradation" to waters of the U.S. In addition, every permit from the USACE, even if not subject to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, must meet general requirements. See 33 CFR 320.4. 2.2 State Laws and Requirements Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement An LSA Agreement is a type of permit that includes measures necessary to protect existing fish and wildlife resources. Common activities that are permitted by LSA Agreements include installation, repair, or maintenance of water diversions, culverts, stream crossings (e.g., bridges, rock fords), or any other modification of a lake or stream's bed, bank, or channel including extraction of material from them (i.e., sand, rock, or gravel) or deposition of material into them (CDFW). California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is responsible for protecting and conserving fish and wildlife resources, and the habitats upon which they depend. The Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Program reviews projects that would alter any river, stream, or lake and conditions projects to conserve existing fish and wildlife resources. Under Section 1602 of the CDFW, any project that may: Substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or Deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other materials containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake will require a Lake and Streambed Alteration agreement. CDFW will review your notification and issue a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement when necessary to protect fish and wildlife resources (CFWD). Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act California's Porter -Cologne Act, enacted in 1969, provides the legal basis for water quality regulation within California. This Act requires a "Report of Waste Discharge" for any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or gaseous) to land or surface waters that may impair beneficial uses for surface and/or groundwater of the State. It predates the CWA and regulates discharges to waters of the State. Waters of the State include more than just waters of the U.S., since groundwater and surface waters are not considered waters of the U.S. Additionally, it 9 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. prohibits discharges of "waste" as defined and this definition is broader than the CWA definition of "pollutant". Discharges under the Porter -Cologne Act are permitted by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and may be required even when the discharge is already permitted or exempt under the CWA. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCBs are responsible for establishing the water quality standards as required by the CWA, and regulating discharges to protect beneficial uses of water bodies. Details regarding water quality standards in a project area are contained in the applicable RWQCB Basin Plan. In California, Regional Boards designate beneficial uses for all water body segments in their jurisdictions, and then set standards necessary to protect these uses. Consequently, the water quality standards developed for particular water body segments are based on the designated use and vary depending on such use. Water body segments that fail to meet standards for specific pollutants are included in a Statewide List in accordance with CWA Section 303(d). If a Regional Board determines that waters are impaired for one or more constituents and the standards cannot be met through point source or non -source point controls (NPDES permits or Waste Discharge Requirements), the CWA requires the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). TMDLs specify allowable pollutant loads from all sources (point, non -point, and natural) for a given watershed. The SWRCB implemented the requirements of CWA Section 303(d) through Attachment IV of the Caltrans Statewide MS4, as it includes specific TMDLs for which Caltrans is the named stakeholder. State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards The SWRCB adjudicates water rights, sets water pollution control policy, and issues water board orders on matters of statewide application, and oversees water quality functions throughout the state by approving Basin Plans, TMDLs, and NPDES permits. RWCQBs are responsible for protecting beneficial uses of water resources within their regional jurisdiction using planning, permitting, and enforcement authorities to meet this responsibility. • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Section 402(p) of the CWA requires the issuance of NPDES permits for five categories of stormwater dischargers, including MS4s. The U.S. EPA defines an MS4 as "any conveyance or system of conveyances (roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, human -made channels, and storm drains) owned or operated by a state, city, town, county, or other public body having jurisdiction over storm water, that are designed or used for collecting or conveying stormwater." The SWRCB has identified the Department as an owner/operator of an MS4 pursuant to federal regulations. The Department's MS4 permit covers all Department rights -of -way, properties, facilities, and activities in the state. The SWRCB or the RWQCB issues NPDES permits for five years, and permit requirements remain active until a new permit has been adopted. Construction General Permit Construction General Permit (NPDES No. CAS000002, SWRCB Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ, adopted on November 16, 2010) became effective on February 14, 2011 and was amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ and Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ. The permit 10 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. regulates stormwater discharges from construction sites which result in a Disturbed Soil Area (DSA) of one acre or greater, and/or are smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development. For all projects subject to the CGP, the applicant is required to hire a Qualified Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Developer (QSD) to develop and implement an effective SWPPP. All Project Registration Documents, including the SWPPP, are required to be uploaded into the SWRCB's on-line Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS), at least 30 days prior to construction. Waivers from CGP coverage. Projects that disturb over 1.0 acre but less than 5 acres of soil, may qualify for waiver of CGP coverage. This occurs whenever the R factor of the Watershed Erosion Estimate (=RxKxLS) in tons/acre is less than 5. Within this CGP formula, there is a factor related to when and where the construction will take place. This factor, the `R' factor, may be low, medium or high. When the R factor is below the numeric value of 5, projects can be waived from coverage under the CGP, and are instead covered by the Caltrans Statewide MS4. In accordance with SWMP, a Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP) is necessary for construction of a Caltrans project not covered by the CGP. Construction activity that results in soil disturbances of less than one acre is subject to this CGP if there is potential for significant water quality impairment resulting from the activity as determined by the RWQCB. Operators of regulated construction sites are required to develop a SWPPP, to implement soil erosion and pollution prevention control measures, and to obtain coverage under the CGP. The CGP contains a risk -based permitting approach by establishing three levels of risk possible for a construction site. Risk levels are determined during the planning, design, and construction phases, and are based on project risk of generating sediments and receiving water risk of becoming impaired. Requirements apply according to the Risk Level determined. For example, a Risk Level 3 (highest risk) project would require compulsory stormwater runoff pH and turbidity monitoring, and pre- and post - construction aquatic biological assessments during specified seasonal windows. Section 401 Permitting Under Section 401 of the CWA, any project requiring a federal license or permit that may result in a discharge to a water of the United States must obtain a 401 Certification, which certifies that the project will be in compliance with State water quality standards. The most common federal permit triggering 401 Certification is a CWA Section 404 permit, issued by USACE. The 401 permit certifications are obtained from the appropriate RWQCB, dependent on the project location, and are required before USACE issues a 404 permit. In some cases the RWQCB may have specific concerns with discharges associated with a project. As a result, the RWQCB may prescribe a set of requirements known as Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) under the State Water Code (Porter -Cologne Act). WDRs may specify the inclusion of additional project features, effluent limitations, 11 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. monitoring, and plan submittals that are to be implemented for protecting or benefiting water quality. WDRs can be issued to address both permanent and temporary discharges of a project. 2.3 Regional and Local Requirements Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) The proposed project lies within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Region 9). The San Diego RWQCB prepared the 1994 Water Quality Control Plan for the San Diego Basin (with amendments effective on or before May 17, 2016) to help manage and preserve the state's water quality and supply. The Basin Plan for the San Diego Region is a collection of water quality goals and policies, descriptions of conditions and discussions of solutions. The Basin Plan establishes water quality standards for all surface and ground water in the region. The Basin Plan establishes an implementation plan describing the actions taken by the Regional Board and others that are necessary to meet the water quality standards identified in the Basin Plan. Known water quality problems are listed in the Basin Plan, along with the causes, if they are known. Plans for improving water quality are included for bodies of water that do not meet the necessary quality standards. Local Regulations The City of Temecula is a named permittee on Order No. R9-2013-0001, as amended by R9- 2015-0001 and R9-2015-0100 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (Regional Board) on November 18th, 2015. Some of the requirements of this order became effective January 7th, 2016, and many new requirements will not be in effect until after the Regional Board approves the Co-Permittees compliance documents. In the interim, the previous Order No. 2010-0016 is referenced. These permits outline programs and requirements that the Member Agencies must implement to comply with State and Federal Water Quality laws and to protect receiving waters from pollution. These requirements include the creation and implementation of plans to prevent the discharge of pollutants to the storm drain system and to our waterways, and annual report requirements. 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The City of Temecula is located in Riverside County, California, United States. The city is approximately 50 miles North of San Diego. According to the 2010 census, the population of Temecula was 100,097. The population was recorded as 57,716 per the 2000 census. 3.1 General Environmental Setting • Temecula is located at 33.4936' N, 117.1484' W. According to the United States Census Bureau, the city has a total area of 37.28 square miles, 37.27 square miles of it is land and the other 0.012 square miles is water. 12 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. The City of Temecula receives about 12 inches of rain, on average, per year. The US average is 38 inches of rain per year. On average it snows 0 days out of the year in Temecula. There are approximately 276 sunny days per year in Temecula. The July high is around 94 degrees and the January low is around 41 degrees. Climatological data since 1999 for the City of Temecula includes the following: i. On average the hottest month is August. ii. The highest recorded temperature was 113.8°F (45.4°C) (2018). iii. On average the coldest month is December. iv. The lowest recorded temperature was 22.9°F (-5.1 °C) (2007). V. The average high temperature is 78.6°F (25.91C). vi. The average low temperature is 51.1OF (10.6°C). The project is located in the Temecula Valley Groundwater Basin (Groundwater Basin Number: 9-05) • There are no known wellhead protection areas in the project site. • No 404(b)(1) water body is triggered for the Project. 3.1.1 Population and Land Use Land use within the Region varies considerably. The region is experiencing and is expected to continue to experience population growth. Table 1-1 shows population projections for San Diego, Riverside, And Orange counties. The Population of Temecula was recorded as 114,327 in 2017. Land Use in the city varies from residential, commercial and office, light industrial, public/institutional, and open space areas. (Temecula General Plan & San Diego Region -The Basin Plan) TABLE 1-1. POPULATION PROJECTIONS FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND SAN DIEGO, RIVERSIDE, AND ORANGE COUNTIES Location Year 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 San Diego County 2,421,233 2,677,059 2,915,692 3,143,155 3,373,422 0,618,554 Riverside County 1,195,400 1,493,559 1,771,276 2,076,538 2,402,389 2,759,172 Orange County 2,415,269 2,667,706 2,962,106 2,992,355 3,099,374 3,193,64 Total for California 29,777,448 32r958,921 36,214,622 39,194,830 42,179,903 45,344r961 3.1.2 Topography The terrain of the project vicinity is relatively flat with an expected drop in elevation near the Murrieta Creek. The project will not impact the existing topography. 13 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3.1.3 Hydrology 3.1.3.1 Regional Hydrology The San Diego Region occurs within the Peninsula Range Physiographic Province of California. The Peninsula Range includes from north to south, the Santa Ana, Agua Tibia, Palomar, Volcan, Cuyamaca and Laguna mountains. This area exhibits gently dissecting western surface and a steep eastern slope and is separated by the West Colorado River area by abrupt fault scarps of marked relief. The San Diego Region is divided into three separate areas, a coastal plain area, a central mountain valley area and an eastern mountain valley area. The coastal plain area consists of a series of wave cut benched that are covered by thin terrace deposits. This terraced surface has been dissected by passing streams draining to the sea, and the surface has been smoothed by erosion. The surface of this area ranges from sea level to about 1,200 feet and extends from the coast inland in a band of about 10 miles in width. The central mountain valley area is characterized by ridges and intermontane basins that extend from the coastal plain, northeastward to the Elsinore fault zone. The surface of this area range in elevation from 500 to about 5,000 feet and are typically fault block origin modified form erosion. The floors of the intermontane valleys are generally underlain by moderate thickness of alluvium and residuum. Notable examples of this occur near El Cajon, Escondido and Ramona. At higher elevation plateau surfaces have been developed in the central mountain valley area. These occur at elevations from 2,000 to 6,000 feet near the Laguna Mountains, Santa Ysabel and Valley Center. The eastern mountain valley area is characterized by relatively flat valleys which are structurally of block fault origin. Locally, the grabens contain thick sections of alluvial deposits. These valleys generally rise to the southeast from 1,000 feet elevations near Temecula to the rolling plateaus of Glenoak, Lewis and Reed Valleys which range from 3,000 to 3,500 feet in elevation. Surrounding mountains include the Red mountain, Cahuilla mountain and Bachelor mountain and have an elevation range from 4,000 to 7,500 feet. (San Diego Region -The Basin Plan). 14 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. - I.EIi!lam ;R.A OsMureta Cre rn mmnwareaseceo eawoaar '`• Hyd.1 a Creek H1'Gmlo9,e, Figure 5: Hydrology Map 3.1.3.2 Local Hydrology 3.1.3.2.1 Precipitation and Climate Riverside County's Climate is classified as a Semi -Arid Mediterranean Climate, characterized by mild hot and dry summers and mild winters that are relatively wet. Temperatures average about 55 degrees in December to 80 degrees in August. The average annual rainfall at the project limits are approximately 10-13 inches with most of the rainfall occurring during November through February. • City of Temecula gets approximately 12 inches of rain per year, while the US average is 38 inches. Temecula averages 0 inches of snow per year, while the US average is 28 inches. Temecula will have some kind of precipitation 31 days out of the year. • On average, Temecula will have 276 sunny days per year, while the average in the US is 205 days. The January Low is 41 degrees Fahrenheit, while the July High is 94 degrees Fahrenheit. Temecula has a comfort rating of 73 out of 100 which indicates a comfortable year-round weather. The higher the comfort score rating the more comfortable the weather is year-round in that location; the US average comfort rating is 54 out of 100. 15 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. 3.1.3.2.2 Surface Waters The nearest major drainage course to the project site is the Murrieta Creek which flows within and adjacent to the project site. 3.1.3.2.3 Floodplains According to FEMA Flood Map Number 06065C2720G, the project is located within in a regulatory flood plain and also mapped as Zone AE, which means that the area subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event with Base Flood Elevations. 3.1.3.2.4 Municipal Supply Rancho California Water District (RCWD) is the main water purveyor for the City of Temecula. RCWD's water supply is obtained from the following primary water sources: Local ground water from the Murrieta-Temecula Basin; 2) imported State Water Project (SWP) and Colorado River water from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWDSC) through the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD); 3) recycled water from both the district and EMWD facilities. Annual water production for RCWD is around 66,100 acre-feet. (RCWD Water Facilities Master Plan). 3.1.3.3 Groundwater Hydrology Rancho California Water District's (RCWD's) current service area represents 99,000 acres, and the District has 878 miles of water mains, 35 storage reservoirs, one surface reservoir (Lake Vail), 53 groundwater wells, and 36,759 service connections. Approximately 109,000 people are served by RCWD. RCWD relies on imported water from MWD to meet much of its water demands. MWD obtains its water from the Colorado River and Northern California, via the State Water Project (SWP). Both sources are over -allocated and water supplies can be significantly limited during dry weather years and droughts. Additionally, water quality and Endangered Species Act requirements in the Sacramento -San Joaquin Bay Delta (Bay - Delta) could reduce further MWD's SWP allocations. Water delivered to homes and businesses is a blend of groundwater (35%) and import water (65%). Per RCWD's 2018 Water Quality Report, the water supplied generally falls below the Public Health Goal. Below is a list of know contaminants that exceed this goal (average data used): • Inorganic Chemicals o Arsenic • Radionuclides o Gross Alpha o Uranium 16 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. Even though the above listed items exceed the PHG, they are still in compliance with State and Federal Regulation. 3.1.4 Geology/Soils The US Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey for the project area shows the potential for three soil types in the area: • Cf — Chino Silt Loam, drained, saline -alkali (high erosion potential) • GuB — Grangeville fine sandy loam, poorly drained, saline -alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes (slight) • GvB — Grangeville fine sandy loam, saline -alkali, 0 to 5 percent slopes. 3.1.4.1 Soil Erosion Potential Dependent on soil conditions, there could be the potential for erosion with the Chino Silt Loam. Grangeville has a low erosion potential in comparison. A preliminary geotechnical report will be completed during the early stages of the project and any erosion potential will be further noted. 3.1.5 Biological Communities 3.1.5.1 Aquatic Habitat 3.1.5.1.1 Special Status Species The southern willow scrub and riparian scrub habitats in the project area provide habitat that is occupied by the federally -endangered least Bell's vireo (Vireo belhi pusillus). Minimization and avoidance measures will be developed for the project in conjunction with USFWS and CDFW to reduce or avoid potential impacts to this species. Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) 1B.1 species, has been observed on site. Smooth tarplant is a Criteria Area species covered by the MSHCP. Because the survey area is located outside an "Additional Survey Needs Area" for smooth tarplant as defined by the MSHCP, all impacts are considered mitigated with the City's participation in the MSHCP 3.1.5.1.2 Stream/Riparian Habitats The project would impact riparian/riverine resources as defined by the MSHCP including Southern willow scrub, riparian scrub, and freshwater marsh riparian habitats. The project would be required to comply with any applicable land use and conservation requirements as a part of the MSHCP, which would reduce potential impacts to sensitive species and habitats. Since avoidance is not feasible based on the nature of the proposed project, an analysis supporting a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) will be prepared. The DBESP will outline a mitigation strategy to 17 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. provide riparian/riverine resources of equivalent or superior habitat value to those being impacted. 3.1.5.1.3 Wetlands The project is located on a riverine (Murrieta Creek) resource that contains wetland habitat. (FWS national wetlands inventory). A wetland delineation and assessment will be prepared to establish the extents of jurisdictional resources within the project area. As described above, since avoidance is not feasible based on the nature of the proposed project an analysis supporting a DBESP will be prepared. The DBESP will outline a mitigation strategy to provide wetland resources of equivalent or superior habitat value to those being impacted. 3.1.5.1.4 Fish Passage According to the University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, California Fish Website, freshwater native fish species such as the Arroyo Chub, Coastal Rainbow Trout, and Southern California Steelhead can be found in the Murrieta Creek. Non-native fish species such as Black Bullhead, Black Crappie, Blue Catfish, White Catfish, Channel Catfish, Redear Sunfish, and Threadfin Shad can be found in Murrieta Creek. The reach of Murrieta Creek where the project is located is typically dry or with intermittent water with little flow. It is not likely to find native fish within this reach. The proposed project will temporary impact the creek bed for the installation of erosion control features. However, the features will be installed flushed with the creek bed and would not impede the ability for fish to move through the area. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 Introduction The Project will have a minimal adverse effect on stormwater quality because the impacts associated with the construction of the new bridge will be offset by the removal of existing buildings and the construction of new curbs, gutters, storm drains and utility facilities. Both during and after construction BMPs will be implemented and maintained to ensure local and regional stormwater runoff quality is improved. 4.2 Potential Impacts to Water Quality It is anticipated that construction of the proposed project will increase impervious surface areas that could affect downstream water bodies. Construction of the project and the increase in runoff would potentially cause or contribute to water quality impacts and could have the 18 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. potential for adverse impacts. The following summarizes the impacts of the project and the introduction of pollutants into the environment with a particular focus on stormwater runoff. 4.2.1 Anticipated changes to the Physical/Chemical Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment 4.2.1.1 Substrate Substrate, which for the purpose of this section, would pertain to habitats, refuges and nesting sites of aquatic life. During construction, the potential impacts would be associated with sedimentation (soil disturbance). Disturbed soils are susceptible to erosion, resulting in sediment transport. The completed project would result in an increase in impervious surface, which could potentially increase stormwater runoff. Generally, roadway/bridge projects are associated with sediment, nutrients, nitrate discharges, litter and metals. Pollutants associated with the operation of the project also have the potential to impact areas on which organisms live and grow. It is not anticipated that the construction or operational use of the project will cause a change in sedimentation of the receiving water bodies. Due to the area of the project, a very minor increase in runoff compared to the entire hydrologic area is anticipated. The proposed construction would be stabilized with Temporary Construction BMPs, and Post Construction BMPs would be put in place once the project is complete to mitigate concerns. 4.2.1.2 Currents, Circulation or Drainage Patterns As per the existing condition, the Project will allow Murrieta Creek to flow unimpeded and provide adequate conveyance. The project will also allow the bridge and roadway flows to discharge to the Creek. It is anticipated that there will be no significant increase to the flow, volume, rate, depth or seasonal changes. 4.2.1.3 Suspended Particulates (Turbidity) Sediment is likely to occur as a result of the construction and operation of the proposed projects; however, Temporary Construction BMPs and Post Construction BMPs would be implemented to mitigate this potential impact. 4.2.1.4 Oil, Grease and Chemical Pollutants Generally, roadway/bridge projects are associated with oil, grease and chemicals due to the need to accommodate vehicular and non -vehicular traffic. The project will be replacing an existing low water crossing along via montezuma, so generally the pollutants will remain the same. 19 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. 4.2.1.5 Temperature, Oxygen, Depletion and Other Parameters Not applicable; however, trash is always present at any time of this project type, regardless of landuse. 4.2.1.6 Flood Control Functions The proposed bridge will provide adequate conveyance capacity for the 100-year flow in the Murrieta Creek. The project will include minimal drainage improvements within the creek. Activities will include minor re -grading of the creek near the bridge and construction of concrete slope protection and cutoff wall to protect the bridge abutments from scour. 4.2.1.7 Storm, Wave and Erosion Buffers Wetlands may serve as buffer zones, shielding upland areas from wave actions, storm damage and erosion, per 40 CFR 230.41. Other features of the design, such as Design Pollution Prevention BMPs would be implemented to minimize erosion due to storm damage. 4.2.1.8 Erosion and Accretion Patterns The project is generally surrounded by a relatively flat area and which has pervious surfaces. Potential for erosion and accretion due to the construction of the project is unlikely and negligible. 4.2.1.9 Aquifer Recharge/Groundwater During the construction of the bridge piers, should dewatering be necessary there may be impacts to the aquifer recharge or groundwater supply. Dewatering activities for excavations below the water table could result in the discharge of unsuitable and untreated water if discharged directly into the environment. 4.2.1.10 Baseflow According to the Department of Water Resources, depth to groundwater in the area of the project range from 5 to 25 feet below ground surface. USGS monitors stream flow conditions for Murrieta Creek within the project area. Based on USGS data, base flow would have to be considered when conducting a Unit Hydrograph Analysis for a catchment, and changes in base flow are anticipated with implementation of the project. 4.2.2 Anticipated Changes to the Biological Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment 4.2.2.1 Special aquatic sites 20 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. In addition to wetlands, special aquatic sites include sanctuaries and refuges, mudflats, vegetated shallows, coral reefs, and riffle and pool complexes. See 40 CFR Subpart E § 230.40-45. According to the National Wetlands Inventory of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services, there are no refuges adjacent to the project site; therefore, there are no anticipated changes to any special aquatic sites. 4.2.2.2 Habitat for Fish and Other Aquatic Organisms 4.2.2.2.1 Fish Passage (Beneficial Uses) The reach of Murrieta Creek where the project is located is typically dry or with intermittent water with little flow. It is not likely to find native fish within this reach. The proposed project will temporary impact the creek bed for the installation of erosion control features. However, the features will be installed flushed with the creek bed and would not impede the ability for fish to move through the area. 4.2.2.3 Wildlife Habitat 4.2.2.3.1 Wildlife Passage (Beneficial Uses) Murrieta Creek provides a wildlife movement corridor and is designated in the MSHCP as a Proposed Constrained Linkage. According to the MSHCP, the Murrieta Creek contains riparian habitat for the movement of yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia [Dendroica petechia]), yellow -breasted chat (Icteria virens), and least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). It also states that existing floodplain processes and water quality along the creek must be maintained to support Pacific western pond turtle (Actinemys [Emys] marmorata) and arroyo chub (Gila orcutti) in this area. The proposed bridge across Murrieta Creek would be similar to the Winchester Road Bridge located immediately upstream of the survey area. It is assumed that wildlife species that currently move along the creek under the Winchester Road Bridge would continue along the creek under the new proposed bridge, assuming indirect effects of noise and lighting are minimized. Therefore, following construction of the proposed bridge, wildlife would be expected continue to move along the creek as they currently do. 4.2.2.4 Endangered or Threatened Species The proposed project area contains suitable habitat for the federally -endangered least Bell's vireo and this species has been observed on site. Minimization and avoidance measures will be developed for the project in conjunction with USFWS and CDFW to reduce or avoid potential impacts to this species. 4.2.2.5 Invasive Species Seeds of invasive exotic plant species can be carried into a construction site within the mud on the tires of construction equipment. Construction Minimization Measures from Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP will be followed; these guidelines require the use of vehicle washing stations to minimize the spread of invasive species. 21 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. The proposed project does includes minimal landscaping along a trail near the bridge approach, however the project will not introduce invasive, non-native plant species that could degrade adjacent open space areas. Tamarix (Tamarix sp.) and giant reed (Arundo donax) already occur throughout the proposed project area and throughout Murrieta Creek. Murrieta Creek already provides a source of water for invasive wildlife species, and is already occupied by the invasive bullfrog, which is known to prey upon native aquatic wildlife species. The proposed project would not create any conditions that would expand the distribution of the bullfrog or any other invasive plant or wildlife species. 4.2.3 Anticipated Changes to the Human Use Characteristics of the Aquatic Environment 4.2.3.1 Existing and Potential Water Supplies; Water Conservation The proposed project is not sited in a location used by a local water district for existing or potential water supplies, or water conservation; therefore, no changes to existing water supplies, potential water supplies, or water conservation are anticipated. 4.2.3.2 Recreational or Commercial Fisheries No known commercial or recreational fishing is permitted (or occurs) in the receiving water body within the proposed project boundary; therefore, no changes are anticipated. 4.2.3.3 Other Water Related Recreation There are no impacts to existing water related recreation within the project boundary. 4.2.3.4 Aesthetics of the Aquatic Ecosystem The proposed project would have direct permanent changes during construction to the aesthetics of the aquatic ecosystem through the disturbance and/or removal of existing riparian vegetation. After the proposed project is constructed, the remaining riparian vegetation would not be impacted by operation of the proposed project. 4.2.3.5 Parks, National and Historic Monuments, National Seashores, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas, etc. There are no impacts to Parks, National and Historic Monuments, National Seashores, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Wilderness Areas, etc. due to the project. 4.2.3.6 Traffic/Transportation Patterns During the construction there would be no impacts to Traffic/Transportation patterns as there currently is no crossing at Overland Drive and Murrieta Creek. Post construction, vehicles will utilize this corridor to reroute from nearby Winchester Road and Via 22 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. Montezuma. Once completed, the Via Montezuma low water crossing will be eliminated, shifting traffic to the newly constructed bridge. 4.2.3.7 Energy Consumption of Generation No energy consumption or generation uses in the project boundary would be impacted by the proposed project (during and post construction). 4.2.3.8 Navigation Navigation would not be impacted by the proposed project. 4.2.3.9 Safety Construction of the proposed project may cause changes to human safety within the project boundaries; however, after construction of the proposed project no changes to safety would occur based on current information. 4.2.4 Temporary Impacts to Water Quality 4.2.4.1 No Build Alternative If the No Build Alternative was implemented there would be no impacts to water quality. 4.2.4.2 Build Alternative — Construct Overland Bridge at Murrieta Creek During the construction of the proposed project, there is a potential to contribute pollutants to the receiving water body. These pollutants would include sediment and silt from ground disturbances, and chemical pollutants associated with the construction equipment and materials that are brought onto the project site. Silt and sediment can carry pollutants and well as impact plant production, obscure food sources, habitats, refuges, and nesting sites. In addition, equipment access, along with construction workers will have impacts to the receiving water body in the project location. 4.2.5 Long-term Impacts During Operation and Maintenance 4.2.5.1 No Build Alternative If the No Build Alternative was implemented there would be no new impacts; however, the existing low Water Crossing at Via Montezuma allows for oil, grease, fuel, metal and chemicals to enter the creek since vehicular traffic crosses at the creek bottom. 4.2.5.2 Build Alternative — Construct Overland Bridge at Murrieta Creek Operation of the proposed project will have the potential to impact the receiving water body due to the increase in impervious surface area, which would result in stormwater 23 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 4. Environmental Consequences .............................................. runoff. Potential pollutants associated with the operation of transportation facilities include: sediment from erosion, nutrients (i.e. phosphorus and nitrogen), mineralized organic matter in soils, nitrite discharges (atmospheric and vehicular), litter and metals. 4.3 Impact Assessment Methodology The proposed project was assessed for the potential impacts to Murrieta Creek. Construction of the bridge could have potential impacts; however, the removal of the low water crossing at Via Montezuma would reduce the impacts that currently happen at that low water crossing and through the implementation of Temporary and Permanent BMPs reduce the impacts of that crossing. The proposed project will pose the same potential pollutants during the construction as it will in the post -construction phase. The project is not rare, with the construction of a bridge and road and utility improvements to the surrounding area. 4.4 Cumulative Impacts There will be very little impervious area added to the watershed since the bridge will ultimately replace the existing low water crossing at Via Montezuma. In comparison the bridge and roadway improvements are diminutive in comparison to the overall area of the watershed. Other cumulative impacts such as silt and sediment, litter, nutrients and metals will be mitigated through the use of Temporary and Permanent BMPs on the project site. 24 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 5. Avoidance and Minimization Measures .......................................................... 5. AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION MEASURES WQ-1 The project will comply with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system (NPDES) Permit Order No. R9-2013-0001, as amended by R9-2015-0001 and R9- 2015-0100 issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region (Regional Board) on November 18th, 2015. WQ-2 The project will comply with the Construction General Permit by preparing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to address all construction related activities and equipment, as well as materials that have the potential to impact water quality for the appropriate Risk Level. The SWPPP will identify the sources of pollutants that may affect the quality of storm water and include BMPs to control the pollutants, such as sediment control, catch basin inlet protection, construction materials management and non -storm water BMPs. WQ -3: The types of activities allowed within the Project will be limited to and in accordance with the City of Temecula codes, regulations and zoning ordinances. Activities such as staging or stockpiling construction materials or wastes in areas where they can be discharged into storm drains will be prohibited. Activities associated with street maintenance, which can discharge pollutants into Murrieta Creek will be prohibited. Vehicle maintenance and washing will be prohibited since it is not a feature of the project or associated with Project activities. WQ-4: Design Pollution Prevention Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented such as preservation of existing vegetation, slope/ surface protection systems (permanent soil stabilization), concentrated flow conveyance systems such as ditches, berms, dikes and swales, over side drains, flared end sections, and outlet protection/ velocity dissipation devices. WQ-5: All proposed slopes with slope gradient of 2:1 or flatter will be planted with deep rooted, drought tolerant erosion protection vegetation native to the area. Slopes steeper than 2:1 gradient will be lined with concrete for erosion protection and slope stability. WQ-6: If dewatering is required, Construction site dewatering must comply with the General Waste Discharge Requirements for Groundwater Extraction Discharges to Surface Waters within the San Diego Region (Order No. R9-2015-0013, NPDES No. CAG919003) and any subsequent updates to the permit at the time of Construction. This permit addresses temporary dewatering operation during construction. Dewatering BMPs must be used to control sediment and pollutants, and the discharges must comply with the WDRs issued by the San Diego RWQCB. 25 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 5. Avoidance and Minimization Measures .......................................................... 6. REFERENCES Caltrans Division of Design Stormwater homepage for guidance and tools (Project Risk Level, Estimating for CGP, Erosion Prediction software, etc.): http://www.dot.ca.gov/desiwAsd/index.html Caltrans Division of Environmental Analysis Stormwater Homepage: http://www.dot.ca. og v/hq/env/stormwater/ Caltrans Standard Environmental Reference (SER) Volume I • For wetlands, hydromorphic method and water assessment information, see Chapter 15 - Waters of the U.S. and the State: http://www. dot. ca. gov/ser/vol 1 /sec3/natural/ch 15wetland/ch l 5wetland.htm • For hydraulic studies and floodplain encroachment information, see Chapter 17 - Floodplains: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/voll/sec3/special/chI7flood/chgpI7.htm • For Coastal Zone permits information, see Volume 5 - Coastal Zone: hqp://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol5/vol5.htm • For Wild and Scenic Rivers information, see Chapter 19 - Wild and Scenic Rivers: hqp://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/voll/sec3/special/chl 9wsrivers/chgp 19.htm Caltrans Stormwater Quality Handbook Project Planning and Design Guide (PPDG): http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/hsd/ppdg/PPDG-Final-2017-07.pdf Caltrans Stormwater Quality Practice Guidelines: hqp://www.dot.ca. og v/hq/env/stormwater/special/newsegM// pdfs/mans eg ment_ar rwp/CTSW- RT-02-009.pdf Caltrans Water Quality Planning Tool: http://www.water-programs.com/wgpt.htm Regional Water Quality Control Board website and Basin Plans: hqp://www.swrcb.ca.gov/plans policies/ State Water Resources Control Board Storm Water Program, 2009-0009-DWQ Construction General Permit: hqp://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/stormwater/constpermits.shtml State Water Resources Control Board Watershed Management: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water issues/programs/watershed/ United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency Section 404(b)(1) guidelines: hqp://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/40cfrPart230.pdf 26 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 5. Avoidance and Minimization Measures .......................................................... U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey: hLtp://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/gpp/HomePage. 6.1 Works Cited Climate in Temecula, California: bt_t2s://www.beslplaces.net/climate/city/califomia/temecula FEMA Flood Map Service: hi tps://msc.fema.goy/portal/search?AddressQuery=tmecula#searchresultsanchor Rancho California Water District — Water Facilities Master Plan: hM2s://www.ranchowater.com/DocumentCenterNiew/I 802/2015-Water-Facilities-Master-Plan Temecula, California All -Time Records, Archive, and Climate Information: hiLtps://weathercurrents.com/temecula/Archive.do Temecula General Plan: https://temeculaca.gov/345/General-Plan The San Diego Region — The Basin Plan: hlt2s://www.waterboards.ca. og v/rwgcb9/water issues/programs/basin plan/index.html United States Census Bureau: hi tps://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/temeculacitycalifomia,US/PST045218 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service - National Wetlands Inventory: hM2s://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mgpper.html California Department of Water Resources https://water.ca.gov USGS Water Data for the Nation hlt2s://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis Riverside County Watershed Protection http : //rc fl o o d. o r _ /g_np de s/ California Department of Fish and Wildlife hlt2s://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation 27 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 5. Avoidance and Minimization Measures .......................................................... 6.2 Preparer(s) Qualifications Steve Latino, P.E., T.E. Mr. Latino holds a BSCE and has 15+ years in Civil Engineering experience including public and private sector experience. Mr. Latino has been involved with numerous federally and state funded projects that have gone through the local assistance process. Mr. Latino holds a bachelor's of science degree in Civil Engineering from Purdue University. Engineering Resources of Southern California 1861 W. Redlands Blvd. BLDG. 7B Redlands, CA 92373 Craig Brudin, QSP, CESSWI Mr. Brudin brings 6 years of specialized education and training in the Environmental Field. Mr. Brudin holds a Bachelor's in Environmental Policy and Management and Business Management Studies from the University of Redlands. Engineering Resources of Southern California 1861 W. Redlands Blvd. BLDG. 7B Redlands, CA 92373 Travis Moffatt B.A. Biology Almost two years working in Engineering Engineering Resources of Southern California 1861 W. Redlands Blvd. BLDG. 7B Redlands, CA 92373 28 WQAR — Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Project PW-16-05 APPENDIXA National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette Legend �= FEMA 9 33°31'25.13"N i — I .U'000 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A. V. A99 SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AD, AH, VE, AR HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile zone x Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard zone x �" Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to )THEIR AREAS OF Levee. See Notes. Zone x FLOOD HAZARD F',d Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x Q Effective LOMRs OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone o GENERAL — — —' Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer STRUCTURES I I I I I I I Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17•5 Water Surface Elevation eo- — — Coastal Transect ---513----- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary -- --- Coastal Transect Baseline OTHER _ Profile Baseline FEATURES Hydrographic Feature Digital Data Available N No Digital Data Available + _ MAP PANELS Unmapped V' Q The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 5/20/2019 at 6:44:05 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMettet FEMA 33'31'11.61"N 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Legend SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A. V. A99 SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile zone x Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard zone x �" Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to OTHER AREAS OF Levee. See Notes. Zone x FLOOD HAZARD F'I Area with Flood Risk due to Leveezone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x Q Effective LOMRs OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone o GENERAL — — —' Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer STRUCTURES i i i i i i i Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17•5 Water Surface Elevation eo- — — Coastal Transect ---513----- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary -- --- Coastal Transect Baseline OTHER _ Profile Baseline FEATURES Hydrographic Feature Digital Data Available N No Digital Data Available + _ MAP PANELS Unmapped V' Q The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 5/20/2019 at 1:43:14 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and _ time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. n N This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette 33°30'49.08"N i cci I .U,000 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 � Le = FEMA _end 9 SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE) Zone A. V. A99 SPECIAL FLOOD With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR HAZARD AREAS Regulatory Floodway 0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile zone x Future Conditions 1% Annual Chance Flood Hazard zone x �" Area with Reduced Flood Risk due to ITHER AREAS OF Levee. See Notes. zone x FLOOD HAZARD F lI Area with Flood Risk due to Levee zone D NO SCREEN Area of Minimal Flood Hazard zone x Q Effective LOMRs OTHER AREAS Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard zone o GENERAL — — —' Channel, Culvert, or Storm Sewer STRUCTURES i i i i i i i Levee, Dike, or Floodwall Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance 17•5 Water Surface Elevation eo- — — Coastal Transect — 513----- Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE) Limit of Study Jurisdiction Boundary -- --- Coastal Transect Baseline OTHER _ Profile Baseline FEATURES Hydrographic Feature Digital Data Available N No Digital Data Available + _ MAP PANELS Unmapped V' The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative property location. This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards The flood hazard information is derived directly from the authoritative NFHL web services provided by FEMA. This map was exported on 5/20/2019 at 1:22:59 PM and does not reflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date and time. The NFHL and effective information may change or become superseded by new data over time. This map image is void if the one or more of the following map elements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels, legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers, FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images for unmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used for regulatory purposes. Appendix G Noise Study Report (Rincon Inc., Dec 2020) Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive NSR Noise Study Report Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive (Avenida Alvarado over Murrieta Creek) City of Temecula, California District 8, County of Riverside Federal Aid Project No. BR-NBIL (543); City Project No. PW16-05 December 2020 For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, large print, on audiocassette, or computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please contact the City of Temecula at (951) 240-4225 or Caltrans District 8 California Relay Service 1 (800) 735-2929 (TTY), 1 (800) 735-2929 (Voice) or 711. Noise Study Report Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive (Avenida Alvarado over Murrieta Creek) City of Temecula, California District 8, County of Riverside Federal Aid Project No. BR-NBIL (543); City Project No. PW16-05 December 2020 Prepared By: W '4;� Date: December 2, 2020 William Maddux, Senior Environmental Specialist Phone Number (760) 518-9444 Company Rincon Consultants, Inc. Approved By: ;9�del� Date: December 9, 2020 Concurred By: Nino Abad, Associate Civil Engineer Phone Number (951) 308-6385 Citv of Temecula Sean Yeung, PE, Senior Environmental Engineer Caltrans, District 8, Local Assistance Date: This page intentionally left blank. Summary The purpose of this Noise Study Report (NSR) is to evaluate noise impacts and abatement under the requirements of Title 23, Part 772 of the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 772) "Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise." 23 CFR 772 provides procedures for preparing operational and construction noise studies and evaluating noise abatement considered for federal and federal -aid highway projects. According to 23 CFR 772.3, all highway projects that are developed in conformance with this regulation are deemed to be in conformance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise standards. The City of Temecula, in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) District 8 proposes the construction of a bridge over and across Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado at the intersection of Diaz Road with Overland Drive at the intersection of Enterprise Circle West in the City of Temecula. The proposed improvements will accomplish the following in the project area: 1. Provide safe all-weather access across Murrieta Creek 2. Provide reliable route for emergency vehicles, motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists 3. Provide an additional access point to the City's industrial park The project is located in the northwest area in the City of Temecula, within and adjacent to Murrieta Creek. The project would extend from the terminus of Overland Drive near the Enterprise Circle West intersection, over Murrieta Creek, along Diaz Road, approximately 600 feet on either side of Avenida Alvarado, and about 500 feet along Avenida Alvarado. The project area is primarily commercial and industrial land uses; however, the Calvary Church, a place of worship, is located approximately 215 feet to the north of proposed improvements. The terrain in the project area is relatively flat and does not have large topographic features that would shield land uses adjacent to the project alignment. Based on field surveys, the existing hourly equivalent noise levels (Leq) east of Murrieta Creek ranged from 60 to 62 A -weighted decibels (cIBA). West of Murrieta Creek, along Diaz Road, existing noise levels ranged from 72 to 73 dBA Leq. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report i Summary .............................................................................................................................................. A field investigation was conducted to identify land uses that could be subject to traffic and construction noise impacts from the proposed project alignment. The following land uses were identified in the project area: • Places of worship: Activity Categories C and D • Commercial and light industrial land uses: Activity Category F Land uses in the project area were grouped into four lettered analysis areas, i.e. Areas A through D. Each of these analysis areas is considered to be acoustically equivalent. The traffic noise modeling results indicate that traffic noise levels at the church in Area A are predicted to be in the range of 61 to 63 dBA Leq in the design -year. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design -year is predicted to be up to 7 dB. Because the predicted noise levels in the design -year would not approach or exceed the noise abatement criterion at the Calvary Church (Categories C and D) or result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area A. The traffic noise modeling results indicate traffic noise levels n Area B are predicted to be in the range of 57 to 65 dBA Leq in the design -year, and that the increase in noise will be up to 7 dB in the design -year. Because there is no noise abatement criterion for Category F uses in this area and because the project would not result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in this area and noise abatement does not need to be considered in Area B. The traffic noise modeling results indicate traffic noise levels at commercial uses in Area C will be 48 to 70 dBA Leq in the design -year. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design -year is 2 dB. Because there is no noise abatement criterion for Category F uses in this area and because the project would not result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in this area and noise abatement does not need to be considered in this area. The traffic noise modeling results indicate traffic noise levels at commercial uses in Area D will be 60 to 72 dBA Leq in the design -year. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design -year is 0 dB. Because there is no noise abatement criterion for Category F uses in this area and because the project ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report ii Summary .............................................................................................................................................. would not result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in this area and noise abatement does not need to be considered in this area. Because the church has an interior noise abatement criterion in addition to the exterior criterion, interior noise must be considered at the church as well. From Table 6 in the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidance document, the building noise reduction factor for standard construction with ordinary windows closed is 20 dB. The interior noise level in the church in the design -year is therefore predicted to be 41 dBA Leq(h). Because this predicted design -year noise level does not exceed the interior NAC of 52 dBA Leq(h), no interior traffic noise impacts are predicted at the church. No adverse noise impacts from construction are anticipated because construction would be conducted in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14.8-02. Construction noise would be short-term and intermittent. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report iii Summary .............................................................................................................................................. This page intentionally left blank. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report iv Table of Contents Chapter1. Introduction...................................................................................1 1.1. Purpose of the Noise Study Report.........................................................1 1.2. Project Purpose and Need......................................................................1 Chapter 2. Project Description........................................................................3 2.1. Existing Conditions................................................................................. 3 2.1.1. Proposed Improvements..............................................................3 2.1.2. Right -of -Way Requirements.........................................................8 2.1.3. Construction Traffic Controls........................................................ 8 2.2. No-Build..................................................................................................8 Chapter 3. Fundamentals of Traffic Noise ...................................................... 9 3.1. Sound, Noise, and Acoustics.................................................................. 9 3.2. Frequency...............................................................................................9 3.3. Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels ..................................................... 9 3.4. Addition of Decibels..............................................................................10 3.5. A -Weighted Decibels............................................................................10 3.6. Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels.....................................11 3.7. Noise Descriptors.................................................................................12 3.8. Sound Propagation...............................................................................13 3.8.1. Geometric Spreading................................................................. 13 3.8.2. Ground Absorption..................................................................... 13 3.8.3. Atmospheric Effects................................................................... 13 3.8.4. Shielding by Natural or Human -Made Features ......................... 14 Chapter 4. Federal Regulations and State Policies.......................................15 4.1. Federal Regulations..............................................................................15 4.1.1. 23 CFR 772............................................................................... 15 4.1.2. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects ................................. 16 4.2. State Regulations and Policies.............................................................17 4.2.1. California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)............................. 17 4.2.2. Section 216 of the California Streets and Highways Code ......... 18 Chapter 5. Study Methods and Procedures..................................................19 5.1. Methods for Identifying Land Uses and Selecting Noise Measurement and Modeling Receiver Locations..................................19 5.2. Field Measurement Procedures............................................................19 ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report v Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................ . 5.2.1. Short-term Measurements......................................................... 20 5.3. Traffic Noise Levels Prediction Methods...............................................22 5.3.1. Physical Parameters.................................................................. 22 5.3.2. Vehicle Traffic Parameters......................................................... 22 5.4. Methods for Identifying Traffic Noise Impacts and Consideration of Abatement............................................................................................ 23 Chapter 6. Existing Noise Environment........................................................ 25 6.1. Existing and Permitted Land Uses ........................................................ 25 6.2. Ambient Noise Environment.................................................................31 6.3. Ambient Noise Measurements.............................................................. 31 6.3.1. Short-term Monitoring................................................................ 31 6.4. Noise Model Validation/Calibration....................................................... 32 Chapter 7. Future Noise Environment, Impacts, and Considered Abatement33 7.1. Future Noise Environment and Impacts................................................33 7.1.1. Area A........................................................................................ 35 7.1.2. Area B........................................................................................ 35 7.1.3. Area C....................................................................................... 35 7.1.4. Area D....................................................................................... 35 7.2. Preliminary Noise Abatement Analysis ................................................. 36 Chapter 8. Construction Noise...................................................................... 37 Chapter 9. References.................................................................................41 List of Figures Figure 1 Regional Location Map.........................................................................4 Figure 2 Project Vicinity Map.............................................................................. 5 Figure3 Project Alignment.................................................................................. 7 Figure 4 Noise Measurement Locations............................................................21 Figure 5 Project Overview Map......................................................................... 26 Figure 6 Impact Area A Receivers....................................................................27 Figure 7 Impact Area B Receivers....................................................................28 Figure 8 Impact Area C Receivers....................................................................29 Figure 9 Impact Area D Receivers.................................................................... 30 Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report vi Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................. . List of Tables Table 1 Typical A -Weighted Noise Levels........................................................11 Table 2 Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria (23 CFR 772).........17 Table 3 Summary of Short -Term Noise Level Measurements .......................... 20 Table 4 Summary of Modeled Vehicle Speeds and Volumes ...........................23 Table 5 Traffic Counts during Noise Measurements ........................................ 31 Table 6 Summary of Noise Modeling............................................................... 34 Table 7 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels .................................... 38 List of Appendices Appendix ATraffic Data ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report vii Table of Contents .............................................................................................................................................. This page intentionally left blank. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report viii List of Abbreviated Terms .............................................................................................................................................. List of Abbreviated Terms CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level dB Decibels dBA A -Weighted Decibel FHWA Federal Highway Administration Hz Hertz kHz Kilohertz Ldn Day -Night Level Leq Equivalent Sound Level Leq(h) Equivalent Sound Level over one hour Lmax Maximum Sound Level LOS Level of Service Lxx Percentile -Exceeded Sound Level mPa micro -Pascals mph miles per hour NAC noise abatement criteria NADR Noise Abatement Decision Report NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NSR Noise Study Report Protocol Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects SPL sound pressure level TeNS Caltrans' Technical Noise Supplement TNM 2.5 FHWA Traffic Noise Model Version 2.S ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report ix List of Abbreviated Terms .............................................................................................................................................. This page intentionally left blank. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report x Chapter 1. Introduction 1.1. Purpose of the Noise Study Report The purpose of this NSR is to evaluate noise impacts and abatement under the requirements of Title 23, Part 772 of the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 772) "Procedures for Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise." 23 CFR 772 provides procedures for preparing operational and construction noise studies and evaluating noise abatement considered for federal and Federal -aid highway projects. According to 23 CFR 772.3, all highway projects that are developed in conformance with this regulation are deemed to be in conformance with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) noise standards. Compliance with 23 CFR 772 provides compliance with the noise impact assessment requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The Caltrans Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects (Protocol) (Caltrans 2011) provides Caltrans policy for implementing 23 CFR 772 in California. The Protocol outlines the requirements for preparing noise study reports (NSR). Noise impacts associated with this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are evaluated separately in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 1.2. Project Purpose and Need The purpose of the project is to construct a bridge over and across Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado at the intersection of Diaz Road with Overland Drive at the intersection of Enterprise Circle West in the City of Temecula. The proposed improvements will accomplish the following in the project area: 1. Provide safe all-weather access across Murrieta Creek 2. Provide reliable route for emergency vehicles, motorists, pedestrians, and bicyclists 3. Provide an additional access point to the City's industrial park A low-water crossing of Murrieta Creek currently exists at Via Montezuma, approximately 0.5 miles south of Overland Drive. The low-water crossing is frequently closed in wet seasons and is not a reliable route to cross the Creek during storm and ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 1 Chapter 1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. flooding events. The crossing is scheduled to be removed in the future by a separate channel improvements project. Therefore, there is a need for an additional all-weather creek crossing location for employees and residents to access the industrial and open space areas to the west of Murrieta Creek. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 2 Chapter 2. Project Description 2.1. Existing Conditions The project is located in the northwest area in the City of Temecula, within and adjacent to Murrieta Creek. The project would extend from the terminus of Overland Drive near the Enterprise Circle West intersection, over Murrieta Creek, along Diaz Road, approximately 600 feet on either side of Avenida Alvarado, and about 500 feet along Avenida Alvarado. See Figure 1 for the project location on a regional map and Figure 2 for a Vicinity Map. Roadways at the location of the proposed bridge consist of the intersection of Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado on the west side of the Creek. Diaz Road parallels the Creek and has a width of 76 feet and consists of two northbound and two southbound through lanes, and Avenida Alvarado has a width of 64 feet with one eastbound and one westbound travel lane. To the east of the Creek, Overland Drive terminates at Commerce Center Drive. Overland Drive was recently extended to Enterprise Circle West under a separate Overland Drive Extension Project (City Project PW 16-06). The project involved the demolition of two buildings, roadway improvements including construction of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, storm drains, utility facilities, traffic signage, and intersection improvements at Overland Drive/Commerce Center Drive and Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West. Enterprise Circle West is 44 feet in width with one northbound and one southbound lane and Overland Drive between Enterprise Circle West and Commerce Center Drive is 68 feet in width with two westbound and two eastbound lanes. An existing pedestrian and bike trail parallels the west side of the Creek to the east of Diaz Road. Nearby Creek crossings include the Winchester Road Bridge, approximately 0.3 mile north, and the Via Montezuma low-water crossing, approximately 0.5 mile south. 2.1.1. Proposed Improvements The project proposes to construct a bridge over the Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado with Overland Drive in the City of Temecula, Riverside County. The Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive is anticipated to be a concrete girder structure spanning approximately 348 linear feet over Murrieta Creek. The bridge would accommodate four ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 3 Chapter 2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................................ . Figure 1 Regional Location Map Lake Elsinore Canyon Lake Menifee Lakeland 74 Village a Scott M J o Wildomar `yo eo�� ClintonK°,thRd �� French Valley s 2 f Lake Skinner Recreation Area Cleveland urrieta n°" National P` Forest RO ei Rd PX a a J FP P, Jy plO rtf C. J y s a P Te°a'u R fat Sa;. - c �P Temecula a� a %r. Marine CorpsBase Camp Sq.4",Rq P e - Pendletoonn-10-A-rai st' 0 Pendleton 3 Fallbrook 76 Re ci•°Rd � �- ?o 0 2.5 5 Miles a I I I imagery provided by Esn and its licensors O 2019. Project Location - N Federal Project No. A BR-NBIL(543) N 14 Lancaster 0 Palmdale Yctonrille Santa Clarita Angeles Simi National Valley Forest Twentynine Palms .osAngeles W Ontario Joshua Tree Riverside GC Cathedral National Anaheim Corona City Park Santa Ana Indio Oceanside v San Diego rli�a�a M e x i c c ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 4 Chapter 2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................................ Figure 2 Project Vicinity Map Imagery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors ® 2020. ................................................................................................................................................. Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 5 Chapter 2 Project Description .............................................................................................................................................. through travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), left -turn lane(s), and two 6-foot-wide shoulders would serve as Class II bike lanes, for a curb -to -curb width of 68 feet. In addition, a 6-foot-wide sidewalk would be included on the southern side of the bridge for pedestrians to cross the creek. The existing bike trail on the west side of the creek will intersect with the extended Overland Drive by a signal -controlled at -grade crossing. The proposed project alignment is shown in Figure 3. Upon completion of the Murrieta Creek Bridge project, the proposed street configuration would be consistent with the four -lane roadway segment on Overland Drive to the east. In addition to the construction of the bridge, various roadway and utility improvements would occur at the western and eastern bridge approaches. In order to match the roadway section on Avenida Alvarado on the west side of the bridge, the project would transition the lane configuration in the eastern portion of Avenida Alvarado to be consistent with the four -lane configuration of the bridge. Intersection improvements to Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado would include the installation of traffic signals and associated signing, striping, street lights, and utilities. Traffic signals and street lights would be installed at the Overland Drive/ Commerce Center Drive intersection as well. Reconstruction and roadway improvements along Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado would include undergrounding electrical utilities, construction of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, relocating sewer and water facilities, and adding traffic signage and striping. As a part of the bridge construction, one abutment would be constructed on each end of the bridge, along with two piers within the Murrieta Creek. Earth embankments with concrete slope protection and cutoff walls buried underground for scour protection would also be installed on the east and west side of the Creek. The foundation of the bridge piers involving large -diameter cast -in -drilled -hole concrete piles will be installed below the channel bottom, which is deep enough for protection from scour. The channel bottom will remain earthen without any concrete or rip rap lining. The bridge girder would provide cell openings to accommodate future utilities and electrical conduits for street lights and traffic signal communication. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 6 Chapter 2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................... Figure 3 Project Alignment ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 7 Chapter 2 Project Description .............................................................................................................................................. The project will also include the following additional improvements: • Railing Architectural treatment. The bridge design will incorporate concrete barriers, metal hand and bicycle railings, and standard architectural treatments such as formliner textures to control graffiti. • Landscaping. Landscaping modifications or improvements in the right-of-way along the bridge approach, Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado intersections, and along Diaz Road and Overland Drive. 2.1.2. Right -of -Way Requirements The right of way on the east side of the Creek has been acquired by the City as part of the completed Overland Drive Extension Project (City Project PW 16-06); however, due to raise of Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado street grade, portions of four driveways in private properties at the westerly approach will be reconstructed. Temporary construction easements (TCE's) will be acquired at these locations. There will be a street easement for the bridge and its approaches in the Creek, which is to be acquired from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). The TCE for grading in the channel is to be acquired through an encroachment permit from RCFC&WCD. Permanent and temporary construction easements in four private properties at the easterly side of the Creek may be required to construct storm drains, retaining wall, and the bridge approach embankment. 2.1.3. Construction Traffic Controls Diaz Road, Avenida Alvarado, and Overland Drive will include temporary striping to divert traffic away from work areas. The temporary striping will allow for staged construction of roadway and intersection improvements to maintaining vehicle and pedestrian and bicyclist access at all times. Temporary and short term access impact may occur during construction, and will require coordination with property owners, the public, and other stakeholders. 2.2. No -Build Under the No -Build Alternative, no bridge would be constructed in the project area. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 8 Chapter 3. Fundamentals of Traffic Noise The following is a brief discussion of fundamental traffic noise concepts. For a detailed discussion, please refer to Caltrans' Technical Noise Supplement (TeNS) (Caltrans 2013), a technical supplement to the Protocol that is available on Caltrans Web site (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental- analysis/documents/env/tens-sep2013-ally.pdf). 3.1. Sound, Noise, and Acoustics Sound can be described as the mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a liquid or gaseous medium (e.g., air) to a hearing organ, such as a human ear. Noise is defined as loud, unexpected, or annoying sound. In the science of acoustics, the fundamental model consists of a sound (or noise) source, a receptor, and the propagation path between the two. The loudness of the noise source and obstructions or atmospheric factors affecting the propagation path to the receptor determine the sound level and characteristics of the noise perceived by the receptor. The field of acoustics deals primarily with the propagation and control of sound. 3.2. Frequency Continuous sound can be described by frequency (pitch) and amplitude (loudness). A low -frequency sound is perceived as low in pitch. Frequency is expressed in terms of cycles per second, or Hertz (Hz) (e.g., a frequency of 250 cycles per second is referred to as 250 Hz). High frequencies are sometimes more conveniently expressed in kilohertz (kHz), or thousands of Hertz. The audible frequency range for humans is generally between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz. 3.3. Sound Pressure Levels and Decibels The amplitude of pressure waves generated by a sound source determines the loudness of that source. Sound pressure amplitude is measured in micro -Pascals (mPa). One mPa is approximately one hundred billionth (0.00000000001) of normal atmospheric pressure. Sound pressure amplitudes for different kinds of noise environments can range from less than 100 to 100,000,000 mPa. Because of this huge range of values, sound is rarely expressed in terms of mPa. Instead, a logarithmic scale is used to ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 9 Chapter 3 Fundamentals of Traffic Noise .............................................................................................................................................. describe sound pressure level (SPL) in terms of decibels (dB). The threshold of hearing for young people is about 0 dB, which corresponds to 20 mPa. 3.4. Addition of Decibels Because decibels are logarithmic units, SPL cannot be added or subtracted through ordinary arithmetic. Under the decibel scale, a doubling of sound energy corresponds to a 3-dB increase. In other words, when two identical sources are each producing sound of the same loudness, the resulting sound level at a given distance would be 3 dB higher than one source under the same conditions. For example, if one automobile produces an SPL of 70 dB when it passes an observer, two cars passing simultaneously would not produce 140 dB —rather, they would combine to produce 73 dB. Under the decibel scale, three sources of equal loudness together produce a sound level 5 dB louder than one source. 3.5. A -Weighted Decibels The decibel scale alone does not adequately characterize how humans perceive noise. The dominant frequencies of a sound have a substantial effect on the human response to that sound. Although the intensity (energy per unit area) of the sound is a purely physical quantity, the loudness or human response is determined by the characteristics of the human ear. Human hearing is limited in the range of audible frequencies as well as in the way it perceives the SPL in that range. In general, people are most sensitive to the frequency range of 1,000-8,000 Hz, and perceive sounds within that range better than sounds of the same amplitude in higher or lower frequencies. To approximate the response of the human ear, sound levels of individual frequency bands are weighted, depending on the human sensitivity to those frequencies. Then, an "A -weighted" sound level (expressed in units of dBA) can be computed based on this information. The A -weighting network approximates the frequency response of the average young ear when listening to most ordinary sounds. When people make judgments of the relative loudness or annoyance of a sound, their judgments correlate well with the A - scale sound levels of those sounds. Other weighting networks have been devised to address high noise levels or other special problems (e.g., B-, C-, and D-scales), but these scales are rarely used in conjunction with highway -traffic noise. Noise levels for traffic ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 10 Chapter 3 Fundamentals of Traffic Noise ................................................................................................................................................ . noise reports are typically reported in terms of A -weighted decibels or dBA. Table 1 describes typical A -weighted noise levels for various noise sources. Table 1 Typical A -Weighted Noise Levels — 110 — Rock band Jet fly -over at 1000 feet —100— Gas lawn mower at 3 feet —90— Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet — 80 — Garbage disposal at 3 feet Noisy urban area, daytime Gas lawn mower, 100 feet — 70 — Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet Heavy traffic at 300 feet — 60 — Large business office Quiet urban daytime _50— Dishwasher next room Quiet urban nighttime — 40 — Theater, large conference room (background) Quiet suburban nighttime — 30 — Library Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall (background) —20— Broadcast/recording studio —10— Lowest threshold of human hearing — 0 — Lowest threshold of human hearing Source: Caltrans2013. 3.6. Human Response to Changes in Noise Levels As discussed above, doubling sound energy results in a 3-dB increase in sound. However, given a sound level change measured with precise instrumentation, the subjective human perception of a doubling of loudness will usually be different than what is measured. Under controlled conditions in an acoustical laboratory, the trained, healthy human ear is able to discern 1-dB changes in sound levels, when exposed to steady, single - frequency ("pure -tone") signals in the midfrequency (1,000 Hz-8,000 Hz) range. In ................................................................................................................................................. Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 11 Chapter 3 Fundamentals of Traffic Noise ................................................................................................................................................. typical noisy environments, changes in noise of 1 to 2 dB are generally not perceptible. However, it is widely accepted that people are able to begin to detect sound level increases of 3 dB in typical noisy environments. Further, a 5-dB increase is generally perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase, and a 10-dB increase is generally perceived as a doubling of loudness. Therefore, a doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) that would result in a 3-dB increase in sound, would generally be perceived as barely detectable. 3.7. Noise Descriptors Noise in our daily environment fluctuates over time. Some fluctuations are minor, but some are substantial. Some noise levels occur in regular patterns, but others are random. Some noise levels fluctuate rapidly, but others slowly. Some noise levels vary widely, but others are relatively constant. Various noise descriptors have been developed to describe time -varying noise levels. The following are the noise descriptors most commonly used in traffic noise analysis. • Equivalent Sound Level (Leq): Leq represents an average of the sound energy occurring over a specified period. In effect, Leq is the steady-state sound level containing the same acoustical energy as the time -varying sound that actually occurs during the same period. The 1-hour A -weighted equivalent sound level (Leq[h]) is the energy average of A -weighted sound levels occurring during a one -hour period, and is the basis for noise abatement criteria (NAC) used by Caltrans and FHWA. • Percentile -Exceeded Sound Level (Lxx): Lxx represents the sound level exceeded for a given percentage of a specified period (e.g., Lio is the sound level exceeded 10% of the time, and L90 is the sound level exceeded 90% of the time). • Maximum Sound Level (Lmax): Lmax is the highest instantaneous sound level measured during a specified period. • Day -Night Level (Ld„): Ldn is the energy average of A -weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB penalty applied to A -weighted sound levels occurring during nighttime hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. • Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL): Similar to Ldn, CNEL is the energy average of the A -weighted sound levels occurring over a 24-hour period, with a 10-dB penalty applied to A -weighted sound levels occurring during the ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 12 Chapter 3 Fundamentals of Traffic Noise .............................................................................................................................................. nighttime hours between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., and a 5-dB penalty applied to the A -weighted sound levels occurring during evening hours between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. 3.8. Sound Propagation When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. The manner in which noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors. 3.8.1. Geometric Spreading Sound from a localized source (i.e., a point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 decibels for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path, and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates outward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound levels attenuate at a rate of 3 decibels for each doubling of distance from a line source. 3.8.2. Ground Absorption The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receptor is usually very close to the ground. Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective -wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Traditionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 feet. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the receptor, such as a parking lot or body of water,), no excess ground attenuation is assumed. For acoustically absorptive or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between the source and the receptor, such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground -attenuation value of 1.5 decibels per doubling of distance is normally assumed. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 decibels per doubling of distance. 3.8.3. Atmospheric Effects Receptors located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can have lowered noise levels. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 13 Chapter 3 Fundamentals of Traffic Noise .............................................................................................................................................. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) from the highway due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Other factors such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence can also have significant effects. 3.8.4. Shielding by Natural or Human -Made Features A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receptor can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receptor. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the noise source. Natural terrain features (e.g., hills and dense woods) and human -made features (e.g., buildings and walls) can substantially reduce noise levels. Walls are often constructed between a source and a receptor specifically to reduce noise. A barrier that breaks the line of sight between a source and a receptor will typically result in at least 5 dB of noise reduction. Taller barriers provide increased noise reduction. Vegetation between the highway and receptor is rarely effective in reducing noise because it does not create a solid barrier. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 14 Chapter 4. Federal Regulations and State Policies This report focuses on the requirements of 23 CFR 772, as discussed below. 4.1. Federal Regulations 4.1.1. 23 CFR 772 23 CFR 772 provides procedures for preparing operational and construction noise studies and evaluating noise abatement considered for federal and Federal -aid highway projects. Under 23 CFR 772.7, projects are categorized as Type I, Type II, or Type III projects. • FHWA defines a Type I project as a proposed federal or federal -aid highway project for the construction of a highway on a new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway which significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment of the highway. The following projects are also considered to be Type I projects: • The addition of a through -traffic lane(s). This includes the addition of a through - traffic lane that functions as a high -occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane, high - occupancy toll (HOT) lane, bus lane, or truck climbing lane, • The addition of an auxiliary lane, except for when the auxiliary lane is a turn lane, • The addition or relocation of interchange lanes or ramps added to a quadrant to complete an existing partial interchange, • Restriping existing pavement for the purpose of adding a through traffic lane or an auxiliary lane, • The addition of a new or substantial alteration of a weigh station, rest stop, ride -share lot, or toll plaza. If a project is determined to be a Type I project under this definition, the entire project area as defined in the environmental document is a Type I project. A Type II project is a noise barrier retrofit project that involves no changes to highway capacity or alignment. A Type III project is a project that does not meet the ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 15 Chapter 5 Study Methods and Procedures .............................................................................................................................................. classifications of a Type I or Type II project. Type III projects do not require a noise analysis. Under 23 CFR 772.11, noise abatement must be considered for Type I projects if the project is predicted to result in a traffic noise impact. In such cases, 23 CFR 772 requires that the project sponsor "consider" noise abatement before adoption of the final NEPA document. This process involves identification of noise abatement measures that are reasonable, feasible, and likely to be incorporated into the project, and of noise impacts for which no apparent solution is available. Traffic noise impacts, as defined in 23 CFR 772.5, occur when the predicted noise level in the design -year approaches or exceeds the NAC specified in 23 CFR 772, or a predicted noise level substantially exceeds the existing noise level (a "substantial" noise increase). 23 CFR 772 does not specifically define the terms "substantial increase" or "approach"; these criteria are defined in the Protocol, as described below. Table 2 summarizes NAC corresponding to various land use activity categories. Activity categories and related traffic noise impacts are determined based on the actual or permitted land use in a given area. 4.1.2. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction and Reconstruction Projects The Protocol specifies the policies, procedures, and practices to be used by agencies that sponsor new construction or reconstruction of federal or Federal -aid highway projects. The Protocol defines a noise increase as substantial when the predicted noise levels with project implementation exceed existing noise levels by 12 dBA or more. The Protocol also states that a sound level is considered to approach an NAC level when the sound level is within 1 dB of the NAC identified in 23 CFR 772 (e.g., 66 dBA is considered to approach the NAC of 67 dBA, but 65 dBA is not). The Technical Noise Supplement to the Protocol provides detailed technical guidance for the evaluation of highway traffic noise. This includes field measurement methods, noise modeling methods, and report preparation guidance. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 16 Chapter 5 Study Methods and Procedures .............................................................................................................................................. Table 2 Activity Categories and Noise Abatement Criteria (23 CFR 772) A 57 Exterior Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose. B2 67 Exterior Residential. c2 67 Exterior Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums, campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools, television studios, trails, and trail crossings. D 52 Interior Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries, medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording studios, schools, and television studios. E 72 Exterior Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other developed lands, properties, or activities not included in A—D or F. F Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services, industrial, logging, maintenance facilities, manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities, shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment, electrical), and warehousing. G Undeveloped lands that are not permitted. 'The Leq(h) activity criteria values are for impact determination only and are not design standards for noise abatement measures. All values are A -weighted decibels (dBA). 2 Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category. 4.2. State Regulations and Policies 4.2.1. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Noise analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) may be required regardless of whether or not the project is a Type I project. The CEQA noise analysis is completely independent of the 23 CFR 772 analysis done for NEPA. Under CEQA, the baseline noise level is compared to the build noise level. The assessment entails looking at the setting of the noise impact and then how large or perceptible any noise increase would be in the given area. Key considerations include: the uniqueness of the setting, ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 17 Chapter 5 Study Methods and Procedures .............................................................................................................................................. the sensitive nature of the noise receptors, the magnitude of the noise increase, the number of residences affected, and the absolute noise level The significance of noise impacts under CEQA are addressed in the environmental document rather than the NSR. Even though the NSR (or noise technical memorandum) does not specifically evaluate the significance of noise impacts under CEQA, it must contain the technical information that is needed to make that determination in the environmental document. 4.2.2. Section 216 of the California Streets and Highways Code Section 216 of the California Streets and Highways Code relates to the noise effects of a proposed freeway project on public and private elementary and secondary schools. Under this code, a noise impact occurs if, as a result of a proposed freeway project, noise levels exceed 52 dBA-Leq(h) in the interior of public or private elementary or secondary classrooms, libraries, multipurpose rooms, or spaces. This requirement does not replace the "approach or exceed" NAC criterion for FHWA Activity Category E for classroom interiors, but it is a requirement that must be addressed in addition to the requirements of 23 CFR 772. If a project results in a noise impact under this code, noise abatement must be provided to reduce classroom noise to a level that is at or below 52 dBA-Leq(h). If the noise levels generated from freeway and roadway sources exceed 52 dBA-Leq(h) prior to the construction of the proposed freeway project, then noise abatement must be provided to reduce the noise to the level that existed prior to construction of the project. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 18 Chapter 5. Study Methods and Procedures 5.1. Methods for Identifying Land Uses and Selecting Noise Measurement and Modeling Receiver Locations A field investigation was conducted to identify land uses that could be subject to traffic and construction noise impacts from the proposed project. Existing land uses in the project area were categorized by land use type and Activity Category as defined in Table 2, and the extent of frequent human use. As stated in the Protocol, noise abatement is only considered where frequent human use occurs and where a lowered noise level would be of benefit. Although all land uses are evaluated in this analysis, the focus is on locations of frequent human use that would benefit from a lowered noise level. However, based on the surrounding land uses, there are no locations with defined outdoor activity areas. The geometry of the project relative to nearby existing and planned land uses was also identified. In general, nearby existing and planned land uses are slightly below the grade of the proposed bridge alignment. Noise level measurements were taken at each major developed area within the project vicinity to determine the ambient noise levels in the project area. Short-term measurement locations were selected to identify ambient noise levels at locations primarily affected by the project and verify site conditions. The representative areas share similar acoustical characteristics. Primary characteristics include the geometric relationship with the roadway (i.e. distance to the roadway and orientation of the roadway) and topographic profile between these locations and roadways. 5.2. Field Measurement Procedures A field noise study was conducted in accordance with recommended procedures in TeNS. The following is a summary of the procedures used to collect short-term sound level data. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 19 Chapter 5 Study Methods and Procedures .............................................................................................................................................. 5.2.1. Short-term Measurements Short-term monitoring was conducted at four locations on Wednesday, June 17, 2020, using an Extech 407780A Type 2 sound level meter (serial number 160507863). The calibration of the meter was checked before and after the measurement using an Extech 407744 professional acoustic calibrator (serial number H373147). Measurements were taken over a 20-minute period at each site. Short-term monitoring was conducted along the alignment. The short-term measurement locations are identified in Figure 4. A summary of noise measurements are provided in Table 3. Table 3 Summary of Short -Term Noise Level Measurements 1 27525 Enterprise 10:00 —10:20 a.m. 50 feet from Enterprise 58.2 54.4 76.3 Circle West Circle West 2 27462 Enterprise 10:30 —10:50 a.m. 50 feet from Enterprise 60.1 57.6 81.2 Circle West Circle West 3 27495 Diaz Road 12:30 —12:50 p.m. 50 feet from Diaz Road 70.1 56.9 83.4 4 41976 Avenida 1:00 —1:20 p.m. 60 feet from Diaz Road 69.8 57.1 85.6 Alvarado See Figure 4 for Noise Measurement Locations. 1 The equivalent noise level (Leq) is defined as the single steady A -weighted level that is equivalent to the same amount of energy as that contained in the actual fluctuating levels over a period of time (essentially, the average noise level). During the short-term measurements, field staff attended each meter. Minute -to - minute Leq values collected during the measurement period (typically 20 minutes in duration) were logged automatically, and dominant noise sources observed during each measurement period were also identified and logged. Using this approach, those minutes when traffic noise was observed to be a dominant contributor to noise levels at a given measurement location could be distinguished from one -minute noise levels where other nontraffic noise sources (such as parking lot activities and industrial equipment) contributed substantially to existing noise levels. Temperature, wind speed, and humidity were recorded manually during the short-term monitoring session using a Kestrel 3000 Pocket Weather Meter. During the short-term measurements, average wind speeds ranged from 0.7 to 3.1 miles per hour (mph). ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 20 Chapter 5 Study Methods and Procedures ............................................................................................................................................... Figure 4 Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 21 Chapter 5 Study Methods and Procedures .............................................................................................................................................. Temperatures ranged from 30-41 degrees Celsius (86-105 degrees Fahrenheit), with relative humidity from 15-29 percent. During short-term noise measurements, traffic on the adjacent roadway segments were classified and counted. Vehicles were classified as automobiles, medium -duty trucks, heavy-duty trucks, motorcycles, or buses. An automobile was defined as a vehicle with two axles and four tires that is designed primarily to carry passengers. Small passenger vans and pick-up trucks were included in the automobile category. Medium -duty trucks included all cargo vehicles with two axles and six tires. Heavy-duty trucks included all vehicles with three or more axles. The posted speed limit on Overland Drive and Avenida Alvarado is 35 miles per hour (MPH); 50 MPH on Diaz Road, and 25 MPH on Enterprise Circle West. 5.3. Traffic Noise Levels Prediction Methods Traffic noise levels were predicted using the FHWA Traffic Noise Model (TNM) Version 2.5 (TNM 2.5). TNM 2.5 is a computer model based on two FHWA reports: FHWA-PD-96- 009 and FHWA-PD-96-010 (FHWA 2004a, 2004b). Key inputs to TNM 2.5 were the locations of roadways, traffic mix and speed, shielding features (e.g., topography and buildings), noise barriers, ground type, and receptors. Three-dimensional representations of these inputs were developed using computer -aided design drawings, aerials, and topographic contours provided by Project Design Consultants. 5.3.1. Physical Parameters Existing topographic contours were based on the topographic survey for the proposed project. Topographic data for receiver locations was estimated based on available terrain data from project plans: Murrieta Creek Bridge and Overland Drive Extension Project No. PW 16-05, March 26, 2010. The project alignment and profile were based on the project plans. 5.3.2. Vehicle Traffic Parameters Traffic noise was evaluated under existing conditions, and design -year conditions with the project. Traffic noise was evaluated under existing and design -year conditions with the project. Traffic parameters include vehicle speeds, peak hour traffic volumes, and vehicle classification mix. Loudest -hour traffic volumes on local roadways were modeled ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 22 Chapter 5 Study Methods and Procedures .............................................................................................................................................. as 10 percent of the total average daily trips. Modeled hourly traffic volumes and speeds are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 Summary of Modeled Vehicle Speeds and Volumes Avenida Alvarado Overland Drive Diaz Road Enterprise Circle West DNE = Does not exist Source: SCE 2019. West of Diaz Rd. Jefferson Ave. to Commerce Center Dr. Commerce Center Dr. to Enterprise Circle W. Enterprise Circle W. to Diaz Rd. Winchester Rd. to Overland Dr. Overland Dr. to Via Montezuma Rider Way to Overland Dr. Overland Dr. to Commerce Center Dr. 35 2,001 2,521 2,521 35 2,977 3,751 9,636 35 6,959 8,768 14,653 35 DNE DNE 7,600 50 14,335 18,062 21,221 50 12,665 15,945 15,945 25 4,066 5,165 5,275 25 1,154 1,516 1,538 The vehicle classification mix for local roadways was based on Caltrans' Traffic Census Program truck traffic data for Interstate 15 (1-15), which is located approximately 2,000 feet east of the proposed project alignment. These truck volume counts indicate a traffic mix of 93.09 percent automobiles and 6.91 percent trucks (Caltrans 2018). Trucks with two or three axles were modeled as medium trucks and trucks with four or more axles were modeled as heavy trucks, thus, the 6.91 percent trucks was further broken down to a mix of 2.58 percent medium -duty trucks and 4.33 percent heavy-duty trucks (Caltrans 2018). 5.4. Methods for Identifying Traffic Noise Impacts and Consideration of Abatement Traffic noise impacts are considered to occur at receptor locations where predicted noise levels would be 12 dB or greater than existing ambient noise levels, or where predicted noise levels approach or exceed the NAC for the applicable activity category. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 23 Chapter 5 Study Methods and Procedures .............................................................................................................................................. Where traffic noise impacts are identified, noise abatement must be considered for reasonableness and feasibility as required by 23 CFR 772 and the Protocol. According to the Protocol, abatement measures are considered acoustically feasible if a minimum noise reduction of 5 dB at impacted receptor locations is predicted with implementation of the abatement measures. In addition, barriers should be designed to intercept the line -of -sight from the exhaust stack of a truck to the first tier of receptors, as required by the Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1100. Other factors that affect feasibility include topography, access requirements for driveways and ramps, presence of local cross streets, utility conflicts, other noise sources in the area, and safety considerations. The overall reasonableness of noise abatement is determined by the following three factors: • The noise reduction design goal. • The cost of noise abatement. • The viewpoints of benefited receptors (including property owners and residents of the benefited receptors). The Caltrans' acoustical design goal is that a barrier must be predicted to provide at least 7 dB of noise reduction at one benefited receptor. This design goal applies to any receptor and is not limited to impacted receptors. The Protocol defines the procedure for assessing reasonableness of noise barriers from a cost perspective. Based on 2019 construction costs, an allowance of $107,000 is provided for each benefited receptor (i.e., receptors that receive at least 5 dB of noise reduction from a noise barrier). The total allowance for each barrier is calculated by multiplying the number of benefited receptors by $107,000. If the estimated construction cost of a barrier is less than the total calculated allowance for the barrier, the barrier is considered reasonable from a cost perspective. The viewpoints of benefits receptors are determined by a survey that is typically conducted after completion of the NSR. The process for conducting the survey is described in detail in the Protocol. This NSR assesses potential traffic noise impacts. If necessary, the feasibility and reasonableness of noise abatement will be reported in the Noise Abatement Decision Report. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 24 Chapter 6. Existing Noise Environment 6.1. Existing and Permitted Land Uses A field investigation was conducted to identify land uses that could be subject to traffic and construction noise impacts from the proposed project alignment. The following land uses were identified in the project area: • Places of worship: Activity Categories C and D • Commercial and light industrial land uses: Activity Category F Although all developed land uses are evaluated in this analysis, noise abatement is only considered for areas of frequent human use that would benefit from a lowered noise level. Accordingly, this impact analysis focuses on locations with defined outdoor activity areas. Figure 5 shows the project overview map delineating Areas A-D and the location of the Calvary Chapel of Temecula Valley (Chapel). Land uses in the project area have been grouped into a series of lettered analysis areas that are identified in Figure 6 though Figure 9. Each of these analysis areas is considered to be acoustically equivalent. Area A: Area A is located on the northwest side of Overland Drive, east of Murrieta Creek, and north of the proposed project alignment. The Chapel (Activity Categories C and D), is located approximately 215 feet from the proposed bridge. This area is generally flat. There are no manmade or topographical features that shield the use from the local roadways in this area. In addition, based on the site evaluation there were no identifiable exterior areas of frequent human use. All other land uses in Area A are service commercial businesses or light industrial land uses (Activity Category F) and does not have areas of frequent human use. Area B: Area B is located on the southeast side of Overland Drive, east of Murrieta Creek, and east of the proposed bridge. The area includes service commercial businesses or light industrial land uses (Activity Category F) and does not have areas of frequent human use. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 25 Chapter 6 Existing Noise Environment ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . Figure 5 Project Overview Map &1 1 � Gi 1\ Project Boundary LProject Improvements O Church Location 0 200 400 Nt I Feet N magery provided by Microsoft Bing and its licensors D 2020. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 26 Chapter 6 Existing Noise Environment ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . Figure 6 Impact Area A Receivers 'i • 4,i' O .1. ♦ i � � a � 1 Project Boundary J ,- / J OReceiver ? ! 0 40 80 N I i I n Feet Imagery provided by Microsah Bing and its licensors 0 2020. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 27 Chapter 6 Existing Noise Environment ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . Figure 7 Impact Area B Receivers U, 7 �- Project Boundary !�� 6 • :� Project Improvements `• `� OReceiver 0 5o sap N 5 I i I a Feet inaaery provided by Microsoft Bina and its licensors O 2020. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 28 Chapter 6 Existing Noise Environment ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . Figure 8 Impact Area C Receivers ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 29 Chapter 6 Existing Noise Environment ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . Figure 9 Impact Area D Receivers ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 30 Chapter 6 Existing Noise Environment .............................................................................................................................................. Area C: Area C is located on the northwest side of Avenida Alvarado, west of Murrieta Creek, and west of the proposed bridge. The area includes agricultural lands (Activity Category F). The area includes light industrial land uses (Activity Category F) and does not have areas of frequent human use. Area D: Area D is located on the southeast side of Avenida Alvarado, west of Murrieta Creek, and south of the proposed bridge. The area includes light industrial land uses (Activity Category F) and does not have areas of frequent human use. 6.2. Ambient Noise Environment The project site is surrounded by existing service commercial and light industrial development with a place of worship. Noise sources associated with adjacent land uses include heating, ventilation, and air conditioning units, landscape maintenance machinery, pumps, and heavy equipment. Additional traffic noise is associated with existing roads such as 1-15 and Winchester Road. 6.3. Ambient Noise Measurements The existing noise environment in the project area is characterized below based on short-term noise monitoring that was conducted. 6.3.1. Short-term Monitoring As discussed in Section 5.2.2, short-term monitoring was conducted at four locations on Wednesday, June 17, 2020. Table 3 summarizes the results of the short-term noise monitoring conducted in the project area. Table 5 summarizes traffic counts taken during short-term noise measurements, which were used to validate the noise model at existing land uses. Table 5 Traffic Counts during Noise Measurements 1 Enterprise Circle West 10 2 0 2 Enterprise Circle West 25 1 0 3 Diaz Road 115 4 2 4 Avenida Alvarado 15 2 1 ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 31 Chapter 6 Existing Noise Environment .............................................................................................................................................. 6.4. Noise Model Validation/Calibration Noise measurements near highways or other transportation corridors are routinely used to validate and, if necessary, calibrate the project -specific TNM model by comparing calculated noise levels with actual (measured) noise levels. Model validation is performed by modeling traffic volumes observed during each noise measurement and comparing the measured and modeled noise levels. Model calibration is performed when an environmental condition that cannot be accounted for in the model is identified (e.g., a wooden fence with gaps or thick vegetation). The TNM has only been validated at distances within 500 feet of the highway. Project -specific TNM model validation and calibration may only be performed based on actual (measured) noise levels within 500 feet of the highway. Additionally, model calibrations are generally only recommended if the site conditions (i.e. highway alignment and profile) are not expected to change significantly. As the project is a new bridge, model calibration/validation would not be appropriate and is not applied in this analysis. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 32 Chapter 7. Future Noise Environment, Impacts, and Considered Abatement Table 6 summarizes the traffic noise modeling results for existing conditions and design - year conditions with and without the project. Predicted design -year traffic noise levels with the project are compared to existing conditions and to design -year no -project conditions. The comparison to existing conditions is included in the analysis to identify traffic noise impacts as defined under 23 CFR 772. The comparison to no -project conditions indicates the direct effect of the project. Figures 5 through 8 show modeled receiver locations. As shown in Table 6, traffic noise levels at modeled receivers range from 46 to 71 dBA Leq for existing conditions and range from 48 to 72 dBA Leq for design -year conditions. Table 6 shows estimated ambient noise levels for existing conditions and design -year conditions. As stated in the TeNS, modeling results are rounded to the nearest decibel before comparisons are made. In some cases, this can result in relative changes that may not appear intuitive. An example would be a comparison between calculated sound levels of 64.4 and 64.5 dBA. The difference between these two values is 0.1 dB. However, after rounding, the difference is reported as 1 dB. 7.1. Future Noise Environment and Impacts Table 6 summarizes the traffic noise modeling results for existing conditions and design - year conditions with and without the project. Detailed traffic tables are provided in Appendix A. Predicted design -year traffic noise levels with the project are compared to existing conditions and to design -year no -project conditions. The comparison to existing conditions is included in the analysis to identify traffic noise impacts as defined under 23 CFR 772. The comparison to no -project conditions indicates the direct effect of the project. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 33 Chapter 7 Future Noise Environment, Impacts, and Considered Abatement ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . Table 6 Summary of Noise Modeling 1 A SC F 1 27479 Enterprise Circle W. 54 56 61 7 5 None 2 Pow C 1 27452 Enterprise Circle W. 58 59 60 2 1 None 3 SC F 1 27495 Commerce Center Dr. 58 59 63 5 4 None 4 SC F 1 27496 Commerce Center Dr. 59 60 62 3 2 None 5 B SC F 1 27531 Commerce Center Dr. 56 57 63 IIU 6 None 6 SC F 1 27515 Commerce Center Dr. 58 58 60 2 2 None 7 SC F 1 27511 Commerce Center Dr. 61 62 65 4 3 None 8 SC F 1 27516 Commerce Center Dr. 54 55 57 3 2 None 9 C Ind F 1 42030 Avenida Alvarado 46 47 48 2 1 None 10 Ind F 1 41976 Avenida Alvarado 68 69 69 1 0 None 11 Ind F 1 27461 Diaz Rd. 68 69 70 2 1 None 12 D Ind F 1 42011 Avenida Alvarado 59 60 60 1 0 None 13 Ind F 1 43015 Black Deer Loop 71 72 72 1 0 None 14 Ind F 1 43020 Black Deer Loop 71 72 72 1 0 None NAC = noise abatement criteria; dB(A) = A -weighted decibels; Leq(1) = equivalent sound level at one hour; Ind = Industrial; SC = Service Commercial; PoW = Places of Worship ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 34 Chapter 7 Future Noise Environment, Impacts, and Considered Abatement .............................................................................................................................................. 7.1.1. Area A The traffic noise modeling results in Table 6 indicate that traffic noise levels at residences in Area A are predicted to be in the range of 60 to 63 dBA Leq in the design - year. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design -year is predicted to be up to 7 dB. Because the predicted noise levels in the design -year are not predicted to approach or exceed the noise abatement criterion at the Calvary Church (Categories C and D) or result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted in Area A. 7.1.2. Area B The traffic noise modeling results in Table 6 indicate traffic noise levels at residences in Area B are predicted to be in the range of 57 to 65 dBA Leq in the design -year, and that the increase in noise will be up to 7 dB in the design -year. Because there is no noise abatement criterion for Category F uses in this area and because the project would not result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in this area and noise abatement does not need to be considered in Area B. 7.1.3. Area C The traffic noise modeling results in Table 6 indicate traffic noise levels at commercial uses in Area C will be 48 to 70 dBA Leq in the design -year. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design -year is 2 dB. Because there is no noise abatement criterion for Category F uses in this area and because the project would not result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in this area and noise abatement does not need to be considered in this area. 7.1.4. Area D The traffic noise modeling results in Table 6 indicate traffic noise levels at commercial uses in Area C will be 60 to 72 dBA Leq in the design -year. The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design -year is 0 dB. Because there is no noise abatement criterion for Category F uses in this area and because the project would not result in a substantial increase in noise, no traffic noise impacts are predicted to occur in this area and noise abatement does not need to be considered in this area. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 35 Chapter 7 Future Noise Environment, Impacts, and Considered Abatement .............................................................................................................................................. Because the church has an interior noise abatement criterion in addition to the exterior criterion, interior noise must be considered at the church as well. From Table 6 in the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidance document, the building noise reduction factor for standard construction with ordinary windows closed is 20 dB. The interior noise level in the church in the design -year is therefore predicted to be 40 dBA Leq(h). Because this predicted design -year noise level does not exceed the interior NAC of 52 dBA Leq(h), no interior traffic noise impacts are predicted at the church. 7.2. Preliminary Noise Abatement Analysis Noise abatement is considered where noise impacts are predicted in areas of frequent human use that would benefit from a lowered noise level. According to 23 CFR 772(13)(c) and 772(15)(c), federal funding may be used for the following abatement measures: • Construction of noise barriers, including acquisition of property rights, either within or outside the highway right-of-way. • Traffic management measures including, but not limited to, traffic control devices and signing for prohibition of certain vehicle types, time -use restrictions for certain vehicle types, modified speed limits, and exclusive lane designations. • Alteration of horizontal and vertical alignments. • Acquisition of real property or interests therein (predominantly unimproved property) to serve as a buffer zone to preempt development which would be adversely impacted by traffic noise. • Noise insulation of certain Activity Categories C and D land use facilities. Post -installation maintenance and operational costs for noise insulation are not eligible for Federal -aid funding. No traffic noise impacts are predicted for Areas A, B, C, or D. Accordingly, noise abatement is not considered further. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 36 Chapter 8. Construction Noise Construction noise would be associated with the use of heavy-duty construction equipment used for clearing and grading, trenching and installing underground utilities, spreading and compacting materials, and paving. In addition, drilled piles would be required in Murrieta Creek for the installation of piles. Construction equipment with heavy-duty diesel engines typically generate maximum noise levels from 80 to 90 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet (FHWA 2006). Table 7 summarizes typical construction equipment noise levels. Equipment goes through varying load cycles, and there are breaks for the operators and for non -equipment tasks, such as measurement. Thus, average hourly noise levels would be less than maximum noise levels. Typical noise levels from earthworks activities reach 82 dB(A) Leq(1)at 50 feet from the center of construction activity when assessing the loudest pieces of equipment working simultaneously. Maximum noise levels would occur when the loudest construction equipment is nearest to a noise sensitive receiver. Due to the linear nature of roadway construction, noise levels would be intermittent and the intensity of construction activities in a given area varies substantially. Based on previous experience, construction activities would progress at a rate of approximately 100 feet per day and would include an active work area of approximately 300 feet. Due to the length of the active work area, 300 feet, when the active work area is directly adjacent to a given receiver, construction activities throughout the day would be an average distance of 150 feet along an active portion of the alignment from the receiver. For example, the average distance from construction equipment to a receiver that is 50 feet from the centerline of alignment would be 158 feet. Construction along the proposed alignment would be characterized by hard site attenuation rate of 6 dB(A) per doubling of distance. This analysis conservatively assumes no attenuation from barriers and topography. The nearest receivers are approximately 50 feet from the road (e.g., Overland Drive). Thus, when assessing the loudest pieces of equipment working simultaneously on the proposed alignment, noise levels would attenuate to roughly 72 dB(A) Leg(1) at the nearest receivers. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 37 Chapter 8 Construction Noise .............................................................................................................................................. Table 7 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Auger Drill Rig 85 20% Backhoe 80 40% Blasting 94 1% Chain Saw 85 20% Clam Shovel 93 20% Compactor (ground) 80 20% Compressor (air) 80 40% Concrete Mixer Truck 85 40% Concrete Pump 82 20% Concrete Saw 90 20% Crane (mobile or stationary) 85 20% Dozer 85 40% Dump Truck 84 40% Excavator 85 40% Front End Loader 80 40% Generator (25 kilovolt amps or less) 70 50% Generator (more than 25 kilovolt amps) 82 50% Grader 85 40% Hydra Break Ram 90 10% Impact Pile Driver (diesel or drop) 95 20% In situ Soil Sampling Rig 84 20% Jackhammer 85 20% Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram) 90 20% Paver 85 50% Pneumatic Tools 85 50% Pumps 77 50% Rock Drill 85 20% Roller 74 40% Scraper 85 40% Tractor 84 40% Vacuum Excavator (vac -truck) 85 40% Vibratory Concrete Mixer 80 20% Vibratory Pile Driver 95 20% dB(A) = A -weighted decibels; Lmax = maximum sound level Source: Federal Highway Administration 2006 ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 38 Chapter 8 Construction Noise .............................................................................................................................................. Although construction equipment may temporarily be located at the point on the alignment nearest to a receiver, over time equipment would move along the alignment. Therefore, the distance from a receiver to the centerline of the alignment is not the same as the average distance during a given day from the receiver to construction equipment. Thus, average noise levels correlate to the area of active construction. Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14-8.02 includes noise control requirements that restrict construction noise (Caltrans 2018): • Construction noise levels shall not exceed 86 dB(A) Lmax at 50 feet from the job site activities between the hours of 9:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. No adverse noise impacts from construction are anticipated because construction would be conducted in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14.8-02. Construction noise would be short-term and intermittent. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 39 Chapter 8 Construction Noise .............................................................................................................................................. This page intentionally left blank. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 40 Chapter 9. References Caltrans. 2013. Technical Noise Supplement. September. Sacramento, CA: Environmental Program, Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management Office. Sacramento, CA. Available: (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS Sept 2013B.pdf). --. 2011. Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction, Reconstruction, and Retrofit Barrier Projects. May. Sacramento, CA. Available: (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/ca tnap may2011.pdf). Caltrans. 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. September. Sacramento, CA: Environmental Program, Noise, Air Quality, and Hazardous Waste Management Office. Sacramento, CA. Available: (http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sepl3_FINAL.pdf) Federal Highway Administration. 2011. Highway Traffic Noise: Analysis and Abatement Guidance. December. Washington D.C. FHWA-HEP-10-025. Available: (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/regulations and guidance/analy sis and abatement guidance/revguidance.pdf) ---. 1998a. FHWA Traffic Noise Model, Version 1.0 User's Guide. January. FHWA-PD- 96-009. Washington D.C. --. 1998b. FHWA Traffic Noise Model, Version 1.0. February. FHWA-PD-96-010. Washington D.C. ---. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model. February 15, 2006. Available: (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction noise/rcnm/). Federal Transit Administration. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. (DOT-T-95-16.) Office of Planning, Washington, DC. Prepared by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. Burlington, MA. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 41 Chapter 9 References .............................................................................................................................................. This page intentionally left blank. ................................................................................................................................................ Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report 42 Appendix A Traffic Data Appendix A Traffic Data ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . Table A-1 Traffic Data for Existing Conditions Avenida Alvarado West of Diaz Rd. 2,001 180 93.09 168 2.58 5 4.33 8 35 2,001 Overland Drive Jefferson Ave. to Commerce 2,977 268 93.09 249 2.58 7 4.33 12 35 2,977 Center Dr. Commerce Center Dr. to 6,959 626 93.09 583 2.58 16 4.33 27 35 6,959 Enterprise Circle W. Enterprise Circle W. DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE to Diaz Rd. Diaz Road Winchester Rd. to Overland 14,335 1,290 93.09 1,201 2.58 33 4.33 56 50 14,335 Dr. Overland Dr. to 12,665 1,140 93.09 1,061 2.58 29 4.33 49 50 12,665 Via Montezuma Enterprise Circle Rider Way to 4,066 365.94 93.09 341 2.58 9 4.33 16 25 4,066 West Overland Dr. Overland Dr. to Commerce 1,154 104 93.09 97 2.58 3 4.33 4 25 1,154 Center Dr. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report A-1 Appendix A Traffic Data ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . Table A-2 Traffic Data for Design Year No -Project Conditions Avenida Alvarado West of Diaz Rd. 2 21521 227 93.09 211 2.58 6 4.33 10 35 Overland Drive Jefferson Ave. to Commerce 2 3,751 338 93.09 314 2.58 9 4.33 15 35 Center Dr. Commerce Center Dr. to 2 8,768 789 93.09 735 2.58 20 4.33 34 35 Enterprise Circle W. Enterprise Circle W. DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE DNE to Diaz Rd. Diaz Road Winchester Rd. to Overland 4 18,062 1,626 93.09 1,513 2.58 42 4.33 70 50 Dr. Overland Dr. to 4 15,945 1,435 93.09 1,336 2.58 37 4.33 62 50 Via Montezuma Enterprise Circle Rider Way to 2 5,165 464.85 93.09 433 2.58 12 4.33 20 25 West Overland Dr. Overland Dr. to Commerce 2 1,516 136 93.09 127 2.58 4 4.33 6 25 Center Dr. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report A-2 Appendix A Traffic Data ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . Table A-3 Traffic Data for Design Year with Proiect Conditions Avenida Alvarado West of Diaz Rd. 2 21521 227 93.09 211 2.58 6 4.33 10 35 Overland Drive Jefferson Ave. to Commerce 2 9,636 867 93.09 807 2.58 22 4.33 38 35 Center Dr. Commerce Center Dr. to 2 14,653 1,319 93.09 1,228 2.58 34 4.33 57 35 Enterprise Circle W. Enterprise Circle W. DNE 7,600 684 93.09 637 2.58 18 4.33 30 35 to Diaz Rd. Diaz Road Winchester Rd. to Overland 4 21,221 1,910 93.09 1,778 2.58 49 4.33 83 50 Dr. Overland Dr. to 4 15,945 1,435 93.09 1,336 2.58 37 4.33 62 50 Via Montezuma Enterprise Circle Rider Way to 2 5,275 474.75 93.09 442 2.58 12 4.33 21 25 West Overland Dr. Overland Dr. to Commerce 2 1,538 138 93.09 129 2.58 4 4.33 6 25 Center Dr. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report A-3 Appendix A Traffic Data ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . This page intentionally left blank. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ . Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive Noise Study Report A-4 Appendix H Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc., May 2020) HYDROLOGY & HYDRAULICS REPORT For the Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive (Avenida Alvarado over Murrieta Creek) Federal Aid Project No. BR-NBIL(543) City Project No. PW-16-05 Submitted to: Caltrans District 8 Planning and Local Assistance 464 West 4" Street, 6' Floor (MS-760) San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400 Prepared For: City of Temecula 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 CNS Engineers, Inc. 11870 Pierce Street, Suite 265 Riverside, CA 92505 Prepared By: Public Works I Municipal 5e"Ices I Water Resources Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. 1861 W Redlands Blvd. Bldg. 7B Redlands, CA 92373 May 2020 Project File No. 19009001 Table of Contents ProjectDescription........................................................................................................................................3 ExistingConditions: ................................................................................................................................... 3 ProposedConditions: ................................................................................................................................ 3 ProjectLocation Map....................................................................................................................................5 Figure1: Project Location Map.............................................................................................................5 Objective....................................................................................................................................................... 5 HydrologicAnalysis....................................................................................................................................... 6 Summary Of USACE Hydrology Report: .................................................................................................... 6 Table 1: Discharge Frequency Values...................................................................................................6 HydraulicAnalyses........................................................................................................................................6 Analyses Modeling Scenarios: ................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2: HEC-RAS Summary Output for S-1.........................................................................................7 Figure 3: HEC-RAS Summary Output for S-2.........................................................................................8 Figure 4: HEC-RAS Summary Output for S-3.........................................................................................8 Establishment Of Bridge Elevation: .......................................................................................................... 9 Figure 5: Water Surface Elevation at the upstream Bridge Cross Section for Model S-3...................10 BackwaterAnalysis: ................................................................................................................................ 10 Figure 6: Model Comparison of the Water Surface Elevation for the 100-year flood event.............11 Additional Design Considerations: .......................................................................................................... 11 Hydraulic Design Summary: .................................................................................................................... 11 Table 2: Hydrologic Summary for Proposed Bridge (per S-3).............................................................12 ScourAnalyses............................................................................................................................................12 CreekGeomorphology: ........................................................................................................................... 13 GeneralScour: ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 7: Scour of Proposed Bridge Piers in Interim Condition for Q100...........................................14 Figure 8: Scour of Proposed Bridge Piers in Interim Condition for Q200...........................................15 Figure 9: Scour of Proposed Bridge Piers in Ultimate Condition for Q100.........................................15 Figure 10: Scour of Proposed Bridge Piers in Ultimate Condition for Q200.......................................16 LocalScour: ............................................................................................................................................. 16 LongTerm Scour: .................................................................................................................................... 16 Table 3: Scour with USACE improvements.........................................................................................17 N ScourSummary: ...................................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 11: Pile Shaft Foundation Design with Respect to Scour.........................................................18 Interim Condition Scour Tables per MTD 16-1...........................................................................................18 Table 4: Scour Summary Table for 100-year Design Flood.................................................................18 Table 5: Scour Data Table for 100-year Design Flood.........................................................................18 Table 6: Scour Summary Table for 200-year Check Flood..................................................................19 Table 7: Scour Data Table for 200-year Check Flood..........................................................................19 Ultimate Condition Scour Tables per MTD 16-1.........................................................................................19 Table 8: Scour Summary Table for 100-year Design Flood.................................................................19 Table 9: Scour Data Table for 100-year Design Flood.........................................................................19 Table 10: Scour Summary Table for 200-year Check Flood................................................................20 Table 11: Scour Data Table for 200-year Check Flood........................................................................20 List of Figures Figure 1: Project Location Map...................................................................................................................5 Figure 2: Hec-Ras Summary Output For S-1............................................................................................... 7 Figure 3: Hec-Ras Summary Output For S-2............................................................................................... 8 Figure 4: Hec-Ras Summary Output For S-3............................................................................................... 8 Figure 5: Water Surface Elevation at the upstream Bridge Cross Section for Model S-3........................ 10 Figure 6: Model Comparison of the Water Surface Elevation for the 100-year flood event ................... 11 Figure 7: Scour of Proposed Bridge Piers in Interim Condition for Q100................................................ 14 Figure 8: Scour of Proposed Bridge Piers in Interim Condition for Q200................................................ 15 Figure 9: Scour of Proposed Bridge Piers in Ultimate Condition for Q100..............................................15 Figure 10: Scour of Proposed Bridge Piers in Ultimate Condition for Q200............................................16 Figure 11: Pile Shaft Foundation Design with Respect to Scour............................................................. 18 Table 1: Discharge Frequency Values........................................................................................................ 6 Table 2: Hydrologic Summary for Proposed Bridge................................................................................ 12 Table 3: Scour with USACE Improvements.............................................................................................. 17 Table 4: Scour Summary Table for 100-year Design Flood.....................................................................18 Table 5: Scour Data Table for 100-year Design Flood..............................................................................18 Table 6: Scour Summary Table for 200-year Check Flood.......................................................................19 Table 7: Scour Data Table for 200-year Check Flood...............................................................................19 1 Table 8: Scour Summary Table for 100-year Design Flood Table 9: Scour Data Table for 100-year Design Flood ........ Table 10: Scour Summary Table for 200-year Check Flood Table 11: Scour Data Table for 200-year Check Flood ....... List of Appendices Appendix A — HEC-RAS Output with Workmaps of Study Appendix B — USACE Hydrologic Study Appendix C — USGS Web Soil Survey Appendix D — Levee Criteria per LA County Flood Control District Hydraulic Design Manual Appendix E — Channel Improvement Plans 2 19 19 20 20 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The site is situated in the City of Temecula, and adjacent to Interstate Highway 15. The project includes construction of a bridge that runs over Murrieta Creek and continues Avenida Alvarado to intersect with the extension of Overland Drive. There is an existing bridge upstream of the site across Murrieta Creek along Winchester Road, and a low-water crossing downstream of the site along Via Montezuma. The current status of the Via Montezuma low-water crossing includes routine flooding that limits its usage. This prompts the establishment of a bridge along Avendia Alvarado that ties into an extension of Overland Drive to accommodate regular traffic over the creek, which includes bike and pedestrian crossings. A hydraulic analysis of the creek will be performed. The intent of the analysis is to determine any impacts of construction of the proposed bridge crossing along Avenida Alvarado. The analysis will include modeling the creek geometry from upstream of Winchester Road and beyond the existing low-water crossing along Via Montezuma. This totals to be an approximate 1.2 mile segment of Murrieta Creek under evaluation of design impacts from the proposed bridge crossing. Figure 1 below presents the project location map and the key features under evaluation for impacts as a result of this project. Existing Conditions: The project is located in the northwest area in the City of Temecula, within and adjacent to Murrieta Creek. The project would extend from the terminus of Overland Drive near the Enterprise Circle West intersection, over Murrieta Creek, along Diaz Road, approximately 600 feet on either side of Avenida Alvarado, and about 500 feet along Avenida Alvarado. Roadways at the location of the proposed bridge consist of the intersection of Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado on the west side of the Creek. Diaz Road parallels the Creek and has a width of 76 feet and consists of two northbound and two southbound through lanes, and Avenida Alvarado has a width of 64 feet with one eastbound and one westbound travel lane. To the east of the Creek, Overland Drive terminates at Commerce Center Drive. Overland Drive was recently extended to Enterprise Circle West under a separate Overland Drive Extension Project (City Project PW 16-06). The project involved the demolition of two buildings, roadway improvements including construction of curbs and gutters, sidewalks, storm drains, utility facilities, traffic signage, and intersection improvements at Overland Drive/Commerce Center Drive and Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West. Enterprise Circle West is 44 feet in width with one northbound and one southbound lane and Overland Drive between Enterprise Circle West and Commerce Center Drive is 68 feet in width with two westbound and two eastbound lanes. An existing pedestrian and bike trail parallels the west side of the Creek to the east of Diaz Road. Nearby Creek crossings include the Winchester Road Bridge, approximately 0.3 miles north, and the Via Montezuma low-water crossing, approximately 0.5 miles south. Proposed Conditions: The project proposes to construct a bridge over the Murrieta Creek to connect Avenida Alvarado with Overland Drive in the City of Temecula, Riverside County. The Murrieta Creek Bridge at Overland Drive is anticipated to be a concrete girder structure spanning approximately 348 linear feet over Murrieta Creek. The bridge would accommodate four through travel lanes (two lanes in each direction), left -turn lane(s), and two 6-foot-wide shoulders served as Class II bike lanes, for a curb -to -curb width of 68 feet. In addition, a 6-foot-wide sidewalk would be included on the southern side of the bridge for pedestrians to cross the 3 creek. The existing bike trail on the west side of the creek will intersect with the extended Overland Drive by a signal -controlled at -grade crossing. Upon completion of the Murrieta Creek Bridge project, the proposed street configuration would be consistent with the four -lane roadway segment on Overland Drive to the east. In addition to the construction of the bridge, various roadway and utility improvements would occur at the western and eastern bridge approaches. In order to match the roadway section on Avenida Alvarado on the west side of the bridge, the project would transition the lane configuration in the eastern portion of Avenida Alvarado to be consistent with the four -lane configuration of the bridge. Intersection improvements to Overland Drive/Enterprise Circle West and Diaz Road/Avenida Alvarado would include the installation of traffic signals and associated signing, striping, street lights, and utilities. Traffic signals and street lights will be installed at the Overland Drive/ Commerce Centre Drive intersection as well. Reconstruction and roadway improvements along Diaz Road and Avenida Alvarado would include undergrounding electrical utilities, construction of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks, relocating sewer and water facilities, and adding traffic signage and striping. As a part of the bridge construction, one abutment would be constructed on each end of the bridge, along with two piers within the Murrieta Creek. Earth embankments with concrete slope protection and cutoff walls buried underground for scour protection would also be installed on the east and west side of the Creek. The foundation of the bridge piers involving large -diameter cast -in -drilled -hole concrete piles will be installed below the channel bottom, which is deep enough for protection from scour. The channel bottom will remain earthen without any concrete or rip rap lining. The bridge girder would provide cell openings to accommodate future utilities and electrical conduits for street lights and traffic signal communication. 4 PROJECT LOCATION MAP Figure 1: Project Location Map OBIECTIVE The objective of ERSC Inc., is to perform a hydraulic analysis of the proposed bridge and identify the impacts of the upstream existing bridge along Winchester Road. Due to the construction of bridge piers that will be installed as structural supports to the bridge, ERSC considers the reduction of area of flow through the channel cross-section. This reduced area will result in an increased velocity through the channel and could drive the water surface elevation up for the upstream bridge. There is a low-water crossing that was constructed downstream of the proposed water crossing that will not be removed as a part of this project but the removal of this crossing will also be considered in calculations as the intention is removal of this system in the future. As part of a project in the works by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the intention is to also increase the cross -sectional area of Murrieta Creek and this will also be considered as a part of the study. The design analyses will focus on improvements that will be considered as the "Interim Condition" being constructed before the future improvements proposed by the USACE. The improvements proposed by the USACE will be considered as the "Ultimate Condition" of our design. This will be implemented so that the design will suffice in both the short-term and with the long-term improvements anticipated by the USACE. 5 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS Summary Of USACE Hydrology Report: The Hydrology Report known as "Murrieta Creek Phase II Flood Control, Environmental Restoration, and Recreation Project", dated February 2014, used for the analysis of the Santa Margarita River watershed was prepared by the United States Army Corps of Engineers. Murrieta Creek is a major tributary to the Santa Margarita River, and the USACE is proposing to improve the Creek's capacity with added freeboard by lowering the channel invert. The channel functions as a primary flood control method for the generation of storm water from seasonal flood events. The region of the Santa Margarita Watershed that is discharging to this portion of the creek includes approximately a 222 square mile area. The flow discharge of the 100-year flood event and the 200-year check flood of the reach were determined to be 22,300 cfs, and 27,200 cfs, respectively. The values found in this report for the discharge of the various flood events will be considered in our comprehensive design. Our design will depend on the accuracy of the results determined in this study. Refer to Appendix B or below "Table 1: Discharge Frequency Values" for a full summary of the flowrates used in the USACE Hydrology and Hydraulics Analysis report. % AEP Evem Discharge 0.50 (2-yr) 5.390 0.20 (5-r'j &860 0,10 [1-7) 11.700 0.04 (25-�T) 15 .7 00 0.02 (50-yr) 19.300 0.01 100- -) 22.300::: 0,005 (200-- T) 27.?00 0.002 (500-�T) 377.100 AEP = umual exceedance probability :'I 00-fiT discharge reduced to 22,300 W/s to avoid increasing the size of the chamiel ui Phase 2_ Nla=' um outflow• ofthe basin w-iil be 22,300 ft'?s_ Table 1: Discharge Frequency Values. HYDRAULIC ANALYSES Analyses Modeling Scenarios: ERSC modeled the geometry of Murrieta Creek with the following sequence to best analyze the addition of a bridge that extends Overland Drive to meet Avenida Alvarado. The first modeling scenario "S-1" considers the existing conditions of the creek with the low-water crossing at Via Montezuma and the existing upstream bridge at Winchester Road. The next modeling scenario "S-2" considers the addition of the proposed bridge along Overland Drive. S-2 will be investigated to demonstrate the potential impacts of backwater to existing structures due to the introduction of our proposed bridge. The following modeling scenario "S-3" will consider the proposed bridge, and the removal of the low-water crossing at Via Montezuma, this will be used as our "Interim Condition" before USACE constructs their Ultimate Improvements of the channel. Finally, the last modeling scenario "S-4" will consider the proposed bridge, 0 the removal of the low-water crossing at Via Montezuma, and the "Ultimate Condition" of the channel with the improvements proposed by the USACE. The scenarios are summarized below, and the subsequent figures are the tabular results from the analysis for each scenario, data tables for S-4 can be referenced in "Murrieta Creek Phase II Flood Control, Environmental Restoration, and Recreation Project" prepared by USACE, dated February of 2014. ❖ S-1: Existing Conditions. ❖ S-2: Proposed Bridge at Avenida Alvarado. (Modeled for Evaluation of Backwater Impacts). ❖ S-3: Interim Condition - Proposed Bridge at Avenida Alvarado and the removal of Via Montezuma. The Channel will remain in this condition until the Ultimate Improvements are constructed by the USACE. ❖ S-4: Ultimate Condition - Channel Improvements proposed by the Army Corps of Engineers. (Included in "Murrieta Creek Phase II Flood Control, Environmental Restoration, and Recreation Project" dated February 2014). The timeframe for these Improvements are TBD. Reach River Sta Profile Q Total A.5, E]ev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Area Flow Area Top 4+Uidth Froude # Chl Mann Wtd Chnl (cfs) {ftj {ftfftj (ftfs) (sq ft) {sq ftj {ft] Main - EC 3430 Q100 22300,00 ......................... 1027.71 0.003944 10.71 1025.35 0.005624 12,44 1025.321 0.001845 7.46 2210.05 2081.55 357.94 0.66 0.035 0.77 0.035 0.45 0.035 0.52 0.035 0.48 0.035 Main - EC 3069 Q100 22300.00 22300.00 1812.40 1-192.90 273.25 Main - EC 2700 Q100 2988.92 2988.92 353.32 307.27 297.28 Main - EC 2540 Q100 22300.00 1024.66 0.002491 8.52 2586.92 2586.92 Main - EC 2399 Q100 22300.00 1024.41 0.002112 8.25 27.04.36 2704.36 Main - EC 2343 Winchester Road Bridge _ Main - EC 2295 Q100 22300.00 1023.63 0.002512 8.76 2545.52 2545.52 293.27 _ 0.52 0.035 Main - EC 2022 Q100 22300.00 1022.64 0.0032191 0,002573 0.002323 0.002391 9.47 2489.53 2355,81 401.55 0.59 0.035 0.52 0.035 0.51 0.035 0.52 0.035 Main - EC 1737 Q100 22300.00 1021.98 1020.90 8.57 8.25 2731.59 2571.28 432.09 Main - EC 1265 Q100 22300.00 2702.30 2702.30 3W.40 Main - EC 1130 Q100 22300.00 1020.521 8.441 2643.54 2643.54 319.97 Main -EC 1000 Q100 22300.00 1020.04 0.002571 8.!?21 9.44 2498.60 2498.50 2362.04 2362.04 300.43 0.55 0.035 0.60 0.035 0.60 0.035 0.51 0.035 0.65 0.035 0.56 0.035 0.51 0.035 0,71 0,035 0.69 0.016 0.54 0.016 0.45 0,035 1.00 0.035 Main - EC 954 Bridge Locaton Q100 22300.00 1019.71 0.003265 305.07 282.98 Main - EC 912 Q100 22300.00 1079,50 0.003238 9.68 2303.09 2303.09 Main - EC 642 Q100 22300.00 22300.00 22300.00 22300.00 1019.01 0.002497 7.67 2907.17 2907.17 9.39 2399.69 2374.83 8.231 2709.90 2709.90 417.14 Main - EC 343 Q100 1017.57 0.004125 443.08 Main - EC -16 Q100 1016.52 0.003071 409.65 Main - EC -417 Q100 1015.541 0.002493 7.511 2967.81 2967.81 441.E6 398,86 Main - EC 966 Q100 22300.00 1013,00 0,005106 9,69 1 2301.96 2301.96 9.98 2233.97 2233.97 7.71 2899.33 2894.41 Main -EC -1415 Via Montezuma Q100 22300.00 1012.05 0.000973 345.75 Main - EC -1451 Via Montezuma Q100 22300.00 1012.46 0.000503 476.51 Main - EC -2068 Q100 22300.00 22300.00 1012.02 1009.15 0.002010 0.011375 6,53 3413.56 4413.56 11.17 1995.54 1995.54 530,11 Main -EC -2437 Q100 511.521 Figure 2: HEC-RAS Summary Output for S-1. 7 HEC-RAS Plan: P-Bridge River: Murrieta Creek Reach: Main - EC Profile: Q100 Read? River Sta Profile Q Total W.S. E ev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Area Flow Area Top Width Froude -- Chl Mann Wtd Chnl (am) ifu (ft/ft) (ftls) (sq ft) (sq ft) (ft) Main -EC 3430 Q100 22300.00 .................... 1027.72 0.003943 10.71 2210,31 2061.73 357,95 0.66 0.035 0.77 _0.035 0.45 0.035 0.52 0.0-5 0.48 0.035 Main - EC 3069 Q100 22300.00 1025.35 0.005586 12.41 1817.02 1796.66 2996.38 2995.38 275.76 Main - EC 2700 Q100 22300.00 1025.34 0.001830 7.44 353.43 Main - EC 2540 Q100 22300.00 1024.69 0.002455 8.59 2595.48 2595,48 307.36 Main - EC 2399 Q100 22300.00 1024.44 0.002089 6.22 2713.58 2713.58 297,38 Main - EC 2.343 Winchester Road Bridge Main -EC 2295 Q100 22300.00 1023.67 0.002476 6.72 2556.83 2556,83 2517.ag 2376.03 293.33 0.52 0.-% 0.035 0.035 Main - EC 2022 Q100 22300.00 1022.71 0.003132 5. 391 406.33 Main - EC 1737 Q100 22300.00 1022.07 0.002488 6.-% =.86 2600.01 434.63 0.52 0.035 Main - EC 1265 Q100 22300.00 1021.05 0.002199 8.10 2753.63 2753.63 332.29 0,50 0.035 Main - EC 1130 Q100 22300.00 1020.70 0.002237 6.25 2701.45 2701.45 321.27 0.50 0.035 Main - EC 1000 Q100 22300.00 1020.20 0.002738 8.82 =.24 =.24 315.13 0-551 0.035 Main - EC 954 Overland Drive Bridge Main - EC 912 Q100 22300.00 1019.50 0.003246 S.69 2301.13 2301.13 7.67 2907.17 2907.17 9.39 2399.69 2374.83 6.231 2709. 2709,90 232.96 0.601 0.035 Main - EC 642 Q100 22300.00 1019.01 0.002497 417.14 0.511 0.035 0.65 0.035 0.56 0.035 0.51 0.035 0.71 0.035 0.69 0.016 Main -EC 343 Q100 22300.00 1017.57 0.004126 443.08 Main - EC -16 Q100 22300.00 1016.52 0.003071 409.65 441.66 Main - EC -417 Q100 22300.00 1015.54 0.002493 7.51 2967.81 2967.81 9.69 2301.96 2,301.96 9,98 I 2-M. 971 2233.97 Main - EC �66 Q100 22300.00 1013.00 0.005106 398.86 Main -EC -1415 Via Montezuma Q100 22300.00 1012.05 0.000973 345.75 Main -EC -1451 Via Moribmma Q100 22300.00 1012.46 0.0005031 7.711 2999.33 2894.41 476,51 22300.00 1012.02 0.0020106.5-31 3413.66 3413.66 530,11 22300.00 1009.15 0.011375 11.17 1995.54 1995.54 S1-L52 0.54 0.016 0.45 0.035 L00 0.035 Main - EC -2068 Q100 Main -EC -2437 Q100 Figure 3: HEC-RAS Summary Output for S-2. HEC-RAS Plan: P-Bridgew/oVM River: Murrieta Creek Reach: Main - EC Profile: Q100 River Sth Profile Q Total W.S. Elev E.G. Slope Vel Chnl Area Flow Area Top Width Froude # Chl Mann Wtd Chnl (cfs) (ft) (ft/ft) (ftfs) (sq ft) (sq ft) (ft) Main -EC 3430 Q100 22300.00 .......... 1027.72 0.003943 10.71 2210.31 2081.73 357.95 0.66 0.035 Main -EC 3069 Q100 22300.00 1025.37 0.005583 12.41 1817.43 1795.99 275.97 0.77 0.035 Main -EC 2700 Q100 22300.00 1025.35 0.001829 7.44 2996.99 2995.99 353.43 0.45 0.035 Main -EC 2540 Q100 22300.00 1024.59 0.002463 8.59 2596,15 2596,15 307.37 0.52 0.035 Main -EC 2399 Q100 22300.00 1024.44 0.002087 8.22 2714.31 2714.31 297.39 0.46 0.035 Main -EC 2343 Winchester Road Bridge Main -EC 2295 Q100 22300.00 1023.57 0.002473 8.72 2557.80 9.33 2519.70 2557.80 293.33 0.52 0.035 Main -EC 2022 Q100 22300.00 1022.71 0.0031241 =.71 406.73 0.58 0.035 Main -EC 1737 Q100 22300.00 1022.08 0.002480 8.57 2776.Z9 I 2602.40 0.002189 8.09 2757.911 2757.91 0.002224 8.24 2706.25 2705.25 0.002738 8.80 2532.80 =.80 0.003214 9.66 2308.49 2308.49 0.002459 7.63 2922.07 2922.07 0.0039481 9.25 2441.85 2409.52 0.002792 7.99 2790.71 2790.71 434.57 0.52 0.035 Main -EC 1265 Q100 22300.00 1021.07 332.44 0.49 0.035 Main -EC 1130 Q100 22300.00 22300.00 Bridge 22300.00 1020.71 321.38 0.50 0.035 Main -EC 1000 Q100 1020.22 316.84 0.55 0.035 Main -EC 954 Overland Drive Main -EC 912 Q100 1019.52 1019.05 283.06 0.60 0.035 Main -EC 642 Q100 22300.00 418.02 0.51 0.035 Main -EC 343 Q100 22300.00 1017.56 448.18 0.64 0.035 Main -EC -16 Q100 22300.00 1016.72 410.37 0.54 0.035 Main -EC -417 Q100 22300.00 1015.88 0.002131 7.141 3121.81 3121.81 445.39 0.48 0.035 Main - EC �66 Q100 22300.00 1014.50 0.002451 7.65 2916.19 2916,19 2561.54 2561,54 414.88 0.51 0.035 Main -EC -1415 VM Removed Q100 22300.00 1012.99 0.003051 8.71 352.07 0.57 0.035 Main -EC -1451 VM Removed Q100 22300.00 1013.19 0.001987 6.89 1012.02 0.002010 6.53 1009.15 0.011375 11.17 =551 3238,12 476.51 0.46 0.035 0.035 0.035 Main -EC -2068 Q100 22300.00 3413.661 3413.66 530.11 0.45 Main -EC -2437 Q100 22300.00 19S5.541 1995.54 511.52 1.00 Figure 4: HEC-RAS Summary Output for S-3. The comparison of the existing conditions S-1 and the proposed conditions S-2 & S-3 are used to identify the potential for backwater impacts to the upstream bridge. This will be modeled to determine and establishment the low chord elevation of the proposed bridge. For consistency with S-4, the creek 0 parameters selected for S-2 and S-3 are to remain consistent. S-4 will provide additional freeboard due to the increase in creek capacity, however our design will focus on interim conditions to allow for a more conservative design approach for the bridge hydraulics. For example, the manning's coefficients selected for existing channel were increased to reflect values used in the USACE design. The coefficient used assumes existing vegetation along the embankments and channel bottom. This was done to model a more accurate version of the existing channel conditions and to remain consistent with USACE design approach. The selection of a higher manning coefficient resulted in an overall higher water surface elevation and therefore a more conservative approach. To analyze the removal of Via Montezuma the manning coefficients were established as an asphalt surface for S-1 & S-2 at the roadway cross sections. These values were adjusted in S-3 to represent a vegetative surface. The adjusted values in S-3 conform to the natural surface coverage used for the channel. In other words, the "n" values (or manning's coefficients) were adjusted from 0.016 (an asphalt surface) to 0.035 (a vegetative surface). The values used in S-3 assimilate to the existing channel surface with the roadway removed. This was our process used to model the removal of Via Montezuma and is demonstrated above in Figures 2, 3 & 4. Establishment of Bridge Elevation: With the geometry of the creek modeled and the hydrologic data analyzed the next step in the design process was to determine the proposed bridge's low chord elevation. The flowrate for the 100- year flood event and the corresponding normal depth in Murrieta Creek was used for determining water surface elevation at the proposed bridge location. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) has bridge design guidelines similar to Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD). Per LACFCD guidelines the low chord elevation of the bridge must be set 2 feet above the water surface elevation for the 100-year flood event. Additionally, at least 2 feet of freeboard is to be provided in the over banks of the channel. Our design follows guidelines of both LACFCD and Caltrans Memo to Designers 16-1: Hydraulic Design for Structures over Waterways (MTD 16-1). Per Caltrans MTD 16-1 the bridge soffit elevation must be set to either the WSE of the 50-year storm event plus freeboard or the 100-year flood WSE elevation, for our design the RCFC&WCD guidelines will govern. The WSE of the 100- year flood in S-3 was determined to be an elevation 1020.22. To achieve the design requirements the low chord elevation of the proposed bridge was set at an elevation above 1022.22'. The removal of Via Montezuma will cause the downstream roughness coefficient to be increased. Scenario S-3 considers this change and the analysis determined that this will be the governing scenario for a conservative design. The water surface elevation of the creek in the ultimate condition proposed by the USACE is 1014.22'. The Bridge will have adequate freeboard prior to and after the USACE improvements. In theory the improvements made by the USACE will provide more flow capacity within the creek and therefore the design will be more conservative. Refer to Figure 5 and 6 below for a graphical representation of the proposed bridge modeled in HEC-RAS. 0 HEC-RAS Model Plan: P-Bndge & Remove VM 5/29/2020 Overland Brklge 035 10 1025 1013 092 Lepentl EG O1W WS 0100 tl 0100 cra�na Neff Bank Bla ----- ---------- 1 0 200 400 600 .0 Btatlon(ft) Figure 5: Water Surface Elevation at the upstream Bridge Cross Section for Model S-3. Backwater Analysis: As a result of the introduction of bridge piers within the creek bed, backwater impacts to local structures may be of concern. Backwater is the increase in the water surface elevations upstream of the proposed bridge due to the additional obstruction caused by the proposed structure. The design works to minimize the constriction of the channel flow by alignment of the piers with the direction of flow in the creek. The bridge at Winchester Road is approximately 1200 feet upstream of the proposed bridge. Backwater effects of the proposed bridge is anticipated to occur upstream but have no major impact on the existing bridge at Winchester Road. S-3 resulted in having the greatest increase in water surface elevation at the existing bridge for the 100-year flood event. This is identified to be an overall increase of 0.03 feet which will not have any adverse impacts. The water surface elevation at the existing bridge will increase from 1024.41' to 1024.44'. The low chord elevation of the existing bridge currently sits at 1028.20'. This will still provide adequate freeboard for the 100-year flood event of 2 feet or more required by the bridge design guidelines. With the creek improvements proposed by USACE the potential for backwater impacts are further mitigated. Refer to the figure below generated by the HEC-RAS model that compares the 3 scenarios described above in the report. 10 Figure 6: Model Comparison of the Water Surface Elevation for the 100-year flood event. Additional Design Considerations: The design accommodates the effects of flood waters within the channel using design considerations as outlined in the FHWA HEC-18 and HEC-20 Guidelines. The considerations are implemented into the design as a good practice strategy. The bridge design crosses the creek and flow pattern with a skew of approximately 7.71 degrees. This skew allows for the bridge piers to align perpendicular to the creek flow. The length of the bridge is designed to maximize the channel cross - sectional area available for the flood waters. The circular pier selection for the bridge are aligned and streamlined in the direction of the flow. Alignment of the piers will help to mitigate concerns for bridge backwater, contraction scour between the piers, debris collection and local scour. Circular piers will help to streamline any passing flows and minimize the accumulation of debris and local scour. Piers are designed with the same foundation depth for consistency to mitigate the concerns of lateral migration. Hydraulic Design Summary: The design includes a symmetrical layout with the use of two 4-foot diameter column piers spread out 138 feet apart and approximately 105 feet from the bridge ends. The channel cross -sectional area is reduced due to the introduction of a bridge, the design mitigates this concern by placing abutments beyond the channel embankments on both ends of the superstructure. The superstructure is supported by abutments. Abutments for the bridge will be considered a seat -type abutment with wing walls. The bridge design uses only two lines of piers over the bridge span of approximately 348 feet, thus the reduction of the cross -sectional area is minimized. However, the creek widening considered by the USACE design provides additional cross -sectional area in the ultimate condition. The improvements proposed by the USACE are to lower the channel invert, adjust the embankment side slopes to a 2:1 slope and protect the side slopes of the channel with slope protection. The slope protection proposed in the Ultimate condition will be constructed and buried as part of our Interim Improvements. The slope protection in the Interim Condition will be installed along the USACE proposed embankment. The toe of the slope 11 protection is set below the long-term scour depth of the channel determined in USACE's study. The slope protection will protect the abutments. The slope protection will be designed as reinforced concrete levees per LACFCD Guidelines. The slope protection will follow the future slope grading and extend the toe of the USACE proposed Ultimate Improvements to meet LACFCD Levee Design Criteria. The intent is to establish these as permanent improvements to mitigate potential scour at the abutments in both the Interim and Ultimate conditions. As a result of matching the future slopes proposed by the USACE on the east side regrading of the west side of the channel will be necessary to gain back some of the capacity of the channel at the bridge location. Temporary slope protection may be required to protect the earthen slope on the west side of the channel. The east side of the channel will utilize the slope protection proposed for the ultimate condition. See the Channel Improvement Plan in Appendix E. To remain consistent with plans proposed by the USACE, field survey data used in our report is based on North American Vertical Datum 88 (NAVD88) for elevations and North American Datum 83 (NAD83) for horizontal distances developed within California Zone 6 for Riverside County in US feet. The Hydraulic Model used to determine the Analysis is based on the one-dimensional hydraulic analysis software developed by the USACE known as HEC-RAS. Design procedures were followed as outlined in the FHWA HEC-18 & HEC-20, Caltrans Memorandum to Designers 16-1: Hydraulic Design for Structures over Waterways (MTD 16-1), and local regulations set forth by RCFC&WCD. The project will be submitted for review to ensure accordance with USACE, CALTRANS, and RCFC&WCD. Hydrologic Summary for Bridge Federal Project No. BR-NBIL(543) Drainage Area: 222 mi 2 Design Base Flood of Frequency Flood Flood Record _ 50-year 100-year 200-year Discharge 19,300 cfs 22,300 cfs 27,200 cfs Water Surface Elevation at Bridge 1019.54' 1020.22' 1021.45' Floodplain data are based upon information available when the plans were prepared and are shown to meet federal requirements. The accuracy of said information is not warranted by the state and interested or affected parties should make their own investigation. Table 2: Hydrologic Summary for Proposed Bridge (per S-3). SCOUR ANALYSES The evaluation of the bridge pile shaft foundation design and its potential for scour is the next step in the design process. Scour is the result of erosion of the stream bed due to the flow of water. Impacts of scour can occur with change in geometry or velocity of the flow within the creek. The bridge design must take into consideration the Total Scour potential and proceed with an appropriate selection of foundation depths and countermeasures. Total scour is the sum of three components of various scour types that bridge pile shaft foundations are susceptible to which includes General Scour (or Contraction Scour), Local Scour, and Long -Term Scour. Caltrans MTD 16-1 design requires that the analyses of Total Scour be based on the 100-year flood event for regular service. The 200-year check flood is also examined for the extreme condition and to prevent collapse. Long-term scour is analyzed for the seismic conditions. Scour impacts of the bridge piers were determined for the Interim Conditions of the channel and 12 compared with the Ultimate condition proposed by USACE. Scenario S-3 considers the General and Local Scour potential at the proposed bridge location in the interim condition. Scenario S-4 considers the General, Local, and Long -Term Scour potential to be designed in accordance with the USACE Ultimate Improvements. The depth of the piers will consider the analysis of both scenarios to determine the most conservative design approach. The proposed Ultimate Improvements include lowering the channel invert, constructing slope protection at the embankments, and possibly providing Rip -Rap revetment around the bridge piers to mitigate potential scour. However, our design will introduce deep foundations below the total scour depth at the pier locations assuming no revetment around the bridge piers in the Ultimate condition to remain conservative. Our design will suffice for both the Interim channel conditions and the Ultimate channel conditions proposed by the USACE. The abutments will remain protected by constructing the ultimate improvements as a part of our design of the interim condition. An earthen embankment on the west side of the channel or additional countermeasures determined by the RCFC&WCD may be incorporated. In both the Interim and Ultimate condition of the channel the abut